Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 1

message: What about cases in which the article content is dubious enough to perhaps not have any sources at all? Would not "This article or section does not cite any references or sources." be a more thorough alternative? - Zelaron 20:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its references? 

message: Created by me (that was my IP, from velvet.net) for use in article space on articles with no references, sources or external links. For those with dubious sources, there's Template:Cite sources - David Gerard 11:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is of little interest to reader (I think we can safly assume that they can spot the lack of references) it should go on the talk page.Geni 03:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with User:Geni it relates more to the editor than to the reader and would be more unobtrusive on the talk page. -- Francs2000 | Talk  03:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use 

message: Good points were raised in the voting on this template, so I've decided to include them here. I've removed anything that was merely a vote (or vote with reason), keeping only ideas on how to use the template if it was to be kept (as it turned out to have been). (There's something wrong with the tenses in that sentence, but I'm not going to trouble myself to figure out how to fix it.)
*Keep.  It represents a policy important enough to have its own pages.  The main criticism -- that it can be used inappropriately on pages that do not require citations -- is a criticims of how this might be applied, not of the tag itself.  No editor should throw around these warning tags carelessly.  But we still need them. Slrubenstein 15:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking and want to revise my position. I still think this template should be kept, but should be limited in scope to articles with a great wealth of content that needs to be referenced. I do not think that applying it to every new stub (as is currently being undertaken) is appropriate as I believe that most stubs contain general knowledge that doesn't need to be referenced thoroughly. You also run into the problem of stubs such as Sigma (character). How the hell is anyone supposed to find references for an article like that and thereby remove the template legitimately? -Lommer | talk 22:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Information about Sigma is given in plenty of Capcom-released sourcebooks, for example, , , , as well as information given on http://www.capcom.co.jp/.  Of course, given the (lack of) content on that particular article I can assure you none of these works were referenced, cited or not. --Boco XLVII 04:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  from [[WP:TFD]] 

message: # April Arcus 02:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use on main page 

message: # JYolkowski 20:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bottom of the page (or in a reference section)

message: # At the top, where everyone can see it. chocolateboy 12:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: At the top of the main page

message: * I've removed my initial "on the main page" vote after actually thinking about what the template said: "This article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by adding appropriate ones." Write first, make up references later? No. Innocent people will add "useful looking sources" that don't even corroborate what's in the article, and how many people are going to check this? Challenge individual statements you disagree with instead, and demand those be referenced. The rest may be unverified, but nobody's asked for verification either. That's worked out pretty well so far. It's a compromise, but a workable one.I am aware this probably belonged in the deletion debate; apologies for that, I missed it. In any case, I don't plan on ever using this and I'm going to ignore use by others, so there's no need for me to vote on where it should go. JRM 14:17, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
* What do you all think of Sketchee 22:06, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)'s idea? He (yes, it's a he) suggested, in part: "It might be nice to make it appear as a ==References== heading and then the message below it". (Note also my comment on this, above, regarding subst.) —msh210 04:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: This article does not cite any references. If you know of any you can add them to the bottom of the article.
--Fred-Chess 19:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would like this template to say... 

message: I saw the discussion about changing this from SlimVirgin's message and how David Gerard said that version was viewed as annoying (which, I thought fix this article now type templates were meant to be)... however, I have changed it to the standard style of cleanup / cleanup-context / wikify - because when I added this template with template and thos this clashed miserably.  It flows into the article as text and did not appear separately.  I don't think this clashes and although this move is arbitrary I think it is for the better and fits the direction this type of template has gone.  Since the last change was in may I did not put this on talk before editting but am instead being bold or whatever makes me sound like I'm doing the right thing... which I think I am... besides the rambling.... here goes.. gren 22:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box style 

message: A problem with this template is that editors can argue for removing it if they add a reference for just one fact in the article.  The only way I can see round this at the moment is to add  or  to the References section, but that doesn't categorise the articles under the real problem.  As an example, look at the history of X.509 starting at this edit --David Woolley 12:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need template for substantially incomplete references 

