Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 2 →

Contents 1 Its references? 2 Use 3 from WP:TFD 4 Box 5 Talk pages only 6 Straw poll on placement 6.1 Use on main page 6.1.1 Bottom of the page (or in a reference section) 6.1.2 At the top of the main page 6.2 Use on talk page 6.3 Comments 7 I would like this template to say... 8 Box style 9 Need template for substantially incomplete references 10 Usage revisited 11 Test of new methods 12 Effect when used by New Page Patrol 13 I Move this Issue be given an RFC 13.1 Hurly-Burly and the B-bbbbbbarrell Kick 14 This template should not be used with stubs. 15 Template:Primarysources 16 This template on Category pages? 17 There is also a section-only "references needed" template 18 Problem with template 19 Image? 20 Suggested addition of text 21 Minor text changes 22 Format problem 23 So tell me how. 24 This template in other languages 25 This should be a deletion template 26 Too Many References 27 Sources vs external links - website-only documentation 28 Category:All articles lacking sources

Its references?

What about cases in which the article content is dubious enough to perhaps not have any sources at all? Would not "This article or section does not cite any references or sources." be a more thorough alternative? - Zelaron 20:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Use

Created by me (that was my IP, from velvet.net) for use in article space on articles with no references, sources or external links. For those with dubious sources, there's Template:Cite sources - David Gerard 11:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since it is of little interest to reader (I think we can safly assume that they can spot the lack of references) it should go on the talk page.Geni 03:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concur with User:Geni it relates more to the editor than to the reader and would be more unobtrusive on the talk page. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 03:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from WP:TFD

Good points were raised in the voting on this template, so I've decided to include them here. I've removed anything that was merely a vote (or vote with reason), keeping only ideas on how to use the template if it was to be kept (as it turned out to have been). (There's something wrong with the tenses in that sentence, but I'm not going to trouble myself to figure out how to fix it.)

Box

Who thought the box was obnoxious? I thought it looked rather neat myself. SlimVirgin 00:38, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages only

Per the TFD discussion, consensus seems to be that this template should be on Talk pages only. I've added a note to the template to that effect. -- Netoholic @ 20:49, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

That's not the impression I get. Out of all of the votes above, I only count four "keep, but put on talk" votes. Also, if we want to do this, I think we should clean up usages and then put the messages on, not the other way around. JYolkowski 20:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I count 5 of the keep votes saying to use on talk, one non-vote, and 2 of the delete votes saying "if kept" to use it on the talk page. Plus Geni says so above the vote section, and I concur also. -- Netoholic @ 21:01, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

In the TfD discussion quoted above, we have:

• seven (Francs2000, olderwiser, BocoXLVII, Jmabel, BlankVerse, Taxman, Charles P.) saying "if kept, move to Talk",
• ten (Slrubinstein, David Gerard, Lommer, Sketchee, Uppland, 80N, SlimVirgin, Ilywrch, mark, and dab) "keep" votes not saying "move to Talk", and
• four (AlexR, msh210, Nonenmac, Aranel) "if kept then" votes not saying "if kept then only on Talk".

Seems to me the majorit (10:7) is not to move to talk, though that's not really a consensus. —msh210 00:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's hardly a fair assessment. it is not 10:7 whether to use this in talk, in fact, that idea came up in the vote halfway through. To be honest, I'll bet all the delete voters would rather see this template on talk, considering that the consensus was not to delete.

Rather than keep counting the votes, are there really any objections to moving this template to talk-only? -- Netoholic @ 01:43, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

I object. You're the only one pushing for it now; that's not consensus - David Gerard 08:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I similarly object, and note that this is a very strange way of reading TfD results. Snowspinner 12:26, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

While it's nice of you both to drop in, I'm sure, what do you mean by "object"? Do you mean that you wish this template to be used on the main pages, or are you here just to object to me? -- Netoholic @ 15:29, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

I created the damn thing - what do you mean "drop in"? - David Gerard 01:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it may not be 10:7 at all, come to think of it. The above copy-paste from TfD does not include votes sans comment. (So it says in the note above the box.) So there may have been more (than 10) "keep" votes not saying "move to Talk". One would have to check the voting to know for sure. However, per the discussion below, this is moot anyway. —msh210 14:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll on placement

Question: Should this template be used on the main article page, or the talk page?

Use on main page

1. Peter Farago 02:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Admitting our failings in the most public way possible is the best path to remedying them. Lupin|talk|popups 14:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
3. It should go on main, just as copyedit or wikify templates - it is at least as important as them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Bottom of the page (or in a reference section)

1. JYolkowski 20:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC). I prefer the bottom of the page.
2. David Gerard 01:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) Bottom of the page
3. Snowspinner 01:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC) Bottom of page
4. James F. (talk) 01:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) Bottom of the page.
5. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 14:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) Definately the bottom of the page, where the sources would usually go!
6. 131.211.210.12 at the bottom of the place were the references would've been. Users can simply click and add them. 131.211.210.12 13:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) <-- That was me Mgm|^(talk) 13:19, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
7. Philip Baird Shearer 23:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC) I have changed my opinion on this in the last year. Best placed at the bottom in a reference section.
8. If there is no reasons to doubt the facts of the article - bottom is the place. If there are reasons than probably another template should be used Alex Bakharev 01:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Why's it gotta be or? Bottom of the page, in a references section, with a pre-loaded <references/> tag (invisible until used). -- nae'blis 03:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Yeah, maint tags at the bottom. Rich Farmbrough, 13:38 30 November 2006 (GMT).

At the top of the main page

1. At the top, where everyone can see it. chocolateboy 12:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
2. At the top or bottom, preferably top. The policy WP:CITE is at least as important as WP:NPOV (which gets main article coverage). Sources have to be cited before they can begin to be disputed. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 16:15
3. Preferably at top of page. Bottom doesn't really make sense.--File Éireann 14:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Absolutely. Very strong preference for the article page, at the top. Wikipedia does not employ professional editorial boards and does not submit its articles for professional peer-review; it is written entirely by voluntary contributors who are themselves usually anonymous/pseudonymous. The integrity of the encyclopedia therefore rests entirely on well-cited references to independent, reliable, reputable publications. Where this is lacking, we have a duty to clearly indicate that, and to assist where we can in improving the article. The tag should not be tucked away on the talk page. —Encephalon 06:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
5. We should make it clear up-front when an article contains info that's dubious. This is really just a slightly different-looking {{accuracy}}, in my opinion. (Judicious use of {{citation needed}} would be fine too, however.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Top: it points out a failing of one of our encyclopedia's most basic guidelines; it points out that information is less reliable, and it encourages editors to fix it. --대조 | Talk 10:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Top: Most Wikipedia articles are useless as reliable sources because no-one knows where the information comes from. It is vitally important that this problem be highlighted, not hidden away at the bottom in the hope that no-one will notice. Cop 633 17:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
   • By the way, am I right in thinking that there is now a slim majority in favour of putting it at the top? If so, could this page be updated to reflect that? (it seems to be blocked to non-admins). Cop 633 17:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
     • Slim majorities are not a Wikipedia:consensus and the majority of opinions expressed (including those asking for it to be placed on the talk page) do not agree with this proposition --Philip Baird Shearer 23:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Top of main page. Readers should be told immediately if an article does not provide proper citations to references. Wikipedia's reputation depends on being upfront about what an article is lacking. -- Satori Son 18:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Top of main page. For articles with *no* references, which is where I use it, the louder the better. --Alvestrand 04:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Use on talk page

