Template talk:Primary sources/Archive 3

This template is misleading
I think that this template is misleading and should not be used. It quotes a sentence out of context of a much more complicated rule. But the rule also says: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

An author may write an article and use a primary source "with care" according to the rule, and then somebody else comes and thoughtlessly just adds a template telling the readers that the article needs sources from reliable publications (understand: this article is not reliable).

I am against similar templates in general. Every article and every situation is different and thus should be discussed individually, no matter that spilling the templates all over the encyclopedia is much easier. The above mentioned rule also says: The decision as to whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. Nothing about scattering templates warning all readers (without giving any specific arguments) at the top of articles. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree: As per Jan.Kamenicek above. --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Television Shows
Ok - I think it gets a bit ridiculous to post this template over article about individual episodes of television shows such as The Simpsons or CSI: Miami. For individual shows of this nature, about the only "Secondary sources" available would be original research of fans, POV articles by critics, and only a very, very few research articles of the kind accepted as Secondary sources for certain niche communities (ie. Buffy studies). I propose that this template be flagged in such a way as to greatly discourage its use for individual episodes of TV shows (and as soon as I can figure out how to do it, I'll make my proposal through more public channels.

I would think that other episodes within the series, when they are linked to within an article via a navbox or the equivalent, would often (though not always) be more than enough to function as "secondary sources" for most simple "within the series" interpretations and changes - and if "No Original Research" is brought up here for very simple and straightforward interpretations across episodes: Why? --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Icon change request
editprotected Can you please replace the current image with Image:Question_book-new.svg. Thanks! TIM KLOSKE 04:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ PeterSymonds (talk)  08:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Date
Replace the template with:



Use "Show changes" to see what I have changed. Gary King ( talk ) 06:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)  09:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete ?
There's a lone  tag in the middle of the template, should that be removed? M blaine 1986 (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the note. – Rjd0060 (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wording misses the point?
I am thinking maybe the text of this template should be changed to something like "This article or section may rely too heavily on primary sources." An article can include plenty of references to many different independent sources, thus the current Primarysources template would hardly fit, and yet there still may be a question of whether the article is downplaying the secondary sources and overemphasizing primary ones. Perhaps this template could be split, with the current wording remaining for Reliablesources, and Primarysources being changed? PSWG1920 (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Styling tweaks
editprotected

I've started a sandbox which contains various tweaks to this template to bring it into line with similar tags without any change in meaning. Comments? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As there's been no response, requesting sync with the sandbox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stifle (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

editprotected

Further minor tweaking to stop the text from wrapping to three lines on 1280px width when the date is specified. Requesting sync again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

When should this template be used
In the template description I don't find any specific criteria, when this template should be use? And when for example a template:reference should be used? Could somebody explain? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This should be used when all or nearly all of an article's references are from primary sources - sources which either originate from the article's subject, or are affiliated with it. Unreferenced is for when an article doesn't include references at all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could you explain some more. I compared to situations:
 * Audi has a lot of reference to their own website, so these could be considered primary sources
 * Project management has only five (what seems to be unrelated) sources.
 * Now if I understand you correctly the Project management should have a Unreferenced tag. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds right. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Inline equivalent?
When faced with an article that has been written using mostly primary sources, the cleanup process entails checking each cited source to verify if it is primary or secondary. There should be a way of marking each citation as primary, secondary, or tertiary so that it is clear which need to be changed. Do we have templates or other tools for this?LeadSongDog come howl  16:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. If there's no opposition at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates, I'd be happy to write an inline equivalent for this; I can think of many times I'd have liked to use it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The case in point was Talk:Agaricus subrufescens, where we had extensive use of primary sources in an article that comes under WP:MEDRS. Once we flag the primary sourced assertions, each will have to be checked for a suitable secondary replacement. You get the drift. It's going to be a long haul.LeadSongDog come howl  22:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just discovered Primary source claim which was not listed in Template:Primary sources/doc. Seems rarely used, but it should be close enough for the purpose, though some tailoring might improve it.LeadSongDog come howl  13:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, perfect. Yeah, that needs categories added so that people can find it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Press releases are accepted?
editprotected The current wording of the template says: Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please change that sentence into: Primary sources, sources affiliated with the subject, and press releases are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Alexius08 (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we need to start summarizing what primary sources are. If we add press releases here, we could add a ton of other primary sources. Please try to establish a consensus for this change. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither do I. Debresser (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Should the word "reliable" link to WP:RS? HJMitchell   You rang?   00:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are multiple uses of "reliable" in the template and documentation, all of them appear to link to the correct templates. Could you be more precise?  If you're asking about linking to RS rather than Reliable Sources (last two words in template itself), linking to the actual page is preferred to linking to the shortcut.  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 07:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my suggestion is that "reliable" in the bold text (needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications) be linked to Reliable Sources, which would seem a better place for the link than the last two words and a more prominent link to a definition of "reliable" for newer editors. HJMitchell    You rang?   07:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I endorse that, kind of... wouldn't it be a bit redundant to link to WP:RS twice in one template? "Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources" Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 10:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My point (though better phrased). I'd like to see it phrased ""This needs references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources, or sources affiliated with the subject, are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations.""
 * How does that sound? HJMitchell    You rang?   11:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are saying that the citations aren't appropriate, rather than saying that we need more of them. (This ambiguity is in the current version as well.) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to say anything the template doesn't say already. I'm asking for a link to WP:RS to define "reliable" in the bold text, rather than at the end. Nothing more. HJMitchell    You rang?   13:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we leave off the last sentence completely? It seems superfluous. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Heymid, 18 April 2010
This article "needs" -> "need" references

