Template talk:Better source needed

Nomination for deletion of Template:Better source
Template:Better source has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Sorry, but I think that this template breaks up the text with often unreasonable requests to replace primary sources. The proper way to address such problems is to name the primary source in the text and describe what it says accurately. Wnt (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If the requests are "often unreasonable" and cluttering the text, then remove the "unreasonable" requests that someone have requested and add a Template:Primary sources instead! Nobody is going to comprehend a single [primary?]! "Primary" what?! I restored the template text as it was before the deletion discussion that occurred here. Nobody is agreeing to that proposal therein to the change of the text to the unexplicable "primary?", but I object. A text cluttered with  contains a lot of [citations needed], and that's how it is. If there are to many, then some template applying to a whole section or the entire article be considered as a replacement. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3  !) 21:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

2015 followup: Well, "to name the primary source in the text and describe what it says accurately" is way to approach use of primary sources on WP, but many uses of them are inappropriate. WP:NOR and WP:RS warn about this specifically. That said, these days there is a more specific template than this vague one, for that particular issue:. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Made reason parameter display as tooltip
I changed the template such that it should now display the reason parameter as a tooltip if one was provided. It may take a couple days for the servers to catch-up (cache-up?). See Template_talk:Primary_source-inline for more information. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This breaks when double quotes are in the reason parameter. It truncates the text at the first double quote.Websurfer2 (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Redundancy discussion
The redundancy of the template is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion affecting the wording of template documentation
An editor has suggested that the following wording be considered as an addition to the documentation:
 * "Don't use this if you suspect believe that no reliable sources exist for the material; delete the material instead (or tag it as completely unreferenced using ). This template is intended for use when you do not personally have access to a reliable source, but you reasonably believe one might exist"

or something along those lines, see Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Herostratus (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Suspicions should not influence which tag to use. Debresser (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, sorry, I mean to replace "suspicion" with "belief" and I made the change above. I think it's one thing to say "I personally don't have a good ref for this right now" and quite another to say "Although you never know, I bet no good ref exists or ever will". Herostratus (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a difference between "suspicion" and "belief" in this regard, and I oppose that version for the same reason and with the same force. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is this used in the body of the text instead of at the reference?
This template is used in the body of the text, immediately following the ref marker. Instead, it ought to be in the References section, immediately following the ref itself. That is, rather than this:

we ought to do it like this IMO:

It really impinges on the flow of the text to put it in the body of the article. "Citation needed" does too, but "citation needed" has to go in the body of the text (there's no ref in the References section to attach it to), and it alerts a reader to a serious problem with the statement.

"Better source needed" can attach to the ref in the References section. The problem, while serious, is not as bad as having no source whatsoever. And most of all, if the reader is not going to check the source (which the greatly overwhelming majority of readers don't for any given ref), she doesn't need to know any details about it. If and when she decides to check the source, then she will see that she should is advised to maybe treat the source with especial skepticism. Herostratus (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello? Comments? Objections? Thoughts? Herostratus (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK then, no objections registered, and since other people have mentioned this problem before (above), I went ahead and made this change, subject of course to rollback and discussion. Herostratus (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it was where it was so that people immediately see it. People don't check the References section as much. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish, any thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's used in the body because poor sourcing is something that needs to get fixed, and promptly, not hidden for a decade. We even have two templates in some cases, for flagging a sourcing problem (e.g.  when a WP:SPS cannot be used for the claim it's been cited for) and something similar that's not a problem (e.g., for something that qualifies under WP:ABOUTSELF or another WP:SPS use that's actually permissible in policy, but for which secondary sourcing would ultimately be better).  There isn't any reason that  couldn't also be used inside a ref tag, for a source that is technically "good enough" per WP:V but which isn't ideal, versus a source that really just is not good enough at all (most often for WP:AEIS reasons, using a primary or tertiary source for something that policy requires to have secondary sourcing).  My overall impression is that this template exists for cases of WP:V's principle that something must be source but not necessarily properly sourc yet if the claim isn't controversial.  Thus, we might want to temporarily permit something that technically doesn't comply with AEIS policy if we think that this can and will be promptly fixed – by tagging it inline in the article text, a form of dispute temlate.  And we might also permit primary sourcing for something that really should have a better source if it's almost certainly true and is not AEIS – a case for putting this template inside the ref tag, a form of cleanup template. Short version: Update the documentation to suggest that it can be used inside the ref tag when it is not flagging a sourcing  but just suggesting that a better (reliable secondary) source would be preferred, even if the primary, tertiary, or weak secondary source used isn't a policy violation. If a policy problem with the source is suspected, keep the template outside the ref tag. And categorize this template as both a dispute and a cleanup template.

"Template:BSN" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:BSN. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Robofish (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 April 2020
In the first sentence, change "This template is used in articles to inline citations which are to insufficiently reliable sources." to "This template is used in articles to identify inline citations that are insufficiently reliable sources." Whisperjanes (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Or change to "This template is used in articles for inline citations which are insufficiently reliable sources." Just change to any edit that corrects the grammar. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 September 2022
I have been using the usage templates to copy-paste after appropriate references within articles. Recently, I have noticed that AnomieBOT has had to go in and alter the date format of the tag. Can we update the copy-paste examples to align with what is expected? In one, the year is truncated to the last 2 digits- it should have all 4 numbers? The example below that needs to have the day added, unless it is not necessary for the tag to be day specific, then AnomieBOT needs to be revised. (Skoot13 (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC))
 * ✅ I have reverted a misguided change to the documentation. Thanks for finding this error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)