1. Doing otherwise makes us look unreliable. Netoholic @ 15:29, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

   We are unreliable. Particularly on articles where there's nothing to rely on. - David Gerard 01:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   According to Criticism_of_wikipedia#Usefulness_as_a_reference, this is how reliable we appear: "[I am] not aware of a single librarian who would [use it as reference]." "A piece of spontaneous graffiti." "To the ordinary user, the turmoil and uncertainty that may lurk beneath the surface of a Wikipedia article are invisible." The discussion pages may be nearly invisible to many ordinary readers. Shawnc 06:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

2. My personal opinion is that including this template on an article's Main page just looks tacky. Here's my "translation" of the template: "We're too lazy to verify anything in this article so will someone else do our work for us." It would be much better to have the notice on the Talk page, along with a discussion of what parts of the article need references. In my opinion, there is a large problem on the Wikipedia with editors writing what they think they know is correct, rather than verifying it and citing their sources, but making note of particular problem articles should be done on the Talk pages where regular editors will see the info, and not put put on the Main page. BlankVerse ∅ 13:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. The people most likely to be able to do something aboutit are people who have the article on their watchlist putting stuff on talk pages triggers that. People coming to the article can surely see the lack of refernces. We already have far too many notices in articlesGeni 14:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Agree with Blank Verse. The tag could arguably be placed on 80% of WP articles. Singling out specific articles is an implicit assertion that the person placing the tag thinks that there is something unreliable or suspect about the article; such concerns should be articulated on the talk page rather than using a lazy "slap and dash" tag. To make such an assertion about an article also calls into question the integrity of whoever may have contributed to the article, which is contrary to the spirit of Assume good faith. In other words, if there is some specific (or even general) questions regarding the veracity of an article, citations should be requested to back up any dubious statements. If certain statements are particularly doubtful, they can be moved to the talk page pending a citation. If no citations are provided after a reasonable period, then I don't think anyone could object to their removal. If an entire article is dubious, then it should probably go to VfD or perhaps to RfC or be listed on some cleanup page. But using this tag without any accompanying discussion is tantamount to saying you think the contributor may have made this stuff up, but does so while hiding behind pseudoacademic standards. older ≠ wiser 16:27, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
5. Keep editorial remarks in the editorial channels. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) and see comments below. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Agree with the above. Use {{accuracy}} if the reader needs to be warned about dubious content and keep this message meant for editors on the talk page. - SimonP 20:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

   It is the first time I have seen this awful template appear on a page I watch. If it has to exist then it should only be placed on the talk page. If I had known of the vote I would have voted to delete it along with most of the others in the "see also" section in the template. Instead of running around putting these things on articles editors would be more gainfully employed fixing the things they are highlighting if they think it is a problem. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

   • Normally only the person who wrote the article has any idea what the sources were. Retrofitting them is a difficult and unreliable process. If you don't like having articles flagged with this, provide proper sources in the first place. Often it is possible to tell that an article was sourced from another document, but not be able to trace that document. If one could, {{copyvio}} or {{OriginalResearch}} might turn out to be more appropriate tags. Where there are legitimately used sources, it can be particularly important to flag this if the article is controversial, as proving the negative is always difficult - if most of the article is sourced, one can reasonably delete unsourced claims, but if little of it is sourced it is unlikely that people would be happy with the removal of most of the article. If I'm sufficiently familiar with a subject to know what the sources should be, I would probably be using those sources, rather than Wikipedia if the article doesn't provide a quick way of locating them. --David Woolley 13:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
7. On talk page. Discussing what needs to be done in order to move an article forward is precisely why we have a talk page. -- Chris j wood 16:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Less of a disaster than NPOV, should therefore be limited to talk. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Putting it on the main page damages the credibillity of wikipedia, on many perfectly good articles. It is effectively saying "this article might be a load of rubbish" to readers. Personally I am strongly against putting editorial notes of any kind on articles. They should be kept on talk pages. G-Man 17:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Putting that template on the article page undermines the credibility of the articles. Some may deserve it, but some need tweaking, not undermining. If a different, less attacking template was available I would support its placement on the article page, but no way can this template be added into the article page. It amounts to an attack on editors who may have written good articles at a time when we didn't stress the need for citations. This template is provocative and undermining, not constructive and helpful. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    1. User:SimonP is trying a different approach which is working far better than this template. See the responses on User talk:SimonP for responses from editors. See also the bottom of this page here. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
11. If a template is a useful way to do things, then use it, but on the talk page.--nixie 19:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
12. As pr above comments by Philip Baird Shearer, Charles P, JFW, Jtdirl and others. In general we should limit obstructive templates meant for editors to talk pages, unless in a few very extreme cases (VFD, Copyvio, Totaly disputed). Shanes 12:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
13. This template is used as an editorial comment and makes an editorial statement: a statement from the placing editor to the prior editor(s) of the article. That is what talk pages are for. Here's an example: if I wrote in any article:

The prior paragraph, however, cannot be relied upon because it doesn't cite a source.

it'd be reverted as self-referential vandalism. Why is it suddenly OK if a blue box is put around the words? -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I've removed my initial "on the main page" vote after actually thinking about what the template said: "This article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by adding appropriate ones." Write first, make up references later? No. Innocent people will add "useful looking sources" that don't even corroborate what's in the article, and how many people are going to check this? Challenge individual statements you disagree with instead, and demand those be referenced. The rest may be unverified, but nobody's asked for verification either. That's worked out pretty well so far. It's a compromise, but a workable one.
  I am aware this probably belonged in the deletion debate; apologies for that, I missed it. In any case, I don't plan on ever using this and I'm going to ignore use by others, so there's no need for me to vote on where it should go. JRM 14:17, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• What do you all think of Sketchee 22:06, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)'s idea? He (yes, it's a he) suggested, in part: "It might be nice to make it appear as a ==References== heading and then the message below it". (Note also my comment on this, above, regarding subst.) —msh210 04:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just as an illustration of why I think this should go on the talk page, I've created Template:Edcomment [which is going to be deleted, so it's now substed below. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)], which allows customized editorial remarks to be placed in the article itself. For example:

Just like this template and others of its sort (e.g. template:Controversial and template:ActiveDiscuss), but allowing for some customization. Would anyone tolerate this? Does using a template make it acceptable? Or should this sort of thing go on the talk page? (p.s. I have no plans to use this, so don't trot out the tired old WP:POINT argument, m'kay?) —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 17:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like this template to say...

