Template talk:Refimprove

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

A |talk= parameter is allowed; setting this to any value will result in the message "See talk page for details."[edit]

This statement appears in the template page:
"A |talk= parameter is allowed; setting this to any value will result in the message "See talk page for details."
It appears to be incorrect. For example see article: ID3. The tag there appears to be formed as the template page describes and yet does not display as described.
LookingGlass (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@LookingGlass: The template documentation shows that it's |talk=, but the article ID3 was using |Talk=. When templates use named parameters, the parameter names are always case-sensitive (unless the template has been specially coded to recognise more than one form); I've fixed it.
Please also note that </BR> is invalid; I fixed your uses above to <BR> which is one of the two valid forms. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, for both :) Much appreciated. (I could never spot Wally either!) LookingGlass (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems that setting |talk=y also generates an entry at Special:WhatLinksHere/Y. Could someone please see if the template code could be tweaked to prevent this? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeated removals of this refimprove tag[edit]

Duplicate discussion; I refer editors who wish to comment to WP:V, where there is more participation. The two editors participating here have either copied or mostly copied the same comments to the other discussion. Sunrise (talk) 21:38, 1 June 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.

I tagged a largely uncited mall article with this standard article refimprove tag.

But the tag has been deleted three times, without any refs being provided, by tag-team edits here.

I explained both in my edit summaries and on the article talk page, as well as on the main removing editor's talk page here, that this refimprove tag is appropriate, of long-standing use, and how unreferenced material should be referenced if the editor wishes to remove the tag.

The main removing editor, and his fellow editor, have still however continued to delete the tag. Without addressing the focus of the tag.

Though unconnected otherwise, it did catch my attention that this follows immediately the main removing editor disagreeing with my AfD nomination of a different mall, here.

Thoughts? Epeefleche (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  • This looks to be a near-identical post to that at WT:V, posted there at 20:53.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Characterizing this case as a removal is a mischaracterization.  There has never been consensus at this article to emplace a banner refimprove tag.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that it was a largely uncited mall article.  Even if from your viewpoint that is the case, nothing has stopped you from adding inline cn and refimprovesection tags.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • After I mentioned Harlequin at the AfD, you followed me to the article and added the refimprove tag, not that that has anything to do with anything, but since you are casting aspersions, it bears clarification.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Since the article has a number of references, it was not clear what material you thought needed citations, and I suggested that you use inline cn tags so as to be clear.  This was not good enough for you, and you went into edit-warring mode.  Another editor stopped you from successfully edit warring and forced you to the talk page, which seems to be what this is all about, that the community is not empowering you to post tags against consensus, and is requiring you to discuss.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have responded in detail at Talk:Harlequin Shopping Centre, and you've been unable to refute the force of my reason.  The footnote you found at WP:V supports what I've said.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The refimprove tag is pointed to, as a tag to use, by our policy wp:v. It is also used in over 10,000 articles.
I also explained in multiple edit summaries and talk page comments why it was being applied in the instant article. And that to address it you could add RS refs to the unreferenced sentences. Your assertion that it was "it was not clear what material you thought needed citations" is baseless. As I said many times, the material that needs citations is the material not cited to RSs ... which is the same as what this template refers to in 10,000 other articles.
The "other editor" gave zero reason for deleting the tag.
Your reason -- which would indict all 10,000 uses of the refimprove tag -- is not an appropriate one.
BTW, I've been editing mall articles generally, and many Canadian mall articles specifically, well before the edit in question -- I didn't follow you to the article at all. :::And the issue I am raising is indeed your removal of the tag -- that's not at all a mischaracterization of the point I am raising.
And of course it was a largely uncited article, when I applied the tag here, as anyone can see. Your approach would allow any editor to willy nilly remove the refimprove tag in the 10,000 articles across the project where it is used, claiming that, even when they are told multiple times that it applies to the text not supported by RSs, that they simply still don't understand what that means. Epeefleche (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is how I've responded to your similar post at WT:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The statement from policy to which the footnote is attached states, "...consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."  Your preferred tag, the policy's footnote considers a next-to-last resort.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Of the three edits that upset you, one was to convince you to use citation needed tags in preference to the refimprove tag, and two were to require you to use the talk page to explain your preferred version of the article.  IMO, your third insertion of the tag, diff, was edit warring.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There are not 10,000 pages at Talk:Harlequin Shopping CentreUnscintillating (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Your last post has decided that "of course" it was largely uncited, but dismisses the fact that an editor, myself, had said that the tag was unclear.  At that point, whether or not you thought it was clear, there was no consensus that the tag was clear.  The place to discuss remains at Talk:Harlequin Shopping Centre, which has an ongoing discussion about specifics to the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have requested closure of this discussion, diffUnscintillating (talk) 14:07, 1 June 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.

Should this template be used more sparingly?[edit]