message: I have started adding this template to some articles without references, but encountered significant opposition. It would be nice to have some consensus on its usage, as apparently majority of us does think that this template is useful (as its survival through TfD indicates). So far, there is:
* no agreement on whether the template can be used on main or in talk, so I think that it can be used on both, depending on the preferences of the editor adding it. However, once added, we should allow it to be copied to the other page, but not removed (otherwise we may have revert wars).
* there seem to be agreement that if it is used in main article, it should go to the bottom, where the reference section usually would be
* there seem to be also an agreement that there is no need to use this template on stubs
* one common argument I have encountered is 'this artile has references because it has external links' perhaps we should add a note to the template that 'External links, further reading and see also are not considered references'?
* another common argument against is 'please use  to indicate which parts are disputed. I think that this is not a valid argument, as this template indicate the lack of references in general. Would you concur?
* finally, a third argument is that 'this template will make readers vary of Wikipedia'. I think this had been addressed during the TfD, and the prevailing counterargument is that we should not hide our weaknesses but put them on spotlight where they can be more easily fixed (it's the same reasoning as with using stub, cleanup, wikify or attention templates) - right?
* we need a clear agreement what to do if somebody removes the template without adding references. Nobody wants a revert war, but if a user adding this template and a user removing it cannot reach a consensus, what should they do? RfC?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage revisited 

message: I've been doing New Page Patrol off and on over the past few days, and have been adding this template, in a pre-prepared == References == section, to a wide range of new articles that have lacked references.  I've also added it to some articles that have come to AFD.  In surprisingly many cases, this has been successful, sometimes highly so.  example example example example example example  particularly noteworthy example particularly noteworthy example of a new editor example example example example example example example example example example example particularly noteworthy example example example example example example particularly noteworthy example example
Whilst the quality of some of these references is questionable, at least editors cited something, allowing readers to at least tell when an article was based upon unreliable sources, and a few editors provided copious good citations once prodded.  This isn't that surprising.  Tagging new articles as unsourced if they lack references is standard procedure at Wikinews, and experience shows that editors soon get used to the idea of always citing sources right from the very start.Sometimes encouraging editors to fill in a References section has been somewhat revealing, too.However, as SimonP notes, the newer editors who grasp this immediately put some of Wikipedia's older editors to shame.  I also have a hall of shame of older editors, some of whom really should know better given how often they themselves have harped on about verifiability, making various fallacious arguments such as "It has external links.  It doesn't need references."  (The external hyperlinks referred to provided nothing whatever that supported the actual article text.) and doing things such as "Removed references section because I copied this from another encyclopaedia." (The article didn't even cite the encyclopaedia.) Uncle G 02:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a relatively new Wikipedian I would like to vouch for this tag's effectiveness - it was actually a bit of a (wake-up) slap. I began a references section the day I saw it. Not only is it good for this, it incites contributors to find quality citable sources instead of info fished from just anywhere on the web. One of the pages I am trying to edit is in a standoff because of a protected overuse of vague info, and the "cite your sources" tag may just be a way out of it. Thanks! ThePromenader 17:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this is really good.  One significant problem I run into a fair bit is when unreferenced text has been around for ages, and the person who added the text is now long gone so you can't check with them where they got it from.  I think that having the problem fixed as soon as possible is a Good Thing.  JYolkowski // talk 17:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My only problem with this is when over-zealous reviewers slap this template onto a new contributor's talk page, not because an article was created without references, but because the article didn't have its references *formatted* properly.  It violates the guideline of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.  As long as a new article has any kind of citations or references or links or sources, this template should not be used.  New contributors should be encouraged, not immediately criticized.  Elonka 22:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This problem can be prevented if the tag's purpose is clearly stated: to point out that an article does not have any citation or reference. I've edited the wording to reflect this. Shawnc 12:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the change.  :)  I'm still a bit worried though about people who are quibbling about the difference between "external links" and "references".  In my opinion, if an article has links but no references, it's worth assuming that the links *are* references.  However, I've seen other people flagging it as "unreferenced" simply because it doesn't have a clear "References" section.  Any ideas how that can be clarified?  Elonka 16:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The change was reverted with the following description: "correcting scope- this template may apply to articles that cite some sources, but not all." Do we have concensus regarding this? Shawnc 16:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm confused as to the change, since I thought the word "any" was better. I also find it unclear as to what "may apply to articles that cite some sources but not all" means (perhaps examples should be listed?). I would also recommend changing the guideline on the page that says If the external links section includes a references section, this template should not be used. to This template should not be used if the article already has references, but just not in a specific "References" section (such as if they are listed under "External Links"), or more simply, If the External Links section includes references, this template should not be used.  Elonka 19:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is great to hear, Uncle G! I'll remember to do that when patrolling new pages. — mark ✎ 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect when used by New Page Patrol 

