Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 3

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 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

Contents 1 Enhance the template's visibility 2 Category 3 auto date? 4 Seeking consensus on warning text 5 Adequate to Any 6 editprotected 7 Age of unreferenced 8 Icon 9 This template is a self-reference. 10 Edit 11 We need to change "any" to "sufficient" 12 Icon remove please 13 Poor visibility 14 Is it time to add an icon? 14.1 General concerns with adding any icon to the template 14.2 Ok with adding an Icon and thoughts about a specific icon 14.3 Family of Templates 14.4 From Ambox talk page 15 Color 16 Couple of improvements 17 Again and again 18 date upon template? 19 Off center 20 Empty margin until icon 21 Documentation clarification: unreferencedsection 22 "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." 23 Placement 24 Section parameter 25 Icon in the template 26 Section parameter: specific proposal 27 Update doc with {subst:DATE} 28 Protection 29 Sources vs. Referenced vs. Citation 30 Inline references template? 31 Reprotected

Enhance the template's visibility

Every day it seems, brand new pages get created without any sources. I've been watching them the last 24 hours and the best thing I can think of to do is add this template, but the problem is it just goes in the pile, and not get much done.

Consider if we enhanced it by putting the third line ("Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time.") in BOLD RED. It should be sterner in encouraging people to rush to find sources for things they've just added, in fear of it being deleted. Would the advantage of sources/reliability enhancement be worth the possible aesthetic nuisance? Anakin101 19:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to make the template shout. The better solution is to either add sources yourself or contact the users individually and discuss with them the importance of sourcing. Canned templates are not a universal solution to the problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Category

Adding every article in this template to utterly useless categories is entirely annoying, and makes the category field for the articles ridiculous. In general, I think categories that relate to the quality of the article, rather than to its subject matter, ought to go in talk space. Is anybody with me? john k 17:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Response at Category talk:Articles lacking sources Jeepday (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

auto date?

{{editprotected}} Is it possible to have the date (well, month, year anyway) automatically be generated instead of having to enter it in manually all the time? I know some of the user talk page vandalism templates do it... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 09:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Which vandalism templates are you thinking of? User templates are usually substituted, which mkes it possible to substitute the current date. This template is not supposed to be substituted, which makes it much more difficult to automatically enter a date that doesn't change once the template is placed. But SmackBot watches and adds dates to maintenance templates such as this, so you don't have to do it yourself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on warning text

There are a couple of discussions above suggesting that the template doesn't need to include lots of warning about what might happen to unreferenced material. I think I agree and propose the following amended template:

Any problems with this proposal? Do we want to implement it? GDallimore (Talk) 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Making the same argument that I made above - I object to removing the statement, I offer Template talk:Unreferenced#Jimbo on Unreferenced as exhibit one. Additionally if an editor was going to simply remove the the text as unreferenced they would remove it, not place a {{fact}} or {{unreferenced}}. Please also review WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. I beleive that the statement "Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time" (besides being true) will help motivate an editor vested in the article to supply references. I just did a major rewrite on Road, I began by attempting to reference what other editors had written. Other then some random sentences almost everything had to removed and reworked Diff, The truth is that even if the information is true, it is often original research or from a specific book or web page and impossible to track down the original reference so it all gets deleted and reworked. Jeepday (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Removing the text from the template does not change the policy that unreferenced material can be removed it simply (correctly in my view) stops the template from being a summary of policy/guideline when, actually, the policy/guideline is more complex than can be explained in a single sentence and is, in any event, linked to from the template. Reomving the text has the added advantage of keeping the template short and to the point - highlighting the problems with the article without stomping all over the article.

One other thing to bear in mind: who benefits from this language? Nobody, in my view. Experienced editors will know how to deal with unreferenced material so don't need to be told. New editors should be guided towards the guidelines as the template alreadu does and not just given a short pithy statement of policy. Readers don't care that material may be removed, but it is useful for it to be highlighted that the article they are reading may not be reliable. With this last in mind - that readers are more important than editors - how about the following:

I've linked to WP:VERIFY from the word "reliable" and to WP:RS from the words "reliable sources". How's that? Thanks for listening. GDallimore (Talk) 09:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Although they shouldn't, many lay-readers will read "may not be reliable" as meaning "probably isn't reliable", which is incorrect. Also the warning about removal is probably still helpful (it tells people what may happen to unreferenced material if left) but tends to imply the remedy is removal, whereas surely its better to suggest a would-be remover or author tries verification first. Combining these, I'd suggest something more like one of these:

This article does not cite adequate references or sources
Readers may need to assess for themselves whether it is reliable.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)

Or:

This article does not cite adequate references or sources
Readers may need to assess for themselves whether it is reliable.
Unreferenced material may be challenged and removed if it cannot be verified.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)

The aim is not to present a POV implication that "the material is probably unreliable" (which some will read into it if not careful). Rather it is to assert that judgement and caution is needed because of the risk of unreferenced material. Alternative wordings are ".. and therefore reader judgement is needed to consider whether it is reliable", or similar, but the above wording was simpler. Thoughts on those two? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just leave well enough alone and use {{verify}} or {{OR}} as appropriate. Jeepday (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is considerable advantage in keeping the templates as short and simple as possible, especially one used so frequently as this unfortunately must be used. Explanations go into the linked words; people know to click on links. It would be nice to keep it at two lines-- and a good example for other templates. DGG 04:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Short templates are an advantage, definitely. I most cases, I'd have thought two bold lines and a minor line should be fine, and adequate, to convey what needs saying. But it does need to be accurate and the wording well thought out.

I've modified two obvious points in the current wording; they don't add much wordage, but do make it more accurate:

1. "Any sources" -> "adequate sources"
2. "may be removed" -> "may be removed if it cannot be verified"

The former is an accuracy issue, the latter is to remind people that ideally one (i.e., the editor or the original author) checks for verification first, then removes if it can't be verified. Deletion is not a first resort.

Hopefully these two points at least are not controversial. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

isnt "Readers may need to assess for themselves whether it is reliable." a little condescending --when we say it isn't all verified, anyone who knows the meaning of verify will know that it may not all be true, and that readers must beware. Let's save that line. DGG 03:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User FT2 - Unfortunately both are controversial. Adequetely has a long history of attempted insertions and deletions please see Template_talk:Unreferenced#.22Adequately.22_in_the_text. Any is the prefered usage for a number of reasons that are out lined here. Template_talk:Unreferenced#Template_usage_no_references_and_undereferenced and removal of "May be removed" is the topic of this debate (and previous debates Template_talk:Unreferenced#.22Material_that_has_no_source_may_be_removed.22 please revert your changes here and at Template:Unreferencedsection until there is a consensus. 03:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There are other templates for articles which cite sources but need better ones. I like having one that says "any". NickelShoe (Talk) 03:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Adequate" to "any" fixed -- see below. I've wikilinked "may be challenged and removed" to WP:BRD, a minor edit, which describes how to do so without being excessively confrontational or aggressive. No textual change to the actual template involved. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• GDallimore and DGG I am not seeing consensus for removal of the removal warning. We did a get minor rewording Diff 5 June 2007 to 26 June 2007 of the warning out of the request. Are you two acceptable to closing this request for the removal (for now)? Jeepday (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. This is not a requst for a change but an invitation to discuss and therefore there is no question of it being open or closed. I have nothing more to add but that doesn't stop other people from coming and adding their opinions and suggestions which may alter the state of consensus.

Personally, I'm quite happy with the current version. It does some things that I like, such as linking to info on reliable sources and verification. The link to BRD was also a good plan, although I suggest linking to the full title of the BRD page so that an inexperienced editor can see and understand where the link goes with just a mouseover The language used to link to it isn't as oppressive as the previous version, either, which is a good thing and my main reason for suggesting removing it entirely. GDallimore (Talk) 13:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the link to WP:BRD in the template should go directly to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle not to the redirect for clarity. I am requesting an editprotect change to the template. Jeepday (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Relinked to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; also replicated this link in Template:Unreferencedsection. Edit request removed as dealt with.