Since only B Class articles and higher are suitably referenced, this template is technically applicable to all others. But if we apply it that slavishly (e.g. using a bot) it would probably means about 90% of Wikipedia being tagged. I suspect that is neither desirable, nor would it enhance Wikipedia's credibility. In my view, it's used far too often anyway - e.g. even when there are reputable sources in the biography. So can we define some boundaries that would see it used more sparingly and surgically? Failing that, maybe we could use a smaller, far less obtrusive symbol or keyword near the top of the 90%-ish of articles (like the padlocks) that haven't yet achieved B status or above, and replace this tag entirely. Bermicourt (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No. It is incorrect to say that "only B Class articles and higher are suitably referenced". Referencing is just the first criterion at WP:BCLASS, but there are five other criteria on this checklist, all six of which must be met: if the article fails any one of them, it can't be better than C-class. This means that a C-class article may be fully refd, like Reading Southern railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
So is this template to be used on every article that fails the B Class standard for referencing? (I take your point that there may be articles that pass the referencing test for B Class, but fail elsewhere - not common in my experience) Or are there any other criteria? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The main problem with {{refimprove}} is that it's a subjective judgment, unlike {{unreferenced}} which is objective - either there are refs, or there aren't. One person's "suitably referenced" is another's "not suitably refd". When I see somebody do this, I often respond with this. If we move along that railway line, the next stop is Blackwater railway station which has a justifiable {{unreferenced}}; but speaking personally (others may disagree), I wouldn't slap a {{refimprove}} on Farnborough North railway station even though it's well short of B-class. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. I suppose a key criterion is the requirement for "inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations" at WP:RS. But in practice, some editors seem to see any sentence as "likely to be challenged" and that's where the subjectivity comes in. Personally I think we overdo the inline references in articles, especially c.f. the literature. IMHO inliners should be used only on claims "likely to the challenged", but there should be more emphasis on one or more authoritative sources in the bibliography that cover the subject in depth and back up the article. But hey, that's another debate on another talk page. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
There is some advise on WP:V see (footnote 3) and the paragraph it supports. -- PBS (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks PBS, that's useful. I had forgotten there was a section tag as well. Bermicourt (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2015[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. As noted by Mike Cline in his relisting, there doesn't seem to be much opposition (only two editors actually opposed the move), but there doesn't seem to be any agreement on what the preferred alternative title is. Improve references seems have some support, but I think GoingBatty had a point by noting that this could be interpreted to mean that the existing references require improving. Number 57 19:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:RefimproveTemplate:Ref improve – I propose to move this template to {{Ref improve}}, replacing {{Refimprove}} with a redirect to the new title. This matter has been raised many times at WT:TW and was mentioned also at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Yobot. In my view, the "canonical" name of a template should be as clear as possible, and this can be done by spacing out the lexical components of the title. I note also that all the related templates with multi-word titles have spaces between the words.

The motivation for this request is that Twinkle lists the more friendly name, "ref improve", but bots come along afterwards and change it to the canonical name, "refimprove". I think it is neater to be able to list "ref improve" in the list of article maintenance tags, so it would be great to be able to move the actual template to this title. Needless to say, all existing titles would be maintained as redirects. — relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)This, that and the other (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I totally agree. The current trend is to separate words. Moreover, we should change {{refimprove section}} back to {{ref improve section}}. I always thought {{refimprove}} to be against convention. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Why we're at it, why not make it even clearer by expanding "ref". We could use Template:Reference improve or Template:Improve references for best clarity. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree. See the multiple redirects that point to this template. Users can already use any one of those if they do not want to use "refimprove". If a wording (such as "Reference improve") is missing, feel free to add it. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC) [edited 14:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)]
    It would be better to have the bots using a term which can easily be understood by novice editors, don't you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    Now that I think of it, it does make sense. I'd make the default "Improve referencing", though. I think that is the core message behind the template. "Improve references" sounds like it puts more weight on the references that already exist in the article. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    Referencing or references are both fine with me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Template:Improve references is even better! I agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it would be more consistent to rename the template so that the words are separated. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that the template text is asking us to improve the article by adding references, which is different than a directive to improve the existing references. If we're going to rename this template for clarity, should it be something like "add references"? GoingBatty (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Very interesting discussion spawning here from my suggestion that the proper way to fix the issue of Twinkle using a redirect for a maintenance tag and bots using AWB replacing those templates with the non-redirect version being to move the code to the more commonly used version of the template. I see multiple suggestions above, and am thinking that the entire naming scheme for the maint tag system needs a review. I know what that will involve and how it will end up, so I'll make it simple from my perspective. I support the idea of moving this to a clear and concise name that is friendly for new users and not hard for established users to adapt to. That said, I'd think the clearest destination for this template based on its message will be {{References needed}}. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • {{Improve references}} is my choice. It is clearer that there are already references but that they need improvement (whereas {{References needed}} is ambiguous in that respect). -- P 1 9 9   14:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Leave it as Refimprove (less typing --the reason for "ls" "mv" etc on UNIX systems). Besides the using "references" confuses many people as they do not realise it means "more inline citations". -- PBS (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment See also {{uncategorized}} and {{Catimprove}} which has a similar naming convention. -- PBS (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I take your point about catimprove (although that one should also be renamed). But "uncategorized" is a single word in the English language, unlike "refimprove", so I don't see the relevance... — This, that and the other (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    If there are no references/categories use unreferenced/uncategorized if there is one of more use refimprove/catimprove the names are consistent. -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Should we move forward and rename the template? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an RM request it will be closed by an uninvolved administrator who will decide what to do based on the RM close process. -- PBS (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisting Comment - While there appears to be no serious opposition to changing the name of this template, there is little clarity as to what the new name should be. There are at least five different suggestions above. Continue the discussion and nail down agreement on exactly what the new name should be. Thanks-Mike Cline (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Allow capital 'D' when using date parameter[edit]

I tried adding {{refimprove|Date=March 2015}} to a page but the "March 2015" didn't display. I've now found that the 'D' in Date has to be lower case. Should the template allow the 'date' keyword to be insensitive?--A bit iffy (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK pretty much all templates break when you use a leading cap for a parameter name. For example, all of the citation templates I am familiar with will not work when date, author, first1, last1, title, etc., are typed with a leading cap. I do think it would be a good thing if they made a global software change so that all template parameters would automatically recognize and function when a parameter was given with a leading cap (maybe a post to WP:VPT would be good to see if that is feasible), but I don't see why this particular one should be singled out for special treatment as if it were especially prone to the error.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
@A bit iffy: Template parameter names are always case-sensitive: |date= and |Date= are treated as different parameters. Some templates - but by no means all - are coded to allow certain variations, for example the citation templates allow |ISBN= to be used as an alternative for |isbn=, but they needed to be specially set up to do this, which makes them slower - and even after that, they don't recognise |Isbn= because that hasn't been coded for.
There are several dozen cleanup templates - some are banners like {{refimprove}}, others are inline like {{citation needed}}, but they all recognise |date= - and as far as I know, none recognise |Date=. If we were to allow |Date= for {{refimprove}} we should be consistent and allow it for all of the others, in order to prevent confusion ("does this one allow |Date= or not?"). This is a big task: first, determine which templates recognise a |date= parameter (all of these for a start, and then some); second, amend each of those templates; third, wait for the complaints to come in that the system has become slower because the job queue is now reparsing all of the pages that use those templates, even though |Date= isn't used on more than a handful of pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Dated templates is a long list of templates that take a |date= parameter. GoingBatty (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Location of tag[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is a dispute (and brewing edit war) regarding the proper location at which to place the refimprove maintenance/cleanup template/tag. Input of others would be helpful.

