View source for RetroWikipedia talk:Citation needed

{{pp-protected|small=yes}}
{{warning|1=<big>'''You are probably on the wrong page.'''</big>  If you want to suggest a change to a RetroWikipedia article, then you need to go to ''that article's own talk page''.  Every RetroWikipedia article has a separate talk page.  You can find the one you need by going back to the article, and clicking on the "Talk" tab above the article's title.}}
{{Talk header |search=yes|disclaimer=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{RetroWikipedia Help Project |class=C}}
}}
{{onlinesource |year=2008 |title=Artifact: The World Needs Citations |author=Kerry Howley |date=March 2008 |url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/124400.html |org=[[Reason (magazine)|Reason Magazine]] |section=March 2008|small=yes}}
{{high traffic|date=29 August 2009|url=http://digg.com/comics_animation/XKCD_what_have_you_done/|site=Digg|small=yes}}
<!-- 

-->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=RetroWikipedia talk:Citation needed/Archive index
|mask=RetroWikipedia talk:Citation needed/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
<!-- 

-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|maxarchivesize = 50K
|counter = 6
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = RetroWikipedia talk:Citation needed/Archive %(counter)d
}}
__TOC__

== updating info re: adding a citation, adding a visual editor description for "citation needed" tag ==

Right now, the page says "You can add a citation by selecting from the drop-down cite menu at the top of the editing box," with "cite" illustrated by [[RetroWikipedia:Citation needed#/media/File:VisualEditor - Cite Pulldown.png|this image]]. 

However, in the current visual editor, there is no drop-down cite menu; instead, citations are added by clicking on a button, where the image on the button is double quotation marks. Does anyone know where to find an image of the quotation marks button to replace the current "cite" drop-down menu image?

Also, there's currently no discussion of how to add a "citation needed" tag using the visual editor, only how to do it using wiki markup. I think it would be good to add something about how to do it using the visual editor. I'm new to adding "citation needed" tags, and the way that I figured out to do it is: click on the "+" drop-down menu, choose "Template," write "Citation needed" in the Find template box, and then click on the top response. Is that the most efficient way to do it using the visual editor, or is there a more efficient way? If my description is the way to do it, and people agree that it would be helpful to add this description, does anyone know where to find an image of the "+" drop-down to add, and perhaps also images of the template icon and a search box? [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 13:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]], I don't know if you've discovered this yet, but from inside the visual editor:
:# Click the [citation needed] tag itself.
:# Click the white "Add a citation" button in the popup.
:# Paste in your URL or choose a manually formatted citation.
:[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::Oh, I have misread your comment.  To add the tag, the fastest route is to just start typing the template.  If you type a double <code>{</code>, it will pop up the Insert > Template search box.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]], thanks, I'd hadn't know that at the time of my 8/2024 comment, but have since learned it, though I tend not to use it for citations, as the citation button in the visual editor makes it easy to autopopulate the fields for some citations and to reuse other citations. 
:::My reasons for posting my earlier comment:
:::* [[WP:NEEDCITE]] says "You can add a citation by selecting from the drop-down [cite] menu at the top of the  [[RetroWikipedia:Tutorial/Editing|editing box]]," where [cite] shows [[RetroWikipedia:Citation needed#/media/File:VisualEditor - Cite Pulldown.png|this image]]. That image is similar (though not identical) to the image that currently appears above the source editing box, but it's not similar to the image for the citation button in the visual editor toolbar. These directions address how to add a citation using the source editor but don't say how to add a citation using the visual editor (at least, I'm now interpreting "editing box" to refer to the box that appears for source editing, as visual editing doesn't result in an editing box, only a toolbar). 
:::* When I wrote my August comment, I don't think I had experience with WM Commons and so didn't know where to look for an image of the citation button in the visual editor toolbar. I just looked and [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VisualEditor_-_Toolbar_-_citoid_-_quotation_mark_-_derivative.svg found it].
:::* The info page also says "In [[Wiki#Editing|wiki markup]], you can question an uncited claim by inserting a simple <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Citation needed|Citation needed]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> tag, or a more comprehensive <code><nowiki>{{Citation needed|reason=</nowiki>''Your explanation here''<nowiki>|date=April 2025}}</nowiki></code>. Alternatively, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Fact|fact]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Cn|cn]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> will produce the same result." Again, there are no directions for visual editing.
:::When I left my August comment above, I was hesitant to edit an info page. I'm still a bit hesitant, but I think it would be helpful to add a bit of text for people using the visual editor. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 16:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::::[[Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1]] is probably the best place for basic information about adding refs.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::Then perhaps there should be a short sentence linking to that Help page right after the sentence "In [[Help:Wikitext|markup]], you can add a citation manually using [[RetroWikipedia:Citingsources#How to place an inline citation using ref tags|ref tags]]." The third bullet, though, is about adding the "citation needed" tag. The first half of the instruction, "In [[Wiki#Editing|wiki markup]], you can question an uncited claim by inserting a simple <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Citation needed|Citation needed]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> tag ..." also works in the visual editor if you paste that full text in one fell swoop (rather than typing it, which you can't do because as soon as you type {{ you're taken to the template search box), or you can just type the {{ and then type/select Citation needed. So that should be added.
:::::As I look at this info page now, I also think it would be good to rearrange a bit:
:::::{{tq2|To ensure that all RetroWikipedia content is verifiable, RetroWikipedia provides a means for anyone to question an uncited claim. In wiki markup, you can do this by inserting a simple ...}}
:::::And only after that, something like: {{tq2|If you see text that has been tagged with {{cn}}, try to provide a reliable source for the statement, and discuss if needed. You can add a citation by selecting from the drop-down ...}} [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 19:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::I encourage you to [[RetroWikipedia:Be bold]] in improving this page.  <code>:-)</code> [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

