Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Style tweaks to referencing templates

Please see Wikipedia talk:template messages/Cleanup#Style tweaks to referencing templates for a discussion relating to the styling of {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{no footnotes}} and {{more footnotes}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Category attention

The categorization between {{Unreferenced}} abd {{Unreferenced section}} both dealt with by the code for this template make the article issue indistinguishable without manually checking it. I suggest adding a section category(Articles with a section needing additional references). Either way it's current status makes very heavy work of manually checking thousands of BLP articles to determine the difference. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Also no reason for it to be in category:All articles lacking sources, that is against WP:CATS - "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs". Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PROJCATS there are two types of category, and Category:All articles lacking sources falls within Administration categories. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I propose slightly changing the wording of the tag.

I suggest changing it from "unscourced material may be challenged and removed" to "unsourced material could be challenged and removed" or "..is subject to being challenged and removed." The word "may" is intended to imply possibility here, but it could also imply permission. Obviously anyone reading the tag shouldn't feel they have permission to simply challenge and remove it without any steps in between, but one could read it that way. Dancindazed (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how "could be challenged and removed" is any clearer than "may be challenged and removed" that "steps in between" are required. In any case, I don't think "could" reads well here. "is subject to being challenged and removed" sounds horrible to me. "is subject to challenge and removal" would be better. 86.181.173.100 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Since removal is, itself, a form of challenge (and the only approach authorized for contentious matters involving living people), there really aren't any required steps in between. The tag is thus technically correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Make this and other similar tags smaller and more discreet

This tag, and others like it, blight huge swathes of Wikipedia. Of course, no one is arguing that sourcing isn't important. But must we really have, as it sometimes seems, virtually every article damned with these huge in-your-face banners screaming from the top of the page? Surely a more subtle method can be found -- one that is not so offputting and distracting to the reader, yet still flags up the potential problem. 86.181.173.100 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that smaller versions exist for some templates, and some people like to put this one under the ==References== section. Of course, if you think it unhelpful for any specific page, then you could just remove it. That's sometimes appropriate for a tiny stub of an article (it is obvious at a glance that there are no references) and for articles that have a billion tags on them. Especially for this one, there are unfortunately thousands of tagged articles that actually have at least one reference (sometimes typed in a non-standard section of the article), and in that case, the tag should always be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Simply removing an {{unreferenced}} from an article which has at least one reference can be contentious, and it is often a better idea to replace it with {{refimprove}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a perennial proposal on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Move maintenance tags to talk pages for some related discussions. (I recognize that you are not necessarily saying move them to talk, but the discussions are related.) Some want them this way. Some hate them this way. It's unlikely to change. Don't get me wrong, you're welcome to try, but I don't think it's worthwhile, and I'm not even sure it's a good idea. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

New image

When I look at the unreferenced tag, (which is quite a lot, considering how many pages it is on) I look and I think how old-fashioned the image looks. It is very /booky/, and sort of contradicts WP:NOTPAPER. So, I dug up the image on my new and improved tag above, which is already used on other Wikipedias and works quite well. It promotes the modern, stylish, yet digital look that Wikipedia is. Of course, if this change were to take place, we'd have to update the subtemplates (Template:Unreferenced section, Template:UnreferencedBLP etc) for consistency. So, what do we think? Rcsprinter (orate) 17:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I find the lack of contrasting colors means this image is harder to make out. Beyond that, I don't care what color we paint the bikeshed.  :-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur with DragonHawk, JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur with DragonHawk as well. The image is unclear and not an improvement on what's there already. Besides, the use of books to add references isn't a bad idea at all. Bencherlite^Talk 12:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur. At first glance it looks like a folded shirt, with the question mark as the pocket. --NellieBly (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What DragonHawk said. New image is harder to parse than old one, no impending need to change the current one has been expressed. --Jayron32 01:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that the image (as well as the current one) is licensed CC-BY-SA-2.5. So we need to link it to the image description page to provide the necessary attribution. Anomie⚔ 04:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So, is that a no, then? Rcsprinter (articulate) 11:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
oppose The image is less clear, can't be recognized on first sight if you hadn't already seen the current one. Besides, WP:NOTPAPER is about wikipedia itself, where the room for articles, which is basically infinite as long as each one follows the rules. It is not a rejection of paper books as sources; in fact books are usually better and more solid sources than web pages with the same material. If a historian says something both at his book and at web page, I would always cite the book. Cambalachero (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Visibility

I'm just curious, why is it necessary for this template to be a visible tag in articles? I mean, if its sole purpose is to categorise articles, then why can't it do just that and no more. We don't need a tag somewhere on the page stating the obvious. ClaretAsh 15:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a synopsis of why. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_1#Template:Unreferenced. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. It certainly explains a few things. Admittedly, though, many of the arguments in that TfD are silly and don't acknowledge the fundamental points, namely:

• The tag is very patronising ("This article, which you can see for yourself has no references, has no references")
• The tag need not be visible in order to add a page to a category.

ClaretAsh 00:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You could also choose to interpret it as: "In case you choose not to scroll all the way to the bottom of the article to see for yourself that this article has no references, here's a note at the top that says this article has no references. Since you're interested in this topic, how about adding some references?" GoingBatty (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 73#More discreet banners
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 66#Citation-needed spam
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 43#Editorial tags should be restricted to the talk page
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 44#"Wikify" tagging

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. I think I'll take the advice of your username and Fuhghettaboutit. Thank you both for clarifying things. ClaretAsh 12:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Criterion for removing 'Unreferenced' from the start of an article?

So I came across an article that had no refs.

At the top of the article was: 'Unreferenced'

I added some refs to make the article better cited.

I then removed the 'Unreferenced' text.

Is this acceptable or is there some review process? Luckydog429 (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That is acceptable, as is this. You are the reviewer. Keep up the good work :) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding even one ref does indeed make the article no longer eligible for {{unreferenced}}. However, the references which you have added might not cover all of the claims made within the article, so instead of simply removing the {{unreferenced}}, you should consider replacing it with a {{refimprove|date=November 2024}} instead. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Other options you may choose to use {{unreferenced section}} or {{refimprove section}} at the top of a section, and {{citation needed}} at the end of a sentence that should have a reference. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

First, Luckydog, let me add a big Thank you for improving articles by adding WP:Reliable sources and removing inappropriate tags. Wikipedia needs more people like you.

Then let me say that in my opinion, tagging an article with a template like {{refimprove}} is optional. Practically any article could have its referencing improved, and tags become less effective if they appear on practically every article. I would only add that sort of "lesser" tag if I thought there were a significant problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for your replies, I now have more tools in my toolbox! Luckydog429 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Overly vague ref links

Is there no tag available to highlight external links used as references that are so overly vague/non-specific (most often just the home page of some website with an extensive amount of statistical data buried within) as to be basically useless, such as this? 71.197.244.119 (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Jargon warning. Around here external links usually means those link placed in an WP:External links section. There are also embedded links and vague inline citations. If there are no inline citations but there is an external links section then perhaps {{no footnotes}} would do. If either of the latter two then there is a useful list of inline templates that can be used for various things listed in the documentation of {{citation needed}}. In this case perhaps one of {{better source}}, {{request quotation}}, {{source need translation}} or {{full}}. -- PBS (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If you find that a URL has been given in a reference, but the webpage that the URL points does not actually contain anything relevant to the reference, you could add {{failed verification}} inside the <ref>...</ref> tags but outside any other templates that may be present. This excludes cases where the information is somewhere in the same website, just not on that specific page: in such cases {{full}} would be a better choice. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

editprotected - small

Please add the small parameter. And also set section type to this template, per Template talk:Unreferenced section from 2009, where it should have the appearance of a section type template, which never occurred when the two templates were merged together.

