Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Enhance the template's visibility

Every day it seems, brand new pages get created without any sources. I've been watching them the last 24 hours and the best thing I can think of to do is add this template, but the problem is it just goes in the pile, and not get much done.

Consider if we enhanced it by putting the third line ("Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time.") in BOLD RED. It should be sterner in encouraging people to rush to find sources for things they've just added, in fear of it being deleted. Would the advantage of sources/reliability enhancement be worth the possible aesthetic nuisance? Anakin101 19:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to make the template shout. The better solution is to either add sources yourself or contact the users individually and discuss with them the importance of sourcing. Canned templates are not a universal solution to the problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Category

Adding every article in this template to utterly useless categories is entirely annoying, and makes the category field for the articles ridiculous. In general, I think categories that relate to the quality of the article, rather than to its subject matter, ought to go in talk space. Is anybody with me? john k 17:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Response at Category talk:Articles lacking sources Jeepday (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

auto date?

{{editprotected}} Is it possible to have the date (well, month, year anyway) automatically be generated instead of having to enter it in manually all the time? I know some of the user talk page vandalism templates do it... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 09:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Which vandalism templates are you thinking of? User templates are usually substituted, which mkes it possible to substitute the current date. This template is not supposed to be substituted, which makes it much more difficult to automatically enter a date that doesn't change once the template is placed. But SmackBot watches and adds dates to maintenance templates such as this, so you don't have to do it yourself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on warning text

There are a couple of discussions above suggesting that the template doesn't need to include lots of warning about what might happen to unreferenced material. I think I agree and propose the following amended template:

Any problems with this proposal? Do we want to implement it? GDallimore (Talk) 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Making the same argument that I made above - I object to removing the statement, I offer Template talk:Unreferenced#Jimbo on Unreferenced as exhibit one. Additionally if an editor was going to simply remove the the text as unreferenced they would remove it, not place a {{fact}} or {{unreferenced}}. Please also review WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. I beleive that the statement "Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time" (besides being true) will help motivate an editor vested in the article to supply references. I just did a major rewrite on Road, I began by attempting to reference what other editors had written. Other then some random sentences almost everything had to removed and reworked Diff, The truth is that even if the information is true, it is often original research or from a specific book or web page and impossible to track down the original reference so it all gets deleted and reworked. Jeepday (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Removing the text from the template does not change the policy that unreferenced material can be removed it simply (correctly in my view) stops the template from being a summary of policy/guideline when, actually, the policy/guideline is more complex than can be explained in a single sentence and is, in any event, linked to from the template. Reomving the text has the added advantage of keeping the template short and to the point - highlighting the problems with the article without stomping all over the article.

One other thing to bear in mind: who benefits from this language? Nobody, in my view. Experienced editors will know how to deal with unreferenced material so don't need to be told. New editors should be guided towards the guidelines as the template alreadu does and not just given a short pithy statement of policy. Readers don't care that material may be removed, but it is useful for it to be highlighted that the article they are reading may not be reliable. With this last in mind - that readers are more important than editors - how about the following:

I've linked to WP:VERIFY from the word "reliable" and to WP:RS from the words "reliable sources". How's that? Thanks for listening. GDallimore (Talk) 09:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Although they shouldn't, many lay-readers will read "may not be reliable" as meaning "probably isn't reliable", which is incorrect. Also the warning about removal is probably still helpful (it tells people what may happen to unreferenced material if left) but tends to imply the remedy is removal, whereas surely its better to suggest a would-be remover or author tries verification first. Combining these, I'd suggest something more like one of these:

Or:

The aim is not to present a POV implication that "the material is probably unreliable" (which some will read into it if not careful). Rather it is to assert that judgement and caution is needed because of the risk of unreferenced material. Alternative wordings are ".. and therefore reader judgement is needed to consider whether it is reliable", or similar, but the above wording was simpler. Thoughts on those two? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just leave well enough alone and use {{verify}} or {{OR}} as appropriate. Jeepday (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is considerable advantage in keeping the templates as short and simple as possible, especially one used so frequently as this unfortunately must be used. Explanations go into the linked words; people know to click on links. It would be nice to keep it at two lines-- and a good example for other templates. DGG 04:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Short templates are an advantage, definitely. I most cases, I'd have thought two bold lines and a minor line should be fine, and adequate, to convey what needs saying. But it does need to be accurate and the wording well thought out.