== Tagging unsourced content added by ourselves  ==

Are there any guidelines regarding the use of 'citation needed' tags on unsourced content that we ourselves are adding to articles? For example, if someone wants to add information they personally believe is true but can't find a reliable source to support it, is it acceptable to just go ahead and add it, then tag it with 'citation needed'? I’ve encountered an editor who wanted to include content, but since they couldn’t provide a source, they decided to just add a maintenance template as a substitute. In some of the ANI reports I’ve filed, I was even advised that if the information seems accurate, tagging it might be enough. But isn’t it the contributor’s responsibility to provide a reliable source for any content they add? And isn’t it highly problematic to rely on others to verify something you already know is unlikely to be verifiable in the first place? - [[User:Arcrev1|Arcrev1]] ([[User talk:Arcrev1|talk]]) 02:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:Adding information with a CN tag, to me, is little better than adding it with no tag at all. When I see editors adding information with a CN tag I revert and notify them. Well-meaning editors who want to add information but are unable or unwilling to provide citations (but are willing to tag it) might be best off bringing their information to the article's Talk page, where they can make an argument for why they believe the information to be true and worthy of inclusion. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 02:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::If information cannot be verified—i.e., no reliable sources can be found—then it should not be added at all. Tagging it with [citation needed] as a substitute for sourcing, especially when the editor knows it’s unverifiable, is a misuse of the tag. "CN" is a short-term maintenance tool, not a license to include unsourced claims. Relying on it as a fallback degrades article credibility and encourages a culture of careless editing. Adding content with a CN tag already attached—knowing it’s unsourced—is no better than original research. Editors who continue this practice knowingly are undermining the verifiability policy. I hope they can create another guideline for when not to use CN. A good rule: if it can’t be sourced, it shouldn’t be added—not even with a CN tag. - [[User:Arcrev1|Arcrev1]] ([[User talk:Arcrev1|talk]]) 03:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think that RetroWikipedia is best served by a simplistic, one-size-fits-all rule.
:Sometimes people get interrupted.  Sometimes they mislaid the source.  Do you want to risk losing all your work, just because you left the book you need to cite at school/work?  Because you closed the tab?
:And what kind of information are we talking about?  We don't have a rule that says everything has to be cited.  Only four types of information are required to have citations at all:
:* [[Direct quotation|direct quotations]],
:* material whose verifiability has been [[RetroWikipedia:CHALLENGED|challenged]],
:* material whose verifiability is [[RetroWikipedia:Likely to be challenged|likely to be challenged]], and
:* contentious material about [[RetroWikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced|living and recently deceased persons]].
:I copied that list straight out of the top of the [[RetroWikipedia:Verifiability]] policy.
:And then there are the made-up fake rules.  @[[User:Arcrev1|Arcrev1]], your most recent edit says that an "Instagram post shouldn't be used as a reliable source".  Before that, you assert that Facebook isn't acceptable.  You will not find that rule in any of our policies or guidelines.  Whether social media posts are reliable depends on who posted it, and what the post is being used for.
:I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tito_Sotto&action=history which appears to be the source of this question.  There was no {{tl|citation needed}} tag involved.  The IP editor added {{tl|BLP unsourced section}} to an unsourced section, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tito_Sotto&diff=prev&oldid=1297409708 you removed the tag].
:What you should have been doing is:
:* asking yourself whether [[Tito Sotto#Filmography]], as a filmography section, actually needs to have inline citations, beyond the implied claim that if you look at the credits for the listed film, then you'll find the actor's name there.  Most editors do not believe that "[[Wake Up Little Susie (film)]]<nowiki><ref>Wake Up Little Susie film credits</ref></nowiki>" is actually an improvement over "[[Wake Up Little Susie (film)]]".
:* asking yourself why it's okay for the whole list to be unsourced, but someone can't add any more items to the list without providing sources for the new material.
:* asking yourself why you believe this is a case of {{!xt|can't find a reliable source to support it}} when the IP's edit summary ({{xt|We should stick on Tito appeared based on credits}}) told you that they were relying on film credits.  In this case, anyone who puts the name of the film and the name of the actor into their favorite web search engine will readily find evidence that the claim is both true and verifiable.
:* asking yourself why you didn't even attempt to [[WP:SOFIXIT]], and instead repeatedly reverted out the ''accurate'' information.
