I've created this tag as an alternative to the ((fact)) tag, for the cases where a reference is alluded to, or given in part, but not specified sufficiently precisely to be located. The factuality may or may not be in question.

Examples

• Jane Doe refers readers of her book to her journal article covering the experimental methodology.^{[full citation needed]}
• George W Bush claimed his "God is not neutral" comment was being taken out of context.^{[full citation needed]}
• Pink elephants show a preference for Pepsi (Jackson 2001),^{[full citation needed]} where white elephants prefer Coke (Prince 1999).^{[full citation needed]}

Why does this link to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this, too. (I am guessing that the section name(s) in "Wikipedia:Citing_sources" had changed.) I think it would be better to link to Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include (a.k.a. WP:CITEHOW). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DoctorKubla (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just used this and expected to find the article placed in some maintenance category but there weren't any. Should there be some maintenance categories added to this template so the articles can be tracked and problem dealt with? Keith D (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what purpose this serves. We already have ((Citation broken)) and multiple other templates to request specific citation details. --Chealer (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly ((Citation broken)) seems the pointless one. Between ((dead link)) and ((full)) both of which have clear meaning in my mind, it's not clear what else "citation broken" could flag. Some1Redirects4You (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Some1Redirects4You. This template serves a specific semantic purpose while, if anything, you have it backwards regarding necessity. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases people are so lazy with the citations that they just drop very incomplete citations all over the place. A prime example is Distributive_property#Notes which refers to who-knows-what books in most of its inline citations. So, is there a better way to flag these articles other than individually tagging every unclear citation? I suppose I could (and for now I will) add a ((cleanup)) tag with a custom message. Some1Redirects4You (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that there is a date parameter until seeing one on a bot edit. Perhaps the documentation could mention this (and any other parameters). Declangi (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Please check. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Debresser, looks fine. Declangi (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The example provided in the documentation,

• Jane Doe refers readers of her book to her journal article covering the experimental methodology.((Full|date=April 2024))

  Result: Jane Doe refers readers of her book to her journal article covering the experimental methodology.^{[full citation needed]}

does not show where the template should go if there is an incomplete citation with reference tags. Should it be this way:

• Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.<ref>''The New York Times''</ref>((Full|date=April 2024))

  Result: Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.^{[1][full citation needed]}

Or should it be this way:

• Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.<ref>''The New York Times''((Full|date=April 2024))</ref>

  Result: Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.^[1]

I believe that the template should be included outside the ref tags because a vague reference used multiple times might need a different repair each time it is used, as in my example where only the newspaper's name is given in the reference. Others may disagree. We need to decide and we need to say in the template documentation. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris: Good question, and I'd like to know too, but I don't. It may depend on context. In your example, it's plausible that multiple references to one author or periodical would need to be replaced with multiple specific citations. In other contexts, it may be clear that one book or journal article is being referred to, and tagging one place rather than ten would be a lot less annoying for all participants. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider this as relevant to the other citation maintenance templates (e.g. ((Citation needed)) ). When there is a problem with the inline citation, the maintenance tags normally appear in the body of the article, so I would expect ((Full citation needed)) to follow suit. The ((Dead link)) template is different, as the cited reference may be perfectly valid, but has suffered link rot (which may be remedied by adding the archive parameters). At this present time, the ((Full citation needed)) template page demonstrates placing the template outside the <ref> tags, and my recommendation is that this is how it should appear.
— Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace with sandbox. This requested edit changes the tool-tip from "A more detailed citation is required." to A complete citation is needed". It also changes the category from Category:Articles needing more detailed references to Category:Articles with incomplete citations and adds the same category as scheme for date-based categories.

Category:Articles needing more detailed references is currently populated by this template and Template:Specify which has a very different purpose. This template can be described as the in-line version of Template:Ref expand, which populates Category:Articles with incomplete citations, and therefore the latter is a better category for this template to populate. Bsherr (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't cat redundant if you're specifying cat-date, or do you really want the page appearing in both parent & child categories? Cabayi (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, really good question. So this template transcludes ((fix)). My reading of the documentation there was that you need both (i.e. cat only works if date is null). This is consistent with the code currently in the widely-used Template:Citation needed, which uses both.

But I just dug through the code of ((fix)) and, if I'm seeing it correctly, you're absolutely right that you only need to fill in cat-date. Actually, leaving cat empty will default to categorizing the page in Category:All pages needing cleanup, which would be desirable for this template. If you or anyone else can put a second set of eyes on this and confirm I have it correct now, that would be super appreciated.

Of course, none of this is in the documentation for ((fix)). So that's my next project, I guess. Thanks for flagging this for me. --Bsherr (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, though Bsherr I think your next project is creating a whole bunch of "Category:Articles with incomplete citations from [month] [year]" pages. Cabayi (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, where's that bot? --Bsherr (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Sorry, please replace with the sandbox one more time to add another "all" category:

|cat2     = [[Category:All articles with incomplete citations]]

--Bsherr (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, with cat rather than cat2 (checked with a preview of Alfred Hitchcock). It's weird that ((fix)) needs cat to include the brackets, but not cat-date, though, now I look, it is documented. Cabayi (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! However, I actually need it to be cat2. By leaving cat null, ((fix)) places the page in Category:All pages needing cleanup, which we also want. --Bsherr (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bsherr, Oops. Well, it proves tidiness is NOT a virtue. Done as requested. Cabayi (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Haha, yeah, this one's straight out of the best practices manual… --Bsherr (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a hunger for a way to include a note / reason / details. Looking at the monthly parameter usage report there are 400+ uses of |reason=, 40+ where (({1))} is set via free text and 20+ uses of other undefined parameters.
Should we: just accept that editors will add extra text and document that as a valid (({1))} or define |reason= or not worry about all this since we do not currently make use of the extra text? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the following:

| title = A complete citation is needed

To:

| title = A complete citation is needed.

Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]