Template talk:No footnotes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Harvard referencing is referencing :-([edit]

I've seen vastly under-informed "editors" placing this tag on articles that are very well referenced using Harvard notation. Please, please take the time to learn more about referencing before using this template!!! Ling.Nut 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the template. The claim is not that the article is uncited, but that it could be improved by using Wikipedia's <ref> tag to associate references with their respective sections of text. While, for uniformity, it is conventional to use the citation templates to format references, there's nothing stopping you from entering such references in your favorite reference format (just don't be upset when, predictably, someone comes along and converts them to citation templates). -Harmil 19:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem with this template Sept 15, 2007[edit]

This edit: [1] seems to have caused this template to mis-render. Can someone please address it? Thanks. -Harmil 19:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's back, but now it's an orange bar next to the text. Can whoever is messing around with this or whatever underlying template please do so in a sandbox? -Harmil 19:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Check out the Wikipedia:Template standardization page, it seems all the templates are getting this treatment. The bar stands for "content", even though it seems to be a "style" issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLeon (talkcontribs) 04:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add this to see also section[edit]

Please add {{Citations missing}} to the see also section. I've done the inverse, but for some seemingly arbitrary reason this template is considered high-risk and {{Citations missing}} is not. 68.167.253.27 03:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

Done. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Small changes[edit]

{{editprotected}}

A couple small suggested modifications:

  1. Get rid of "a list of" between "references or" and "external links" -- minor redundancy
  2. Link "external links" to Wikipedia:External links

xDanielx T/C\R 02:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! — xDanielx T/C\R 19:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Placement of this template[edit]

Hi. I have a question. This template should be placed at the bottom of articles, is that right? I see it placed at the top a lot though, wonder why. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Officially it's meant to go in the References section, but I don't think putting it at the top is really problematic. Stylistically, I think it looks better at the top anyway. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Stylistically I think it looks better at the bottom, I would argue. {{footnotes}} is not as crucial as {{citations missing}}, and it would be too distracting on top I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It is equally crucial because the lack of footnotes means that any references provided are useless as explanations of where the article's information is from. Cop 663 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This template refers to a stylistic problem not a fundamental problem with the article as per NPOV, etc. Therefore to put it at the top of the article, in my mind is to overstate its importance. SHoudl this be relegated instead to the talk page? AndrewRT(Talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Same opinion as Cop 663 expressed above. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the references are not useless, they just are not as easy to use. But this is a wiki, and there is no requirement that one group of editors do more work to make less work for another group of editors. And many editors strongly object to other editors who want to tell them they must. This is why this template is controversial, and it should not go at the top, except in extreme cases, for example with a controversial subject. Otherwise this template could be applied to most articles on WP, and that would not be an improvement. If you would like to see inline citations on an article, then read the references, and add them. But don't run around doing drive-by tagging. That's not helpful. Dhaluza (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Helping readers up front at the top by warning them that nothing may actually be referenced is very important. An article without inline references (and in that case almost always without page numbers), so readers don't know what is an what isn't referenced - is more dangerous than an article without even vague references and/or external links. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-21t21:29z

After a recent edit of SmackBot a discussion was started on User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Maintenance_tag_placement where a few editors have also voiced there opinions that this template should be at the top of the page. This is also my opinion.

Personally, I feel so because that is the standarised place for most maintenance templates, and because that is the most visible place, that is, the place where the template is most likely to influence an editor into action.

In view of the large number of editors who disagree with the present text of the docpage

copy and paste {{No footnotes|{{subst:DATE}}}} into the references section of the article

I will remove that line from the docpage. On the other hand, I also see no consensus that the right place is at the top of the article. Therefore, I will not add anything back in its place. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I haven't read the whole discussion. I am here because someone posted a message to my talk page. I'll be back in action at Saturday. I think no footnotes should be placed in the references section to distinguish it from unreferenced. An article may be referenced but no specific sentences on it to be referenced. That inline references are missing is not a major issue comparing to unreferenced articles. Take for example articles about medicines or deceases. The same goes for articles incorporating texts from public domain sources. Moreover, the placement of the tag indicates where the inline references should appear. To conclude, I think the documentation should stay as is and start correcting no footnotes or by moving them in the correct place or by adding on the top the correct template. Before any change the staff has to be advertised more. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with AndrewRT, Dhaluza, Magioladitis and others that this does not belong at the top of the article but in the references section. It is not reporting a "fatal" problem, and the suggestion that references are "useless" if they are not inline is exaggeratory. I also concur with Debresser that there isn't consensus to put it in the refs section either. It should be left (as should most WP decisions - our template documentation is often far too prescriptive) to editor discretion on a case-by-case basis. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion but I think we need to reopen it. The appropriate place for these maintenance tags is neither the top of the page (where it is very disruptive to readers) nor the bottom of the page (where it is merely less disruptive) but on the article's Talk page. Talk is explicitly for discussions about how to improve the page - how to improve the layout, organization and readability of the content. And that is all that this template asks for - not more or different references, just better organization of the ones that are already here.
Warning boxes on the article page itself should be reserved for the most serious concerns - templates like Unreferenced. Templates like this one should be posted on Talk until the page is improved. Rossami (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup /doc[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Please replace the category in the template with:

<!--Categories and interwikis go in the /doc page.-->

SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

YesY Done --ais523 15:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous[edit]

This template is ridiculous. Even the linked to page, Wikipedia:Citing sources only has this to say about inline citations:

Inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations.

The only theoretically valid use of an amended form of this template would be in places where there are statements needing specifically backed up with inline citations. Even so, in such a situation, the inline "citation needed" content vandalism can be used.

Nevermind that it's a very poor way to manage thigns to plaster templates across articles to provide notes to editors (and as regards our readers, they can't take anything on Wikipedia at face value due to the means of operation, it's not very sensible to single out some articles for special treatment in providing "this may not be true" warnings).

zoney talk 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Our readers may not be able to take Wikipedia at face value. Unfortunately, many of them do. Most of my students seem convinced that everything on Wikipedia is unbiased gospel truth. The more tags the better if they remind readers to be cautious around unfinished pages. Cop 663 (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point, well taken, wrong template. Having said that, I still agree that the template isn't ridiculous, as it serves to decrease the distance between the listed sources and the specific content dependent on them. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There is no requirement for inline citations, and slapping this tag on articles that don't have them is only one half step above vandalism. Dhaluza (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I think inline citations are very important, otherwise it cannot be said on which source every sentence or paragraph is based on. If one is not publishing original research, why sholdn't one be able to make inline citations throughout the text? In my view the template is good (and I use it a lot) because it does promote using inline citations (many of the times I used this template the main article author added inline citation as a result). Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying inline citations are bad, they just are not required (unless a particular statement is contentious). If you think inline citations are important, then by all means, use them (I do). But don't use this template to deface an otherwise good article. There is no need for the editors to make the verification idiot-proof. If you want to verify the text, you should be willing to read the references. Then if you want to add additional inline citations, go right ahead. Just don't expect someone else to do it for you. Dhaluza (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

High risk template[edit]

I'm sure it is exactly that, but can somebody please edit it to select a much smaller font. The template looks quite overdone when rendered at the top of lots of articles. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Example:

instead of:


I think as it is currently the template is fine. If made smaller it would almost pass unadverted. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Title bolding[edit]

{{editprotected}} Can anyone bold the title as is standard across Wikipedia? ☆ CieloEstrellado 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done please be more specific. Happymelon 15:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Iw-link[edit]