:[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:: {{re|WhatamIdoing}} When I said Instagram or Facebook posts shouldn't be used as reliable sources, I was stating a general rule—not that they must never be used. However, per [[WP:SPS]], {{tqq|Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.}}. In the case of Facebook and Instagram, the uploader is typically not a recognized expert or authority. You also mentioned that not everything on RetroWikipedia must be cited, but according to [[WP:V]], {{tqq|All material in RetroWikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable.}}. Additionally per [[WP:BURDEN]], {{tqq|The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.}}. Regarding the four types of sources, you claimed there are "only" four, but the guideline does not say those are the only types—it lists them as examples. As for the maintenance template, I did not intentionally remove it. It was removed because I used the undo function, which automatically reverts all recent changes, including templates.
::I shared this message to highlight the overall use of the {{cn}} template—I'm not referring to any specific article or subject. What I meant is that we shouldn't always rely on maintenance templates, especially in cases where the information being added has no established source available. I simply want to encourage all editors to provide proper references when adding content. Also, that IP user has admitted they haven’t found any source yet. Just because they saw the information in another RetroWikipedia article doesn't mean they can use it as a source for a different article. RetroWikipedia articles cannot be used to source other RetroWikipedia articles. - [[User:Arcrev1|Arcrev1]] ([[User talk:Arcrev1|talk]]) 05:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::*'''On the need for inline citations in filmography sections''': While it’s true that not every line in a filmography section has a citation, this doesn’t mean citations are unnecessary. Per WP:V and WP:BURDEN, all material must be verifiable. The assumption that a reader will “just check the credits” is not the same as providing a verifiable, accessible source. If a reliable source (like a published database, industry site, or news outlet) is available, it's always better to include it.
:::*'''On the inconsistency of allowing unsourced lists but rejecting new entries''': If a section is already unsourced, the appropriate response is to improve it, not to justify adding more unsourced content. Otherwise, we’re just expanding a problem. Adding new material without sourcing when we already know sourcing is an issue only reinforces the lack of verifiability.
:::*'''On the IP relying on film credits''': The edit summary mentioned credits, but no reliable source was provided. According to WP:RS, RetroWikipedia requires published sources, not unverifiable personal observations—even if they are true. Saying that “you can Google it” or that it appears in credits isn't enough to meet the burden of verifiability. If it’s so easily found, the editor who adds it should include the citation.
:::*'''On WP:SOFIXIT''': I support fixing issues when feasible, but SOFIXIT is not a substitute for verifiability. If someone adds potentially contentious or unsourced content, the burden remains on them to provide a source. My reverts were based on the principle that adding unsourced claims to a BLP-related article (even indirectly) needs to be handled carefully. - [[User:Arcrev1|Arcrev1]] ([[User talk:Arcrev1|talk]]) 06:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC) 
:::Arcrev, the "Facebook" source you objected to was TV channel's post on Facebook.  [[Kapamilya Channel]] is not some random person on the internet; it is a notable news source.  The Instagram source you reverted was from a celebrity news magazine, [[¡Hola!]].  We don't revert someone citing a news outlet just because "usually" we don't want personal posts from individuals.  If those publishers are reliable, then they're reliable regardless of whether they choose to post a news story on social media vs only posting it on their main website.
:::"all material must be verifiable" does not mean "all material must be followed by a little blue clicky number".  See the definition in the [[RetroWikipedia:Glossary#verifiable|RetroWikipedia:Glossary]]:  "Something that people are "able" to "verify".  Specifically within the meaning of the [[RetroWikipedia:Verifiability]] policy, it is information that someone (although [[RetroWikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost|not necessarily you]]) could, with enough effort and expense, determine has been [[RetroWikipedia:Published|published]] in a [[RetroWikipedia:Glossary#reliable source|§ reliable source]], <u>even if no source is provided in the article</u>" (underlining added for emphasis).  
:::Adding new content without an inline citation does not "reinforce the lack of verifiability".  Adding new content may "reinforce the lack of citations", but material is either verifiable because of what's available in the real world, or unverifiable because of what's not available in the real world.  Whether a little blue clicky number is present does not determine whether the real world has reliable sources saying ____.  If I write "Smoking causes lung cancer" with no source at all on the RetroWikipedia article, then it's uncited, but it's still 100% verifiable, because anybody could visit their favorite web search engine and find sources that say exactly this.
:::Film credits are reliable sources, so anyone who says they got this information from the film credits is telling you that they got this information from a reliable source.