Please add

|small = {{#ifeq: {{{1|}}} | section | left | {{{small|}}} }}

just below the "|class=" line

70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Per template talk:Unreferenced section, a modified description is available to make the small box look nicer, so text can be modified to be:

|text= {{#if:{{{small|{{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|section|true|}}}}}| <!-- small description --> This unreferenced section requires [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citations]] to ensure [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]].| <!-- large description --> This {{{1|article}}} '''does not [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|cite]] any [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|references or sources]]'''. Please help {{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|section|improve this section|[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article]}} by adding citations to [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]]. Unsourced material may be [[Template:Citation needed|challenged]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence|removed]].}} <!-- common text -->{{#if:{{{date|}}}|<small>''({{{date}}})''</small>}} }}{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|section|{{DMCA|Articles needing additional references|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles needing additional references}}|{{DMCA|Articles lacking sources|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles lacking sources}}

70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Tra (Talk) 07:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Living people

This template occurs on lots of article where the category:Living people is used, would it be possible that it could automatically change to the {{BLP unsourced}} wording is such cases? PS I know there used to be a bot to change it but that seems inactive now. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's presently possible for a template to check whether a page is categorised some way or not. If it were, that would immediately obviate the need to have special BLP variants of these templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct, at the moment there is no technical possibility to check if there is any other template/cat on the same page. Very sadly. (To find that out I had to ask many devs, template gods and manuals and cost me a whole night before giving up!) mabdul 13:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

BRFA filed here. GoingBatty (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Doing... - about 1000 articles, many of which are being changed from {{unreferenced section}} to {{BLP unsourced section}}. GoingBatty (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Y Done for now, and will rerun periodically. GoingBatty (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That is bugzilla:18596 (parser function to detect if the current page is in a given category). Helder 13:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible warning of deletion

This template states in it "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." It does make sense to say that in {{refimprove}}. But this template is for articles with no sources at all. The lack of sources is a most common reason for deletion of articles. Doesn't it make sense for this article to warn "articles without sources may face deletion?" Sebwite (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of sources in the article is not the criteria that causes deletion, it is the inability to find WP:RS sources to meet WP:N. Taking an unreferenced article to WP:AfD without checking for references first is considered inappropriate. Jeepday (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Layout problems

I've requested a fix for some layout problems at Template talk:Refimprove#Poor layout. -84user (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Section

The default use of a small format when the |section parameter is invoked is inconsistent with other maintenance templates and there's no demonstrated consensus for an exception here, as far as I've been able to deduce. There is no reason (practical or otherwise) to shove maintenance tags in sections over to the left (and it doesn't end up saving any space). The section parameter is only supposed to change wording.

I've edited Template:Unreferenced/sandbox to return the behavior to normal. Please replace the current template code with the sandbox code. To see the sandbox version invoked with the section parameter, see User:Equazcion/sandbox. This is how maintenance templates are supposed to look in sections. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Unreferenced section was edited to match this behavior, so it should also be edited to match the reverted behavior once that's done here. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Declined for now. This change was made in 2009 following discussion and consensus, so I will not revert it on the request of a single editor. I suggest you start up a discussion about this, possibly somewhere central as it could have impact on other small "section" templates. Also, suggest this thread be moved to Template talk:Unreferenced section, as it is that template which will be affected. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, that's where it started, and was then sent here... --Redrose64 (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the way that “{{refimprove|section}}” allows the user to decide whether to place a full messagebox or a small one, by passing the “small” parameter to the {{ambox}} template. The current behavior, whereby the “{{unreferenced|section}}” template is small but the less-severe “{{refimprove|section}}” template defaults to large seems counterintuitive though. (What would really be nice is if the user could decide whether to place a full messagebox or a small one, and the template could auto-detect whether it is “stacked” or not. If the templates are “stacked” and they all have the “small“ parameter set, then they should display side-by-side; if they are “stacked” and any has the “small” parameter set to “no” then they should all display full size.) 69.243.26.39 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Declining (again) for now pending some consensus either way. Editprotected is not just a flag for open disputes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the "subst:" prefix?

For the first time in several months, I attempted to add this template to an article using the "subst:" prefix as I'd done numerous times before. This time it gave me the message "Template {{Unreferenced}} has been incorrectly substituted." But the template doc still states that my usage is correct. Can the prefix usage please be reinstated? I know the "|date=subst" is the more common usage in other templates, but it's a typographical pain-in-the... (So much so that I prefer to allow a bot to insert the date for me rather than having to key in that gobbledygook myself.) Cbbkr (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Anomie⚔ 00:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Why were you substing this template? It's supposed to be transcluded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, transclusion is more common, but the documentation does mention that this template can be substituted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This is one of several cleanup templates which have been coded in such a way that if a substitution attempt is made, it's actually transcluded; and at the same time, a check is made that |date= has been filled in - if not, it's done for you. Thus,

{{subst:Unreferenced|section}}

is exactly equivalent to

{{Unreferenced|section|date=November 2024}}

But when you transclude it, you should provide your own |date=November 2024 if you don't want a bot edit a while later. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

Why doesn't Wikipedia have templates that categorize pages? I mean, this one would work well into adding pages into Category:Unreferenced Articles or something like that. So why not? --Thenewguy34 (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It already does; see Category:All articles lacking sources and monthly subcategories of Category:Articles lacking sources. However, on a more general note, categorisation by template is not encouraged, see WP:TEMPLATECAT. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that Category:All articles lacking sources is a hidden category. It is not shown on its member pages, unless the corresponding user preference 'Show hidden categories' is set. Jeepday (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Size of template

Why is it that using the "section" parameter now uses the smaller sized template (the one that appears at Template: Unreferenced section? I actually find the small box to be hard to see, and disturbing of the overall look of the article, because it leaves a large blank white space. How can I force the template to us the larger version? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

never mind, I found the place where this was discussed, and have asked that it be reverted. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

See also #Section above. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

this template defaces wikipedia articles

I can see the need for the template, sometimes. But it's inclusion in most cases is not subject to any consensus, and makes wikipedia look plain ugly. Can we at least move it to the bottom of the page for the humans to review first before it is moved to the top?

Leng T'che (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is added by humans, usually with good reasons. Mistags can be removed. To have a discussion before such tags can be added would make it impossible in many cases to add these, as it would introduce a way too heavy burocracy for such a minor issue. As for Wikipedia looking ugly: articles without references are a serious problem, since all articles should be based on reliable sources and the absence of sources makes it much harder to check where the editors got their information from. Clearly warning our readers for this lack is a good thing. Other tags, like the "orphan" tag, are equally intrusive but indicate a much smaller, more internal problem with an article, so for such tags another solution may be advisable. But major content tags like unreferenced should remain highly visible. Fram (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

About (guessing) 5% of wikipedia has now been defaced. Many of the pages have been defaced for years. Based on WP:RULES these pages are "therefore" WP:GNG and will be deleted. re: Orphan pages - I concur. Moreover many of them are in catalogues so don't really need a wikilink per say. Leng T'che (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please don't move the banners, the agreed place for maintenance tags is close to the top, per MOS:LEAD. If removing, please explain why in your edit summary - merely because it "defaces the article" is insufficient if the issue has not been addressed. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

All editors and readers are encouraged to address the concerns indicated by any tag, correct the issue (i.e. add references and citations) and then remove the tag. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

move to bottom - my "vote", for the record.}

{Also for the record: I have been previously tagged "Troll?" by PKT(alk)

Leng T'che (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As stated at Template talk:Orphan#this template defaces wikipedia articles, this is not the place to discuss a major change to article layout policy; much better places would be either the talk page for MOS:LEAD, which is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section; its parent, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style; or alternatively, WP:VPP. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I have done as you wish. But note that Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and WP:VPP are about general Maintenance issues, where as I am talking about this specific template. So your "suggestion" "this is not the place to discuss a major change to article layout policy" does not apply. Indeed posting there could be akin to canvassing for the Status Quo. e.g. Round up the usual suspects. - Leng T'che (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Just curious; can you clarify how you believe this template defaces Wikipedia in a manor inconsistent with other templates? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Leng T'che - you have posted messages like this on the talk pages of three templates - {{orphan}}, {{third-party}} and {{unreferenced}}. But these are all built around {{ambox}}, which is the framework for several hundred maintenance banners. Do you consider that those templates also deface Wikipedia articles?