The only remaining question I can see is whether people want to mention the caution about undue reliance: (eg, "Readers may need to assess for themselves whether it is reliable"). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. I don't think the "address for themselves" comment is required, it is already implied by the {{unreferenced}} tag and an editors feel a need to communicate that message on an article the {{OR}} and {{verify}} can be used in combination as required. Jeepday (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm for simplicity & agree we can do without it.DGG 02:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

...And then User:Centrx came by and made an edit Diff 7 intermediate revisions not shown that pretty much but it back like it was but with a shorter warning "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed" several days later no one has commented on Centrx's changes. Jeepday (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

3 lines is better than 4. Good enough DGG 01:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A wish: please, add a link to the talk page in the template! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Adequate to Any

Please change the word "adequate" in the template back to "any", to reflect long term consensus about what this template is for as opposed to templates such as {{moresources}}. GDallimore (Talk) 09:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, and "editprotected" request accordingly removed -- thanks for the note, didn't realise there had been a discussion on that one. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. {{refimprove}} can be used where the references are not adequate for the article or section. FYI {{moresources}} redirects to {{refimprove}} Jeepday (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think italicizing or otherwise emphasizing the "any" would probably discourage users from using this template inappropriately. — The Storm Surfer 03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it just takes 1 out of 222 needed references getting added, and poof, all the sudden the "any" is invalid, and shakes the credibility of the label providing police. Therefore soften it to "any or almost any" or however you would better word it. Otherwise you need to scan every day to be sure you aren't still saying "any". 1/222 is of course not enough to switch a currently existing lighter worded version. Jidanni 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of this template is to mark articles with zero references. Articles with some references can have other templates put on them. Regardless of what template is used, if there aren't enough sources there aren't enough sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

editprotected

Request for edit: this template annoys me the most of all cleanup requests, because editors are using it undiscriminately, without explaining themselves. So: the template needs a link to the talk page where editors explain what's missing, or the template shall clearly tell the reader to replace it with a more specific template ASAP, so we cleaners can understand what it refers to. (I cannot see why Alice in Wonderland lacks citations, it has three sources, and they are linked in the articles). This template is used to litter Wikipedia. It should be used with care. If it wasn't protected, it would be added to my list Category:Templates needing talk links and other improvements. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the {{editprotected}} because the request does not consider the considerable discussion on this topic. Which I will discus shortly. Jeepday (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what has to be explained about "This article does not cite any references or sources." If the article has any sources at all, this template should be removed and (if necessary) replaced with "refimprove", "primarysources", or line-by-line citation requests. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• • And unless I'm missing something, this template isn't on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct, this template is not on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland it has {{refimprove}}Jeepday (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rursus I hear your frustration but you have not researched the issue, discussed it, or looked for consensus before embarking on a crusade to modify the work of multiple editors. From a long history Template_talk:Unreferenced#Template usage no references and undereferenced and Template_talk:Unreferenced#"Adequately" in the text of discussion back and forth, and changes in usage of this template for Does not cite ANY reference and is poorly or not adequately referenced. lead to the diversion of into two templates {{unreferenced}} for articles without ANY references and {{refimprove}} for articles that are poorly sourced. Multiple projects are underway to address these article including Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles which sprung from this talk page (Template_talk:Unreferenced/Archive_2#Project_Proposal). The article Alice's Adventures in Wonderland that you using as your example is tagged with {{refimprove}} because it has some references (2 listed, plus 5 inline citation notes, and numerous external links). Compare the references and citations of any Wikipedia:Featured articles to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and you can see that there is a long way for this article to go, the topic is clearly a candidate for Wikipedia:Featured articles but needs multiple improvements. Back to your comment about this template {{unreferenced}} please explain how it could be any clearler by adding a note to the talk page. If {{unreferenced}} is on an article with 'No References what else is there to say? If it is on an article with references then it should be replaced as noted on Template:Unreferenced or removed. No References at all equals {{unreferenced}} there is nothing else to say in the comments. Jeepday (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph ignores the actual use of the template. The template is used all over the place and it's wishful thinking to hope that people will (a) only apply it to articles with no references, and (b) will remove it once there is a single solitary reference added. The word "any" needs to be changed to reflect the way this template is actually being used (and will continue to be used forever). Tempshill 04:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's a reason for that which will gradually heal itself. The change to have a clear dividing line between templates for "no references" and templates for "insufficient references" was relatively recent, so there is a large backlog in changing one to the other where appropriate. Change takes time, don't undo the changes because they don't immediately work. GDallimore (Talk) 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all: pardon for using {{editprotected}} without seeking consensus. I didn't know that was the rule (need not be formal to be respected). I'm sorry for speaking harshly. Alice's was just one example, which maybe is fixed now, but at least Stargate SG-1 and Plain text files have irritated me the same way, and maybe they're fixed too, by now, but consider the problem: I'm a fixupper, that try to edit and restructure the articles to be readable, then flowing, then delectable. Stargate has just a few possible sources: the films and movies, and the authors. Plain text files is a basic knowledge for which there is no written definition – there simply aren't sources that are good enough to be used according to primary source, first since the word is too new to be researched by linguists, secondly since the sources must be online dictionaries that are by nature tertiary sources – the word was used by technicians, then written into a tech-book, then snapped into the dictionary. If templates are to be dropped on a page, there must be some kind of adaption to the topic in question. That motivates

Category:Templates needing talk links and other improvements and that motivates my broad "raid" against templates. Now, after getting this attention, I'll calm down a bit and join one or many of these projects. Thanks for your attention! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Age of unreferenced

The discusion is continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that in part suggests the use of the Wikitionary tag {{rfv}} to be used on new unreferenced articles (newer then January 1, 2007) which reads

This page has been listed on the requests for verification list. (Add entry to list.) It has been suggested that this entry might not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. If evidence is not provided within a month, the disputed information will be removed.

The rationale being at some point Wikipedia needs to start enforcing WP:V and WP:OR currently the rebuttal's center on encouraging use of references without actually removing unreferenced material. Jeepday (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The discusion is continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification

Icon

I have removed the icon Bdesham added. It served no purpose and made the template quite large. Picaroon (t) 22:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Garion96 (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reinstated the image, but with formatting so that the template is exactly the same size as before. Sorry for screwing it up before! :-/ --bdesham ★ 06:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Even so it still draws unnecessary attention, even more so that its getting already. Do we really want to draw attention to the fact that most of this encyclopedia is unreferenced? T Rex | talk 11:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. It really is not necessary. See also this talk page for many times an image has been proposed. Garion96 (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that nearly all of the other cleanup templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup have icons, I just feel that we should add an icon to this template in the name of consistency. All of those templates are also drawing "unnecessary attention", but if cleanup templates were unobtrusive then their purpose would be defeated. Finally, usability studies have shown again and again that icons are important visual cues, and we want our editors to be able to identify one template from another as easily as possible, in the interest of having the problems fixed as quickly as possible. --bdesham ★ 16:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As the use of icons has been extensively discussed at on this template and has not had discussion or consensuses at most (if not all) of the other reference related clean up tags, in the name of consistency maybe they should all be removed. If you want users to be able to tell one template from another then the icons would need to be different, ideally you would also seek consensuses in the community. Here we have clear consensuses that reference related templates do not need icons as the text of the template must be read to define the intent. As bdesham as pointed out all other templates in Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup have icons so we have consistency in that only reference related templates do not. Summary we have consistency and consensus that reference related templates do not have icons. Jeepday (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup#Use of icons. Please post there and not here. --bdesham ★ 18:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This template is a self-reference.

In the doc page it is written

This template is a self-reference.

what does this mean? -- AnyFile 09:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A while back, someone confused about the "avoid self-references" guideline misguidedly added that statement to numerous templates. We really should have a bot remove it. —David Levy 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It means that it is text on Wikipedia that talks about Wikipedia. If we ever print a copy of Wikipedia, such templates should be silently removed. --Alvestrand 22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit

{{editprotected}} Please add {{subst:tfd}} to the template. Genokutos 20:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Malcolm (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You may remove it again; it was speedily closed as Keep. — Edokter • Talk • 00:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to change "any" to "sufficient"

This article does not cite any references or sources.

