Delete the page it refers to was merged and then deleted, so the template is now redundant --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:40, 18 August 2006 (PDT)
Is there another template that can be added to articles that need sources cited? If not, I think this template might actually be useful, just change the link to the Citing sources part of the usage guide. - Antiuser 14:37, 18 August 2006 (PDT)
- Well I know they do the citation needed thing on Wikipedia, but my understanding for LP was that we just remove it and tell users to come back when they've got evidence. Unlike WP articles, we have so much speculation and hoaxes that the site would be riddled with the template. Its better to just have a "no source no mention" policy --Nickb123 (Talk) 14:39, 18 August 2006 (PDT)
- I'm not sure I agree with that, because it takes a lot of attention to make such a policy work, and obviously admins can't devote all of their time to monitoring LostPedia. This would be handy for posting unconfirmed information that could later be checked by other users and sorting canon from theory.
- However, I'm not an admin, so I'd appreciate their input on this issue. - Antiuser 15:40, 18 August 2006 (PDT)
I don't think we need such a template - the preferred policy is to move unconfirmed info into either Theories sections of pages or onto Talk pages, awaiting confirmation. For the vast majority of pages, the relevant sources will be episodes & TLE sites, so it's different from WP.--Jajasoon 05:32, 19 August 2006 (PDT)
We do need sources in preview information and I believe gythis is what was in mind when it was created. --†††GodEmperorOfHell††† 07:17, 19 August 2006 (PDT)
- Yes but what I'm just concerned about is the possible tendency to mark something with "citation needed" and leave it on the main article, when it could just be speculation that should be removed --Nickb123 (Talk) 08:31, 19 August 2006 (PDT)
- That's still better than no sorting at all. I see articles that say "news sources say that..." or "information from the producers..." with no sources cited anywhere. At least when it's marked "source needed", users can tell what's confirmed and what isn't, and if they so wish, go and look for a source. Some sorting is better than no sorting at all. - Antiuser 16:11, 19 August 2006 (PDT)
- Keep - It's a very useful optional tool. It doesn't mean that stuff that doesn't belong can't still be deleted or moved elsewhere. Removing the option of using a good tool in the cases where it's the most appropriate won't get the job done, quite the contrary. It tags cases where text looks legit but needs the mention of the source. It doesn't give the text a certificate of protection. Also makes regular maintenance much easier. Cheers 01:38, 21 August 2006 (PDT)
- I say keep.--Peephole 07:22, 23 August 2006 (PDT)
- Delete: anytime someone posts something not confirmed by ABC you all attack and remove it anyways -brianopp 10:21, 30 August 2006 (PDT)
- All the more reason to keep it... - Antiuser 01:50, 31 August 2006 (PDT)
- Keep and Comment - clarification is needed on the template itself, probably text in a NOINCLUDE section. Basically the issue is that 'source needed' comes from Wikipedia's slightly different criteria for content, either re: accuracy or notability. However at Lostpedia, editors are in some contexts encouraged to do original research, or even their own speculation: In other words adding content when a source is not required by our rules. However, when questionable information (e.g. possibly a speculative spoiler) is listed as a fact, a citation is needed. On the other hand, by precedent, all facts are not generally cited with footnotes in the academic style. Bottom line, I wouldn't want the existence of this template itself to suggest something about Lostpedia's criteria for articles that are not true. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 05:00, 31 August 2006 (PDT)