• If your answer is "no", why should these three be treated differently from the majority?
• if your answer is "yes", then I can only re-state that the talk page of a small number of templates is the wrong place to discuss issues that affect many more. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ouch... are all these "hundreds" the same? Sometimes the "Status quo" need the be changed. Leng T'che (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a project attempting to remove all the unreferenced templates, by address the concerns and adding references. If you really want to see less templates about no references, add some references. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

JeepdaySock hits the nail on the head. And, if I might add, part of the purpose of these templates is to "deface" articles, in the sense that they are supposed to compel both editors and readers to actually fix the problem. Putting them at the top does two things. First, it tells readers (non-editors) that this article is unreferenced, unverified, and thus is not as trustworthy as an article with references. This is a good thing, and a service to the reader. Second, it tells readers-who-might-become-editors, along with people-already-editing, that there are problems in the article that could use some assistance. The templates must stay at the top, and I would argue that nothing short of a centralized discussion (like at the village pump) could meet the requirements of WP:CONLIMITED to start moving or removing them. I say this specifically because this is in no way a new idea; in fact, it's listed at our list of perennial proposals that have been repeatedly rejected. As such, there is a clear, site-wide consensus that they are where they belong. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Related template name change

There is a proposal at Template_talk:No_footnotes#Consistency_between_template_name_and_description_in_template_box to change the name of {{No footnotes}} to {{No inline citations}}, If you would like to weigh in on the discussion please do so there. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Unreferenced top icon}}

FYI, I have nominated template:Unreferenced top icon for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request - reliable

Please change "does not cite any references or sources" (bolding in the original) to "does not cite any reliable references or sources" by adding "reliable" and a space. This will allow editors more confidence in using this template on articles which have only unreliable or self-published references or sources.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Aren't {{unreliable sources}} and {{third-party}} intended for that situation? Anomie⚔ 03:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. The goal here is to identify articles with absolutely zero sources, not with zero sources that I happen to believe are reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Lacking sources is different from lacking reliable sources, and an editor should use the appropriate tag. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested edit: add {{Findsources}} to this template

Currently, the {{Unreferenced}} template does not include any links to external sources. It would be much more useful if it included links to external sources via {{Findsources}}, like this:

I lack the necessary editing privileges to do this, so I hope another editor will make this change. Jarble (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:TESTCASES, I moved your proposal to Template:Unreferenced/sandbox. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Inline citations to reliable sources

Current wording:

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

Proposed wording:

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding inline citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

The change is in the second sentence from "adding citations to reliable sources" to "adding inline citations to reliable sources". -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I made this edit "inline citations to reliable sources." to replace "citations to reliable sources" -- the latter can be misconstrued to mean that General References are acceptable as citations (they are not). Link to also WP:CHALLENGE

Fram reverting good faith edit without a substantive reason for the revert is not usually considered warranted (WP:REVEXP. That the template is protected is neither here nor there with regards to an edit such as the one I made -- it is protected to prevent vandalism and damage to the appearance of the articles on which it appears -- ny edit did neither, so what is your substantive objection to the change I made? -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• PBS you don't have a history of coming to the same conclusions about reference tag content as is usually shown after discussion. As a general rule of thumb, if you think something needs to be changed checking with the community, is probably a good test for consensus. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

  I do not understand you first sentence. In rely to your second: That is not how WP:BRD cycle plays out and that is a better way of editing in changes. -- PBS (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether admins should edit a page having full-prot without first obtaining consensus is currently under discussion at WT:PROTECT#Remove "uncontroversial" from the policy. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, but I think someone in that conversations should point out that a distinction ought to be made between types of pages. Articles are usually protected for a limited time for specific reasons to do with the content. Templates such as this are not protected because any specific problem with content but because of the potential problems that can arise if edited incorrectly, so the customary constraints on editing the two types of pages have always been different. -- PBS (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I oppose PBS's change. A stub that includes a bibliographic citation at the bottom of the page, but didn't format it as an inline citation, is not unreferenced. It may be badly formatted, and it may well be inadequately referenced, but it is not 100% unreferenced and deserves {{refimprove}} or {{no footnotes}}, not {{unref}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted my edit while we discuss this. The name of the template has nothing to do with the wording of the template. The wording does not say that the article is unreferenced what it says is "This article does not cite any references or sources", What I have changed with my edit is "Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources" to "adding inline citations to reliable sources" which is what WP:CHALLENGE requires (and this template is a challenge). It has been some years since general references have been considered adequate because of the problems of maintaining text-source integrity. {{Refimprove}} is better suited to requests for more inline citations when some already exist, {{no footnotes}} is for a specific type of inline citaiton which I think is a mistake to use on an article with no inline citations as it is requesting a specific type of inline citation which may or may not be appropriate for a specific article.-- PBS (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this the sixth time now? Please go read the first sentence of WP:CITE, which clearly says that a citation is a line of text that identifies a source, not the connection of that source to any particular bit of material in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not know what it is that you are counting as it seems we are talking at cross purposes. The proposed change in the wording "adding citations to reliable sources" to "adding inline citations to reliable sources." as WP:V requires "inline citations to reliable sources." not general references which (as you know) have been depreciated for a number of years. -- PBS (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm counting the number of times that I have to tell you that a bibliographic citation is still a citation even if it is not connected to a particular bit of material in an article (an "inline citation").

WP:V requires inline citations if and only if one of four particular conditions are met, which is frequently not the case in a substub. WP:V doesn't require that any sources at all be named in an article that does not contain one (or more) of those four cases. For example, this:

A bone fracture is a broken place in a bone.

would make a substub for which no policy requires any sources at all.

You are free under policy to provide no citations. You are equally free to provide a general reference:

A bone fracture is a broken place in a bone.

References
• Expert, Alice (2012) "What is a Broken Bone?" J Imp Medicine

The first example is unreferenced; the second is not. The first example contains no citations; the second one does (specifically, it contain a non-inline bibliographic citation, which in wikijargon iss called a general reference). Neither of them contain inline citations, and both of them are fully compliant with our sourcing policies. 19:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Above you stated "WP:V requires inline citations if and only if one of four particular conditions are met" the second of the "four particular conditions" states Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with , or any similar tag) this template (as a tag) specifically meets that requirement and is mentioned by name in WP:V -- see this footnote.

The argument you have put forward is not what WP:V suggests. If something generally known (although the game of trivial pursuits indicates that what is generally known in one English speaking country may not be generally known in others), then it does not need a reference, so general references are not relevant in the example you give. Only if the information is not generally known is a citation required and WP:V states in the section called "Burden of evidence": Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The change of wording of this template from "adding citations to reliable sources" to "adding inline citations to reliable sources" is closer to the wording of the policy and is less confusing. -- PBS (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is that a direct quotation? No, I made it up myself. Has anyone actually WP:CHALLENGEd the material given in my example? I'm not seeing a fact-tag there. Is anyone WP:LIKELY to challenge that information? I seriously doubt it. If none of those three answers are affirmative, then BURDEN is irrelevant. WP:V is not "suggesting" anything: it is directly stating the requirements. I promise that if supplying an inline citation was absolutely required on absolutely every page, no matter how WP:BLUE the contents, then WP:V wouldn't "suggest" it, but would rather state it in words that could not possibly be misunderstood.
• A source is relevant if it contains information about the subject of the article. If and only if that material were ever challenged, then a general reference would not be sufficient to meet the BURDEN, but at this point, there is no BURDEN because there is no CHALLENGE and none is LIKELY. An irrelevant source for that material would be one about some celebrity's cat, not a source about broken bones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• We are talking about a challenge because this template is a challenge (and it is explicitly mentioned in WP:V as an alternative to {{citation needed}} when there are too few in-line citations and using {{citation needed}} would clutter the page). It sates that there is information on the page that needs a citation to a source and WP:V dictates that any material that is challenged needs an in-line citation. -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you added that statement in a footnote at WP:V. I notice, however, that it does not say anything like "add the tag for completely unreferenced pages when some citations are present"; "zero" is merely one case among many that qualify as "too few". So if there are actually zero, you may add the unref template, and if there are more than zero but still too few, you may add refimprove.

If you would like, I'd be happy to ask at WT:V whether anyone else agrees with you that the unref tag is appropriate for any partially referenced article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose this change because one of PBS's reasons, "General References are acceptable as citations (they are not)" is false, and he/she consistently and repeatedly misstates community consensus despite being reminded over and over. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Jc3s5h JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• support' there is no reason why we should not be suggesting the best practices as is required by policy, rather than the absolute minimum, which will likely simply just be challenged again, causing unnecessary frustration to the editor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Two questions for you:
    • Did you know that we have FAs that contain general references in addition to an ample number of inline citations? This undercuts PBS's claim that gen refs are never acceptable.
    • We're not talking about how to respond to a challenge (if we were, then the gen ref would be insufficient). We're talking solely about whether a page that obviously contains a list of references, i.e., a list of bibliographic citations under a heading like ==References==, should be marked with a self-evidently wrong statement that there is no list of references on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"contain general references in addition to an ample number of inline citations" that is the requirement, the general sources are bonus, but nothing without the actual inline cites. its as if the speed limit is 35, and you put up a sign "dont go faster than 45" - not at all helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but PBS is asserting that they are never acceptable, not even in combination with inline citations when inlines are actually required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

the rfc is about wording of a template and about what wording will best influence contributors to help in the best manner and be least likely to cause additional frustration for them. directing them to the best practice method from the beginning is clearly the optimal solution. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Qualified oppose I think the direct issue is quite clear cut. This template is manifestly not the type of challenge WP:BURDEN refers to, which we can see by the fact that the template itself refers to the challenge that can be made under that policy section, i.e., this is not it. Likewise, the template's documentation instructs:

  "This template should only be used on articles that have no sources at all. Don't add this template to articles that contain even one general reference, parenthetical reference, or citation-containing footnote. A citation is any description of a reliable source that supports any of the article content, even a bare URL. The format of the citation and the name of the section heading is not what determines whether a link or citation is a source.