Heymid (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your request. The grammar is proper the way it is.  "The article need references..." is improper.  --CapitalR (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the English language grammar: if there are more than 1 (one), it should be no "s" in the word (verb) before, like "need", and not "needs". If there is only one, it should be a "s", like "needs". Heymid (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In English, the verb plurality agrees with the subject, not the object. Hence "This article needs..." or "These articles need..." LeadSongDog come howl!  17:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

TfD: Religious text primary
The related template Religious text primary has been nominated for deletion. The template generates the more specific text: This article uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources.

Nomination was made on 2 December, so the deletion discussion will be open until Tuesday, December 7. Jheald (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, I've opened a discussion at WT:PSTS as to whether it might be a good idea to enhance this template, by adding an option to produce text along the lines of:


 * This article uses one or more primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources.


 * Centralised discussion I thought best to locate there, as being the policy discussion page, I thought likely to attract a larger number of participants. Jheald (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Primary sources ..."
The sentence "Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article." is not a proper reflection of WP policy, hence it should be broadcast across WP via a template. Str1977 (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand you. Please explain yourself. Debresser (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, again: the template claims that primary sources are generally not sufficient for a WP article. However, the relevant policy pages state that primary sources might be used, but with caution (i.e. for mere statement of facts, not for analysis etc.). The discrepancy should be corrected in favour of the policy. Str1977 (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly would you like it to read? I consider "generally not sufficient" and "used, but with caution" to have overlapping meanings. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 14:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think that these two things are the same, and that the present text is according to the policy. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I see the issue. The template would be clearer if it read "...not sufficient to establish notability for a Wikipedia article." In its present form, it implies that primary sources generally should not be used at all, a clearly incorrect implication. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is a bad idea. Notability is not the only reason we need references on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But so far as I can tell, WP:PSTS doesn't preclude using primary sources for the other purposes, merely ranks them as less reliable than secondary. While the case might be made (by a hardline deletionist, not me) that only secondary sources should be used, that is not what this tag is intended for. This tag is to say that an article requires at least one secondary source in order to establish the notability of that article's subject, as stated in the general notability guideline. Right now, the template doesn't convey that meaning clearly. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have always understood that this tag means to say precisely what it says, and not what you read into it. Debresser (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you haven't read Template:Primary sources/doc? It is for use on articles that have no reliable (e.g. secondary) sourcesLeadSongDog come howl!  06:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the documentation page did I see that. And I had another look especially for you. But even you agree that the word "notability" isn't mentioned there. Debresser (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No of course it doesn't mention notability. The WP:GNG does that. But Template:Primary sources/doc says "This template will categorize tagged articles into Category:Articles lacking reliable references." It also says "This template also has two optional fields. The first permits the user to specify whether the entire article or a specific section inappropriately relies solely on primary sources" (my emphasis). I think it is quite evident that means its intended use in marking articles is to make it clear that they are not based on reliable secondary sources. In turn, that means they do not meet the GNG. Am I missing something significant? LeadSongDog come howl!  16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are more reasons to ask for secondary sources than establishing notability alone. It seems to me you are reversing cause and effect relations here. Even the documentation page doesn't mention notability. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If an article doesn't establish notability it is subject to deletion. It is a sine qua non. Once it is established, yes there are other reasons for using, but  is no longer applicable as at least one secondary RS has been cited. LeadSongDog  come howl!  20:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article relies considerably even if not exclusively on primary sources, this template is still applicable. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. See my previous post. LeadSongDog come howl!  06:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which comes to show that even though the notability issue is non-existent in such a case, still this template is relevant. Ergo, no mention should be made of notability in this template. Debresser (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you said "No mention should be made of notability when this template is used with the section parameter" I might agree, but the basic usage (without parameters) should always mention it. Otherwise, the alternative is to tag the non-notable article with a prod template, which isn't really productive.LeadSongDog come howl!  13:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't seem to be able to understand each other, or to come to an agreement here. So far, there have been only two reactions from other editors, none too conclusive. Let's wait for some more reactions. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no real need to mention notability. Articles should always have secondary sources for a number of reasons, including independent verification of facts. The less an article relies on primary sources, the better. We should always prefer secondary sources, and where an article uses mostly primary sources we should attempt to remedy that. Flagging it for cleanup helps. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

