![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This statement appears in the template page:
"A |talk= parameter is allowed; setting this to any value will result in the message "See talk page for details."
It appears to be incorrect. For example see article:
ID3. The tag there appears to be formed as the template page describes and yet does not display as described.
LookingGlass (
talk)
09:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
|talk=
, but the article
ID3 was using |Talk=
. When templates use named parameters, the parameter names are always case-sensitive (unless the template has been specially coded to recognise more than one form); I've
fixed it.</BR>
is invalid; I fixed your uses above to <BR>
which is one of the two valid forms. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
23:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)|talk=y
also generates an entry at
Special:WhatLinksHere/Y. Could someone please see if the template code could be tweaked to prevent this? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk)
01:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tagged a largely uncited mall article with this standard article refimprove tag.
But the tag has been deleted three times, without any refs being provided, by tag-team edits here.
I explained both in my edit summaries and on the article talk page, as well as on the main removing editor's talk page here, that this refimprove tag is appropriate, of long-standing use, and how unreferenced material should be referenced if the editor wishes to remove the tag.
The main removing editor, and his fellow editor, have still however continued to delete the tag. Without addressing the focus of the tag.
Though unconnected otherwise, it did catch my attention that this follows immediately the main removing editor disagreeing with my AfD nomination of a different mall, here.
Thoughts? Epeefleche ( talk) 23:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I have requested closure of this discussion, diff. Unscintillating ( talk) 14:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Since only B Class articles and higher are suitably referenced, this template is technically applicable to all others. But if we apply it that slavishly (e.g. using a bot) it would probably means about 90% of Wikipedia being tagged. I suspect that is neither desirable, nor would it enhance Wikipedia's credibility. In my view, it's used far too often anyway - e.g. even when there are reputable sources in the biography. So can we define some boundaries that would see it used more sparingly and surgically? Failing that, maybe we could use a smaller, far less obtrusive symbol or keyword near the top of the 90%-ish of articles (like the padlocks) that haven't yet achieved B status or above, and replace this tag entirely. Bermicourt ( talk) 16:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
is that it's a subjective judgment, unlike {{
unreferenced}}
which is objective - either there are refs, or there aren't. One person's "suitably referenced" is another's "not suitably refd". When I see somebody do
this, I often respond with
this. If we move along that railway line, the next stop is
Blackwater railway station which has a justifiable {{
unreferenced}}
; but speaking personally (others may disagree), I wouldn't slap a {{
refimprove}}
on
Farnborough North railway station even though it's well short of B-class. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
citations needed}}
flagging various articles. So, I started adding {{
citations needed}}
myself to articles, and to sections of articles, that were very sparsely referenced, but was then reproached for doing so by editors with more experience than I. (Some reproaches were curt; others stated that I should be more specific, perhaps using the narrower {{
citation needed}}
in specific locations instead.) Rules of thumb for newbies, such as me, could be very helpful. (I have noticed that articles within certain broad subject ranges (e.g., military history, arms, etc.) seem to be especially lacking in citations. As a reader, lack of citations leads me to question the credibilty of an article, and also limits my ability to find further details if my interest is piqued.)
Acwilson9 (
talk)
04:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)The result of the move request was: no consensus. As noted by Mike Cline in his relisting, there doesn't seem to be much opposition (only two editors actually opposed the move), but there doesn't seem to be any agreement on what the preferred alternative title is. Improve references seems have some support, but I think GoingBatty had a point by noting that this could be interpreted to mean that the existing references require improving. Number 5 7 19:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Template:Refimprove →
Template:Ref improve – I propose to move this template to {{
Ref improve}}, replacing {{
Refimprove}} with a redirect to the new title. This matter has been raised many times at
WT:TW and was mentioned also at
Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Yobot. In my view, the "canonical" name of a template should be as clear as possible, and this can be done by spacing out the lexical components of the title. I note also that all the
related templates with multi-word titles have spaces between the words.
