Template talk:Third-party

Question
How does sources too closely related to the subject potentially prevent an article from being verifiable and neutral? You need to answer this question. 86.29.64.45 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not need to answer anything of the sort. We are all volunteers, under no obligations. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

People want to make themselves and their friends and associates look good, and they want to make their competitors and enemies look bad. Therefore, nobody is allowed to write about themselves, or their friends or associates, or their enemies or competitors. Only people who can't benefit from your success or happiness, and can't benefit from your failure or unhappiness either, are allowed to write about you. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 May 2019
Since this template is named Third-party, the bolded link should reflect that and link to our page on third-party sources at Identifying and using independent sources. We already have Self-published which uses the link currently used in this template, making it redundant. I've mocked-up the changes in this template's sandbox under Template:Third-party/sandbox (this version). -- Netoholic @ 12:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * duplicating the policy link was certainly a poor design choice. If to change at all, then the text should be reworded. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I considered that, but the only option would have been to de-link the "independent, third-party sources" portion. I felt keeping a duplicate link was better than that, since, although the link is duplicated, the text shown for the link is very different - stating the concern in two different ways. -- Netoholic @  13:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ’d say
 * A source which does not “cover the topic from a disinterested perspective” is not necessarily “closely associated”. It may be, quite contrary, black PR. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that communicates the concern as clearly as the bolded link text did. My intent wasn't to change the wording, just the target of the link, which currently duplicates another existing template. I wouldn't want to drastically change the wording, as it might surprise anyone using or going to use this template. -- Netoholic @ 15:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If this template covers cases not covered by &#123;{self-published}}, then it should not stick to the narrow “sources too closely associated with the subject” scenario. What namely concern has this template to communicate? Try to verbalize it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the present wording. It just needs a better target for the link... since its named Third-party it should link to the page about WP:Third-party sources. -- Netoholic @ 22:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: as discussion is continuing. But personally I prefer Netoholic's proposed wording to Incnis Mrsi's proposed wording. The latter does not flow well, but perhaps it can be improved. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 November 2019
Please add find sources mainspace to the template. Thanks. Jalen Folf  (talk)  23:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ see note at Template_talk:Unreferenced. If you want to just request someone else to make this later they can follow up below. —  xaosflux  Talk 00:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 December 2019
I just used this template on Jeddah International Book Fair. I wanted to include a reason (and did; you can see it in the source), but this template does not have a reason= or talk= parameter. Both would be nice, though I think the former would be more useful in this case. If the second sentence began "Specifically,..." followed by the talk param, that would be good.

Separately, a vaguer request on wikilinks. The bold link to WP:BLOGS at the top of the template was inappropriate to my application; the sources are not exactly self-published, but they are clearly non-independent. Identifying and using independent sources explicitly discusses this distinction. WP:IS, WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:QUESTIONABLE might be more generallyrelevant. I proposed a small change to the policy at WP:BLOGS to fit, we'll see if it gets consensus. Linking "reliable, independent, third-party sources" to Identifying and using independent sources, and not Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources or  Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources or even Reliable sources seems a bit arbitrary. I suspect the essay space has expanded since anyone reviewed the link targets, and the template might need a link-target update. I'm willing to write out a more specific request if there is agreement on an update. HLHJ (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.
 * , it's customary that tags requesting improvement to an article invite discussion on the article's talk page rather than including points in the template itself. For example Template:Lead too short ends with: ""


 * I think that is the more appropriate way to go. Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)