Template talk:Third-party

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

Merge with {{primary sources}}?[edit]

Resolved: No consensus for merge; template reworded to clarify purpose.

It's not really clear to me how the subtle distinction between {{primary sources}} and this template warrants their separation. The former's transclusion count also trumps this one's. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, as noted on Template talk:Primary sources, this cleanup template links to two essays that have cleanup (merge) tags on them. That's just wrong. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think I get it now, it's about Wikipedia:Party and person - but it still looks like we should have both issues covered in the older template. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Further differentiation, cleanup[edit]

I've reworded the template to better differentiate it from {{primary sources}}, {{self-published}} and other related templates, and (more importantly) to link only to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not to random, disused essays that are flagged for merging because they are redundant. The tone is borrowed form {{self-published}} and is less hostile (this is important, because 90% of the time or more, this tag will be used on an article created or heavily edited by a noob, since experienced editors know better). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 20:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:INDY is linked (favorably) literally thousands of times in discussions, so it's hardly a "random, disused essay".
I have corrected the confusion you introduced by removing references to self-published sources. This tag is about the need for non-affiliated sources, regardless of whether the source is self-published. If you write a newspaper article about the Queen of England, you are a third-party source. If you write a personal blog post about the Queen of England, you are still a third-party source. Ideal source are both third-party and non-self-published, but the purpose of this tag is to call out only the first need, so that we can easily use if for sources that are inappropriate because they are closely affiliated, even if they are properly published. As an example, if the CEO of a business writes a guest column for the local newspaper about his business, that is still not a third-party source, even though it is properly published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Compatibility with multiple issues template[edit]

This template doesn't currently work with {{multiple issues}}, despite the documentation for that template suggests all tags listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup should be supported. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

this template defaces wikipedia articles[edit]

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

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

Please don't. The normal place for maintenance tags is close to the top, per MOS:LEAD. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

move to bottom - Leng T'che (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As stated at Template talk:Orphan#this template defaces wikipedia articles and Template talk:Unreferenced#this template defaces wikipedia articles, this is not the place to discuss a major change to article layout policy; much better places would be either the talk page for MOS:LEAD, which is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section; its parent, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style; or alternatively, WP:VPP. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


The template uses the phrase "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject", but the instructions state "This template is used in articles to identify articles that name sources, but that are biased". (Emphasis mine). Although I find it very surprising, this seems to have created a bit of a dispute elsewhere. So I figured that I should check here. Does the wording mean that the template can only be used on articles that both rely completely on non-independent sources and are biased, or is the intent for it be used on articles with no independent sources where there may be a bias, but we don't know? Alternatively, is it the intent to say that articles that rely solely on non-independent sources are biased, by definition, and therefore might warrant the tag? - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Tags in general are an indication of something closer to "at least one editor believes there's at problem", not "we can absolutely prove that there is definitely a problem". If you believe that there is a problem with the article (many editors would tell you that an article that cites only non-independent sources automatically has a problem), then you can place the tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess I'm in the "no independent sources is automatically a problem" camp. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Dispute about tag[edit]

There is a dispute about the application of the tag here (items 2, 3, and 5 in the table of contents), and at the related article, that might warrant the attention of those familiar with the tag if they have interest/time.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)