I've modified two obvious points in the current wording; they don't add much wordage, but do make it more accurate:

1. "Any sources" -> "adequate sources"
2. "may be removed" -> "may be removed if it cannot be verified"

The former is an accuracy issue, the latter is to remind people that ideally one (i.e., the editor or the original author) checks for verification first, then removes if it can't be verified. Deletion is not a first resort.

Hopefully these two points at least are not controversial. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

isnt "Readers may need to assess for themselves whether it is reliable." a little condescending --when we say it isn't all verified, anyone who knows the meaning of verify will know that it may not all be true, and that readers must beware. Let's save that line. DGG 03:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User FT2 - Unfortunately both are controversial. Adequetely has a long history of attempted insertions and deletions please see Template_talk:Unreferenced#.22Adequately.22_in_the_text. Any is the prefered usage for a number of reasons that are out lined here. Template_talk:Unreferenced#Template_usage_no_references_and_undereferenced and removal of "May be removed" is the topic of this debate (and previous debates Template_talk:Unreferenced#.22Material_that_has_no_source_may_be_removed.22 please revert your changes here and at Template:Unreferencedsection until there is a consensus. 03:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There are other templates for articles which cite sources but need better ones. I like having one that says "any". NickelShoe (Talk) 03:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Adequate" to "any" fixed -- see below. I've wikilinked "may be challenged and removed" to WP:BRD, a minor edit, which describes how to do so without being excessively confrontational or aggressive. No textual change to the actual template involved. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• GDallimore and DGG I am not seeing consensus for removal of the removal warning. We did a get minor rewording Diff 5 June 2007 to 26 June 2007 of the warning out of the request. Are you two acceptable to closing this request for the removal (for now)? Jeepday (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. This is not a requst for a change but an invitation to discuss and therefore there is no question of it being open or closed. I have nothing more to add but that doesn't stop other people from coming and adding their opinions and suggestions which may alter the state of consensus.

Personally, I'm quite happy with the current version. It does some things that I like, such as linking to info on reliable sources and verification. The link to BRD was also a good plan, although I suggest linking to the full title of the BRD page so that an inexperienced editor can see and understand where the link goes with just a mouseover The language used to link to it isn't as oppressive as the previous version, either, which is a good thing and my main reason for suggesting removing it entirely. GDallimore (Talk) 13:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the link to WP:BRD in the template should go directly to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle not to the redirect for clarity. I am requesting an editprotect change to the template. Jeepday (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Relinked to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; also replicated this link in Template:Unreferencedsection. Edit request removed as dealt with.

The only remaining question I can see is whether people want to mention the caution about undue reliance: (eg, "Readers may need to assess for themselves whether it is reliable"). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. I don't think the "address for themselves" comment is required, it is already implied by the {{unreferenced}} tag and an editors feel a need to communicate that message on an article the {{OR}} and {{verify}} can be used in combination as required. Jeepday (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm for simplicity & agree we can do without it.DGG 02:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

...And then User:Centrx came by and made an edit Diff 7 intermediate revisions not shown that pretty much but it back like it was but with a shorter warning "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed" several days later no one has commented on Centrx's changes. Jeepday (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

3 lines is better than 4. Good enough DGG 01:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A wish: please, add a link to the talk page in the template! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Adequate to Any