Discussion is here. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There have been a number of discussion on this talk page about the location of the tag:
There is clearly no consensus as to where to put it. So I am not sure why Codename Lisa made the edit Revision as of 19:07, 24 March 2014 so I am going to revert it. -- PBS (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I would object to that. You are not sure why user:Codename Lisa (whom you did not ping) made that edit??? Surely, the editor was perfectly clear in her edit summary. Which stated: "Manual of Style represents the community consensus. When it says something, it means there *is* consensus. Furthermore, vast consensus through editing confirms this". What about that left you "not sure" why the editor made the edit?
I agree wholeheartedly with that editor. The vast consensus for editing, and the other guidelines pointed to above, reflect consensus. You've simply pointed to a few non-consensus views (the first, seven years old, and the second and third discussions sparsely attended), that don't like the guidelines or the consensus through editing. We edit with the community consensus, not in accord with your personal contrary view.
Be honest -- you are a seasoned editor -- haven't you noticed that overwhelmingly across the project in article you have seen placement is at the top. In accord with the guidelines mentioned here? Epeefleche (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
"When it says something, it means there *is* consensus." You are having a laugh. Usually things appear in the MOS with only a handful of the usual editors discussing it.
No because compared to the numbers of articles that exist I do not view many and of those I do few have {{refimprove}} templates. However there is a way to check:
So about 0.75% pages with {{refimprove}} currently have the template in a section and about 1.4% of all articles have a {{refimprove}} template.
-- PBS (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, PBS
The most important thing is first: The diff of mine to which you are referring, is a reversion. Yet you resort to counter-reverting while you know there is a dispute? I thought that was against the editing policy. And you don't even notify me when it is being discussed? Wow. Never had I seen the words "admin" and "edit-warring" getting so close to each other.
Second, laugh all you want but if what MOS:LAYOUT says is not borne of the community consensus, then delete it. (Of course, I expect an evidence to that effect.) Manuals of Style are not put under ArbCom discretionary sanctions to forge community consensus. And I also don't know what your search strings are supposed to show.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The stats was to answer Epeefleche's question. I am puzzled you say "The diff of mine to which you are referring, is a reversion" if so what was it reverting because AFAICT the wording with "no consensus" had been there since Revision as of 03:19, 9 August 2007 if you think your edit was a reversion then which edit were you reverting? -- PBS (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@PBS: Huh! Face-surprise.svg Okay. It seems I have made a horrible mistake: The doc page that said there is no consensus as to where to put this template is still saying it! (I intended to revert on that date.) mea cupla. Still, coming to a discussion page, writing a message like your very first, and then doing it is clearly not conducive to consensus-building.
But here is my logic: If (a) there is no consensus about how to do one thing, and (b) there is instruction on how to do one thing, then (c) that instruction is not supported by consensus. In this case, if (A) there is not consensus as to where to put {{refimprove}}, and (B) MOS:LAYOUT is saying to put it below the hatnotes, then (C) MOS:LAYOUT's statement is not supported by the consensus.
However, as a compromise, we can write: "According to MOS:LAYOUT, this template must be placed after hatnotes, not before them. Other than that, there is no consensus as to where to place it." Still, I don't like the assertion of non-existence. Articles with such statements often fail WP:FACR. The remedy is to write "Discussions X, Y and Z, held on such and such date and time failed to achieve consensus."
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Location of Tag[edit]

There is a clear (and overwhelming) consensus that this tag should be placed at the top of articles. Snow close. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:37, 5 October 2015 (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.