This article does not cite any references. If you know of any you can add them to the bottom of the article.

--Fred-Chess 19:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Box style

I saw the discussion about changing this from SlimVirgin's message and how David Gerard said that version was viewed as annoying (which, I thought fix this article now type templates were meant to be)... however, I have changed it to the standard style of cleanup / cleanup-context / wikify - because when I added this template with template and thos this clashed miserably. It flows into the article as text and did not appear separately. I don't think this clashes and although this move is arbitrary I think it is for the better and fits the direction this type of template has gone. Since the last change was in may I did not put this on talk before editting but am instead being bold or whatever makes me sound like I'm doing the right thing... which I think I am... besides the rambling.... here goes.. gren 22:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Need template for substantially incomplete references

A problem with this template is that editors can argue for removing it if they add a reference for just one fact in the article. The only way I can see round this at the moment is to add {{sectstub}} or {{listdev}} to the References section, but that doesn't categorise the articles under the real problem. As an example, look at the history of X.509 starting at this edit --David Woolley 12:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• True. But then, ideally, the only good article is the one with all facts referenced. While I think that it is something to strive for, I think that unless we tag every article with this, we should use it on those without any references only,, and for the ones with *some* references, use {{fact}} for the facts which should be references with footnotes. Other solution is a template which acknowledges general references, but asks more specific, like footnoting every paragraph.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Don't forget about {{cleanup-verify}}. Uncle G 16:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Usage revisited

I have started adding this template to some articles without references, but encountered significant opposition. It would be nice to have some consensus on its usage, as apparently majority of us does think that this template is useful (as its survival through TfD indicates). So far, there is:

• no agreement on whether the template can be used on main or in talk, so I think that it can be used on both, depending on the preferences of the editor adding it. However, once added, we should allow it to be copied to the other page, but not removed (otherwise we may have revert wars).
• there seem to be agreement that if it is used in main article, it should go to the bottom, where the reference section usually would be
• there seem to be also an agreement that there is no need to use this template on stubs
• one common argument I have encountered is 'this artile has references because it has external links' perhaps we should add a note to the template that 'External links, further reading and see also are not considered references'?
• another common argument against is 'please use {{fact}} to indicate which parts are disputed. I think that this is not a valid argument, as this template indicate the lack of references in general. Would you concur?
• finally, a third argument is that 'this template will make readers vary of Wikipedia'. I think this had been addressed during the TfD, and the prevailing counterargument is that we should not hide our weaknesses but put them on spotlight where they can be more easily fixed (it's the same reasoning as with using stub, cleanup, wikify or attention templates) - right?
• we need a clear agreement what to do if somebody removes the template without adding references. Nobody wants a revert war, but if a user adding this template and a user removing it cannot reach a consensus, what should they do? RfC?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Lack of references is lack of references. It isn't an dispute over a particular individual point within the article. Furthermore: You can counter the common argument by adopting the practice of adding a ==References== section heading with this notice in it. That makes it abundantly clear that what are in External links, Further reading, and See also sections are not references. Finally: The argument about "making readers wary of Wikipedia" is entirely ill-founded and not properly thought through. Our Wikipedia:General disclaimer makes readers wary of Wikipedia, and deliberately so, and is linked to from every single page here. Uncle G 16:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think everyone agrees that Wikipedia needs to be better sourced, but I don't think this template is a very useful way of doing so. When David Gerard first created this template he spent a period of time adding it to every unsourced new article. I recently went through his edits from last January, and only a tiny minority of the taggings ever resulted in references being added. There is also a growing consensus that the current method of sourcing articles should be revised, and at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability there is a fair bit of support for getting rid of a ==References== section entirely.

  In my view it would be far more effective to target users rather than articles. Get one article referenced and there are still hundreds of thousands more to do. Get one user to begin referencing their articles, and every page they add from that date forward will be referenced. A thousand articles with new references sections is a drop in the bucket. A thousand users properly referencing their creations would be an extremely significant change. Moreover, the original author is by far the best placed to provide sources for the material. Why not thus create a gently worded template to be added to the talk page of any user who creates an article, or adds a large chunk of text to an existing article, kindly requesting that they provide some sources for what they just added? - SimonP 17:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • That's a complete misrepresentation of the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability discussion, which is focussed upon changing the name of the section, not upon getting rid of it. Getting rid of it would be absurd. Uncle G 16:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Because sources are vital to every aspect of our policies, content, and verifiability, I believe this template should be at the top of every article page that doesn't have a references section clearly indicating where content came from External links sections rarely make such distinctions, and I doubt anyone would agree that a link to a map counts as a source. Thus the need for a References section. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 21:20

• I've been adding it to the bottom, in a ==References== section. It has resulted in references being added by authors. Although on a couple of occasions it didn't stick, upon re-adding it a second time, noting that the article was still unreferenced, the message seemed to be received. Uncle G 16:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Response from 16:11, 1 December 2005 talk Brian0918 which has been redirected here .... Brian0918, your discussion on IRC #wikimedia seems dubious IMO ... no concrete record (that's why IRC shouldn't be used in things like this IMO) .... mabey you should ask Danny and Mindspillage to comment here .... and it doesn't seem that Jimbo gave a response (as he was "was off and on"). AND .... If you Brian0918 leave your comments on other people's talk pages, it does give the appearance that you are all alone and are not doing anything that others want to discuss. AND this isn't to waste your time, it to be productive ... as the edits are not very productive it seems (I am not the only one that has brought this up to you). Also ... archiving the talk page when the discussion is ongoing seems wierd to me (unless you thought I and others were just trolls ...) ... also, this discussion was NOT essentially stagnating (unless you are just going to ignore all the comments) ... inaddition, your talk page is the place for the discussion of your editing .... moving here would be nice to get a central place though (so the comments are not missed or obscured) .... Sincerely, JDR 21:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"It may not be productive" ... and could be "counter-productive". You have stated, "it is easier for one person to motivate several to edit and fix their articles that they wrote and of which they know the sources, than to have that same one person go out and find possible sources for text that he didn't write". BUT .... placing the tag on an article (especially when the person going through doesn't known about the article) will more than likely just have the tag removed (usually by the editors that put in the content in the first place) ... and the article will still have no references. Are you making a WP:POINT, BRIAN0918? Sincerely, JDR 21:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