message: ::(Post delayed by DateBase Lock+Sleep)
Re: rv after purusing talk -- this thing needs an RFC  voted by a large community as it really junks up wikiP! <B>Fra</B>nkB
* As far as I can see, this placement on article space junks up articles and makes WikiP to be a laughing stock.  I've run across the template over and over again at the top of nice well written fully matured articles that just leave the impression that the article shouldn't be trusted. The sad part of that is they are history articles that jive in every way with what I've spent a lifetime reading. i.e Solid and fully concurrent with Crystalized knowledge. (Para. emphasis added later<B>Fra</B>nkB)
*More to the point, the use of this template in article space is in violation of self-referencing guidelines... which has the prevention of casting of such aspersions in mind.
*I suggest someone that is into the nitty-gritty politics here put together an RFC summarizing the above, clearly stating options, and get a meaningful vote. 30-40 people is not meaningful. <B>Fra</B>nkB 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I Move this Issue be given an RFC

message: I posted the above title on the pages of 5 senior admins I know that contributed herein, but as I made notices to SlimVirgin on the change I made per the above, I added this, which might be a avenue to have our cake and eat it too. (I have no objection to improving quality, just in doing so while creating a disbelief in our readers minds.)
*btw -- contrary to your stance in this matter -- IMHO, related 'Slap users in the face' (Editors not equated with Users) templates like CLEAN, COPYEDIT, GCHECK, belong in Talk as well, as they should be drawing patroling people in, not diminishing Wiki's appearance. However, that's a philosophical aside, and my real problem with those is no documented reasons for posting same in talk pages added to persons not checking back to see if article state had improved enough to clear their 'gripe'... I've seen a lot of cleans go over a year without being cleared, despite good article advancement.  
*It brings me to wonder whether such templates could be modified to auto-annote several places concurrently such as a hypothetical user subpage special category things I've tagged and should check back on periodically, and which by posting in talks, vice article space, create a one line Editor Flag notice, that one of these ugly beasts is posted in the talk. That removes the Slap in the Face to the customer, with a discrete message flag to the browsing editor, plus tracks responsibility, plus puts such in same categories for listing to patrols as now. I wouldn't know who to ask, but I would certainly prefer it aesthetically. (slight emphasis edits from her talk page version)<B>Fra</B>nkB
So that's a possible compromise. It might require a small system programming change but as an engineer I'd be very surprised to find it weren't easily do-able with a small modification to the database.
Best<B>Fra</B>nkB 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurly-Burly and the B-bbbbbbarrell Kick

