Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 5

Again and again
please undo this change Diff the change was not made with consensus during an active discussion and the editor User:anetode who made the change has declined User_talk:Jeepday to undo the action. Jeepday (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already reverted that edit. —David Levy 04:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

date upon template?
I came across an article tagged with unreferenced but not showing any date in the template. I checked the history for when the tag was added, and went into the article to add it but found that it was already there. As far as I can tell the syntax is done correctly ; but is there something wrong that I'm missing? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And ... had I paid more attention, I would have found this only two sections above. Live and learn.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 13:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Off center
The template was recently changed, and the changes not only made it shorter than the rest of the templates (so they no longer align left and right), but it is no longer centered. Can someone take a peek at that and perhaps fix it? Thanks! Ariel ♥ Gold 22:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be fixed; try refreshing your cache. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very odd, as I refresh my cache every hour, regularly. Not sure why it was showing up oddly for me earlier, but thanks Carl! Ariel ♥ Gold 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It had been broken, so it makes sense that it would appear broken for you at some time... Also the job queue is about 2m entries ATM, may have an impact. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06 29 September 2007 (GMT).

Empty margin until icon
Until an icon is added, could you please add an empty margin the size of an icon? (The version posted above by "Rich Farmbrough, 14:04 29 September 2007 (GMT)." had a different wording but the empty margin was there, so that's possible.) This is because the current version makes the "This article does not..." part not aligned with other messages, and it looks very amateur with several boxes stacked, as on this permalink example. Thanks. &mdash; Komusou talk @ 19:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks right when lined up with other templates that don't have icons like prod in this example (which being a prod will probably not be available for long). Jeepday (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Documentation clarification: unreferencedsection
Confusion between and  seems not uncommon. How would people feel about adding this paragraph at the end of the documentation's Usage section?


 *   is not equivalent to   .  The first is to draw attention to a section in an article that has no references. The second is to draw attention to a section that has no references in an article that has one or more references.

Or perhaps "may or may not have references" instead of "has one or more references"...the documentation on isn't completely clear on that. The suggested italics are because it can otherwise be unclear what "that" refers to, but perhaps better phrasing would reliminate that ambiguity. -Agyle 04:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds like a great improvement.-- Birgitte SB  12:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If a whole article has no references why would you need to draw further attention to a specific section in that article that also has no references? Jeepday (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not advocating that a person use the section modifier for that, I'm just trying to clarify the documentation. The template already includes the optional "section" modifier, and already lists it in the documentation, but I think the documentation is confusing as to when it should and shouldn't be used. Do you think the proposed addition is correct, ignoring the question of whether having a "section" modifier is a good idea? -Agyle 01:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When you sit and think on it for a minute like Agyle did I can see the editors point and the confusion and  usage is not clear in the directions.  As an editor who has been fairly involved (over 100 edits here ) in discussions on this talk page, my interpretation of the correct usage based on consensus here would be that both  and  are equal and should only be used on sections with no references in the section.  If the whole article is unreferenced then unreferenced would be used at the top.  If a section is partially referenced then use  refimprovesect in the section.  Like I said this is my interpretation of the consensus, so obviously I would beleive it is correct usage as I describe it, but just because I beleive it does not make it true.  I think there are two questions here.
 * What is the correct usage of and  ?
 * Are the usage instructions for these two clear?


 * I think the answer to question 2 is that the usage instructions are not clear. But I don't think they can be fixed until the answer to question 1 is clear. What are other editors thoughts on Question 1   Jeepday (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oooooooooh, this is confusing. :-) The documentation on says you can say anything as an optional parameter; the fact that it uses "|section called 'Childhood'" is just an arbitrary example.  doesn't actually have any special status over any other words you use. The template box repeats whatever you say in place of "article," so if you add , the box on the page says "This steaming pile of garbage does not cite any references or sources."


