Template talk:One source

message: __TOC__
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was TEMPLATE MOVED per discussion below.  The transclusions are fewer than 100; they could be fixed by dilligent hand, or by a bot request. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support. I always thought these names were confusing, but both templates serve a unique purpose, so renaming is appropriate. -- Satori Son 17:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The instructions for using this template currently say "This template alerts readers that citations in an article or section may be inappropriate or misinterpreted. Examples include quotations taken out of context and false assertions about a source's facts or conclusions."  That would seem to be a straight copy from :Template:Citecheck and doesn't make sense here (and it's the same story for the rest of the "usage" instructions.  I've not seen this template used before today; would someone who does use it be able to correct the instructions (and have a look at :Template:Self-published for the same reason? Bencherlite 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage

message: The template said, "image = none  ", but why not use the standard reference image, :Image:Question book-3.svg?  I've put in the question-book image, but feel free to revert or raise objections. -- Lea (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: This is yet more template clutter. Comments like this should be on the talk page not the article page. That is what talk pages are for. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to talk page

message: The usage guidelines of this template do not seem to coinside with the meaning of the template, but seems to be more like . The following is the current wording.
:This template alerts readers that citations in an article or section may be inappropriate or misinterpreted. Examples include quotations taken out of context and false assertions about a source's facts or conclusions.
:When using this template the text should have:
:*Citations in footnote, Harvard referencing, or some other standard format. 
:*Multiple citations (or one key citation) that an editor tried to verify and found that the article passage misstated or misconstrued the original source's content. 
:Please try to improve the article or make a good faith attempt to verify the citations in question before adding this template, and discuss the matter on the talk page. If only one citation is problematic, or there is a desire to tag particular citations, consider using  instead.
:Articles that merely lack references or have POV problems should be flagged with some other template.
I propose the following wording for the usage of this template.
:This template alerts readers that an article or section may be based largely or entirely on a single source. Examples include articles with only one citation or one listing under references.
:When using this template the text should have:
:*Citation in footnote, Harvard referencing, or some other standard format. 
:*One key citation that an editor can verify. 
:Please try to improve the article or make a good faith attempt to find additional citations before adding this template, and discuss the matter on the talk page. If the one citation is problematic consider using  instead.
:Articles that merely lack references or have POV problems should be flagged with some other template, such as  or 
:Note that some sections based on one source may not be a problem and no tag is necessary. For an example see this section.
Mathman1550 (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Usage guidelines 

message: As I commented in the recent TFD, the category associated with this template could be improved. Currently it categorises pages into :Category:Articles lacking reliable references; however, :Category:Articles needing additional references may be more appropriate (as the existing references may be reliable, just insufficient). Robofish (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The TfD agreed on this, and I see no reason not to do this, so I have changed the associated categories. Fram (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Associated category 

message: It would be helpful if the template description page either contained an explicit copy of the actual contents of the default first sentence ( i.e. showing single source is meant rather than single source), or if the template provided the facility of adding a second sentence. Either would be useful to cover cases where only a slight tweak to what appears is wanted. Melcombe (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Is this template intended to be used for stubs that are about one to two sentences long?  --LauraHale (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubs 

message: Can this template be used in other language versions of WP? How would one go about making it available to others versions?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.130.159 (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  use in other language versions 

message: For , deleting the second sentence in the resulting display would be a nice option. Opening a Talk discussion may be redundant. In some cases, just seeing the section and the tag will be enough notice. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  request, with "section" parameter, choice to delete 2d sentence 

message: Suggestion: add in an option to add in "type=yes" and make the template say "a single type of source". This is because I cannot find any other template that says "a single type of source".
Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a single "type of source"? Would need a crisp definition. Then, is that a taggable situation? -DePiep (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Certainly needs more discussion here. —  (e • t • c) 16:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 17 January 2015 

message: According to Dictionary.com, greatly is more formal than largely, so I think that "relies greatly or entirely" would be better for the encyclopedia than "relies largely or entirely".
Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling for English says that "largely" sounds more natural and correct. I am not arguing with the proposing editor's dictionary findings, just saying how I "feel" the language. Debresser (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, the same was true for me as well. ~ RobTalk 05:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 23 June 2016 

message: An RfC is underway that could affect this template and may therefor be of interest to watchers of this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding Twinkle maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC of potential interest 

message: Love you so much! Nirmalhial (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love 

message: Please add  to the template. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: see note at Template_talk:Unreferenced#Template-protected_edit_request_on_9_November_2019.  If you want to just request someone else to make this later they can follow up below. — xaosflux Talk 00:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 9 November 2019 

message: I request to put a  on the template for articles, as it does with More citations needed and a few others, since it is fustrating to find sources using this template, which is its secondary purpose. dibbydib 💬/✏ 02:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 28 November 2019 

message: The "single source" should link to Wikipedia:Articles with a single source. The "sources" after "to additional" should then be linked to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Crouch, Swale (talk)  21:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Elli (talk | contribs) 21:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 8 March 2021 

message: Is it possible to have this direct articles, instead of to :Category:All articles needing additional references, a subcat of that, like a new :Category:All articles with only one source? I think this would be a very useful category to have separated, since the way one goes about improving a one-source article is different than the way one might go about improving an article tagged with refimprove. Someone trying to address the other tags that end up in :Category:All articles needing additional references is typically trying to find a particular piece of information in a source somewhere. But to solve an article tagged as onesource, all you need to do is find another source and integrate information from it into the article. -- asilvering (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance category