Template talk:Cite check

Wrong category?

Can this template place articles in Category:Articles needing additional references instead of Category:Articles lacking sources. Category:Articles lacking sources is for no references at all. Mattg82 (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll change it myself in a week if no one objects. Mattg82 (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Help, talk, get involved!

This template ends with a trio of links "(help, talk, get involved!)". It's been like that since 2006 - I don't know if this was a template ending that used to be standard and has since been dropped almost everywhere, but it looks strikingly out of place because no other template ends like this.

Looks like someone removed it in 2012 and got reverted; I removed it earlier today and User:Debresser put it back because "Removal was not discussed", so here we go. What do people think? Is it worth dropping, rewriting as sentences, or leaving intact? --McGeddon (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I also don't remember such an ending in templates, and think they best be removed. Looks like textual pollution to me. The template has links to WP:CITE and WP:V. The link to WP:Fact and Reference Check called "get involved" might be useful, but is more appropriate on the documentation page. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 August 2016

Change "may contain" to the less ambiguous "possibly contains" much like this template. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit requests on 7 May 2026

CHANGE FROM:

• Current template protection status.

CHANGE TO:

• Template allowing unrestricted editing.

JUSTIFICATION: It's been a decade. It is hard to continue to justify disallowing constructive edits, without any recent data on attempts at vandalism.

Meanwhile:

CHANGE FROM:

• Current "See also" section content.

CHANGE TO:

• Section "See also" content that adds the following, further bullet, as the second to appear:

* {{Tlx|Verify source}} in-line version

JUSTIFICATION: Template/tag articles receive regular editor "need something like" traffic, a preeminent of which, here relevant, is the editor's need for an inline tag, for which they know the corresponding article or section tag. In this case, the relevant inline tag already appears on the corresponding section template's help page, and so that content was copied, and suggested for inclusion here as well. [Note, the same editing restrictions challenged above do not govern the section tag's help page, so it might be helpful there to look at its recent history for evidence of vandalism (if any such exists).] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-27024-39 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Changes in protection level should be made at WP:RFPP instead, and the documentation is on a subpage that's not protected, which you're welcome to edit. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

True. I'll say I agree with the copyedit that's the second part of this request. It's desirable to clearly cross-reference between inline and block versions of essentially the same sort of cleanup or dispute template.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)