User talk:Hppavilion1

Hello, world!

(...and hello to you, from the world). I take it that the first page, that is:

 13:00 	Category:Templates using the "citation needed" template‎ (diff | hist) . . (+56)‎ . . Hppavilion1 (talk | contribs) (Created page with "List of statements using the "citation needed" template.")

...was not what you meant, given the different title/purpose to the page-name. I note your second creation is for pages that use the template (presumably both directly and via the likes of cn and fact redirection, but I haven't checked) does the job I think you find useful. And might be interesting.

I, for one, think that using {{Citation needed}} more than once every three or four articles is just looking for reasons to use it, not a thoutful and clever insertion, and this way we can at least easily establish the count, even if we hsve to then go in and be critical about each instance. ;)

Of course, we can't see how many articles use multiple calls to the template (which might be legitimate in Time or Hoverboard-style megacomic explanations) nor can we easily discover the direct use of the markup the CN-template invokes only through usage.

Anyway, I think I get your plan, though of course my thoughts and threshold are likely quite unlike anybody else's (both more conservative and more liberal than myself), and I'm not going to wage Holy Edit-war over my rough ideas on the matter.

I've not looked into why, but there currently seems an anomoly with the Bad Map Projections page, I think it was, being listed before the proper and paginated list. Did someone put in [[Citation needed]] instead of {{Citation needed}}? Maybe I'll dig into it. Not sure the above would work that way, anyway, but something might become obvious. If I see it I might edit the page responsible just to help out with that.

(Inserted postscript... So far as I can tell, it appears as a lone Subcategory because it is a Category page in its own right that uses the template within it, rather than appear as a (regular) page either in the list itself. If not in the Cs, for its "Category:" name, because "Talk:" pages don't store under T, I suppose I would have thought the 'page in its on right' placement would be in the Bs. But obviously the backend wikicode decides that being a special Category page puts it in as a subcat, like one might normally prefer other deliberately-nested category memberships to do. Interesting design philosophy. And I possibly learnt something new today!) 172.70.162.5 15:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC) (Vastly different IP, but same person as signed below. FYI.)

Anyway, never mind me. Just nice to see a User:Talk page. Once you've read this, you can remove it (or all bits you don't want to respond to, and reformat as you see fit), it's just my rambling thoughts, really! 162.158.159.31 15:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)