Template talk:Unreferenced section/Archive 1

Name change
Hello,

It would be nice if this template were called 'Unreferenced sect', 'Unreferenced-sect', or even better, 'Unreferenced section'. --Hdante 04:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Changing the format
I have changed the format so it looks more like Template:Unreferenced because it did not appear salient enough and blending into the text of the article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Article and section "references needed" template
For an "article and section" references needed template, see Template:Unreferenced. For an alternative section references template (possibly to be deleted soon), see Template:Unreferenced-section. Carcharoth 11:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy
This template seems almost identical to Unreferenced. I'm going to make the page redirect there. If there is a reason why this should not be done, just revert me.--HereToHelp 19:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

too much on template
I removed some of the information about more sources, because the template had too much on it.--Sefringle 03:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Template needs talk page link!
The template needs a link to a certain talk page section where the unverified-problem is discussed. It is not always obvious what citations are reasonable and what can be cited. A poem for example, cannot be checked for factual accuracy, and factual accuracy is often irrelevant for TV-serieses and arts. Even citations must have a rationale! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 12:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See Template_talk:Unreferenced the unreferenced templates do not require a talk page message. WP:V clearly requires ALL articles to be referenced.  a section of the article either has references or not, an editor may chose to make comments or not, and an editor may chose to add, remove or change templates as they beleive is correct. Jeepday (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove Icon
I removed the icon, this allows the template to be a line shorter and also is keeping with the lack of consensus to include icons on unreferenced templates. See Template_talk:Unreferenced, Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Cleanup and Template_talk:Unreferenced. Jeepday (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Deprecated
Why is this template deprecated suddenly? Rich Farmbrough, 12:37 8 September 2007 (GMT).


 * It is not depreciated. Some one made a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Template_standardisation that it was because you could in theory use  instead of Unreferencedsection it was pointed out that will not work because They put articles into different categories.  Someplace durring that time the template deprecated got placed and removed.  It looks like you just replaced it while doing some maintance?  Would you please re-remove it? Jeepday (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted the change to ... So now I've removed the deprecated tl too. Rich Farmbrough, 15:17 8 September 2007 (GMT).


 * Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes
How come this template now appears on the left of the page, and has no border per the examples on WP:TR? It's pretty much blending into the background how it is right now.  Mi re ma re  00:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Some hours ago we added new CSS code to MediaWiki:Common.css for a new article message box style. And now we started to update all the boxes to the new style. We = Template standardisation. You seem to still have the old "Common.css" cached in your browser. (I know we should have waited 24 hours...) You need to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Mozilla/Firefox: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Safari: press Cmd-Opt-E, Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera/Konqueror: press F5.
 * --David Göthberg 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah thanks, that's much better! Nice templates, by the way. :) Cheers,  Mi re ma re  01:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to add an icon?
A conversation has been started at Template talk:Unreferenced to consider adding an icon to the unreferenced family of templates, including this template. Jeepday (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Format
I noticed that when a date is used with the template, it puts the date in the first line of text, but in , it puts it in the second line. I'm going to try to change so that the two will be the same. Crossing my fingers that I don't break anything. &mdash; NRen2k5, 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Woo! One minor edit and a browser cache wipe later: mission accomplished! &mdash; NRen2k5, 17:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What to do with it?
What do we do with material that has been marked for a long time? This is not very clear. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's anything controversial, why not remove it? Shawnc (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Few
We need a template for sections with one minor statement sourced; no sources can be tagged with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is another one, please let me know and update the documentation on Template:Unsourced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Variants?
I just tagged an article using the refimprovesect syntax but the resulting tag came up with mixed wording. It says "This section needs" but the blue link is saying "improve this article". I would like it to say section in both places. I am confused by the way there seem to be multiple markup labels to invoke the tag and I am expecting there to be at least two tag templates - one for whole articles and one for individual sections. Please advise. EatYerGreens (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Move date
Replace the template with the following code (use "Changes" to see what I have changed):

Gary King ( talk ) 21:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)  22:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit link
The words "improve this section" on the template are linked to an edit action. The edit action should open up an edit window for the section the template is in, but instead it opens an edit window for the whole article. Can this be changed?  Sp in ni ng  Spark  23:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

merge to unreferenced
There's no need for this to be maintained separately from unreferenced. Requesting sync with the new sandbox to unify this with the parent template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandbox does not work. You can't use optional parameters like that. --- RockMFR 17:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Test cases. Re-requesting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You also need to make sure the param works. You may have to do something like the following to maintain the exact same behavior:

--- RockMFR 18:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why does this template even have a "category" parameter? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. It's usually used to prevent a page from being categorized. However, the unreferenced template already limits categorization to the article and talk namespaces, so I don't see why the category param is necessary. Most article notice templates should probably be using a namespace check and then get rid of the category param entirely. --- RockMFR 21:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Anything more to be done? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Any chance we can undo this change? I've asked Chris Cunningham (not at work) about it on his talk page, but it appears he's offline at the moment. unreferenced adds articles to Category:Articles lacking sources whilst unreferencedsect used to add them to Category:Articles needing additional references. Now, obviously, both templates add articles to the former cat. Articles lacking sources is a category for articles with no references at all, but if an article is tagged with unreferencedsect it would imply that it already has some references (if not, why not used the unreferenced tag?).


