The result of the discussion was keep. A broad consensus exists across keeps and deletes that "a single source is not necessarily a problem". A suggestion was made to change the wording of the template to reflect this, I think that's a fine idea and it can be done or discussed further on the talk page. It looks like it's also widely acknowledged on both sides that there's a potential for misuse; the keeps thought this didn't merit deletion, while some of the deletes thought it did. Given that the large majority of contributors to the discussion want this kept and offer valid reasons, let's use the suggestion brought up by some of the keeps and offer individual coaching to people who misuse it. delldot ∇. 22:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
This template should be deleted because it is not in line with policy and does not help to improve articles.
There is simply no requirement in policy, whether in WP:V or elsewhere, that articles cite more than one source. For many articles, citing one high-quality source is perfectly OK, and the presence of this template encourages the needless tagging of such articles.
The usage instructions say that "a single source is considered less than ideal because a single source may be inaccurate or biased". This is not only unfounded in policy, but also fallacious: if the source is in fact inaccurate or biased, it should be tagged as such in the article using {{ verify credibility}} or a similar template; or the article should be nominated for deletion.
But adding another source just to make the tag go away will not improve the article, because the second source may just as well be as inaccurate or biased as the first one. In other words, it is false to assume that the quality of the sourcing is a function of the number of different sources that are being used. Sandstein 23:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No one has engaged Sandstein's point that there is no requirement that articles have more than one source, and there are many exceptions, even in areas supported by notability subpolicies (Consider that Lisa Loeb had a Top 40 hit, and eventually number one, with " Stay (I Missed You)" before she was even signed to a major record label. Wikipedia wasn't around at the time. But if it were, if someone who hadn't gotten a major record deal (which per WP:BAND establishes notability) had a top 40 hit, someone would have doubtless created an article about her and she would have been notable under that same subpolicy by virtue of having had the hit. There might only have been one reliably-sourced music press article about her at the time the single broke the Top 40. Would someone have slapped this template on the article on the grounds that well, there has to be another article out there somewhere? (Eventually, of course, there were, but for purposes of this hypothetical I'm talking about an article created on an artist whose single has just reached #40 who hasn't yet gotten a record deal). In parliamentary democracies it is sometimes the case that people go from non-notability and media obscurity to national legislative elected office overnight. There might be one article about them in a small local paper before the election. Would we insist on a second source then? The situation might change, but maybe they'd be comfortable in backbench obscurity and get no ink or pixels to the next election.
Major League Baseball teams have sometimes called up players from AA to the big leagues. They play one inning, they're notable for having played major-league ball. It would be likely that there would be little coverage of them prior to the callup, and maybe not even afterwards (although, granted, being called up from AA to the majors is notable enough in itself). Maybe one article in the news in the team's city.
My point is that if notability concerns motivate the placement of this template, then there should be a way to reflect a need for more sources in {{ notability}}, not a separate template. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
. There are some good points here about the shortcomings of the {[tlx|onesource}} template as it is written. The template serves a useful purpose, but it seems as though {{
refimprove}}
covers the same issue in a more general way.
Tim Pierce (
talk) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC){{
refimprove}}
template seems to imply there either is or should be an inline {{
cn}}
to a specific fact or quote whereas the {{
onesource}}
template more generally implies expanding the article to include more references than just the one.
My76Strat (
talk) 20:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC){{
refimprove}}
calls for improved references in general, but if that's the consensus, what about renaming {{
onesource}}
to {{
more sources}}
and rewriting it appropriately? I bet we can agree that there are many articles that need more sources, whether they already have one, two or five.
Tim Pierce (
talk) 20:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC){{
more sources}}
? That helps get around the implication that an article with only one source necessarily needs more, and can be applied to other articles with too few sources.
Tim Pierce (
talk) 00:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC){{
more sources}}
if necessary. :-) Of course, I see now that {{
more sources}}
once had its own text and was redirected to {{
refimprove}}
after a discussion not unlike this one. I feel more and more as though the answer is to rewrite {{
refimprove}}
to cover more cases.
Tim Pierce (
talk) 17:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)I have tried to find out where this one came from; I get the feeling it was one of those things that came up in an FAC or something like that. In any event no language requiring the use of multiple sources is, AFAICT, in WP:V, WP:CITE or WP:RS, pages I have been pointed to as supporting the use of this template.
It is certainly advisable to have more than one (reliable, repeat reliable) source for an article, especially given that WP:N usually requires two to establish notability. But this is not always a realistic expectation. Some editors seem to treat the two-source rule as if it worked backwards as well as forwards: something notable must therefore have more than one source.