{{[[Template:rfc|tech|rfcid=ACECBC9|rfc|tech|rfcid=ACECBC9]]}} Where should a {{refimprove}} tag be placed in an article? MOS:LAYOUT says that maintenance templates, of which this is one, should be among the headers. But some editors (see the section above) assert that there is no consensus for this, and that the MOS does not establish such consensus. I ask for discussion leading to a clear consensus one way or the other on this point. DES (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Epeefleche, PBS, and Codename Lisa: Pinging previous participants in the discussion. DES (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I was led to this issue by a dispute at Sutro Baths, to which my attention was drawn by a Help Desk post. My general views are expressed at Talk:Sutro Baths, namely that the very widespread practice of placing this template among the article headers, along with the MOS guideline specifying such placement, form a de facto consensus. But my view is not graven in stone, and if anyone has good reasons for a contrary view, I would be interested to read them. And of course even if I still disagree, consensus might favor a different placement. But I think it does no one any good to argue this on an article-by-article basis. DES (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that the positioning as laid out in the MOS should be used except where there is a specific reason for making an exception. I see no such specific reason for Sutro Baths. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • For this template in particular there would not be an exception; the {{Refimprove section}} tag exists for when the problem is not article-wide. So either it's an article problem and goes at the top, or it's a sectional problem and the alternative templates is used in the affected section(s). There's not really a middle ground.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The general reader of our articles comes there to find information, they have little to no interest in our internal machinations. Imagine if a reader of a printed encyclopedia article was to come across post-it notes all over the article: "Paul: We need more references for section 3", "April: I thought you were going to the library to find better references for the final section?". The proper place for the refimprove tag is in the "References" section, which is where people interested in that kind of thing look. Any reference problems in the body of the article should be dealt with with "citation needed" tags. Since our function as editors of an encyclopedia is to provide a reference work for the general public, it is the reader whom we should be thinking of at all times. The reader isn't interested in the nuts and bolts, the reader wants to read the article and get the facts we have to offer. Let's serve the reader, as we should be doing, and resolve that the "refimprove" tag, when needed, should come in the Reference section of the article, and not deface it at the top. BMK (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Ah but much of the reason for the refimprove tag, and the primary reason for putting it on the article page rather than the talk page, is that in notifies the reader that there may be a problem with the referencing on the article, and therefore to treat its contents with greater caution than the reader otherwise might. Also, placing this tag in the references section, which normally has no editable content at all, is h9ighly misleading. Placing the tag where BMK suggests can only encourage well-intentioned but inexperienced editors to think that references can be added or changed by editing the References (or Notes) section, which will only lead to frustration and possible loss of an editor except in the comparatively rare case of an article that uses list-defined references. Thus this is a particularly poor place for such a tag. Also, if some maintenance tags are to be put at the top of articles, while others are to be distributed in various parts of articles, there will be significant confusion. I don't see the benefit here. DES (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Exactly. The tag serves the important function of warning readers that an article is not sufficiently referenced, and such a caveat shouldn't be out of initial sight. Just this morning, I was looking at Roslyn School, Palmerston North on a relatively small laptop screen, thinking that it was surprising that the article didn't have a template highlighting its complete lack of references, only to see one when I scrolled down. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Yep. If I've "come here to find information" I want to be alerted that the encyclopedia's own editors thing that the alleged information in the article has verifiability issues.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • At the top - per my rationale above. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • At the top. Hi. IMHO, MOS:LAYOUT is pretty clear on this. Putting it at the very bottom of the article seems like an attempt to hide it from the sight, thus nullifying its purpose. As for appearing in the print, tags may be set to be excluded from the print using the media-specific CSS rules that are already in place.
@Beyond My Ken: Your deletion of another person's message (contribution #683122987) is unjustifiable. Per Wikipedia:Canvassing § Appropriate notification, the notification was appropriate. In my case, notifying me falls under the purview of "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)".
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Only if ALL participants in a previous discussion have been notified, and that's most certainly not the case here. BMK (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • What participant in the previous discussion did I fail to include? I pinged every editor who commented in the talk thread/section just above this, or I intended to. I certainly pinged editors with opposed views, so this cannot be considered selective canvassing. What editors did I leave out of my notification? tell me and i will ping them promptly. If you are suggesting that I ought to go back to previous discussions of this issue and ping everyone who ever commented, I think you are mistaken, but you are free to notify such editors if you wish. DES (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Also note, Beyond My Ken WP:APPNOTE does not say that notifications must include "ALL participants in a previous discussion". Indeed it clearly contemplates selected notifications. What it demands is that "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. It goes on to say "Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them. clearly suggestion that an impartial sample of users who previously discussed an issue, perhaps because there are too many to notify them all, is acceptable. DES (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There are an awful lot of tags that are editor to editor maintenance issues that ought to be on the talk page (avoiding self reference and more on this Most maintenance templates should be placed on the talk page). This is one of the few exceptions, because it fulfils two functions one to act as a warning to readers and the other to act as in editor to editor communication. -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • As to its placement. Tags ought to be placed were they are most useful. For example the no category template is placed at the bottom of articles. In this case this template {{refimprove}} tends to be a replacement for {{unreferenced}} and unreferenced is best placed in either the references section or in a Notes section directly above {{reflist}}. Placing it in the references section not only informs editors that more inline citations are needed but draws the interested reader (one who checks citations) that Wikipedia editors consider the article nore to be adequately cited. Placing such templates at the top of an article is just so much clutter for most readers. Having made my opinions clear. I do not wish to impose them on anyone by dictating where the template ought to be place, but equally I do not want a one rule fits all as that encourages bot jocks to alter something for which there is no consensus. -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    PBS A number of people have proposed moving most maintenance tags to the talk pages of articles with reasoning similar to that you are using here. Few of these proposals have gotten consensus for such a change. Indeed the only case I know of is for {{orphan}}, which is of much less value for readers, in my view, than most maintenance tags are. I think thois suggests a general consensus for current practice, that most such tags which apply to the entire article will be placed in the header area. DES (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • At the top - In my opinion, the tag clearly belongs at the top of the page. For the record, I am the one who moved the tag from the references section to the top of the page a couple days ago at Sutro Baths. I did that because I don't think I have ever seen that tag anywhere except the top of an article. And, to me, when a tag begins with the words "This article needs...", it means that the tag goes at the top because it's a problem with the entire article, not just one section. Shortly after I moved the tag to the top, BMK moved it back to the bottom. Because of that, I looked at the edit history of the article to see when the tag was first added to the article and searched to see if there were any rules about where this tag should be placed. I discovered the tag was added in March 2014, when it was put at the top of the page by TRPoD.[1] In March 2015, it was moved back down to the references section by BMK.[2] I found the Template:Refrimprove page, which says, "There is currently no consensus on where in the article to place this template, but according to MOS:LAYOUT, maintenance templates ought be placed after hatnotes, at the start of the article."[3] So, while that page claims there's no consensus one way or the other, the manual of style appears quite clear on where the tag "ought" to be placed, and, most importantly, there seems to be a very common standard about where that tag gets placed, which is at the top. To me, BMK's reasonsing in his edit summary for putting it at the bottom of the references section misses the point. He said, "There is no need to annoy the general reader with a placement on the top, it can do just as well by the refs, where people who might do something about it will se."