Please include a link to Swedish Wikipedia using [[sv:Mall:Ingafotnoter]] . Ulner (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanish interwiki[edit]

Admins, could you please add the interwiki

[[es:Plantilla:Citasenlínea]]

Thanks a lot. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

+Adequate[edit]

I should like to suggest that "because it lacks in-text citations." be amplified to "because it lacks adequate in-text citations." This will enable the template to be used where there are some inline citations but they are insufficient. TerriersFan (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

For that purpose there is another template: Template:Morefootnotes. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

{{subst:DATE}}[edit]

Can an admin please add support for {{subst:DATE}} to this template? Thanks. --the Wild Falcon (talk | log) 13:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Add where appropriate (per FAC)[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Please add where appropriate after "You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations" (as I did to {{morefootnotes}}). That guideline should be referenced to guide users of this template, and editors who want to address the issues. For an example of this usage, see the 1.c. in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Dhaluza (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibilities[edit]

I think that the tag should say "This article and/or section includes a list of references or external links." Also, I think that the template should be able to allow subst:dated to be put in front of nofotnotes so that a date could be seen. --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (Talk!/Cont.) 03:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It should probably also include a category for the articles the template is placed on. --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (Talk!/Cont.) 03:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Add date[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Replace:

citations [[Wikipedia:When to cite|where appropriate]].</small>

With:

citations [[Wikipedia:When to cite|where appropriate]]. {{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''}}</small>

Gary King (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Citations missing[edit]

Template:Citations missing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. (This template is a potential merge-to or redir-to.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Linked page[edit]

Nofootnotes links to a page that no longer contains even a mention of linked citations, and never did define them. Censors sloppier and lazier than contributors? Anarchangel (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, the page does contain a mention: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline reference Perhaps this template should be edited to provide a more precise link to #Inline reference. However, editing is blocked so I won't be the one to do it. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'm the censor in question,[2] but I don't see how my edit was sloppy or lazy. The term you use, "linked citations", is not used in the template, so why should the linked guideline define it?
This template correctly refers to "inline citations", which may or may not contain "embedded links". Butwhatdoyouknow is right about the piped link, though. After I made my edit, the section headers at WP:CITE were changed, so I've fixed it both there and here. — Satori Son 16:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Style edits[edit]

{{editprotected}}

I've made a few tweaks to the styling on the new sandbox. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested edit[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please remove the extraneous {{template doc}} that was added in this edit. It's outside the noinclude Kolindigo (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Also remove the extraneous </noinclude>G716 <T·C> 02:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

See Dodge Coronet for an example of the problem. Ariel. (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Template corrupted[edit]

Not sure if this is a different problem to the one above; I see it on List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5) but not on Dodge Coronet, so I'm assuming it's different.

Anyway, on the former article, immediately after the template text, I see a box with the heading "Documentation", followed by the text </noinclude>. Something's gone wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.47.27 (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Seems to have been fixed -- or fixed itself -- now. 86.134.47.27 (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

second template doc[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Please delete the second {{template doc}} from inside the <noinlcude></noinclude> section. Also remove all spaces and line breaks between the </includeonly> and the <noinclude>. Thanks —G716 <T·C> 06:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Cirt (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

When to remove template?[edit]

Forgive me if this is answered elsewhere, as I have searched for an answer but found none. Who determines when enough inline citations have been added to an article with the {{nofootnotes}} notice to justify its removal? Please see my statement here. --Thomprod (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's simple: all statements should be supported by citations that verify them (see WP:V). If only half the job has been done, you shouldn't remove the template.Cop 663 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

suggestion for improvement of this template and {{morefootnotes}}[edit]

The template text mentions "Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate" but it doesn't mention how to do this. I think it would help the editor to include a link within the template text to "Wikilinks to full references" (or WP:CITEX) which shows the editor a quick and easy way how to create inline citations from the existing list of full references. Maybe something along the lines of.. "For help on how to do this, see WP:CITEX" or something like that. OlEnglish (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please correct the grammar[edit]

{{edit protected}} There are 2 more commas needed in the script, after "unclear" and after "citations":

  1. ...but '''its sources remain unclear, because it lacks [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|inline citations]].'''
  2. ...this article by introducing more precise citations, [[Wikipedia:When to cite|where appropriate]].

Thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that commas are necessary in both of those instances, especially before the "because". Let's see what other editors think before making the change. --CapitalR (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Neither comma is needed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Neither is needed. First one would be incorrect, I think.Cop 663 (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Neither is needed. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I went back and read "Rules for Comma Usage". Sorry about the confusion! --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Category problem[edit]

{{edit protected}} The template seems to be adding an additional opening parenthetical for the date parameter. For example, {{no footnotes}} shows up in Category:Articles lacking in-text citations from (April 2009, not Category:Articles lacking in-text citations from April 2009. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --CapitalR (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 21:28 6 April 2009 (UTC).

redirect[edit]

this template does nothing that

  • {{Unreferenced}}, article/section has no sources/references/citations given at all
  • {{Refimprove}}, article/section has weak or incomplete sources/references/citations

do. I suggest that it is redirected to {{Unreferenced}} --PBS (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose It's very clear what the difference is in the text of the template: This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. There is a clear distinction there and I find this template to be very useful in those circumstances, and also {{morefootnotes}} when there are insufficient inline citations. Do you not make a distinction between general references and in-line citations/footnotes? -- œ 23:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki: simple[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please could somebody add [[simple:Nofootnotes]]. —Sladen (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links for templates should go on the template documentation page (if one exists) as they are generally not protected. I have added it (see here) this time. Feel free to do this yourself in the future. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