To Brian0918: I agree with the spirit of adding the unreferenced template to various pages. Some articles have woefully inadequate references. I just want to ask about the rationale of adding it to an article like physics. Whatever problems the article has, I don't think they have to do with lack of referencing. The idea that such an article needs references seems bizarre to me: some assertions are established well enough, and are common enough knowledge, that they needn't be referenced. On the other hand, an article like history of physics, which probably desperately needs references, didn't get the template. It doesn't make much sense to me. I imagine this is quite a general problem with top-level articles. I work a lot on the big bang page, which has a somewhat random selection of primary sources, but in my opinion the careful referencing belongs on the topic sub-pages, such as cosmic microwave background, Hubble law and big bang nucleosynthesis. –Joke137 17:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Test of new methods

Last night I put the talk page method to the test. I added Template:Unref-talk to the talk pages of a hundred users who created articles without adding any sort of references. This morning, less than twelve hours later, 33 of them have been referenced to some degree. During the same period another user was using the traditional template in article method. Of the 37 articles marked with {{unreferenced}} only one of them has since been referenced. A full list of the articles targeted can be found at User:SimonP/temp3, all of those marked in bold have since been sourced.

It's a limited sample, but by these numbers bugging users on talk pages is 10 times more effective than marking articles. A little digging also shows that far more than 33 articles got referenced. Consider User:82.39.114.135, who moments after I messaged him about Alexey Suetin referenced that article, and then also did the same for Artur Yusupov and John Fedorowicz.

Perhaps the most important difference is in the effect on the community. During my spree I received nine talk page messages and one e-mail, all were friendly and positive. This is in sharp contrast to marking articles, which has always generated a great deal of acrimony. - SimonP 14:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant. I agree about the relative ratio of results to acrimony and applaud your efforts. older≠wiser 17:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I've cross posted this to the Village Pump to try and get it some more attention. - SimonP 18:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears you only picked articles that were newly-created. Is this correct? What should we do about articles that have existed for a long time and are quite large, yet have not even one external link? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 19:20

I also don't agree that the method of placing the template in a blank References section "always generated a great deal of acrimony". I found users who would immediately find references for their articles and add them into the section. The only people who seemed to complain were those who noticed me on RC Patrol. In any case, if your method works better, then I'll use it. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 19:16

That's what I've been working on this morning. Template:Unref-talk-old is intended for older contributions. So far, after a few hours, it's had a success rate of 15%. The main difficulty is that it is a fair amount of work to implement, as it means tracking down major contributors in the page history. It is also pretty useless for anons and missing users. - SimonP 19:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

So would you suggest that we remain with {{Unreferenced}} for older articles, while using your User Talk template for new articles? That seems like the best option for now. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 19:40

It's only been a few hours, so I don't think we can tell yet how effective Unref-talk-old is. Since {{Unreferenced}} works on a different scale we also don't really know how effective it is. Your 37 additions from last night have long cleared recent changes and most watchlists, and it seems like Bishop is still the only one of them to have gotten sourced. - SimonP 20:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've started using your new template on new pages, and am making a list at User:Brian0918/temp. I also noticed that User:Lupin is doing something similar. So far I've received one complaint for accidentally placing the template for a page that contained the text "according to the 2001 census", which apparently means it's sourced... — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 20:37

I just got my first complaint, I think some of the more experienced users don't like being told what to do. (I probably wouldn't react all that well to it myself) I do also think there are some articles that don't really need to be sourced, and about which we do not need to bug people. For instance so many articles on albums are solely track listings, information that can be taken from anywhere. - SimonP 22:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

So far, just from that template alone, I've been called a troll a few times and one user is obsessively complaining on my talk page. -- BRIAN0918  23:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, the simplest method of using this is to use Lupin's new tool. First go to your monobook.js and add the following lines up at the top:

function addRefsLinks(btn) {
  var pageTitle=document.getElementsByTagName('h1')[0].innerHTML;
  var lks=document.links;
  for (var i=0; i<lks.length; ++i) {
    var article=articleFromURL(lks[i].href);
    if(!article) continue;
    var talk=null;
    if (!userName(article)) continue;
    talk=talkPage(article);
    if(!talk) continue;
    var a=document.createElement('a');
    a.href=titlebase + talk +
      '&action=edit&autoedit=s#$#\n{{subst:unref-talk|' +
      pageTitle + 
      '}} ~~~~#&autoclick=' +
      btn + 
      '&autosummary=References for [['+
      pageTitle+
      ']]';
    var tt=document.createTextNode(' . . ');
    a.innerHTML='request references';
    lks[i].parentNode.appendChild(tt);
    lks[i].parentNode.appendChild(a);
  }
}

var refs=addRefsLinks;

Then save, hit CTRL+F5 to purge and refresh. Now create a new bookmark for your toolbar and put in the Location field the following: javascript:refs('wpPreview') and save that.

Now, go to Special:Newpages, find an article you want to check, open that article up in a new tab. Check it for references, then hit history. Then click the new toolbar button you made, and a link next to the creator's name should be made which says something like "request references". Click that, and it does the rest for you. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-5 00:05

This looks quite useful, make sure to add this to Wikipedia:Tools.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Effect when used by New Page Patrol

I've been doing New Page Patrol off and on over the past few days, and have been adding this template, in a pre-prepared == References == section, to a wide range of new articles that have lacked references. I've also added it to some articles that have come to AFD. In surprisingly many cases, this has been successful, sometimes highly so. example example example example example example particularly noteworthy example particularly noteworthy example of a new editor example example example example example example example example example example example particularly noteworthy example example example example example example particularly noteworthy example example

Whilst the quality of some of these references is questionable, at least editors cited something, allowing readers to at least tell when an article was based upon unreliable sources, and a few editors provided copious good citations once prodded. This isn't that surprising. Tagging new articles as unsourced if they lack references is standard procedure at Wikinews, and experience shows that editors soon get used to the idea of always citing sources right from the very start.