 * There is one indisputable functional difference between using and  : the former adds an article to Category:Articles lacking sources, while the latter adds an article to Category:Articles needing additional references. And a practical difference is that, as noted in the documentation for , you could put  anywhere (top, bottom, in the section, or on the Talk page), whereas  would only make sense in the section. Again, I'm not advocating or defending any of this; that's just how it is. -Agyle 04:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a lots of changes to the documentation text. I avoided suggesting when unreferenced or unreferencedsection should be used, as it's not yet clear if there is a consensus on that. I only noted the functional difference between the two: the placement of an article in different categories. I think everything in the documentation change is factual and uncontroversial, so I didn't put it all here as a proposal, but if there is any dispute over anything, I'd encourage removing the text in question or reverting the entire edit until the issue can be resolved. -Agyle 11:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed."
What's up with this? Any unsourced material can be challenged and removed, not just material that's unverifiable. This is misleading.P4k 17:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It came from this edit. Possibly it was just a slip of the tongue. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Placement
With the revamping of our templates, I think it's time to revisit the placement of this template. It was usually placed at the bottom, were references are; but shouldn't we now aim to put it at the top, where it can stack with other templates, and where 99% of users expect them to be?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I put it at the top 99% of the time. Jeepday (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Current wording "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the top of the article page, the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page." My guess is it's now placed at the top at the top at least 95% of the time, unless it has a description field (usually just saying "section"), in which case it's usually placed in a section. Here's one alternative:
 * "This template is usually placed at the top of the article, unless its optional description field refers to a specific area of the article. However, it can also be placed at the bottom of an article, in an empty 'References' section, or on the article's Talk page."
 * That's fairly mild; did you have a firmer guideline in mind? -Agyle 05:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not the talk page. I would say the usage for most people is for the top of the articles, but have seen some that appear to be the results of a script the inserts a "References" subheading, hidden html comment on citing references, and this template at the bottom.  I don't think it really matters where it is placed on the article page.  Putting in on the talk page messes up the category pages because it is too large a category to put everything in "T".  Also it is an often needed warning for the readers. -- Birgitte  SB  13:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that it always go on the talk page. Templates on the article page are only needed as a warning for readers. That an article is unreferenced is obvious enough when you're reading it, and needs no warning there. it applies to editors though, as a reminder of what is needed. We have way too many templates on article pages, and this is among the least necessary there. DGG (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I always put it at the top of articles, and only extremely rarely have I seen it in an empty "References" section. I have never seen it on a talk page.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 10:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have only seen it on a talk page once and that is when an editor added a source to the article and moved the template there because they were not sure of the protocol. Existing practice is clearly for placing this on the article rather than the talk page.  I am strongly against placing it on the talk page as long as that results in all articles being placed under "T" in the category.  If that were fixed I would be weakly against putting it on the talk page as everyones energy is better spent on actually working through the actual articles themselves than on an issue of window dressing.  In such issues I always support the status quo as I see any change as fruitless.-- Birgitte  SB  17:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I see it at the top of an article I always move it to the Reference section. My reasons for doing this are in the archive. Jeepday, pd_THOR why do you put it at the top of the article page? --Philip Baird Shearer 00:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that that unreferenced is Wikipedia's most necessary template. It directly addresses and identifies to readers and editors that the articles does not meet two of Wikipedia's three core content policies WP:NOR and WP:V.  Both of these require references for encyclopedic content.  Without this template, it is not obvious that an article is not referenced until you get to the bottom if you happen to read the entire article.  If an article is properly referenced and cited you can tell while reading, but only if it has inline citations.  Putting the template at the top servers these needs


 * 1) Identifies to the random reader that source of the content is unknown
 * 2) Provides links and hopefully motivation to editors who feel attached to the article or subject to add references to the article
 * I also realize that presently I am probably Wikipedia's most vocal and active reference advocate, but I think if you are going to have any templates on the top of an encyclopedic article Unreferenced should be first. I think unreferenced content is Wikipedia's most significant issue, and anything reasonable we can do to address that is good.  Where you place the tag (any template) implies the severity of the issue.  Jeepday (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that if we were to follow you logic then we would have to place the Reference section of every article a the start of the page. References or the lack of references should be in the Reference section. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference section should be the last (other then navigation boxes) item at the bottom the article. I beleive that any consumer of an encyclopedia article should be able to assume that the article is reliable content from a reliable source. If a reader/editor has chosen to place unreferenced on an article there is reason to question the reliability of the article content and this warning should be clearly visible to the multitude of readers who are coming to depended on Wikipedia as source of reliable information. Jeepday (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also I do not think you are not correct that an article is in breach of NOR and V just because it does not carry any references. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it not in breach of WP:NOR "In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately."and 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" to not include references? You may also recall that there is a bold statement "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted" when editing a New Article, [[Image:Editing NEW Article.JPG]] reminding editors of the value Wikipedia places on references and the possible consequences of not listing references. Jeepday (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not policy to delete articles just because they do not have citations. To be in breach of NOR someone must have reasonable grounds for thinking that the it breaches NOR, an article is not automatically in breach of NOR because it carries not citations.

