Template talk:Unreferenced section

message: Okay so even with a "long" month like September it does not cause this template to take up another row, so I do not oppose the idea. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I don't see any reason the section parameter should also invoke small format. Most maintenance tags don't behave this way. It would be less intrusive if it didn't create the same amount of whitespace and maybe wrapped text, but it doesn't. If there's a central consensus demonstrated to make tags operate this way (or build it into ambox) then fine, but until then I don't think one or two tags should be mangled into this behavior. Equazcion (talk) 21:44, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, there is no "central consensus" that section tags should behave in this way. However there has been local consensus established on a handful of these templates which have decided to go down this route. What do you mean by "wrapped text"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If the small version caused text to wrap around it (the box and article content sharing horizontal space), I could see it being a benefit, as then it would save space on the page and actually be less intrusive. Currently the small version just makes the box small and float left, filling the rest of the line with whitespace instead. Regarding consensus, I don't see any significant discussion on that. Someone presented the idea and a couple people agreed, then the edit was made. Also, this behavior is either good for all maintenance templates, or none of them. I don't see any discussion about why this particular template should be treated differently. If instead, someone thought section templates would work better this way, the discussion shouldn't have been held here, regarding just this one. Equazcion (talk) 22:10, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I see what you mean about wrapping now. You are talking about the text in the article not the text in the message box. Yes, this might be an interesting idea to explore. Regarding consensus, the discussion about this template was not particularly voluminous (although it did have more participants than this thread). However the discussion which took place on Template talk:Expand section (and which led to the development of the small ambox), was significant and cannot, I suggest, be overridden easily. That template is, in my opinion, a prime example of the small ambox because it has just one row of text and is noticeable yet does not spoil the appearance of the article. I agree that consistency is good but it is also possible that a one-size-fits-all approach is not the best. Perhaps this template would look better if the words were trimmed down, see below for example. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that one size may not fit all, but I'm not quite sure why yet, as no reason was given yet, anywhere. The point of ambox was to make them all uniform, on the premise that there's no reason any of them should be formatted differently. Your tinier version does serve the small purpose better, but again, this isn't something that should be discussed for this one template alone. I might take this to village pump. Equazcion (talk) 22:34, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

text: The thing that I do not understand is this:  why is the  tag small but the  tag (by default) large?  shouldn't it be the other way around?  Frankly I like the way that the  tag allows users to override its default behavior. 69.243.26.39 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: With date

message: I've requested a fix for some layout problems at Template talk:Refimprove#Poor layout (although this template has the least problems). -84user (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout problems 

message: I am browsing through some articles that contain this template (some of which are kind of a shocker -- like Warrant (law) has been unreferenced since 2007?!).  If an editor adds one reference to a section, does that merit the removal of the template from that section?  To me, that seems kind of sketchy -- one reference doesn't "fix" an entire section's sourcing problems, right?  Yet, with even one reference, a section no longer can be described as "unreferenced". - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like this is somewhat an "I know it when I see it" scenario, in that a lot could come down to what remaining text is specifically uncited. If it's statements that you believe are "obviously" true and generally well-known, than I don't see the harm in de-tagging (of course, another editor may disagree...). If it's, given the article you linked to, legalese or technical information or things that couldn't be reasonably considered to be well-known, I'd likely leave the template in. That said, nothing beats asking the question at the article's Talk page to see what other editors think (though speaking from experience, if you're pushing for leaving the template in, you may run into a distressing amount of opposition). DonIago (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very much like the decision of what to do when an article is found to have references, but there is also  applied earlier to the article as a whole. It was, I hope, explained at Template talk:Unreferenced#Question. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  When is removal appropriate? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Unreferenced which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 07:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Please change the first sentence of the template from "This section does not cite any references (sources)" to:
 This section does not cite any sources.
This involves the removal of "references" and the parentheses. This will bring it into line with Template:Unreferenced, which recently had the same change made to it following discussion at Template talk:Unreferenced#Proposal: "This article does not cite any sources.".
The current wording of "references (sources)" implies that "sources" is another word for references, which is not accurate. Sources are things external to Wikipedia. Citations, or references, are text we write in Wikipedia about those external sources. This is clear at Wikipedia:Citing sources, where the first sentence reads, "A citation, or reference, uniquely identifies a source of information". The proposed wording is consistent with the next sentence in the template, which talks about "citations to reliable sources". Nurg (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to "This section does not cite any sources." 

message: Please replace "references (sources)" with "sources" to match the version for the entire article, which is Template:Unreferenced.
GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 04:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 23 December 2015 

message: There appears to be a problem with the Usage section of the documentation. A date is not being displayed, though it looks as if that is the intention. --Boson (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Usage section of documentation 

message: Please add |removalnotice = yes inside the  template. Many of the other maintenance templates contain this and this one should be the same. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_131#Implementing_Help:Maintenance_template_removal. 
Omni Flames (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 14 June 2016 

message: A protected redirect, Template:Unreferencedsection needs redirect category (rcat) templates added.  Please modify it as follows:
* from this:
#REDIRECT Template:unreferenced section
* to this:
#REDIRECT Template:Unreferenced section

* 
The  template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories.  When  and/or  suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically.  (Also, the protection categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.)  Thank you in advance!  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  16:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you again, Redrose64, for the kazillionth time!  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  07:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fully protected edit request on 24 July 2016 

message: The tfd tag at the top should be moved to be inside of the Module:Unsubst invocation. Diddo for  Pppery 20:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 17 January 2017 

message: I think that "any" should be replaced by "many", so this template can be used when only 1 or 2 references are places. – Nixinova ⟨User talk:NixinovaTSpecial:Contributions/NixinovaC⟩ 02:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what :Template:Refimprove is for. DonIago (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 5 August 2017 

message: I'm sure this is part of a larger discussion someplace, but why doesn't using, e.g. , show up in the section tagged when in the mobile view?  I expect the majority of users/editors now use the mobile view (I know, citation needed), but the tiny flag in the header "This page has issues" seems particularly useless when using a local tag like this.  Could someone clarify? TSamuel (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not showing on mobile correctly 

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) 05:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC of potential interest 

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: Your feedback would be welcome at this discussion concerning the impact of using  in templates that have "section" variants, such as , and others. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost a week having elapsed, the changes described at the linked discussion will be implemented soon. Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  . Mathglot (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback sought in discussion about find sources in reference templates 

message: Hi! This template is as far as I can tell the same as what shows , but missing the "find sources" thing that is in that template. Why not essentially redirect this one to the other by making this template's content simply ? I see no reason to have these be separate. DemonDays64 (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They already are merged, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 16#Template:Unreferenced. If you want the "find sources" thing, use , as shown in the doc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  , They both have the "find sources" thing, now; including the addition of the two "find" params to each template. The article Weimar Republic is a good working example of this usage; it carries a number of the section templates, where judicious use of  and  have, I dare say, greatly boosted the quality of the  output. Mathglot (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with {{tlg|Unreferenced|section}}? 

message: Template:Unreferenced section has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 06:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request to complete TfD nomination 

message: Template:Unreferenced section has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: – this template transcludes the  template, and displays that template's TfD notice. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request to complete TfD nomination