We need to change this template's use of "any references" to "sufficient references". The template is automatically made a lie once a single source is added. It is wishful thinking that the template will only be used on articles that have no references. The use of the term "sufficient" will fix the problem. It begs the question, "What is 'sufficient'?", but this is a lesser problem than the problem of factual accuracy that the current template has. Tempshill 04:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note #Adequate to Any Jidanni 04:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are other templates for insufficient sources. When a source is added, this one can be swapped for one of those. GDallimore (Talk) 07:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that this is not happening. Here's an idea - how about if someone were to write a bot to scan all the articles with this template, and if a single single-bracket link exists, then we convert the Unreferenced template to one of the others? If this can't be done then IMO we need to modify this template. Tempshill 17:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do write that bot. It won't cover every instance, because the article could have sources listed but no external links, but I would be interested in just a count of the articles that are marked unreferenced but have an external link. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I lack the skill to write that bot. I'll place a plea on Village Pump's Technical post. That would resolve my (at least) problem with this template. Tempshill 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) A request for a bot to replace {{unref}} as described above has been made at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Template:Unreferenced_bot_request. I encourage watchers of this template to take a look and comment as you feel appropriate.

Icon remove please

{{editprotected}} Please remove the icon that was accidentally added durring the ambox update by adding | image = blank following the entry "| type = content" in the template. There is long standing argument to not include an icon on this template. Jeepday (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

it's gone :) Jeepday (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Poor visibility

With neither an enclosing box nor an icon, this template has extremely poor visibility in articles. It just looks like inline text. Where is the consensus to make these changes? Ham Pastrami 12:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to second that. It looks very messy and it looks like the template is part of the article text. Please add a subtle background, box or whatever. --Jeroenvrp 12:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You may need to clear you cache to see the change correctly for the next couple of hours. Stron consensus for the change was reached at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation Jeepday (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to add an icon?

Warning this is a controversial topic, do not make changes to the template before consensus is clear

The new template standard at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation will be bringing increased attention to this and other templates for the next few days. The new template format also address a couple of long standing arguments against having a icon on this template. I would like to suggest that is now time to seriously consider adding an image to this template and suggest this one in particular. There are a couple of similar icons at Commons:Category:Books icons I think that image of magnifying glass and a book suggest that someone needs to take a closer look at the content of the article and works well with the {{unreferenced}} family of templates including {{refimprove}}. Jeepday (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

General concerns with adding any icon to the template

Please no image! Speaking in graphic icons is for the birds. The current layout is really good. — [ aldebaer⁠] 23:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok with adding an Icon and thoughts about a specific icon

Much too large. Whatever the icon is, it should not force the box to a larger size than at present. Of course this is easy to scale. DGG (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I put up the standard options on Template:Unreferenced/Icon. I will try to scale the icon above and add it as well. 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The text is 3 lines anyway, and the 50 px version doesnt force it beyond that, but I also tried a smaller size-- 40 pixels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

I did the Nuvola apps kpdf.png at 40 px also I think if we had to use a 40px I would prefer the "Nuvola apps kpdf.png" but if we can go 50 or even 65 I like the "Nuvola kdict glass". Not that it matters much because so far it is only you and me talking about adding an icon which is a long way from consensus when you look at the history. Jeepday (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Family of Templates

A note of this suggestion was posted on templates considered to be in the {{unreferenced}} family of templates.

• {{Unreferencedsection}}
• {{Refimprove}}
• {{Refimprovesect}}
• {{Primarysources}}

From Ambox talk page

We were discussing a possible icon for this over at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes, until Jeepday kindly informed us that we might be discussing in the wrong place. That discussion produced a few different icon possibilities, so I wanted to float them by here to see what people think. Here's what we came up with so far:

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

I really like the book design (good work Equazcion and AzaToth!) and I hope it can be used. The magnifying glass covers up to much of the book on the bottom two. The third one's too busy, but maybe it can be tweaked (like flipping the magnifying glass). The first one conveys the message the best, but again I really like the book. - Rocket000 07:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the second and third designs best, particularly the third one. I don't think it's too busy, but maybe the glass could be scaled down a bit to appeal to more people. --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 08:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Question book-2.svg is my favorite for this purpose. The magnifying glass addition seems redundant (because the search and question refer to the same issue; we aren't searching for a question). —David Levy 08:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The second is my favorite, but that could be because it's the closest to my original design :) But even so, I think it's the sleekest and most concise. I tried combining the magnifying glass in there somehow but its just seems cramped, redundant, overkill... Thanks for the compliment by the way, Rocket000.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 08:55, 09/18/2007

Have modified my alternative a bit, as seen here: _→AzaToth 12:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Thank you for bring the discussion here. Please note that this template has a long history of reaching consensus to add an icon only to find after adding it that there was a much greater opposition to the icon then anticipated. Many of the users who tend to object to the use of an Icon do not watch the talk page, but do apply these templates regularly, when they notice a change to template (icon or text) they come here to address the issue. The discusion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_message_boxes#Needs-refs_graphic started with the assumption that the lack of a icon indicated there was a need for an icon, this is not true. There is no icon because the community here has repeatedly rejected the use of icons on these templates. There are really two questions here.

• 1. Do the unreferenced family of templates need an icon? The answer to that is no and is evidenced by the repeated communty reject of any icon.
• 2. Could an icon be selected for this family of templates that would not result in rejection by the community? That is the question, we are here to find out.

Having said that and seeing that the current proposal icons are similar to the related icons all ready in discussion on this talk page and shown at Template:Unreferenced/Icon. I personally prefer the one below as it offers a slight contrast to the side bar, but I can appreciate using coloring that is more in keeping with the side bar color.

• Image:Nuvola apps kpdf.png

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Signed Jeepday (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A thing that is positive for using an icon, is that it can be easier to directly see that it's a "unreferenced" tagging, but true, the icon must have something in common with the purpose of the template. _→AzaToth 14:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That one's good but I think it stands out a bit too much. I still like best, plus it's more subtle so it may be more acceptable to those who've been against an icon thus far.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:41, 09/18/2007

Okay on second thought I think I like best. I think it offers the quickest recognition.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:16, 09/18/2007

Here's my quickie attempt to recolor the icon (which someone more skilled than I could apply to the SVG version):

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

And here it is horizontally flipped:

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

—David Levy 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is an SVG version yet (I was looking for one). This looks pretty good, and I like the non-flipped one better.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 18:36, 09/18/2007

The SVG version is Image:Postscript-viewer.svg. —David Levy 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a chance I didn't look hard enough. I'm having trouble downloading that file though, I'm getting a strange error from the server.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:19, 09/19/2007

Of all the ones that have been suggested; I like this one best.

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 01:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (edit to say that I'm only talking about the icon and the look of the template of course.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs) 01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Same here.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 03:01, 09/19/2007

I would also be ok with Image:Nuvola apps kpdf recolored.png at 50px (p.s. it should be moved to commons if the decision to use template is made) Jeepday (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's where I uploaded it.  :-) —David Levy 03:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm honored that Anetode has chosen to implement one of the icons I made, but the one s/he chose is hardly the product of a consensus. Some admin want to revert that?

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 04:14, 09/19/2007

It looks like we are moving towards consensus of a specific icon to use on the unreferenced family of templates (if one is used). I would caution editors to read #icon above and the other talks about icons here and in the archive #Image and Box Formatting before making a decision about consensus for actually placing the icon on templates. Not counting archived comments I make the count on this talk page of using any icons here to using no icons ever, about even. Many of the past supporters of icons usage on this talk page were supporting specific icons that they had found or made themselves so there are WP:COI concerns there. The recent redesign of the templates has brought this into public view so consensus may or may not have changed. If an attempt to add an icon and maintain (or find) consensus is unsuccessful at this time consensus will probably never be reached to add an icon. Use your best judgment, I am just the housekeeper here. Jeepday (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I love the one by AzaToth posted on 12:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC). Renata 03:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I like Aza's modified alternative one too, with the Q-mark and text. JoeSmack ^Talk 12:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sooooo, whats the score here? Where are we at with this? JoeSmack ^Talk 00:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. Can we get some icon in there already? Every other maintenance tag has an icon, it aids in quick recognition of the tag. This is the only tag I actually have to read in order to see what it's suggesting (please don't make me read! :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:40, 09/24/2007

Color

This template looks really silly with the orange bar. Very lack of aesthetics. Galadree-el 17:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent drive for template infobox standardization. I found the talk page for it earlier today, but have lost it again. --Alvestrand 20:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article templates Jeepday (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree, the new layout is great and much more professional-looking. — [ aldebaer⁠] 23:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Without the colour or border, the infobox looks like a bunch of random text. -- Reaper X 03:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Couple of improvements

I have

1. Ditched the "Tagged since the year dot" thing. There's a dated category at the bottom of every such article, and that's enough. There is no value to the reader in knowing since when and what few editors have the slightest utility for the information are already going to have to use the category anyway. There is no use for the clutter at the top of articles therefore.
2. Removed the links to
   1. Help:Help since that's available elsewhere particularly as soon as they click the far more important "edit me" link, and doesn't need adding to every page yet again.
   2. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. It looks to be essentially comprised of tumbleweed to me, with vandalism still sitting on talk pages and no interest in a month or more. The top of reader-based articles isn't the place for futile pleas for membership - we have more appropriate venues for that.