message: Why does the page say this?  That makes no sense.  I understand not putting other "cleanup" type tags on a stub page, as by definition, all stubs need improvement.  However, all articles, stubs and non-stubs, need references.    --Rob 18:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, stubs need many things, and if we would put all things they need, some stubs would consist mostly of templates :) I think that as long as an article is a stub, stub templates are enough. Once it is destubbed, it is fair target for other improvement templates.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point of guidelines requiring articles to cite their sources?  I think slapping on an  tag is much nicer in most (not all) cases, then using an  tag, which is the likely (and sometimes justified) result, if somebody doesn't provide sources.  Often, the creator of an article, can easily find sources *if* they know they're needed.  Asking for sources soon after an article is made, stands a better chance of getting attention, then asking for them later.  And its *much* better then asking for them in AFD.  Some things aren't easily verified in Google, and it seems unfortunate, that some end up deleted, because nobody can verify the information (because they have no sources to verify claims).  Also, when not deleting them, we often risk somebody pulling a hoax on us. --Rob 21:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when has an article not quoting its sources made it a candidate for deletion?. All it makes it is a candidate for improvement. -- Chris j wood 19:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New pages suspected of being hoaxes are speedied. If the stub has a source on it, it's easier to evaluate. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no reason not to use the template on stubs. Stubs should be able to provide at least one reference showing the subject matter is notable and the material cited. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is silly. We have thousands of stubs without any references. Yes, of course every article should have references. Every article should have all the other things that make it not-a-stub as well. But they don't. Going round putting unreferenced tags on articles that already have stub tags adds not one iota of value to Wikipedia; it is a waste of the editors time (but that is their business) and of our servers bandwidth. That bandwidth and (with their consent) the editor's time would be better used turning even a few stub articles into properly referenced non-stub articles. -- Chris j wood 19:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion, Chris, but that's no reason to instruct people not to use the tag on stubs, which need sources like any other page. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is my opinion. But it was also the fairly clear consensus from the TfD discussion boxed above. Incidentally, one contribution in that discussion read It can be added to an article as a last resort, simply in order to concentrate people's minds, like the "clean up" tag, and like NPOV and totally disputed. I agree with you there, but I don't see how a stub article can need that kind of last resort intervention; perhaps you could quote an example or two. -- Chris j wood 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you spend any time on recent changes, Chris, you'll see many examples of dubious-looking stubs being created without a source. I agree that it's not always appropriate to tag it, because sometimes it's easy to find a source (in which case the best thing is just to do so), and sometimes it's obvious it's a hoax and should be deleted. But for those occasions where finding a source will be time-consuming, but the stub doesn't look obviously wrong, tagging it is a good alternative, so the template instructions should leave that option open. Every page on Wikipedia is subject to WP:V. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: For telling people they should reference their new creations, I think that  is much better. Note that I don't object stongly to putting unreferenced on stubs, but I agreewith Chris that it is more productive to keep it for destrubbed articles. Perhaps a compromise would be a template dedicated to unreferenced stubs? But then we would have the additonal task of migrating it into normal unreferenced article if the stub is destubbed...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template should not be used with stubs. 

message: What is the difference between Template:Unreferenced and Template:Primarysources ? thank you for your attention --Hello World! 11:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is also used if there are references, but those references are not cited in the text. To exaggerate to make the point: in a World war II article it is of little use putting "Winston Churchill The Second World War, Mariner Books; (1986), " in the reference section, if the appropriate section or page in Churchill's work is not cited. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what  is for.  As long as general references are included,  should not be used. --Rob 11:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Primarysources

message: Someone just put this template on :Category:Scientologists.  Is that appropriate.  Wouldn't the sources for whether an article belongs in a category go in the article?  --JeffW 20:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template on Category pages? 

message: For a section-only "references needed" template, see Template:Unreferencedsect, which I cleaned up recently. I prefer using this to the "article or section" template, and it seems to do the same thing. I wasn't aware that this template could be modified to point to a section, and obviously lots of other people had the same mistaken impression that you couldn't change the template to say "article" or "article or section" or "section". Carcharoth 11:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is also a section-only "references needed" template 

message: As has been discussed, this is not a particularly attractive template. It is, however, very important and is used on several articles.  Would it not be a good idea to spruce it up a little with a small image on the right?  Not sure what, maybe a little book, or some super-scripted numbers or something.  Opinions? Nuge talk 01:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure that images make sense for cleanup templates in general.  Maybe if there was something obvious, but since I can't think of anything obvious either I would tend to be against an image on this template.  JYolkowski // talk 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The  template looks pretty good.  It is also a little more of an attention-getter, which is entirely appropriate for such an important policy.  Or, if you're looking for something a little more subdued, how about the image in ? I really agree this template needs something to spruce it up. --Satori Son 15:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image? 