JFTR, in the latest round of edits I think we also fixed the issue raised here - the vague phrase "generally not sufficient" was removed, and the "this article needs something other than primary sources" phrase was replaced with "this article relies on primary sources", so the intent of the policy should now be clearer. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Secondary does not mean third-party
The text for the template confuses "secondary" with "third-party" sources:

WP:Secondary does not mean independent. If you need Third-party sources, then you need third-party sources, not secondary sources written by someone who is closely connected to the subject. If you need secondary sources, then a third-party primary source is not sufficient.

I'm not sure how this template has been used, and therefore how much disruptive it might be to eliminate this non sequitur by merely correcting the first sentence to something like "This article relies too much on primary sources" or "This article may misuse primary sources". What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Whilst "secondary" and "third-party" sources are not the same thing, (i) the two categories tend to heavily overlap & (ii) both aspects are important (secondary, in order to ensure that the article contains discussion, evaluation, analysis and explanation, not simply recapitulation of primary source material, third-party in order to ensure that a balanced and NPOV treatment is given) and explicitly required by policy. I therefore think that it's not inappropriate that both aspects are covered in the tag (the alternative would be two tags, which would almost always be used in combination). That doesn't mean that some rewording might not help clarify things (but does mean that we don't want an essay on the topic in the tag). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rewording is best imo. It's always best to be as clear as possible to cause less things for misintrepretation on. I think the key is on the second sentence which makes the assumption that if you're not a third-party source, you're a primary source. 陣 内 Jinnai 18:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is that if you're going to emphasise secondary & independent versus primary & affiliated consistently, you've really got to do it right the way through. I tried, and ended up with a long-winded mess. The trouble appears to be the three sentence reiteration of the point (which makes bifurcating each iteration unwieldy). How about taking it down to only two reiterations:

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to simplify by simply omitting the independent/affiliated bits, but IMO this is a clear improvement over what we have now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we want to cite sources "being independent of the topic". "Off topic" citation do not belong in the article in the first place. So far the replacement suggestion seem to be (far) worse than the original (to me at least).--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Kmhkmh: "Third party"/"independent", is not the same thing as "off topic", and is clearly a very important part of Wikipedia policy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OR: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it."
 * WP:V: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
 * WP:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." where "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent."
 * I'm familar with the terms & guidelines, my point is, that your suggestion doesn't reflect them in an understandable manner to average readers. Your are looking for sources that were created independently from each other (by different people) or independent of the article's subject (if it is a selfdescribing entity such as a person, group, party, organization ...) but they are of course not independent of the article's topic/content otherwise they wouldn't even source it. The original term "third party" describes that imho much better, than the suggested imho rather awkward replacement.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "independent of the topic" ("topic"="article's subject" -- and if editors don't understand that, then they've really got no business editing articles) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You still haven't understood my point. I know what you mean and people knowing guidelines do, but average reader might not. And templates should be clear to them primarily and avoid ambiguities.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should illustrate the problem. When the article's subject is a person X and only uses information published by X himself (about him) then your construction works as you want a source independent from X which is both the article's subject and the author of the sources. If however the article is about a theory or body of work Y of person X, then you still want "third party" sources not being published by X. In that case however your text suggestion does not work, as it then reads you want sources being independent of Y (the topic) rather than X, which probably makes little sense to readers.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a lot simpler than that. You need to start with "what is the situation being tagged?", (which, in Wikipedia, is usually considered to be given given by the name of the template) and then the text (including the suggested remedy) has to be for that specific situation.  The current template is kind of mixed up on this.   The remedy for "only primary sources" is secondary sources, the remedy for "only too close/biased" sources" is independent sources.   North8000 ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk) 09:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Comment: it would seem that people don't like the current wording, don't like my tentative proposal, and don't want to suggest an alternative of their own. This would appear to result in a stalemate . HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would seem you are misreading "people". I for one dislike your proposal but i can live with the current wording. However North8000's suggestion seems to be the best solution currently. --Kmhkmh (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, how 'bout something like :


 * This article has largely or only primary sources. Primary sources are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add additional appropriate citations from secondary sources.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. If somebody wants to stress the independence/3rd party aspect instead, he should simply use 3rd party template instead. Or if both issues need to be addressed he can post noth templates.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The confusion potential seems to rest with the multiple meanings of "sources", conflating authors with their publications. What we want are secondary publications by authors who were not party to the primary work which they analyzed. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What about:
 * ":This article's sources come largely or solely from primary sources or sources closely linked to the primary source. These kinds of sources are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add additional appropriate citations from secondary sources that do not appear to be so closely tied with any of the article's primary sources."