Given the growing over-burdening of the tops of articles, minimalism is essential. Editors who work on 'unreferenced articles' and the like as their Wikipedia 'hobby' are already knowledgeable enough that they don't need all the extra duplicate links. Those that are not, will derive little use from them when all they want to do is fix a comma or something. Splash - tk 16:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good move, could be applied to many other tags. Rich Farmbrough, 17:44 18 September 2007 (GMT).

I guess you could call me an 'unreferenced articles' hobby editor. I am ok with the removal of the extra links, they come and go, gone today back tomorrow... I am even ok with losing the This article has been tagged since but I do find having the date on the template useful. I know it is on the category and for the most part when working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles I get to the article because it is in the category of the oldest articles wearing {{unref}}. I would really prefer for a number of reasons to have the date remain on the template. In my "hobby" I look at a lot of article every day must are ugly, and I fix the things that need to be fixed the most (in my skill set) that have been tagged the longest. Please do not make my "hobby" any more difficult put the date back on the template. Anyone that can't figure out that the date on the template is the tagged since date, is not going to be helped by the This article has been tagged since. Jeepday (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the date too--I don't do this as much as Jeepday, but I too will try to deal with the oldest preferentially. DGG (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The date is still on the article, since it carries the category at the bottom. To have it at the top is just putting administrative information unnecessarily in the headline of the readers' view of the article. It's fine to warn them "caveat lector, this is unreferenced", but with the proliferation of 'high-impact' graphic design and other tags at the tops of such articles (often each containing the same date), administrative burdens need to be removed. Splash - tk 09:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Our point is that date is no longer on the template, and you have a fine point of view about administrative burdens, but it is your point of view and the removal did not find consensus. In keeping with Splash's WP:BOLD style I requesting the reversion of the removal of the following code which has does not have consensus for removal and had previously found consensus for addition.

{{editprotected}}

Please place this code <br />{{#if:{{{date|}}}|This article has been tagged since '''{{{date}}}'''.}} Directly before </small></span> at the end of the template. Jeepday (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I don't think you have actually given any reasons to add it back, and this 'consensus' of which you speak is not a reverting force. There is nothing 'bold' about a reversion to a poor version of a template. The date is on the article as much as it ever was, and serves no use in the template. Splash - tk 09:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to explain that have the date on the template makes it easier to assess the article while improving it. It is particularly helpful on the very ugly articles that have multiple templates and or categories. For the template reader the date provides some information about the quality of the article and ongoing maintenance. An article that has been tagged for clean-up or references for over a year is more likely to have been abandoned and is in need of adoption where as an article that has tags with relatively current dates is receiving some current attention. You have four arguments to remove the date.

1. . There's a dated category at the bottom of every such article, and that's enough. I have disagreed and addressed that it is not enough for editors who are improving articles.
2. . There is no value to the reader in knowing since when... I have addressed this as well, old date = abandoned article
3. . few editors have the slightest utility for the information are already going to have to use the category anyway. I am on of the "few editors" which I identified in my first post on the topic when I pointed out that the date in the template is helpful to me. It may seem surprising to you but I don't always find {{unreferenced}} on articles via a dated category and even when I do it may have multiple {{unreferencedsection}} with different dates.
4. . There is no use for the clutter at the top of articles therefore, use has been discussed it is not clutter and serves a useful purpose to working editors and random readers alike.

• Now do I need to spend more of my limited volunteer time on Wikipedia discussing this or can we replace the date so I can go back to fixing articles? Jeepday (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem very angry. I would suggest that you move on to looking quickly at the bottom of articles rather than the top. It makes no difference to you which you look at; if you think it does, then I really think that's rather over-sensitive. To take 1, 3 and 4: you just make the one point: that you personally find it useful; well ok, but the information you find useful is still in the article and as accessible as always. On the other hand, the mess at the top of the article is reduced. Net benefit to readers, who matter more than editors. Point 2 is material: the abandonment thing. But the reader already has a caveat lector, a shiny bar, a picture, some words and so on. That's enough, and once the date is removed from other templates, the improvement is substantial on a multiply-tagged article.

You need waste no time further time, since the information you require is still there, as it always has been. It is even still at the top of the article when you press 'edit'. The change from your point of view is irrelevant. The change is important from the point of view of presentation and compression of clutter, however. See if you can make the transition from top to bottom of article. It might be easier than you fear. Splash - tk 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I, too, prefer to have the date of tagging "smalled" within the template itself. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Any reason for that? It's in the category at the bottom in bigger text. Editorial convenience (which is minimal since all you have to do is scroll for half a second!) is trumped by improved presentation for readers. So far, the only surviving reason anyone has for adding the clutter back into thousands of articles is "I want it there". Splash - tk 16:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Splash - Am I angry? I can't imagine how I managed to survive my whole life without you tell me what makes a difference to me "It makes no difference to you which you look at" So I guess I must be angry if you say I am. I realize that it's not just me, you know for the whole universe it would seem. In counter to your argument that "There is no value to the reader", I provided a valid value for the reader to know when the article was tagged, but as you know better then I "But the reader already has a caveat lector, a shiny bar, a picture, some words and so on". So I apologize for questioning your superior judgment, you appear to have the "Net benefit to readers, who matter more than editors" as a primary concern. How could I have imagined that a "shiny bar" and a "picture" could have been less valuable to the reader then a date? And when you consider that this template does not have a picture because years of consensus by the community has indicated that the text was more important and the picture did not add value to the message, well that leaves the reader with a "shiny bar" and some text, and we would not want to give the reader any more information then Splash beleives is appropriate for them. Maybe to meet your goal "The change is important from the point of view of presentation and compression of clutter", we should just remove templates completely? The categories would still be listed at the bottom of the article.

Lets review

• Splash Item 1 for removal of date - There is no value to the reader or the editor to have the date on the template.
• Mixed support for and against date on template
• An editor (jeepday) posted {{editprotected}}, which was canceled by Splash Diff
• More responses that it provides value, only a single editor continuing to speak to keep date off of template
• Leaving the only argument to remove the date is Splash took it off, who counters with a request to replace the date with "the only surviving reason anyone has for adding the clutter back into thousands of articles is "I want it there". Splash - tk 16:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)"

Splash it is unclear if you are going to continue to challenge the rights of other editors to make individual template changes that you do not personally agree with. Maybe this is a bigger policy decision that should be made some place more visible then this talk page. Splash if you really beleive it is in the best interest of Wikipedia globally not to include dates on templates please bring it up some place more visible and appropriate like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

Signed Jeepday (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried re-reading your comments to work out concretely what the reason is. I think you are saying these things:

1. You find it useful at the top. But I haven't worked out why - what critical benefit do you have from it being at the top and bottom rather than just the bottom. Saving 1 mouse click occasionally is surely not all?
2. Multiple unreferenced sections with dates. Well, these per-section templates ought to be burned anyway. They just destroy articles. Why use a gazillion templates when one will do?
3. 'Abandonment' of an article. Not something that's material, really, once you've received the caveat lector. If interested, the information is still there on the page and in the history. Abandonment isn't information we routinely put on articles, referenced or otherwise; and some very quiet and unref'd articles are actually perfectly correct in their content and oughtn't to have so many shades of doubt cast on them.

So the important thing is that I haven't understood why you find it essential to have the date at the top of the article, and why you think the additional 'clutter' up there is so important it overrides all the presentational aspects. Maybe once I understand that, I will be clearer on things. Cheers, Splash - tk 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that the categories might vanish to be replaced with another mechaism, the approach of {{trivia}} may be a good way forward - include just the date in parenthesis. (done) Rich Farmbrough, 12:52 25 September 2007 (GMT).