 * The Articles lacking sources category is used by the Unreferenced Articles project (of which I am a member), and this merge hinders the goal of the project by including articles which already have references in the category. (It has also led to the recreation of Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 and Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006 as they have been re-populated by articles tagged with unreferencedsect).


 * If we need to merge this template then I feel refimprove would be a better fit IMHO (if that's even possible, I have no idea of how this sort of thing works).


 * regards, ascidian  | talk-to-me  10:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I undid the last change. Ruslik (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ascidian  | talk-to-me  20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good call. In that case, how about just abandoning this as a separate template and redirecting it to Template:Refimprovesect (which is itself a sub-template of refimprove? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst I personally wouldn't have an objection to that, I can imagine other editors looking for a template for an unreferenced section might reject it when they see the more gentle wording of refimprovesect and then use unreferenced instead, on articles which could potentially already have refs. Would it be possible to merge it to refimprove but keep the current wording? ascidian  | talk-to-me  12:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That'd require a change to refimprove, but it's definitely doable. I'll see what I can whip up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge to refimprove
Okay, take two (based on the discussion above). Both this template and refimprove need modified.


 * 1) New code for this template. Test cases.
 * 2) New code for refimprove. Test cases.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * . Have a look at this code

This '''. I think you will break Template:Refimprovesect by this change. If the first unnamed parameter is section then you will always say "does not cite any references or sources". If I might suggest a complete overhaul of these templates. We could have two named parameters. One "section" would be set to yes for a section; otherwise assume it's the whole article. Another parameter additional, could be set to yes for when additional sources are needed, otherwise assume that none are cited. I'd be happy to work with you on this one if you like. Martinmsgj 10:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, right, yes. Good catch. So there are four use cases for the two master templates:
 * Article is completely unreferenced. (tag as unreferenced)
 * Article is adequately referenced otherwise, but one section is completely unreferenced. (tag as refimprove)
 * Article needs more references. (tag as refimprove)
 * Article is adequately referenced otherwise, but one section needs more refs. (tag as refimprove)
 * I think in this cases that we're better going back to the original plan (merge unreferenced section into unreferenced, but have a conditional to swap the categories rather than the message. This alleviates the need for a second parameter, and seems more logical to me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you have a look at my code in Template:Unreferenced/sandbox and see if you think it will work? Martinmsgj 23:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Very elegant. Yep, that should be great. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All done, hopefully correctly. Martinmsgj 12:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you on this, it works well! ascidian  | talk-to-me  00:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Except it broke stuffs. Rich Farmbrough, 17:15 4 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Details please? Martinmsgj 17:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It added "section" articles to an undated parent category regardless of whether they were dated or not. I fixed the template. Rich Farmbrough, 15:07 9 March 2009 (UTC).
 * I see. Thanks. So there isn't a category equivalent to Category:All articles lacking sources for articles needing additional sources? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Consistency between all section templates
Transcluded from Village_pump_(proposals)

Couldn't we make all section templates the same size? There has been a discussion on making the size of expand-section smaller and the size was reduced. So what about Unreferenced section? I'd like to propose shrinking this template too.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You could try asking on Template talk:Unreferenced section or Template talk:Unreferenced (as Unreferenced section calls Unreferenced). This example adds "small=left" to the ambox call but it makes the template appear taller:


 * 84user (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After Jorge's and Happy melon's comments below I wrapped this example to fake an align-right. It saves space but it seems to conflict with right-aligned objects. 84user (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! And also, PLEASE, make them appear flush aganst the right margin, like an [[Image:...|right|...]], so that they do not waste screen space with blank lines, and do not interfere with reading the article. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ew, that wastes acres of screen space. It will need to be cut down hugely if it's to be made small, like sect-expand is just a few words.
 * Jorge, the right-floating small option was the default for mboxes, and we (the template coders who wrote it) were specifically asked to make a left-aligned version for the small amboxes, so it wouldn't interfere with permanent images, infoboxes, etc, that are located on the right. Happy‑melon 11:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a fudge using mbox with small font but it only saves a line of text compared to Unreferenced section:


 * 84user (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How about just cutting the information on the tag like the expansion template. Which changed from this to that. I'd recommend "This section requires more references to meet reliability."
 * It's confusing to say "meet", short for "be in compliance with", and then link to the policy but not refer to it by name. There is no Reliability policy. How about


