Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 2

message: <div class="messagebox cleanup metadata plainlinks">
{|style="width:100%;background:none"
|width=60px|[[Image:Information_icon.svg|40px]]
|This {{{1|article or section}}} does not cite its [[{{SITENAME}}:Citing sources|references or sources]].<br /><small>Please help [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article] by introducing appropriate citations. ([[Help:Contents|help]], [[{{SITENAME}}:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|get involved!]]) {{#if:{{{date|}}}|This article has been tagged since {{{date}}}.}}</small>
|}</div><includeonly>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:Articles lacking sources from {{{date}}}]]|}}[[Category:All articles lacking sources]]</includeonly><noinclude>
{{/doc}} 
</noinclude>
Which looks like:
	This article or section does not cite its references or sources.Please help [ improve this article] by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!)
----
-- PatrickFisher 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I asked on Template talk:Context, what is the reason for including the icon? The reader's focus should primarily be led to the text and not to the template. Patrick did not answer there, while Gurch agreed with me. I therefore propose that the icon be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I'm curious as well. I've removed the  tag until the question is answered. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasn't another admin, Zsinj, already made the requested edit? Personally, I agree that there was not much point to it. -- Satori Son 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing that I'm not alone, I removed the picture. The rest of the edit still stands. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I like dab's comment from Template_talk:Fact#Shorten: "why shorten it? I say make it blink, in an 18pt font. This is our last line of defence against the ever-looming "Wikipedia is unreliable" verdict" - that said, I won't revert the removal without further discussion, but I don't see the point in making this template less obtrusive. -- nae'blis 20:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about it for a while. I don't agree because it conflates lack of references with unreliability, in my opinion. However, it does seem to be the general opinion on Wikipedia that lack of references is a cardinal sin, so I have to concede that Naeblis has a point. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Edit

message: Some of the sample tags on this page have the word "Foo" inserted in them.  What does this mean? Is it vandalism?  If not, could someone explain on the page why the word is in the tag?--Dmz5 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See wikt:foo. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I would assume lots of users come to this page to figure out how to use these tags.  Having a "metasyntactical" term in the sample template seems confusing to me.  Can't it be changed to "article title" or something more obvious?--Dmz5 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I changed it; tweak if necessary. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Better yet, Foo The word foo itself has no meaning and is merely a commonly used logical representation that is used much in the way that the letters 'x' and 'y' in algebra are used to represent a number. In computer programming metasyntactic variables such as foo are used as a variable to represent the name of a subroutine, variable, or any other programmer named part of a program. Cuvtixo (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What is "foo"?

message: Hi folks. This template here produces a layout problem. On articles with an infobox on the right, the box overwrites the infobox. Problem articles are for example Beaverton, Oregon, or Oregon. See this screenshot, which shows the rendering of Beaverton, Oregon in Firefox 2.0 on Windows XP SP2.
I played a bit in my sandbox for finding a change that would fix this. If we would change the template code to


This article or section does not cite its references or sources.Please help [ improve this article] by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!)
Category:All articles lacking sources
 

which would remove the "width:100%" it would look like this. So I propose to remove the "width:100%" unless somone has a better idea. --Ligulem 12:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus the problem described in this archive thread is still not solved. This would still be the same with or without my change above as IE7 puts the box below any infobox creating the problem shown in :Image:Norefs.jpg --Ligulem 09:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I've removed the "100%" per above for now. --Ligulem 12:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the unneeded table. The text should now be centered again. --Ligulem 15:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout problem with Infoboxes

message: I'd like to create a template to place on the talk pages of users who create articles without sources, asking them to provide the sources they use.  Any wording suggestions? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd start with  and go from there, though that may do the job by itself... -- nae'blis 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the pointer, but the wording in that one just really grates on me.  It feels patronizing, wordy, and misdirected. "as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content." What the hell is that doing in a warning template?  I'm going to make a conciser template for new articles that basicly says "thanks for creating an article, but we need your sources or it might be deleted," and has a link back to the specific article, a  to go with  and   Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notification template