  This does not admit of an interpretation that its placement is the challenge for sourcing under WP:BURDEN that requires an inline citation. Having said that, I agree with the implication of PBS' edit that this template could use some guidance that inline sources are very much wanted, even if I don't agree with the specific change made. What I'm getting at is that I think it might be useful to add (addition highlighted): "Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources (preferably using inline citations).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  The link takes you to Help:Introduction to referencing/1, which does not admit that non-inline citations are even possible (and IMO that's a good thing). So IMO what we've already linked is sufficient: if you follow that link, you will end up doing the right thing. I wouldn't link WP:REFB page as a definition of WP:Inline citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  If my memory serves me well, every time that this is discussed and WhatamIdoing is part of the discussion WhatamIdoing advocates the use of general references and downplays the use of inline citaitons. In the case of the block of text you quote Fuhghettaboutit it was added to the documentation by WhatamIdoing in March 2010 long after this template was written in January 2005‎. The advise is contrary to the intent expressed the footnote in WP:V policy. This change would help to clarify that issue. --PBS (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  You added that footnote only in 2012, and nobody except you believes that it means that general references are never permitted. It says, "It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}." It does not say "If there are too few inline citations, then you can add {{unref}} to the page", nor does it say "Never add a citation to a page unless it is placed inline". NB that it also does not say "Every single page is required to contain at least one inline citation."

  I'm not actually a fan of general references, and I can't think of a single instance in which I would use them. (Well, maybe for a substub containing one sentence, because having a little blue number in that case looks a bit odd.) I only say that the community permits them, especially in the case of substubs written by inexperienced editors. (WikiProject Maths has also defended them as being particularly appropriate for some maths articles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  WhatamIdoing If you think "So IMO what we've already linked is sufficient" but you think that "[it] does not admit that non-inline citations are even possible (and IMO that's a good thing)" then why not keep the new wording but retain the old link: ("adding inline citations to reliable sources")? -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

* Oppose. I think I understand Phil's intent, and in general would agree. And I certainly agree that (in general) we should encourage best practice, not what is minimally acceptable. But I think there should be a distinction between the case where an article "does not cite any references", and the case where an article does in fact have references, but lacks in-line citations linking them to the text. To the extent that a new editor might not understand that there are additional considerations is best handled by directing the editor to the tutorial. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Why? What is the point of adding general references without in-line citations (They can be added as long citations in footnotes so there is next to no difference in short article) because adding in-line citations keeps WP:text-source integrity. Besides AFAICT unless one reads "does not cite any references" to be cite as in "in-line citations" and references as "general references", the phrase is meaningless as citations and references are usually interchangeable words. -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As to the point of adding "general" references (in this instance I would prefer "full reference") without in-line citations: WhatamIdoing might give us both an earful on this, but in the narrow sense that I think you intend I would agree: no point. My opinion is that there should always be in-line citations of some sort to connect the text with the full reference. But I see a lack of in-line citations to be a different problem than a lack of any references. (Which is also different from lacking the reference a short cite points to, something I occasionally slip up on.) And as I said: if an editor doesn't understand this, it is best explained in the tutorial, not in the template text. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

J Johnson is correct: it's a different problem. We have tags for these other problems. This tag often gets spammed onto articles that were created by total newbies just minutes before. If we can get them to do so much as provide a bare URL somewhere on the page, then we've made substantial progress. People like us don't actually need this template to exist at all; it exists primarily to communicate with people who need to be encouraged for even taking baby steps in the right direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I agree that inline citations are usually the most helpful, it is not true that they are always the only acceptable references. They are the only acceptable references only when you want to solidify content that is challenged or likely to be challenged. For everything else, they are acceptable and we welcome them above no citations at all. The point of this template is not to enforce WP:CHALLENGE but to promote referencing generally. Inline citations may better but that's not the point. This template is a memorandum, if you will, for editors who do not fully realize the 'source' aspect of Wikipedia. NTox · talk 05:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h and WhatamIdoing. The proposed change in wording has nothing to do with whether general references are ever permitted, the proposed wording is "Please help improve this article by adding inline citations to reliable sources". There is nothing in the change of wording from "adding citations" to "adding inline citations" that explicitly or implicitly prohibits someone also adding general references. -- PBS (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment Let us suppose that there is an article with no references at all. If such an article exists then it is unlikely only to contain information that requites no references. If such an article exists then this template should not be placed on it. -- This template can be used for articles that contains information that require a reference and as such is a challenge. The verification policy state that in-line citations are required for such information. If the author of an article in response to the challenge was to add a general reference to an article and remove the template, that author would not have met the challenge. Instead the diligent challenger would probably add a {{citation needed}} template, or some other template to the article. The author who has already gone to the bother of adding a general reference would probably be vexed and not unreasonably think (or ask on the talk page) "why did you not tell me in the first place that in-line citations were needed?" -- The proposed change in the wording of this template alters the advise form "adding citations" to adding "inline citations" which is what an editor unfamiliar with the verification policy needs to know (for those familiar with the policy and guidelines all the wording after the initial sentence is no needed). -- PBS (talk)

• Support - This makes perfect sense. The proposed change in wording has nothing to do with whether general references are ever permitted, the proposed wording is "Please help improve this article by adding inline citations to reliable sources". There is nothing in the change of wording from "adding citations" to "adding inline citations" that explicitly or implicitly prohibits someone also adding general references. And why you wouldn't suggest or request from the editor that they follow the best, most desirable practice is not apparent to me. Jdanek007 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. You've commented on a discussion from several months ago, and in doing so have copied text verbatim from this edit. I wonder why. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - New editors may not have figured out how to do inline citations yet, but if they can supply a reliable source to support an unreferenced or under-referenced article we would still encourage them to add the sources. Someone else can always follow up and fix the format (placing the citation "in line" at appropriate places). So... the template should simply ask for reliable sources (without specifying "in line"). 16:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)
• Oppose per Blueboar. Making citations inline is a bit technical, and just letting us know what sources the article was based on is a huge advantage in assessing the article's verifiability. The proposed change is too perfectionist. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Despite PBS's assertion that the template shouldn't be used except as a formal CHALLENGE, that's not how it actually is used. The first example I give above would likely attract an unref tag. A couple of years ago, we had a bot add the template to unref'd articles. "Added by a bot to thousands of articles based on whether ref tags were present or not" and "only added if inlines are absolutely required by policy according to editors' best judgment" are pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Phil, I think the essence of your statement is: if we tell someone (via a template) that they should add references, we should also tell them to add in-line citations that link to the references. I do not disagree with that, and to some extent even agree with it. My disagreement here is whether both advisements should be in the single template. If both advisements are warranted, there is no reason (that I see) why that can not be done with separate templates. And indeed, if an editor did include in-line citations (short cites), but not the full references they point to, then one template would be warranted, but not the other. Also, the template under discussion here is for where an article does not cite any references. Which is not the situation where even one reference is cited. So the issue is not on how much an editor should be warned, but whether this template should carry multiple warnings. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on February 16, 2014

Why not get rid of the date parameter and just encode the date into the template itself so that no one has to add the date parameter in? The way I see this as being done is changing

| date  = {{{date|}}}

to

|date   = {{subst:Currentmonth}} {{subst:Currentyear}}

I'm open to discussion if anyone contests this proposal. --Jakob (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: If the template isn't substed, it can't store the date that it was added like that. When it is subst'd, it already does that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments on an issue in a tag similar to this one

Hi, there is a general issue with a tag that is related to this one, and I would like to request some feedback since the problems are similar to some of those that have been discussed here earlier.