I am pleased to hear that the date information looks like being gotten rid of completely. However, for this template, having the (imo redundant) information expanding the height of the template by something approaching 33% is not a solution. I've therefore moved the 'small'ed text onto the first line of it. I hope to remove it completely in the near future. Splash - tk 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the template before making the change? It would have looked like this:

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (May 2007)

Not adding to the height at all, nor breaking the flow of words. Looking, in my opinion like a date for the tag, rather than for the headline. Rich Farmbrough, 14:04 29 September 2007 (GMT).

I think the date looks more professional at the end of the last line, or pushed all the way to the right of the top line. Also would someone replace the date on refimprove, it looks like Splash, accidently removed it diff when trying to move it. Jeepday (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Again and again

{{editprotect}} please undo this change Diff the change was not made with consensus during an active discussion and the editor User:anetode who made the change has declined User_talk:Jeepday#Re:_Template:Unreferenced to undo the action. Jeepday (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already reverted that edit. —David Levy 04:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

date upon template?

I came across an article tagged with {{unreferenced}} but not showing any date in the template. I checked the history for when the tag was added, and went into the article to add it but found that it was already there. As far as I can tell the syntax is done correctly ( {{unreferenced|date=May 2007}} ); but is there something wrong that I'm missing? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And ... had I paid more attention, I would have found this only two sections above. Live and learn. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Off center

The template was recently changed, and the changes not only made it shorter than the rest of the templates (so they no longer align left and right), but it is no longer centered. Can someone take a peek at that and perhaps fix it? Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 22:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be fixed; try refreshing your cache. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Very odd, as I refresh my cache every hour, regularly. Not sure why it was showing up oddly for me earlier, but thanks Carl! ^Ariel♥Gold 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It had been broken, so it makes sense that it would appear broken for you at some time... Also the job queue is about 2m entries ATM, may have an impact. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06 29 September 2007 (GMT).

Empty margin until icon

Until an icon is added, could you please add an empty margin the size of an icon? (The version posted above by "Rich Farmbrough, 14:04 29 September 2007 (GMT)." had a different wording but the empty margin was there, so that's possible.) This is because the current version makes the "This article does not..." part not aligned with other messages, and it looks very amateur with several boxes stacked, as on this permalink example. Thanks. — Komusou ^talk @ 19:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks right when lined up with other templates that don't have icons like {{prod}} in this example (which being a prod will probably not be available for long). Jeepday (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Documentation clarification: unreferencedsection

Confusion between {{unreferenced|section}} and {{unreferencedsection}} seems not uncommon. How would people feel about adding this paragraph at the end of the documentation's Usage section?

{{Unreferenced|section}} is not equivalent to {{Unreferencedsection}}. The first is to draw attention to a section in an article that has no references. The second is to draw attention to a section that has no references in an article that has one or more references.

Or perhaps "may or may not have references" instead of "has one or more references"...the documentation on {{unreferencedsection}} isn't completely clear on that. The suggested italics are because it can otherwise be unclear what "that" refers to, but perhaps better phrasing would reliminate that ambiguity. -Agyle 04:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a great improvement.--BirgitteSB 12:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If a whole article has no references why would you need to draw further attention to a specific section in that article that also has no references? Jeepday (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not advocating that a person use the section modifier for that, I'm just trying to clarify the documentation. The template already includes the optional "section" modifier, and already lists it in the documentation, but I think the documentation is confusing as to when it should and shouldn't be used. Do you think the proposed addition is correct, ignoring the question of whether having a "section" modifier is a good idea? -Agyle 01:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

When you sit and think on it for a minute like Agyle did I can see the editors point and the confusion {{unreferenced|section}} and {{unreferencedsection}} usage is not clear in the directions. As an editor who has been fairly involved (over 100 edits here [1]) in discussions on this talk page, my interpretation of the correct usage based on consensus here would be that both {{unreferenced|section}} and {{unreferencedsection}} are equal and should only be used on sections with no references in the section. If the whole article is unreferenced then {{unreferenced}} would be used at the top. If a section is partially referenced then use {{refimprovesect}} in the section. Like I said this is my interpretation of the consensus, so obviously I would beleive it is correct usage as I describe it, but just because I beleive it does not make it true. I think there are two questions here.

1. What is the correct usage of {{unreferenced|section}} and {{unreferencedsection}}?
2. Are the usage instructions for these two clear?

• I think the answer to question 2 is that the usage instructions are not clear. But I don't think they can be fixed until the answer to question 1 is clear. What are other editors thoughts on Question 1 Jeepday (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oooooooooh, this is confusing. :-) The documentation on {{unreferenced}} says you can say anything as an optional parameter; the fact that it uses "|section called 'Childhood'" is just an arbitrary example. {{unreferenced|section}} doesn't actually have any special status over any other words you use. The template box repeats whatever you say in place of "article," so if you add {{unreferenced|steaming pile of garbage}}, the box on the page says "This steaming pile of garbage does not cite any references or sources."

There is one indisputable functional difference between using {{unreferenced|section}} and {{unreferencedsection}}: the former adds an article to Category:Articles lacking sources, while the latter adds an article to Category:Articles needing additional references. And a practical difference is that, as noted in the documentation for {{unreferenced}}, you could put {{unreferenced|article's section named 'Childhood'}} anywhere (top, bottom, in the section, or on the Talk page), whereas {{unreferencedsection}} would only make sense in the section. Again, I'm not advocating or defending any of this; that's just how it is. -Agyle 04:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a lots of changes to the documentation text. I avoided suggesting when unreferenced or unreferencedsection should be used, as it's not yet clear if there is a consensus on that. I only noted the functional difference between the two: the placement of an article in different categories. I think everything in the documentation change is factual and uncontroversial, so I didn't put it all here as a proposal, but if there is any dispute over anything, I'd encourage removing the text in question or reverting the entire edit until the issue can be resolved. -Agyle 11:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed."

What's up with this? Any unsourced material can be challenged and removed, not just material that's unverifiable. This is misleading.P4k 17:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It came from this edit. Possibly it was just a slip of the tongue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Placement

With the revamping of our templates, I think it's time to revisit the placement of this template. It was usually placed at the bottom, were references are; but shouldn't we now aim to put it at the top, where it can stack with other templates, and where 99% of users expect them to be?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I put it at the top 99% of the time. Jeepday (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Current wording "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the top of the article page, the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page." My guess is it's now placed at the top at the top at least 95% of the time, unless it has a description field (usually just saying "section"), in which case it's usually placed in a section. Here's one alternative:

"This template is usually placed at the top of the article, unless its optional description field refers to a specific area of the article. However, it can also be placed at the bottom of an article, in an empty 'References' section, or on the article's Talk page."

That's fairly mild; did you have a firmer guideline in mind? -Agyle 05:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Not the talk page. I would say the usage for most people is for the top of the articles, but have seen some that appear to be the results of a script the inserts a "References" subheading, hidden html comment on citing references, and this template at the bottom. I don't think it really matters where it is placed on the article page. Putting in on the talk page messes up the category pages because it is too large a category to put everything in "T". Also it is an often needed warning for the readers. --BirgitteSB 13:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that it always go on the talk page. Templates on the article page are only needed as a warning for readers. That an article is unreferenced is obvious enough when you're reading it, and needs no warning there. it applies to editors though, as a reminder of what is needed. We have way too many templates on article pages, and this is among the least necessary there. DGG (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I always put it at the top of articles, and only extremely rarely have I seen it in an empty "References" section. I have never seen it on a talk page. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 10:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have only seen it on a talk page once and that is when an editor added a source to the article and moved the template there because they were not sure of the protocol. Existing practice is clearly for placing this on the article rather than the talk page. I am strongly against placing it on the talk page as long as that results in all articles being placed under "T" in the category. If that were fixed I would be weakly against putting it on the talk page as everyones energy is better spent on actually working through the actual articles themselves than on an issue of window dressing. In such issues I always support the status quo as I see any change as fruitless.--BirgitteSB 17:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I see it at the top of an article I always move it to the Reference section. My reasons for doing this are in the archive. Jeepday, pd_THOR why do you put it at the top of the article page? --Philip Baird Shearer 00:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that that {{unreferenced}} is Wikipedia's most necessary template. It directly addresses and identifies to readers and editors that the articles does not meet two of Wikipedia's three core content policies WP:NOR and WP:V. Both of these require references for encyclopedic content. Without this template, it is not obvious that an article is not referenced until you get to the bottom if you happen to read the entire article. If an article is properly referenced and cited you can tell while reading, but only if it has inline citations. Putting the template at the top servers these needs

