This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This template was considered for deletion on 2006 May 31. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
This template was considered for deletion on 2008 April 5. The result of the discussion was "no consensus (kept by default), with many suggestions to merge and/or restructure the whole citations templates". |
This template (Template:Citations missing (3rd nomination)) was considered for deletion on 2008 September 1. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
This template was considered for deletion on 2009 September 2. The result of the discussion was "no consensus to delete". |
This template was considered for deletion on 2011 September 15. The result of the discussion was "redirect to Template:Refimprove". |
Kudos to Exploding Boy for creating this template. I hope that it will encourage editors to reference their edits and fact check the edits of others a bit more. It currently reads:
Would anyone object to the following change:
-AED 22:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Other than being more obvious (intrusive?), what's the practical difference between this template and ((Unreferenced))? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we change the word "appropriate" to "specific", since that seems to be the problem this template addresses --SteveMcCluskey 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that we add code to this template so that articles tagged with it are added to the Articles lacking sources category. I realize this template is designed to be used on articles that provide some sources, but do not have proper in-line citations or footnoting. But my concern is that this template doesn't add the article to any category that editors routinely check for article that need cleanup, and thus might not get attention as quickly as it should. This category seems like the closest match: its description says "Wikipedia articles that are missing citations belong in this category." As an alternative, we could add the tagged article to Category:Wikipedia references cleanup, but it should definitely be listed somewhere. --Satori Son 16:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Jeepday 15:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the great majority of readers aren't experienced editors, I think that "NPOV" should be changed to "Neutral Point Of View" in the template: non-wikipedians will simply not understand what NPOV means. If nobody objects within the next few days, I'll change it. --Storkk 22:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that this template should be prodded. There are several users who indulge in spamming it aggressively on every page they come across. I don't think that even 5% of articles in the project have inline citations. If the authors of the template want to see it transcluded to every WP page, perhaps they should set up a bot which would uglify the articles en mass. What is more important, I don't recall a single instance when the transclusion of this template led to some positive result, i.e., to addition of footnotes. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:John_McCain#Straw_poll:_Use_of_Citation_Tag. Article has over 53 citations but a user wants a banner at the top of the article that says "Citations missing". When are enough citations enough? -- Stbalbach 17:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I see ((Unreferenced)) has a date parameter that may be useful in finding articles that have been tagged for a long time. What do people think of adding this functionality to this template also? Cheers. SeanMack 08:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the category associated with this template from Category:Wikipedia references cleanup to Category:Articles lacking sources. The purpose of Category:Wikipedia references cleanup is to clean up the citation style on articles that already have citations. The purpose of this template seems to be to request citations that don't exist at all (similar to ((unreferenced))). —Seqsea (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've made repeated use of ((unreferenced)) in the past, and kept meaning to establish and use a different template to deal with the subset of the unreferenced articles where a list of general references are provided but are missing inline citations. Now that I've found this one, I'll start using it in those cases.
It's quite large though, so attempts to make it more compact would be appreciated.
Also, for articles which appear (admitted subjectively) to have a reliable and lengthy-enough list of general references, I'm thinking this template, or a version thereof, could be placed under the section heading for the article's eference list instead of at the top of the article. I'll check this talk page from time to time to see if a version tailored for such a use gets created.
Thanks to everyone who got this started and helped it survive the TFD discussion. 66.167.137.9 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
The page Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles list the location to place this tag as “To be Agreed”. I would suggest that the proper place would be at the top of the reference section. Jeepday 15:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
No policy requires inline citations. They are often a good idea, and are a requirement for feature article status, but it is not a requirement for all articles. Furthermore, the tag is often used when the article has adequate sources. This tag therefore enshrines a particular editor's view about style (that the article in question should have inline citations) in an inappropriate way. That point belongs on the talk page, not in the article itself. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) That sounds quite reasonable; explanations on talk pages are always a good thing, and I encourage users of this template to do as CMummert suggests.
