Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 7

Maintenance messages should be externally purposed, too
The messages on the cleanup maintenance tags are primarily directed at WP editors. Shouldn't they communicate the specific concern to readers as it relates to their perspective as well? For example, the Unsourced tag should more clearly alert the average reader that the article or section contains unverified and unsourced statements, and the reader should take that into consideration; the request to editors should be secondary (although the automatic inclusion in a category broadcasts the alert nicely).


 * Suggested rewording (new text bolded):


 * This article does not cite any references or sources.


 * Readers should be aware that some content is missing citations and may not have been verified as coming from reliable sources. This may affect its accuracy and stability.


 * Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

I mentioned at this the Template messages Talk page a while back with no response, so this may not be a high profile topic. However, I think that we editors tend to be insular and forgot there is a whole world of WP users who actually use WP for reference, research and entertainment. We should ensure pertinent maintenance tags address their concerns first. Jim Dunning | talk  20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  16:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please make the above suggested wording change to this template.

Not done. Sounds like a disclaimer. --- RockMFR 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it a disclaimer. It is clarifying the issue to the casual reader. A reader (as opposed to an editor) may not fully understand that a notice that appears to be meant for editors only has an impact on his/her understanding of the articles content.

Jim Dunning | talk  04:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No disclaimers in articles states: Please take all steps necessary to ascertain that any information you receive from Wikipedia is correct and has been verified. Check the references at the end of the article. Read the article's talk page and revision history to see if there are any outstanding disputes over the contents of the article. Double-check information with independent sources. Yes, this does warn the reader that accuracy is not guaranteed, but it also directs the reader to "check the references at the end of the page." What if there are no references at the end of the page? It seems to me that the disclaimer focuses on situations where the article appears to be sourced, which is not the case for citations-needed tags. If it is redundant to warn about accuracy when sources haven't been supplied, how come it's okay to have, or  when the same policy states, "PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING"? Wouldn't those templates duplicate the Disclaimer? Those templates do not even specifically ask for editor assistance, but appear to be directed at the reader.

These templates indicate the status of the article with respect to our policies and whatnot. The addition you are asking for is solely for the purpose of warning readers, something that they should be able to do by themselves. --- RockMFR 05:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Blank line
Remove line break between and }} to avoid vertical space as in. -- Lea (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done - Nihiltres { t .l } 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Specified time
Generally speaking, what is an adequate specified time that a new article or stub be marked with this template if it is to be helpful instead of obtrusive? I ask because I see many users seemingly abuse/tag a new article as soon as it's created. Wisdom89 (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  17:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would add it as soon as possible. Even the person creating the article could add it if a specific reliable source is unknown. Tagging articles with this notice is not abusive: it is an alert to editors asking for help in improving the article, and a notice to readers that accuracy and verifiability may be issues.

Separating verifiability and reliable sources
editprotected Would it be more helpful to wikilink to WP:V as well as WP:RS within this template, despite that the former contains links to the latter. Might be a more direct and expedient way of helping new users who have just created articles to navigate. Wisdom89 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This ones needs more people commenting before implementing. I would be against adding the guideline WP:RS to the template, the policy WP:V should be enough. Garion96 (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I figured that would be the feeling - I thought WP:V might be enough too, but then I thought about those those who would benefit. - new users come across the template after they create a page - if they are directed to verifiability, the might be loathe to read deep into it, but by providing two links which contain overlapping information, the message might be more easily conveyed. Of course, then it becomes a question of redundancy. In that case, would WP:RS just suffice? Just my two cents. However, I do see your point. Wisdom89 (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Just a heads-up: potentially relevant discussion at Template_talk:Refimprove. – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Placement
Can we get consensus on placement, so it can be included in the documentation? This should clearly go at the top of an article, as with all other maintenance tags that describe entire articles. Based on what I've seen, placement in an empty References section is practiced mainly by inexperienced editors, doesn't make any sense, and isn't helpful. If there's a problem with an article as a whole, especially a serious issue like a complete lack of references, that's something people should see right away, at the top. It's at least as important as something like copy-editing required. Just because references have their own section doesn't mean the tag that describes their lack belongs someplace different than other maintenance tags.  Equazcion •✗/C • 20:14, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)


 * I used to put it down the bottom, but up the top is a good place - both as maintenance template for editors and warning template to readers. - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The top of the article is the best place for article-wide maintenance tags.  Placing it on the talk page is especially problematic, because it hides the warning from most of the people who need to see it.  --M @ r ē ino 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All main issue templates for article should be placed at the top of the page - sometimes they can be obtrusive and in your face, but with articles are poorly organized or badly in need of help, this is an essentiality. However, if the template refers to a specific section, that's where it should go - bar the reference area.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I came here looking for this discussion, and here it is! I have recently been looking at the unsourced with no date articles (unreferenced with no date), and find quite a few are in the "references" section - so I have been moving them to the top of the article, with the date (and an edit summary along the lines of dated unref tag; moved to top of article for hi-vis). If the unreferenced tag is for a section, I just move it with and mention this in the edit summary. e.g.