Please change the word "adequate" in the template back to "any", to reflect long term consensus about what this template is for as opposed to templates such as {{moresources}}. GDallimore (Talk) 09:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, and "editprotected" request accordingly removed -- thanks for the note, didn't realise there had been a discussion on that one. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. {{refimprove}} can be used where the references are not adequate for the article or section. FYI {{moresources}} redirects to {{refimprove}} Jeepday (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think italicizing or otherwise emphasizing the "any" would probably discourage users from using this template inappropriately. — The Storm Surfer 03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it just takes 1 out of 222 needed references getting added, and poof, all the sudden the "any" is invalid, and shakes the credibility of the label providing police. Therefore soften it to "any or almost any" or however you would better word it. Otherwise you need to scan every day to be sure you aren't still saying "any". 1/222 is of course not enough to switch a currently existing lighter worded version. Jidanni 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of this template is to mark articles with zero references. Articles with some references can have other templates put on them. Regardless of what template is used, if there aren't enough sources there aren't enough sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

editprotected

Request for edit: this template annoys me the most of all cleanup requests, because editors are using it undiscriminately, without explaining themselves. So: the template needs a link to the talk page where editors explain what's missing, or the template shall clearly tell the reader to replace it with a more specific template ASAP, so we cleaners can understand what it refers to. (I cannot see why Alice in Wonderland lacks citations, it has three sources, and they are linked in the articles). This template is used to litter Wikipedia. It should be used with care. If it wasn't protected, it would be added to my list Category:Templates needing talk links and other improvements. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the {{editprotected}} because the request does not consider the considerable discussion on this topic. Which I will discus shortly. Jeepday (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what has to be explained about "This article does not cite any references or sources." If the article has any sources at all, this template should be removed and (if necessary) replaced with "refimprove", "primarysources", or line-by-line citation requests. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• • And unless I'm missing something, this template isn't on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct, this template is not on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland it has {{refimprove}}Jeepday (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rursus I hear your frustration but you have not researched the issue, discussed it, or looked for consensus before embarking on a crusade to modify the work of multiple editors. From a long history Template_talk:Unreferenced#Template usage no references and undereferenced and Template_talk:Unreferenced#"Adequately" in the text of discussion back and forth, and changes in usage of this template for Does not cite ANY reference and is poorly or not adequately referenced. lead to the diversion of into two templates {{unreferenced}} for articles without ANY references and {{refimprove}} for articles that are poorly sourced. Multiple projects are underway to address these article including Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles which sprung from this talk page (Template_talk:Unreferenced/Archive_2#Project_Proposal). The article Alice's Adventures in Wonderland that you using as your example is tagged with {{refimprove}} because it has some references (2 listed, plus 5 inline citation notes, and numerous external links). Compare the references and citations of any Wikipedia:Featured articles to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and you can see that there is a long way for this article to go, the topic is clearly a candidate for Wikipedia:Featured articles but needs multiple improvements. Back to your comment about this template {{unreferenced}} please explain how it could be any clearler by adding a note to the talk page. If {{unreferenced}} is on an article with 'No References what else is there to say? If it is on an article with references then it should be replaced as noted on Template:Unreferenced or removed. No References at all equals {{unreferenced}} there is nothing else to say in the comments. Jeepday (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph ignores the actual use of the template. The template is used all over the place and it's wishful thinking to hope that people will (a) only apply it to articles with no references, and (b) will remove it once there is a single solitary reference added. The word "any" needs to be changed to reflect the way this template is actually being used (and will continue to be used forever). Tempshill 04:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's a reason for that which will gradually heal itself. The change to have a clear dividing line between templates for "no references" and templates for "insufficient references" was relatively recent, so there is a large backlog in changing one to the other where appropriate. Change takes time, don't undo the changes because they don't immediately work. GDallimore (Talk) 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all: pardon for using {{editprotected}} without seeking consensus. I didn't know that was the rule (need not be formal to be respected). I'm sorry for speaking harshly. Alice's was just one example, which maybe is fixed now, but at least Stargate SG-1 and Plain text files have irritated me the same way, and maybe they're fixed too, by now, but consider the problem: I'm a fixupper, that try to edit and restructure the articles to be readable, then flowing, then delectable. Stargate has just a few possible sources: the films and movies, and the authors. Plain text files is a basic knowledge for which there is no written definition – there simply aren't sources that are good enough to be used according to primary source, first since the word is too new to be researched by linguists, secondly since the sources must be online dictionaries that are by nature tertiary sources – the word was used by technicians, then written into a tech-book, then snapped into the dictionary. If templates are to be dropped on a page, there must be some kind of adaption to the topic in question. That motivates

