Template talk:More citations needed/Archive 1

Protection request
I feel this template should be protected from edits by non-registered or newly registered users. Does anyone else agree? --Anthony5429 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I Agree, Protect it from edits by non-registered or newly registered users. Jeepday (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Articles lacking sources
I am probably going to be sorry I brought this up,(deep breath) ok, here goes. It would seem kind of pointless to use unreferenced for article with absolutely no references and More sources or Refimprove for those that are poorly sourced if they all place article in the same category. As it happens Refimprove puts articles into Category:Articles lacking reliable references, so perhaps Category:Articles lacking sources should be limited to unreferenced and everything else like primarysources should go to Category:Articles lacking reliable references.
 * Above is posted to Category_talk:Articles_lacking_sources please go there for central discussion. Jeepday (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Too many templates!!!
There are too many of the templates for articles needing references! Especially for new/casual editors!!! Yuletide 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone does different things, just learn the ones you related to what you do. Jeepday (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually think there's not enough templates.. This one seems to make editors think it means they should add additional citations to a single already cited statement to improve it's verifiability.. I have never seen a template yet that adequately and specifically deal with an article that's lacking, but not completely absent of, sourced statements. It's really irritating to see an article that has only two or three sourced statements and not being able to explain the actual problem.. Repku 22:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite. We used to have {{Fewreferences}} and {{More sources}}, but the template police got them.  One source is still out there (though I suspect not for long now that I've pointed it out).  It's frustrating to not be permitted to tag such extremely common and dissimilar problems like too much reliance on too few sources, most (but not all) of the article being unreferenced, referenced statements not appearing in their sources, or referencing to unreliable sources with anything more specific or helpful than "not good enough". &mdash;Cryptic 23:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect, after speedy close of TfD
Apparently there was a TfD for Section specific maintenance templates to merge and redirect 9 section templates to the article templates. I happened to catch it when they changed the text of refimprove. I reverted the change  before I realized there was a TfD because the change was done with out any discussion. I have started a discussion at Template_talk:Unreferenced Jeepday (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Different format
Many people are using the template (which redirects to this template) in the following way:. However, because the syntax used in this template is different, we're getting a large amount of articles being tagged incorrectly &mdash; just  take a look at this category for proof.

Could the syntax in this template be changed so it matches other maintenance templates? -Panser Born-  (talk)  12:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This template should put articles into Category:Articles lacking reliable references, I would think that changing the syntax to make that work correctly would be a good move. I beleive what you are asking is to add syntax to allow editors to use as   which would make it rendor the catigoery correctly when this version of more sources is used. Jeepday (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Template clean up
Posted at TfD for clean up Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_16 result keep the merge more sources to refimprove Jeepday (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Too Many templates
I think that this template might be redundant. One of the reasons for deleting a template is because another template that serves the same purpose is more widely used - and that's exactly what is. Thoughts?-- daniel  folsom  12:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, this template is too vague and largely overlaps with an existing and commonly used template. Mathmo Talk 23:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Parameter usage is broken
... at least so far as I can tell; the first parameter seems to correctly identify either "article" or "section", but the "tagged since ..." line picks up the same parameter, reading "tagged since article", which is a little absurd. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, fixed now though. Rich Farmbrough, 18:18 20 September 2007 (GMT).

Is it time to add an icon?
A conversation has been started at Template talk:Unreferenced to consider adding an icon to the unreferenced family of templates, including this template. Jeepday (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Image or not, this needs colour and a border as seen at Article templates via using the type parameter. I tried adding it using the type parameter, but there seems to be an issue at Template:Ambox. -- Reaper  X  03:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, my cache wasn't cleared/bypassed. -- Reaper  X  03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto the problem and its fix for me. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Refimprove up for deletion
If you haven't seen already, this template is up for deletion at TfD. -- Reaper  X  01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add "See talk"
If this template had a "See Talk:whatever for details", then the person adding the template could say why it's there, and others could see why it's there and try to address these issues so that the template can be removed.