message: If you time to browse articles and find fault with them, then you have the time to do a little research and put in references.  That would be better for Wiki that this.  99% of people that use the template, will never notify the people that have been contributing to this article and most will have moved on and never see it.  And the template will stay.  Before using this template, take the time to leave a message on the contributors talk pages, or fix it yourself.  Don't be lazy.  --71Demon 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to clean up a list like Wikipedia:Dead-end pages or Special:Lonelypages, the only hope of getting things properly done is to catch the attention of the people who are putting in material without references. The template helps do that. And the people who have not moved to other things will normally have it in their watchlist, so they will see it. I think. --Alvestrand 16:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Putting 'unreferenced tag' in your edit summary is all you need to do to notify the page's editors, assuming it's in their watchlist. Cop 633 18:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The "lazy" editors, are those not bothering to cite their sources.  Anyhow, this template has some use.  For one, when articles are nominated for deletion, people can see that there's been ample time/notice for references, and an article is unlikely to ever get any.  Also, its a service to our readers, to note the claims of the article aren't backed up, and to be extra cautious.  As well, there's a tendancy for people to simply assume how things are done, is how they should be.  Most peole fail to cite sources, because most articles they see, don't.  This tag helps tell new editors, that even though a particular article doesn't cite sources, it aught to.  --Rob 02:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This lazy editor adds this template frequently when doing stub sorting.  My primary focus is on stub sorting, so noting an unsourced article as such is all I have time to do as I stub sort, which is a never-ending maintenance task in and of itself. Caerwine Caer’s whines 11:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a warning to readers too - take this article with a bit of caution. MadMaxDog 09:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This template should rarely be used, it is for lazy editors

message: Template:Primarysources has been re-written since it was originally about requiring "secondary sources", which wasn't really founded in policy and there were some other problems with it (see talk page there). So, it is proposed to rename it to Template:Reliablesources. Yet, is there any case where would want to notify about "sources or references" (as this template says), yet would not want to encourage at least some "credible, third-party sources" (as Template:Primarysources says)? So, I think it might be best to consolidate a "good sources" template at Template:Sources; Template:Unreferenced could either remain as it is, as an "any sources" template, or be redirected there. —Centrx→talk • 14:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: response on Template talk:Primarysources Jeepday 16:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wanted to make clear my position. I don't agree with your reasoning - articles that don't have ANY sources are different from articles that just have primary sources. We can quibble about the names of the templates (I wince every time I use "unreferenced"), but I oppose a merge. --Alvestrand 21:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: People are far less likely to click on and read a link. If someone thinks they know how to "cite sources", they aren't to bother reading the page that tells them "how to cite sources". If it says it right on the template, anyone reading the template will see it. Also, Wikipedia:Citing sources doesn't really say much of anything about reliable sources; it tells how to cite sources in the appropriate style, whether they be random personal websites or the Decline and Fall. I see no reason not to have "This article or section needs to cite reliable, third-party sources." It is quite short. —Centrx→talk • 05:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Template:Primarysources]]?

message: Hi! Can you help in adding thhe Arabic interwiki for this template?
<nowkik>ar:قالب:مصدر</nowiki>
Thanks. - Qasamaan 23:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. For templates that have a doc page, you can do it yourself (scroll to bottom). Doc pages are not protected. --Ligulem 22:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: Pleas add &method=relevance&auth_checked=Y this link to the bottom of the template. It's a research resource that I programmed to automatically search for the article name. Saves shiteloads of time. Here's the code:
 (search for sources)
Thanks. ~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 17:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should a search link for any one particular search link be added?  I imagine there's probably a way for an individual user to add a such a link to their skin via javascript, and it might even be a good thing to make more easily available, but I really can't see Wikipedia promoting any one single search engine over the others. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Side note) In my capacity as an admin reviewing the edit request: I don't see consensus yet, and I have thus removed the editprotected tag for now. Feel free to readd it once you have consensus or drop me a note on my talk page. Cheers, --Ligulem 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hm... I would be a bit uncomfortable linking any particular site over another, but the general idea seems helpful. Perhaps it would be better to create a page along the lines of Help:Finding sources or some such? (I haven't been able to find one, unfortunately). Luna Santin 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EDIT