1. Identifies to the random reader that source of the content is unknown
2. Provides links and hopefully motivation to editors who feel attached to the article or subject to add references to the article

I also realize that presently I am probably Wikipedia's most vocal and active reference advocate, but I think if you are going to have any templates on the top of an encyclopedic article Unreferenced should be first. I think unreferenced content is Wikipedia's most significant issue, and anything reasonable we can do to address that is good. Where you place the tag (any template) implies the severity of the issue. Jeepday (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that if we were to follow you logic then we would have to place the Reference section of every article a the start of the page. References or the lack of references should be in the Reference section. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The reference section should be the last (other then navigation boxes) item at the bottom the article. I beleive that any consumer of an encyclopedia article should be able to assume that the article is reliable content from a reliable source. If a reader/editor has chosen to place {{unreferenced}} on an article there is reason to question the reliability of the article content and this warning should be clearly visible to the multitude of readers who are coming to depended on Wikipedia as source of reliable information. Jeepday (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Also I do not think you are not correct that an article is in breach of NOR and V just because it does not carry any references. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it not in breach of WP:NOR "In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately."and WP:V "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" to not include references? You may also recall that there is a bold statement "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted" when editing a New Article, reminding editors of the value Wikipedia places on references and the possible consequences of not listing references. Jeepday (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not policy to delete articles just because they do not have citations. To be in breach of NOR someone must have reasonable grounds for thinking that the it breaches NOR, an article is not automatically in breach of NOR because it carries not citations.

For example many Wikipedia:Summary style articless do not need citations (as the inline links provide that) so there is little of "any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Also stubs frequently do no carry citations or references and are acceptable without them. Articles copied from public domain sources like the eleventh edition Encyclopædia Britannica carry a reference section with {{1911}} but the text does not have EB inline citations. As I said before there is no policy that articles have to have references or citations. If of course they are challanged, then that is another matter, but in which case there are other templates that can be used to indicate non NPOV or whatever, if it is only a question that the article does not carry any references then there is no reason to clutter up the introduction when such information can be put in a more specific place -- the Reference section. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No one here is talking about inline citations, so we can drop that part. I will say that a large majority of articles that are correctly tagged with this template do have issues with original research. And I think Jeepday is correct in his concerns. Stubs should have at least one general reference in order to show that they they are not complete fabrications. It is a BIG DEAL in my opinion that complete fabrications exist for a year before being dealt with. That they are stubs does not make it acceptable.--BirgitteSB 15:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One reason it takes so long is because of the drive by muppets who monitor the AfD. Take this example I have recently put forward and read the keep reasons. I have this problem every time I put a page up for an AfD so one has to be determined if a page is to be deleted. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Section parameter

Since there is not a strong consensus this parameter should be used. Does anyone object making the categorization conditional so that when the section parameter is used it goes to a different category? Either to the same category as {{unreferencedsection}} or to a subcategory of the one currently used. Personally as someone going through this category I have yet to see and article tagged with this using the section parameter that lacked sources. I even went through articles tagged in October on the second of the month to make sure this is true when they are newly tagged. I don't understand the controversy about this at all. There is no need for this parameter that I can see. However the above suggestion would solve the problem those of us working through this category are encountering while compromising with the people wish to keep this syntax.--BirgitteSB 13:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think have the category conditional to Category:Articles needing additional references if the template is {{unreferenced|section}} is a good idea. Can it be done? Jeepday (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how to do it. But the dates all sort themselves into different categories, so I think it is possible.--BirgitteSB 17:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. Note that there's not really a "section" parameter, that's a description field that people often fill with the word "section," but the change could be made on that basis; if "section" is the only word (or perhaps first word) in the description field, then add it to "Categories: Articles needing additional references."

The controversy, I think, is that some people think {{unreferenced}} should have one basic meaning, regardless of any parameters: that the article has no references. I disagree, but since nobody here is making the argument, I'll suggest some possible reasons: Templates should be consistent, not overloaded with complicated exceptions. This template was originally created for articles with no references, and that's how it's always worked. Changing it will incorrectly categorize articles for people who used the template with "section" correctly in the past. Having this template able to do what {{unreferencedtemplate}} makes that template redundant; there shouldn't be two completely different templates to do the exact same thing, people should just learn to use the correct template. (Not my views, just playing devil's advocate.)

There's not a lot of input here. Is there someplace else with we should mention this, to avoid making a controversial change with so little input? I'm pretty new to this topic.

Functionally, I can see roughly how to make the change; categorizing is done by Talk=[[Category:Articles lacking sources {{#if:{{{date|}}}|from {{{date}}}|}}]][[Category:All articles lacking sources]], and you'd make that whole thing conditional depending on whether the description (referenced as {{{1}}}}) were "section"...it can certainly be done, if it is decided the change should be made. -Agyle 19:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I can honestly say I have looked at over 1,000 articles tagged with {{unreferenced}}, I cannot remember ever seeing the section parameter used in the way you describe as correct. The only people who are coordinated in using this template on the back end should be aware since discussions have pointed here from Wikipedia talk:Unreferenced articles. As far as people using it on the front end, I am not sure. I think they are mostly New Page Patrollers and should have a coordination page for that.--BirgitteSB 19:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Meaning you haven't seen {{unreferenced|section}} used in an article with no references? I'd believe that; I think it's used mainly by people unaware that it does something different from {{unreferencedsection}}. I've also never seen the description field used to say anything other than just "section," except in the template documentation. Has anyone else?

The Wikipedia talk:Unreferenced articles pointer was what I meant by mentioning it someplace else; great!

One technical note: when the template is changed, it won't re-categorize articles until the next time the article is saved. That's just how the template works. When the proposed template change is made, it may be useful to create a list of articles with {{unreferenced|section}} tags at that time, if someone wants to use a bot or manually resave those articles, so past usages will be categorized according to the new template code.

Since your initial post suggested a couple alternatives, I'm going to make a specific proposal in a separate section, so that people can add agree or disagree to that. I'll also suggest removing the description field, as it seems unused, and its removal would make this change just a bit easier. -Agyle 21:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Icon in the template

The discussion sort of died, and I couldn't see any consensus reached (if I missed it, could someone kindly point me to it please), so the question still stands: we had some great suggestions for the icon to go in the template, isn't it time to actually choose one and add it? --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 10:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The question on whether to add an icon seemed to get diverted by questions of which icon was best, without resolution on the question of whether to add one. At least that was my interpretation. What was your take? -Agyle 12:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That was my impression as well. I do believe however that the icon, though not essential, adds a nice touch to the template and should be added. Especially, given then very nice designs we have been offered by the community. Therefore:

Hello, does anyone really object to adding an icon to this template, and, to be fair, is there any support for it? --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm Neutral — looks pretty, but slows down page loads; I'm indifferent about it drawing more attention. I'd object if it makes the message box taller (Template:Inappropriate_tone has a nice short icon). -Agyle 06:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For an icon. If nothing else, I think consistency across maintenance tags is important, especially now with the ambox standardization, and even more especially for widely-used templates such as this one. The rationale should really be the same here as for icons in any other maintenance tag -- quick and easy recognition and distinguishing between the different tags. If it's been decided that all those other tags benefit from it, why has this one been left out? Is there anything that makes this tag so different from the others, that the same logic doesn't apply here? If there are people here who are against icons in general for maintenance tags, then I think that's something they should be taking to the ambox standardization discussion; but as long as icons have generally been applied to maintenance tags, there is no reason that this one should be an exception.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:26, 10/12/2007

Support the icon - just for the sake of clarity. Agreeing with Equazcion, easy recognition, standardisation of maintenance tags and nice looks are my main arguments. --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 07:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Which icon provides easy identification of reference issue? Jeepday (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about any particular icon, just saying that an easily recognizeable icon will make the identification of the template box with the reference issue easier for the reader. --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To recap, here are the options:
1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9:
Any opinions? --Geniac 16:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, icons look good. But the value is debatable. I've raised one point at the general discussion place - we should standardise whether the icon is supposed to illustrate the problem, the solution or just be an attention grabber like "!" or "?". Then we should also look at the audience - is it the template savvy clean-up crew, or the general reader? No doubt those reading this page will soon get acclimatised to whatever icon we use and recognise it as "unref". Rich Farmbrough, 10:01 13 October 2007 (GMT).

