Resolved

 – No objections to genericization after 2.5 years.

I hope nobody minds if I turn this into a general-purpose template, because it doesn't look like it's being used for comic books anymore. --Xiaopo ʘ 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good show. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Project now exists.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inline templates. I've been meaning to do this for a while. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – WP:BOLD.

Would anyone object if I created a specialised version of this template for references to the London Gazette (also including Edinburgh Gazette and Belfast Gazette). They've recently changed there website breaking all the old urls, and in the process changing from their web references just numbering pages within issues, to match the printed copies, where page numbering runs throughout the year, starting with page 1 in the first issue of each, and continuing regardless of issue. I'm planning to ask for a bot to be created to assist in managing sorting this out, and it would be useful to be able to place them into a specific sub-category. David Underdown 14:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone object? This is a Wiki. Be bold. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

using a # for number is not common in the UK. I suggest we replace it with either "no." or "num." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with its current state, but how about "page number?" as a compromise? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Page number needed" too long to many editors (cf. discussion at Template talk:Rp, for example, not to mention earlier attempts to shorten it to "page # needed"). Meanwhile, "page number?" is telegraphic writing. Unless I'm nuts, "page needed" is clearer than "page number?", and almost as clear as "page number needed". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Fixed.

The template says, "This tag will categorise tagged articles into Category:Wikipedia articles needing page number citations but not this template itself." But it doesn't seem to actually be working since there are no pages in the category.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is fixed now. I added |cat=[[Category:Wikipedia articles needing page number citations]] into the template.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before making further changes to ((page needed)), please ensure that they will not have any deleterious effect on ((rp)). Also, if the output of the template is changed ("page missing", whatever), the category-free variant code used in Template:Rp/doc to demonstrate examples of the visual appearance of output from ((rp|needed=y|((subst:DATE)))) will need to be adjusted to match. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think link = Wikipedia:Citing sources should be changed to link = Wikipedia:Page numbers . jnestorius^(talk) 15:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template needs an associated date.
The documentation should display an example incorporating the date=November 2012, as most other templates tend to do these days.
Varlaam (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template supports a date parameter. I have added it to the documentation as well. Thank you for pointing this out. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the template be placed inside the ref., rather than in the main article?

Some text here.<ref name="Smith 2009">((Cite book
|last=Smith
|first=Jane
|title=The Unbearable Beingness of Light
|year=2009
|location=[[New York City|New York]]
|publisher=Fnord Pubs
))((page needed|date=Monthname YYYY))</ref>

...

((Reflist))

-- -- -- 23:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Since I haven't been answered, I made the change myself. -- -- -- 22:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not. because inside the ref it will not be noticed. Debresser (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer -- -- --'s version. A missing page number seems to me to be a problem with the ref qua ref, not a problem with the article as such or with verifiability, etc. Cnilep (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do in this situation. I'm tagged a few books that require a page number. An IP editor has suggested they don't require a page number, as they items are listed alphabetically. I took a gander at these books, and although some content in these books are more than one per page, I do not see harm in getting the page number as its not exactly obvious that in some books items are alphabetical. Is this for books with out page numbers specifically? (I have some of those!) Here is a sample of the books here, and here. The latter definitely does not have multiple listings per page, the first one, I dunno, maybe? I don't really see the benefit of this addition. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be ok to generalize this more and ask for specific urls instead of general websites? Bullenbeisser (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that there are some year articles (such as February 26, 1942) using this template despite the fact that this template is meant to be used to indicate missing page number(s) in citations, not to indicate that a page for the particular event is needed. Is this count as a template misuse? I couldn't find any guidelines about year articles to use this template in this regard. NotCory (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NotCory: Hi. Belated reply. That particular instance was a misuse of the ((page needed)) template. The person who used it surely meant to use a tag like ((citation needed)) instead. By the time I looked into this, it was gone but a similar misuse was in the same article. I haven't looked into the history of the article yet but maybe there's an editor who's been using ((page needed)) incorrectly for a while. On a related note, it's really a messy topic about tagging these year articles in general. They are kind of a strange hybrid between list articles and disambiguation pages and following the (present) guidelines for referencing can be confusing or misleading. Much of the time, the entry's article itself provides sufficient sources for its inclusion in the list. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, this template does not appear to have a category to track usage with invalid parameters (like ((cn))). I would rather have a category than work from this. MB 15:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MB: Created at Category:Pages using page needed template with unknown parameters (3). The category should be populated with a few dozen articles within five minutes. Have fun with it! – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, Thanks, that was fast. I fixed the 65 errors found so far. From the report, I was expecting around 110. Maybe more will show up later. MB 18:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were some pages with multiple errors, so they were listed on that report multiple times. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made an update to add param |time=yes to accommodate AV media times. But I noticed after the fact, that ((Time needed)) already exists as an independent template. Now I'm not quite sure whether to just back out my recent changes here, or merge them, and have ((Time needed)) be a wrapper for this one, which I've already coded offline. I think I lean toward backing these changes out, but not sure what others think. Mathglot (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's ((season needed)), and ((volume needed)) as well. I can see either turning ((Time needed)), ((season needed)), and ((volume needed)) into wrappers, or else keeping them, and undoing the recent change here to accommodate time. Either way, there would be no visible difference to the users of those templates/wrappers. Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Modify "this change the" to "this changes the". Rutsq (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rutsq: Your request does not appear to be applicable to this template, since it does not include/emit such wording. I think you've posted on the wrong template's talk page. Either that or you may have encountered some text manually inserted by an editor, e.g. with ((Page needed|reason=...this change the...)), which would be fixed by editing the template's local transclusion at the article in question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed in the documentation. The documentation is not protected; Rutsq is welcome to edit it if more errors are present. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! In the /doc subpage. I didn't think to look there, since those aren't protected.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]