--  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 15:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wording suggestion: third-party
I want to make this template's meaning more obvious to casual readers, e.g. those who think "there's references to this thing, look, there's a link to the project page!" I want to make it clear third-party sources are considered pretty important.

e.g.

Or perhaps "third-party" should go in the second line of text:

Any thoughts? I appreciate the problem of barnacle-like creep of subclauses on previously clear statements and templates, and the importance of avoiding such, and am personally fond of clearing such out ... but I've been tagging quite a few articles whose references are the home page for the topic itself and which, although arguably encyclopedic, could really do with a third-party reference or two - David Gerard (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Minor/small text is rarely paid attention to - your first example is clear and unambiguous.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Third party sources are much better but often I am glad enough that an article at least has a reference. Even if it is not a third party reference. Garion96 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You might as well include secondary sources then as well. Might be better to have the template encompass primary, secondary, and tertiary.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This template has been used, for some time, to indicate articles for which there are no references provided whatsoever. It does well at that task. If the issue is that better references are desired, that's the role for another template, not this one. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Essentially echoing my thoughts. Nicely put.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 04:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, see Template:Primarysources. --- RockMFR 05:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Useage on image pages
I've noticed that this template is in use on many image pages. My first inclination it to remove these uses, but I know that the image side of Wikipedia has its own complex rules, and I want to make sure I'm not trampling on any of them first. --M @ r ē ino 20:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like some of the tags were added when the images don't give a source where the image was obtained. You could tag these with no source instead; be aware that will start a deletion process, so you should notify the uploader if you add that tag. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at one of the images, and it was a coloured data map whose content I don't remember. The image had a source and a free license, but I think the tagging was because the image and the editor-prepared information contained within had no references.  That seems, at least in passing, to be a legitimate function of this template.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be more appropriate to tag such images with Original research-- Birgitte SB  21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiny stubs
Could we add a small, strictly-a-suggestion info box to the usage template that says something like this? I don't want to set out any strong rules here -- just to remind editors to "be bold" and to hint that this tag isn't particularly helpful on two-sentence-long dicdefs-with-possibilities, especially if the only edit to the article during the entire last year was the addition of the ref template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there were no objections, I've merged this box into the documentation. I also made the existing when-to-use statement bigger and easier to spot.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No more categories?
editprotected

It seems that a recent edit has removed all the default categorization for articles tagged with this template. Perhaps I missed a discussion for this change, but otherwise it seems like a mistake was made. If that is the case, please revert or fix. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The pages are still categorised, but (I think all) the categories used by this template are now 'hidden', and they are listed at the bottom of the page in the edit screen, just above where categories usually are, or you can change your preferences in the 'Misc' section to show them on all pages. Most maintenance categories which do not aid navigation are now hidden using this new feature (see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-25/Technology report). The recent edits enable categorisation to be disabled so the tags can be placed on pages for demonstration (such as Template messages/Cleanup) without categorising the page. mattbr 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the stupidest template: why not delete it?
Really ... once the first citation is inserted into an article, the template is no longer correct. I think the template should be deleted immediately, since the "refimprove" template does the job much better and is not immediately outmoded when action is taken to comply with it. Tony  (talk)  14:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking a further look, there's a big bold notice on the template page that says: "This template should be used only on articles that have no sources", followed by "In articles that have some sources, but not enough, the refimprove template should be used instead."

The implication is that as soon as the first citation is inserted into the article text, this template should be removed and replaced by the refimprove template.

I put it to you that it would be better to start with the refimprove template. Why not delete this one?