{{editprotected}} I would like to remove "related reading or external links" from the template so that it would read "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations." This is more in line with our policy on verification. External links and related reading aren't supposed to back up the material within the article, they are supposed to provide further information beyond the article's content. Only references should be used to footnote information. I believe this is in-line with current community consensus so I don't think this change needs any discussion. ThemFromSpace 02:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Your argument holds for the perfect article, where nothing in the "further reading" or "external links" sections should be considered for integrating into the article as inline references, but does not hold for the majority of articles where that state of affairs does not obtain. Often, editors without the time or inclination to add inline citations will add books or links to websites that could be used appropriately as references. See this article for example. Should consensus to the contrary emerge, you can stick the edit request back up, but for now, I have disabled it. Regards,  Skomorokh  06:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Themfromspace. It will bring it in line with {{unreferenced}}. The point about this type of template it carries two pieces of information. The first is a warning to a reader that not all the information in the article may be accurate. The second piece of information is editorial and is there to help editors fix the precieved problem because we (editors) check for accuracy by either checking the text against the references and adding in-line cations or use {{citation needed}} as laid out in WP:PROVIT. At no point do we consider further reading or external links to be references. Indeed during the verification process that this template is likely to initiate, experience shows that it is more likely that books in the references section will be move out into the further reading section than the other way around. -- PBS (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
A consensus is not one comment,with a disagreement and one agreement months later, "external links" and "further reading" has been included on this template for years. It is was posted on tens of thousands of articles to impart that message. If anyone would like separate templates to ask people to format external links and references as references then you are free to make new ones. I am revering the change by User:Philip Baird Shearer as consensus does not exist for the change. Jeepday (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jeepday about how to interpret the word "consensus". This was not even a bold edit, just a non-consensus one. Debresser (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There is little point discussing whether or not there was a consensus when I made the edit (as consensus also has to do with interpreting the wider consensus based on policy and guidelines). In my opinion "related reading or external links" do not make references. If there are no references in a reference (or similar named section) then it is {{unreferenced}} There could be two pages of "relatedfurther reading" and "external links" and the article would still be unrefrenced. In this context external links does not mean references and if there are only external links what is needed is references.(If the external links are cited either inline or in a reference section then they are not usually called "external links"). This template only comes into play if the provided references (which may after all be provided using Harvard notation) are not clear. -- PBS (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Philip Baird Shearer. The reason I requested the change over half a year ago is because I often see this tag placed in external links sections where it doesn't belong. The template implies that external links sections are to be used for sourcing, and this goes against our external links guidelines that point out quite clearly that they aren't. External links sections aren't meant to contain inline citations or material used for referencing purposes, although this tag implies that they should. Now I see that my initial assumption of consensus was quite mistaken, so I think some sort of RfC might be the way to move forward, if anybody cares enough about the wording to start one. ThemFromSpace 22:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Them, are you saying that per external links guidelines anything that has an external link can't be used as a reference, or are you saying that if it is in the external links section that it does not qualify as a reference? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
For clarity let us call an individual "external link" a "web citation". Web citations not used as an in-line citation or in the ==References== section are not references, so if it is in an ==External links== section then it does not qualify as a reference. (see also WP:ELPOINTS) -- PBS (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah Ha; I think I am beginning to understand the argument! While the web citation may in fact support the article and have the potential for being an excellent valid reference (or not), it can not be considered a reference because it's only usage is in the external links section of the article. Please correct me if that is not point that we are discussing. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It is the point we are discussing and the reason for the (proposed) change to the wording. -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, so glad I finally understand your point. I can see why you make it. Here are my thoughts.
  • The proposed change to remove external links and related reading essentially makes this template the same as {{Citations missing}}, which is not the message that {{No footnotes}} is used to convey.
  • {{No footnotes}} is on thousands of articles in short to say "Hey looks like there are good references in the external links, further reading or reference section; but they don't do much to support the article content because they are not citations. Please click on some of these links and learn how to make them into good references and this article better."
  • There are 281,579 articles tagged as completely unreferenced, which does not include {{No footnotes}} as these articles in Category:Articles lacking in-text citations which only has 28,672 articles.
  • Speaking as someone who has looked at a lot of unreferenced articles, and found lots of stuff to delete there is a big difference between an article that is really without references and an article that maybe technical unreferenced (this is a POV based on a guideline and is not supported by the policy WP:V) because there are no citations or there is no reference section. {{No footnotes}} should be on articles that meet at least the basic requirements of WP:V in that there is actually something on the article supporting the article content, but it needs work to come up to encyclopedia expectations.
  • The body of work to work required to improve an article with {{No footnotes}} is much easier then an article with {{unref}}.
  • My concern is that if the change you are suggesting is made, then -
  1. The intent of the message that given when the tag was added will be destroyed
  2. There would not be a valid template message to convey the message intended by the current template
  3. Without a valid template to convey the intended message then {{unref}} would be used inappropriately.
  • The project Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles was started after lengthy debates and consensus on what constituted an unreferenced article. Template talk:Unreferenced#Project Proposal (this is the summation, Many of the actual discussions took place over several talk pages and times) proper formatting of the reference and placement in the reference section was and is not an indicator of meeting WP:V, except in the case of material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged.
Jeepday (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
"(this is a POV based on a guideline and is not supported by the policy WP:V) because there are no citations or there is no reference section. " it may be a POV but it is the general consensus as expressed in Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Layout, and until you raised the issue here I have never seen another editor who disagrees with it. PBS (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Where is it that you think there is support for your point of view that "{{No footnotes}} should be on articles that meet at least the basic requirements of WP:V in that there is actually something on the article supporting the article content" where in WP:V is there any support for that assumption. WP:V is mainly about describing what a reliable source is. The WP:PROVIT section describes how in certain cases there is a requirement for inline citations. No where does it describe how to implement general citations. That is left to the three guidelines I listed above (Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Layout) and they do not support you view that external links meet "the basic requirements of WP:V" as the basic requirement is that sources exist for the text not that they exist in the article. So please show me a policy or guideline that supports you point of view about footnotes: "the basic requirements of WP:V in that there is actually something on the article supporting the article content" -- PBS (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
{{Citations missing}} is not the same as this template. CM is closer to {{refimprove}}.as the list of items in the References section are called "general citations" (personally I prefer to call them references and "inline citations" citations. But the current wording in WP:CITE has called them that for some time)
It will not destroy the scene that this template should convey as currently it is not correct, as web citations in an external links section are not references as they are neither inline or general citations and as such can not support the content of the article any more than sources that are not included in the article. -- PBS (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It is pointless to argue circles. We can each find some disagreement in the others position and nothing is going to change that.
As I understand your position, the objection to the content in sections "related reading" or "external links" being given the status of sources as implied by the template message "but its sources remain unclear". Perhaps this wording change?
This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its remains un-cited because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate.
JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
How about: This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but it needs footnotes to indicate where the article content can be verified. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Active Banana (talkcontribs) 20:34, 27 August 2010
Minor change to suggestion above by Active Banana: "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but it needs footnotes to indicate where the article content can be verified. Please improve this article by introducing precise citations where appropriate." Changing "more precise citations" to "precise citations". Rational being they are not citations if they are not cited. And adding links Jeepday (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There are problems with the above. A list in a references section are considered to be verification for the article and are considered to be citations (but not inline citations) see WP:CITE#General reference and Wikipedia:Verification methods#General references section. So to say "but it needs footnotes to indicate where the article content can be verified." Articles can be verified through the list in the References section. Again all that is needed is the removal of "related reading or external links" which are not intended to be used to verify articles. -- PBS (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but it changes the meaning of the tag. The tag has been used on thousands of articles to say that there is content in the related reading or external links that can and should be used for adding citations. As I recall in the old days anything that was an external link was put in that section even if it was what we would now consider a supporting reference. Additionally the content that might be used to referencing the article might be in a section called Notes or Sources. Can you think of way to change the wording that removes all reference to what section the content and remains appropriate for Category:Articles lacking in-text citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talkcontribs) 12:44, 28 August 2010
I been around here for a long time, and in the good old days, far more often than not, no citations of any sort were given. In which case it is impossible to tell whether in such articles if external links were meant to be external links as we understand them today or references. But for example when I made this edit on 18 May 2004 added and external link section and it was for the same reason we have an external links section today. Before the criticisms of 2005-2006 and the refocus on quality articles the need for citations was not given a high priority. For example compare WP:V Jan 2005 bit by the end of 2005. At the start of 2005 WP:V was not a policy, but by the end of the year it had taken on a format that would be recognisable to editors today. However two edits to WP:CITE introduction (2003) prominence (2004) clearly stated that "References should be collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading;". So if people were citing information as early as 2003 the guidance was to collect them together for printing purposes in a list in a ==References== section. -- PBS (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The use of footnotes above is imprecise. In most style guides, footnotes are the reference list at the end of a work, whereas in-text citations correspond to the full entries found in the reference list. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes) refers to a specific method of in-text citations and reference listing. Please continue to use inline citations. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point on in line citations and footnotes Gadget850. Jeepday to answer your question "Can you think of way to change the wording that removes all reference to what section the content...". Yes! Change the link under list of references to use WP:FNNR "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations." -- PBS (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
