Template talk:Primarysources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template is one of several templates used to provide or request sources for articles.

Contents 1 Reformatted and moved 2 Vandalized by an anonymous sockpuppet 3 Terminology and confusion 4 Primary Sources 5 Requested move 5.1 Survey 5.1.1 Oppose 5.2 Discussion 6 What is the difference 7 If no such sources exist 8 Template syntax problem 9 Non compliant 9.1 The current wording is incompatible with WP:V and WP:RS 10 Rename or move? 10.1 Merge 10.2 Move to Template:Reliablesources 10.3 Rewording the template Template talk:Primarysources, 11 Primarysources = Unsourced? 12 Primary Sources Tag Explanation 13 "or add more" 14 REWORD 15 Categories not being added? 16 Reliable sources has been supereceded by Attribution

[edit] Reformatted and moved

I've reformatted this template to the talk page style, and moved all uses of it to the talk page. In general templates meant for editors, which this most certainly is, belong on talk pages. Moreover only relying on primary sources is not a great problem, and is explicitly permitted by official policies like Wikipedia:No original research. - SimonP 04:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalized by an anonymous sockpuppet

This template was recently vandalized by an anonymous sockpuppet of User:Hogeye. I fixed it. --AaronS 04:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology and confusion

I think using primary sources in general can actually be quite useful. The problem this template is trying to address is that of using self-referential primary sources. I think the title "primarysources" is a bit confusing as a result. -- Beland 20:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Would a change of the title to "Template:Reliablesources" resolve that problem. I've only been on WP for a few months, and I find the lack of citations, and the citations of web pages of dubious value, to be issues that need to be addressed. Unevaluated presentation of primary sources is a different problem that may need to be addressed as "poor analysis" or something along that line. --SteveMcCluskey 20:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Especially in scientific articles, primary sources are very useful. Probably need a template for that. Chaos syndrome 11:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Beland. I think this template and its text should be changed from "primary sources" to "self referential sources." JianLi 06:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primary Sources

This template frustrated me when I saw it. Are primary sources not the most useful source of information; so long as it is well filtered for bias. Who says what a reliable source is? Time Magazine? Nat Geo?

The project has turned from a free compendium of knowledge to something a lot more pretentious --BesigedB ^(talk) 19:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the difference

Between this template and {{self-published}}? -- ReyBrujo 05:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

{{self-published}} is concerned with using self-published sources as secondary sources rather than as primary sources. This one seems to assume that there's something wrong with primary sources themselves, which is misleading. I've suggested it be renamed and reworded deal with unreliable sources rather than primary sources because of this. -- Bailey^(talk) 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true at all. See my explanation above. -- Satori Son 22:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If no such sources exist

Perhaps we should add a small line that if no such sources exist the article does not warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia? —Centrx→talk • 06:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I am not sure, people reading such tag stating that the article may not be worth would remove it on sight... -- ReyBrujo 13:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, for some articles, albeit a very small percentage, primary sources alone are sufficient. This tag is intended for use on those articles that, while citing a primary source, do not provide secondary sources to support the analysis and context. Many, many television show and comic fiction articles need this tag, but I think the best solution for those is clean-up and sourcing, not deletion. -- Satori Son 14:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For what articles are primary sources sufficient? This is stated above, but there is no support shown for it. —Centrx→talk • 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The policy, even with examples, comes from Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, which states "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or Braunfeld v. Brown). An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." I have expressed some concerns with that language, especially its seeming contradiction with language from Wikipedia:Verifiability, but it is official policy nonetheless. -- Satori Son 18:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is misleading; while they can rely on primary sources, they should not rely entirely on primary sources. Secondary sources might be insufficient to make a complete article in these cases, but there are secondary sources on any encyclopedic subject, which summarize and corroborate. In the case of current events, there are newspapers and magazines that go back and check before reporting again, and for legal cases there are law journals, magazines, and even later cases that confirm an interpretation using it as precedent. —Centrx→talk • 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to what you refer as misleading. Whether an article "should" rely entirely on primary sources or not, official Wikipedia policy clearly states that it is permissible in rare instances (the word "entirely" itself is actually used). Even if I agree with you, and for the most part I actually do, we seem restrained by policy from rewriting this template to prohibit the exclusive use of primary sources for an article. Have there been discussion elsewhere to possibly change this policy? The only recent debate I have seen regarding this is occurring at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Primary sources, again., but there is no indication there of a desire to change WP:OR in this manner. -- Satori Son 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is "permissible" on Wikipedia to have no sources at all, and many articles have no sources at all, but as with any sourcing it is optimal—and possible—to have these secondary sources even in the mentioned rare instances. As with any policy page, we can make changes and if there is disagreement it is discussed, but the policy page is incorrect about it. The change is also not that major, and it is not difficult to come up with viable secondary sources for apple pie or Braunfeld v. Brown (at least, the examples are bad if I can disqualify them just by Lexis-Nexis and Google). —Centrx→talk • 23:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While I see your overall point, this template was modified to bring it line with existing policy. If you feel that a policy is incorrect, it should be discussed on the talk page for that policy to gather a wide consensus rather than on this template's talk. I've commented on the rest below. -- Bailey^(talk) 16:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