Occasionally, however, it is fairly obvious for a long, detailed article that at least some citations are needed. And other times, it is helpful to use both the ((citations missing)) and ((fact)) tags together even in an article that already has some citations. For example, the John McCain article was significantly improved after both templates were used in conjunction, going from ~50 to 90+ citations in a relatively short period. (But note this was accompanied by significant discussion on the talk page.)
My main point, however, is that just because there is no specific policy that states all articles must use inline citations, that does not alleviate the need for this sometimes useful template. -- Satori Son 15:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the recent edit that expanded this template; it was quite unnecessary in my view, and only served to make the template more intrusive. The sentence "Failure to use citations when needed will be considered a sign of possible plagiarism or factual inaccuracy." seems like a harsh warning where none is needed. BuddingJournalist 01:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Knowing the source of particular claims is required to conform to Wikipedia policies regarding neutral point of view, original research, and verifiability.
I think the way it reads now is just fine. It says exactly what it needs to say without hitting you over the head with it.--Aervanath 09:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
And then there was peace throughout the land...--Aervanath 11:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added some citations, though I think much of the article is from the Ascent Media website and most of the claims could be referenced to this site. Is it really necessary to cite all of the article pieces to that site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LizGere (talk • contribs) 20:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This really should be probably be catagorized in Category:Articles lacking reliable references, rather than Category:Articles lacking sources. The category it is in now is for articles with no sources in any form. Maybe their is a better categoy than the one I suggeseted but the current one is not a good one to to use.--BirgitteSB 20:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Given that we have ((unreferenced)) and ((Citations)) I think that this template should be redirected to ((Refimprove)). The wording of this template is not a precise as ((Refimprove)) because WP:PROVEIT does not specify the type of citations to use (no preference is given to footnotes over Harvard style citations) so the wording "or needs footnotes." is redundant and therefore I think the wording of ((Refimprove)) " This article needs additional citations for verification" is better. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Why do the instructions say to put it on the main page? This template (and many other editorial templates) belongs on the discussion page. It does nothing to contribute to the facts or navigation to other similar subjects that are on the article page.
This template (and many others) gives an opinion which needs to have some specifics to at least be considered a valid observation. This class of template is not much different than a project template that offers a rating. Those are placed on the discussion page.
The template itself calls attention to the scholarly minded that some footnotes and references would be nice. Comments could be placed below the template on the discussion page. These would be a sign of collaborative, scholarly effort and cite some specific places where a cite should be placed. Otherwise placement of this template is just lazy academic graffiti or is a sign of some robot wikipedia tagger who is keeping score on template tags.
I just don't get it. Could somebody enlighten me about the placement. Thanks --Rcollman (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason the instructions say to put it on the main page is twofold: 1) it alerts readers of the article about possible inaccuracies due to a lack of credible sources and, 2), it makes the problems more easily seen, immediately once an editor goes to the page he can see that it needs citations.--danielfolsom 04:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at User:Thinboy00/Template editing#Make a new template, or retool an old one? (please read, title is counterintuitive). Why don't we do that? --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 03:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
((editprotected))
I've started a sandbox for this page which includes some updates to the style to match the prevailing ambox layout. just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I just added a table to the doc subpage. The table shows more specifically worded templates that can be used instead of this one. Since this template is not needed (see the table, everything has a more specific template for it), I propose we deprecate it. Existing instances will continue to work, but new ones will be discouraged. Once the template is orphaned, it can be disabled with a deprecation notice. If anyone can come up with any use of this template which does not already have a more specifically worded alternative, I will reconsider (and note that I am of course not the only person making the decision; if I was, I'd be concerned about the safety of the wiki and its inhabitants)--Thinboy00 @202, i.e. 03:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
(undent)Striking my old text, because I feel we need wider community input, and the text implies that deprecation is imminent, which I (now) feel is certainly not the case (more discussion is needed first; an RfC might be the next order of business). --Thinboy00 @224, i.e. 04:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
There has been some controversy regarding the usefulness of this template and its redundancy. This can be seen at this template's more recent two TfD's (see top of this page). An alternative to deletion is deprecation (see Template:Qif for an example, but note that it is possible to deprecate a template without disabling its functionality -- namely, by prepending ((Tdeprecated-inline))
and retaining existing code.). There has been intermittant discussion on the talk page, and wider community input is desired.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinboy00 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 25 March 2009
((Editprotected))
Can an admin please remove the ((DMCA)) from the template? It adds all pages with this template to Category:Articles with unsourced statements and Category:All articles with unsourced statements. Both of those categories are only for articles with ((Fact)) or ((Citation needed)). Thank you. Samwb123T-C-@ 01:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't like the current wording "Please help add inline citations to guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies".