The motivation for this request is that Twinkle lists the more friendly name, "ref improve", but bots come along afterwards and change it to the canonical name, "refimprove". I think it is neater to be able to list "ref improve" in the list of article maintenance tags, so it would be great to be able to move the actual template to this title. Needless to say, all existing titles would be maintained as redirects. — relisted -- Mike Cline ( talk) 12:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC) This, that and the other (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
18:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
22:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Should we move forward and rename the template? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisting Comment - While there appears to be no serious opposition to changing the name of this template, there is little clarity as to what the new name should be. There are at least five different suggestions above. Continue the discussion and nail down agreement on exactly what the new name should be. Thanks- Mike Cline ( talk) 12:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I tried adding {{refimprove|Date=March 2015}} to a page but the "March 2015" didn't display. I've now found that the 'D' in Date has to be lower case. Should the template allow the 'date' keyword to be insensitive?-- A bit iffy ( talk) 15:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
|date=
and |Date=
are treated as different parameters. Some templates - but by no means all - are coded to allow certain variations, for example the citation templates allow |ISBN=
to be used as an alternative for |isbn=
, but they needed to be specially set up to do this, which makes them slower - and even after that, they don't recognise |Isbn=
because that hasn't been coded for.{{
refimprove}}
, others are inline like {{
citation needed}}
, but they all recognise |date=
- and as far as I know, none recognise |Date=
. If we were to allow |Date=
for {{
refimprove}}
we should be consistent and allow it for all of the others, in order to prevent confusion ("does this one allow |Date=
or not?"). This is a big task: first, determine which templates recognise a |date=
parameter (all of
these for a start, and then some); second, amend each of those templates; third, wait for the complaints to come in that the system has become slower because the job queue is now reparsing all of the pages that use those templates, even though |Date=
isn't used on more than a handful of pages. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
00:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
|date=
parameter.
GoingBatty (
talk)
01:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)There is a dispute (and brewing edit war) regarding the proper location at which to place the refimprove maintenance/cleanup template/tag. Input of others would be helpful.
Discussion is here. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
templates. However there is a way to check:{{
refimprove}}
currently have the template in a section and about 1.4% of all articles have a {{
refimprove}}
template.The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{[[Template:rfc|tech|rfcid=ACECBC9|rfc|tech|rfcid=ACECBC9]]}}
Where should a {{
refimprove}} tag be placed in an article?
MOS:LAYOUT says that maintenance templates, of which this is one, should be among the headers. But some editors (see the section above) assert that there is no consensus for this, and that the MOS does not establish such consensus. I ask for discussion leading to a clear consensus one way or the other on this point.
DES
(talk)
07:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
Refimprove section}}
tag exists for when the problem is not article-wide. So either it's an article problem and goes at the top, or it's a sectional problem and the alternative templates is used in the affected section(s). There's not really a middle ground. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
22:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)There is currently no consensus on where in the article to place this template, but according to MOS:LAYOUT, maintenance templates ought be placed after hatnotes, at the start of the article." Why not just remove the first half of that sentence and have it say, "
According to MOS:LAYOUT, maintenance templates ought be placed after hatnotes, at the start of the article." And, of course, also change the wording in MOS? This all comes down to those few words that say there is no consensus. Well, there indeed is consensus now, right? We need to get this RfC closed and make an official ruling on the matter to prevent any more problems in the future. Czoal ( talk) 19:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
Refimprove section}}
. The entire point of {{
Refimprove}}
is that it's a page-top template (one that alerts readers, not just editors, to an issue with the article's reliability), so arguing about whether it goes at the top is rather like trying to debate the choice to put the stove in the kitchen instead of in the bathroom or under the stairs. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
22:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)From the edit history of the template documentation:
From my talk page:
The documentation for {{ Unreferenced}} states that it should only be used when there are no citations at all, whereas the documentation for {{ Refimprove}} states that {{ Unreferenced}} should be used whenever there are no inline citations. When I changed the {{ Refimprove}} to be consistent with the {{ Unreferenced}} documentation, you reverted it; so, now they're inconsistent again. Are you planning to fix that?