I support an icon in message boxes, and I'll support icons #2 and #3. Rationales:

• I eliminate #1, 7-8-9 because they are flat, 2D, like old computer icons. And then there were five.
• I eliminate #6 because we have an orange border, and the yellow/amber/red theme of the others will be more integrated. And then there were four.
• I eliminate #4-5 because the magnifier has become largely synonymous with "search option" in modern GUI (Windows use one for the "search option", CD rippers use one for the "CDDB lookup" option, etc.); that is, the symbolism of book + question mark seems enough to me, and the magnifier just gets in the way, either redundant or conflicting. And then there were two.
• With a gun to my head, I'd eliminate #2 because it looks like a blank book, whereas #3 shows the lines of text. (I've checked in 256 colors mode too, the lines of text stay OK.) And then there was one. One icon to rule them all (to mix a reference).

— Komusou ^talk @ 01:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are three votes in support, one neutral, none opposed. Rich Farmbrough and Jeepday asked questions without voting. My opinions on the questions: for this template, it should suggest the problem, the way the broom suggests the article needs cleanup. I don't think picking a single target audience is necessary; icons aren't necessary for either audience, but may have some value for either audience. I favor icon #3, for Komusou's reasons, especially that a magnifying glass has the "search/find" user interface connotation, though I'd note that in Template_talk:Unreferenced/Archive_3#Is_it_time_to_add_an_icon.3F, more people favored a magnifying glass; of those I'd pick #5, then #8. Some current icons (see Template:Ambox) are "flat," but there's no consistent convention on 2D vs. 3D or abstract vs. representational icons.

I added a note at Wikipedia:Article_message_boxes that this is being discussed here. If there aren't any more votes in the next couple days, I'd say let's go ahead and try the change. If that happens, are there any other opinions on which icon to use? I'd brace for reversion and negative feedback after the change, as Jeepday suggested has happened in the past. Assuming there are more objections then, I'd say it should be reverted after more there are more complaints than there were supporters, to allow further discussion by newly interested parties. The drawback to this is I'd guess we'll get a non-representative sample: new parties who come here to comment are more apt to be those who dislike the change, not those who do like it. But I don't see any way around that. -Agyle 03:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Support And I vote for icon #2. If a magnifying glass is heavily wanted, I pick . My reasons were stated in past discussions, like here. Rocket000 03:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Support and I vote for icon #3 for the same reasons as Komusou. --Geniac 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Support and I don't care which icon is used anymore, just put one of them in already. PS Any reason this template is still full-protected?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:34, 10/16/2007

Yeah, this should be knocked down to at least semi-protected. Rocket000 20:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Support Cannot make a call for a particular icon per logic. _→AzaToth 15:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I would say there's a consensus here for an icon. So, are we just waiting to agree on which icon? (I'd be alright with #3, also.) Rocket000 15:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also be fine with #3.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:33, 10/23/2007

Done. Lets move on to something more important, like WP:BIKESHEDs. --Geniac 20:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Section parameter: specific proposal

This is based on the suggestion in Section Parameter above. Please add agree, disagree, or half agree if you only agree with one of the two suggestions.

(1) Add a new optional parameter, the word "section", which causes the message to read "This section..." rather than "This article...", and which adds the article is to Category:Articles needing additional references (or its monthly date-sorted subcategories) rather than Category:Articles lacking sources (or its monthly date-sorted subcategories). This would make {{unreferenced|section}} do the same thing as {{unreferencedsection}}. This is proposed to reflect the reality that people use {{unreferenced|section}} with this intent; it could be argued that they shouldn't, but they do, making it harder for people who make use of the categories.

(2) Remove the description field. All it does is change the wording in the messagebox, and it seems very rarely used except as the word "section," which would be reinterpreted by (1). By removing support for the field, the template will still work if there is a description, it will just ignore it, with the message reading "This article...." Retaining this field makes the documentation and the template code that much longer and more complicated.

-Agyle 21:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am pretty sure in the last few weeks User:Rich Farmbrough added the description field and tried get the categories to sort based on the section parameter. You might talk to him about this. Jeepday (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The description field is from an April 2006 change (I went through the history a couple days ago :-), but I'll contact Rich; thanks! -Agyle 00:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a general tendency in the clean-up templates¹ to have default parameter 1 replace the words "article or section" - this can be used with more than just the words "article" or "section" - "table" and "figure" spring to mind. There is no reason that this field cannot be evaluated to select the categor: at the moment I can't think of anything other than "article" that would not cause it to be re-categorized, so this could be the default, if the argument is present.

Rich Farmbrough, 10:16 13 October 2007 (GMT). 1: Note:Some that do not are hang-overs from when parameter 1 was the date

Alternatively/additionally SmackBot could change those templates with the section parameter to unrefsect. Rich Farmbrough, 10:20 13 October 2007 (GMT).

I don't see a problem with smackbot changing "unreferenced|section" to "unrefsect". I believe Bridgett suggested something similar a few days ago. Any thing like ""unreferenced|table" would probably need manual review though. Jeepday (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Building this list as I go along

Values found:

• article -> removing this - most common.
• biography
• companies
• section -> moving to {{Unreferencedsection}}

Rich Farmbrough, 18:06 13 October 2007 (GMT).

When removing the article, also remove the pipe. But you probably already thought of that. Jeepday (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd still prefer adding a section parameter, rather than using a bot to change the template, but it doesn't make a big difference. My general thinking is it would be easier for editors to learn fewer templates with greater flexibility, and unreferenced and unreferencedsection are so closely related that it's a reasonable combination to allow unreferenced to do either.

I do agree now that the description field should be kept. Its main use in other cleanup templates seems to be to use the word "section", to change "This article..." or "This article or section..." to "This section...", but using it to say "This biography" is a good example of where someone might just prefer a different word than "article". It doesn't seem necessary, but the reason I suggested deleting the field was because it seemed virtually unused other than for "section," and that's been shown to be wrong.

-Agyle 12:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I really like Rich's proposal. I understand Agyle's desire to keep things streamlined, however a tag that is on 80,000+ articles is one that needs to be refined rather than streamlined IMHO. People need to learn a few more tags as this one is definitely over-used.--BirgitteSB 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, just to make we're on the same page: the unrefereced|section articles can be moved out of the "articles lacking sources" with either approach. So there might still be 80,000+ articles that have an unreferenced tag, but not that many in "articles lacking sources". If you just meant that the Smackbot messages might spread some education about unreferencedsection, that's true, but if people unaware of it do learn that template, it doesn't really reduce the number of articles lacking any sources that they should tag as {{"unreferenced"}}. I'm not trying to argue with you, your opinion is your opinion, but I thought from what you said that there might be some confusion. Ultimately I'd say the problem is editors who write articles lacking sources! :-) -Agyle 23:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately the problem is editors writing articles lacking sources, agreed. Then there are editors who argue that Wikipedia policy does not require references[2]. Jeepday (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What percentage of the 80,000+ articles that have an unreferenced tag are also stubs? "There is currently no consensus about whether this template should be used with stubs." --Philip Baird Shearer 09:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeepday, I've encountered that too; informed proponents of non-stub unreferenced articles cite WP:VERIFY's admittedly-vague "challenged or likely to be challenged" standard. Philip, I just took a look at ten random articles in Categories:Articles lacking sources from February, and seven were stubs (one a single sentence); it was a puny sample, but it suggests a lot are stubs. -Agyle 11:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

@Agyle: In my own experience it is not a small minority of people who use this tag on articles they think "Aren't referenced to my satisfaction" rather than articles they think "Lack sources entirely". On Oct 2 I went through many of the recently tagged articles and contacted quite a few editors who I felt could have used a more appropriate tag and directed them to other tags such as {{refimprove}} and {{primarysources}}. I got a number responses from people who were unaware these other options. So I do think education is needed.