 * There is no easy way to word that in a manner that does not assume someone is well versed in Wikipedia jargon. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that that has the inevitable problems of trying to combine statements of two different problems and remedies for two different problems. Plus a wording problem in the last sentence. (closely tied to sources?) North8000 (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd rather just wikilink the confusing:
 * "This article relies on references to primary works. Please cite secondary works that are written by independent authors."


 * LeadSongDog come howl!  22:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Very elegant. North8000 (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can certainly live with that -- very concise. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * works for me too. However I'd rather use sources than works in particular since the target link uses sources as well. I see no reason to introduce additional vocabulary here, which in a worst case scenario might just introduce a new source of confusion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even better, but both are fine. Let's do it. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * editprotected Please replace the text in the template with:

This article relies on references to primary sources. Please cite secondary sources that are written by independent authors.

(as discussed immediately above) LeadSongDog come howl!  13:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * LDS, you seem not to have read the template source, because the proposal omits the part relevant to BLP's. I tried to accomodate nevertheless - have a look. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, I overlooked the BLP case in the code. Thank you for catching that. However, the intended insertion was quite different from what your version produces. We were looking for the non-BLP, non-biography article usecase to say:

"This article relies on references to primary sources. Please cite secondary sources that are written by independent authors."


 * Instead, what it is saying is


 * Thank you LeadSongDog come howl!  20:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So, er, why do you want to remove the explicit mention of sources affiliated with the subject in the non-BLP case? Surely it's a legitimate issue to warn against in either case? Also, I think placing two different links at two adjacent words is not a good idea - spacing them out makes it clearer that those are two separate issues that are being linked. Now that I checked the proposal more thoroughly, I see that "wp:Independent" links to a couple of essays with mutual merge tags on them - Third-party sources and Independent sources - that should probably be cleaned up before getting linked from a cleanup template, heh. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree: that change fails to solve the problem, and it's also redundant with third-party sources.  We are not trying to make this template address every possible sourcing problem, in BLPs or any other article.  We're trying to make this template be useful and non-confusing for one specific problem—the problem indicated by its name.
 * I believe that to solve the problem in accordance with the consensus here, the code ought to be changed to this:
 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, I'm not going to link an essay with a cleanup tag on it from a cleanup template - you can try to persuade another admin to do that, but I doubt that will succeed. Sorry to be so blunt :) Secondly, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY both point to the same policy section, so we have that covered already. I now simply removed the notion of third-party as well as independent, because it doesn't seem to contribute anything other than a nit to pick on. AFAICT the only remaining semantic issue is whether we need to expand the phrase "reliable sources" into "reliable secondary sources" or similar. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...just to clarify: I didn't do that because that may create the impression we want to preclude all primary and all tertiary sources, which doesn't really match the text of the relevant WP:IRS guideline. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, in smaller words: You need to remove the completely irrelevant bit about "sources affiliated with the subject".  Sources affiliated with the subject might be secondary or tertiary sources.  This template is about over-reliance on primary sources.  WP:Secondary does not mean independent.  This template is not about over-reliance on non-independent sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 23597 transclusions and the sources affiliated with the subject have been mentioned in the template since 2005. Sorry, I'm not removing them just because you seem to have some sort of an idea that a cleanup template's content must not deviate from its name even for a little bit. Usage of sources affiliated with the subject might as well by now be the primary reason why people tag articles with this, and most of them could indeed also be primary sources, so bluntly removing them now seems like a needless change to me. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We should probably slow down and be decided and absolutely clear before any next proposed edit. But I agree with  WhatamIdoing,  It should be clear what the tag is for (in this case its name) and the wording should be consistent with that.  In this case it doesn't just deviate, it somewhat conflicts.   North8000 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How does it conflict? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * edit request disabled, since still under discussion. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * edit request disabled, since still under discussion. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So here is the actual template:

