Template talk:More citations needed section/Archive 1

Is it time to add an icon?
A conversation has been started at Template talk:Unreferenced#Is it time to add an icon? to consider adding an icon to the unreferenced family of templates, including this template. Jeepday (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say so, concerning this Template in specific--Image:Question_book-3.svg is already standardized for other Templates for Reference/Source Concerns and I recommend it be included this Template at size=40px, unless a better solution is adopted (see also Template talk:Unreferenced). - B. C. Schmerker (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference density
See Template talk:Refimprove.--Kozuch (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mixed wording
The opening sentence of the tag refers to this section but the blue link on the lower line says "this article". I do not know how to edit templates yet. Apologies for cross-posting this on two talk pages. Thanks in advance to anyone who can fix this. EatYerGreens (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It should say 'Please help improve this section...', not 'Please help improve this article...'. 86.29.64.45 (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Calmer version?
I feel the template is too bold on the page, which makes me want to avoid using it. Something more discreet might be less distressing to the original editor who wrote unreferenced material, and less likely to to convince a reader that the section is useless. Here's a possible redesign: How about it? Easchiff(talk) 09:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge to refimprove
There's no need for this to be maintained separately from refimprove. Requesting sync with the new sandbox to unify this with the parent template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there consensus for this change? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sandbox does not work. You can't use optional parameters like that. --- RockMFR 17:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Test cases. Re-requesting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support — I support in general the consolidation of related templates and use of parameters to implement specific template functions. However, there are arguments for retaining this template, which might be able to be addressed by  revisions.  For instance, the template currently places articles in the hidden category Category:All articles needing additional references and a related dated category.  My feeling is that it would be useful to have a category dedicated to articles with sections needing citation improvement; I think that editors with limited time would be more prone to pick up as an improvement task a section needing citation improvement in preference to an entire article needing citation improvement.  If this feature can be built into the parameterized , good, but it might be easier to initially use the present template as a test case to see whether the re-categorization has a positive impact on editor behavior. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In the last years the opposite philosophy was used. We have section specific templates for many occations. For example Unreferenced section. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

talk parameter
The template Refimprove allows a talk parameter, so this also needs to be passed across. I have modified the sandbox version ready for deployment (and updated the doc and testcases). This is a non-controversial change, so I will request deployment in a day or two. HairyWombat 19:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected Later. Please deploy the version in the sandbox. The modification is non-controversial. HairyWombat 17:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Smaller version?
Is there any support among editors watching this talk page for making this template smaller, i.e. following the example of the form factor used with (as seen above)? I think it makes a lot of sense. 67.101.6.85 (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus(talk) 02:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Ref improve section → Template:Refimprove section – Consistency. This template calls Refimprove, it's essentially just a redirect to that template (see TfD discussion) and renaming to Refimprove section, which currently redirects here, provides consistency with the main template. This is really a minor move and would have no detrimental effects on the template or any articles using it. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support:It appears that there is no objections and for consistency I agree. Otr500 (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Layout problems
I've requested a fix for some layout problems at Template talk:Refimprove. -84user (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent Format
Please edit this template to make it consistent with all other section and article templates. Specifically, make it centered, full height, full width, and with a font size consistent with e.g. refimprove (and virtually everything else). --JAC4 (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks great now! --JAC4 (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 30 May 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the template at this time, per the discussion below. Moving would increase consistency, but with the redirect created and this not being an outward-facing part of the encyclopedia, it seems that there is little support for making the change at this time. Dekimasu よ! 02:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Refimprove section → Template:More citations needed section – Per move of main template &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as overlong and ridiculous. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 02:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unnecessary and completely useless complicating of name. Templates are in-house stuff and need not adhere strictly to naming convention used for articles. We don't even need the new name for redirect because it is obvious nobody will use longer template name while shorter one exists. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone did &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's one-off time, compared to hundred of thousands time refimprove has been used over a decade. I am still also waiting for the benefit of this change. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency since you can just add “section” after the name of the original template, More citations needed. It’s probably not going to happen, though, so I’ve created the redirect. Inter qwark talk  contribs 16:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.