For example many Summary style articless do not need citations (as the inline links provide that) so there is little of "any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Also stubs frequently do no carry citations or references and are acceptable without them. Articles copied from public domain sources like the eleventh edition Encyclopædia Britannica carry a reference section with 1911 but the text does not have EB inline citations. As I said before there is no policy that articles have to have references or citations. If of course they are challanged, then that is another matter, but in which case there are other templates that can be used to indicate non NPOV or whatever, if it is only a question that the article does not carry any references then there is no reason to clutter up the introduction when such information can be put in a more specific place -- the Reference section. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No one here is talking about inline citations, so we can drop that part. I will say that a large majority of articles that are correctly tagged with this template do have issues with original research.  And I think Jeepday is correct in his concerns.  Stubs should have at least one general reference in order to show that they they are not complete fabrications.  It is a BIG DEAL in my opinion that complete fabrications exist for a year before being dealt with.  That they are stubs does not make it acceptable.-- Birgitte  SB  15:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One reason it takes so long is because of the drive by muppets who monitor the AfD. Take this example I have recently put forward and read the keep reasons. I have this problem every time I put a page up for an AfD so one has to be determined if a page is to be deleted. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Section parameter
Since there is not a strong consensus this parameter should be used. Does anyone object making the categorization conditional so that when the section parameter is used it goes to a different category? Either to the same category as unreferencedsection or to a subcategory of the one currently used. Personally as someone going through this category I have yet to see and article tagged with this using the section parameter that lacked sources. I even went through articles tagged in October on the second of the month to make sure this is true when they are newly tagged. I don't understand the controversy about this at all. There is no need for this parameter that I can see. However the above suggestion would solve the problem those of us working through this category are encountering while compromising with the people wish to keep this syntax.-- Birgitte SB  13:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think have the category conditional to Category:Articles needing additional references if the template is is a good idea.  Can it be done? Jeepday (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how to do it. But the dates all sort themselves into different categories, so I think it is possible.-- Birgitte  SB  17:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that makes sense. Note that there's not really a "section" parameter, that's a description field that people often fill with the word "section," but the change could be made on that basis; if "section" is the only word (or perhaps first word) in the description field, then add it to "Categories: Articles needing additional references."


 * The controversy, I think, is that some people think should have one basic meaning, regardless of any parameters: that the article has no references. I disagree, but since nobody here is making the argument, I'll suggest some possible reasons: Templates should be consistent, not overloaded with complicated exceptions. This template was originally created for articles with no references, and that's how it's always worked. Changing it will incorrectly categorize articles for people who used the template with "section" correctly in the past. Having this template able to do what  makes that template redundant; there shouldn't be two completely different templates to do the exact same thing, people should just learn to use the correct template. (Not my views, just playing devil's advocate.)


 * There's not a lot of input here. Is there someplace else with we should mention this, to avoid making a controversial change with so little input? I'm pretty new to this topic.


 * Functionally, I can see roughly how to make the change; categorizing is done by Talk=, and you'd make that whole thing conditional depending on whether the description (referenced as } ) were "section"...it can certainly be done, if it is decided the change should be made. -Agyle 19:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can honestly say I have looked at over 1,000 articles tagged with unreferenced, I cannot remember ever seeing the section parameter used in the way you describe as correct. The only people who are coordinated in using this template on the back end should be aware since discussions have pointed here from Wikipedia talk:Unreferenced articles. As far as people using it on the front end, I am not sure.  I think they are mostly New Page Patrollers and should have a coordination page for that.-- Birgitte  SB  19:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Meaning you haven't seen used in an article with no references? I'd believe that; I think it's used mainly by people unaware that it does something different from  . I've also never seen the description field used to say anything other than just "section," except in the template documentation. Has anyone else?


 * The Wikipedia talk:Unreferenced articles pointer was what I meant by mentioning it someplace else; great!


 * One technical note: when the template is changed, it won't re-categorize articles until the next time the article is saved. That's just how the template works. When the proposed template change is made, it may be useful to create a list of articles with tags at that time, if someone wants to use a bot or manually resave those articles, so past usages will be categorized according to the new template code.