I got confused; so now I have to dial back my "somewhat conflicts" statement. I think that the main challenge is that it refers to two different situations, and has a remedy which is very vague, as it must be when referring to two different situations. Other items are that it implies that primary and affiliated sources are not wp:rs's, a statement which is often but not always true. Also, the "affiliated" text is not consistent with the template name. IMHO it should be about it's name it's name (too reliant on primary sources) and the remedy for that (more secondary sources) Sincerely, North8000 (talk)
 * The situations may be different but in practice they may easily overlap - for example a record label website about an album they published or a band they represent is both a primary source and a source affiliated with the subject - it's not an unreliable source per se but it's not... sufficient for a Wikipedia article :) If the article relies on that, it warrants this cleanup tag. The implication that all primary sources are not "reliable" as such is superficial - if the reader has any qualms about what we mean by that, the link to the explanation is right there, and it clarifies these nuances. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right on all counts.  I guess it boils down whether to have the same template cover the 2 (often-overlapping)  situations or have two. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, what has happened now? I thought the suggested solution above was clear, but now we seem to have started to discuss the same thing all over again. Yes there are situations that overlap, but what's the problem of adding 2 templates in such a case?

scenario 1: problem A - use template A in the article problem B - use template B inthe article problem C (A and B overlap) - use template A and template B in the article

Everything is dandy, all situations are covered.

But you cannot have: scenario 2 problem C - use template C in the article problem B - use template B in the article

Because in that case there is no template for problem A, so if yu want to use 2 templates only you need to use first scenario to have everything covered or alternatively you work with 3 templates (one for each problem), i.e. adding one more template (A) to the second the scenario.

Now the in my understanding the whole discussion was originally triggered by noticing that we currently have the second scenario, so to fix that we either switch to the first scenario (2 templates, essentially North8000's suggestion further up) or add another template. But what we cannot do is simply look for a sightly different wording for template C (different text for the overlap scenario), because than problem A has no appropriate template (in the case it is the article's only issue).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S.: In case it was not clear to everybody A stands for lack of secondary sources and B for lack of independent/third party sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, but just trying to gel something out of this: how 'bout 2 templates (these, or use these as a working draft):

Template: primary sources

This article relies on references that appear mainly in primary sources; such is generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add additional appropriate references to secondary sources.

Template: affiliated sources

This article relies on references that appear mainly in sources affiliated with the subject; such is generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add additional appropriate references to reliable sources which are independent of the subject.

I believe nearly all current uses of the template include cases of primary sources, so the "primary sources" wording should be OK for those, hence there would be little transition problem.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, if the "primary sources" template were to get edited per the above, and the "affiliated sources" never even created (or not created for now) I believe that there would be little harm done.   I think that "affiliated sources" situations are primary sources situations, and secondary sources would remedy them both.  Plus, "primary/secondary" is policy, "non-affiliated" only arises indirectly out of policy. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would we need a template for affiliate sources? we alread have the third-party sources template for that. Maybe i'm missing something, but it seems to me the discussion is turning a simply straight forward problem into an increasingly complicated and confused mess.
 * From a "user perspective" we should have as few templates as possible each with a simple and clear task. Users might mixed them then as they say see fit. A large number of partially redundant and contradicting/incoherent templates is just confusing for users and impairs orientation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that you are right. From my end, I was just trying to gel a route to sort out and resolve this in a way that deals with things that have been brought up.  If you want my own opinion, just change the wording on the primary sources template to:
 * "This article relies on references that appear mainly in primary sources; such is generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add additional appropriate references to secondary sources."
 * And that's it...no new templates. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything that removes the implication that "secondary" is another way to spell "independent" is okay with me. We already have Third-party sources when the problem is overreliance on sources connected to the subject.
 * However, I think that the simpler solution is "This article relies on references to primary works. Please add citations to secondary works." This eliminates the "such is generally not sufficient" language, which is a bit awkward and which may or may not be relevant (e.g., if there are sufficient secondary sources present to show notability, but still significant over-reliance on primary sources).   WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that yours is better. I just had the extra phrase in there because because the current one has it.  North8000 (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that is suitable for the default text. If there should be a need for a wording option to deal with use cases that did intend to call for third-party sources, could produce alternative wording.LeadSongDog  come howl!  13:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Or, combining input/ideas, how about:
 * "This article relies on references that appear primarily in primary sources. Please add additional appropriate references to secondary sources."