Sometimes encouraging editors to fill in a References section has been somewhat revealing, too.

However, as SimonP notes, the newer editors who grasp this immediately put some of Wikipedia's older editors to shame. I also have a hall of shame of older editors, some of whom really should know better given how often they themselves have harped on about verifiability, making various fallacious arguments such as "It has external links. It doesn't need references." (The external hyperlinks referred to provided nothing whatever that supported the actual article text.) and doing things such as "Removed references section because I copied this from another encyclopaedia." (The article didn't even cite the encyclopaedia.) Uncle G 02:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As a relatively new Wikipedian I would like to vouch for this tag's effectiveness - it was actually a bit of a (wake-up) slap. I began a references section the day I saw it. Not only is it good for this, it incites contributors to find quality citable sources instead of info fished from just anywhere on the web. One of the pages I am trying to edit is in a standoff because of a protected overuse of vague info, and the "cite your sources" tag may just be a way out of it. Thanks! ThePromenader 17:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is really good. One significant problem I run into a fair bit is when unreferenced text has been around for ages, and the person who added the text is now long gone so you can't check with them where they got it from. I think that having the problem fixed as soon as possible is a Good Thing. JYolkowski // talk 17:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My only problem with this is when over-zealous reviewers slap this template onto a new contributor's talk page, not because an article was created without references, but because the article didn't have its references *formatted* properly. It violates the guideline of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. As long as a new article has any kind of citations or references or links or sources, this template should not be used. New contributors should be encouraged, not immediately criticized. Elonka 22:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This problem can be prevented if the tag's purpose is clearly stated: to point out that an article does not have any citation or reference. I've edited the wording to reflect this. Shawnc 12:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the change.  :) I'm still a bit worried though about people who are quibbling about the difference between "external links" and "references". In my opinion, if an article has links but no references, it's worth assuming that the links *are* references. However, I've seen other people flagging it as "unreferenced" simply because it doesn't have a clear "References" section. Any ideas how that can be clarified? Elonka 16:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The change was reverted with the following description: "correcting scope- this template may apply to articles that cite some sources, but not all." Do we have concensus regarding this? Shawnc 16:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as to the change, since I thought the word "any" was better. I also find it unclear as to what "may apply to articles that cite some sources but not all" means (perhaps examples should be listed?). I would also recommend changing the guideline on the page that says If the external links section includes a references section, this template should not be used. to This template should not be used if the article already has references, but just not in a specific "References" section (such as if they are listed under "External Links"), or more simply, If the External Links section includes references, this template should not be used. Elonka 19:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is great to hear, Uncle G! I'll remember to do that when patrolling new pages. — mark ✎ 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I Move this Issue be given an RFC

(Post delayed by DateBase Lock+Sleep)

Re: rv after purusing talk -- this thing needs an RFC voted by a large community as it really junks up wikiP! FrankB

• As far as I can see, this placement on article space junks up articles and makes WikiP to be a laughing stock. I've run across the template over and over again at the top of nice well written fully matured articles that just leave the impression that the article shouldn't be trusted. The sad part of that is they are history articles that jive in every way with what I've spent a lifetime reading. i.e Solid and fully concurrent with Crystalized knowledge. (Para. emphasis added laterFrankB)

• More to the point, the use of this template in article space is in violation of self-referencing guidelines... which has the prevention of casting of such aspersions in mind.

• I suggest someone that is into the nitty-gritty politics here put together an RFC summarizing the above, clearly stating options, and get a meaningful vote. 30-40 people is not meaningful. FrankB 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Subsequent to the above, I've acted boldly to hightlight this dicotomy with the changes made in the page edit marked: "Explicitfy conflict between approved guideline and the proliferation of this reference, Emphasize generaly approved locations w/dichotomy" Best regards, FrankB 17:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hurly-Burly and the B-bbbbbbarrell Kick

I posted the above title on the pages of 5 senior admins I know that contributed herein, but as I made notices to SlimVirgin on the change I made per the above, I added this, which might be a avenue to have our cake and eat it too. (I have no objection to improving quality, just in doing so while creating a disbelief in our readers minds.)

• btw -- contrary to your stance in this matter -- IMHO, related 'Slap users in the face' (Editors not equated with Users) templates like CLEAN, COPYEDIT, GCHECK, belong in Talk as well, as they should be drawing patroling people in, not diminishing Wiki's appearance. However, that's a philosophical aside, and my real problem with those is no documented reasons for posting same in talk pages added to persons not checking back to see if article state had improved enough to clear their 'gripe'... I've seen a lot of cleans go over a year without being cleared, despite good article advancement.
• It brings me to wonder whether such templates could be modified to auto-annote several places concurrently such as a hypothetical user subpage special category things I've tagged and should check back on periodically, and which by posting in talks, vice article space, create a one line Editor Flag notice, that one of these ugly beasts is posted in the talk. That removes the Slap in the Face to the customer, with a discrete message flag to the browsing editor, plus tracks responsibility, plus puts such in same categories for listing to patrols as now. I wouldn't know who to ask, but I would certainly prefer it aesthetically. (slight emphasis edits from her talk page version)FrankB

So that's a possible compromise. It might require a small system programming change but as an engineer I'd be very surprised to find it weren't easily do-able with a small modification to the database. BestFrankB 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This template should not be used with stubs.

Why does the page say this? That makes no sense. I understand not putting other "cleanup" type tags on a stub page, as by definition, all stubs need improvement. However, all articles, stubs and non-stubs, need references. --Rob 18:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, stubs need many things, and if we would put all things they need, some stubs would consist mostly of templates :) I think that as long as an article is a stub, stub templates are enough. Once it is destubbed, it is fair target for other improvement templates.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of guidelines requiring articles to cite their sources? I think slapping on an {{Unreferenced}} tag is much nicer in most (not all) cases, then using an {{AFD}} tag, which is the likely (and sometimes justified) result, if somebody doesn't provide sources. Often, the creator of an article, can easily find sources *if* they know they're needed. Asking for sources soon after an article is made, stands a better chance of getting attention, then asking for them later. And its *much* better then asking for them in AFD. Some things aren't easily verified in Google, and it seems unfortunate, that some end up deleted, because nobody can verify the information (because they have no sources to verify claims). Also, when not deleting them, we often risk somebody pulling a hoax on us. --Rob 21:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when has an article not quoting its sources made it a candidate for deletion?. All it makes it is a candidate for improvement. -- Chris j wood 19:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