See below. —Centrx→talk • 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How about something a little more implicit like. "Wikipedia articles must be supported by reliable secondary sources." Also, secondary sources are not merely "to provide interpretation or context", they are also to have articles with reliable information. That was lost when the template was changed; secondary sources are not merely about the sources being independent of the subject, they are a third party deciding that a subject has a certain importance, and that third party making efforts to verify that information. —Centrx→talk • 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

According to NOR, though, interpretation and context precisely defines what a primary source can't provide and a secondary source can. That's really the only difference between primary and secondary sources categorically. Some primary sources may be less reliable than some secondary sources in some cases, but they aren't categorically less reliable. Ultimately, I would think that virtually all articles will need context and interpretation before they're complete, but that's an issue of completeness, not unacceptable sources. If the sources being used in an article are unacceptable, we have seperate templates for that. As far as establishing the importance of a subject, my feeling is that that's a form of providing context, since real-world relevance can only be established relative to the real world. Regardless, any article that fails to establish the notability of it's subject can always be nominated for deletion. -- Bailey^(talk) 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What are the separate templates for unacceptable sources or sources being used unacceptably? —Centrx→talk • 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, {{unreliable}} deals directly with the use of unreliable sources. {{self-published}} also deals with at least one specific misuse of primary source material. -- Bailey^(talk) 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What about for cases where there are no secondary, reliable sources, and the reason for having them is not simply to provide "context"? This is the much more common case, and the prior wording of this template. Also, note that while primary sources are not categorically inferior to secondary sources, the problem is that the more primary a source, the more editors need to do their own analysis and interpretation of it. Ultimately, we don't need any sources at all for any article about mathematics or physics, but we need them to ensure that someone is not using their own naive interpretation, or that there are not flaws in their proofs; we don't need sources on historical persons, all of the writings and newspapers of the time are available, but who is to decide which interpretation of them is incorrect except reliable sources? —Centrx→talk • 23:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You've confused me a little here. You say above that while primary sources are not categorically inferior to secondary sources, the problem is that the more primary a source, the more editors need to do their own analysis and interpretation of it. Original analysis and interpretation of primary sources is explictly forbidden by WP:NOR. Primary sources are only acceptable to source soley descriptive claims, with no interpretation. If an article is using only primary sources, but only uses them to make soley descriptive, non-interpretive claims, the article is not violating any policy -- it's just incomplete. That's why "needs secondary sources to provide context and interpretation" makes sense to me.

