Reference works Unassessed ( inactive) | |||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
One source template. |
|
This template was considered for deletion on 2009 September 8. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
This template was considered for deletion on 2010 May 12. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
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)
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)
* '''Support'''
or * '''Oppose'''
on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.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)
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)
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)
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.
I propose the following wording for the usage of this template.
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)
I would like to create a new template, combining this template with aspects of {{ globalize}} and {{ POV}}, with the text "This article relies largely or entirely upon several source that represent similar POV and may not represent worldwide, neutral POV." The wording should probably be tweaked, the rationale however is that some articles may be referenced by multiple sources, but if all sources represent the same POV, and are thus not representative of the sources in general, the article has POV issues due to biased sources. Comments? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
After more thought, I think we have a template that seems to fulfill the role I intended for this one: {{ Undue}}. No need to have to many copies... still, if we can come up with good names, we can redirect them to this template, which in any case seems to be a bit heavily worded.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
usage section currently says:
“ | 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 a single source may not be a problem, so no tag is necessary. For an example see this section. |
” |
How is' 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'. reconcileable with ' Articles that merely lack references or have POV problems should be flagged with some other template, such as'...
These two instructions taken together seem to say the tag should only be used if only one source is present, but this is not a sufficient reason for using it. Then what are the other necessary grounds which must be true before the tag becomes appropriate?
Do I take it that if a text has two citations from the same source (eg different pages from some book on the subject), then again it would not be appropriate to use this tag (because the condition of just one citation is not satisfied) Sandpiper ( talk) 06:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
As I commented in the recent TFD, the category associated with this template could be improved. Currently it categorises pages into Category:Articles lacking reliable references; however, Category:Articles needing additional references may be more appropriate (as the existing references may be reliable, just insufficient). Robofish ( talk) 00:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be helpful if the template description page either contained an explicit copy of the actual contents of the default first sentence ( i.e. showing single source is meant rather than single source), or if the template provided the facility of adding a second sentence. Either would be useful to cover cases where only a slight tweak to what appears is wanted. Melcombe ( talk) 09:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Another suggestion that could be done is a removal notice. 86.29.64.45 ( talk) 19:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Is this template intended to be used for stubs that are about one to two sentences long? -- LauraHale ( talk) 10:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Can this template be used in other language versions of WP? How would one go about making it available to others versions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.130.159 ( talk) 23:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
For {{One source|section}}, deleting the second sentence in the resulting display would be a nice option. Opening a Talk discussion may be redundant. In some cases, just seeing the section and the tag will be enough notice. Nick Levinson ( talk) 21:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggestion: add in an option to add in "type=yes" and make the template say "a single type of source". This is because I cannot find any other template that says "a single type of source". Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Certainly needs more discussion here. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
16:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to Dictionary.com, greatly is more formal than largely, so I think that "relies greatly or entirely" would be
better for the encyclopedia than "relies largely or entirely".
Gamingforfun365
(talk)
00:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Currently the template says "largely or entirely upon a single source". I suggest removing the word "largely" for several reasons or replacing it with something less vague. Firstly, per WP:GNG, "there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Neither does WP:V set a minimum number of reliable sources. For stubs or Start-class articles two reliable sources look perfectly ok in terms of verifiability. As such the word "largely" is prone to abuse which may result in drive-by tagging without talkpage discussions, such as in God Speed which currently has two citations from one source and five citations from another source, and yet is marked by this template. This in turn will increase the backlog of tagged articles that await improvement for several years already. Brandmeister talk 09:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
An RfC is underway that could affect this template and may therefor be of interest to watchers of this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding Twinkle maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 05:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Love you so much! Nirmalhial ( talk) 07:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Jesusloveyou Nirmalhial ( talk) 07:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{ find sources mainspace}} to the template. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request to put a <small>{{find sources mainspace}}</small>
on the template for articles, as it does with
More citations needed and a few others, since it is fustrating to find sources using this template, which is its secondary purpose.
dibbydib
💬/
✏
02:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Edit: I've made an example of it on the sandbox (rev 928288055)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "single source" should link to Wikipedia:Articles with a single source. The "sources" after "to additional" should then be linked to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Is it possible to have this direct articles, instead of to Category:All articles needing additional references, a subcat of that, like a new Category:All articles with only one source? I think this would be a very useful category to have separated, since the way one goes about improving a one-source article is different than the way one might go about improving an article tagged with refimprove. Someone trying to address the other tags that end up in Category:All articles needing additional references is typically trying to find a particular piece of information in a source somewhere. But to solve an article tagged as onesource, all you need to do is find another source and integrate information from it into the article. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Reference works Unassessed ( inactive) | |||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
One source template. |
|
This template was considered for deletion on 2009 September 8. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
This template was considered for deletion on 2010 May 12. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
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)
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)
* '''Support'''
or * '''Oppose'''
on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.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)
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)
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)
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.