New pages suspected of being hoaxes are speedied. If the stub has a source on it, it's easier to evaluate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason not to use the template on stubs. Stubs should be able to provide at least one reference showing the subject matter is notable and the material cited. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That is silly. We have thousands of stubs without any references. Yes, of course every article should have references. Every article should have all the other things that make it not-a-stub as well. But they don't. Going round putting unreferenced tags on articles that already have stub tags adds not one iota of value to Wikipedia; it is a waste of the editors time (but that is their business) and of our servers bandwidth. That bandwidth and (with their consent) the editor's time would be better used turning even a few stub articles into properly referenced non-stub articles. -- Chris j wood 19:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion, Chris, but that's no reason to instruct people not to use the tag on stubs, which need sources like any other page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is my opinion. But it was also the fairly clear consensus from the TfD discussion boxed above. Incidentally, one contribution in that discussion read It can be added to an article as a last resort, simply in order to concentrate people's minds, like the "clean up" tag, and like NPOV and totally disputed. I agree with you there, but I don't see how a stub article can need that kind of last resort intervention; perhaps you could quote an example or two. -- Chris j wood 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you spend any time on recent changes, Chris, you'll see many examples of dubious-looking stubs being created without a source. I agree that it's not always appropriate to tag it, because sometimes it's easy to find a source (in which case the best thing is just to do so), and sometimes it's obvious it's a hoax and should be deleted. But for those occasions where finding a source will be time-consuming, but the stub doesn't look obviously wrong, tagging it is a good alternative, so the template instructions should leave that option open. Every page on Wikipedia is subject to WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For telling people they should reference their new creations, I think that {{Unref-talk}} is much better. Note that I don't object stongly to putting unreferenced on stubs, but I agreewith Chris that it is more productive to keep it for destrubbed articles. Perhaps a compromise would be a template dedicated to unreferenced stubs? But then we would have the additonal task of migrating it into normal unreferenced article if the stub is destubbed...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense not to place these types of templates onto small stubs. If a stub consists of a couple of sentences then they are unwarranted but if a stub is a half page or more then it is a matter of judgement. For example until the end of last month the articleNaval aviation (Revision as of 10:00, 15 April 2006) consisted of two sentences and I do not think that this template, or other similar ones, other than the usual stub templates, should be used on such a stub as it overwhelms the information on the page. In the case of this small stub when User:N328KF placed two templates on the page (16:24, 21 February 2006) I removed them (Revision as of 17:17, 21 February 2006), as I would have done if this template had been used. However the article still has the stub template on it, and because it is so much bigger I would not object to this template being placed in the article (at the bottom in a reference section) if someone thought it necessary. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the template to reflect the current lack of consensus, in what I hope the contributors above will see as an NPOV way. -- Chris j wood 12:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Primarysources

What is the difference between Template:Unreferenced and Template:Primarysources ? thank you for your attention --Hello World! 11:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

{{Unreferenced}} can only be used when there are no sources (such as web links) of any kind. {{Primarysources}} is to be used if the subject of the article is it's own source (and only source). So as an example, if an article on a company has a link to the company's web site, and nothing else, use {{Primarysources}}, not {{Unreferenced}}. --Rob 22:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

{{Unreferenced}} is also used if there are references, but those references are not cited in the text. To exaggerate to make the point: in a World war II article it is of little use putting "Winston Churchill The Second World War, Mariner Books; (1986), ISBN 039541685X" in the reference section, if the appropriate section or page in Churchill's work is not cited. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what {{fact}} is for. As long as general references are included, {{unreferenced}} should not be used. --Rob 11:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This template on Category pages?

Someone just put this template on Category:Scientologists. Is that appropriate. Wouldn't the sources for whether an article belongs in a category go in the article? --JeffW 20:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• No it is not. Fixed. Thanks for noticing abakharev 23:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There is also a section-only "references needed" template

For a section-only "references needed" template, see Template:Unreferencedsect, which I cleaned up recently. I prefer using this to the "article or section" template, and it seems to do the same thing. I wasn't aware that this template could be modified to point to a section, and obviously lots of other people had the same mistaken impression that you couldn't change the template to say "article" or "article or section" or "section". Carcharoth 11:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with template

The template could really do with some styling help to fix problems like the one found here (if the problem isn't immediately obvious check this instead). Floated divs are a pain, but this is a pretty ugly bug.

Image?

As has been discussed, this is not a particularly attractive template. It is, however, very important and is used on several articles. Would it not be a good idea to spruce it up a little with a small image on the right? Not sure what, maybe a little book, or some super-scripted numbers or something. Opinions? Nuge talk 01:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that images make sense for cleanup templates in general. Maybe if there was something obvious, but since I can't think of anything obvious either I would tend to be against an image on this template. JYolkowski // talk 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• The {{citations missing}} template looks pretty good. It is also a little more of an attention-getter, which is entirely appropriate for such an important policy. Or, if you're looking for something a little more subdued, how about the image in {{Primarysources}}? I really agree this template needs something to spruce it up. --Satori Son 15:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition of text