The thing I've concerned about is diagnosing the symptom and not the disease. I agree that an article lacking secondary sources is more likely to suffer from original reasearch/interpretation, speculation, or lack of NPOV balance. Many articles that lack primary sources will also qualify for AfD for notability reasons. If primary sources are not categorically inferior, though, and NOR states that in some cases using entirely primary sources is okay, we should endevour to say what the specific problem with an article is. Primary sources are already confusing enough -- the term means something quite different in history than it does in science. The only thing we can say for certain about an article that uses only primary sources is that there's no legal way for that article to provide "context or interpretation", which is necessary to completeness. If we want to identify other problems, we can use other templates, or even create other templates, to avoid conflating the issues. Templates are cheap. -- Bailey^(talk) 16:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, there is a person adding the template in order to specifically question the reliability of the sources. It continues to be useful to do so, in all cases where there are no such "exceptions", even supposing the perfect correctness of the policy with exceptions. There is a need for such a template, and that need was formerly satisfied by this template. Further, these templates were added by people based on the old wording. The overwhelming majority of pages that have this template have it because someone thought the article needed reliable, secondary sources. The current wording of the template makes no sense in these cases; these articles have plenty of "context" and little need for "interpretation". You cannot change a template currently in use to mean something substantially different. Create a new template. —Centrx→talk • 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that I repeatedly have occasion to use this template, and before that purpose was properly served by this template, which was created for that purpose and served that purpose until it was only very recently changed. Note that in the new wording you proposed, this is rather redundant with {{context}}. —Centrx→talk • 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am genuinely sorry you do not approve of our good faith efforts to bring this template in line with current official policy. It would have been nice if you could have expressed your concerns earlier when a renaming of this template was proposed above. (Perhaps a renaming would have been more appropriate?) Anyway, I've said my peace and you remain unconvinced, so I'll let it go for now. -- Satori Son 18:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Another template can be made, and this one renamed (though the old name would have to remain a redirect at least for many months). Note that it is and always has always been official policy, without dispute, that articles that do not fall under the rare exceptions require reliable, secondary sources. This template can be used in those cases. The template would not need to be added to every article that only has primary sources, but to articles where those primary sources are insufficient that someone is flagging. This is not in conflict with any policy. —Centrx→talk • 21:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template syntax problem

Hiya, I've noticed that there's a push to use dates with this template. Currently, the proper syntax is: {{primarysources|article|date=<month year>}}. However, this is very non-intuitive, especially because with most other dated templates, the syntax is simpler, like {{uncat|December 2006}}. However, using that format with {{primarysources}} gets rather bizarre results. Can someone here update the code, so that it can accept the simpler date format? Or should we perhaps make another template that's easier to use? --Elonka 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non compliant

The previous version of this template contradicted established guidelines for reliable sources. I have added language to explaiu when primary sources published by the subject can be used. in articles. See WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ATT etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Aside from anything else, 4 lines is way too long. Anyway, this template does not say that every single statement in the article must be cited in third-party publications; non-independent sources are acceptable in certain cases. At one extreme this template says that an article does not have any third-party sources, and that is the situation in which it is most commonly used. This template is used less on articles which cite some, but not many, third-party sources; still, articles must be based on third-party sources. The title of the template and its wording with regard to "primary sources" may warrant changing, but what the template clearly means is non-independent sources, and what it says about them is accurate. —Centrx→talk • 22:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, editors are using this article too inconsistently. The explanation is needed, but maybe you can summarize it or shorten it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please find agreement on the talk page before editing the template Jeepday 00:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeepday, we cannot have a template that contradicts policy and/or established guidelines about which there is consensus. I have amended the template to contain wording that makes the template compliant with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

To prevent edit and revert wars that show up on all of the pages that have the Primarysources tag please post your suggested changes and reasoning on the this talk page to reach consensus with all editors before changing the text of the template. Jeepday 13:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• see also Wikipedia:The Most Important Thing Possible Jeepday 13:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The current wording is incompatible with WP:V and WP:RS

I have discussed my edits and provided arguments for why it needs to be modified so that it does not contradicts established policies (WP:V) and guidelines (WP:RS), related to the use of primary sources in articles about the author(s) themselves. I have highlighted below the additions I find to be necessary for this not to contradict guidelines:

This article or section does not cite any sources or references that appear in a credible, third-party publication. The sources provided are primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article, which are acceptable under certain circumstances and if accompanied by third-party sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations from reliable sources.

See:

• WP:V#Sources
• WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the version I came up with before Jeepday reverted everything? [1] I thought this resolved the issue. —Centrx→talk • 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for brining it here.

I personally prefer the version presented by User:Jossi IMO it is more clear, I personally would change any to should as below. It gives direction without being as threatening. Just my thoughts the edit belongs to you all, I just post it.

