Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 9

Proposal to change wording
This template has recently been changed to include the wording (ideally, using inline citations). I would like to propose the removal of that phrase:

I feel this may put off new editors (and maybe others) from adding references as the Footnotes page is fairly intimidating to a new user (try reading it whilst imagining that you are new to wikipedia). Whilst I can understand the need to encourage users to use inline citations, I feel it is better for an article to have some sort of references than none at all. An article that is referenced but lacks inline citations can be tagged with No footnotes or More footnotes. We should encourage editors to add references and then maybe ask them to improve them once the article is referenced. The guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources which this template links to, states: Editors are free to use any method; no method is preferred. with respect to how to present citations (inline or not).

I have no problem with the phrase being used on refimprove as inline citations would be an improvement and the article is not unreferenced. I just feel that including it on this template does no good. For example: if an article had the unreferenced template on it but had a reference the template would be removed or replaced whether or not it had inline citations, however the (ideally, using inline citations) text in the template may put some users off adding refs to an unreferenced article due to the apparent complexity of doing so. This could leave an unreferenced article unreferenced due to lack of knowledge of how to do inline citations rather than lack of available sources.

Any thoughts?

ascidian | talk-to-me  14:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you make a good point Ascidian. I want to encourage use of inline citations but definitely not at the expense of causing some to forego any, and you may be right that if a user sees that they may throw up their hands and not add a general reference that they might have in its absence.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that someone at least read this - I thought either I had proposed something completely insane or that no-one else cared!. As this thread is moving rather slowly, I have notified the editors that took part in the discussion that led to this change of this new proposal. ascidian  | talk-to-me  15:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to (or should) remove the phrase... It isn't saying that inline citations are manditory... only that they are the ideal way to do it.  It is good advice. We want new editors to learn how to format proper citations, and the Template points them to a page that can teach them how to do so.  Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the word change. For a completely unsourced article; a few references at the bottom in bullets points is still a significant improvement.-- Birgitte  SB  17:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the new wording. I think the old wording is better. It ties in much better with WP:PROVEIT --PBS (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (e.c.) Philip, if you mean because the proposed insertion would encourage new editors to believe that generalised references at the bottom are a solution (and inline citations only "ideal", i.e., less than essential), yes, the insertion would be undesirable. There is no escaping the need for specific inline citations. Tony   (talk)  12:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For stub articles, and articles substantially based on a single source, I feel that the push towards inlnie citations is a distraction. I would prefer the reworded template (that is, without the "inline" part). --Alvestrand (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Tony1 that is exactly my point. Alvestrand See Template_talk:Unreferenced/Archive 1 this template is not meant to be used on stubs.

From the history of the article "15:20, 2 May 2009 Fuhghettaboutit (This is a long standing version, just not the last.. WP:V is non-negotiable and cannot be overruled. This overrules it. Unsourced material not unsourceable material can be removed per WP:BURDEN; leave offf inline citiation prod per discussion)". The version I reverted too was the Revision as of 17:23, 4 March 2009 which was also the version that [user:Garion96] reverted too before me. The wording of the version of 4 March 2009 was unchanged from at least November 2007.

So user:Fuhghettaboutit please show me through the edit history how you justify the statement "This is a long standing version", because AFAICT it is not. I suggest that you gain consensus for changes before making them. --PBS (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" is not an improvement on "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed" because I think that the older wording better sums up Verifiability in its whole. But let us discuss it further and see if there is better wording which we can all live with. --PBS (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is an imporevement and a crucial one, because the former says the opposite of what Verifiability says. Specifically, material does not need to be unverifiable (unsourceable) to be challenged and removed. It only needs to be unverified (unsourced).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This one goes to the heart of Wikipedia's verifiability policy afaic - global references are often too hard to check for volounteers with limited time or interest. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". There is a quick guide to useing refs - Footnotes -
 * Yes it does go the heart of verifiability. That's the point. The policy states that unverified material may be challenged and removed, not unverifiable material. That turns the burden on its head. That's all this is about.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

How to use

 * A simplified explanation is given at Help:Footnotes


 * 1) Place a &lt;ref> ... &lt;/ref> where you want a footnote reference number to appear in an article—type the text of the note between the ref tags.
 * 2) Place the   tag or    tag in either a "Notes" or "References" section as explained in the Guide to Layout — the list of notes will be generated in that section.

The ref BOT will often add titles, leaving the finessing to more experienced editors. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 07:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that inline citations are a definite improvement on global references in an article especially in terms of verifiability. However this template should be used only for articles with exactly zero references, so I think that any hurdles to add a reference (global or inline) should be avoided, as any form of valid reference added must be an improvement? It is the same volunteers with limited time or interest you note above who might be put off by having to add refs with inline citations rather than a global ref and then do neither, which would leave an unreferenced article still unreferenced. ascidian  | talk-to-me  23:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)