Thanks,
—
Ruakh
TALK
01:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@
User: Ruakh: The template says "This article needs additional citations for
verification" The only citations the meet the requirements of the
verifiability policy are inline citations (see the section
Responsibility for providing citations). --
PBS (
talk)
13:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
A comment on the Template:Refimprove page itself — in the "Differences from..." { {Primary sources} } section, should it read "...but if the citations in an article are NOT from primary sources..."? (without "not" being all caps; that's only for clarity here.) maybe i'm just misunderstanding the whole section, but thought i'd mention it in case i'm not being completely daft tonight. Colbey84 ( talk) 07:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this icon will be more aesthetically pleasing, modern, and consistent with other Wikipedias. Thoughts? There are similar icons on its page.
File:Commons-emblem-question_book_yellow.svg There is also an orange version to match ambox although I think yellow is better for the template.--
Sığe
|д=)
02:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Possibly?--
Sıgehelmus
(Talk) |д=)
17:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Refimprove has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone please add {{
subst:tfm|Verifiability}}
as this template has been nominated for merging with that one.
Ppp
ery
20:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Refimprove has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
And now the previously-mentioned tfd has been withdrawn by the nominator, and thus the tfd tag at the top needs to be removed. Ppp ery 02:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This section needs additional citations for
verification. (January 1950) |
(The above banner, added 29Jan17, is what I want to get rid of throughout the body of articles.)
At present this template generates a large banner either for the whole article or for sections. It is very intrusive (intentionally so). Usually either the article banner, or equally prominent section banners (refimprove or unreferenced), are used; rarely both. It would be desirable to replace one or more large banners in the sections of the article with a single large banner at the top, plus small section tags replacing the banners used at present, to single out sections needing improvement without several large and intrusive banners.
An article with a {{ refimprove}} banner at the top would have sections tagged in one of these two ways:
Perhaps this could be automatic: if an article has an overall {{ refimprove}} at the top, then any {{refimprove|section}} and {{unreferenced|section}} should automatically be rendered as shown above instead of as banners? This would affect the display of any existing article with both article and section banners, but why not?
Possibly the presence of one or more section unreferenced or refimprove templates should trigger the display of an article refimprove banner at the top if the article {{ refimprove}} template is not explicitly present?
Best wishes, Pol098 ( talk) 14:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
There was at one time support for a smaller ambox for use in the body of articles. This has fallen somewhat into disuse now, as editors thought it confusing to have to two different versions of the message box. It might be worth discussing this somewhere more centrally (e.g. Village pump as whatever we do should be consistent across all article message boxes. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This section needs additional citations for
verification. |
Aren't putting the "BLP sources" and "refimprove" on this page wrong? Considering that page meets the GNG requirement and has secondary sources throughout the article, I think it's unnecessary there. But I want to get another opinion just be sure. Horizonlove ( talk) 18:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
is redundant to {{
BLP sources}}
. But neither of them has anything to do with satisfying
WP:GNG. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Unreferenced and
Template:Refimprove has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A Wikilink suggestion:
It might be worth switching the wikilink over in order to better reflect the likely needs of newer users. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 04:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
10:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The "or better" was reverted by MSGJ owing to the lack of the consensus. Cunard ( talk) 06:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I boldly added "or better" in order to better reflect the actual use of this template. The issue is frequently not too few sources, but the use of low-quality sources. Carl Fredrik talk 08:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
CFCF, please change the template back. There is no consensus for this change. We could resolve this matter with an RfC if need be. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
And, for the record, I have never seen this template used for better sources. In my experience, it has been used for an article that needs more sources. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The change has now been reverted — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to add some references to Leon Abbett (first time editor), but I have noticed in reading Wikipedia for years that if someone isn't alive or of recent memory they are left unmarked with the Refimprove tag. Is this just selective enforcement or is there an unwritten rule I am not aware of? Please advise.-- FrankTursetta ( talk) 15:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This template is driving me crazy. At the top of an article I see "needs more citations." Well how many. Ten? Twenty? Fifty? and oh by the way where? Dude if an assertion needs a cite then tag the sentence, not the whole article.