It's currently too vague. --Gronky 13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Added "talk" parameter. Rich Farmbrough, 19:03 20 September 2007 (GMT).


 * Thanks for reacting, but I think it's very unlikely that anyone will add it when it's just a parameter. This tag will continue to be used without any explanation for why it's there and no information for when it can be removed.  Could it be added to the default for a trial period and then discussed in the future if it causes problems? --Gronky 13:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Does a month of no reply mean "No"? --Gronky 02:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It could mean 'no', or it could mean no one noticed the old request. To the matter at hand: there are often cases where it is obvious why the tag was added, such as if there are no citations at all. Also, if this tag is used in conjunction with tags, then those  tags serve the purpose of specifying where citations are needed/requested. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Date display
I've added in the date (only) as per some other templates. Some find it useful, and on it's own it's not clutter. Rich Farmbrough, 12:56 25 September 2007 (GMT).

Editprotect Please replace as removed in this edit per editor note. Jeepday (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. It is of course useful to me when I am manually fixing up the many broken instances of these templates, because I get a visual clue where the problem lies. Rich Farmbrough, 10:20 4 October 2007 (GMT).

inline cites
This template used to indicate the value of inline citations connecting particular parts of an article to particular reference sources. It currently doesn't do this. Is there a template which can be used to specifically say, "This article lacks connections between the "references" listed and the material in the article, which inline citations would fix."? (sdsds - talk) 00:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the closest to what you're looking for is Citations missing. -- Satori Son 00:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * or citation style Jeepday (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, these were the ones I was looking for! Thank-you both! (sdsds - talk) 01:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Template placement
I want to take issue with this advice:
 * Unlike fact, Refimprove places a very conspicuous banner at the top of the article.

This is the same debate as that at template talk:unreferenced.

Place at the top of the article
Definitely want to not only get the editors attention but the readers attention with the fact that the article may be totally made up or spam or non-notable or whatever. It's notes like these that warn the casual researcher away from using articles with tabloid sentences and "construed" opinions. Basically, the article shouldn't be here in the first place but other editors (having been there themselves) want to give the originator a chance before consigning it to limbo. Student7 (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your argument is valid if an article has no citations whatsoever. If however, the article does have citations, requests for more citations would be more appropriate at the bottom. That is, requests for more citations are not as high-priority as requests to have at least some citations.


 * Also, the casual researcher better not rely entirely on Wikipedia content, whether cited or not. It can well happen that an article is thoroughly cited and then somebody changes something in the text, and as result it is inaccurate. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Place in the reference section