I propose the following wording for the usage of this template.
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)
I would like to create a new template, combining this template with aspects of {{ globalize}} and {{ POV}}, with the text "This article relies largely or entirely upon several source that represent similar POV and may not represent worldwide, neutral POV." The wording should probably be tweaked, the rationale however is that some articles may be referenced by multiple sources, but if all sources represent the same POV, and are thus not representative of the sources in general, the article has POV issues due to biased sources. Comments? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
After more thought, I think we have a template that seems to fulfill the role I intended for this one: {{ Undue}}. No need to have to many copies... still, if we can come up with good names, we can redirect them to this template, which in any case seems to be a bit heavily worded.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
usage section currently says:
“ | 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 a single source may not be a problem, so no tag is necessary. For an example see this section. |
” |
How is' 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'. reconcileable with ' Articles that merely lack references or have POV problems should be flagged with some other template, such as'...
These two instructions taken together seem to say the tag should only be used if only one source is present, but this is not a sufficient reason for using it. Then what are the other necessary grounds which must be true before the tag becomes appropriate?
Do I take it that if a text has two citations from the same source (eg different pages from some book on the subject), then again it would not be appropriate to use this tag (because the condition of just one citation is not satisfied) Sandpiper ( talk) 06:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
As I commented in the recent TFD, the category associated with this template could be improved. Currently it categorises pages into Category:Articles lacking reliable references; however, Category:Articles needing additional references may be more appropriate (as the existing references may be reliable, just insufficient). Robofish ( talk) 00:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be helpful if the template description page either contained an explicit copy of the actual contents of the default first sentence ( i.e. showing single source is meant rather than single source), or if the template provided the facility of adding a second sentence. Either would be useful to cover cases where only a slight tweak to what appears is wanted. Melcombe ( talk) 09:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Another suggestion that could be done is a removal notice. 86.29.64.45 ( talk) 19:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Is this template intended to be used for stubs that are about one to two sentences long? -- LauraHale ( talk) 10:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Can this template be used in other language versions of WP? How would one go about making it available to others versions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.130.159 ( talk) 23:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
For {{One source|section}}, deleting the second sentence in the resulting display would be a nice option. Opening a Talk discussion may be redundant. In some cases, just seeing the section and the tag will be enough notice. Nick Levinson ( talk) 21:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggestion: add in an option to add in "type=yes" and make the template say "a single type of source". This is because I cannot find any other template that says "a single type of source". Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Certainly needs more discussion here. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
16:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to Dictionary.com, greatly is more formal than largely, so I think that "relies greatly or entirely" would be
better for the encyclopedia than "relies largely or entirely".
Gamingforfun365
(talk)
00:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Currently the template says "largely or entirely upon a single source". I suggest removing the word "largely" for several reasons or replacing it with something less vague. Firstly, per WP:GNG, "there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Neither does WP:V set a minimum number of reliable sources. For stubs or Start-class articles two reliable sources look perfectly ok in terms of verifiability. As such the word "largely" is prone to abuse which may result in drive-by tagging without talkpage discussions, such as in God Speed which currently has two citations from one source and five citations from another source, and yet is marked by this template. This in turn will increase the backlog of tagged articles that await improvement for several years already. Brandmeister talk 09:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
An RfC is underway that could affect this template and may therefor be of interest to watchers of this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding Twinkle maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 05:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Love you so much! Nirmalhial ( talk) 07:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Jesusloveyou Nirmalhial ( talk) 07:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{ find sources mainspace}} to the template. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request to put a <small>{{find sources mainspace}}</small>
on the template for articles, as it does with
More citations needed and a few others, since it is fustrating to find sources using this template, which is its secondary purpose.
dibbydib
💬/
✏
02:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Edit: I've made an example of it on the sandbox (rev 928288055)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "single source" should link to Wikipedia:Articles with a single source. The "sources" after "to additional" should then be linked to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Is it possible to have this direct articles, instead of to Category:All articles needing additional references, a subcat of that, like a new Category:All articles with only one source? I think this would be a very useful category to have separated, since the way one goes about improving a one-source article is different than the way one might go about improving an article tagged with refimprove. Someone trying to address the other tags that end up in Category:All articles needing additional references is typically trying to find a particular piece of information in a source somewhere. But to solve an article tagged as onesource, all you need to do is find another source and integrate information from it into the article. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)