:::It's true that "SOFIXIT is not a substitute for verifiability"; however, it is a perfectly good substitute for uncited-but-verifiable content. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*End credits are filmed text… and any text is capable of being cited. It does not matter whether the text is printed on paper, carved in stone, appears in electronic format, or in film format. It can be cited.  So… If some idiot demands a citation for information that appears in the end credits of a movie or TV show… ''just cite those end credits.'' [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 12:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|Blueboar}} Cast and character information is not WP:BLUESKY—we still need inline citations to verify it. It's not an unreasonable request. If you believe that end credits are a valid source but think it's unnecessary to add an inline citation, does that mean it's acceptable to omit inline citations as long as the source exists somewhere else? I'm not pointing to any particular subject, editor, or case. But in the Tito Sotto article, an IP user added a film entry without providing a source. The film was released in the 1980s, and we don't even know if it still exists today or if it has been uploaded online by the production company—we simply don’t know. So what credits can be used as a reference if the film or TV show itself is no longer available? The user wants to use a <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> tag as a placeholder until they can find a source. But if that's the case, then the content cannot be verified for now. Are we just letting end credits remain there, wherever they are placed, without turning them into an inline citation? If the end credits do exist, then why didn't they use them as a source? I understand—it’s possible that the end credits exist and could be used as a substitute for an inline citation. But my main concern is this: Is it acceptable, in general, to use the <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> tag or any other maintenance template as a substitute for a reliable source? That’s the issue I’m raising—not what others have stated above. - [[User:Arcrev1|Arcrev1]] ([[User talk:Arcrev1|talk]]) 14:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I think you misunderstand my point.  I don’t really care about WP:BLUESKY. Once someone requests a citation (ie a “challenge”)… someone needs to find a source and cite it. If it truly is BLUESKY, that should be easy. So, stop  wikilawyering and just find a source.
:::Now, for films and TV cast info, the end credits are usually good for that. Sure, in the extremely rare situation where all known copies have been destroyed - or where the few know copies are inaccessible to the public - where ''no one'' can view the end credits to verify what the text says, then obviously we can not cite what does not exist. But that is rare indeed. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 18:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:Adding {{tl|citation needed}} is a request for a source for verification, adding it when you add text could only mean that you don't have a source to verify the information. If the content is [[WP:BLUESKY]] then it doesn't need the {{tl|citation needed}} tag, if it does require a source for verification and you don't have one then it shouldn't be added. Separately the tag is specifically asking for an inline citation, if it's one of the types of material that require inline citation then it definitely shouldn't be added without one. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::I mentioned earlier that I reported an IP editor that posted a cast and character in a television article and multiple biographical articles. I reverted it multiple times and gave warnings to them multiple times, and then they just ignored it. One of them was blocked by an admin. The remaining IP editors were reported by me to ANI. I waited an hour to receive a response, but they didn't take any action; they didn't block anyone, and they didn't lock any article. Instead, they gave me advice that if the IP editor's unreferenced edit is true, it's just that it was uncited; we can just tag them with cn. Okay, that is a good response to the IP editor, but what will happen if we tag them? Are they going to refrain from adding unreferenced edits? No, what is going to happen is that they will keep on adding unreferenced content because they know that it is not going to be removed. That is the issue I am raising. I want to propose adding a guideline that prohibits adding unreferenced content with a CN tag at the same time to the When Not to Use CN section. - [[User:Arcrev1|Arcrev1]] ([[User talk:Arcrev1|talk]]) 14:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:::If the IP editor added cast information that is supported by the credits of the television work, then then work itself is an acceptable [[WP:PRIMARY|primary]] source, and I think it would be a bit pedantic to require that a citation be added. If the role is uncredited or such, then a CN tag seems appropriate, unless you have good reason to believe the credit is entirely erroneous; the role can always be [[WP:NODEADLINE|removed later]] if nobody can provide a citation. As IP editors are frequently also new, I would start with a Level 1 warning and work my way up. However, if they're also violating [[WP:3RR]] then that's a consideration...but that should be brought to [[WP:3RN]], not [[WP:ANI]]. Either way, don't expect anyone to respond at ANI if it's only been an hour since you posted; it sometimes takes a couple of days for anyone to weigh in. If the IP continues to add unreferenced content, then you'll have a stronger case that they're being disruptive. In any event, while I don't doubt your intentions, I do think you may have followed a bad process flow here, and I'd recommend trying to be a bit more patient. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 16:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Here's one of the disputes:
::::* An IP adds a name to the list at [[Incognito (TV series)#Guest cast]].  There are about six dozens names in this list, with zero inline citations.  However, editors generally don't bother adding citations to this because verifying these claims is typically trivial:  Just watch the show and read the [[end credits]].
