Template talk:No source

Request
I want to nominate this redirect for RFD. May you please add {{subst:rfd}} around the content then? George Ho (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Just in case:. George Ho (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- John of Reading (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Namespace-specificity
The outcome of the RfD discussion was that this template should transclude as Di-no source in the file namespace and as Citation needed in articles. But what should its behaviour be in other namespaces? I've set it up so that it will transclude Citation needed everywhere but on files. This is because article text (which may contain this template) can generally be found all over the place: in drafts or user sandboxes, quoted in discussions or copied for reworking on article talk pages. If anyone has any thoughts, now is a good time to share them. Pinging participants in the discussion:, , , , , , , ,.

Also noting the template outputs somewhat cluttered wikicode when substed, which might be relevant for editors who subst their cns for automatic filling in of the date parameter. I hope this isn't going to be a frequent occurrence. – Uanfala 22:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I, for one, think your setup is good; we don't need Di-no source in other namespaces, but Fact is useful in multiple places. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good call. I wouldn't worry about the subst: we could simply replace the template where-ever it is used. I think we could probably code the clutter away too.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC).


 * I don't know. The Template:source is deprecated because it refers to multiple templates. I think if the name of this template refers to more than two templates, then I would favor deprecating (De-bolded. George Ho (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)) this template and turn it into an error message. --George Ho (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that the RFD just closed as "disambiguate", this seems like a highly unlikely outcome. Primefac (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, then no objections to the dabpage and namespace-specific. --George Ho (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC); modified, 21:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the one-namespace-exception is good; citation needed is acceptable for every namespace except File. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)