Template talk:Primary sources/Archive 1

message: I've reformatted this template to the talk page style, and moved all uses of it to the talk page. In general templates meant for editors, which this most certainly is, belong on talk pages. Moreover only relying on primary sources is not a great problem, and is explicitly permitted by official policies like Wikipedia:No original research. - SimonP 04:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformatted and moved 

message: This template was recently vandalized by an anonymous sockpuppet of User:Hogeye. I fixed it. --AaronS 04:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalized by an anonymous sockpuppet 

message: I think using primary sources in general can actually be quite useful.  The problem this template is trying to address is that of using self-referential primary sources.  I think the title "primarysources" is a bit confusing as a result. -- Beland 20:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would a change of the title to "Template:Reliablesources" resolve that problem.  I've only been on WP for a few months, and I find the lack of citations, and the citations of web pages of dubious value, to be issues that need to be addressed. Unevaluated presentation of primary sources is a different problem that may need to be addressed as "poor analysis" or something along that line. --SteveMcCluskey 20:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially in scientific articles, primary sources are very useful. Probably need a template for that. Chaos syndrome 11:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Beland. I think this template and its text should be changed from "primary sources" to "self referential sources." JianLi 06:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology and confusion 

message: This template frustrated me when I saw it. Are primary sources not the most useful source of information; so long as it is well filtered for bias. Who says what a reliable source is? Time Magazine? Nat Geo? 
The project has turned from a free compendium of knowledge to something a lot more pretentious --BesigedB (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Sources 

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Oppose====
#Oppose move. I have updated the language so that it no longer seems to completely prohibit the proper use of primary sources. This template is intended to be used on articles which provide only primary sources, such as many of the television and fiction articles. -- Satori Son 19:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Oppose move. I have updated the language so that it no longer seems to completely prohibit the proper use of primary sources. This template is intended to be used on articles which provide only primary sources, such as many of the television and fiction articles. -- Satori Son 19:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Between this template and ? -- ReyBrujo 05:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is concerned with using self-published sources as secondary sources rather than as primary sources. This one seems to assume that there's something wrong with primary sources themselves, which is misleading. I've suggested it be renamed and reworded deal with unreliable sources rather than primary sources because of this.  -- Bailey(talk) 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true at all.  See my explanation above. -- Satori Son 22:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the difference

message: Hiya, I've noticed that there's a push to use dates with this template.  Currently, the proper syntax is:  .  However, this is very non-intuitive, especially because with most other dated templates, the syntax is simpler, like .  However, using that format with  gets rather bizarre results.  Can someone here update the code, so that it can accept the simpler date format?  Or should we perhaps make another template that's easier to use?  --Elonka 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template syntax problem