I think it would be a good idea to add text such as material that has no source may be removed to this template, to make it clearer that uncited material contravenes the fundamental policies of Wikipedia. What does anyone else think? Worldtraveller 22:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-starter. We need to be encouraging people to add in links and sources, not threatening them by removing what may be completely factual imformation simply because someone didn't put in a link, either because the article was written before there was a demand on WP for sources, or because they hadn't got the sources to hand and meant to go back and add them in but forgot, or because they thought a fact was so widely known about as fact that a source wasn't needed. Threatening people writing in good faith what may be 100% accurate information would be counterproductive, offensive to many, and would drive contributors away. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't see it as a threat at all - more a slightly more strongly worded emphasis that citing sources is mandatory. There is virtually no incentive for people to add references to articles unless they want them to become good or featured, and I doubt we'll ever instil a culture of always citing sources without some sort of incentive for the 99.8% of Wikipedia that currently falls outside those two categories. Worldtraveller 00:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The suggested amendment you made IMHO would be OTT and counterproductive, and come across not as an invitation to add in information but as a threat if they didn't. Even the existing template, far from helping get more sources, generated up a lot of offence with its rather snide tone. Genuine users interpreted it to mean that articles that were in fact accurate but lacking sources were in actually complete bullshit and worthless. When a user tried to add it to articles, vast numbers of users reverted it on sight, with the tone of the template being one of the reasons. Many agreed with the aim but found the tone disastrously counterproductive. Threats have their place (to users in edit wars, to vandals, etc) but not under any circumstances to someone who might simply be visiting the site. It is encouragement, not a "do this or else" template, that they need. Your suggestion, far from encouraging people to contribute courses, would if anything prove even more disastrously counterproductive than the tone of the original here. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If I upload an image and forget to say where I got it from, I get a message telling me it will be deleted unless I give the source. That works - I don't feel threatened or discouraged from uploading images, and I add source and licence info to every single image I upload. I don't think my suggested text is confrontational, it doesn't imply that unreferenced material wasn't true, and it doesn't even say anything will be deleted. It just says unsourced material may be deleted. Articles without references do contravene the basic policy of verifiability, and I think if that policy is to be meaningful it needs to be more clearly emphasised. Worldtraveller 00:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The stuff about deleting images proves the point. The bots that send around the messages regularly misread imformation on files and post comments on people's pages accusing them of not stating a source when the source is on the file clearly. These messages have caused furious rows. One superb user who always put clear sources, categories and everything else required on downloads got so many threatening messages from those damned bots accusing him of not doing what he had always been careful to do that he quit Wikipedia in disgust. I am fed up to the teeth being accused of not putting sources on pictures when the sources are stated unambiguously. The problem isn't simply the time wasted checking back and finding that, yet again, everything is in order and it is simply yet another bot fuck up, but the accusatory tone of the messages that has offended so many people. At this stage all many users do when they get a bot message like that is go to the image page and delete the no source message, whether a source is there or not, as their way of saying 'fuck you'. (I have been so fed up getting bombarded by these silly (and usually completely wrong) messages that I have been tempted to do that myself, but have restrained myself.) So far from being helpful, those messages though bullying wording have led to mistakes, offence being caused, users quitting, other users deliberately deleting image unsourced tags, etc whereas a more tactful message might at least have not been as offensive and annoying to those many many users getting wrong messages accusing them in the wrong. Your suggestion on such a wording here is a non-starter. If you added it in here, all that would happen is that users would simply mass delete the template from everything, as was done when a user tried to paste it all over the place in a very agressive 'obey this or else' manner. Either that or this template would be reverted instantly or put up for deletion. The suggested wording you suggest is a total and complete non-starter. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So who left because of incorrect image messages? I've never had a wrong one. You seem to be saying that any message reminding users to comply with a fundamental policy will be seen as aggressive and bullying, and I disagree totally. Policy is quite clear that unsourced contributions can be deleted, so why not mention that somewhere? I'm sure we can think of a friendly enough way of saying it. Worldtraveller 09:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor text changes

The current template has been bugging a lot of people (hence its wholesale removal from articles and talk pages) with its rather 'in your face' tone that implies 'this article cannot be trusted' rather than 'this article needs your help to improve it'. It is also used with articles that have some citations, just not enough. I've tweaked the wording to be more encouraging to contributors to add in citations and less snide in tone. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if I like the changes. I though this template was used for articles with no ext. links and no sources. (but not something to warrant a {{verify}}. Like mentioned here. With the new wording it sounds like the article has sources, but simply needs more. Garion96 (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly concur with Garion96, prior to the changes, this template was very useful for tagging completely unsourced articles, without suggesting that the information might be false a la {{verify}}. Make a {{partlyunsourced}} or something...heqs 14:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the template's usage is in articles where there are some footnotes, or there are no footnotes but an extensive reading list. The tone of the template was both offensive and over-the-top, in implying thta the article was flawed, when what it is meant under WP rules to communicate that while the text may be accurate, sourcing and referencing needs to be improved. As it was the template's old content achieved nothing but to offend users who had written good articles before Wikipedia's rules were changed on sourcing, and were in effect in the template being told that their work was unsourced bullshit. Calling for additional sources and references covers articles where there are no sources and references (so ones need to be added, hence additional), some sources and references, or inadequate sources and references. It is standard template language to allow the template to be used, because it covers articles where having started with none, there now are some but more are needed. As users use this template in many articles where there is some sourcing, if you want one exclusive to articles with no sources and references whatsoever, then you need to create a template especially for that reason. This one is being used far too widely in cases where there are some sources or reading lists, to be used in that case. It would however be a needless creation and would probably end up being put on TfD by some user because this template now covers all the scales of sourcing and referencing neatly in one. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that the meaning of the template has been changed. This template is, from what I've seen, only ever used on articles with no sources at all, and the new wording doesn't really fit that situation. I can't honestly believe that the previous wording was widely considered offensive. Are you saying that people will inevitably find it offensive to be asked to comply with a fundamental policy? An article lacking references is flawed. Obviously the text could be completely true, but without sources how can anyone verify that? Worldtraveller 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, if that's what most editors used that template for the changes make sense but it's still really annoying. Like I explained, I used it for articles with no sources and external links at all. Which was the reason this template was made for in the first place. The current version of this template looks kind of stupid on those articles. I think a new template might very handy, because the current version does not cover everything. It implies there are already sources, instead of "this is without sources". But I would simply prefer the older version of this template. Garion96 (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Bring back the old template. Mr Stephen 08:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Since it seems, from the discussion above, that many don't agree with the not so minor changes. I changed it back for now to the old version. Garion96 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Format problem

When inserted high up on a page with an infobox, it forces the subsequent text down below the level of the bottom of the infobox, leaving huge areas of white space (see screenshot). Can someone correct this formatting problem, please? - MPF 01:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed. However, it would look better if it didn't always span the whole page width. Now it goes behind infoboxes.--JyriL ^talk 16:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

'Fraid not, it is still the same. I think it may depend on what browser is used. - MPF 23:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Something similar was happening here but only in some versions of IE. This was apparently due to forcing a side-floating element to the center (conflicting). You might check the classes to see if the problem is along the same lines. --Splarka (rant) 07:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a problem if the template is put at the bottom in a reference section. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So tell me how.

Not how to format--not how to reference--rather, how to come up with relevant references when few or none exist.

Case in point; I recently created an article on Carmen, the obscure '70s era flamenco-rock band. My sources of information were a Carmen fanpage (linked) and my own personal experience. I guess I could have cited a couple Jethro Tull biographies regarding their bass player John Glascock, but those would have been rather tangential and misleading.

Much of the stuff I've contributed is about obscure rock-band-related stuff, and a significant part of it comes either from websites (which I link) or my own experience.

Moreover--the articles often get tagged as "stubs", but to what extent should one run on about a couple of rock groups that lasted for four years apiece several decades ago?