message: Is there a template for articles which leave substantial portions unreferenced (not necessarily in one section), as opposed to being completely unreferenced? I had a quick search but couldn't find anything.
If there is no such template, I think it might not be a bad idea to have one, especially if people are feeling inclined to delete articles which have been marked with this tag for x amount of time.
-- Qarnos 10:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be one, but it was deleted in February 2005; see the TFD discussion. Personally, I think your proposed template would fill a useful role. Two possible options at the moment are using  tags and . --Muchness 19:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * I like the proposed change to "adequately", Having only one reference while it is better then none, still does not meet WP:V or WP:N 03:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I also fully support this change. If a 20-kb article has one reference, it should still be tagged, and "adequately" fixes this problem. Thanks! Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *What does "adequately" mean here? Can it not be said about every article on Wikipedia, save for some of the featured ones? If this change means that everyone is now free to add that degrading tag to a million articles because they all could do with more references, then I'm against it. No article is perfect, but we shouldn't start them all with big tags to excuse this fact. I am much more for using the -tag to flag specific statements that needs a citation. This is both more reader and editor friendly than just throwing a big "some important things here are not referenced, but we won't tell you what. Have a nice read". With specific fact-tagging editor's will know which statements that need looking up to find the source, while readers will know exactly what might be dubious information. But, again, does this change now mean that a million articles should start with this tag? Shanes 05:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Adequately" means there are sufficient sources to verify all the information contained within an article. There are about a million articles on Wikipedia which should start with this tag - that is the problem we are trying to resolve! I am not going to spend an hour adding a  tag to every sentence of an article because people don't like blanket tags like this. If a 20kb article has just one reference, then it should be tagged. Click "random article" ten times in a row and see how many articles you find with any references, let alone one or two. Wikipedia needs to clean up its act with regard to references and this, in my opinion, is one step in the right direction. -- Qarnos 11:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I think the change to "adequately" was a mistake.  I find it important to make a distinction between the articles that do not cite any references and those that are not adequately referenced.  Perhaps two tags are needed here rather than one.  ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 01:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think the move to "does not adequately" was correct and I think it is strongly supported by Wikipedia:Attribution Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. the tag  whether it says "does not adequately" or "does not site" states that this reference on this article are not sufficient to meet expectations.  If there is one reference or no references does not mater, the expectation of attribution is not met and that's what this template is for.  On occasion a single reference may be sufficient for a stub but as seen in Wikipedia:Notability expectations for multiple reference exist and so if there were two tags and if an article goes from none to one reference editors would be swapping out "does not site" for "does not adequately" because the article is either adequately referenced or is not.  As an aside to Qarnos - a quote from WP:A Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed., so yep there is a million out there and they all need to be fixed. Jeepday 03:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * I strongly disagree with the use of "adequately". The situation before was very clear...  if an article had no sources, it needed at least one, period, end of story, and the tag was usually not disagreed with.  If an article had a source but needed more, then the specific statements were highlighted with , and people could discuss whether a particular statement was controversial and whether it needed sourcing.  Now, the situation is far less clear.  Someone says "I think the article needs more sources", without pointing out what statements need sourced, or why more sources are needed.  So someone else is then free to remove the tag, and similarly doesn't need to give any specific reasons other than that they vaguely disagree.  It makes the discussion far less precise.  If the "adequately" clause remains, I encourage others to stop using this template, and to only use  instead.  --Interiot 04:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Partially unrefererenced

message: See , and my user page for my reasons for its existence.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My new 'unreferenced2' tag

message: I quite don't understand what this link does anything with Jimbo's quote on top of this article. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054929.html
--Manop - TH 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to Jimbo's quote

message: I suggest wikilinking "adequately" to Wikipedia:Attribution in the template.  Jeepday 00:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: adequately