Which is better expressed by: "Please add inline citations to document facts to reliable sources and facilitate further research."
The current wording does not make a lot of sense. Particularly now that a list of general references are not considered on their own to be adequate as citations and that to meet policy requirements if text needs a citation it must be an inline citation.
The major problem is that "This article is missing citations or needs footnotes." is not clear. It implies that citations are separate from footnotes but in most articles that carry in-line citations the citations are in footnotes (If not then then are in parentheses). This template would be less confusing if the first sentence was dropped.
The table in the documentation section is also inaccurate, because despite the name ((unreferenced)) it does not ask for references it states "This article does not cite any references or sources". and then asks "Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources." No where does it ask for references. -- PBS (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This template was obviously written by a cart00ney. Footnotes have no relevance for copyright law purposes. Adding a footnote would not be a defense for large blocks of text copied verbatim. The lack of a footnote where only an idea has been taken is not copyright infringement. Citations are good for Wikipedia, but they have nothing to do with copyright. This template should not falsely imply otherwise. Savidan 17:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Remove the copywrite language or unprotect.—Machine Elf 1735 13:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
((ambox | name = Citations missing | subst = <includeonly>((subst:</includeonly><includeonly>substcheck))</includeonly> | type = content | text = Please help improve this (({1|article))} '''by adding [[Wikipedia:inline citations|inline citations]] to [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]]. Unsourced material may be [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|challenged and removed]]. | cat = Articles with unsourced statements | date = (({date|))} | all = All articles with unsourced statements ))
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Senator2029 | talk | contribs 00:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This redirect seems like it should point to ((Unreferenced)) instead of ((Refimprove)). There's some ambiguity in the phrase "citations missing". Does it mean some or all? I think that "all" is the stronger connotation. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw the note "citation needed" and "timeframe." How do I add the citation and timeframe info? I couldn't find how to do that.
Thank you for your assistance, Julie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie from Monroe Systems (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
~~~~
. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)Regards, Spintendo 21:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Twinkle needs to be updated so that it can display the template again - the current version does not list the template for whatever reason. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:More citations needed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the code in ((More citations needed)) where it now says:
| fix = Please help [((fullurl:((FULLPAGENAME))|action=edit)) improve this article] by [[Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1|adding citations to reliable sources]]. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
| removalnotice = yes
Making it instead say:
| fix = Please help [((fullurl:((FULLPAGENAME))|action=edit)) improve this article] by [[Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1|adding citations to reliable sources]]. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.<br /><small>((find sources mainspace))</small><br />
| removalnotice = yes
This will add
Find sources: "Archive 5" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR
which is appropriate for a maintenance tag suggesting the inclusion of additional references. The change is reflected at Template:More citations needed/sandbox and has been tested using Special:ExpandTemplates with no adverse occurrences indicated. Thank you. --John Cline (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest resources accessed through the Wikipedia library program, be included. (Logins for research databases, like neespapers.com that I use a lot, given on application.) deisenbe (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
These are just the ones I use most often. Different editors would use different ones. See Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Databases for a current list. deisenbe (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "(article title)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
This article needs additional citations. Please help by adding reliable source citations. Find sources: "(article title)" news, newspapers, books, scholar, JSTOR.
These are superfluous.
Should have a link to a talk page section for discussion, at which place the above superfluous details can be mentioned.
This article needs additional citations. Please help by adding reliable sources citations. Talk section. Find sources: "(article title)" news, newspapers, books, scholar, JSTOR.