 * Ooh, cute! I would support a move to make section templates consistently small-style and with minimal waffle-content. Happy‑melon 19:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I support the new template. It's simple and no one needs that big of a template for a section. Great work!!!--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It has my vote too. 84user (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The most recent one has my vote as well. D rew S mith  What I've done  01:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I can live with the change in size although I disagree with it, as I believe a lack of sources is a much more important message to give readers and editors than a need for expansion. Furthermore, this template is for completely unreferenced sections and the above change in wording makes it equivalent to refimprovesect. If there is consensus to change the size of the template (as there appears to be) I would suggest something along the lines of:

Not distinguishing between unreferenced section and refimprovesect may lead to editors adding unreferenced to completely unreferenced sections instead, as the message is stronger (and bigger?). On a side note, how would this affect the use of  which currently produces the same result as  ? ascidian | talk-to-me  12:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, this discussion has not been transcluded, but copy and pasted. ascidian  | talk-to-me  12:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Print problems
Please replace

with

This will fix some problems with PDFs created by the PDF tool. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I really can't see that this would have any effect at all, as whitespace is trimmed from parameters. Could you give me an example of the problem you are encountering? If the PDF tool is having problems with this then it is that tool which needs fixing not this. Otherwise you'll have no end of bother trying to remove all spaces from hundreds of templates. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not on this template directly but rather on a template that depended on this one. Also I should have said that this "could" fix a problem rather than "would" fix some. This may not have been the problem, but it was one of the possibilities. If whitespace is trimmed from parameters, then chances are this was not it. Regardless, the problem is fixed now (I think the cause was in DMCA). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:References-s
Can Template:References-s be redirected here. Mattg82 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected that template now. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK thanks, it is now redirecting here. Mattg82 (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

redirect not working?
There's something wrong with unreferencedsection; it should be redirecting here, but for some reason it is behaving as if you had appended  to the url. Can someone check that and fix it? And by the way, since it's a redirect, I think its protection level could change to semi-protected. --Waldir talk 10:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * . I've come across this strange problem once before. In that case, and this one also, a dummy edit fixed it. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Should "Find sources" only provide Google links?
See Template talk:Find sources. Mange01 (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible improvement
The template currently says "Please help improve this article", with improve this article linking to the edit tab of the article. Shouldn't it say "Please help improve this section", with improve this section linking to the corresponding Edit section edit link? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly...but if an entire section is missing references, the whole article would probably need more. Although I would support your changes. C T J F 8 3  07:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is where it changed from "improve this section" to "improve this article". C T J F 8 3  07:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the entire article needs more references, one shouldn't use this template, but Template:Refimprove or Template:Unreferenced instead, thus your first comment is not an argument against the changes I proposed. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was just my thoughts, as I said " Although I would support your changes" C T J F 8 3  07:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I accept that, I simply think this argument is completely irrelevant. Just a difference of opinions. But since we both seem to be supportive of this change, it doesn't seem to matter anyway. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you try Template:Edit protected and see if an admin will make the changes, since we both agree. C T J F 8 3  07:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked User:MZMcBride to weigh in, maybe we are missing why s/he changed it from "section" to "article" C T J F 8 3  07:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, I was simply responding to an editprotected request by another editor (see ). Also, I don't think you can implement the functionality you're after without a new magic word to return the current editing section, but that's somewhat tangential. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit protected
edit protected I propose to change

"Please help improve this article", with improve this article linking to the edit tab of the article

to

"Please help improve this section", with improve this section linking to the corresponding Edit section edit link

Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I 2nd the change. C T J F 8 3  07:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As MZM indicates, there is no way to get the "improve this section" to link directly to the relevant section. Therefore some may argue that it is misleading to link it to the whole article. Another option might be to delink the phrase "improve this section" for this template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What about having an optional parameter for the section number that would cause the link to be active, otherwise not? The only obviously problem would be sections moving around, but it's an idea. MrKIA11 (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is beginning to get rather complicated. It is worth it? Is having "article" in the second line really a problem? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I was just trying to find a middle ground. Really my opinion is that it should not be linked, and therefore the user will naturally go to the edit link for the section which should be right next to the template. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That would work for me. C T J F 8 3  16:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit declined. Please find consensus for your proposal and how exactly to implement it, then make a protected edit request.  Sandstein  18:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There was consensus to change it to 'improve this section', so I went ahead and changed it. Having a link to the section seems near-impossible, but there can further discuss to that regard if necessary. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Category messup
This template is really the bad child when it comes to categories because it makes an articles status indeterminable. Please add a section category to this template asap. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The word May vs the word could or can
I see rewording the template has been suggested above, but if it's going to stay the way it is or close, I suggest changing it from "unscourced material may be challenged and removed" to "unsourced material could be challenged and removed" or "..is subject to being challenged and removed." The word "may" is intended to imply possibility here, but it could also imply permission. Obviously anyone reading the tag shouldn't feel they have permission to simply challenge and remove it without any steps in between, but one could read it that way. Dancindazed (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I second your proposal. If the intention is to imply possibility, then "may" shouldn't be used because it could lead to confusion and misunderstanding. Chris (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)