message: Reliable sources has been supereceded by Attribution. Should this template be updated to refer to current policy.--ZayZayEM 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, to be fair the situation has changed in the last few days. Addhoc 18:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|Reliable sources]] has been supereceded by [[WP:ATT|Attribution]]

message: I have suggested on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources that Wikipedia:Reliable sources be merged and redirected to Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources.  Please see the discussion (if any) at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Signed Jeepday 14:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]

message: While the phrase normally passes me by without a second glance, I just now realized something about the wording of "does not adequately cite its references." By definition, this implies that there are references from which the content is derived, when the article may very well be a convincingly-worded collection of lies, as was the case with the now-long-dead article "Porchesia." Surely a user could misinterpret this to mean that the original contributors simply forgot to put in the sources, but that thouse sources — "its references" — still exist somewhere. Why shouldn't the wording be something like "does not cite sufficient sources", or, in when this is the case, "does not cite any sources," with the possible addtion of "and may therefore be unreliable"? Does this possibly exist in the form of another template? \sim Lenoxus " * " 00:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sudden thought

message: I have suggested that Template:Not verified become a redirect to this article. Please see Template talk:Not verified#Redirect to Template:Unreferenced for a opinions on this suggestion. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect from [[Template:Not verified]]

message: The statement "Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time." shoud be removed. Any material may be challenged and removed at any time, whether or not it is referenced. The suggestion that adding references will exempt material from challenge or removal is not only factually incorrect, but it supports the idea that referenced material is somehow correct simply because it is referenced, which is not the case at all. Material is correct if it is correct. Wikipedia contains millions of good unreferenced sentences, and many misleading, incomplete, inaccurate and biased paragraphs that are referenced. The objective is to have correct material, not misleading but referenced material, but the template implies a preference for the latter. Honbicot 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: strong agreement. this is misleading--removing unreferenced material as merely unreferenced in most cases without an attempt to find sources or discuss on the talk page is wrong. This should be changed. I   Are there any objections to simply removing it? I dont think a change of wording would help.DGG 06:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I object to removing the statement, I offer Template talk:Unreferenced#Jimbo on Unreferenced as exhibit one.  additionally if an editor was going to simply remove the the text as unreferenced they would remove it, not place a  or .  Please also review WP:V#Burden_of_evidence.  Jeepday (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant and misleading text

message: 
Suggest removing the link to Wikipedia:Attribution in favor of the old link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. WP:ATT is only a proposal at this time. Frise 00:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:ATT

message: Template:Citation style to the see also section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard001 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. For future reference, you should put  on a new request or it might not get noticed. —Centrx→talk • 03:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition requested

message: Proposing stronger text to include directions for partially referenced.  Jeepday 16:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this strengthening and re-wording.  It makes the situation where this template is to be used more clear, and points out an alternative for partially, inadequately referenced articles. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the adding of "any". Makes it clear that this tag is for totally unsourced articles. It would mean a lot of work moving this template from  replacing this template with  on articles which are partially sourced, which I already do when I encounter one. Garion96 (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey Garion, could you change "removing" to "replacing with " in your comment above :) Jeepday talk 12:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that was not a Freudian slip. :) Garion96 (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only positive comments on the proposed change have been posted would someone like to post the changes? Jeepday (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added "any" to the template. I did not added the link to moresources since that already was reverted a couple of times. See the history. Garion96 (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the current change, I preferred the older version. If this template is added to an unreferenced article and 1 ref is added to the article it has to be changed. Quadzilla99 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say an unreferenced article that may need references for notability reasons is already covered by , this move creates a huge amount of extra work as editors have to replace tags on pages every time even one unformatted [] link is added. Also, new editors will almost definitely remove the tag when an article has one reference, at which point the article will be untagged for needing references despite having only one. Quadzilla99 01:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made similar arguments above, (except  as it has the  going on).  I also suggested adding If this article is partially referenced but needs more sources please replace this template with  to the template, but apparently could not get agreement for the inclusion. Jeepday (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed wording change strengthen {{tl|unref}} and use {{tl|more sources}} for partially referenced

