Template:Did you know nominations/Citation needed
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Citation needed[edit]
CAPTION TEXT GOES HERE
- ... that citation needed is a template used by Wikipedians to label unsourced contents? [1]
- ALT1:... that citation needed, which is a term used by Wikipedians, formed an internet meme outside Wikipedia? [2]
Created by Sanmosa (talk). Self-nominated at 05:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC).
New enough. Long enough. Hook is short enough, formatted correctly, and undoubtedly of interest to Wikipedia readers. Article is neutral, sourced, and within policy. QPQ not needed - appears to be the user's first DYK nomination. Image is free and looks fine at the reduced size. I prefer Alt 0. Alt 1 could be fine if always is removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but the article is largely based on non-reliable sources and the "Usage outside Wikipedia" section looks like WP:SYNTH. Yoninah (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- I can't see any WP:SYNTH or original researches in the article (and actually what I did is just translation). If you wanted to label [citation needed] in the passage citation needed, it would be ironic. SænmōsàI will find a way or make one. 02:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yoninah is right. This is brilliant--correction, would be brilliant, but the sourcing is indeed insufficient, and/or misused. For instance, the DW article doesn't even mention "citation needed"--all it has is a photograph of the sign, but that's not the same thing; moreover, it draws no connection to Wikipedia at all. The next-best secondary source is the Boston Globe article, and that's the only possibly acceptable one that draws the connection between the world inside Wikipedia and outside--unfortunately it's just a reprint from a blog for which the Boston Globe takes no responsibility. So no, we can't take this. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Then, I'd like to withdraw the nomination. SænmōsàI will find a way or make one. 05:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)