I'll have no trouble posting references if I ever contribute an extensive article on someone fairly famous (I note that Jerry Uelsman is missing here). But there's a part of me that believes U.S.-style scholarly tedium ought to have its limits here. Truddick 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This template in other languages

Hi,

Does anyone know whether there is such a template in non-English Wikipedias? There is no interwiki here. --Amir E. Aharoni 10:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, [[uk:Шаблон:Nosources]], please do interwiki --A4 20:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This should be a deletion template

This should be a deletion template; we can add categorization by month like {{wikify}}, articles that still have no sources after three months should be eligible for immediate deletion. That'd light a fire under editors' asses to put some sources in. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: See also Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles which may be a more centralized discussion point. -- nae'blis 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, do we want to date this template? Rich Farmbrough, 19:53 21 November 2006 (GMT).

That is a really, really good idea (thanks to nae'blis, I think[1]). Its implementation should be fairly simple and non-controversial, but it will greatly improve the utility of this template. -- Satori Son 21:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad the idea is gaining some traction. :) The problem is what to do to effectively implement it. A default parameter won't work since this already has one (although maybe that can be removed, I hardly ever see it used). A named parameter ({{unreferenced|date=November 2006}}, for example) raises the barrier to implementation somewhat, though if we can get a bot to come through and date them afterward if it's left out, it would make that part easier. Any ideas on how to get a grip on the 30k uses this template already has, so we don't blow the whole system up in trying to fix it? 21:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can run a bot to fix those instances to "November 2006". Perhaps a second parameter ({{unreferenced||November 2006}} would be a solution. Alternatively set the template up however is best, and I can run a bot to fix the old default calls to the template. Rich Farmbrough, 23:12 22 November 2006 (GMT).

Probably not a second unnamed parameter, unless it switches order with the first one. I've tried to strike up a conversation with Beland, who apparently runs the wikify-date conversion bot, on how hard it would be. My instinct is to say that the optional parameter that is there now is very rarely used and can be deprecated/swapped pretty easily, or failing that, to use a bot and a named parameter. Maybe I'll post this at RFC to get more eyes... -- nae'blis 05:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the dated templates are dated by bot now. Rich Farmbrough, 21:16 27 November 2006 (GMT).

OK I've put a "date=" field, and created the supporting categories a la cleanup, I've implemented it in two test articles. No docs yet, have a look, and see if it preents any problems. Rich Farmbrough, 22:08 27 November 2006 (GMT).

Seems to be working okay, I processed a dozen or so and found most of them to be in the last few months (thankfully), but went ahead and made the subcats through late 2005. I'll update the main description page and do some publicising tomorrow or the day after, unless you can think of anything else... slick work by the way, thanks for your contributions to getting a grip on this. -- nae'blis 06:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Template only created in August! Rich Farmbrough, 12:02 28 November 2006 (GMT).

That's odd. At least one entry I saw went back to June 2006, but it might have been a variant title that got merged later. That's good to know, though. -- nae'blis 14:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The merged page history goes back to January 2005, and there's a TfD discussion above from February 2005. I'm sure this was merged from one or more of the 16 templates that now redirect to it, but if we want to fix those as well, we're looking at almost 2 years of aggregated use! -- Satori Son 14:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That'll be it, then. I've just found a March 2006 one. I have some historical data dumps, perhaps I can scan those. Rich Farmbrough, 16:32 28 November 2006 (GMT).

Incidentally I don't think it's the end of the world if some (or even a lot) are dated wrongly - I always assumed the templates were worded "from XXXX" meaning perhaps even before. I'd like to get the backlog done before the December lot starts in two days. Rich Farmbrough, 16:35 28 November 2006 (GMT).

Agreed. Since there are so many, getting the date perfect is not critical at this point. -- Satori Son 18:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm running a dump from December 2005, then there's a gap 'til June. Should be able to start them tonight. Rich Farmbrough, 22:39 28 November 2006 (GMT).

December 2005 run, June almost finished, July started. Plan is finish June/July this evening, Aug tonight, Sept tomorrow morning, Oct tomorrow evening. Nov will probably be morning of 1st Dec, then it's just a question of keeping up. Rich Farmbrough, 09:45 29 November 2006 (GMT).

Too Many References

Is there a template for too many references? --WhiteDragon 17:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Which is good, I think...the better-referenced an article is, the better. That way, if a website vanishes, or a source is discredited, there will still be enough presumably good references to keep the article trustworthy.

If you're worried about the appearance of the References section, there are solutions; see Stegosaurus#Footnotes for an example of how a fair number of refs can be managed. --zenohockey 06:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources vs external links - website-only documentation

I'd like to ask people's opinions on use of Unreferenced with the following class of articles, which I've seen a lot of:

• Article text about person, band, organization or company, reads like it's uncontroversial
• "External links" section to article subject's website, which bears out the article's facts
• No "References" section

In my opinion, the "external link" is useful, and so belongs right where it is, but it fails WP:REF, and the article should be tagged as unreferenced. I've usually added a HTML comment citing WP:REF. But I'd like to hear what others are doing. --Alvestrand 05:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

External links (if properly put into that section!) are useful, but they do not qualify as RS, so I tend to tag those articles. Even worse are articles which are listing only online links, but as their references. See Cheating in counterstrike, my "favourite" references section so far. Kncyu38 10:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In the situation described by Alvestrand, where the website is owned by the article subject, the link may well qualify as a reliable source (see WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves). In such a situation, I would not tag the article as unreferenced, but move (or copy) the external link to a newly-created "References" section. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:All articles lacking sources

Why does this template put articles in Category:All articles lacking sources? That page says the category "exists primarily as an aid to bots and other automated processes", but as a botmaster myself I know that it's very easy to go through Category:Articles lacking sources by month and traverse the relevant subcategories. In my opinion, the category unnecessarily clutters up the list of categories at the bottom of articles tagged with the template. See for instance geometric analysis where the only useful category for the reader is Category:Mathematical analysis. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a near clone of the cleanup scheme. The category is useful for Dragons flight/Category tracker but there is doubtless a better solution that we can work to. I'll ask Dragons flight. A side issue is that putting cleanup tags right at the very end (as we do with stub tags) makes the "real" categories the first in the list, which may think is better. I'll do this to geometric analysis as an illustration. Rich Farmbrough, 11:57 10 December 2006 (GMT).

User:Derlay suggests on his talk page:

Sometimes related articles have a distinct initial substring in their names (for example, articles about United States Navy ships have names beginning with "USS"), and then it's much easier to look for them in one single category than in multiple monthly (or daily) categories. --Derlay 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough, 17:09 14 December 2006 (GMT).