Template talk:Unreferenced section

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

See also[edit]

Date not showing[edit]

Even when you specify the date parameter, it doesn't show up on the article page. See here. Also, why is this template styled different from other similar templates? See discussion here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The date doesn't show because of its compact nature here. Regarding that compact display, I've started a discussion at Template talk:Unreferenced. Equazcion (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for presenting the issue more forcefully.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem is not with either {{unreferenced section}} or with {{unreferenced}} but with {{ambox}}.
As demonstrated above, that template is set up so that it only shows the date when full-width, not when small. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
When the small ambox was designed, it was decided that it should be as small as possible to avoid the template taking up too much space (the idea was to make it small after all), so this behaviour is intentional and not a "bug". You might like to see the discussion, especially this part where this was briefly discussed. As this issue is something which has been brought up on other templates as well (e.g. Template talk:Expand section) we should probably take this to Template talk:Ambox and see whether there is consensus or not to display the date on the small version. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I feel like I've gone to a government office, only to be told to go to a different office, only to be told to go to a different one .... There is an issue here that transcends whether it should show the date or not show the date, which is consistency. Why is this template different from every other template? The discussion this change occurred 3 years ago. If the intent was to propagate this small version throughout the other maintenance templates, it sure hasn't happened. A second issue is the convenience of editors. The discussion states that the basis for the date is to sort it into the correct category, but that is not its sole basis. When I remove unsourced material from an article, one of the things I look at is how long the article has been tagged, and I use the date that is displayed. If there is no date, then I have to edit the article just to see it, an extra and unnecessary step. It may seem like a small step, but when you are watching hundreds of pages, it adds up. Finally, we're talking about a date, not an "essay", as one editor characterized it in the 2009 discussion. Surely, the date isn't going to destroy the narrow form of the display.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry you feel you are being chased around different "government offices"! It wasn't my intention to be overly beauracratic. Let's have the discussion here and I'll advertise it in some other places. I personally support the idea that these section templates should be small and less intrusive, but I am open to be convinced otherwise. I'll create a mock-up of what it would look like with the date, and we can compare. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that's okay, I was probably a bit frustrated. I also notice that you posted at ambox to alert them to this discussion, which I appreciate.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Without date[edit]

With date[edit]

Okay so even with a "long" month like September it does not cause this template to take up another row, so I do not oppose the idea. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I don't see any reason the section parameter should also invoke small format. Most maintenance tags don't behave this way. It would be less intrusive if it didn't create the same amount of whitespace and maybe wrapped text, but it doesn't. If there's a central consensus demonstrated to make tags operate this way (or build it into ambox) then fine, but until then I don't think one or two tags should be mangled into this behavior. Equazcion (talk) 21:44, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no "central consensus" that section tags should behave in this way. However there has been local consensus established on a handful of these templates which have decided to go down this route. What do you mean by "wrapped text"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
If the small version caused text to wrap around it (the box and article content sharing horizontal space), I could see it being a benefit, as then it would save space on the page and actually be less intrusive. Currently the small version just makes the box small and float left, filling the rest of the line with whitespace instead. Regarding consensus, I don't see any significant discussion on that. Someone presented the idea and a couple people agreed, then the edit was made. Also, this behavior is either good for all maintenance templates, or none of them. I don't see any discussion about why this particular template should be treated differently. If instead, someone thought section templates would work better this way, the discussion shouldn't have been held here, regarding just this one. Equazcion (talk) 22:10, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Okay I see what you mean about wrapping now. You are talking about the text in the article not the text in the message box. Yes, this might be an interesting idea to explore. Regarding consensus, the discussion about this template was not particularly voluminous (although it did have more participants than this thread). However the discussion which took place on Template talk:Expand section (and which led to the development of the small ambox), was significant and cannot, I suggest, be overridden easily. That template is, in my opinion, a prime example of the small ambox because it has just one row of text and is noticeable yet does not spoil the appearance of the article. I agree that consistency is good but it is also possible that a one-size-fits-all approach is not the best. Perhaps this template would look better if the words were trimmed down, see below for example. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand that one size may not fit all, but I'm not quite sure why yet, as no reason was given yet, anywhere. The point of ambox was to make them all uniform, on the premise that there's no reason any of them should be formatted differently. Your tinier version does serve the small purpose better, but again, this isn't something that should be discussed for this one template alone. I might take this to village pump. Equazcion (talk) 22:34, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── See WP:VPR#Section tags. Equazcion (talk) 01:27, 2 Jun 2012 (UTC)