250,000 instances? *Please* delete this template and all references to it in all articles.
Mike Gunther G41rn8 ( talk) 22:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 23 January 2018. The result of the move review was Closure endorsed. |
The result of the move request was: Rename. Timrollpickering 21:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:CONSISTENCY with similar templates and with our years of cleanup of obscure names of commonly used templates (e.g. {{
cn}}
and {{
fact}}
) to instead use plain English that is mnemonic for what the template actually is about or says (e.g. {{
citation needed}}
). This is consistent with
WP:NATURAL,
WP:RECOGNIZABLE,
WP:PRECISE, as we all
WP:CONSISTENT – while intended primarily for article titles, we should not ignore these sensible principles outside of mainspace). This helps newer editors both understand what the template is in the article they're editing, and remember the template name if they need to use it later (or at least be able to find it more easily, e.g. by searching template namespace for "citation"). PS: It's completely daft that
Template:More citations needed doesn't even exist as a redirect yet after 16 years, when that's the most obvious name for the template. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
09:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
There were only 3 !votes. What makes you think that this "discussion" was a good excuse to rename a widely-used template? There was a story about an admin who crashed the en.wiki MediaWiki installation by renaming an infobox template with 100000+ transclusions as part of a (bad) April Fool's joke. KMF ( talk) 04:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
Trout}}
templates go on user talk pages; putting one here doesn't have anything to do with working on this template. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
06:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)KATMAKROFAN's opened a move review: Wikipedia:Move review#Template:More citations needed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:More citations needed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{ subst:tfd}}, per a nomination by KATMAKROFAN {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 00:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
|1=section
. --
Ahecht (
TALKHey there! I'm working with my team to improve how issues display in mobile. One thing we've noted that would allow us to present issues better is if we were able to reliably access the date. Could the date and brackets be wrapped in a span with class `date`? Jdlrobson ( talk) 17:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
ambox}}
, which in turn is built around
Module:Message box. I think that all that is needed here is to alter one line, from self.date = string.format(" <small>''(%s)''</small>", date)
self.date = string.format(" ''<small class="date">(%s)</small>''", date)
<span>...</span>
element.I noticed this when I was editing Forum spam. I wanted to add more references, but I couldn't tell which kinds of references were more needed or where the citations needed to go, because there were no citation needed templates or similar in the article itself. I checked for specific information on how to know specifically what to add to fix the problem stated by this template, but I couldn't find any such information about that topic. I just wonder whether anyone could help. Or should I take this question somewhere else?
171.64.70.62 ( talk) 18:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:More citations needed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the |class =
param to the following:
| class = tag-More_citations_needed {{#if:{{{1|}}}| {{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|article| |tag-section}} | }} <!-- Used by Twinkle -->
This will facilitate a new feature in Twinkle for removing existing maintenance tags.
GitHub discussion. The idea is to have class tag-More_citations_needed
, but an additional tag-section
if the template is not being used in context of the whole article, that is, if {{{1}}} is specified and its value is not "article". Behaviour has been tested in the sandbox.
The existing param was added by
Ioeth (
talk ·
contribs) for use within Twinkle only. As an aside, change the name param to reflect the new template name. | name = {{{name|More citations needed}}}
SD0001 (
talk)
07:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
|1=list
, your suggested edit would add tag-section
, which we don't want. |class=tag-More_citations_needed {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|section|tag-section}}
should do what you want though. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
08:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
tag-section
to everything that Twinkle shouldn't identify as article-wide tags. So, usages like |1=section, especially so-and-so parts
, |1=table
(that produce desirable wording within the template) should have tag-section
class.
SD0001 (
talk)
13:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)tag-name
in
Module:Message box instead of each template individually. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
08:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Template:More citations needed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pls change name parameter to "More citations needed" to match the page name. This is causing problems with categorisation. SD0001 ( talk) 10:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
| name = {{{name|Refimprove}}}
to | name = {{{name|More citations needed}}}
. Per
Template:Ambox/doc which says that this parameter should be updated whenever the template is moved.