How many articles is {{nofootnotes}} on that does not have a list of references? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
No idea. But as it is largely a maintenance box (and maintenance boxes should I think be on the talk page (but that is another discussion)), altering it is not affecting the accuracy content of an article, and in the long run those mislabelled will be altered to {{unreferenced}} which is what they are -- and which carries an important piece of information for the reader of an article (that it is unreferenced and may not be reliable). -- PBS (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Who would change to the tags {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, or some other appropriate tag ?
  1. Two points
  2. It is inappropriate to change the work of others to become inaccurate, and leave it for others to clean up.
  3. It can't be a maintenance box and reader warning on the talk page all at the same time.
JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I will agree with ThemfromSpace, Further reading and External links are separate from references and are judged by different standards. Including them in this template can confuse editors. It is possible to go even further: this template in its entirety is not based on any policy or guideline. From what I can gather no policy is violated by deleting it. Correct me if I'm wrong. Lambanog (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleting it would be difficult because a bot would have to run through all the pages currently using it and remove it. We could redirect it to {{more footnotes}} (whack a rat), or just alter the wording as has been previously suggested. -- PBS (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is time remove "related reading or external links" anyone care to make any points as to why this should not be done? -- PBS (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, because the template is used to ask contributors to use content that may be in the "related reading or external links" to cite references. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Unlike References, neither "further reading" or "external links" contain sources used in the article. So they are not relevant to this template, if one is not going to distinguish between "References", "further reading" and "external links" one might as well just have the header "This article's sources remain unclear because it lacks in-line citations." and leave it at that. Which guideline do you think justifies the inclusion of "related reading or external links"? -- PBS (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if this falls into a question of semantics having to do with the words
  • Source
  • Reference
  • Citation
Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source", or in other words there should be a source for all content even if it is not listed as a reference. It goes on to say that some content should "be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation". This template currently says "sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations". If we assume good faith on the part of contributors who wrote the article and added external links or further reading, then we must assume those items are sources that could be used to attribute the article content. Above we agreed that "While the web citation may in fact support the article and have the potential for being an excellent valid reference (or not), it can not be considered a reference because it's only usage is in the external links section of the article". This in no way precludes it from being a source for the article content (in many cases it truly is the one and only source see Wikipedia:Copyright violations), it just says it is not used a reference with inline citations. Because this template does not say that the article is referenced or not (i.e. has inline citations) it is addressing the core policy of WP:V indicating the article appears to have sources in "list of references, related reading or external links" but lacks references "(inline citations)" Which I think we all agree should be in the references (and/or note, which is different topic) sections. So WP:V justifies the inclusion of "related reading or external links" in the Template:No footnotes.
PBS said "Unlike References, neither "further reading" or "external links" contain sources used in the article." which would be counter to expectations of Wikipedia. If there is further related reading on a brief (relatively) encyclopedia article, then all or most of the content in the article should be attributable to the more detailed content in the link or book. If this is not the case then the unrelated link or book mention should be removed. A look at WP:ELYES clearly indicates that links should be to a primary source (i.e. the subject of the article which without doubt could be a source, or includes more detail then is practical in a Wikipedia article. I can not even imagine how there could be an example of "further reading" or "external links" that should be included on an article and could not be used as source for some of the article content. No footnotes is all about asking editors to use the items listed to add inline citation, at which point they should be removed from the "further reading" or "external links" as they would be part of the reference section now.
There are the words "by introducing more precise citations" in the template, which could lead one to believe that content "related reading or external links" works as a citation or reference rather then a source or more detailed information. Could it be that part this is causing confusion? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You have taken the policy V as far as it goes, but I think you have not given enough weight the wording of the relevant guidelines:
  • Wikipedia:Citing sources specifically the sections Source, reference, citation and General reference The first defines what a reference and and a citation is while the latter specifically says "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not displayed as an inline citation."
  • Wikipedia:layout specifically WP:FNNR "These sections [Notes and References] present (1) citations that verify the information in the article," and WP:FURTHERREADING "A bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content." (my emphasis).
  • Wikipedia:External links You have mentioned it above but seemed to have missed the paragraph in the lead that say "This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." (my emphases)
You say above "If there is further related reading on a brief (relatively) encyclopedia article, then all or most of the content in the article should be attributable to the more detailed content in the link or book. If this is not the case then the unrelated link or book mention should be removed." and "I can not even imagine how there could be an example of "further reading" or "external links" that should be included on an article and could not be used as source for some of the article content." Let me give you an example I recently made this edit to Operation Market Garden. The bibliography I placed in "Further reading" will never be used as a citation but it is extremely useful as further reading. Entries in further reading and external links can be to all sorts of things not used as references. For example links to primary sources, links to bibliographies to mention just two which will never be cited as references. There are also other entries that go into external links and further reading that will never be cited because they are not in themselves reliable sources but they contain information that comes from reliable sources. There may also be other works which are of interest, and while it is possible in the future that text relating to their content may mean that they become citations and need to be moved, their placement in these two sections indicate that they are not citable sources for the current content of the article because if they were they would be in the general references section. -- PBS (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
If the article Operation Market Garden was an unrefrenced stub with the opening "Operation Market Garden (17–25 September 1944) was an Allied military operation, fought in the Netherlands and Germany in the Second World War. It was the largest airborne operation of all time." and only a section marked external links or further reading with a link to http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_19.htm the the link to "Chapter 19;The Decision To Launch Operation MARKET-GARDEN" would be a very usable source to support the article. The opening of chapter 19 "Was the decision to launch the largest airborne attack of World War II right or wrong?" fully supports the notability statement of the content, it appears to be a reliable source. My statement "I can not even imagine how there could be an example of "further reading" or "external links" that should be included on an article and could not be used as source for some of the article content." remains viable. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I was using example of the bibliography as a retort you your statement "I can not even imagine how there could be an example of "further reading" or "external links" that should be included on an article and could not be used as source for some of the article content". -- PBS (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Template talk:No footnotes/Operation Market Garden, stub article on the topic sourced completely from the further reading. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes but the Operation Market Garden article is not sourced from the Bibliography and the Bibliography will never be used in the article, so it will remain in further reading and never be cited. As it happens that particular bibliography has some text at the start that you could use in your stub article but replace that bibliography it with this one and even on a stub it would remain in further reading. -- PBS (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────: or put it between <ref></ref> and use at as an inline citation as it is the source of the stub Template talk:No footnotes/Operation Market Garden. Will you let go of the desire to remove "related reading or external links" from the template or must we argue in circles for eternity? Jeepday (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I there is no consensus yet, so I see no reason for this to be dropped, particularly as the majority of people who have commented in this section have been in favour of removing the phrase or in one case the whole template and to date only one other editor supports you position. One of your objections was that you could not imagine an entry in further reading or external link that could not be used as a source, I have provided you with one. I could also provide others but I thought one example would be enough. you wrote above "we must assume those items are sources that could be used to attribute the article content" no we do not have to assume that as there are lots of things placed in "Further reading" and "external links" that are not sources for an article. I think we should now put that objection aside and look at the other points I raised. I think you have not given enough weight the wording of the relevant guidelines:
  • Wikipedia:Citing sources specifically the sections Source, reference, citation and General reference The first defines what a reference and and a citation is while the latter specifically says "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not displayed as an inline citation."
  • Wikipedia:layout specifically WP:FNNR "These sections [Notes and References] present (1) citations that verify the information in the article," and WP:FURTHERREADING "A bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content." (my emphasis).
  • Wikipedia:External links You have mentioned it above but seemed to have missed the paragraph in the lead that say "This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." (my emphases)
-- PBS (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
You misrepresent the facts and you do not seem to be having this discussion in good faith. You appear to be engaged in mission to with a single goal, "there is no consensus yet". I refuse to continue debating with you. For the record at this point there have been 8 contributors to this discussion who appear to be split evenly on the use of "related reading or external links" in this template. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Themfromspace support Proposer
Skomorokh oppose
PBS support
Jeepday oppose
Debresser No comment on the issue
Active Banana Oppose? Suggested a change but it would have kept FR and EL.
Gadget850 No comment on the issue
Lambanog Support suggests going further and deleting
Is that a fair summary? And as I said there is no consensus yet. Building a consensus is the point of a discussion on a talk page. As I said above I think you have not given enough weight the wording of the relevant guidelines, because a consensus consists of more than just a local agreement relevant weighting should also be given to the relevant policies and guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that the existing wording should be retained, because most editors don't actually know that they should list a general reference to a website under ==References== instead of under ==External links==, and this text helps them figure that out.
Also, I think that the "list of references" should link WP:General references, and that "related reading" line should link WP:FURTHERREADING.
Finally, ThemFromSpace might choose to use {{More footnotes}} or {{Citations missing}}, which already contain language very similar to what he proposes here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I like both of the link selections suggested by WhatamIdoing JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