Category:Templates needing talk links and other improvements and that motivates my broad "raid" against templates. Now, after getting this attention, I'll calm down a bit and join one or many of these projects. Thanks for your attention! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Age of unreferenced

The discusion is continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that in part suggests the use of the Wikitionary tag {{rfv}} to be used on new unreferenced articles (newer then January 1, 2007) which reads

The rationale being at some point Wikipedia needs to start enforcing WP:V and WP:OR currently the rebuttal's center on encouraging use of references without actually removing unreferenced material. Jeepday (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The discusion is continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification

Icon

I have removed the icon Bdesham added. It served no purpose and made the template quite large. Picaroon (t) 22:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Garion96 (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reinstated the image, but with formatting so that the template is exactly the same size as before. Sorry for screwing it up before! :-/ --bdesham ★ 06:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Even so it still draws unnecessary attention, even more so that its getting already. Do we really want to draw attention to the fact that most of this encyclopedia is unreferenced? T Rex | talk 11:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. It really is not necessary. See also this talk page for many times an image has been proposed. Garion96 (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that nearly all of the other cleanup templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup have icons, I just feel that we should add an icon to this template in the name of consistency. All of those templates are also drawing "unnecessary attention", but if cleanup templates were unobtrusive then their purpose would be defeated. Finally, usability studies have shown again and again that icons are important visual cues, and we want our editors to be able to identify one template from another as easily as possible, in the interest of having the problems fixed as quickly as possible. --bdesham ★ 16:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As the use of icons has been extensively discussed at on this template and has not had discussion or consensuses at most (if not all) of the other reference related clean up tags, in the name of consistency maybe they should all be removed. If you want users to be able to tell one template from another then the icons would need to be different, ideally you would also seek consensuses in the community. Here we have clear consensuses that reference related templates do not need icons as the text of the template must be read to define the intent. As bdesham as pointed out all other templates in Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup have icons so we have consistency in that only reference related templates do not. Summary we have consistency and consensus that reference related templates do not have icons. Jeepday (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup#Use of icons. Please post there and not here. --bdesham ★ 18:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This template is a self-reference.

In the doc page it is written

This template is a self-reference.

what does this mean? -- AnyFile 09:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A while back, someone confused about the "avoid self-references" guideline misguidedly added that statement to numerous templates. We really should have a bot remove it. —David Levy 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It means that it is text on Wikipedia that talks about Wikipedia. If we ever print a copy of Wikipedia, such templates should be silently removed. --Alvestrand 22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit

{{editprotected}} Please add {{subst:tfd}} to the template. Genokutos 20:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Malcolm (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You may remove it again; it was speedily closed as Keep. — Edokter • Talk • 00:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to change "any" to "sufficient"

This article does not cite any references or sources.

We need to change this template's use of "any references" to "sufficient references". The template is automatically made a lie once a single source is added. It is wishful thinking that the template will only be used on articles that have no references. The use of the term "sufficient" will fix the problem. It begs the question, "What is 'sufficient'?", but this is a lesser problem than the problem of factual accuracy that the current template has. Tempshill 04:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note #Adequate to Any Jidanni 04:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are other templates for insufficient sources. When a source is added, this one can be swapped for one of those. GDallimore (Talk) 07:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that this is not happening. Here's an idea - how about if someone were to write a bot to scan all the articles with this template, and if a single single-bracket link exists, then we convert the Unreferenced template to one of the others? If this can't be done then IMO we need to modify this template. Tempshill 17:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do write that bot. It won't cover every instance, because the article could have sources listed but no external links, but I would be interested in just a count of the articles that are marked unreferenced but have an external link. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I lack the skill to write that bot. I'll place a plea on Village Pump's Technical post. That would resolve my (at least) problem with this template. Tempshill 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) A request for a bot to replace {{unref}} as described above has been made at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Template:Unreferenced_bot_request. I encourage watchers of this template to take a look and comment as you feel appropriate.