Please have a look at Template talk:Unreliable sources, and reply in that talk page if you want to comment. The reason why I'm posting about it here is because it doesn't seem like anyone is watching the other template's talkpage. Anonimski (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There are fewer than 30 watchers. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 July 2014

Hello. The word “removed” must link to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence rather than the current section (Which no longer exists). Thanks. QrTTf7fH (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

I've added an {{anchor}} to Wikipedia:Verifiability so that the "removed" link works again. There may be other templates or pages that link to the old section name, so I think this is the right fix. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you, but shouldn't links to renamed sections be replaced with a link to the new section anyway?. QrTTf7fH (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

I don't think it's worth asking the servers to rebuild a quarter of a million articles just for that. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering why a specific distinction between Template:Unreferenced and Template:Refimprove is made. Why is the difference between no reference and lack of references an important distinction? Isn't it both simply a lack of references? Many, if not most reimprove articles have less than 3 references in total, which doesn't seem too different from completely unreferenced.

I'm not suggesting anything to be changed (yet), but I am curious why things are as they are~ Maplestrip (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote at 19:34, 7 September 2014 on Template talk:Refimprove#Should this template be used more sparingly?, {{refimprove}} is a subjective judgment, unlike {{unreferenced}} which is objective - either there are refs, or there aren't. See also: Template:Refimprove#When to use; Template:Refimprove#Differences from {{Unreferenced}} and {{Citation needed}}; Template:Unreferenced#When to use; and Template:Unreferenced#Differences from related templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Subjective vs objective, that does make sense. I understand why that is desirable. Thank you for the quick reply Maplestrip (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 March 2015

Please replace [[File:Question book-new.svg|50x40px]] with [[File:Question book-new.svg|50x40px|alt=]] as it's a decorative image and does not need an alternative text. Thanks. Dalba 14 Esfand 1393/ 12:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done SiBr₄ (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Challenged, what is this?

When the word "challenged" was linked to Template:Fact, it was easy to understand what "challenged" is. But now it isn't linked, and I guess that many readers don't know what it means. The same goes for Template:Refimprove. Iceblock (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

References or sources

I find the recent addition of parentheses to this template kind of awkward for such a template; if it is desired to not have "references or sources" then I would suggest simply removing one word(sources). 331dot (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I'll agree it's awkward, and nobody had a problem with "references or sources" for over a decade until SMcCandlish's WP:BOLD change, but it's protected to prevent just this kind of situation. Discuss. Bazj (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to do with this discussion. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Either that, or establish consensus for the change that prompted my comment. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Or let's just establish consensus at all. It's not like there was consensus discussion to use the redundant and nonsensical "references or sources" to begin with. I'd suggest we just go with "sources", per WP:Citing sources, and WP:Identifying reliable sources. WP could overall use more consistency in this direction. This template and {{Unreferenced section}} would be better as "Unsourced", which is what most of us actually call an article lacking source citations. "Unreferenced" is unnecessarily long, and seems to imply something like "other pages are not referring to this article", i.e. {{Orphan}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Except that the section where they're noted is generally titled "References", and populated by {{Reflist}} or <references />. Bazj (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@331dot: The {{edit template-protected}} template isn't for initiating a consensus discussion. Please see WP:PER, where it says "consensus should be obtained before formally making the request" and "Once there is consensus for the change, and any final details have been worked out, put a template on the talk page along with a short, clear explanation". --Redrose64 (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you for the information. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:331dot that there is an unnecessary redundancy in "references or sources".  +1 for using "unsourced" as SMcCandlish suggested. Dalba 09:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Dalba, how do you reconcile that with the places where both are used, such as Franklin Pierce#References? Bazj (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation on WP has suffered from the start because of ambiguous terms like these. "Source" is pretty straight-forward – it is, well, the source where the material is found, be it a book, a document, or whatever. But "reference" is used in many ways. It can refer (!) to a source (such as reference books), or the set of bibliographic details (more properly a citation) that identify a source, or a [foot/end] note (such as created with <ref> tags) containing such a citation, or the relationship of a citation identifying a source, or of the state of material in the text having – or not – a citation that identifies a source. I suspect "references or sources" crept in here as an attempt to be inclusive. But if (and I am undecided on this) "source" is appropriate and adequate for the purpose here then it should be used exclusively, to avoid the ambiguity attendant upon "references". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

To amplify that: What appears in our articles are in fact references [in one use of that word], to sources. So it's appropriate that the usual article section for them be called "References". We sometimes actually do have a section called "Sources" (or "Works cited", or "Bibliography"), in certain citation styles, where the references are given in short form a section above this (often called "Footnotes", but also "Note" or "Endnotes"), specifying page numbers, and a list of sources is given separately. See WP:LAYOUT; a unified "References" section is only one style. So, we don't really care that much how sources are cited (i.e. how they're referenced); we care more whether there are sources and that they're identifiable for WP:V and WP:RS purposes. So, the problem this template flags is more a lack of sources than a lack of formatted citations (references) to them. Analogy: If I'm starving, I care about access to food, not whether it's presented artfully on fine china. It's a sourcing problem, really, not a references one, because if sources have been identified in talk page discussion, one would not tag the page with {{Unreferenced}}, but simply cite them, or (if really lazy) paste them into a "Sources"/"Bibliography" section and tag it with {{No footnotes}}, which is a cleanup template, not a dispute template. The {{Unreferenced}} dispute template is [properly] used when the sources for the material can't be identified. The present template name implies that a "References" section is missing, but no such section is actually required.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the current wording of this template be reverted to its prior wording?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The question of reverting had a consensus of no. The new proposal had enough consensus that the participants changed the template. If a formal close on that is desired leave a post on my talk page. Simply boxing this one up. AlbinoFerret 18:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the current wording of this template ("does not cite any references (sources)"), that was boldly changed be reverted to its prior wording ("does not cite any references or sources")? 331dot (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• No. "References or sources" is redundant and blathery. It's sufficient to use one or the other. I agree that the present "references (sources)" is just as unnecessarily long-winded.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case then we should simply lose the "(sources)" as well, as that seems more awkward than the way the template had been for around 10 years. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure. My point was that we're not limited to a choice between only option A and option B that each use two words; it's most reasonable to just use the one word (the one that matches the current name of the template).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• No strong opinion, leaning toward single word 'sources'. Let's face it, anyone editing here for long should understand what is missing. This template is (or should be), mainly for the benefit of newbies/careless editors. Whatever most clearly directs such editors to understanding, should be used. Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• No. See next proposal. Nurg (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Note: I was asked on my talk page if I'd either boldly just change the wording to "any sources", or revert to "any references or sources". I declined, with the following

rationale:

The discussion already appears to be happening, and has been ongoing for a while. I don't think I should change it to "any sources", since what it should read is still under discussion. I don't see any utility to changing it to the old "any references or sources" since that's redundant and there are objections to it (including from me). In short, I don't think it should be reworded until there's a consensus on what to reword it to. I don't have any procedural objection to someone reverting it to status quo ante, but I do have a slight WP:COMMONSENSE one. I think doing so would be silly and borderline WP:POINTy, because consensus will almost certainly not arrive at "any references or sources". There's no reason to pick one definitely crappy option over the current perhaps crappy one, when we'll probably arrive at a non-crappy one like "sources", which agrees with the wording used in WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NOR; there is no requirement anywhere that things be "referenced"; it's just preferred that they be, per WP:CITE (which also uses "sources" in its title).

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, revert. My response to SMC (on his talk page) is, in its essentials, that in (hopeful) anticipation of some consensus on a better formulation coming up any time soon it makes little difference if the previous wording is continued a little longer, but that it is very important to respect the basic principle of WP:BRD even where we do not like the result. BRD should not be elective depending on content. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: "This article does not cite any sources."