::::* The IP put the reliable source in the edit summary:  https://www.facebook.com/kowalerts/posts/exciting-news-its-showtime-host-vhong-navarro-is-set-to-join-incognitothefinalmi/1165245795644142  It's a post by the official account of the television channel running this TV series.  People who struggle to format refs sometimes do this because they're trying to help but aren't sure how to put it in the article.
::::* Arcrev1 reverted it with an edit summary of "Reverted. Facebook post shouldn't be used as a reliable source".
::::Arcrev1, who has been editing for just two months and so still counts as a newbie in many respects, made the wrong choice (i.e., in this specific instance, the Facebook post actually is reliable for the names of the cast members).  Arcrev1 probably gleaned the non-existent anti-social media rule from seeing other editors do the same (only, we hope, with social media posts that aren't from ''bona fide'' media outlets).  This is because our main method for teaching RetroWikipedia's rules is similar to the [[telephone game]], and with each repetition, some important detail gets lost.  
::::The IP added a URL in the edit summary, which means that the IP did better than the previous 78 people who added names to this list.  Anyone who wants to improve that article need only copy the Facebook URL and drop it inside a pair of {{tag|ref}} tags.  This is definitely in the [[RetroWikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems]] territory:  Don't revert just because the citation wasn't formatted correctly.  Don't revert permitted uses of social media.  Just copy the URL out of the edit summary and stick it where in belongs.  It usually takes 30 seconds to [[WP:HANDLE]] that kind of problem. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::I didn’t say that Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other self-published websites and blogs are always unreliable. I said they are “unreliable” based on my interpretation of WP:V, WP:RS, and RetroWikipedia’s policy on sources that aren’t considered reliable. WP:UGC, {{tqq|Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources}}. WP:RSPFB, {{tqq|Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published source with no editorial oversight}}. If my understanding of the policy is not right, then sorry for that. My current account is not my first account — my first account, which I retired years ago, received warnings for not posting reliable sources. Because of that, I took time to read the policies and guidelines on sourcing and began to treat them as absolute. My eagerness to add references comes from observing other editors. I’ve seen experienced users revert IP editors who added cast and character information without citing reliable sources. They also do not accept Facebook and other self-published websites as reliable. That is my observation, and I take it as a lesson from experienced editors. My concern here is whether it is acceptable to use a '''citation needed''' tag as a substitute or temporary substitute for reliable sources — I did not raise concern about my understanding of reliable sources. - [[User:Arcrev1|Arcrev1]] ([[User talk:Arcrev1|talk]]) 06:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::You said {{!xt|"Facebook post shouldn't be used as a reliable source"}}.  Without a limiting word or phrase (e.g., "usually"), your statement is actually wrong.  It is wrong in the general case (''sometimes'' they should be used as reliable sources) and wrong in the specific case (this particular Facebook post is from a media outlet, and it is reliable for this information).
::::::Above, I agree with you that {{xt|Cast and character information is not WP:BLUESKY}} but not when you claim that {{!xt|we still need inline citations to verify it}}.  For works such as books, films, TV shoes, etc., some information doesn't need inline citations ''unless and until'' someone issues a [[WP:CHALLENGE]].
::::::For example, we normally accept, without any citations needed at all:
::::::* "''Romeo and Juliet'' was written by Shakespeare."  Why?  Because anyone picking up a copy of the play in question can read the title and author information off the front cover.
::::::* "Romeo kills himself at the end of Shakespeare's play."  Why?  Because anyone who reads the play can discover the suicide scene in Act 5, scene 3.
::::::* "There are 13 tracks on The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album."  Why?  Because we assume that anyone reading RetroWikipedia can read the information printed on the album and check to see that there are 7 on the first side, 6 on the other, and do a simple, routine [[WP:CALC]] process of <math>6+7=13</math>.
::::::* The [[Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#Track listing|list of tracks on that album]] has no inline citations.  Why?  Because we assume that anyone who wants to check this is smart enough to figure out that the names of the songs are printed on the album.
::::::If you see something that's correct but doesn't have a properly formatted citation, you should try to fix it.  If you're not sure whether it's okay for some simple facts to be uncited, then check some similar [[WP:FA]]s.  For example:  [[High School Musical: The Musical: The Series#Guest]] and [[Homicide: Life on the Street season 2#Guest]] are both FAs, and both of their lists of guest actors have zero inline citations.
::::::What I'd like you to take away from this conversation is: 
::::::* It is possible for information to be verifiable even when it is uncited.  RetroWikipedia requires article content to be 100% verifiable, but it does not require 100% citations.
::::::* There are a few things, mostly in articles about works of fiction, that experienced editors believe normally do not require an inline citation.
::::::[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