[4] I think that logic is backwards. The entire point of that tag, in my opinion, is precisely to let readers know as soon as they arrive that the article doesn't have enough sources. It shouldn't be hidden at the bottom of the page unless one doesn't want readers to easily know there's a problem. So it's not about "annoying" readers; it's about letting readers know right away that the article needs help and encouraging them to provide it. Czoal (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to note a very interesting page that someone linked to in another discussion. It's the page that lists every article that currently uses this refimprove template.[5] I randomly looked at about 100 articles and every one of them had the template at the top of the page. I couldn't find even one article that had it at the bottom. I understand that just because something is done a certain way in some articles doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. But, in this case, it appears that close to 100% of articles that use that template have it placed at the top. To me, this is evidence of clear consensus by practice without it being "official" consensus. Czoal (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • At the top. Contrary to the assertions of some, general readers should care that an article is lacking in the references department. The vast majority of people who read and use Wikipedia are aware that our articles are not the most reliable things in the world, however if one is writing a paper Wikipedia is a great place to start because we provide a convenient list of references at the bottom of our articles. If the references are lacking, a big unreferenced or ref improve tag at the top of the article tells that sort of reader not to bother and to go elsewhere. Likewise for a more casual reader who is not doing academic research still needs to be able to judge the quality of the information they are presented with, and having a tag at the top of the article that warns them that there are issues with the article tells them how much or how little faith to put in the article. Hiding the tag at the bottom helps no one. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • At the top - general problems with references impact the value of the article to the reader. The no categories example given above does not - it just makes the article harder to find. Rwessel (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • at the top i see no improvement to the encyclopedia through unusual placement in the ref section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • At the top. There it acts both as a warning to readers, and as an incentive to editors who may be able to improve the referencing. Hidden away in the Reference List, it does neither. Maproom (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • At the top. If the template applies to the entire article it should be at the top. Cleanup templates are supposed to notify readers and editors of what still has to be done to the article. Putting it all the way at the bottom, decreasing its visibility, defeats that purpose. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the arguments given here for placing this template at the top could equally be given for putting the References section before the lead. The information contained in the template is not part of the information about the subject. -- PBS (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    1. Refimprove tag has a small fixed height. Once put into {{multiple issues}}, it becomes smaller too. References sections can span tens of pages, depending on the medium, even in small articles like The Pirate Bay.
    2. The ultimate fate of Refimprove tag is disappearing or getting demoted to sections of the article. The ultimate fate of a "References" section is growing as big as possible. The bigger the merrier.
    3. Refimprove tag is an advance warning that impacts the perception of an article. "References" section is a section to which people refer when needed.
    4. Refimprove tag can be suppressed in the print. Suppressing "References" in the print is both undesirable and illegal.
    5. Wikiwand.com makes especial dispensations based on this placement algorithm.
    So, not. The same argument does not hold.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    • The quality of the references bears directly on the reliability of the article. Presumably references have been checked by editors, and can be followed by the readers if desired. If the references are wanting, it's appropriate to warn at the top that the article is suspect. Rwessel (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not only much better for the refimprove template to be at the top, it's vital in my opinion. An article with that template informs every reader, as soon as they arrive, that a significant portion of the content they are about to read has not been verified and therefore may not be accurate. Readers need to be made aware of that before they start reading, not after they've finished. Further, it is likely that the average reader may not even look at the references section and therefore would never even see the template if it was hidden down there. I'm not sure how much longer we even need to discuss this issue since the input so far is trending in a very clear and consistent direction, and, practically speaking, probably 99+ percent of editors put that template at the top anyway. Czoal (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • At the top. It's a maintenance template, so it goes at the top. The arguments made to the contrary don't convince me. APerson (talk!) 13:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • At the top, for the information of both readers and editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • At the top If the article is lacking for references, that is extremely relevant to all people hitting the page. --SubSeven (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The top per all the arguments above; the template is to alert both editors and readers (who are potential editors). Like the Unreferenced template, it can motivate readers to add references. Lapadite (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Does this discussion qualify for closure per WP:SNOW? Or per the section 1 guidelines of WP:ANRFC? Czoal (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi. Technically, the snowball clause is not even needed for closing RFCs. And anyhow, not by anyone who had previously been in the dispute before. Both MOS:LEAD and MOS:LAYOUT were in effect when the original discussion. I think purpose of the nominator was to overrule them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Codename Lisa, my purpose was to seek consensus on whether MOS:LEAD and MOS:LAYOUT should be overridden, as some editors were claiming (and acting on) in regard to particular articles, and edit wars were at least threatened. My view was that those guidelines should not be overridden without a good reason, which I didn't see. But my stronger view was that we shouldn't have a bunch of local consensuses for specific articles, but rather we should have one standard practice for all articles, whatever it might be. And while the "standard" length of an RfC is 30 days, it can be closed whenever a closer thinks there is no point to letting it run longer, as I understand the matter. DES (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Exactly, DES. We need to finally have a standard for all articles so that we can eliminate future edit wars caused by the objections of a tiny minority who disagree with what is undisputably very common practice. In fact, I believe most editors would agree that this standard practice qualifies as a de facto consensus . In any case, based on what appears to be a solid consensus in this discussion, can't the wording at Template:Refimprove simply be amended to reflect the proper placement of this template? Right now it says, "There is currently no consensus on where in the article to place this template, but according to MOS:LAYOUT, maintenance templates ought be placed after hatnotes, at the start of the article." Why not just remove the first half of that sentence and have it say, "According to MOS:LAYOUT, maintenance templates ought be placed after hatnotes, at the start of the article." And, of course, also change the wording in MOS? This all comes down to those few words that say there is no consensus. Well, there indeed is consensus now, right? We need to get this RfC closed and make an official ruling on the matter to prevent any more problems in the future. Czoal (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
        • While the current trend of views seems clear, i would advise waiting a few more days at least. It would be best if the consensus established by this RfC were clear and solid, if possible. Anyone who might be interested should have a chance to comment and express any relevant views. There is no deadline here. The standard RfC duration is 30 days, and I would suggest letting this run for at least 2 weeks. Thus editors who may have been on vacation, edit only on particular days of the week, or just don't log in every day, have a chance to see and comment. DES (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Sounds good. Thank you. Czoal (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Top for reasons given above. It is of no value as a warning to the reader if not immediately visible. That said, I consider the template to be grossly overused by lazy editors, who do not make the small effort required to specify what they consider needs citation. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Top (of the article, not the talk page) of course, where it's always been, for good reasons that I don't need to laundry-list here. If the issue only pertains to a particular section of the page, use {{Refimprove section}}. The entire point of {{Refimprove}} is that it's a page-top template (one that alerts readers, not just editors, to an issue with the article's reliability), so arguing about whether it goes at the top is rather like trying to debate the choice to put the stove in the kitchen instead of in the bathroom or under the stairs.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