SD0001 (
talk)
04:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This statement appears in the template page:
"A |talk= parameter is allowed; setting this to any value will result in the message "See talk page for details."
It appears to be incorrect. For example see article:
ID3. The tag there appears to be formed as the template page describes and yet does not display as described.
LookingGlass (
talk)
09:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
|talk=
, but the article
ID3 was using |Talk=
. When templates use named parameters, the parameter names are always case-sensitive (unless the template has been specially coded to recognise more than one form); I've
fixed it.</BR>
is invalid; I fixed your uses above to <BR>
which is one of the two valid forms. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
23:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)|talk=y
also generates an entry at
Special:WhatLinksHere/Y. Could someone please see if the template code could be tweaked to prevent this? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk)
01:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tagged a largely uncited mall article with this standard article refimprove tag.
But the tag has been deleted three times, without any refs being provided, by tag-team edits here.
I explained both in my edit summaries and on the article talk page, as well as on the main removing editor's talk page here, that this refimprove tag is appropriate, of long-standing use, and how unreferenced material should be referenced if the editor wishes to remove the tag.
The main removing editor, and his fellow editor, have still however continued to delete the tag. Without addressing the focus of the tag.
Though unconnected otherwise, it did catch my attention that this follows immediately the main removing editor disagreeing with my AfD nomination of a different mall, here.
Thoughts? Epeefleche ( talk) 23:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I have requested closure of this discussion, diff. Unscintillating ( talk) 14:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Since only B Class articles and higher are suitably referenced, this template is technically applicable to all others. But if we apply it that slavishly (e.g. using a bot) it would probably means about 90% of Wikipedia being tagged. I suspect that is neither desirable, nor would it enhance Wikipedia's credibility. In my view, it's used far too often anyway - e.g. even when there are reputable sources in the biography. So can we define some boundaries that would see it used more sparingly and surgically? Failing that, maybe we could use a smaller, far less obtrusive symbol or keyword near the top of the 90%-ish of articles (like the padlocks) that haven't yet achieved B status or above, and replace this tag entirely. Bermicourt ( talk) 16:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
is that it's a subjective judgment, unlike {{
unreferenced}}
which is objective - either there are refs, or there aren't. One person's "suitably referenced" is another's "not suitably refd". When I see somebody do
this, I often respond with
this. If we move along that railway line, the next stop is
Blackwater railway station which has a justifiable {{
unreferenced}}
; but speaking personally (others may disagree), I wouldn't slap a {{
refimprove}}
on
Farnborough North railway station even though it's well short of B-class. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
citations needed}}
flagging various articles. So, I started adding {{
citations needed}}
myself to articles, and to sections of articles, that were very sparsely referenced, but was then reproached for doing so by editors with more experience than I. (Some reproaches were curt; others stated that I should be more specific, perhaps using the narrower {{
citation needed}}
in specific locations instead.) Rules of thumb for newbies, such as me, could be very helpful. (I have noticed that articles within certain broad subject ranges (e.g., military history, arms, etc.) seem to be especially lacking in citations. As a reader, lack of citations leads me to question the credibilty of an article, and also limits my ability to find further details if my interest is piqued.)
Acwilson9 (
talk)
04:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)The result of the move request was: no consensus. As noted by Mike Cline in his relisting, there doesn't seem to be much opposition (only two editors actually opposed the move), but there doesn't seem to be any agreement on what the preferred alternative title is. Improve references seems have some support, but I think GoingBatty had a point by noting that this could be interpreted to mean that the existing references require improving. Number 5 7 19:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Template:Refimprove →
Template:Ref improve – I propose to move this template to {{
Ref improve}}, replacing {{
Refimprove}} with a redirect to the new title. This matter has been raised many times at
WT:TW and was mentioned also at
Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Yobot. In my view, the "canonical" name of a template should be as clear as possible, and this can be done by spacing out the lexical components of the title. I note also that all the
related templates with multi-word titles have spaces between the words.