The thing that I do not understand is this: why is the {{unreferenced|section}} tag small but the {{refimprove|section}} tag (by default) large? shouldn't it be the other way around? Frankly I like the way that the {{refimprove|section}} tag allows users to override its default behavior. 69.243.26.39 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Layout problems[edit]

I've requested a fix for some layout problems at Template talk:Refimprove#Poor layout (although this template has the least problems). -84user (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Restore to long version[edit]

Per this discussion there appears to be consensus for returning this template tag to standard full length size to match other section tags. Currently it makes articles look cluttered because it is a different size and shape to other tags, and because it has less room for the text, it oddly takes up more space than the long ones. Unless there is an objection, I will restore this to the standard size within the next few days. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You might like to look at Template talk:Orphan, Template talk:Third-party; and Template talk:Unreferenced, where there are moves to send those banners in the opposite direction. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I think there are some other users who also feel that way, but we've had such discussions previously, and the consensus is that tags should be placed in a prominent position - such that they can be seen by both editors and readers. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I see that you have gone all the way back to the version of 23 February 2009. This, to me, is an unnecessary regression: in the meantime, a lot has happened to the banners built around {{ambox}} in general, and to {{unreferenced}} in particular. For instance, the |issue= and |fix= parameters were introduced to replace |text=; there is better detection and handling of subst:; and there is improved category handling. Your change also means that {{Unreferenced|section}} behaves differently from {{Unreferenced section}}. It would have been far better to leave {{Unreferenced section}} alone, and simply switch off the forced "small" feature by altering one line in {{Unreferenced}} from this:
| small = {{#ifeq: {{{1}}} | section | left | {{{small|}}} }}
to this
| small = {{{small|}}}
In view of all this I have reverted your change. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I have done as you suggest. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Challenged and removed[edit]

Currently in the template there is the sentence, "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Why does it say "challenged and removed" instead of just "removed"? Please note that I'm not proposing anything but just asking for info. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The wording "challenged and removed" seems to have been the result of a flurry of edits in April - June of 2007...
Originally the template did not mention challenges or removals ...
  • The words enters the template in April of 2007 as: "Any unsourced material that has been or is likely to be challenged may be removed at any time" (see this diff)... a close paraphrase of WP:V at the time.
  • In early May 2007 it was shortened to: "Any unsourced material may be removed at any time" (dif: [1])
  • Then , later that month the word challenge was added back, as: Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time (dif: [2])
The words "challenged and removed" seem to have remained in place since then.
I don't see any talk page discussion on any of these changes... and the edit summaries don't really explain why the wording choices were made. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I just realized it may have been discussed more at Template talk:Unreferenced with corresponding edits at Template:Unreferenced. However, if anyone else has anything helpful to add, they're invited to respond here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
As tagging itself is a legitimate challenge per WP:MINREF, it seems redundant and possibly misleading to say that the material may be challenged. I'd take that part out. Doniago (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Good point. Could it be that challenged originally meant that the material's credibility was challenged? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't seem very clear to me, though I can't rule it out. This is a stretch, but I find myself wondering whether the way it's supposed to be read is "Material that is not presently sourced may be considered challenged by the addition of this tag". If that was the intention then I don't think that's very clear either. I still think losing the wording is the best option at this point. Doniago (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The addition of the template is a challenge. A removal would be a challenge as well. That is all it is saying. I say leave it in.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little confused...it sounds like you're making a good argument for removing the "may be challenged" text here by acknowledging that the addition of the template is itself a challenge. If the material has already been challenged by the insertion of the tag, isn't it redundant to say it "may be challenged"? I apologize if I'm coming off as adversarial here. Doniago (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)