 * 1) It is a  maintenance template and I think such clutter should usually be on the talk page -- after all that is what talk pages are for -- but in this case it also has some important information that is useful for a reader. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) While I believe the placement (top of page or in references section) should ultimately remain a matter of editorial choice, I fully support its use in the references section as the default. Placing the banner at the top of the page might also be appropriate in some special circumstances. For instance, if some of the unreferenced claims are controversial, and the controversial template has been used on the corresponding discussion page, and no other banner appears at the top of the article, using refimprove there might be a good editorial choice. (sdsds - talk) 21:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I modified the text of the documentation saying that it should be placed at the bottom of the article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I watch a LOT of articles whose references seem to be the top of somebody's head! Probably correct but nobody's listing refenences. I think the reader needs to be clearly warned. In Kennedy Space Center, this six page article including many fine details has only two footnotes! Clearly putting this in "references" where the naive reader would not think to look, is a bit of a travesty. Active editors who insist on not using footnotes, of course don't like this blantant banner at the top and would like to conceal their failure to properly document. We need some help here. One of the offending editors just tried to move the notice to references quoting this page. Amazing how they can find supporting references for whatever they are doing (wrong) readily enought within Wikipedia! Student7 (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are right here, however refimprove gets often abused, and placing it on top is distracting. I would suggest you place fact in places which strike you as needing most references. I am doubtful how much a banner at the top would motivate people. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for just now chiming in, but I only recently became aware of this. While I still disagree, I understand moving the tag to the ref section if there are numerous tags at the top already, however, how many average readers actually go down to the ref section to check the article's validity? Also, Oleg Alexandrov, I'm far from being an expert on here, so maybe I'm wrong, but I feel that you shouldn't have changed the guideline wording on such a heavily used tag based on the opinions of yourself and two others. In other words, I think that the part on the main page saying it's suggested this template be placed in the ref section should be removed.--Flash176 (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've informed Oleg that I responded here and if no one else is going to respond to this or offer a good reason to keep it this way without a consensus being reached, I'll remove the wording in question tomorrow.--Flash176 (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't think we had reached a consensus so that the wording would be changed. Of course, the "offending" editors will just ignore it (as they did when they wrote the article) if it is relegated to the (non-existent) references. At the top, the reader would be warned away from the article which may just be top of the head stuff from one editor. It's not gospel. If it is, it can be quickly footnoted and the refimprove removed. Student7 (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Place on the talk page
I think the editorial comments, cleanup, refimprove and the citation-related editorial comments, belong on the talk page. These bulky tags clutter up a lot of pages and detract from its readability. Furthermore, they have nothing to with the subject matter. Also, in my opinion putting them on the content page violates the wiki spirit which is to contribute content. If a user wants to see more "cleanup" in an article they should contribute and do it themselves instead of whining about it and cluttering up the page with their anonymous whine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.107.194 (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Citations
Please change citations back to references or sources in the template. Refimprove is placed on articles that need references per Verifiability an official policy. Citation style is placed on articles that could use citations per Citing sources a style guideline. Jeepday (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "This article needs additional citations for verification " so your concern is addressed in the second link "for verification". So it current reads: use a guideline (a citation) for a policy (verification). --Philip Baird Shearer 09:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The previous version was:
 * The article needs additional references or sources for verification.
 * I replaced it with:
 * This article needs additional citations for verification.
 * putting into the edit history "Fits in better with Template:unreferenced as well as with template:Fact and Verifiability". My other reason for this change was that the link under "references or sources" was already to "Citing sources" not to Reliable sources. I think it better that the word citation appears in the text if the guideline to be used is WP:CITE and not WP:RS.


 * There is a broader issue. Is simply putting references in a reference section still the best way to fulfil the content policies or have we not accepted that an article ought to cite its sources as well? I think the general consensus over the last year has moved from "No references bad, some references good" to "no cited references bad, cited references good". As such this template ought to reflect that consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you feel a link to WP:RS is better then a link WP:CITE I am fine with that if you think it will help editors more then CITE will to reference their contributions. The point is that this template is for articles that need additional references (see the many talks about Any or Adequately at Template talk:Unreferenced).  unref is for article with no references.  While it would be nice if the articles that refimprove where placed on had inline citations as well, the articles need to have references or risk deletion of content.  I believe that references or sources was chosen for because it describes both the rationale for using references and the most acceptable way to post them.  Currently content may be deleted if it is not referenced but but is generally not subject to removal if there is not inline citations.  Reference = Content Policy while Citation = style guideline.