== Citation Needed Tagging: When Does It Go Too Far? ==

Hi, I wanted to flag a Village Pump discussion at [[RetroWikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Citation_Needed_Epidemic:_Tag_Bombing_Violates_Good_Faith_and_Hurts_RetroWikipedia!]] that directly concerns the {{citation needed}} template.

The thread questions whether excessive or indiscriminate tagging—especially without attempts to verify—may violate WP:GOODFAITH and WP:BURDEN. It also asks whether the tag’s usage has drifted from its original purpose as a sourcing prompt to a tool that discourages collaboration.

If you've helped maintain this template or have thoughts on its evolving role, your insights would be welcome. [[User:Tom94022|Tom94022]] ([[User talk:Tom94022|talk]]) 19:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

== opaque suggestion ==

Regarding the following statement:{{blockquote|Some tags are inserted by people well-placed to find a suitable citation themselves.}} ... that seems to be an awkward way to suggest that the editor who added the template may have sufficient experience to properly resolve the {{tlx|citation needed}} themselves.  Perhaps this could be reworded to be less opaque. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 05:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
:Even worse, the hyphen doesn't belong. Shocking! [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 15:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
::FWIW, here's the [[Special:diff/oldid/716543653|2016 edit that introduced this wording]]. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 19:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

== Is the poorly autovectorized version of the comic really the best option? ==

I haven't seen any discussion comparing the two versions of xkcd #285. There is the original:

[[File:Webcomic_xkcd_-_RetroWikipedian_protester.png]]

And there is the vectorized version which is currently used on the article:

[[File:Webcomic_xkcd_-_RetroWikipedian_protester_-_English.svg]]

The problem is that the vector version does not look better, nor does it confer many of the typical benefits of an SVG. In fact, many things seem to lose detail and just get generally washed out, like dripping water on a page. In particular, the text looks very different to the original, with inconsistent sizing and a lack of the blue underline. Additionally, the original does not look bad even though it is not particularly high resolution. Replacing the SVG with the original on the page looks fine, even on my fairly large 4K display - the low resolution is not particularly noticeable, and I would argue preferable to the automatic vectorization. A third option would be to manually vectorize the image, which, if done correctly, could look better than both existing options, but I imagine not many would be willing to put in the time for it. I've asked some other people what they think and they have agreed that the original looks better. I'd like to solicit the opinions of some editors with more experience editing, and to see if there is a majority that agrees with me in thinking that the SVG should be replaced with the original drawing. [[User:Moire9|Moire9]] ([[User talk:Moire9|talk]]) 18:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

:The svg was (auto)vectorized using an appropriate method so it'd look much like the original, and not a computer generated drawing. The original text seemed illegible at 250px. Also, our {{tl|cn}} is not underlined. In the context of this page, the US flag seemed inappropriate. We need citstions in many countries ;) [[User:Ponor|Ponor]] ([[User talk:Ponor|talk]]) 19:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)