When to use {{Unreferenced}}[edit]

Header was: Requirements of WP:V.

From the edit history of the template documentation:

  • 05:26, 4 July 2015‎ Ruakh ((The documentation for {{Unreferenced}} states that it should only be used when there are *no* references (not when there are merely no *inline* references).)
  • 00:38, 5 July 2015‎ PBS (Undid revision 669877567 by Ruakh (talk) References without inline citations do not meet the requirements of WP:V. Discuss it on the talk page if you like.)

From my talk page:

The documentation for {{Unreferenced}} states that it should only be used when there are no citations at all, whereas the documentation for {{Refimprove}} states that {{Unreferenced}} should be used whenever there are no inline citations. When I changed the {{Refimprove}} to be consistent with the {{Unreferenced}} documentation, you reverted it; so, now they're inconsistent again. Are you planning to fix that?

RuakhTALK 01:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@User: Ruakh: The template says "This article needs additional citations for verification" The only citations the meet the requirements of the verifiability policy are inline citations (see the section Responsibility for providing citations). -- PBS (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to be confused. The text that you quote is from {{Refimprove}}, but the statement that I corrected is about {{Unreferenced}}. (If you want to drive a change to {{Unreferenced}}, that's fine, but [[Template:Refimprove/doc]] is not the place to do it.) —RuakhTALK 18:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not confused. The only citations the meet the requirements of the verifiability policy are inline citations (see the section Responsibility for providing citations), general references (as currently defined) do not. -- PBS (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Your second sentence may be correct — it may be that only inline citations satisfy WP:V — but your first sentence seems pretty clearly wrong, in that you keep making an irrelevant point as if it were relevant.
{{Unreferenced}} is not intended to be used on all articles that don't satisfy WP:V; rather, there are several different templates for flagging WP:V issues, depending on the details. (This is made clear even by your mistakenly-edited version of Template:Refimprove/doc, since the whole reason it mentions {{Unreferenced}} is that it's explaining how to choose the right template for a given article with WP:V issues.)
So the question is not, "Does WP:V allow an article to have general references but no inline citations?", but rather, "Is {{Unreferenced}} appropriate for an article with general references but no inline citations?". And the answer to that question is clearly "No". The documentation of {{Unreferenced}} is very explicit about this. That is what {{No footnotes}} is for.
Do you understand now?
RuakhTALK 22:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I already understand the relationship between this template and {{unreferenced}} and policy: See the footnote 3 in verifiability policy. There are problems with {{no footnotes}} the first that the wording is imprecise "related reading" ought to be "Further read" and second it implies that "related reading" external links can be reliable sources and that those sections contain sources that can be used as citations. This is not the case. If anything needs changing it is not the wording on the documentation of this template, but the wording of {{no footnotes}} and the documentation of {{unreferenced}}. If "general references" do not meet the requirements of the verifiability policy then what is the point of adding a template that (you alleged) is requesting general references, only for it to be immediately replaced by another ({{no footnotes}}) asking for in-line citations? Verifiability policy makes it clear that {{unreferenced}} can be used to request [in-line] citations to meet the policy requirements. -- PBS (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: "There are problems with […]. If anything needs changing […]": SOFIXIT. When I posted on your talk-page, I invited you to fix the inconsistency; and again on this page, in my very first post, I reminded you that "If you want to drive a change to {{Unreferenced}}, that's fine". The problem is that you keep changing {{Refimprove}}'s documentation to say things about {{Unreferenced}} that conflict with {{Unreferenced}}'s own documentation. If you want to change how {{Unreferenced}} is used, then by all means, please go do that. If not, then please stand back and let me correct this template's documentation.
Re: "If 'general references' do not meet the requirements of the verifiability policy then what is the point of adding a template that (you alleged) is requesting general references, only for it to be immediately replaced by another ({{no footnotes}}) asking for in-line citations?": I've alleged no such thing. Let me turn this around: Even you must surely acknowledge that {{Unreferenced}} is not for articles that already have one inline citation, even if they need more. How would you respond to the question, "If a citation for only one claim does not meet the requirements of the verifiability policy then what is the point of adding a template that (you alleged) is requesting only one citation, only for it to be immediately replaced by another ({{refimprove}}) asking for citations to support the rest of the article?"?
RuakhTALK 23:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
You asked two questions, the first is that at the moment I do not wish to change the documentation of {{Unreferenced}} (although if you want to I will support such a change). As to the second question: it really has to do with gnomes and the underlying categories that the templates employ (Category:Articles lacking sources_from_date and Category:Articles needing additional references_from_date). Unreferenced is not requesting one citation it is requesting "citations to reliable sources". If someone only adds one inline citation, there are two possible outcomes no more inline citations are need to meet WP:V in which case no template is needed, or more inline citations are needed and a judgement has to be made whether in line {{citation needed}} is more appropriate than {{refimprove}}. -- PBS (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
This direct contradiction between documentation of {{unreferenced}} versus {{refimprove}}'s still persists. Easiest would be to fix it like Ruakh did. I think PBS is making an ignoratio elenchi argument here: from substituting a slightly related issue, whether or not adding citations satisfying {{unreferenced}} is sufficient to also satisfy WP:V, and then arguing the substituted issue, it does not follow that {{refimprove}}'s doc should contradict {{unreferenced}}'s. jni (delete)...just not interested 21:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Primary Sources[edit]

A comment on the Template:Refimprove page itself — in the "Differences from..." { {Primary sources} } section, should it read "...but if the citations in an article are NOT from primary sources..."? (without "not" being all caps; that's only for clarity here.) maybe i'm just misunderstanding the whole section, but thought i'd mention it in case i'm not being completely daft tonight.Colbey84 (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I checked it and I think that bit is okay as it is. It's saying that you should use {{Primary sources}} instead of {{Refimprove}} if the article has sufficient inline citations, but the citations in the article are from primary sources. For more info see WP:PRIMARY (policy) and WP:USEPRIMARY (essay). --Dodi 8238 (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
ah, i think i get it. my problem was in not understanding how "primary" is used in the term "primary sources." thank you.Colbey84 (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Better icon[edit]