message: The previous version of this template contradicted established guidelines for reliable sources. I have added language to explaiu when primary sources published by the subject can be used. in articles. See WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ATT etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from anything else, 4 lines is way too long. Anyway, this template does not say that every single statement in the article must be cited in third-party publications; non-independent sources are acceptable in certain cases. At one extreme this template says that an article does not have any third-party sources, and that is the situation in which it is most commonly used. This template is used less on articles which cite some, but not many, third-party sources; still, articles must be based on third-party sources. The title of the template and its wording with regard to "primary sources" may warrant changing, but what the template clearly means is non-independent sources, and what it says about them is accurate. —Centrx→talk • 22:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Centrx, editors are using this article too inconsistently. The explanation is needed, but maybe you can summarize it or shorten it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please find agreement on the talk page before editing the template Jeepday 00:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Jeepday, we cannot have a template that contradicts policy and/or established guidelines about which there is consensus. I have amended the template to contain wording that makes the template compliant with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To prevent edit and revert wars that show up on all of the pages that have the Primarysources tag please post your suggested changes and reasoning on the this talk page to reach consensus with all editors before changing the text of the template.  Jeepday 13:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This article or section does not cite any sources or references that appear in a credible, third-party publication. The sources provided are primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article, which are acceptable under certain circumstances and if accompanied by third-party sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations from reliable sources. 
See:
* WP:V#Sources
* WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What about the version I came up with before Jeepday reverted everything?  I thought this resolved the issue. —Centrx→talk • 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for brining it here.
I personally prefer the version presented by User:Jossi IMO it is more clear, I personally would change any to should as below.  It gives direction without being as threatening.  Just my thoughts the edit  belongs to you all, I just post it. 
This article or section should cite sources or references that appear in a credible, third-party publication. The sources provided are primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article, which are acceptable under certain circumstances and if accompanied by third-party sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations from reliable sources.
Jeepday 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Articles without any third-party sources are deleted. Also, the template does not need to describe what is on the page ("The sources provided are..."); that is unnecessary and unusual, templates describe what is wrong with the page. Also, this is far too long, and the ther version included the relevant information. —Centrx→talk • 23:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Users are misusing this template because it is misleading. Primary sources are OK sources in the circumstances addressed by the template. The wording The sources provided are primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article means that it isnot OK to use such sources, when actually WP:V states the contrary. Work with me here Centrx, and propose a wording that addresses this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did, and it did not have the problematic phrasing. Look at the revision before Jeepday reverted. —Centrx→talk • 03:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  * User Perspective offered - I use the tag primarysources a lot when I working the Stubsensor cleanup project; you can help!.  The article “what-ever” is built as or gets tagged as a stub.  A helpful person comes along goes to “what-ever.com” web page copies and pastes the link into the article as an external link.  Next helpful user comes along grabs (and hopefully rephrases) a bunch of content from “what-ever.com”.  Some other helpful user does some wikification.  The page is no longer a stub has lots of valuable content but still needs work, and primarily at this point it needs references and content from other then “what-ever.com”.  Even if Cummins (recently edited example, (also note why I didn’t like the word “any” in Jossi’s proposal)) was originally self published (not saying it was or was not) it is definitely notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.  The next step is helping the article broaden it’s point of view and the references.  IMHO articles are not born perfect they are edited into perfection by multiple editors, tags are a tool to help guide that growth.  Jeepday 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non compliant 

message: I have discussed my edits and provided arguments for why it needs to be modified so that it does not contradicts established policies (WP:V) and guidelines (WP:RS), related to the use of primary sources in articles about the author(s) themselves. I have highlighted below the additions I find to be necessary for this not to contradict guidelines:
:This article or section does not cite any sources or references that appear in a credible, third-party publication. The sources provided are primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article, which are acceptable under certain circumstances and if accompanied by third-party sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations from reliable sources. 
See:
* WP:V#Sources
* WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the version I came up with before Jeepday reverted everything?  I thought this resolved the issue. —Centrx→talk • 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for brining it here.
I personally prefer the version presented by User:Jossi IMO it is more clear, I personally would change any to should as below.  It gives direction without being as threatening.  Just my thoughts the edit  belongs to you all, I just post it. 
This article or section should cite sources or references that appear in a credible, third-party publication. The sources provided are primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article, which are acceptable under certain circumstances and if accompanied by third-party sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations from reliable sources.
Jeepday 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Articles without any third-party sources are deleted. Also, the template does not need to describe what is on the page ("The sources provided are..."); that is unnecessary and unusual, templates describe what is wrong with the page. Also, this is far too long, and the ther version included the relevant information. —Centrx→talk • 23:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Users are misusing this template because it is misleading. Primary sources are OK sources in the circumstances addressed by the template. The wording The sources provided are primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article means that it isnot OK to use such sources, when actually WP:V states the contrary. Work with me here Centrx, and propose a wording that addresses this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did, and it did not have the problematic phrasing. Look at the revision before Jeepday reverted. —Centrx→talk • 03:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  * User Perspective offered - I use the tag primarysources a lot when I working the Stubsensor cleanup project; you can help!.  The article “what-ever” is built as or gets tagged as a stub.  A helpful person comes along goes to “what-ever.com” web page copies and pastes the link into the article as an external link.  Next helpful user comes along grabs (and hopefully rephrases) a bunch of content from “what-ever.com”.  Some other helpful user does some wikification.  The page is no longer a stub has lots of valuable content but still needs work, and primarily at this point it needs references and content from other then “what-ever.com”.  Even if Cummins (recently edited example, (also note why I didn’t like the word “any” in Jossi’s proposal)) was originally self published (not saying it was or was not) it is definitely notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.  The next step is helping the article broaden it’s point of view and the references.  IMHO articles are not born perfect they are edited into perfection by multiple editors, tags are a tool to help guide that growth.  Jeepday 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current wording is incompatible with WP:V and WP:RS