-ApexUnderground (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the template:More citations needed doesn't link any kind of ope source of informations, which is released under an open-license or a public-domain-equivalent license. It would be helpful to add in the template a link to DOAJ or to the WP List of open-access journals, some of which are peer-reviewed.
This would be compliant with Wikipedia as an open and collaborative project. It also would enable user to make a back-up copy into the Internet Archive, archive.is or similar websites for their long-term digital preservation, avoiding to have broken links to be checked inti the WP articles. Hope it helps.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The TemplateData for this template seem to be outdated. They don't reflect how the parameters actually behave. I propose some fixes, but I wanted to consult here about them before I attempt them on this very popular template.
"talk": {
"label": "See talk page",
"description": "Any value (such as 'y') for this parameter will result in the addition of 'See talk page for details.' to the tag",
"type": "boolean",
"required": false,
"example": "y"
},
I propose replacing with:
"talk": {
"label": "Section name on talk page",
"description": "Section name on talk page where further information or discussion can be found",
"type": "string",
"required": false
},
in line with other templates. This template uses an Ambox. Just read the documentation there. That means that the text in the "talk" parameter becomes part of the link to the talk page, as a section. It's not a boolean value at all.
Just look:
((More citations needed|talk=This is a test; hover over the talk page link in the template))
"small": {
"label": "Small",
"description": "Set to 'y' to make the template box smaller",
"example": "y",
"type": "boolean",
"default": "n"
}
I propose replacing with:
"small": {
"label": "Small",
"description": "Enter any text to make the template box smaller. Leave blank to leave it unchanged.",
"example": "y",
"type": "boolean",
"default": "n",
"autovalue": "y"
}
Once again, as an Ambox, and based on the specific code in this template, any value at all in the "small" parameter causes the box to change into a small, left-hand side version. Despite what the Ambox page says, "left" is a meaningless value in this template. Meanwhile, an empty value leaves it unchanged. "n" or "no" in the parameter also turns it into a small box, against what it currently says, so it needs to be changed. The default value may as well be "y" also, but it's entirely unnecessary if an autovalue is present.
Example:
((More citations needed|small=n))
In addition to these critical updates, I propose some additional updates of convenience.
"1": {
"label": "Type (typically section)",
"description": "This parameter allows an editor to replace the default word \"article\" with another word, usually the word \"section\"",
"type": "string",
"required": false,
"default": "article",
"example": "section"
},
I propose adding
"autovalue": "section",
in line with some other templates. The only time anyone's going to be clicking this parameter is to turn the notice into a section notice. Save everyone some time.
"date": {
"label": "Month and year",
"description": "The month and year that the need for citations is identified, such as 'June 2013'; may use '((subst:DATE))' template instead; if not specified, this parameter will be filled automatically by a bot",
"type": "string",
"required": false,
"autovalue": "((subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME)) ((subst:CURRENTYEAR))",
"suggested": true
},
I propose adding
"example": "June 2013",
in line with other templates, to make it just that bit more obvious for those who blank the box and don't know how to click the question mark.
Hopefully these proposals go down well. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Your feedback would be welcome at this discussion concerning the impact of using ((find sources)) in templates that have "section" variants, such as ((unreferenced section)), and others. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
((trim|((#section-h:Template talk:More citations needed|Background))))
Recent changes to a series of templates (i.e., ((unreferenced)) (diff), ((More citations needed)) (diff), and ((More medical citations needed)) (diff) ) and their analogous *_section templates altered the output of these templates to add the output of ((find sources)) to the template display. In this template, this occurred in revision 880434394. These changes were originally requested in this discussion, and a related follow-up Rfc discussion is here.
The intent of this change was desirable, but caused some undesirable knock-on effects to existing invocations of the analogous section-level templates (i.e., (((unreferenced section)), ((More citations needed section))). These undesirable effects are described in detail along with a proposed fix here. The fix requires changes to templates in pairs, and the fix was implemented for templates ((unreferenced)) (diff), and ((unreferenced section)) (diff) on July 2. The same undesirable effects are present in this template and the analogous section-level template. They need to be fixed in the same way as ((unreferenced)) and ((unreferenced section)) were.