I propose the sentence be changed to "This article does not cite any sources." Both the current wording of "references (sources)" and the previous wording of "references or sources" imply synonymy of "references" and "sources", which is not true. (There is synonymy of "citations" and "references".) Sources are things external to WP. Citations, or references, are text we write in WP about those external sources. This is clear at Wikipedia:Citing sources, where the first sentence reads, "A citation, or reference, uniquely identifies a source of information". The proposed wording is consistent with the next sentence in the template, which talks about "citations to reliable sources". Nurg (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I mainly was interested in removing the awkward parentheses from the template; whichever word is chosen is fine with me. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This discussion started as an edit request ("suggestion"), became an RfC (above), prompted a requested move (below, now closed), and now comes back as a ... proposal? I am undecided whether this is more in the nature of a hang fire, or just a dud. Either way, this discussion is so chewed up it is unlikely to produce any clear result. If you want a change I suggest starting a new discussion, with a better statement of the issue. And perhaps this entire discussion should be closed lest it catches more stray comments. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be stating that there have been too many discussions so your solution is to start yet another discussion. I don't think we need to do that here. It just took some time to sort out what was actually needed(my initial edit request was rejected as lacking consensus even though the original bold change made that prompted my comment also lacked consensus) 331dot (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I am stating that this discussion is too chewed-up and fragmented to tell just what we are ivoting on, and so needs a fresh start. So in regards of the matter you have raised (which I think does warrant discussion) I suggest we try to extract what ever was sorted out here to form a succinct and clear statement of the problem, which can be the basis of a fresh start. If you want, lets meet (your page or mine) and see if we can work up such a statement. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to post on my talk page. I will start a section there shortly. Thanks 331dot (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I am quite happy for this subsection I created to be raised to a top-level section and moved to the bottom of the page. The proposal I have made can stand on its own – it does not hang on the earlier discussions, although people may wish to peruse those discussions. The proposal is to remove a single word (and the parentheses, which would have become redundant). Nurg (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal was made in this context; moving it would change the context and (arguably) subtly change the proposal. Let's close this entire discussion, and start afresh. 331dot has started a disscusion on this at his talk page; let's meet there and see if we can craft a good proposal. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I have joined the discussion at 331dot's Talk page. So far, no improvement on this proposed wording has emerged there. I don't agree with closing this discussion. Let it run its course. And I will keep an eye on 331dot's Talk page in case a better proposal emerges. Nurg (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support. WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR all refer to sources not "references". The choice of "unreferenced" instead of "unsourced" for this template was simply a random decision, and doesn't agree well with the wording we use in various WP:POLICY pages. Even the guideline on "referencing" is named WP:Citing sources, not "Citing references" or "Referencing". I think this happened because in some fields the term "referencing [a paper, article, etc.]" is more common than "sourcing" one, but WP basically WP:DGAF about that. WP has its own jargon and isn't a slave to any particular external usage.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. It would be much more useful if editors stopping discussing SMcCandlish's actions, which were unquestionably well-intentioned, and concentrated on the substantive issue, namely what is the best wording. Personally I prefer "sources (references)" – "sources" fits the linking of the wording to WP:V, which uses the term "sources"; "(references)" because, rightly or wrongly, "references" is often used as a synonym for "sources", as it is in the title of the template. But I'm quite convinced it is of very little importance; most people won't notice. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Per the apparent consensus of editors in this subsection I have reworded the template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• If the message is going to be "does not cite any sources", then that should be carried through to the information summary, which still says "no citations or references at all". And if "references" are replaced with "sources" than we are back to the previous question (below) of renaming the template to "Unsourced". (Something like "does not reference any sources" would have avoided this, but we seem to be past any consideration of that.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This would probably be better discussed in a new thread. Terminology is confused, but "does not reference sources" is likely to be read as "does not have inline references to sources", and that's not the purpose of this template. It's important that users understand that the absence of citations of sources is the problem, not the absence of inline references to citations. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I had not thought that the difference between "does not reference any sources" and "does not have inline references to any sources" overly subtle, but WP editors do have a propensity for free interpretation. Prior discussion of this might have been useful, but (as I just said) we seem to be past that point. That comes from doing knee-jerk ivotes before there has been any broad or deep consideration of any implications or consequences. Which I suspect comes from the blogging experience, where getting noticed (read) depends more on being first to comment than on depth of comment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: you are welcome to update the documentation yourself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Declined. Let those who make bold changes take responsibility for their own cleanup. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed one incorrect use of "references" in the documentation, but the rest of it seems fine to me. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move, pursuant to the above discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved – This is a very nuanced issue and it is clear from the discussion below that a clear understanding of what “Unreferenced” and “Unsourced” mean is lacking. The template in question should be applied consistently to articles that exhibit the deficiencies it highlights. Apparently that is not the case. While “Unsourced” may be a more explicit tag, there’s clearly no consensus in the discussion below to make the change now. I would strongly suggest that this discussion be addressed more broadly at either WP:Verifiability or WP:Citing sources via a widely advertised RFC. Establishing explicit conditions where this template is applicable in either of these policy/guideline pages would then help determine the best name for the template. In other words, the template exists to tag a symptom and should be named appropriately only after there’s consistent and widespread consensus on what that symptom is. Mike Cline (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

---

• Template:Unreferenced → Template:Unsourced
• Template:Unreferenced section → Template:Unsourced section

– Just reverse the direction of the redirect. This is a dispute template about a lack of cited sources, not a cleanup template about a lack of a "References" section, so the current name is misleading (as evidenced by the redundant wording issue flagged in the immediately previous discussion). Also adding the "section" variant of the template to the nomination.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support, per nom and clearer Wikipedia language. Randy Kryn 11:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom; will make the intent clearer. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the first, {{unreferenced}}, is a template about a complete lack of anything in the references section or having one. The equivalent for lack of cited sources is called {{nofootnotes}} where a references section exists, or more generally {{citation style}} -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are confused on what constitutes a "lack of cited sources". What we are talking about is not a failure to connect text to a source (which can happen even when there are cited sources in the article), but where there are no sources at all in the article. Which is what {{Unreferenced}} clearly, even boldly, states that it should be used for: "on articles that have no sources at all". Not merely "lack of anything in the references section", which in some "styles" is not even required. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Editors often say "references" when they mean "sources" (and occasionally do the opposite) but official language should be as clear as possible. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Unreferenced is a term of art on Wikipedia unsourced is not. Therefor unsourced is confusing. -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for the sake of consistency: ==References==, {{Reflist}}, <references /> etc. Bazj (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

For consistency? As I said above (and Mac amplified), the existing uses of "references" are ambiguous, which leads to various and inconsistent usage. The proposal here is to remove some of that ambiguity in regard of this template. It does not change the meaning or use of ==References== (etc.), and makes it clearer that the situation to be addressed with this template is not the lack of "references" in a "References" section, but the lack of any cited sources. For the sake of consistency you should support this proposal. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

J. Johnson, I don't agree. Is there something wrong with having my own opinion? Are you going to harangue every Oppose opinion?

The text prior to the BOLD change had stood for 10 years without controversy, it's only since that change that it's suddenly become imperative that one or the other MUST be imposed. I disagree with that. The argument revolves around which is better without making any case for not having both. Bazj (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You're over-reacting. You are quite welcome to disagree that "it's suddenly become imperative that one or the other MUST be imposed", because that is not the issue at all. (It's not even a factual statement.) And if you are so emotional about the current formulation that you can't see how it contributes to the general confusion and muddledness in the use of "references" and "sources" then it's probably a waste of time to discuss it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The unreferenced template is used in a hell of a lot of articles here and I think changing it would probably lead to confusion & arguements, As Baz notes we already have the Ref header, the reflist template etc etc so IMHO we should be consistent and keep this as it is. –Davey2010^Talk 22:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Davey2010: It's already been changed; do you believe it should be changed back? 331dot (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

331dot - Nothing's been changed yet well not that I can see ? cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It originally said "This article does not cite any references or sources"; it now says "This article does not cite any references (sources)". I originally questioned the need for parentheses, which has prompted the above discussion. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Strangely enough I did wonder if it had changed but assumed it was me!, Ah I didn't even realize the above so it all makes sense now , Meh I still believe "Unreferenced" is fine, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: does "consistency" mean that 1) we should always do things the way we have always done them? Or 2) should it mean consistency in the understanding of the purpose and application of this template? From several comments above it appears that we do not all have a consistent understanding of the problem for which this template is applicable. (This in addition to the ambiguity of what "references" refers to.) We're not likely to reach any kind of consensus as long as we have different concepts of what we are talking about. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. "Unreferenced" is ambigious and dosn't accurately describe the problem identified by the template. "Unsourced" is nice and clear. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• @Mike Cline: I understand the result of the above discussion; in prompting it I was actually more interested in obtaining consensus for the change in the wording of the template from "references or sources" to "references (sources)". Should that not be changed back as well, as it didn't seem to have consensus? 331dot (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Changes to the content of the template are outside the purview of the RM and should be resolved within the discussion preceding this RM. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Why two templates instead of section=yes?