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (replying to both the last message and to the subthread before)
 * The problem with "we already have third-party" is that it has existed for a really short period of time compared to this template, and also with sources (refimprove). All three of these templates consistently recommend the use of reliable sources, which implies the use of secondary sources.
 * I should mention here is that a long-standing incoming redirect to this template is reliablesources (since January 2007, TC 31) / reliable sources (since March 2007, TC 44). The low transclusion counts may or may not be caused by us primarily advertizing the template's main name, or perhaps the bots that add dates also normalizing redirects - not sure about the latter but it sounds likely to me, the bots tend to do that.
 * So anyway, I've been thinking about FuFoEd's argument again, and was rethinking the use case. The main problem that is been indicated by the act of tagging something or  is mainly "this article relies on primary sources" or "this article lacks reliable sources". The problem "this article needs secondary sources" is logically derived, but it's not really obvious, it's inferred. At the same time, it's at least as logical to infer that a tagger looks at the tag they add, so when they previously saw the bold text "this article needs references from reliable third-party publications", that what what likely matched the problem they wanted to indicate. Or they saw "primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject", and that matched the problem they wanted to indicate. Or a combination. In none of these scenarios do we have an explicit mention of secondary sources, but rather reliable sources.
 * The common denominator would be that the problem are "unreliable sources", yet that's a separate template altogether. Yet, it's one with only 449 transclusions despite the fact it has existed since June 2007.
 * In conclusion, I'm not convinced that starting to explicitly mention "secondary sources" in only one of these templates would necessarily serve a real purpose, other than to create yet another subtle distinction. Invoking "reliable sources" as a solution is fine, and it's consistent.
 * At the same time, omitting the mention of third-party publications or even sources affiliated with the subject, seems gratuitous as well because of their long history of being mentioned. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please revert
To the long-standing version. See (obvious) rationale on Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 4. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is contrary to the consensus developed above to tweak the tweak. It would also reinstate the original problem.   We should sort this out thoroughly before making any changes either way. North8000 (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is contrary to the consensus, and it strongly suggests that FuFoFuEd (like many editors) doesn't actually understand the difference between a "secondary source" and an "independent source". Yes, articles need to have sources that are both, but we need tags that can be used to identify the actual problems in the article, because sometimes the problem is one or the other.  If you've got a page that uses primarily sources that are both affiliated and primary, then either use both third-party sources [which he's separately trying to have deleted at TFD ] and primary sources, or use Refimprove.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The current version is garbage, because it can easily be interpreted to mean that primary sources are bad, and they should be removed and replaced with secondary sources. But the truth is primary sources are just fine, provided there are also a sufficient number of secondary sources to establish the notability of the article and satisfy all the other policies, especially NPOV. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's just hammer out what it should say.  The previous version also had problems.  The main thread is one section up.  North8000 (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you are incorrect. If you simply click through the first link on the current template you will see at Verifiability: "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy." (Emphasis mine.) This is the cornerstone of this template and with the use of the phrase rely on (be dependent on) it's pretty clear. Mind, if someone misapplies this template on an article that is in fact sufficiently covered by primary sources - then simply remove the tag from that article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the phrase in the previous sentence sufficiently covered by primary sources be sufficiently covered by secondary sources? patsw (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally, yes, but not in that sentence :) I can fathom some trivial article being covered only by primary sources and not worthy of this tag any more than of a more general expand-me-please or there-is-so-little-context-here tag. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems with the exclusive use of primary sources: (1) WP:N: we use secondary sources as one of tests to determine if a topic should have a stand-alone Wikipedia article. (2) WP:OR: when primary sources are exclusively used, it is the Wikipedia editor who becomes the author of the contextual information and interpretation of the facts (i.e. good, bad, expected, unlikely, etc.) patsw (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but in both cases the problem (over-reliance on primary sources) and the solution (more secondary sources) is the same. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Since there's clearly no consensus yet on what the template should say, I've disabled the editprotected request for now. Ucucha (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also against the recent changes. Primary sources can be reliable sources to verify certain facts. The key is that we need independent sources to WP:Verify notability with the WP:NPOV that can't come from affiliated sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That was not the question.    The question was inconsistency between the issue(s) being tagged and the stated remedy(ies) and which template says what.   Briefly, the remedy for primary is secondary, the remedy for affiliated is independent. North8000 (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever the issue is, the most recent set of "fixes" have removed any mention of "third party" publications, or "secondary" for that matter. So I don't support the latest set of changes. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with others, please revert to the previous long-standing version, and do not modify it again until after consensus has been reached on a complete, stable wording, preferably via an RFC considering how broadly used this template is. There has been nothing approaching real consensus for these changes yet. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so now the diff is this. Discuss :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's work out what it should say
Shooterwalker, I think that things got mixed up. The question is to carefully work out what should go in there. North8000 (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinion, I was just trying to gel something from the feedback to get this resolved. The last proposal was:
 * "This article relies on references that appear primarily in primary sources. Please add additional appropriate references to secondary sources."