The motivation for this request is that Twinkle lists the more friendly name, "ref improve", but bots come along afterwards and change it to the canonical name, "refimprove". I think it is neater to be able to list "ref improve" in the list of article maintenance tags, so it would be great to be able to move the actual template to this title. Needless to say, all existing titles would be maintained as redirects. — relisted -- Mike Cline ( talk) 12:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC) This, that and the other (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
18:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
22:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Should we move forward and rename the template? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisting Comment - While there appears to be no serious opposition to changing the name of this template, there is little clarity as to what the new name should be. There are at least five different suggestions above. Continue the discussion and nail down agreement on exactly what the new name should be. Thanks- Mike Cline ( talk) 12:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I tried adding {{refimprove|Date=March 2015}} to a page but the "March 2015" didn't display. I've now found that the 'D' in Date has to be lower case. Should the template allow the 'date' keyword to be insensitive?-- A bit iffy ( talk) 15:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
|date=
and |Date=
are treated as different parameters. Some templates - but by no means all - are coded to allow certain variations, for example the citation templates allow |ISBN=
to be used as an alternative for |isbn=
, but they needed to be specially set up to do this, which makes them slower - and even after that, they don't recognise |Isbn=
because that hasn't been coded for.{{
refimprove}}
, others are inline like {{
citation needed}}
, but they all recognise |date=
- and as far as I know, none recognise |Date=
. If we were to allow |Date=
for {{
refimprove}}
we should be consistent and allow it for all of the others, in order to prevent confusion ("does this one allow |Date=
or not?"). This is a big task: first, determine which templates recognise a |date=
parameter (all of
these for a start, and then some); second, amend each of those templates; third, wait for the complaints to come in that the system has become slower because the job queue is now reparsing all of the pages that use those templates, even though |Date=
isn't used on more than a handful of pages. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
00:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
|date=
parameter.
GoingBatty (
talk)
01:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)There is a dispute (and brewing edit war) regarding the proper location at which to place the refimprove maintenance/cleanup template/tag. Input of others would be helpful.
Discussion is here. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
templates. However there is a way to check:{{
refimprove}}
currently have the template in a section and about 1.4% of all articles have a {{
refimprove}}
template.The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{[[Template:rfc|tech|rfcid=ACECBC9|rfc|tech|rfcid=ACECBC9]]}}
Where should a {{
refimprove}} tag be placed in an article?
MOS:LAYOUT says that maintenance templates, of which this is one, should be among the headers. But some editors (see the section above) assert that there is no consensus for this, and that the MOS does not establish such consensus. I ask for discussion leading to a clear consensus one way or the other on this point.
DES
(talk)
07:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
Refimprove section}}
tag exists for when the problem is not article-wide. So either it's an article problem and goes at the top, or it's a sectional problem and the alternative templates is used in the affected section(s). There's not really a middle ground. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
22:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)There is currently no consensus on where in the article to place this template, but according to MOS:LAYOUT, maintenance templates ought be placed after hatnotes, at the start of the article." Why not just remove the first half of that sentence and have it say, "
According to MOS:LAYOUT, maintenance templates ought be placed after hatnotes, at the start of the article." And, of course, also change the wording in MOS? This all comes down to those few words that say there is no consensus. Well, there indeed is consensus now, right? We need to get this RfC closed and make an official ruling on the matter to prevent any more problems in the future. Czoal ( talk) 19:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
Refimprove section}}
. The entire point of {{
Refimprove}}
is that it's a page-top template (one that alerts readers, not just editors, to an issue with the article's reliability), so arguing about whether it goes at the top is rather like trying to debate the choice to put the stove in the kitchen instead of in the bathroom or under the stairs. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
22:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)From the edit history of the template documentation:
From my talk page:
The documentation for {{ Unreferenced}} states that it should only be used when there are no citations at all, whereas the documentation for {{ Refimprove}} states that {{ Unreferenced}} should be used whenever there are no inline citations. When I changed the {{ Refimprove}} to be consistent with the {{ Unreferenced}} documentation, you reverted it; so, now they're inconsistent again. Are you planning to fix that?