message: Does anyone know how we can get an estimated count of how many articles have  on them?  I am thinking it might be an idea to try and set up a project like User:Triddle/stubsensor/20070206 to go through and clean them up.  The Stubsensor project in it's current format addresses 10,000 articles at time.  With 9 registered volunteers  we have done about a third of them in 6 weeks.  There is always a gap between us finishing and Triddle getting a new one up, so we could potentially migrate that group of volunteers to a new Unreferenced clean up project.  Jeepday talk 02:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: Can you please add back the "adequately" or some equivalent? An article may have references here and there, but may need many more, or may need more detailed referencing. The way the template looks now, one may assume an article has no references at all. Using dozens of citation tags instead of this single tag is not a good alternative as it makes the article look hideous and unapproachable. Laval 04:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: can be used for articles that have references here and there but need many more.  Having a template that applies only to articles that do not have any sources at all is beneficial. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: About a million and a half articles does not "adequately" list its sources. Maybe only about a few hundreds do. If we start adding tags to almost every article on Wikipedia, we'll end up degrading the purpose of both the tag and the category it populates. Lets use big shouting tags for only the very worst cases. For everything else there's the more to-the-point  note. And, of course, we still have talk pages where opinions and improvements can be suggested and discussed in plain english. That's the respectful and considerate way of raising consernes over an article. A big tag slapped on top of an article you're working on by someone who's never worked on it or showed any interest in its content can be seen as quite insulting. Shanes 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adequately

message: The template says: "This article or section does not cite any references or sources."
Why not change it to "This article or section cites few or no references or sources."
This would fit better, because technically, the template would not be appropriate once somebody added a single reference. MadMaxDog 10:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, this template is only appropriate for articles without any sources, external links etc.  can be used for partially sourced articles. See discussion a few sections above. Garion96 (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change

message: Could anybody change the comma to the bullet ·? The current phrase it a bit confusing. — Kalan 15:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: help, get involved!

message: It seems to me that an awful lot of bot edits could be avoided by having maintenance templates like this one date themselves.  already does this. Doing so requires having two templates. One is substituted by the user, which then transcludes the other along with the appropriate parameter. The end result is no more complex than the current situation - one template with a parameter - and the need to either supply a date or use a bot disappears, saving effort. The only thing that's more complex is the construction of the template itself, which doesn't matter.
I've put together an illustration of how this could work at Template:Unreferenced2. This also does some other things, like inserting a References header and , which won't always be a good idea but which are probably useful when tagging an article with no references at all. The main point is that  leaves behind another template – Template:Unreferenced-end – unsubstituted and correctly dated. Any comments? – Gurch 00:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Firstly, it was "this article does not cite its references or sources", then "this article does not adequately cite its references or sources" and is now changed to "this article does not cite any references or sources". For articles that have a small but inadequate number of citations, the "does not cite any" wording is inappropriate.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that, but then saw that someone has already said to use  in such a case. This template then serves a different purpose to that other one. GDallimore (Talk) 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Around and around we go.  Now it's "very few or no."  If people are going to keep changing the various templates about inadequate sourcing to say pretty much the same thing, maybe we should just try merging them? PubliusFL 16:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, indeed, we're back to square one. The point, originally, of this template was to tag totally unsourced articles. But people started using it for partially sourced articles. We have  for that. Totally unsourced articles are most important to fix. But with the current wording people will again keep adding this template to partially sourced articles which means we can't identify the articles which are most in need of sourses. Garion96 (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing that might help -  redirects to this template.  Since people tend to use  pretty generically, maybe that should redirect to  instead of here, so that editors who are more discriminating can continue to use this template for the worst offenders. PubliusFL 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That last suggestions sounds like a good plan, and was also made by User:Kingboyk. A template such as  could also be made that took parameters such as "none" to indicate no sources or "more" to indicate more or "inadequate" to indicate better sources needed, etc etc. Could be too unwieldy for editors who are just looking for a quick fix, though. GDallimore (Talk) 21:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would suggest reverting back to the "Any" and updating the useage directions below the template to give direction for  and describe what we have talked about here (and above, and above...).  An editor should not have to read the talk page to know what the expectations are.  Jeepday (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already made a first stab at that. What do people think? GDallimore (Talk) 09:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I liked the former wording a lot better, not a big fan of the current wording as I said above. Quadzilla99 13:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This template is intended for articles with zero sources. If there is even one source of dubious quality, this template is no longer appropriate. There are plenty of other templates to use in that case. C Mummert · talk 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that is what is currently intended for, as I said above I think it was simpler before. Quadzilla99 14:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to this template