More clarification[edit]

A line should be added to hint at the fact that this template is useless without pointing out which fact in the article needs referencing. Simply putting this template on articles without footnotes (which is frequently done without further comments) isn't very helpful so we should add a hint to the editor like:

"If you have just labeled this page as needing footnotes, please add {{citation needed|date=}} after the specific fact in the article that you would like to see referenced."

De728631 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If {{citation needed}} is used appropriately then {{No footnotes}} would seem unnecessary. I think it is unproductive to suggest that both tags be on on the same article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Then please tell me where you would place inline references when only {{No footnotes}} and no other requests or notes have been left by a critical editor? Because as I wrote above, in many cases {{citation needed}} is never used anywhere inline but the editor simply puts "no footnotes" on top of the page and is gone.
If you request footnotes you should provide information where exactly such inline references are needed. Therefore I think the two templates complement one another instead of being mutually exclusive. De728631 (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The note at the top that the footnotes are missing is useful to readers in its own right. If there's no note and no references, it's very easy for a casual reader to miss the simple fact that they could just be reading a random essay, as opposed to an encyclopedic article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, no. "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations". That is the current template text of "no footnotes" so it actually suggests that references are given but certain specific facts remain unclear and need inline references. However, the template alone does not say where. What you meant is {{unreferenced}} which in turn is very useful on its own right. De728631 (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
No, that's exactly it. The references section may well exist, but the rest of the text could easily be a random essay. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a logical fallacy in the argument for changing this template's text. More than one, actually. 1. There is no need to clarify which statements need inline references, because these are the same ones that are referenced by the general references. That is precisely what this templates tries to convey: use inline references instead of general ones. 2. We use a general {{Unreferenced}} tag to show an article has no references, instead of using dozens of {{Citation needed}} tags, because there is a general rule which statements need sourcing: those that could be controversial or disputed. Same here. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem with your reasoning is though that certain general references cannot easily be attributed by the uninvolved editor who stumbles across this template on an article, namely those references without a weblink or when they are in a language other than English. You'll need the original author to fix that and they may not even remember which reference from the general list applies to which fact. It's very much easier to search new, additional sources for specific facts and put them inline where they are needed. And there will of course always be disagreement over what is actually controversial. That's why I suggest that we provide a hint to editors to mark what they think needs citations. De728631 (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Style tweaks to referencing templates[edit]

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)

Wording when "section" (or other custom wording) is present[edit]

The form {{No footnotes|section}} produces the message "This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations."

This doesn't make sense. Sections never include a list of references, related reading or external links. What is meant is something like the following (where I've underlined changes): "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but the sources of this section remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this section by introducing more precise citations." Peter coxhead (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Good catch. To stick with the language, I think your modified message is much more precise. De728631 (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, there's a version of the template with the changed wording at User:Peter_coxhead/Test/T0 and tests of it at User:Peter_coxhead/Test. So if you're happy with the changes, could you or some other admin please make the necessary changes to this protected template. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see above. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done EVula // talk // // 23:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Small further fix[edit]

Apologies; I hadn't quite fixed the interaction between specifying "section", "table", etc. and specifying "BLP=yes". This line:

| [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|{{{1|'''biographical article'''}}}]]

should be

| [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|'''biographical article''']]

otherwise it still produces "This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links" when "BLP=yes" is set. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I've updated the template with the additional fix. EVula // talk // // 06:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Related reading or external links[edit]

I propose that the words "related reading or external links," are removed from this template to bring it into line with WP:CITE. -- PBS (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain your proposal in more detail? Because the present wording seems logical enough to me. Debresser (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
If an article lacks a general reference list then {{no footnotes}} is not the appropriate template to use. The appropriate one would be {{unreferenced}}. The current wording here implies that "relatedfurther reading or external links," are sources/citations for an article. They are no more sources/citations for an article than the entries in a "See also" section of appendix. This template is for use when there is a general reference list (as described in WP:GENREF) but no inline citations in the form of footnotes. -- PBS (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
What you say is correct. But sometimes we have the opposite case, and that is why we need the present text. In order words, sometimes there are entries under "related reading or external links" that could be used as footnotes. Debresser (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
If there is no references section as you describe then {{unreferenced}} is more appropriate. The wording of "related[sic] reading or external links," coupled with "but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations" implies that lists in the further reading or external links sections are general references -- they are not. The sources of an article remain unclear because sources in a general reference do not adequately meet WP:V which requires inline citations. Sources elsewhere (whether listed in a Google search, in a library's index, or in a section of the article called External links") are not unclear, they are non-existent until placed into the article's references section (at which point they become unclear until coupled with inline citations). -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Per the Template Documentation at {{Unreferenced}} lack of reference section is not sufficient for it's use. It is only for use with a total lack of references or implied references (i.e. External links or reliable source that supports some article content). In which case the use of and wording of {{No footnotes}} is appropriate. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think your interpretation is correct as it goes against the content of WP:CITE (and WP:EXTERNAL which says "This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content.") and you are ignoring the bullet point in the {{Unreferenced}} documentation that starts "Watch out for lists..." -- PBS (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Many older Wikipedia articles still do not have inline references, but do have a references section which lists the sources used in creating the article. {{No footnotes}} covers this case. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Peter The suggestion at the start of this section would leave the wording as "This article includes a list of references,related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations." which covers your concerns. --PBS (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Have all the issues been addressed or has anyone anything else to say on this issue? -- PBS (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

  • It's only an issue for you. I don't see where there is any support for a change other then yours. Jeepday (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do not use bullet points as it messes up the indentation. I do not see anyone objecting either. If you object (given my reply to your last posting) what are your objections? -- PBS (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
PBS, if you did not understand my English till this moment, then please read the following words: I object! Reason I stated above. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
You wrote sometimes there are entries under "related reading or external links" that could be used as footnotes I replied, and although you now state object you have not addressed the points I made. -- PBS (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
PBS, I have objected on the grounds I listed above, that you don't believe my interpretation is correct does not dis-value my objection. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I have listed reason why I think your interpretation is incorrect. Where do you think my reasoning is faulty? -- PBS (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • PBS, Apologies in advance, there is not a kind way to say this, but I for one, don't want to be drawn into a conversation your conduct has been trollish. You have a vision, and that is wonderful, but no-one else here is expressing a similar vision. The silence to response to your devaluation of other points of view is not agreement it is desire not to be drawn into a pointless and endless debate. You had an idea, it didn't fly, let it go. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
That is how I see things as well, apart from the "trollish" thing. Debresser (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