This article or section should cite sources or references that appear in a credible, third-party publication. The sources provided are primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article, which are acceptable under certain circumstances and if accompanied by third-party sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations from reliable sources. Jeepday 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles without any third-party sources are deleted. Also, the template does not need to describe what is on the page ("The sources provided are..."); that is unnecessary and unusual, templates describe what is wrong with the page. Also, this is far too long, and the ther version included the relevant information. —Centrx→talk • 23:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Users are misusing this template because it is misleading. Primary sources are OK sources in the circumstances addressed by the template. The wording The sources provided are primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article means that it isnot OK to use such sources, when actually WP:V states the contrary. Work with me here Centrx, and propose a wording that addresses this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I already did, and it did not have the problematic phrasing. Look at the revision before Jeepday reverted. —Centrx→talk • 03:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

* User Perspective offered - I use the tag primarysources a lot when I working the Stubsensor cleanup project; you can help!. The article “what-ever” is built as or gets tagged as a stub. A helpful person comes along goes to “what-ever.com” web page copies and pastes the link into the article as an external link. Next helpful user comes along grabs (and hopefully rephrases) a bunch of content from “what-ever.com”. Some other helpful user does some wikification. The page is no longer a stub has lots of valuable content but still needs work, and primarily at this point it needs references and content from other then “what-ever.com”. Even if Cummins (recently edited example, (also note why I didn’t like the word “any” in Jossi’s proposal)) was originally self published (not saying it was or was not) it is definitely notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The next step is helping the article broaden it’s point of view and the references. IMHO articles are not born perfect they are edited into perfection by multiple editors, tags are a tool to help guide that growth. Jeepday 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrx version was an excellent compromise in addressing the issue at hand. Tags are only helpful when they encourage editors to move an article along toward compliance with policies. Restored Centrx version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename or move?

While I greatly appreciate your decision to post for discussion before making a move. Make up your mind User:Centrx do you want rename it to Reliablesources or your tag 5 minutes later to merge it to Unreferenced?

1. (cur) (last) 07:00, 10 January 2007 Centrx (Talk | contribs) ({{mergeto|Unreferenced}} see talk page there)
2. (cur) (last) 06:55, 10 January 2007 Centrx (Talk | contribs) (Propose rename to Template:Reliablesources; Also, it might be good to do some consolidation with the other templates anyway. Any case where an article would warrant Template:Unreferenced only?)

And why do you want to discuss it on the Template talk:Unreferenced that you chose not to include the merge tag on, instead of here? The Tag {{moveto|Template:Reliablesources}} clearly directs discussion to occur on this talk page ‘Discussion to support or oppose the move should be on this talk page, usually under the heading "Requested move."’

To me a tag named Reliablesources implies that sources (references) all ready on the page are not reliable. While the Tag Primary Sources clearly indicates that more references are needed with out implying fault with the ones currently there (even if they are) “Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article”. The Tag {{Self-published}} is available to as well as a whole list on Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles to question the accuracy of references. Jeepday 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• If it is not merged, it should still be renamed. They are separate things, though the merge could be discussed first and concluded.
• I forgot to put the merge tag on Template:Unreferenced. It is there now. The idea is just to have a centralized place for discussion, and the original merge tag I used here had Template talk:Unreferenced as that centralized place. It does not really matter where it is, though Template talk:Unreferenced would probably be better because it is probably a more watched page.
• I don't see why "Reliablesources" would imply that the sources on the page are not reliable, but "Primarysources" would not imply that the sources on the page are not primary. The emphasis of the template is not actually primary sources; that's not how it's used and primary sources are acceptable for articles. A newspaper is a "primary source". Anyway, the purpose is to consolidate these templates, to simplify their use and maintenance.
• What do you think about the merge? I am thinking it might be better to simply change the Unreferenced template to refer to "credible third-party sources", without using the "Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated..." part, as that does not really fit if the person used independent sources but did not cite them. —Centrx→talk • 16:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

If you merged Template:Unreferenced and Template talk:Primarysources then it starts getting big and leads issues over size like this Template_talk:Citations_missing#Definitely_a_useful_distinction_but_needs_to_be_more_compact_.28also_a_suggestion.29. Also if you are going to merge it with Template:Unreferenced it would be completely redundant to move it, my understanding of a merge is that one goes away and redirects to the other. So if you moved it and merged it where would you redirect Template talk:Primarysources to Template:Unreferenced or Template:Reliablesources? Also the merge Idea was not well received on Template_talk:Unreferenced#Merge_with_Template:Primarysources.3F So I would like to suggest that you withdraw that suggestion and we can discuss your two remaining points. 1. Rewording the template 2. Possibly moving the template to Template:Reliablesources Jeepday 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it would be no greater than the size of the current Template:Primarysources. If merged, it might warrant being moved to Template:Sources or Template:Reliablesources. No one has yet commented on the merge at Template_talk:Unreferenced#Merge_with_Template:Primarysources.3F; one person made a bizarre 'vote' with no explanation. That's meaningless. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

* That person has responded with more detail.

* Why would a vote be meaningless? Jeepday 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Decisions on Wikipedia are not made by simply casting ballots. They are made based on reasons, with reference to the principles of a free, neutral encyclopedia and from policies derived therefrom. This is even more of a problem if, as in this case, someone uses voting as a first resort. You could have a reasonable vote if it was widely advertised, if it was ensured that the users voting had the principles of Wikipedia at heart and were in fact independent persons rather than sockpuppets or meatpuppets, and if a long discussion period preceded the vote, but that is far from the case here. There are several problems with polling in general or setting up a poll, but in this case I wasn't even making some formal proposal and the comment was presented in the most tentative, self-questioning manner; I was simply asking a question with possible ideas about what to do about it and immediately find that someone responds with a "No. Bye." That is bizarre is not helpful at all; that does not tell me why the ideas are wrong, or possible alternatives that correct the problem I see. That does not even tell me that the person who did it actually considered what I was proposing or the reasons behind it. The alternative possibility which I came up with after reading your objections with reasons would never have been conceived if everyone simply responded with "Yes" and "No", and you can see that in his further explanation the same alternative addresses the concern. I don't think Template:Unreferenced should be replaced with Template:Primarysources; that was the solution I came up with before but it is not good. That's what consensus is here: Reasonable people with similar goals discussing issues, coming up with solutions, and deliberating over what would be best. I say "There's a problem, here's a possible solution", someone else says "Here's a problem with that solution", I say "Oh yes, you are right, here is an alternative", or maybe someone says "There's no problem, here's why". See also Wikipedia:Consensus, m:Polling is evil, and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion for general issues. —Centrx→talk • 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Template:Reliablesources

A move to Template:Reliablesources would require an a text that we could all agree upon and a redirect from here Template talk:Primarysources to there Template:Reliablesources, So I would like to suggest that we leave this topic open for discussion but table it until the more primary question of what the text will say is resolved. Agreed? Jeepday 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A move to Template:Reliablesources or a similar wording but not "Primary sources", such as Template:Crediblesources, could use the very same text. What is wrong with the current text? —Centrx→talk • 01:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is wrong with the current text? Your the one who suggested changing it. See Template_talk:Primarysources#Rewording_the_template_Template_talk:Primarysources.2C below. Jeepday 14:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of the Template:Unreferenced template, but the current wording here would still be appropriate for cases where there are sources, but not reliable or independent ones. —Centrx→talk • 14:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewording the template Template talk:Primarysources,

I am always open to rewording for clarification, that is what Wikipedia is about. So what you are suggesting as I under stand it is changing the text from Current (as below) to Proposed (as below)? P.S. Life may keep me from responding for a couple days, if a detailed reply is indicated. Jeepday 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Current - This article or section needs sources or references that appear in credible, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. Please include appropriate citations from reliable sources.

Proposed – This article or section needs sources or references that appear in credible, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. Please include appropriate citations from reliable sources.

The possibility was to use the text without "Alone, primary sources..." on Template:Unreferenced, while keeping the current text at this template, not merging them. —Centrx→talk • 01:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So you are suggesting changing the text to match Proposed above (I changed the strike out for clarification)? Jeepday 14:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page there. I mean without the sentence about the current state of the article. This would still be a sort of merge, but it would not be replacing Template:Unreferenced with this one. This would just be a change on Template:Unreferenced, not Template:Primarysources (though I think a move of some sort is still be appropriate). —Centrx→talk • 15:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a specific change suggest it, WRITE IT DOWN SO EVERYONE CAN SEE IT, you are alluding to change this to that with a wave of your keyboard but I (for one) have no idea what you even what to change it to. You have 3 separate ideas here that appear to be linked to a single issue. I am trying to understand but everything is to fragmented and your not making yourself clear, one place your asking for a change and two paragraphs away you are challenging me for mentioning it. On the 18th of december you User:Centrx changed the wording of this template and reported you were happy with it. So if any one of the changes you are talking about was done now, how long are you going to be happy with it?