message: I think it would be a good idea to add text such as material that has no source may be removed to this template, to make it clearer that uncited material contravenes the fundamental policies of Wikipedia.  What does anyone else think?  Worldtraveller 22:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-starter. We need to be encouraging people to add in links and sources, not threatening them by removing what may be completely factual imformation simply because someone didn't put in a link, either because the article was written before there was a demand on WP for sources, or because they hadn't got the sources to hand and meant to go back and add them in but forgot, or because they thought a fact was so widely known about as fact that a source wasn't needed. Threatening people writing in good faith what may be 100% accurate information would be counterproductive, offensive to many, and would drive contributors away. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't see it as a threat at all - more a slightly more strongly worded emphasis that citing sources is mandatory.  There is virtually no incentive for people to add references to articles unless they want them to become good or featured, and I doubt we'll ever instil a culture of always citing sources without some sort of incentive for the 99.8% of Wikipedia that currently falls outside those two categories.  Worldtraveller 00:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggested amendment you made IMHO would be OTT and counterproductive, and come across not as an invitation to add in information but as a threat if they didn't. Even the existing template, far from helping get more sources, generated up a lot of offence with its rather snide tone. Genuine users interpreted it to mean that articles that were in fact accurate but lacking sources were in actually complete bullshit and worthless. When a user tried to add it to articles, vast numbers of users reverted it on sight, with the tone of the template being one of the reasons. Many agreed with the aim but found the tone disastrously counterproductive. Threats have their place (to users in edit wars, to vandals, etc) but not under any circumstances to someone who might simply be visiting the site. It is encouragement, not a "do this or else" template, that they need. Your suggestion, far from encouraging people to contribute courses, would if anything prove even more disastrously counterproductive than the tone of the original here. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I upload an image and forget to say where I got it from, I get a message telling me it will be deleted unless I give the source.  That works - I don't feel threatened or discouraged from uploading images, and I add source and licence info to every single image I upload.  I don't think my suggested text is confrontational, it doesn't imply that unreferenced material wasn't true, and it doesn't even say anything will be deleted.  It just says unsourced material may be deleted.  Articles without references do contravene the basic policy of verifiability, and I think if that policy is to be meaningful it needs to be more clearly emphasised.  Worldtraveller 00:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The stuff about deleting images proves the point. The bots that send around the messages regularly misread imformation on files and post comments on people's pages accusing them of not stating a source when the source is on the file clearly. These messages have caused furious rows. One superb user who always put clear sources, categories and everything else required on downloads got so many threatening messages from those damned bots accusing him of not doing what he had always been careful to do that he quit Wikipedia in disgust. I am fed up to the teeth being accused of not putting sources on pictures when the sources are stated unambiguously. The problem isn't simply the time wasted checking back and finding that, yet again, everything is in order and it is simply yet another bot fuck up, but the accusatory tone of the messages that has offended so many people. At this stage all many users do when they get a bot message like that is go to the image page and delete the no source message, whether a source is there or not, as their way of saying 'fuck you'. (I have been so fed up getting bombarded by these silly (and usually completely wrong) messages that I have been tempted to do that myself, but have restrained myself.) So far from being helpful, those messages though bullying wording have led to mistakes, offence being caused, users quitting, other users deliberately deleting image unsourced tags, etc whereas a more tactful message might at least have not been as offensive and annoying to those many many users getting wrong messages accusing them in the wrong. Your suggestion on such a wording here is a non-starter. If you added it in here, all that would happen is that users would simply mass delete the template from everything, as was done when a user tried to paste it all over the place in a very agressive 'obey this or else' manner. Either that or this template would be reverted instantly or put up for deletion. The suggested wording you suggest is a total and complete non-starter. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So who left because of incorrect image messages?  I've never had a wrong one.  You seem to be saying that any message reminding users to comply with a fundamental policy will be seen as aggressive and bullying, and I disagree totally.  Policy is quite clear that unsourced contributions can be deleted, so why not mention that somewhere?  I'm sure we can think of a friendly enough way of saying it.  Worldtraveller 09:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested addition of text 