message: I am probably going to be sorry I brought this up,(deep breath) ok, here goes.  It would seem kind of pointless to use  for article with absolutely no references and  or  for those that are poorly sourced if they all place article in the same category.  As it happens  puts articles into Category:Articles lacking reliable references, so perhaps Category:Articles lacking sources should be limited to  and everything else like  should go to Category:Articles lacking reliable references.
* Above is posted to Category_talk:Articles_lacking_sources#Category:Articles_lacking_sources please go there for central discussion. Jeepday (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Always something with this template right? :). I agree, that doesn't make sense. I always use the "what links here" but it makes more sense to use separate categories. Garion96 (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How about, in the first instance, redirecting  to ? Addhoc 13:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally would redirect the other way  to  it already goes into Category:Articles lacking reliable references, it seems cleaner to me.  But that might be a topic better discussed on one of those two templates. So how about recategorizing templates for "Articles lacking reliable references"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeepday (talk • contribs) 13:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, no objection regarding the categories, however I prefer the more positive wording of . Could we use this phrasing in the  template? Addhoc 10:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Articles lacking sources

message: I believe an icon is necessary on this and many (every) other template. Icons are quick ways to catch the eye and having a lot of text just convolutes things. -Eερ² (t|c) 01:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that at Template_talk:Unreferenced#Proposed_Edit above a similar proposal was made and did not take root. 03:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just proposing an icon, not a rewording... -Eερ² (t|c) 05:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was about an icon, the wording of the template has changed since then, unrelated to the icon.   2 days after the proposal the change was made to add the image  then 3 days later the image was removed again  The text box catches the eye, if you go back to march of 2005  the box was considered too obnoxious by many .  Your proposal for an icon fails to indicate how the icon can clarify the need to add references to an article more then current text that clearly describes the deficiency, rationale, solution, and the repercussions.  Additionally your link to convolute goes to a disambiguation page (poor form try Wiktionary:convolute, next time) that includes the description Convolute means to roll up or to make something unnecessarily complex. and you are proposing adding a icon with out a clear meaning and you are possibly suggesting that image will replace a lot of text that "just convolutes things".  As you might gather from the length of this talk page and the protected status of this template, every word in this template has been discussed at length.  You may also want to consider if your additions of this icon to non protected templates  without discussing it are appropriate.  Jeepday (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see what the big deal is. Icons just "pretty up" things but can also be used to convey information. The "i" stands for "information" and is not new in GUIs. Plain text is boring. I also don't like the white background; I use the "simple" template that allows the web browser-specified background color on pages, but is overridden in many templates and tables. I'd rather have the background remain user-specified (bright white on a medium-dark background tends to be overbearing and even painful to the eyes due to the contrast extremes). -Єερ² (τ|c) 20:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Image:Information_icon.svg|40px]] icon needed

message: In  this edit, a link to WP:BRD was added to the tempalte. i feel that this is unhelpful, as we should if anything be encouraging discussion such as requests for specific sources first. I plan to remove this link from the template. If anyone disagrees, we can discuss the matter here. DES (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to BRD

message: The interwiki links
*:no:Mal:Kilde mangler
*:pt:Sem-fontes
don't work. Those pages don't exist. Could an administrator remove them, please? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. For future reference, the interwiki links are on the /doc subpage, and can be edited by anyone. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you. ElinorD (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki links that don't exist

message: I'm thinking something has been messed up in the recent edits of the template. See the tag here. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 01:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the date needed a "date=" parameter. GDallimore (Talk) 02:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've alerted the editor accordingly - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 02:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error