Why is there {{Unreferenced}} and {{Unreferenced section}}? Most templates use {{Unreferenced|section=true}}. WikiWisePowder (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@WikiWisePowder: Never seen it being used with |section=true. I have often seen it with |section, as in {{unreferenced|section|date=March 2016}} which is exactly the same number of characters as {{unreferenced section|date=March 2016}} --Redrose64 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Huh? ok this is weird. I guess i got confused because i tried doing that and it didn't work then i checked the template docs and i didn't see a section option. Oh well, Thanks for the info. WikiWisePowder (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 January 2017

Please add {{subst:tfm|Unreferenced section}} to this page and {{subst:tfm|Unreferenced}} to {{unreferenced section}} per a nomination by Eric0928. Pppery 18:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 January 2017

There's new revision added in January. 16 & 17. They're revision. Quite a lot of pages are affected by the change. A notice "‹See Tfd›" appears to the head of the page. e.g. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Henry_I_of_Rodez Mjmjmtl (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mjmjmtl: Yes, that's because the template is being discussed right now to see whether it and another template should be one template or two templates. I think in this case "See tfd" for this template is not a good thing rather than a more full template. @Amakuru: Courtesy ping. I won't reinstate my edit if you really want |type=tiny and decide to revert mine, but I don't think it's a good idea in this case since the template is a block template. Additionally, the point is to draw input; I might suggest it's more disruptive to use something so abbreviated for how much this template is used. --Izno (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Why did you leave the tiny notice on {{unreferenced section}} when you reverted to the big one here? Pppery 21:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pppery: Because the problem was specifically raised here. :D --Izno (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Yes, the "<See tfd>" is really bad. Many articles have such notes. I notice this articles is fixed: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Henry_I_of_Rodez. But this article still have the notice: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/ORP_Mewa. I appreciate someone could remove it soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmjmtl (talk • contribs)

@Mjmjmtl: You can WP:Purge the articles you see, or you can wait for them to move through the WP:Job queue. --Izno (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 February 2017

The template examples still use January 2017, it is now February. TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I have purged the page, and the examples display correctly now. You can do this yourself: the line "Template documentation[view] [edit] [history] [purge]" includes a "purge" option. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Add {{find sources}} to this template

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No concensus.Status-quo remains in effect.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

---

In 2010, an RFC at Template talk:Refimprove (archive link) was used as a reason to remove the addition of a {{find sources}} style text in this template. The question of this RFC is: Should this template include {{find sources}} or a text similar to {{find sources}}? (test example: Template:Unreferenced/sandbox) Regards SoWhy 13:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• RfCbot invitee - Support. This seems like a pretty straightforward and logical inclusion. VanIsaac_WS^cont 05:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - we should always try to make it easier to improve the wiki. Cabayi (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as before. Also it is instruction creep making what is already a bloated template even larger. Readers come to read the subject matter of the topic they are interested in. The do not come to an article expecting to find information at the top of the page about things not directly related to the subject. As a warning this template is of use to readers it tells them that the content may not be based on reliable secondary sources, but the rest of it is maintenance information only of interest to those who wish to edit the page. Maintenance information should be placed on the talk page (which is why we have a talk page for each article), not in article space. -- PBS (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per PBS – information about improving Wikipedia belongs on the talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support as proposer because they make it easier for new and experienced editors alike to find sources easily. Even back then, some people in that RFC advocated adding a finding sources text to this template but those voices went unheard. I don't think the oppose arguments are necessarily correct: "Bloating" and "confusion" can be addressed by making the links collapsible so only people who are interested in fixing the problem will see them (example: User:SoWhy/Template:Unreferenced example (someone with better coding skills can probably create a better one but the idea is clear)). The idea that talk pages should be used instead is a nice one in theory, however, most taggers do not create/tag the talk page with such links and the proposed addition would make it easier for all interested editors to quickly remedy problems without having to first create a talk page and adding a template to it. Plenty of templates - including this one - already contain maintenance information (here it's a link to Help:Maintenance template removal) without it ever being considered a problem. Making it harder to improve the wiki seems against our basic principles. Regards SoWhy 10:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  The previous RfC was 13 to 2 in favour of not adding external links to this template. "however, most taggers do not create/tag the talk page with such links. The point of placing this warning on the talk page is a heads up for readers not a how to manual entry for editors. Maintenance advise should be placed on talk pages. When I place this tag in an article I am doing so primarily to warn readers. If I wanted to tell editors how to use Google search I would do so on the talk page. @User:SoWhy What do you think talk pages are there for? -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  The previous RfC was for another template, not this one (and vote counting is not a valid way to determine consensus anyway). The idea of the {{find sources}} template is to give editors quick access to common searches, i.e. make it easier for them to improve the article. I am pretty sure most talk pages of articles tagged with this template do not contain a Find sources template, so even if it were the correct place to add them, the fact is that they don't exist and it amounts to unnecessary duplication of work if we force editors willing to fix things to check the talk page first, add a template there and then use that template instead of just using the template we already have in the article (which, as I pointed out above, can be modified to not be visible to casual readers). Regards SoWhy 10:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment see WP:ELNO points 1 and 9 Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." and more specifically "Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." So adding this proposed extension is a direct contraction of those two point. Not to mention that external links in general should only appear in the standard appendix sections of an article not in body of the article (see WP:ELPOINTS no 2). -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  WP:ELNO is a guideline that governs the content in the body of an article, not inside maintenance templates. Maintenance templates are not considered part of the article, so guidelines that apply to articles do not apply to them (same goes for trans-namespace links for example that are allowed as a hatnote or in such templates but not in the article's text). Regards SoWhy 10:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose  The find sources template states, "This template should not be used in articles themselves - see Wikipedia:EL#Links normally to be avoided."  The idea that find sources is not ok in an article because it contains external links, but can be added through the back door of being a part of a maintenance template is not convincing, as the template is still adding external links to the article.
  This also has a problem already present at AfD of promoting a single commercial search engine, but the proposal here is putting this issue in front of our readers.
  Instead what is needed is a parameter to link to the discussion on the talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  You do realize that other templates such as {{notability}} contain such links already and have so for years? So the argument that external links in maintenance templates should be avoided at all costs clashes with the fact that we already use them in other templates (which in fact was the consensus of a 2013 TfD about this template, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 26#Template:Notability). So why are such links not okay in this template when there is clear consensus to have them in others. Regards SoWhy 13:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  No I did not and the fact that someone ignored the prohibition in the guidelines and developed a new template to get around the script prohibition in the older template is typical of wack a rat that happens on Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  Exactly, and the fact that a wrong approach has been taken elsewhere is not a reason to do so here too. Our main task is to serve readers, not editors; readers don't need to be told where to find sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mobile

Unlike {{citation needed}}, this template isn't visible on mobile. Why is this? Hairy Dude (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hairy Dude: It's built around the {{ambox}} template, which uses the metadata class. All objects belonging to that class are hidden on mobile (for example, most (if not all) of these). This has been the case for years: more at mw:Reading/Web/Projects/Mobile Page Issues. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 December 2018

Please change the |class = param to the following:

| class = tag-Unreferenced {{#if:{{{1|}}}| {{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|article| |tag-section}} | }}    <!-- Used by Twinkle -->

This will facilitate a new feature in Twinkle for removing existing maintenance tags. GitHub discussion. The idea is to have class tag-Unreferenced, but an additional tag-section if the template is not being used in context of the whole article, that is, if {{{1}}} is specified and its value is not "article". This behaviour has been tested.

The existing param was added by Ioeth for use within Twinkle only. SD0001 (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Not done for now See Template talk:More citations needed#Template-protected edit request on 16 December 2018 — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles tagged as unreferenced which aren't

Hello all,

A few weeks back I was going through the backlog of unreferenced articles and came across one which had the {{unreferenced}} tag on it but invoked {{cite web}} and therefore was clearly not unreferenced. I had a quick go at finding and fixing some of them but my queries weren't precise enough and generated a lot of false positives. I've spent a bit of time looking over the template transclusions and generated this which shows all the articles which do the same. I plan, of course, on correcting the tags, and I am probably going to use AutoWikiBrowser to do it, however, my only question is should I keep the date paramaters the same when converting these unreferenced tags to refimprove tags so they maintain their seniority? I am erring on that side but I thought I'd offer the community a chance to input.

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done it. SITH (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC of potential interest

An RfC is underway that could affect this template and may therefor be of interest to watchers of this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding Twinkle maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding a |source= argument

This template will soon be added by bot per the RfC: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Bot to add Template:Unreferenced and Template:No footnotes to pages (single_run) - it's possible the bot could add around 25,000 instances, the template is currently around 220,000, so it would be about a 10% increase.

The RfC close suggested opening a discussion about adding a source argument eg. |source=GreenC bot or |bot=GreenC bot. The closer recommend putting these cases into a separate hidden category such as Category:Articles lacking sources detected by bot or something.