When there is a disagreement we are supposed to work towards common ground and try to reach a consensus. I have directed attention towards what I think are the appropriate guidelines so that we can have an informed debate. Dismissing an editors attempts to engage in a constructive conversation with accusations about motives does not help to build a consensus. I would appreciate it if you would address the points I have raised based on Wikipedia guidelines that the current wording under discussion is inappropriate. -- PBS (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is nothing more to be said on the issue then I will implement the proposal. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I cannot see any consensus for implementing your proposal. There have been objections by at least two other editors so please don't change the template. De728631 (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Concur with De728631, no consensus for change. Jeepday (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't like it is usually not considered a valid reason for objection, and AFAICT to date those who are opposing this change have not based their objections on policy of guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems the dispute rests on the interpretation of WP:GENREF - if we explicitly state the words "related reading or external links", do we veer out of GENREF territory? We don't necessarily do. But even if we do, this is a cleanup template - it covers both the situation when you have a clear and the one where you have an unclear general reference section, whatever its name. It suggests the same solution for both, and it's not incorrect in doing so. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The disputed wording implies that "related reading [sic] or external links" includes reliable sources, this is a disservice to Wikipedia readers as no such warranty is given. See what I wrote above( on 10 October 2012) to which no retort has been given. -- PBS (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes... I don't agree with you on that. There can be no implied warranty of quality conveyed by cleanup tags. On the contrary, they explicitly state problems, eliminating any implication that things are all fine. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
You call it a clean up tag because you edit Wikipedia pages. For someone reading an article who has know knowledge of how Wikipedia articles are constructed, then the wording "... but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations." implies that the sources used in the sections "related reading [sic] or external links" support the wording in the body of an article. What the text implies is that all the sources for the article are on the page, but that they are not clear due to the lack of footnotes/inline citations, when in fact the external links will not have been used in the construction of the article (or if they have been, and they are reliable sources, then they should be moved into a references section -- but that is not what the text in the in the template says, or explains. It simply states that the sources may be in external links which is a contradiction of WP:EXTERNAL). BTW that it is text a box at the top of the article does not mean that the average reader interprets it the same way that a Wikipedia editor does. To view it as you or I do, one has to know the content of WP:CITE and WP:EXTERNAL which most people do not. -- PBS (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
But that's the whole point of presenting this information... there's a big box on top of the article, with a red question mark, and a warning against these sections, with links to more information. Even if someone is completely clueless about this topic, we can reasonably expect that warning them will make them steer clear of anything implicit with regard to the article's sourcing, and that giving them the links will aid their understanding. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
If it is not part of the article then it does not belong in article space. Reading the box it can be argued that a warning that the text is not fully cited is part of the article. But as soon as someone follows the links then they are no longer in article space but into an alternative space (such links are contrary to guidance and are there for editors not readers). If anyone follows the links then it is clearly stated that only inline citations and general references are used for source an article "related reading [sic] or external links" are not. If they do not follow the links then the warning implies that the bullet points in "Further reading" and "External links" are sources for the article which is not correct. -- PBS (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
RE: "that the bullet points in "Further reading" and "External links" are sources for the article which is not correct" See Logical fallacy. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Jitter problem[edit]

This template may be the source of a jitter problem (perhaps an infinitely repeating loop?) that I encountered at Jérôme Bignon. After I removed this template, the problem went away. The jitter still occurs for me with this revision. (This problem may possibly be browser-dependent. I'm using Safari 5.1.6 on a Mac.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the source of this problem was. In the meantime, I updated my computer's software and of course rebooted in the process. Something seems to have fixed it, since the problem has gone away. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of tags without adding any inline citations[edit]

Should editors be removing the "Template:No footnotes" tags without actually adding in in-line citations? Does anyone have an opinion one way or the other?

The template is there for a reason, but I'd say it depends on the article. You don't really need footnotes for short stubs where a general reference has been cited. On the other hand the template shouldn't be removed from larger articles that could need better sourcing. De728631 (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the previous editor. Just wanted to make clear that "No footnotes" should only be used when there are absolutely no footnotes. Otherwise we have {{More footnotes}} or {{Refimprove}}. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
We have a special citation template for articles that are based on a single source: "Category:Attribution templates". But when we have articles such as Loren B. Sessions where it is bigger than a stub and uses multiple sources, and those sources are given as external links, there is no way to know which fact came from which source. I add the tag to know which articles I should switch to inline when I get time. Compare it to Stephen H. Wendover where I switched to the inline format. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Best tag for suggesting conversion of "general" references to inline references?[edit]

I'm looking for the best tag to put at the top of a long list of general references to suggest that inlining the references would improve the article. This tag is close but it deals with the text whereas I want to tag the referneces. Is anyone aware of a better tag for my purpose? Jason Quinn (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Is {{Citation style}} what you are looking for? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
That's more general than I was hoping for. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
There is also {{Refimprove}}. At Wikipedia:URA#Hints_and_tips there is a list of several tags and suggestions for when each is most appropriate. Additionally each templates template page (i.e. Template:Refimprove) has a liste of related tags and is listed as being in a categories it is in (i.e. Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates) which can also help you track down what ever you are looking for. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
You should want to tag the text, because the whole point of inlining references is that we don't force people to scroll down to the bottom and wade endlessly through a bland list of sources trying to corroborate a statement in the text. IOW it's the text that has the real problem. If the article has sufficient inline reference, and in addition to that a long list of sources, you probably just want to rename that section "Further reading" or similar. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Bot-type addition of the tag to a large number of articles[edit]

I’ve noticed that one person has been manually adding the tag in a bot-type manner to thousands of pages. The tag will no doubt remain on the pages indefinitely as no one else will add the requested citations and I would therefore question whether this is desirable. Any thoughts? (Ukgeofan) 21:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You have posted the same question on three template talk pages I suggest that any replies about this issue are made at Template talk:Refimprove#Bot-type addition of the tag to a large number of articles -- PBS (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Consistency between template name and description in template box[edit]

