31

During private beta, many of us realized that Citation Needed would make a really awesome name for this site. It illustrates well out desire for evidence, our affinity with references, and it's a phrase that has been made popular by Wikipedia. It sounds like a perfect match to me.

Most SE 2.0 sites don't have their own names but a few do, like Seasoned Advice, CrossValidated and AskDifferent, because they have great names. I think Citation Needed is in the same ballpark.

Usual meta rules apply:

  • Upvote if you agree.
  • Downvote if you disagree.

Of course, if you have a better idea, share it! Bear in mind that a new name is not mandatory, but if we can find a great one we should adopt it. Don't suggest a name you don't believe in.

NB: CitationNeeded.com is currently taken, but it doesn't look like it's a site one can't be persuaded to part with. Either way, let's first see what the support for the name is.

| |
  • I never liked CrossValidated for the statistical site. Guess I shoulda paid attention and discussed/voted. – Paul Apr 5 '11 at 23:27
  • 1
    Seasoned advice makes a nice pun on cooking... but is easily misconstrued. I honestly wasn't sure what I'd find there (e.g. Miss Manners/ Dr Laura/ Dr Phil type questions?). Same with AskDifferent – Paul Apr 5 '11 at 23:29
  • Have you ever wondered if the citations you citate (if that's a verb) have citations themselves, and if those citations have citations, and if they do, if those citations contain relevant well researched data, or just generalised conclusions to validate the author's theory – Chris S Apr 13 '11 at 21:53
9

I like [Citation Needed],

but if that gets us in trouble with Wikipedia, or is otherwise not possible, then what about

References Required

?

| |
  • [Citations Required], [Links Required] – Paul Apr 5 '11 at 23:18
  • Post them as 2 separate questions so we can vote :-) – Sklivvz Apr 5 '11 at 23:26
  • 1
    +1 for References Required not Citations Needed – Paul Apr 6 '11 at 5:57
  • 6
    I don’t see us getting in trouble with Wikipedia over that. After all, they don’t have a trademark for that, do they? I actually think the allusion to the Wikipedia tag is very apt, and I agree with your suggestion of the formatting. – Konrad Rudolph Apr 6 '11 at 14:57
  • 2
    @KonradRudolph: I agree. The allusion to the Wikipedia tag is what makes it cool. The other knockoffs (references requires, citation required, etc.) don't cut it for me. – Borror0 Apr 6 '11 at 18:38
  • @Borror0 References Required though still has a double meaning like Seasoned Advice or Ask Different. It also doesn't have the (very minor) negative connotation of [Citation Needed], in that it is used on wikipedia to mark unreferenced statements (cf. Citations Given) – Sklivvz Apr 28 '11 at 12:00
6

I'm starting to think [Duty Calls], or only slightly less obscurely SomeoneIsWrongOnTheInternet.com.

Named after this xckd cartoon, which is titled Duty Calls, it emphasizes the need for a claim to investigate.

: enter image description here

| |
  • 3
    I have an autographed print in the office just above my monitors... ;-) – Sklivvz Oct 9 '11 at 9:08
  • I like the in-joke but I think the title is too obnoxious. We don’t have to announce our motives to the unsuspecting surfer right away. – Konrad Rudolph Oct 13 '11 at 13:17
  • Wait @Konrad, I am not saying Skeptics.SE users are ever wrong! Banish the thought! I am saying many of our questions are 'I heard this on the Internet. Is it really true?' – Oddthinking Oct 14 '11 at 2:47
  • 2
    @Oddthinking I know what you mean. I just fear that people who don’t will get the impression that the name is serious, rather than a joke. – Konrad Rudolph Oct 14 '11 at 9:20
4

I like the name. It also might alleviate some confusion among new posters, who think that SkepticsSE is a philosophical site for, e.g., atheists. (Look at some of the closed questions).

| |
1

[Citations Required]

yabba dabba do, 30 character counter is watching you

| |
1

[Evidence Required]

I actually thought of that name before even looking at Sklivvz answer.

| |
0

If name suggestions are still possible than how about:

  • [Sleazy Science]
  • [Bad Knowledge]
  • [Imperfect Thoughts]
| |
-1

[Just the Facts]

12345678901234567890

| |
  • 3
    12345678901234567890 would be an awesome name (J/K) ;-) – Sklivvz Apr 6 '11 at 5:47
-2

[Really True?] seems to describe the questions asked here.

| |
-3

[FactCheck]

describes what happens here

| |
  • There's a website named that. – Andrew Grimm Apr 13 '11 at 6:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .