Wikipedia:Requested templates/Existing/2007/February

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Article size message template

I'm looking for a template which can be used to produce a message for an article where its size has grown too large - probably as part of the cleanup category templates. Stolen from Wikipedia:Article size, the following code:

<div id="longpagewarning" style="border-width:1px;border-style:solid;border-color:#aaaaaa;padding:3px"> '''Note:''' This page is XXX kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See [[Wikipedia:Article size]]. </div>

....produces this:

Which seems fine. I couldn't find any template similar to this, though. So, my questions, if you please:

1. Does anyone know of an already existing template similar to this?
2. If not, I'll create the template myself (would prefer to, as a way of learning), but am unsure of what can be used as a variable for the article size, which can normally (only?) be found when searching for the article in question

Any help would be appreciated. —Xhantar^Talk 10:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There are {{long}}, {{toolong}}, {{Verylong-section}}. PrimeHunter 13:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Article size is not available as a magic word or built-in variable so there is no way to do this automatically. —Dgies^t c 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. Any one of the templates mentioned by User:PrimeHunter will do the trick. For some reason I just wasn't able to find them listed or categorized anywhere. I assumed they would be listed at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup. —Xhantar^Talk 19:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inadequate Sources or Citations

Perhaps I'm missing a template that already exists but I really need a template that says something along the lines of: "Most or all of the references or citations in this article are inadequate as reliable sources. Please find verifiable and reliable sources for the information in this article." The example article for this is Heidi holt. Perhaps any one of the cites would be fine for substantiation of non-hoax or such for one fact, but when an entire article is hung on such thin sources, it seems to me this should be noted. {{ureliable}} probably comes closest but still doesn't quite cover this. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Offhand I could suggest Template:Primarysources, Template:Onesource, Template:Citecheck or Template:Unverifiable-external-links. None of these are exactly perfect. I'm not sure its worth making a specific template for the case where there are many citations but none of good quality. I would pick whichever of these looks best and leave a message on the talk page. If there is no response after a while, strike external links you feel are worthless as a source and then tag as lacking references. —Dgies^t c 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was afraid what I'm looking for is a little too specific and strange. I'll check through the templates you suggested. It was just an article with 6 external links to sites like iTunes, really rather poor quality for cites. As I said, cites that barely proved the info wasn't a hoax but hardly what I'd call good sources. Thanks very much for the pointer. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)