The template is called No footnotes but in the box that appears when the template is added, there is only a reference to 'inline citations'. For consistency, shouldn't the text in the box or the name of the template change? Eldumpo (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably the name should change to something like Template:No inline citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
To the contrary. This template is used when there are references, but not in the form of footnotes. In the text of the template "inline citations" should be changed to "footnotes". Debresser (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Before any changes are made to name or "inline citations" the wording "related reading or external links," should be removed. -- PBS (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Why? Debresser (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
No idea, seems like a different discussion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
See #Related reading or external links above. De728631 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Because the contents of "related reading or external links," do not have to contain reliable sources and the statement implies that they are, so it is a more pressing issue than changing the name of this template. -- PBS (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
True, they aren't required to be reliable sources, but that doesn't mean that they aren't reliable sources in every case—especially if you have a "helpful" editor changing ==References== headings to ==External links== simply because they don't know any better. (I probably did the same thing when I was a newbie.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
They sources listed in external links may or may not be reliable, but the wording "related reading or external links" implies that they are and that is undesirable. -- PBS (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If at all, the template's name should be changed, since "inline citations" is the generic term for the desired type of references. Although I've rarely seen it here at WP, you can as well source a fact by writing something like: The sun is a huge hot ball (Smith, 2005). You don't really need footnotes to attribute sources to a specific statement in the text. De728631 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I Concur, I posted a note at Template_talk:Unreferenced#Related_template_name_change to see if any further discussion or ideas might be generated. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I would have to think hard if I were requested to provide an "inline quotation", but if asked for a footnote, I'd understand what is expected from me. So I propose to apply the Keep It Simple rule and say "footnotes" in the text of Template:No footnotes. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The style mentioned by De728631 17:11, 11 March 2013 is parenthetical referencing. You can see it in action at Actuary, which has exactly zero footnotes, yet is a featured article. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks like no consensus for a rename. Jeepday (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I came here to point out this error and found that others have already pointed it out as well. The template title and its text currently contain a basic logical discrepancy. This could easily be fixed. The title can stay the same, the text just needs editing. I am going to go fix it myself, because this is Wikipedia, after all. — ¾-10 21:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I just found out that the reason no one has fixed it is because it's locked to non-admins. — ¾-10 22:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
What would you change it to? Jeepday (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Actually I've changed my mind. Logically, there should be two templates. The one that is trying to be about a lack of inline citations needs to avoid the obvious illogic mentioned above (that is, treating parenthetical-referencing-without-ref-tags as if it doesn't exist, when it obviously does). And the simple way to do that is to name that template "Template:No inline citations". The other template, the one that is trying to encourage the use of footnotes (using ref tags), could have the name "Template:No footnotes", and its text would be something like "Please help improve this article by converting its non-marked-up inline citations to marked-up ones." — ¾-10 23:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This template should be retired (by making it a redirect) because there is no need for a template specifically about footnotes. If an article already has inline parenthetical-referencing then putting this template on such an article could be seen as a breach of WP:CITEVAR "if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page." So there is need for only one template requesting inline citations. Requesting "citations" implies inline citations and not general references because WP:V requests inline citations (in WP:CHALLENGE) and the guideline WP:CITE depreciates general references makes the point "The disadvantage of using general references alone is that text–source integrity is lost, unless the article is very short". -- PBS (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Requesting citations does not imply inline citations. WP:CHALLENGE does not require inline citations. Only for a) quotations, b) material challenged, c) material likely to be challenged, and d) material that lacked a source and was removed. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I support the proposed name change. This template gets used a lot, and we do not specifically require the use of ref tags (confusingly called "footnotes" in our guidelines, even though there are a lot of other ways to create what would be called footnotes in the real world, as WP:Inline citations explains). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I always use the redirect {{inline citations}} to use this tag anyway. On related note, I can't believe we are really doing this again - haggling over subtleties in cleanup tags names. *facepalm* --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

sources remain unclear[edit]

The template says "its sources remain unclear" (emphasis mine). I'm not a native speaker of English, but I think we mean to say that the sources are clear but what is unclear is the associated material. In other words, shouldn't it say "its associated material is unclear"? After all, when you have a list of references but no in-line citations, you have the sources but don't know the associated material. If we want to keep using sources, then "its" should be changed. Again, I'm not a native speaker of English, but this is how I see it. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"related reading or external links"[edit]

With apologies in advance to User:Joy and others who may not "believe we are really doing this again". The following is a continuation of the 2009-2010 #Clarification discussion, the 2012 #Related reading or external links discussion, and the 2013 #Consistency between template name and description in template box discussion. The main participants of those discussions were User:PBS and User:Jeepday. Even though PBS was probably a bit too pushy, I don't think his conduct was "trollish" and I disagree with the assessment that he did "not seem to be having [the] discussion in good faith". I am another editor who has difficulty accepting the (location of the) "related reading or external links" phrase in this template. My suggestion is as follows. I would like to alter the <300 articles that transclude {{No inline citations}} to use {{No footnotes}}, so we can start using {{No inline citations}} and {{No footnotes}} can be deprecated. First of all, parenthetical (author-date) referencing is also a form of inline citation. Secondly, {{No footnotes}} has been used for years and by not replacing it but instead deprecating it, its perceived spirit remains intact; that "there is content in the related reading or external links that can and should be used". Thirdly, when creating {{No inline citations}} we will move the "related reading or external links" phrase into a separate sentence; one that states that if such sections exist they may contain sources that are reliable enough to be used as inline references. This tackles the problem that {{No footnotes}} appears to imply that the material currently in those sections are (reliable) references. Please let me know whether you support or oppose this proposal. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake in the text above, swapping the names of the templates. Could you please check and fix this? Debresser (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
No, the text is as I meant it to be. {{No footnotes}} should not be changed but should be deprecated. We can start using {{No inline citations}} instead, which will be similar but with the changes I outlined above. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You said "I would like to alter the <300 articles that transclude {{No inline citations}} to use {{No footnotes}}". Are you sure you didn't swap the name sof the templates here?
I have no problem with deprecation. I am not sure I understand what new text you would propose precisely. Could you please write the new proposed text here? Debresser (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
To keep the exact spirit of the text currently used in those <300 articles intact, we need to make sure the template they use is {{No footnotes}} instead of {{No inline citations}}, before we create a (new) {{No inline citations}} that is worded differently. As for the new proposed text, I would like put it together in consultation with you and other editors. What I would like to know first is whether other editors, in particular User:PBS and User:Jeepday, support or oppose the proposal to keep {{No footnotes}} as it is but deprecate it in favor of a new {{No inline citations}} template that will have the "related reading or external links" phrase in a separate sentence. All this for the reasons I explained: a) parenthetical (author-date) referencing is also a form of inline citation and the new template name does not single out footnotes, b) by not replacing the old template but instead deprecating it, the old template's perceived spirit remains intact in articles where it is being used, and c) the new template will explain how sections such as "related reading or external links" may contain sources that are reliable enough to be used as inline references, instead of mentioning it in one breath with sections that are actually meant to contain references. I could write the exact proposed text here, but before we venture into that sensitive zone, I'm curious as to whether this could be a way forward at all. I'm glad you wrote you for one have no problem with deprecation. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure what you are proposing. The name of the template does not really matter, as they both say the same thing. WHat is it that you want the message to say? As Debresser has suggested can you post your proposed message? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Currently, {{No inline citations}} redirects to {{No footnotes}}. My proposal includes changing {{No inline citations}} from a redirect into a new template that is separate from {{No footnotes}}. {{No inline citations}} will be somewhat different from {{No footnotes}}. There are two reasons why the name of the templates (will) matter: 1. footnotes and parenthetical referencing are both forms of inline citations, similar to how red and blue are co-hyponyms of color, and 2. when the templates are worded differently, {{No inline citations}} will no longer have the (exact) perceived spirit of {{No footnotes}}. I am proposing a change. The result of the change will be that the templates no longer say the same thing, which means the names of the templates will start to matter. I would like to put the new proposed text for {{No inline citations}} together in consultation with other editors. What I would like to know first is whether other editors support or oppose my proposal. By reading my proposal carefully, it should be clear what kind of change I am proposing. I will once again explain my proposal. On this talk page, PBS and I have expressed the opinion that we have difficulty accepting the (location of the) "related reading or external links" phrase in the {{No footnotes}} template. We believe that, in some instances, {{No footnotes}} may appear to imply that the material currently in aforementioned sections are (reliable) references. To tackle this problem, we could start using {{No inline citations}}, and move the "related reading or external links" phrase into a separate sentence; one that states that if such sections exist they may contain sources that are reliable enough to be used as inline references. We would deprecate {{No footnotes}} in favor of a new {{No inline citations}} template. This means that {{No footnotes}} remains intact; it remains exactly as it is right now. It has been used for years and we will not replace it in articles where it is currently being used. By not replacing it but instead deprecating it, its perceived spirit remains intact; that, as User:Jeepday put it, "there is content in the related reading or external links that can and should be used". {{No inline citations}} is currently being used in <300 articles, and to keep the exact spirit of the text currently used in those articles intact, we need to make sure the template they use is {{No footnotes}} instead of {{No inline citations}}, before we create a (new) {{No inline citations}} that is worded differently. I could write the exact proposed text here, but before we venture into that sensitive zone, I'm curious as to whether this could be a way forward at all. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment[edit]