 * I am in full agreement that inline references are the best solution to referencing. Take a look at Road for some of my rework.  But unref and refimprove are not about style they are about core content policy and verifiability.   Jeepday (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by inline references, but I assume you mean footnotes via references tags, however WP:CITE also includes Harvard referencing. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Footnotes via reference tags. Harvard references at the end of a paragraph are ok until someone comes and edits the paragraph without using the listed source.
 * Why do you think that Harvard references can not be used on any sentence just as reference tags are? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not saying they can't. But usually I see them used at the end of a section or article.  Jeepday (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeepday (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles do not have to have references that is not part of Wikipedia policies. Personally I do not think that there is any point including references unless they are cited. Also thinking about it it may not be as you say "this template is for articles that need additional references" it can also be used for articles that do not need more references but do need more citations from the references that already exist (the person adding this template presumably does not know which). I suggest we wait before altering the template again and see what others think. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am confused on why you think having references is not part of Wikipedia policy. Could you point to what policy you think it that supports articles without references? Jeepday (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The policies only say in WP:V "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." but although the same policy says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources..." It does not say that the references have to be provided on the page. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:PROVEIT The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Does the last sentence here need to be written as The source should be cited clearly and precisely in the article to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." to remove any doubt about reference placement? Jeepday (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The text you have highlighted is conditional on the previous sentence. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" so if the text has no quotations or any material likely to be challenged then references are not mandated. If it does contain "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" then citations should be provided so I think the current the wording of this template better supports the policy with "This article needs additional citations for verification." rather than the previous wording "This article needs additional references or sources for verification". --Philip Baird Shearer 06:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would qualify placing a request for references on the article as a challenge to the authenticity of the article and a request for reference, would you? As the template requested references until you changed it then every article it was placed on would have been challenged and reference requested. First you argued that policy did not require references "Articles do not have to have references that is not part of Wikipedia policies" now you are saying only quotes and challenged content must be referenced "so if the text has no quotations or any material likely to be challenged then references are not mandated". So please define what qualifies as a challenge according to policy in your view. Jeepday (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What constitutes reasonable grounds for a challenge is beyond the scope of this template, that is something to raise on the WP:V policy talk page. However If one is raising a challenge to the content it has to be specific enough for there to be a chance to add  "reliable, published source using an inline citation", that rules out just challenging all of the content and asking for references in a reference section of an article.  BTW my position on this had not changed which is the reason for my change of words which you are objecting to. The previous version was:
 * The article needs additional references or sources for verification.
 * I replaced it with:
 * This article needs additional citations for verification.
 * Which is a better fit for the section of WP:V that can be viewed by via WP:PROVEIT we have been discussing. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You argue in circles. If you feel it the template must use the word "citation" how about "This article does not adequately cite its references or sources" which is was the what it was intended to say when it was built to end the "Any" vs "Adequately" argument at unreferenced and is nearly copy and paste of the current unreferenced "This article does not cite any references or sources" Jeepday (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the current wording is better because it is an imperative not an observation. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please fix error
In the sentence "Please help this article by..." is supposed to read "Please help improve this article by..." but there is a character (vertical bar) missing so the wiki-link is broken and the word "archive" is not shown. Please fix this by adding the vertical in. Also: I think that it would be appropriate to add a link to the article Talk page to encourage the editor who adds this template to an article to explain the specific problems because it otherwise leaves a heavy burden on editors of large articles to figure out what the complaint is about.--Moneyhabit 07:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have put a space in front of the word "improve", but I am not sure what you mean by "but there is a character (vertical bar) missing so the wiki-link is broken and the word "archive" is not shown". --Philip Baird Shearer 09:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake: that action=edit thing requires a full URL, not a wiki-link so it is a space, not a vertical bar to separate the link from the label. I was thinking about how some templates like "Mergeto" have a handy pointer to the article talk page, but maybe it is not easy to provide such a link in this case.--Moneyhabit 10:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

minor fix
editprotected Please insert a space between the word removed and the date. Currently, the final sentence reads like this in articles with a  variable: "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(October 2007)". Other such templates have the space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esrever (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 October 2007


 * Done. &mdash;Cryptic 22:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Esrever 01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The talk parameter
The talk parameter should link to a specific section of the talk page rather than to the talk page as a whole. Right now, if you click on the link that the talk parameter generates you can end up on a page with a long list of discussions, in which case it is not clear whether the issue still exists, whether it's still being discussed, if so, where, etc. Shinobu (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)