I am rambling and probably being a bit grumpy (I apologize if so) In part you are talking about changes that have all ready been discussed and closed. Is there really a big difference between the suggestion above to move to Template:Questionablesources and your suggestion to move to Template:Reliablesources?

Try this write down what the you believe the problem is give detail and reference so others can see what you see. Maybe list some possible solutions to resolve the issue as you see it. Leave it on your computer a couple days and think about it then post it. You have some good points and some valid concerns but your presentation is so confusing it makes your solution impossible to see. Jeepday 05:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article." is compliant with current policies. Without that caveat, it does not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If an article needs third-party sources, then it must not have them or it must not have enough. This is just a matter of wording. —Centrx→talk • 23:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primarysources = Unsourced?

What's the difference between this template and {{unsourced}}? They both seem to have the same exact meaning, except that {{Primarysources}} is more verbose about it. - Brian Kendig 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A page tagged with {{Primarysources}} might have "sources", but not third-party sources. See #Rename or move? above. —Centrx→talk • 22:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary Sources Tag Explanation

I was requested to explain why I had used a Primarysources tag on the article Churnet Valley Railway. Well, one thing lead to another and I wrote this in my sandbox User:Jeepday/Sandbox/Primary Sources Tag Explanation. It is well wiki-linked to support the explanation, please feel free to comment on it, or use it. Jeepday 16:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "or add more"

I have changed the last line to "Please include or add more appropriate citations from reliable sources." This way this template is a universal template for articles which need more sources, need better sources, or don't have any sources and need good sources. If anyone objects to the edit, please discuss here. I also think this makes the Primarysources template preferable over unreferenced. --Anthony5429 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also now made appropriate changes to other wording in the template. Please discuss here if you have a question about it. --Anthony5429 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] REWORD

This needs to be reworded - in the wikipedia article on reliable sources, it says that primary sources CAN be used if they are reputable. I saw this tag on an NFL Draft page where the source was the NFL website. Obviously that's a fine source, but the wording of this template led someone to believe it's not.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 22:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:N#The_primary_notability_criterion a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. But at the same time per WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. So while you can can probably argue a single source of the NFL web site is reliable, using only that source leaves the article open to criticism of failure to pass Wikipedia:Notability which it needs to do if you want the article to be able to pass an WP:AFD. Additionally it needs to meet all three of Wikipedia's core content policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and that can be challenging to do with only primary source. So it kind of breaks down to while the NFL site is probably ok for referencing a fact or two, if it is the only reference available the article most likely has other shortcomings that need to be addressed, or it has other reference available that should be used to remove any question that the article is encyclopedic. Jeepday 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources- one of those (it's linked to in the template - Primary sources are ok if they are "reputable." This is not mentioned in the template and as I stated above therefore the template has been misused.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 01:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And I don't really care about that one instance - your arguing the instance I'm arguing that this template contradicts basic Wikipedia policy.

"So it kind of breaks down to while the NFL site is probably ok for referencing a fact or two, if it is the only reference available the article most likely has other shortcomings that need to be addressed, or it has other reference available that should be used to remove any question that the article is encyclopedic."

If an article should be deleted it should be deleted, but this is not a deletion template so obviously it was misused.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 01:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the quote, but a Wikipedia article must have reliable independent sources. That primary sources can be used in certain cases to support an article, does not mean that an entire article can be created with only primary sources. —Centrx→talk • 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Omg - I just realized what I did. the template was incorectly placed on a page with multiple sources (obviously refering to the NFL one), so I skimmed through it and missed the "alone" part (probably since I was assuming it was correctly placed according to it). Wow I look like an idiot. I need to stop assuming things.... sorry bout that.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 02:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories not being added?

I've recently added the template to Superheist, Singapore Art Museum, Rosmini College and Ash Comic Convention, yet the articles aren't being added to the relevant categories. One Night In Hackney_IRA 15:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed; I hope I haven’t broken anything. —xyzzy_n 15:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources has been supereceded by Attribution

Reliable sources has been supereceded by Attribution. Should this template be updated to refer to current policy.--ZayZayEM 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS (which this template links to) now redirects to Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources. --Geniac 15:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)