What do y'all think? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's okay about the mix up. Let's try to move forward. I think "third party" or "independent" sources would be more descriptive (the template refers to both primary and affiliated sources). But secondary is fine if it's fine with everyone else. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a completely separate problem. A third-party primary source is still not a sufficient basis for having an article on Wikipedia.  You need to use Third-party sources if the article relies too much on closely affiliated sources.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) It's not as simple as this. As was said above, there are somewhere near 24000 transclusions of this template, and changing the wording may have significant interpretive effects on the pages where those transclusions have happened. It's not simply an issue of 'does the template name match its wording', it's 'is changing the wording going to invalidate the template's existing use'. In my experience, this template is used frequently in cases of both primary source problems and first-/second-party source problems, to an extent that removing one or the other will cause significant damage to the intended meaning of the template in existing usage. This is simply not feasible.
 * Like it or not, this template has been used to warn against two different sourcing-related problems for years. Clarifying wording semantics should not come at the expense of widespread existing usage. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (Just noting here that I responded in the previous two sections. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC))

I think that it's pretty rare that there is an issue with "affiliated" where it is not also a "primary sources" issue. That would essentially (with tertiary being a near-zero chance) be a claim of affiliated secondary sources. And if that did occur, it is not per se a policy/core guideline issue. So I think that this says a few things: Proposed conclusion: It both safe, less confusing, aligned with the name of the template,  and better aligned with policies/guidelines to have this template state the problem to be just primary source related. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A template that just says that "primary sources" is the tagged problem would be pretty safe with respect to existing transclusions
 * A template which implies that something other than "primary sources" is a problem is implying a policy problem with using affiliated secondary sources. Such is problematic because such is not per se against policy or core guidelines.

Now, if we were to accept not mentioning "affiliated" in the "problem stating" part of the template, the second question is the stated/suggested remedy. I think that it is a near-no-brainer to include "secondary". First, the policy problem being tagged is "lack of secondary sources" and so structurally, that is a statement of the remedy. Second, the specifics of that remedy are defined in policy. Proposed conclusion:  "Secondary" should be included in the stated remedy. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So the next question is should "independent" and  "third party" be mentioned in addition to "secondary" in the stated remedy. I think that "independent" is problematic because it implies a requirement that does not per se exist, I.E. to dis-allow secondary sources judged to not be "independent" as being a part of the remedy. I think that "third party" is OK, even if a bit vague /confusing because it is usually used in the context of there being two "involved" parties, but it does have the meaning of being an uninvolved party, which is one of points of a wp secondary source. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * North8000, there is no per se requirement that any article cite any sources; there is only a requirement that certain sources exist, which could be added if there were a challenge. The template serves as the challenge. The notability policy requires that "third-party" sources; when a good-faith challenge is issued, the sources must be cited or the article is subject to deletion. Personally I discard "third-party" and substitute "disinterested" because "third-party" can easily be applied badly. "Independent" is close to "disinterested". So the question is whether many of the existing instances of the template have been applied for some reason other than a lack of disinterested sources. If nearly all the tagged articles lack disinterested sources, the template serves as the challenge and disinterested sources must be produced. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, you are in essence saying that a common use of this template may be a wp:notability challenge, that wp:notability specifies "independent" and "third party" source requirements, and so that the "affiliated with the subject" "independent authors" and "third-party publications", should stay in the template because of that. (?) North8000 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not perused the instances of the template, so I don't know what fraction of them are notability challenges.Jc3s5h (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. Just clarifying, not implying anything.  North8000 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the over-reliance on third-party primary sources is not a rare problem in the articles I see. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * People normally use Notability for notability challenges. This is usually applied when someone thinks that we probably ought to have an article on this subject, but that the sources are weak.  Because of the vague and confusing wording, it is not always applied because the sources are specifically because they are primary sources (like the name implies), but often just because the sourcing is weak for any reason at all.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem that needs to be solved
Perhaps a concrete example will help. See this diff. That article contains more than 200 independent, third-party primary sources. (If you're not sure about the difference between 'independent' and 'secondary', then please go read WP:Secondary does not mean independent before you finish reading this.)

The template was added to the article because the article was a (cherry-picked) laundry list of primary sources (it has since been improved).
 * The sources are independent and third-party sources: This is good.
 * The sources are primary sources: This is bad.

The problem that needs to be solved is "too much reliance on primary sources". The only possible way to solve this problem is to add secondary sources (and many secondary sources do exist for this subject).

The diff shows the editor removing the Primary sources tag because the (irrelevantly and idiotically) prescribed solution—the addition of "references from independent authors and third-party publications" had already been done.