I would recommend to avoid fragmentation, the new bot category be in addition to the original category ie. if a |source= exists, add it to both Category:Articles lacking sources detected by bot and Category:All articles lacking sources. So those working through the original category are not missing entries that were added to the bot category (this concern was raised by other editors who do this work). -- GreenC 17:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer |bot= for consistency with other templates that have similar parameters. Do we really need a category for bot added instances though? — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

|bot= is good. A number of others said the same thing about not having an extra hidden cat. The couple RfC participants seemed concerned about a "flood" of new instances overwhelming the current category, but I estimate maybe a 10% increase which is hard to justify the overhead of maintaining a new category IMO. If someone really wants it later on, we can easily add it. If someone wants to know which articles the bot edited, I believe this can be done by searching on edit comment strings. -- GreenC 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. If we're not adding a category or visual indicator, then the template doesn't need to be changed since the parameter wouldn't do anything. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding |status= argument

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GreenC bot 17 is a new BRFA related to this template. This template would have a new argument |status= that accepts either |status=hasaref or |status=nobot (i'm not stuck on these names they are only suggestions). If |status=hasaref is set, the article is added to a new tracking category Category:All articles possibly lacking sources.

The idea is to flag articles that have this template but maybe don't need it any longer as the article contains what the bot thinks are references. Humans make the final determination and do any fixup work. It uses the WP:TAGBOT system so only a small number of articles are checked at a time and users would need to clear the tracking category before new bot runs can be made (on-demand). This keeps the intelligence about articles fresh/accurate, and avoids a giant list of outdated info.

I'm not familiar enough with the template and would need help in adding the argument and tracking cat. -- GreenC 16:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I figured out how to add all2. -- GreenC 14:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Triggers CAPTCHA

The template's external links seem to trigger the CAPTCHA security check. Probably not intentional. 85.156.64.153 (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Unquoted search for 'find sources'

In a natural extension of {{find sources}} capability, a new update adds unquoted search capability to the invocation of {{find sources}}, using new param |find2= (alias: |unquoted=). Adding |find2=some search keywords will add some search keywords to positional param two of the {{find sources}} invocation, which is reserved for unquoted search.

This update is partly a solution to the poor search results generated by certain long queries, such as occurs by default in articles with long or descriptive titles, as well as in certain templates using the |section= parameter. This was alluded to in the discussion above. A request for unquoted search was also placed on the Talk page of another one of the maintenance templates involving sourcing (or perhaps at WP:VPM, or WP:TEA, or similar) in the past few months, but I can't find it right now. If you are the one who requested it, could you please reply below, with a link to your original request? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Found it; here. Mathglot (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 November 2019

Please add {{find sources mainspace}} to the template. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @JalenFolf: your request is not clear, please synchronize and make your changes in Template:Unreferenced/sandbox first, then reactivate. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: This has been done as requested. Please refer to Template:Unreferenced/testcases to see how it's used on that page's existing content. This would be reflected across my other related requests on other similar maintenance templates. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done your requested change would remove other working parts of the sandbox (as seen here). Please first synchronize sandboxes prior to making new proposals. The same should be done on all the protected templates you would like to update. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Reopened for unreferenced section issue

Re-opening, as the current implementation has caused some undesirable knock-on effects to existing invocations of template {{unreferenced section}}. To complete the task and alleviate the problem, {{find sources}} should be included conditionally, based on these conditions which depend on a new |search= argument added to both templates:

1. when invoked without a search term – default to current behavior (i.e, include arg-less {{find sources}}, defaults to article title)
2. when invoked with an explicit search value  – include {{find sources|terms}} using the search term(s) as find sources arg1
3. when invoked with a search value of none – do not display {{find sources}}

The intent of the original design is an improvement, but it overlooked the knock-on effect of making the banner displayed by {{unreferenced section}} worse. The problem is that in a section of an article, the use of {{find sources}} with search term 1 defaulting to <Article-title> hardly ever produces useful results. To rectify this, invocation from {{unreferenced section}} should provide an optional search-term argument settable by the user, and defaulting to "none". Concretely:

• {{Unreferenced section|search=some keyword(s)|date=June 2020}}  – this is new functionality for this template

This requires {{unreferenced section}} to always pass new param |search= to this template, passing none if the user did not supply a value. This template would then process it and display {{find sources}} conditionally, consistent with conditions 2 and 3 above.

This requires changes to both templates. I think this completely defines the desired behavior, but I can spell this out with BEFORE/AFTER snippets for both, if it needs to be more explicit. Mathglot (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Extra credit: Since {{find sources}} permits more than one search term, quoting the first, and unquoting the subseuqent ones, this points to a possible invocation using search term 1=<section-title> and search term 2=<article title>. This might provide good results, especially in cases where both section title and article title were not wordy, but would complicate the coding. Mathglot (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Listed at: More citations needed, More citations needed section, More medical citations needed, Unreferenced section. Mathglot (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I've only just quickly done this, but see Template:Unreferenced/sandbox (rev. 964036125), and Template:Unreferenced/testcases#Find. If this looks good to all, I'll release it, and work on Template:Unreferenced section. Or, if preferred, I can gin up the changes in its sandbox, and have it temporarily call the sandbox version of this one. What do people usually do, when making changes to two templates in Tandem? In any case, Template:Unreferenced/sandbox as currently constituted (if I've made no errors) can stand alone, regardless whether the "section" version gets done at the same time, or ever.

One other comment: though I've been editing templates for a while, this would only be my second change to a highly visible template with large numbers of transclusions since I got my template permissions; so I'd appreciate at least two careful reviews by experienced template writers, before moving it to Template space. (The other was {{Expand language}}; see this discussion.) Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A draft of the new /doc file is in Template:Unreferenced/sandbox/doc, but isn't getting picked up by the sandbox version of the template, so if interested, you'll just have to view it directly. Mathglot (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I've modified {{Unreferenced section/sandbox}} and created a sandbox2 version there which calls this sandbox version so that both sandbox versions can be tested in tandem. Testcases at Template:Unreferenced section/testcases. Afaict, this completes the implementation of the new param functionality. Feedback requested. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

So, it's been nearly a week, perhaps that's silent approval or everyone is busy? I know there's 151 watchers, so I'll wait a couple more days, but if there's still nothing, I'll presume that's a nihil obstat and go ahead and make the changes to the two templates. I plan to proceed as follows:

1. {{Unreferenced}}
   • update Template:Unreferenced/doc with the changes from Template:Unreferenced/sandbox/doc (diff)
   • update Template:Unreferenced with the changes from Template:Unreferenced/sandbox (diff)
2. {{Unreferenced section}}
   • update Template:Unreferenced section/doc with the changes from Template:Unreferenced section/sandbox/doc (diff)
   • update Template:Unreferenced section with the changes from Template:Unreferenced section/sandbox (diff)

Note that #1 and 2 are completely independent of each other; they can be done in either order, and neither is dependent on when, or if, changes to the other are carried out. Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Template update in progress... Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Updates released; testcases reverified. Mathglot (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

A further improvement has been made, to add param |find2= which may be used to provide unquoted search params to {{find sources}}. With the right query strings provided to |find= and |find2= (alias: 'unquoted'), excellent results can be obtained now for section placement of the banner, which was not the case before. This is now released in both templates. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

{{unreferenced2}}

FYI, Template:Unreferenced2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination

Template:Unreferenced has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:tfm|help=off|1=BLP unsourced}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now. This template is used on close to 200,000 pages, and altering it to display a TfM message about a merge of another template is going to be disruptive to readers (and for the servers as well). All the more so given that the TfM proposal won't affect the functionality of this template and that doubts have been cast on the technical feasibility of the proposed change. – Uanfala (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 December 2022

New month, can someone update it? Thanks!`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC) `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

If you're talking about the doc page, if your time zone is ahead of UTC, the "update" will occur a few hours late, for you. Thanks for caring. Mathglot (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld:  Not done: {{edit template-protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation or categories of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. All that is needed for the documentation is a WP:PURGE of the template page, and failure to do that will not in any way affect the correct behaviour of the template when used for real. Other than that, the only thing that might need an "update" is the creation of the monthly category, Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2022, but that was bot-created more than 23 hours in advance. No further action is required.

@Mathglot: Whatever timezone HelpingWorld is in, they posted the request after the change of UTC calendar month. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination_2

Template:Unreferenced has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:tfm|help=off|1=Unreferenced section}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)