Template:Unreliable source?/doc

Usage
This template is intended to be used when a statement is sourced but it is questionable whether the source used is reliable for supporting the statement. It produces a superscripted notation like the following:
 * It was actually written by Francis Bacon.[9]

Articles tagged with this template will be categorized into Category:All articles lacking reliable references.

Place this template inline, following the questionable source. The template should be placed to the questionable source, within the article's text:
 * Potentially controversial statement. Next sentence.

Parameters
The template has the following optional parameters:
 * date: should be set to the month and year when the article was tagged. Example:
 * reason: a note explaining why you think the source is unreliable as per WP:RS. Displays as a tool tip. Keep it short (one sentence) as longer material belongs on the talk page. It is good to reiterate the reason in your edit summary. Example:
 * sure or certain: if set to "y" or "yes" will remove the question mark from the template's output to denote a degree of certainty that the source is unreliable. Please use this with a reason parameter, and only after a good faith attempt to verify the reliability of the source in question. Example: NOTE: This parameter has an alias, failed, which may make more grammatical sense when used with certain redirects like.

When to use and not use this template
This template should be used to express your doubt about the credibility of a source.

This tag should not be used on unreliably sourced contentious statements about living persons; if a source for such a statement is not reliable, the statement and the source should be.

For whole articles or article sections that rely on suspect sources, considering using the banner template or, respectively, rather than individually tagging a large number of statements.

For sources promoting fringe theories and pseudo-science, the more specific template can be used. Even more specifically, flag improperly sourced medical claims with.

This tag should not be used to indicate that the sourced material could not be found within a given source. In that case, is a better template. For statements that have failed verification have a questionable would-be source, consider removal of the source (and possibly the statement) over using both tags.

TemplateData
{	"params": { "reason": { "label": "Reason", "description": "Note explaining why you think the source is unreliable as per WP:RS. Displays as a tool tip", "type": "string" },		"certain": { "aliases": [ "sure", "failed" ],			"label": "Certain?", "description": "If set to \"y\" or \"yes\" will remove the question mark from the template's output to denote a degree of certainty that the source is unreliable", "type": "boolean", "default": "no", "example": "yes" },		"date": { "label": "Month and year", "description": "Month and year of tagging; e.g., 'January 2013', but not 'jan13'", "type": "string", "autovalue": " ", "suggested": true },		"name": { "type": "string", "label": "Displayed tag text", "description": "Text displayed by the in-line tag between the square brackets", "default": "unreliable source?" }	},	"description": "Used when a statement is sourced but it is questionable whether the source used is reliable for supporting the statement.", "format": "inline" }

Inline templates

 * , an alternative to ; especially useful for tagging sources that are low-quality but not necessarily wrong
 * , for questionable claims that seem unlikely to be properly sourceable
 * , for when a source has been surpassed by more recent works
 * , for misuse of primary source material
 * , for fringe sources
 * , for fringe medical sources in particular

Lists of templates

 * Template index/Cleanup/Verifiability and sources
 * Template index/Sources of articles

Policies, guidelines, essays, and WikiProjects

 * Citing sources, especially &sect;&thinsp;Unsourced material
 * Independent sources
 * Reliable sources
 * Verifiability
 * WikiProject Reliability