Now: I want some sort of wording on this template that will actually be useful for indicating this problem and telling editors of good faith how to solve this problem. The existing wording is completely confusing people by making them think that solving this other problem somehow magically solves this problem, too.

North's suggestion of "This article relies on references that appear primarily in primary sources. Please add additional appropriate references to secondary sources." would do it; however, the existing wording is clearly a disaster.

I acknowledge that this template may not be correctly applied to many articles; I'd guess that many of them need both tags, rather than just one muddled one. The tag is probably no longer appropriate in other cases. We may need to fix those problems by hand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

leave merged use-case template under a generic name
The current primary name of this template is too specific - let's swap it with its redirect Reliable sources. Then we can split off specific issues with primary sources etc into new templates without any loss of functionality. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That would work for me. Wikipedia could benefit from a template about the need for higher quality ("better") sources.  You're absolutely right that something as generic as Reliable sources should not display a message as specific as "primary sources".
 * I've often wished that Better source was not being used as the home for Primary source-inline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Having trouble keeping track of the discussion. But the current diff is satisfactory to me and similar enough to the way it was before. If people want to swap it, I suppose that's okay (I might suggest Affiliated sources or independent sources, but I worry it might mess up articles that have been flagged with the current template. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Both Affiliated sources and independent sources should redirect to Third-party sources, which is specifically about the problem of affiliated and non-independent sources, regardless of where those sources fall on the primary-secondary-tertiary scale. Neither of them are actually in use at the moment, so I'll make that change in a minute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Swapping to reliable sources seems like a good move, but I'm still concerned about existing usage if you then intend to change primary sources to something else. Are there any bots already set up that can find and replace one template with another that could swap all current uses of primary sources with reliable sources? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that seems a sound approach. Suggest bot edit comment of "Template consolidation" or similar so noone thinks specific problem was addressed. LeadSongDog come howl!  02:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bot requests are available. I should note however that it's perfectly likely that the template was in fact applied for a case of both reliance on primary sources and reliance on sources affiliated with the subject, in which case we want a mass conversion to introduce a parameter such as . --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As a first step, could we just get this template moved to the name "Reliable sources"? It would make far more sense to have the bot 'consolidate' the templates if the template is at the target name.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, but could you state the proposed change fully, explicitly and exactly so that there is no misunderstanding / confusion? North8000 (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This step is very small and simple: WP:MOVE the Template:Primary sources to Template:Reliable sources (its redirect).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  So there would be a redirect Template:Primary sources that goes to the new name? I don't know templates that well, (sometimes being a dummy can be useful to ask dumb useful questions   :-) ) but would the redirect keep it working for the Primary sources uses, until the bot changes those or whatever? North8000 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 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: Not Moved Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    15:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Primary sources → Template:Reliable sources –

This is a simple move to a name that is currently a redirect. The name of the redirect more accurately describes the dual content of the template, which advocates for sources that are both non-primary sources and non-affiliated sources, not just sources that are non-primary). WP:Secondary does not mean independent.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what? You seem to be suggesting that we move a template into article space, replacing an existing article...? (Also, even having sorted out what I think you're suggesting, I disagree with the proposed move. It's useful to the project to have a template which indicates that independent sources need to be found. I agree that it would be a good idea to have a template indicating that the sources are not reliable, but that's solved by creating a new template on Template:Reliable sources, currently a redirect, not by moving an existing template to a vague title.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed the glaring syntax error on this page now, not sure if it needs to be changed anywhere else... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologise for not doing the same yesterday. I must have been distracted, because I did notice it. Debresser (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese, I don't understand your objection. This template's text deals with multiple aspects of reliability. If you type Reliable sources into an article right now, you get this text. Why do you object to having this template located at the name "Template:Reliable sources", rather than at "Template:Primary sources" (when, in fact, it covers the misuse of primary sources and closely affiliated sources, not solely primary sources). Do you want something entirely different at Template:Reliable sources, and this one maybe moved to "Template:Primary and closely affiliated sources"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The latter. I don't think this should be moved because the new title would not be an accurate reflection of the template text. We should have a template that can be used on articles that cite (say) amateur historical websites, partisan sources for non-opinions, fansites, etc. etc., but an article being cited largely or entirely to primary sources is a specific problem that should have its own separate template. Does that make things clearer? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We already do - Unreliable sources. It has 527 transclusions, compared to Reliable sources' 41. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, super - so why don't we check the usage in those 41 transclusions to see if it's being used for primary sources or for unreliable sources, and have Template:Reliable sources redirect there? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The current name seems fine to me – not all primary sources are unreliable. Jenks24 (talk) 18:19, 22 September 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.