 * Since your initial post suggested a couple alternatives, I'm going to make a specific proposal in a separate section, so that people can add agree or disagree to that. I'll also suggest removing the description field, as it seems unused, and its removal would make this change just a bit easier. -Agyle 21:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Icon in the template
The discussion sort of died, and I couldn't see any consensus reached (if I missed it, could someone kindly point me to it please), so the question still stands: we had some great suggestions for the icon to go in the template, isn't it time to actually choose one and add it? --Gi m lei (talk to me) 10:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The question on whether to add an icon seemed to get diverted by questions of which icon was best, without resolution on the question of whether to add one. At least that was my interpretation. What was your take? -Agyle 12:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That was my impression as well. I do believe however that the icon, though not essential, adds a nice touch to the template and should be added. Especially, given then very nice designs we have been offered by the community. Therefore:
 * Hello, does anyone really object to adding an icon to this template, and, to be fair, is there any support for it? --Gi m lei (talk to me) 05:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm Neutral &mdash; looks pretty, but slows down page loads; I'm indifferent about it drawing more attention. I'd object if it makes the message box taller (Template:Inappropriate_tone has a nice short icon). -Agyle 06:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For an icon. If nothing else, I think consistency across maintenance tags is important, especially now with the ambox standardization, and even more especially for widely-used templates such as this one. The rationale should really be the same here as for icons in any other maintenance tag -- quick and easy recognition and distinguishing between the different tags. If it's been decided that all those other tags benefit from it, why has this one been left out? Is there anything that makes this tag so different from the others, that the same logic doesn't apply here? If there are people here who are against icons in general for maintenance tags, then I think that's something they should be taking to the ambox standardization discussion; but as long as icons have generally been applied to maintenance tags, there is no reason that this one should be an exception. Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:26, 10/12/2007
 * Support the icon - just for the sake of clarity. Agreeing with Equazcion, easy recognition, standardisation of maintenance tags and nice looks are my main arguments. --Gi m lei (talk to me) 07:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which icon provides easy identification of reference issue? Jeepday (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about any particular icon, just saying that an easily recognizeable icon will make the identification of the template box with the reference issue easier for the reader. --Gi m lei (talk to me) 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To recap, here are the options: 1: 2:  3:  4:  5:  6:  7:  8:  9:  Any opinions? --Geniac 16:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, icons look good. But the value is debatable.  I've raised one point at the general discussion place - we should standardise whether the icon is supposed to illustrate the problem, the solution or just be an attention grabber like "!" or "?". Then we should also look at the audience - is it the template savvy clean-up crew, or the general reader? No doubt those reading this page will soon get acclimatised to whatever icon we use and recognise it as "unref".  Rich Farmbrough, 10:01 13 October 2007 (GMT).


 * I support an icon in message boxes, and I'll support icons #2 and #3. Rationales:
 * I eliminate #1, 7-8-9 because they are flat, 2D, like old computer icons. And then there were five.
 * I eliminate #6 because we have an orange border, and the yellow/amber/red theme of the others will be more integrated. And then there were four.
 * I eliminate #4-5 because the magnifier has become largely synonymous with "search option" in modern GUI (Windows use one for the "search option", CD rippers use one for the "CDDB lookup" option, etc.); that is, the symbolism of book + question mark seems enough to me, and the magnifier just gets in the way, either redundant or conflicting. And then there were two.
 * With a gun to my head, I'd eliminate #2 because it looks like a blank book, whereas #3 shows the lines of text. (I've checked in 256 colors mode too, the lines of text stay OK.) And then there was one. One icon to rule them all (to mix a reference).
 * &mdash; Komusou talk @ 01:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are three votes in support, one neutral, none opposed. Rich Farmbrough and Jeepday asked questions without voting. My opinions on the questions: for this template, it should suggest the problem, the way the broom suggests the article needs cleanup. I don't think picking a single target audience is necessary; icons aren't necessary for either audience, but may have some value for either audience. I favor icon #3, for Komusou's reasons, especially that a magnifying glass has the "search/find" user interface connotation, though I'd note that in Template_talk:Unreferenced/Archive_3, more people favored a magnifying glass; of those I'd pick #5, then #8. Some current icons (see Template:Ambox) are "flat," but there's no consistent convention on 2D vs. 3D or abstract vs. representational icons.
 * I added a note at Article_message_boxes that this is being discussed here. If there aren't any more votes in the next couple days, I'd say let's go ahead and try the change. If that happens, are there any other opinions on which icon to use? I'd brace for reversion and negative feedback after the change, as Jeepday suggested has happened in the past. Assuming there are more objections then, I'd say it should be reverted after more there are more complaints than there were supporters, to allow further discussion by newly interested parties. The drawback to this is I'd guess we'll get a non-representative sample: new parties who come here to comment are more apt to be those who dislike the change, not those who do like it. But I don't see any way around that. -Agyle 03:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support And I vote for icon #2. If a magnifying glass is heavily wanted, I pick [[Image:Nuvola kdict glass.png|32px]]. My reasons were stated in past discussions, like here. Rocket000 03:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support and I vote for icon #3 for the same reasons as Komusou. --Geniac 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support and I don't care which icon is used anymore, just put one of them in already. PS Any reason this template is still full-protected? Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:34, 10/16/2007
 * Yeah, this should be knocked down to at least semi-protected. Rocket000 20:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Cannot make a call for a particular icon per logic. → Aza Toth 15:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I would say there's a consensus here for an icon. So, are we just waiting to agree on which icon? (I'd be alright with #3, also.) Rocket000 15:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also be fine with #3. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:33, 10/23/2007
 * Done. Lets move on to something more important, like WP:BIKESHEDs. --Geniac 20:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)