Commons-emblem-question book yellow.svg I think this icon will be more aesthetically pleasing, modern, and consistent with other Wikipedias. Thoughts? There are similar icons on its page. File:Commons-emblem-question_book_yellow.svg There is also an orange version to match ambox although I think yellow is better for the template.--Sığe |д=) 02:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

In Commons emblems, yellow is the color of caution, orange is warning, red is critical warning. File:Question book.svg and File:Commons-emblem-question book orange.svg are better candidates than your suggestion. Still, I think the existing icon is superior because of its visibility.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the book blends into the background so unless you look carefully, it's a yellow ring. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Another new icon[edit]

Question book magnify2.svg Possibly?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 17:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. That's a "verification failed" icon. It shows a search that yielded question mark as a result.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 September 2016[edit]

Could someone please add {{subst:tfm|Verifiability}} as this template has been nominated for merging with that one. Pppery 20:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Debresser: Could you please explain why you added noinclude tags around the notice? Pppery 21:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, although it is quite obvious. That is what we do on Wikipedia with templates that have many transclusions, to avoid all articles being clouded with the message = all kinds of uninterested editors troubled with the message. Especially since this nomination is not likely to affect this template, but if anything will only affect Template:Verifiability, and even that I doubt. The editor who placed the Tfm template here should have done it, but either he is not aware of this, or he decided against it for some reason.
I wasn't aware that you nominated this template, but now that I noticed it, let me add that this is another of your annoying and senseless nominations, and I find you a rather bothersome editor in the field of maintenance templates. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser: I didn't nominate this, just submitted an edit request to add a tfm tag. It was nominated by KATMAKROFAN Pppery 21:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay. You two are two of a kind. Another new editor with bad ideas. Sorry to say, but he had also turned up on my radar recently with a few needless edits that were less than improvements (one of which was reverted). Debresser (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I also don't see any place stating that noincluding is "what we do on Wikipedia with templates that have many transclusions". In contrast, WP:TFD#Listing a template only mentions noincluding in the case of substituted templates (which this isn't, though the tfd banner should be moved inside the Module:Unsubst invocation). Pppery 21:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you're a relatively new editor. You wouldn't know. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 September 2016[edit]

And now the previously-mentioned tfd has been withdrawn by the nominator, and thus the tfd tag at the top needs to be removed. Pppery 02:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Propose single article banner plus small subsection tags[edit]

(The above banner, added 29Jan17, is what I want to get rid of throughout the body of articles.)

At present this template generates a large banner either for the whole article or for sections. It is very intrusive (intentionally so). Usually either the article banner, or equally prominent section banners (refimprove or unreferenced), are used; rarely both. It would be desirable to replace one or more large banners in the sections of the article with a single large banner at the top, plus small section tags replacing the banners used at present, to single out sections needing improvement without several large and intrusive banners.

An article with a {{refimprove}} banner at the top would have sections tagged in one of these two ways:

Heading for section with insufficient references This section needs more citations
This is the text of a section which needs more citations.
Heading for section with no references This section has no citations
This is the text of a section with no citations.

Perhaps this could be automatic: if an article has an overall {{refimprove}} at the top, then any {{refimprove|section}} and {{unreferenced|section}} should automatically be rendered as shown above instead of as banners? This would affect the display of any existing article with both article and section banners, but why not?

Possibly the presence of one or more section unreferenced or refimprove templates should trigger the display of an article refimprove banner at the top if the article {{refimprove}} template is not explicitly present?

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose — we should never use large banners. The only thing they do is distract from the content, and noone has shown they do anything to promote editing. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The main thrust of my suggestion is to get rid of the multiple large banners in articles with several sections with the section {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} banners, replacing them possibly with small notes after the section heading, or something else unobtrusive, and possibly a banner for the whole article. The only place I suggest adding a new banner is in my last paragraph, where several large section banners could possibly (but not necessarily) be replaced by a single article banner and small section tags. Please read my suggestion carefully; if it's unclear please let me know what's not clear and I'll try to clarify. I've edited the heading of this section to say "single" instead of "large"; it's already large. added a {{refimprove|section|date=January 1950}} to this Talk section to illustrate what I mean. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I have slightly reworded the first paragraph of my original comment to make it clearer that I'm trying to reduce, not increase, the number of large banners. I would also clarify that I am not proposing any changes to template syntax: existing templates would generate the smaller section tags instead of large banners. The small tags should have dates (I didn't include dates in my original suggestion). Pol098 (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

There was at one time support for a smaller ambox for use in the body of articles. This has fallen somewhat into disuse now, as editors thought it confusing to have to two different versions of the message box. It might be worth discussing this somewhere more centrally (e.g. Village pump as whatever we do should be consistent across all article message boxes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, useful to know. I'll have a think on this and follow up at the pump later. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of these template[edit]

Aren't putting the "BLP sources" and "refimprove" on this page wrong? Considering that page meets the GNG requirement and has secondary sources throughout the article, I think it's unnecessary there. But I want to get another opinion just be sure. Horizonlove (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

{{refimprove}} is redundant to {{BLP sources}}. But neither of them has anything to do with satisfying WP:GNG. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Which tutorial to link to[edit]

A Wikilink suggestion:

It might be worth switching the wikilink over in order to better reflect the likely needs of newer users. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 04:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Both? ("If you are using editor x ...").
  • Merge the help pages, with discussion of referencing at the top, and sections on using each editor, or maybe discussion of referencing and links to "referencing with editor x?"
Just suggestions to think about, no recommendation. Pol098 (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Or better[edit]

The "or better" was reverted by MSGJ owing to the lack of the consensus. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2017 (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.