 * Have you looked into the names of the categories that these templates use? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)I think is useful to have a separate category for those article without a single reference. It is a red flag that there could be larger issues. Also I think stubs should have at least one general reference as to show notability but I don't believe refimprove is appropriate for stubs. From your approach here I doubt you are open-minded about this but for the record I would definitely oppose grouping all the articles from here and refimprove into one category. -- Birgitte SB  04:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it relevant to point out that the "big bold" text was neither big nor bold two days ago, but in general I'm with Birgitte: it's sometimes useful to be able to find articles in a zero-refs category instead of a someone-wants-more category.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I understand about stubs, but for larger articles, the maintenance issue is important: as currently worded, the template becomes obsolete on first strike. Perhaps it should be explicitly framed for stubs and its use for larger articles discouraged. Tony   (talk)  07:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No referencing templates at all should be put on stubs; the stub tag is sufficient. I don't see why it's a problem that the template becomes obsolete when a reference is added. The addition of even a single general reference on an article is an important step in the article development process, and this template is meant to encourage that step. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why, then, doesn't the refimprove template encourage the same thing just as well, without the impediment of almost immediate obsolescence? Tony   (talk)  13:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to suggest a re-write of either template which makes you feel more content about their purpose in sorting articles into two different catagories.-- Birgitte SB  13:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Most cleanup templates become obsolete when they are handled - capitalization, wikify, copyedit, etc. The point of the templates (if there is one) is to indicate the specific problem. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Most cleanup templates are still accurate until work on the issue has finished. This one is wrong after the very first move. Tony   (talk)  09:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think refimprove does need to be changed. It's fine for all purposes. Tony   (talk)  02:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For unreferenced, another logical next step is prod due to lack of references. For refimprove, that's not so logical. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether that is a theoretically good approach, and I think it is not. That approach is practically a very bad idea.  It will gain more critics and trouble than you can imagine.  Be careful not to use prod unless something is an obvouis hoax, or unless you are very experienced at taking things through AFD and know for certain what would garner no opposition.-- Birgitte  SB  13:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've taken dozens of articles through prod a month or two after seeing the unreferenced template applied, and only rarely had to step up to AfD - that's what comes from watching Dead-end pages. Most of the time, the article has no particular value, and nobody cares - which is exactly why prod was created, IMHO. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Tony1, I basically think that if you don't like this template, then you are free to not use it. Other editors should have the option of using it at their discretion. I consider the likelihood of this template being deleted so small as to make WP:SNOWBALL relevant. We could go Round in circles on this, but I think that useful discussion is over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Um ... that's like saying if you don't like the prose in that article, don't read it. I have no intention of ever using this template. The issue is its immediate obsolescence, and the need for other WPians to have to change it to refimprove after the very first citation is entered into an article. I still say delete it.  Tony   (talk)  00:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you feel strongly about it, then you may certainly propose it at AfD. I suggest that it would be a waste of your time, but as far as I am concerned, you are free to make that choice.  Of course, I also believe that further chatting about it here is also a waste of your time -- as chatting about your dislike of this template cannot have any practical impact on the template's continued existence -- but perhaps you find value in this discussion that I can't see.  If that's the case, then as far as I am concerned, you are free to make that choice, too.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And what a waste of time your contribution is. I do feel strongly, but suffice it to alert people here that I will advise others to use refimprove rather than this silly thing whenever the issue comes up. Tony   (talk)  08:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, because I tend to view refimprove as less useful. Its problem is that it doesn't say what needs to be referenced, so there's no concrete action that can be taken to resolve it. I prefer for people to simply leave a comment on the talk page explaining what issue they have, and I've been known to remove the refimprove tag soon after it was added if the article appears to be adequately referenced and no specific concerns have been raised. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"This article needs additional citations for verification."
 * I'd remove "additional" from refimprove—it's just not necessary—and get rid of this "unreferenced" template completely.

Most articles that have insufficient (or no) citations and need a tag have a general problem. Otherwise, "fact" tags can be placed at one or more specific locations in the text. Tony  (talk)  12:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Placing multiple act tags are in fact depreciated if they are used in multiple places if the problem is more general. They are intended for asking for a reference for a single disputed fact. Of all the article improvement templates in Wikipedia, I would say that this particular one is the most important and the most necessary. The first step in upgrading WP is at least catching and provided some references for the ones that do not have any. Its the minimum needed to enforce one of the core policies, of Verifiability. There are some policies or guidelines that I and others think perhaps mistaken or too stringent or too permissive, but the basic need to have some sort of evidence for the material in the encyclopedia is the primary reason why we can be trusted even as a ready-reference source. I think there is about 99% agreement on this one, and I am startled at an attack on it.
 * By the way, the next logical step after using thi template is not prod--we do not delete articles for having no references, we look for references and only delete them if we can find none after a reasonable search. Putting prod on articles that seem referenceable is a very poor idea unless one can document that there are in fact no apparent print or online references. Deleting unreferenced articles merely for being unreferenced has been repeatedly rejected by the community.  DGG (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Copy
Is there any copy of this template? --Filipinayzd (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Why references redirects to unreferenced??
Hello, I don't understand quite well, why template redirects to unreferenced template? I think, it should be a list of references template, by ex:

Edit request
editprotected old →  ← new

Description: Please replace Image:Question book-3.svg with Image:Question book-new.svg. I believe this is an uncontroversial edit because the images are fairly similar. I think that this new image reflects the colour scheme of the template a little better, and the image looks cleaner (note the visibility around the top of the question mark), and is smaller in filesize. Template:refimprove has already started using this image too. Thanks in advance! TIM KLOSKE 15:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Though I bet the servers weren't too happy about it. ;) PeterSymonds (talk)  17:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki redirect
Please fix The it.wp link should be to Template:F. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Garion96 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)