Thanks,
—
Ruakh
TALK
01:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@
User: Ruakh: The template says "This article needs additional citations for
verification" The only citations the meet the requirements of the
verifiability policy are inline citations (see the section
Responsibility for providing citations). --
PBS (
talk)
13:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
A comment on the Template:Refimprove page itself — in the "Differences from..." { {Primary sources} } section, should it read "...but if the citations in an article are NOT from primary sources..."? (without "not" being all caps; that's only for clarity here.) maybe i'm just misunderstanding the whole section, but thought i'd mention it in case i'm not being completely daft tonight. Colbey84 ( talk) 07:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this icon will be more aesthetically pleasing, modern, and consistent with other Wikipedias. Thoughts? There are similar icons on its page.
File:Commons-emblem-question_book_yellow.svg There is also an orange version to match ambox although I think yellow is better for the template.--
Sığe
|д=)
02:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Possibly?--
Sıgehelmus
(Talk) |д=)
17:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Refimprove has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone please add {{
subst:tfm|Verifiability}}
as this template has been nominated for merging with that one.
Ppp
ery
20:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Refimprove has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
And now the previously-mentioned tfd has been withdrawn by the nominator, and thus the tfd tag at the top needs to be removed. Ppp ery 02:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This section needs additional citations for
verification. (January 1950) |
(The above banner, added 29Jan17, is what I want to get rid of throughout the body of articles.)
At present this template generates a large banner either for the whole article or for sections. It is very intrusive (intentionally so). Usually either the article banner, or equally prominent section banners (refimprove or unreferenced), are used; rarely both. It would be desirable to replace one or more large banners in the sections of the article with a single large banner at the top, plus small section tags replacing the banners used at present, to single out sections needing improvement without several large and intrusive banners.
An article with a {{ refimprove}} banner at the top would have sections tagged in one of these two ways:
Perhaps this could be automatic: if an article has an overall {{ refimprove}} at the top, then any {{refimprove|section}} and {{unreferenced|section}} should automatically be rendered as shown above instead of as banners? This would affect the display of any existing article with both article and section banners, but why not?
Possibly the presence of one or more section unreferenced or refimprove templates should trigger the display of an article refimprove banner at the top if the article {{ refimprove}} template is not explicitly present?
Best wishes, Pol098 ( talk) 14:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
There was at one time support for a smaller ambox for use in the body of articles. This has fallen somewhat into disuse now, as editors thought it confusing to have to two different versions of the message box. It might be worth discussing this somewhere more centrally (e.g. Village pump as whatever we do should be consistent across all article message boxes. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This section needs additional citations for
verification. |
Aren't putting the "BLP sources" and "refimprove" on this page wrong? Considering that page meets the GNG requirement and has secondary sources throughout the article, I think it's unnecessary there. But I want to get another opinion just be sure. Horizonlove ( talk) 18:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
is redundant to {{
BLP sources}}
. But neither of them has anything to do with satisfying
WP:GNG. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Unreferenced and
Template:Refimprove has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A Wikilink suggestion:
It might be worth switching the wikilink over in order to better reflect the likely needs of newer users. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 04:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
10:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The "or better" was reverted by MSGJ owing to the lack of the consensus. Cunard ( talk) 06:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I boldly added "or better" in order to better reflect the actual use of this template. The issue is frequently not too few sources, but the use of low-quality sources. Carl Fredrik talk 08:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
CFCF, please change the template back. There is no consensus for this change. We could resolve this matter with an RfC if need be. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
And, for the record, I have never seen this template used for better sources. In my experience, it has been used for an article that needs more sources. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The change has now been reverted — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to add some references to Leon Abbett (first time editor), but I have noticed in reading Wikipedia for years that if someone isn't alive or of recent memory they are left unmarked with the Refimprove tag. Is this just selective enforcement or is there an unwritten rule I am not aware of? Please advise.-- FrankTursetta ( talk) 15:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This template is driving me crazy. At the top of an article I see "needs more citations." Well how many. Ten? Twenty? Fifty? and oh by the way where? Dude if an assertion needs a cite then tag the sentence, not the whole article.
