 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
Furl |
 |
|
 |
Rojo |
| Add to OnlyWire |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal.
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)
Contents |
Requested move
Template:Moresources → Template:Onesource — WP:CTT lists {{moresources}} and {{more sources}} right next to each other. They have essentially identical names but are different templates: one requests more sources, and the other warns that the article only uses one source. I'm already in the process of updating the small list of transclusions of {{moresources}} (the "one source" template) to the redirect I just made to it, {{onesource}}, taking care to switch to {{more sources}} instead if the context suits it. I'd also bet that most of the people using {{moresources}} thought they were using {{more sources}}. See how confusing this is? {{moresources}} should also probably redirect to {{more sources}}. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Survey
- 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)
Discussion
- Add any additional comments:
- comment perhaps there is a better name, like template:fewsources instead of onesource... (like few incoming links) 132.205.93.32 23:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- We can make any number of redirects to whichever name we choose, but for now the main issue is moving it to a template that isn't so confusing alongside {{more sources}}. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- And I'm not opposed to a different name but "fewsources" still sounds ambiguous and isn't consistent with the wording of the template, which states that the article only uses one source. Perhaps that would be better as a redirect to another template. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
Usage
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)
Image
The template said, "image = none <!--intentionally left blank -->", 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)
Move to talk page
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)
New Usage guidelines
The usage guidelines of this template do not seem to coinside with the meaning of the template, but seems to be more like {{Citecheck}}. 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 {{failed verification}} 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 {{failed verification}} instead.
- Articles that merely lack references or have POV problems should be flagged with some other template, such as {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}}
- 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)
Since no one has replied, I'm going to assume that either no one checks this page often, in which case it can be reverted, or no one cares how it is written, so in either case I'm going to change the page to read as I have written above. Mathman1550 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