message: The current template has been bugging a lot of people (hence its wholesale removal from articles and talk pages) with its rather 'in your face' tone that implies 'this article cannot be trusted' rather than 'this article needs your help to improve it'. It is also used with articles that have some citations, just not enough. I've tweaked the wording to be more encouraging to contributors to add in citations and less snide in tone. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if I like the changes. I though this template was used for articles with no ext. links and no sources. (but not something to warrant a . Like mentioned here. With the new wording it sounds like the article has sources, but simply needs more. Garion96 (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly concur with Garion96, prior to the changes, this template was very useful for tagging completely unsourced articles, without suggesting that the information might be false a la . Make a  or something...heqs 14:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I do agree that the meaning of the template has been changed.  This template is, from what I've seen, only ever used on articles with no sources at all, and the new wording doesn't really fit that situation.  I can't honestly believe that the previous wording was widely considered offensive.  Are you saying that people will inevitably find it offensive to be asked to comply with a fundamental policy?  An article lacking references is flawed.  Obviously the text could be completely true, but without sources how can anyone verify that?  Worldtraveller 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, if that's what most editors used that template for the changes make sense but it's still really annoying. Like I explained, I used it for articles with no sources and external links at all. Which was the reason this template was made for in the first place. The current version of this template looks kind of stupid on those articles. I think a new template might very handy, because the current version does not cover everything. It implies there are already sources, instead of "this is without sources". But I would simply prefer the older version of this template. Garion96 (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Bring back the old template.  Mr Stephen 08:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor text changes 

message: When inserted high up on a page with an infobox, it forces the subsequent text down below the level of the bottom of the infobox, leaving huge areas of white space (see screenshot). Can someone correct this formatting problem, please? - MPF 01:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be fixed. However, it would look better if it didn't always span the whole page width. Now it goes behind infoboxes.--JyriL talk 16:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Fraid not, it is still the same. I think it may depend on what browser is used. - MPF 23:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something similar was happening here but only in some versions of IE. This was apparently due to forcing a side-floating element to the center (conflicting). You might check the classes to see if the problem is along the same lines. --Splarka (rant) 07:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Format problem

message: Not how to format--not how to reference--rather, how to come up with relevant references when few or none exist.
Case in point; I recently created an article on Carmen, the obscure '70s era flamenco-rock band.  My sources of information were a Carmen fanpage (linked) and my own personal experience.  I guess I could have cited a couple Jethro Tull biographies regarding their bass player John Glascock, but those would have been rather tangential and misleading.
Much of the stuff I've contributed is about obscure rock-band-related stuff, and a significant part of it comes either from websites (which I link) or my own experience.
Moreover--the articles often get tagged as "stubs", but to what extent should one run on about a couple of rock groups that lasted for four years apiece several decades ago?
I'll have no trouble posting references if I ever contribute an extensive article on someone fairly famous (I note that Jerry Uelsman is missing here).  But there's a part of me that believes U.S.-style scholarly tedium ought to have its limits here.  Truddick 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So tell me how. 

message: Hi,
Does anyone know whether there is such a template in non-English Wikipedias? There is no interwiki here. --Amir E. Aharoni 10:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template in other languages 

message: I'd like to ask people's opinions on use of Unreferenced with the following class of articles, which I've seen a lot of:
* Article text about person, band, organization or company, reads like it's uncontroversial
* "External links" section to article subject's website, which bears out the article's facts
* No "References" section
In my opinion, the "external link" is useful, and so belongs right where it is, but it fails WP:REF, and the article should be tagged as unreferenced. I've usually added a HTML comment citing WP:REF. But I'd like to hear what others are doing. --Alvestrand 05:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the situation described by Alvestrand, where the website is owned by the article subject, the link may well qualify as a reliable source (see WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves). In such a situation, I would not tag the article as unreferenced, but move (or copy) the external link to a newly-created "References" section. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources vs external links - website-only documentation