250,000 instances? *Please* delete this template and all references to it in all articles.
Mike Gunther G41rn8 ( talk) 22:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 23 January 2018. The result of the move review was Closure endorsed. |
The result of the move request was: Rename. Timrollpickering 21:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:CONSISTENCY with similar templates and with our years of cleanup of obscure names of commonly used templates (e.g. {{
cn}}
and {{
fact}}
) to instead use plain English that is mnemonic for what the template actually is about or says (e.g. {{
citation needed}}
). This is consistent with
WP:NATURAL,
WP:RECOGNIZABLE,
WP:PRECISE, as we all
WP:CONSISTENT – while intended primarily for article titles, we should not ignore these sensible principles outside of mainspace). This helps newer editors both understand what the template is in the article they're editing, and remember the template name if they need to use it later (or at least be able to find it more easily, e.g. by searching template namespace for "citation"). PS: It's completely daft that
Template:More citations needed doesn't even exist as a redirect yet after 16 years, when that's the most obvious name for the template. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
09:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
There were only 3 !votes. What makes you think that this "discussion" was a good excuse to rename a widely-used template? There was a story about an admin who crashed the en.wiki MediaWiki installation by renaming an infobox template with 100000+ transclusions as part of a (bad) April Fool's joke. KMF ( talk) 04:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
Trout}}
templates go on user talk pages; putting one here doesn't have anything to do with working on this template. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
06:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)KATMAKROFAN's opened a move review: Wikipedia:Move review#Template:More citations needed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:More citations needed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{ subst:tfd}}, per a nomination by KATMAKROFAN {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 00:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
|1=section
. --
Ahecht (
TALKHey there! I'm working with my team to improve how issues display in mobile. One thing we've noted that would allow us to present issues better is if we were able to reliably access the date. Could the date and brackets be wrapped in a span with class `date`? Jdlrobson ( talk) 17:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
ambox}}
, which in turn is built around
Module:Message box. I think that all that is needed here is to alter one line, from self.date = string.format(" <small>''(%s)''</small>", date)
self.date = string.format(" ''<small class="date">(%s)</small>''", date)
<span>...</span>
element.I noticed this when I was editing Forum spam. I wanted to add more references, but I couldn't tell which kinds of references were more needed or where the citations needed to go, because there were no citation needed templates or similar in the article itself. I checked for specific information on how to know specifically what to add to fix the problem stated by this template, but I couldn't find any such information about that topic. I just wonder whether anyone could help. Or should I take this question somewhere else?
171.64.70.62 ( talk) 18:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:More citations needed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the |class =
param to the following:
| class = tag-More_citations_needed {{#if:{{{1|}}}| {{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|article| |tag-section}} | }} <!-- Used by Twinkle -->
This will facilitate a new feature in Twinkle for removing existing maintenance tags.
GitHub discussion. The idea is to have class tag-More_citations_needed
, but an additional tag-section
if the template is not being used in context of the whole article, that is, if {{{1}}} is specified and its value is not "article". Behaviour has been tested in the sandbox.
The existing param was added by
Ioeth (
talk ·
contribs) for use within Twinkle only. As an aside, change the name param to reflect the new template name. | name = {{{name|More citations needed}}}
SD0001 (
talk)
07:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
|1=list
, your suggested edit would add tag-section
, which we don't want. |class=tag-More_citations_needed {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|section|tag-section}}
should do what you want though. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
08:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
tag-section
to everything that Twinkle shouldn't identify as article-wide tags. So, usages like |1=section, especially so-and-so parts
, |1=table
(that produce desirable wording within the template) should have tag-section
class.
SD0001 (
talk)
13:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)tag-name
in
Module:Message box instead of each template individually. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
08:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Template:More citations needed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pls change name parameter to "More citations needed" to match the page name. This is causing problems with categorisation. SD0001 ( talk) 10:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
| name = {{{name|Refimprove}}}
to | name = {{{name|More citations needed}}}
. Per
Template:Ambox/doc which says that this parameter should be updated whenever the template is moved.
SD0001 (
talk)
04:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)