@Philip The worst articles I have encountered in going through unreferenced articles were all stubs. Some of these stubs were complete fabrications other were unverifiable rumors or theories. Since I identified them through the unreferenced project they have been deleted. I am against any effort to mass remove this tag from stubs. Also the copyvios I have found have been about half stubs. These sort of articles need to be found and weeded out. Some of them were also tagged {{orphan}} but not all and obviously the orphans are not being worked through very well.--BirgitteSB 14:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Our experiences differ Birgitte, I think articles like Genocide denial, Catalan negationism and Macedonism are much more of a problem than stubs. The first has a subtle built in non NPOV, and the latter two because the introduce neologism into English. This is because to the casual reader (and to the muppets who seem to watch AdD lists and express an opinion on them) they appear to be normal Wikipedia articles. If stub culling is an interest then one can do it through categories that are listed via the stub templates, one does not need to use {{unreferenced}} category for such a task. Further as the stubs are usually given a specific typing it is possible to select stubs in a category area where one has some expertise rather than just picking one from the unreferenced category because its name suggests that one might have some knowledge about the topic. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Macedonism may be a problem article but it's problem is not that it is "unreferenced". I really do not understand much of you last response. My interest is in Wikipedia's integrity and not necessarily in deleting stubs. I happen to think that fabricated articles and bad information damage that integrity no matter what the length of the article is. For example, I would find this to be a problem despite its short length. If you think people should not tag stubs with {{unreferenced}} then work on convincing them to take a different action with stubs they find problematic. I spend some time myself convincing people not to use {{unreferenced}} as a catch-all. But any articles currently tagged {{unreferenced}} need attention no matter how long they are.--BirgitteSB 19:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I've done a one-off run removing "article" and changing the "section" parametered ones. This was about 3,000 of the 4,000 with default argument. Sb will do this to any it comes across while dating maintenance tags, but will probably not be searching for them in future. Rich Farmbrough, 21:21 17 October 2007 (GMT).

Update doc with {subst:DATE}

I suggest updating the doc to replace the date examples with the literal code {{subst:DATE}} instead. It's more practical to give people a copy-pasteable code that's permanent (can be stored on their user page or text file cheat sheet) rather than the current example, which is valid only for one day. — Komusou ^talk @ 01:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about that; it's a useful tip! The current documentation does automatically adjust the date in the example (i.e. it currently shows currently date=October 2007), which is useful if someone is copying and pasting it from the doucumentation, but I understand the usefulness of subst for copying and pasting from another location. I think for clarity, it would be better to leave the existing examples with a specific month, but then include an additional explanation of the subst:DATE method. I think it would be pretty confusing to some users otherwise. Something like:

Subst:DATE tip

The term "{{subst:DATE}}" can be used in place of "date=October 2007", as it will be replaced with the current date when an article is saved. This can be useful for lists of templates that editors copy and paste into an article, as "{{unreferenced|{{subst:DATE}}}}" can be pasted without the need to manually adjust the date.

(Changes to wording would be welcome. :-) -Agyle 02:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Subst:DATE is a great idea, but people regularly misunderstand and put subst:October 2007 etc. I have some code to mop these up, but I always end up manually fixing some of them (I even have a template message for people that do this). Really I would rather people left the date off than get it wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01 17 October 2007 (GMT).

Protection

I'd like someone to please tell me why this template is still fully protected. It's getting ridiculous and quite frustrating to talk endlessly about what to do with the template, even forming what looks like consensus (see the icon discussion), but then having to wait for an admin to take interest in order for the change to occur.

Sources vs. Referenced vs. Citation

Recently I had a {{Unreferenced}} tag removed from Digital electronics with the explanation "Page does contain references." This indeed is the case. However, nowhere in this article are the references cited.

I read in the application of this template, "{{Unreferenced}} should be used only on articles that have no sources.". Yet the template displays "This article does not cite any references or sources." [Emphasis added].

This seems inconsistent to me and I am in a quandary about this. I'm not sure what the solution to this is and I think something needs to be changed to resolve this issue. (Note that {{Citesources}} links to {{Unreferenced}}.)

Softtest123 15:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

{{Citations}} would be more appropriate in the case you describe.--BirgitteSB 15:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however, then maybe this article should make a specific reference to {{Citations}} in the "Differences from related templates" section and the template message for {{Unreferenced}} should not contain the phrase "... cite any references ..." if that is the case (changing "cite" to "contain"). Softtest123 16:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:V does not mandate references what it says in the section WP:PROVEIT is "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". It goes on to say that this and some other templates can be used to make such are request. I think that the wording on this template "should be used only on articles that have no sources." needs to be updated to reflect the PROVEIT policy statement. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT also says, "Any edit lacking a source may be removed..." and "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long...". This verges on a mandate and including tags such as {{Unreferenced}}, {{Citations}}, or {{Fact}} IS a challenge to the tagged text.

there is a difference between a challenge and a request. DGG (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned with the Wikipedia definitions of "source", "reference", "referenced", "cited", "citation" and the distinction between these words. Are they equivalent and can be used interchangeably? I should think not. Softtest123 14:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

the are used here in an overlapping manner. If you can, propose a distinction; whatever it may be, if it is generally accepted, we wlll have a good deal of editing to do at various policy statements.  :) DGG (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following:

source -- is well defined in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, though with multiple definitions. In Talk:WP:SOURCE#Wikipedia definition of the word "source" I have recommended that WP:SOURCE redirect to that article.

reference -- The identification of a specific source, such as a book, article, web page, or other published item, with sufficient detail to identify that item uniquely. [[Reference]] contains a general definition. This would be a good place to add a section on the specific use of "reference" in Wikipedia. To avoid ambiguity, "reference" should not be used as a verb in Wikipedia where "refer to" or "cite" might do as well. "References" is a good heading for the list of "references" by this definition.

referenced -- The property of a source as having been used as a reference. (This covers the case where an article contains references that may not be referred to or "cited".)

citation -- A specific referral to a reference that is associated with a specific body of text. [[Citation]] says: "A citation or bibliographic citation is a reference to a book, article, web page, or other published item with sufficient detail to identify the item uniquely." Note the ambiguous use of the word "reference". Dictionary.com:citation defines "citation" variously for this context:

"5. the act of citing or quoting a reference to an authority or a precedent." and "6a. passage cited; quotation." (Random House),

"1, The act of citing.", "2a. A quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation." and "2b. A source so cited; a quotation." (American Heritage)

"3. a short note recognizing a source of information or of a quoted passage; (Wordnet)

cited -- (noun) The property of a reference of having been used as a citation. (verb) See cite below.

cite -- To provide a citation. Again, Dictionary.com:cite defines "cite" variously for this context:

"1. to quote (a passage, book, author, etc.), esp. as an authority" and "2. to mention in support, proof, or confirmation; refer to as an example". (Random House)

"1. To quote as an authority or example." and "2. To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof" (American Heritage Dictionary)

Confusion arises in this area because generally, in technical publications, all references are normally cited. Lists of uncited sources are normally listed under "bibliography". The eclectic style policy of Wikipedia also contributes to this confusion.

As you inferred, I think it unlikely that these disambiguations will be taken seriously, but if these words had not been used ambiguously in {{referenced}}, I would not have mistakenly applied that tag to articles containing "references" that had not been "cited".

Thanks for the suggestion. Softtest123 16:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Inline references template?

I recently saw a template asking for inline references, on an article that had an extensive References section but few or no inline refs. This seemed to me like a great idea, and I was going to add it to [[ Terra preta]]... but now I can't find the template. Is my memory playing tricks? Was it a deprecated template? --Chriswaterguy talk 15:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Template:Citations :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:52, 10/20/2007

Thanks! --Chriswaterguy talk 18:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:02, 10/21/2007

Reprotected

CBM just beat me to reprotecting this template. It is used on over 5000 articles, and preventing goatse is far, far more important than letting everyone edit. I know it is frustrating to be unable to edit, but we've got to put the project first. Picaroon (t) 02:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This template is actually embedded in many thousands of or articles. Azatoth has again protected it indefinitely, which is the normal practice for heavily used templates. Edits can be requested with {{editprotected}}. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:HRT for more info. -- Reaper X 03:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)