No consensus for this proposal. Number 57 11:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

This proposal to deprecate {{No footnotes}}, and replace it with - a somewhat differently worded - {{No inline citations}}, needs (additional) input. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.136.210.153 (talkcontribs) 11:05, 6 November 2014

  • Oppose because, the user using the IP Address 82.136.210.153 is more than just a casual editor, so I suspect that the IP address is being used as a false colour. -- PBS (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
PBS, please WP:AGF. Please address the proposal rather than attacking me personally. If you're implying that an RfC started by an IP editor is invalid, that would not be an acceptable thing to say. General note, for the record: I choose to sign my RfC request above with just the date, as is permitted per 2. of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/RfC. PBS changed it into a full signature. I undid his edit and pointed to aforementioned section. He has reversed that edit of mine. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
By the way, if there's one person who I thought would have supported this proposal, it was you. You started those threads about what is currently the problem with this template, the exact problem I'm trying to solve via this proposal. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing a reason to change anything. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
What about the reasons I gave? Can't you at the very least add your views on those, and explain why you think those aren't (good enough) reasons? This template basically says 'this article includes x, y or z, but lacks inline citations; please introduce more precise citations', and y and z are respectively "related reading" and "external links". This gives the impression that whatever is in such section are (reliable) sources; are already citations. According to WP:CS, WP:EL, and basically every related guideline in existence, such sections should not be assumed to contain (reliable) sources. In some cases they can be reformatted as such, but that's not what the current template says. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
We're back to square one. Here I was thinking that I had found a way to keep you - the person who has objected changes to this template since 2009 - happy by not proposing a change of {{No footnotes}} itself and thereby keeping its perceived spirit intact. But all you have to say is "Not seeing a reason to change anything." That's some world class reasoning there, gotta love all those arguments and counter-arguments related to the proposal in question. We may as well make it a majority vote and just ignore any substantive discussion. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Considering that {{No inline citations}} is a redirect to {{No footnotes}}, and the former is a longer wording then the later, I oppose this proposal. There is no reason to use the longer name, and it's not like it is a significantly different template. Seems like a bikeshed proposal to me... — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
You write 'considering that x is a redirect to y', but after my proposal this would no longer be the case. The mere fact that you wrote aforementioned phrase shows me that you either did not fully read my proposal or did not understand it properly. Opposing a change because a template name would be seven characters longer isn't a very strong argument, especially considering the possibility to use shortcuts, just like {{No footnotes}} has several shortcuts including {{Nf}}. Also, you write there is no reason to use the longer name, but as I've explained the longer name is more accurate. Also, it would be a significantly different template because its meaning - perceived spirit - would change, as you can read in various other threads I referenced in my first post. Using a different template name is only part of my proposal. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparently the essence of my comment went right over your head. Write the new template before proposing that we switch to it. That's what sandboxes are for, and I can't imagine anyone excepting your proposal without seeing the replacement. Maybe the best course of action is to just modify the existing template (use the sandbox and request an edit since it is protected). My point about not using the longer name (it's already a redirect to no footnotes after all) is that it is very unlikely you are going to convince the community to use a different template name just for the sake of change when the existing one has been used for years and years... — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, your first comment did/does not convey what you appear to think it does. Either way, at this point it's clear that my idea of putting together a new proposed text in consultation with others at a later stage is not an option.

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. If this article has related reading, external links or similar sections, those may contain sources that are reliable enough to be used as (inline) references.

Is along the lines of what I have in mind. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
How can the template name remain the same when its perceived spirit changes if the proposal would be implemented? The current template is being used in thousands of articles to convey that, as User:Jeepday put it, "there is content in the related reading or external links that can and should be used". This would no longer be the case after the proposed change. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment I cannot possibly be the only person on Wikipedia who thinks that this template currently appears to say that content in "related reading" or "external links" are (reliable) sources. It literally says about the article in question that it "includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations". Can anyone at least side with me on this. PBS? Anyone? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. The IP is correct. That's exactly what it says and it's a good idea. End of. Also, IP, get an account. Editors will take you more seriously. So long as you're an IP, you're going to get grief. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2014 (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.


Template-protected edit request on 7 November 2014[edit]

Please replace:

{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||$N=No footnotes |date=__DATE__ |$B=
{{ambox
| name  = No footnotes
| subst = <includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>substcheck}}</includeonly>
| type  = style
| class = ambox-No_footnotes
| image = [[file:text document with red question mark.svg|50x40px|alt=|link=]]
| issue = This {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes 
 | [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|'''biographical article''']]
 | {{{1|article}}}
}} includes a [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|list of references]], related reading or [[Wikipedia:External links|external links]], but '''{{#ifeq:{{{1|article}}}|article|its sources|the sources of this {{{1}}}}} remain unclear because it lacks [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|inline citations]]'''. {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes
 | Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced '''must be removed immediately''', especially if potentially [[defamation|libelous]] or harmful.
}}
| fix   = Please [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|improve]] this article by introducing more precise citations.
| date  = {{{date|}}}
| cat   = Articles lacking in-text citations
| all   = All articles lacking in-text citations
}}
}}<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
<!-- Please add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, thanks -->
</noinclude>

with:

{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||$N=No footnotes |date=__DATE__ |$B=
{{Ambox
| name  = No footnotes
| subst = <includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>substcheck}}</includeonly>
| type  = style
| class = ambox-No_footnotes
| image = [[File:text document with red question mark.svg|50x40px|alt=|link=]]
| issue = This {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes 
 | [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|'''biographical article''']]
 | {{{1|article}}}
}} includes a [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|list of references]], related reading or [[Wikipedia:External links|external links]], but '''{{#ifeq:{{{1|article}}}|article|its sources|the sources of this {{{1}}}}} remain unclear because it lacks [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|inline citations]]'''. {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes
 | Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced '''must be removed immediately''', especially if potentially [[defamation|libelous]] or harmful.
}}
| fix   = Please [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|improve]] this article by [[Help:Referencing for beginners|introducing more inline citations]].
| date  = {{{date|}}}
| cat   = Articles lacking in-text citations
| all   = All articles lacking in-text citations
}}
}}<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
<!-- Please add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, thanks -->
</noinclude>

as I believe that a link to instructions for new users to understand how to add citations may improve the quantity and overall quality of citations in articles on Wikipedia. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. please don't paste code blobs, they're difficult to compare and test. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Added to the sandbox and the testcases page has been fixed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
So apart from the pointless capitalisation of the first letter in two non-visible page names, it's adding one link (why is a link to Help:Referencing for beginners necessary when Wikipedia:Citing sources is linked in the previous sentence? If a link is necessary, wouldn't Wikipedia:Inline citation be better, per WP:EGG?) and changing one word. That word changes the meaning of the sentence, so Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template.. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Rr64 I think the Help:Referencing for beginners is a better target for such a link because it is more likely to be first time editors and it will be easier for them to understand than Wikipedia:Inline citation. Also, the word change is to clarify that we are not asking them to add 100 more references to the bottom of the page, we are asking them to add more inline citations to the text, which is the whole purpose of the template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)