I boldly added "or better" in order to better reflect the actual use of this template. The issue is frequently not too few sources, but the use of low-quality sources. Carl Fredrik talk 08:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Completely agree with this. Well done. Debresser (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree. It is an improvement on the message. It is still better if the specific items are tagged, otherwise who knows which source(s) is considered low quality? Best of all if you actually fix the problem then less explaining is needed and the problem is gone. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The inline template Better source needed exists for that very purpose. As I said below, there are templates in existence for dealing with poor quality citations. This one is for articles with lack of citations. SpikeballUnion (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The template formerly stated "This article needs additional citations for verification", which is clear and concise. It clearly states that more sources and/or inline citations are necessary.
The template now reads as "This article needs additional or better citations for verification".
So what does "or better citations" actually mean to the casual reader? Does it mean that the quality of the sources are low, and higher-quality sources are needed that are more reliable in nature, or that an article simply needs more inline citations, in which case the previous wording sufficed? If it's the former, we already have the specific {{Unreliable sources}} template that covers this. Sorry, but this recent change comes across as adding unnecessary ambiguity right at the top of thousands of articles, in my opinion. North America1000 16:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Not really, @Northamerica1000. Asking for better sources, is not yet saying that the previous sources are unreliable. Debresser (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The "better sources" wording addresses how this template is actually being used. By it's very nature the tag implies better sources are needed, because otherwise the {{No sources}} or {{more footnotes}} tags can be used.
To me this wording is less ambiguous. Carl Fredrik talk 22:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not agree. We already have {{Better source}} Christian75 (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
That is inline. Carl Fredrik talk 22:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with the change. Template:Refimprove is supposed to be about additional references, as it has been for years. The addition should have been discussed before it was implemented. I will ask editors at WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources and WP:Citing sources to weigh in on this change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I also disagree with the change. In my experience, this template is usually a non-controversial marker of articles where a significant proportion of content is unsourced. As North America points out, for unreliable sourcing we have {{Unreliable sources}}. Of course, most articles out there could use more authoritative sourcing, but if the content is sourced with RSs, then the sourcing is policy-compliant and no banner is needed, unless there's another problem like NPOV violation. Eperoton (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Some sources are poor without being unreliable. For example they don't support the information they follow, or they support it in a roundabout way, or they're used to support critical information that would benefit from being cited to a source that's widely-cited or widely-used in its field (outside of Wikipedia), or they go against some other Wikipedia policy, guideline, or consensus. "More or better sources" does not imply "the current sources are unreliable." Bright☀ 11:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)To ask for better sources doesn't necessarily imply that the ones already present are unreliable, but simply that they are too weak. They may be decent sources used in an overbroad manner, or acceptable for some statements in an article but relied upon too heavily for other statements. Writing an article based on 2-3 sources is acceptable if they are all high quality. Writing an article based on 10 crappy sources is not acceptable — hence ambiguity in simply asking for more sources.
To me this has a lot to do with the name of the this template — that it is called Refimprove has meant that it is used when general improvement are needed. Hence, my bold change.
I'm not saying it's incorrect to have a template advocating for more sources, just that this template is very often used to indicate need for better sources. Carl Fredrik talk 12:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
This would turn this into an uninformative template that covers all kinds of problems (NPOV, OR, etc) without specifying what they might be. I don't see what it would accomplish except encouraging drive-by tagging. Eperoton (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
It is already an uninformative template that poorly specifies the problem and is largely used for drive-by tagging. It is difficult to make it much worse. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Before the disputed addition, the wording referred to a clearly circumscribed problem: largely unsourced text. This provides guidance both for when the template should be added and when it should be removed. The modified version only suggests that there might be something wrong with the sources or their use, which would encourage unjustified drive-by tagging for any number of reasons, and discourage removal of an unjustified templates, because it would be difficult to guess what motivated them in the first place. Eperoton (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
In my experience, this is what is happening already. When I have questioned the poster they usually don't answer or are unable to explain why they posted it. When it is used by IP's it is impossible to get clarification. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
All the instances I can recall were appropriate, but when the purpose of the template is circumscribed as before, it's clear when it's inappropriate and can be removed. Eperoton (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Also disagree with this change. A template should not say A or B is the reason for it being applied. In such cases templates for issue A and issue B should exist independent of each other. "Needs sources or needs better ones" will simply sow confusion. DonIago (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Support as this is actually how this template is used in practice. I'd say it's used to point out the quality of sources is poor more often than it's used to point out there are too few sources. Bright☀ 11:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is how this template is currently used in practice ... but do we want it used that way? The reason we use this template to indicate that better sources are needed (in a generalized way) is that we don't actually have a separate general template that can be used. There is obviously a need for such a template. The question is whether we should expand this template to encompass that need, or create a new (separate) template to cover it. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything one can do about how it is used? It is badly named and badly used, but it appears that it is actually used as the name suggests, just not in a very useful way. It is almost impossible to guess what the poster meant and when to remove it.
If more refs are needed, then use {{cn}}. Inline is always more useful. Is there an inline template specifying that a ref is of poor quality, though it actually does support the content? I see there is, and it is mentioned above: {{better source}}, though {{better source needed}} would be more accurate, and exists. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. There are templates in existence for dealing with poor quality citations. This one is for articles with lack of citations, i.e. a lot of unsourced content. It has a purpose, and you've changed it. SpikeballUnion (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


CFCF, please change the template back. There is no consensus for this change. We could resolve this matter with an RfC if need be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

And, for the record, I have never seen this template used for better sources. In my experience, it has been used for an article that needs more sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Upon reading through the discussion again, I'm also not seeing a consensus for the change to remain in effect. North America1000 20:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Nor have I, Flyer22 Reborn. SpikeballUnion (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Since CFCF has ignored my request, will someone go ahead and change the template back? I've looked to change it myself, including by clicking on the "edit" option, but I don't see how. To me, it looks like only administrators can change it, but I'm not aware of CFCF being an administrator. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I placed a request for closure at Requests for closure (diff). North America1000 21:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The change has now been reverted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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