Fixing this pair of templates means creation of, or changes to six files :
Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This has now been implemented in three template sandboxes:
All tests appear to be working properly. This matches the functionality recently added to ((Unreferenced)) and ((Unreferenced section)). If there's no objection in around a week, I'll move this live. Normally, I'd prepare sandbox versions of the /doc pages for each one as well, but the changes are very similar to the changes to ((Unreferenced/doc)) and ((Unreferenced section/doc)) that they can just be done live after the templates are released. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Mathglot, and all. I have just used this at Jacques_Cousteau#Filmography and it does not look OK to me. The link to the talk page does not show up, and the template is crammed on the left side of the page. - Nabla (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
|small=
parameter) and these show that this template is failing (after reversion) when |small=n
or |small=y
is used. Is it possible there was an earlier error not related to the most recent change to the template? Still checking... Mathglot (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)|small=
parameter has a value (n, y, or a bad value) the bug is produced (small banner, flush left). Empty value doesn't produce the error. I'm going to try and narrow it down further to see how far back it goes. Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)|talk=
and |small=
, and there was no talk link either in the wide banner, or the small one. I came here to post this as a question to you whether something much bigger was going on, and by the time I hit SAVE here, the problem vanished. Then I thought, okay, it works in template space, but there's something squirrely about trying it from my sandbox, so I went back there, and after refreshing the page, it worked there, too. So, something was just fixed somewhere in the last five minutes. Now I really don't know where we stand. I'll try reverting the change to Jacques Cousteau, and see if it's working now. I don't know what else to say. Mathglot (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Oh, except NPOV small is not working at all. See my sandbox, or here's one:((NPOV|talk=Discuss it))
((NPOV|talk=Discuss it|small=y))
((NPOV|talk=Discuss it|small=left))
((NPOV|talk=Discuss it|small=right))
html body.mediawiki .mbox-small-left
using a copy of the definition for html body.mediawiki .mbox-small
in MediaWiki:Common.css instead, but I haven't tried that.Hey there, no idea how traveled this talk page is, but is there any way someone could add a |reason=
parameter here? In these edits I added an explanation for why I was flagging it (knowing that it wouldn't display) but I think it should display! Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
|reason=
param in the wikicode, I don't see an advantage in displaying it. The reason is, that the banner is aimed at editors not readers, and only a tiny number of editors will pick up the gauntlet and attempt to do something about it the missing references. When they do, they will see the "reason" that you left. All those other editors that don't follow up, will have to just skip even more text than they do now. Can you think of a use case where having a visible "reason" param would lead to the article having references added more quickly than otherwise, to offset the additional bother? After all, the underlying reason is always the same: there aren't enough references for the amount of content in the section or article. Or, am I missing something? Mathglot (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)This edit request to Template:More citations needed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Template:More citations needed has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:
((subst:tfm|help=off|1=More citations needed section))
to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:More citations needed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
@Elli: I request the template be removed. This is the merged-to template, it has a ton of transclusions, and there is about a snowball's chance in hell of the discussion closing with action that impacts this template's behavior (there's not no support for a merge, but so little that any merge will be REQUIRED to not impact this template's behavior). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Based on the TfD I was curious whether we would be able to have the template detect whether it's in a section and then automatically toggle its "section" param. If possible, that would save a lot of headache. (not watching, please ((ping))
) czar 17:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Reimprove. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 5#Template:Reimprove until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:MCN. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#Template:MCN until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:More citations needed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bold suggestion: Replace File:Question book-new.svg with File:OOjs UI icon notice-warning.svg, in line with Wikipedia's mobile interface and aiding its ongoing transition into more modern web design. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:More citations needed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Template:More citations needed has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:
((subst:tfm|help=off|1=BLP sources))
to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Mathglot dislikes these good examples:
((More citations needed|find=search "" keyword(s)|((subst:DATE))))
((More citations needed|find2=search keyword(s)|((subst:DATE))))
((More citations needed|find=search "" keyword(s)|((subst:DATE))))