But it doesn't. I have hated this template ever since last summer (I think) when another editor slapped it on St. Paul's (Zion's) Evangelical Lutheran Church, which I had created and had nominated for DYK. We have long accepted that the U.S. National Register of Historic Places and other national and international heritage designations confer notability regardless of whatever else exists as sources to do so. I found other sources for parts of the article not covered by the nomination form ... only to be told by one editor that truly notable article subjects have one source (and as if that wasn't enough, he subsequently suggested that, the sources and a photograph notwithstanding, I hadn't sufficiently proved the church even existed, much less that it was notable).
Later, to try and please these people, someone else added a whole bunch of marginal sources to this (or was it another?) article, sources which I would have never used.
So, yes, I've got a personal grudge against the use of this template and the underlying idea. It is bureaucratic in the extreme to assert ipso facto that a single source is not enough. Certainly when there has been no underlying policy discussion reflected in our official policies.
Any policy, and template arising from that policy, attempting to discourage the use of single sources should consider the quality of the single source (i.e., primary, secondary or whatever) and the likelihood that additional sources are readily available to our editors (I prefer not to cite through from sceondary sources, even if policy strongly encourages it ... it can be a sneaky way to conceal plagiarism). I really don't see how the legitimate issues here can't be addressed by changing the wording of {{ refimprove}} or {{ primary sources}}. Or at the very least have a policy discussions somewhere other than here to establish the correct use for this misbegotten template. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
incoherent}}
, {{
overdetailed}}
and {{
too many photos}}
just to name a few.
I didn't think so. The problem with this template is that it suggests that the single source is an issue in and of itself rather than in the context of establishing notability, or the reliability of the source or whatever other issue would make a single source undesirable. No one in this debate seems to have entertained the question of whether a multiplicity of sources is desirable for its own sake, which is what this template implies. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
This template, on the other hand, seems to suggest that we want more sources because ... we want more sources. It's "policy" made in the trenches (as it too often is, in and out of Wikipedia, but this is especially egregious). It reminds of when, a few years back, someone quite rightly noted that song articles in particular had a lot of links to their music videos at YouTube, often posted by that site's users in blatant violation of copyright (what else is new?). This not only didn't look good with our copyright policy, it's a potential DMCA violation for each occurrence. So, WP:EL was amended to be stronger and more explicit about not allowing links to copyvio posts, no matter how much they otherwise conformed with the policy. And the original creators of this went around with bots and AWB deleting all such links, mainly to YouTube videos.
However, the usual process of informing people about changes in policy took hold, and soon "no links to copyvio on YouTube" became understood by too many editors as "no links to YouTube, period", with the usual hilarity ensuing. Despite a section explicitly addressing this issue, some editors still think this is policy.
This has not done as much damage, but I think this policy needs to not only go back to the trenches, it needs to be buried in one. Getting rid of this template and finding ways to reword the other templates to address the single-source issue where there are concerns about the reliability of the source or notability of the subject would be a start. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
At the very least let us change the wording so it reflects that this not policy and that there are times when a single source is OK. Daniel Case ( talk) 14:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
to read "This article needs additional sources and citations for verification" and use that.
Tim Pierce (
talk) 19:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Really not needed anymore as I have used the sockpuppet template on each of them. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 23:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Completely unnecessary template. Per the standard for a television series, the writers, cast, etc don't belong, and almost entirely read links or links all to the same article. If you remove all the red links, links that don't belong, and links that all go to the same article, you are left with [1] -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Not in use, common usage is to put two or more {{ Deletion sorting}} notices on the AfD, just see today's AfD log as an example. Also, having two lines of the {{ Deletion sorting}} makes it easier recognizable that the article has been included in multiple deletion sorting lists than one line which, on first look, looks the same as if it were included in only one list. Thus, it should be deleted to keep the log pages more consistent and readable. The Evil IP address ( talk) 17:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
See below, the bot now uses {{ RfD subpage starter}}. The Evil IP address ( talk) 15:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
No longer in use, the bot uses {{ RfD subpage starter}}. The Evil IP address ( talk) 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Redundant template. – B.hotep • talk• 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Navigational template that consists entirely of redlinks. Since it only covers a band whose article has been deleted, none of the other links are likely to have articles. Nyttend ( talk) 12:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a project assessment banner for a WikiProject that was created without authorisation and has now been deleted. The template is therefore no longer relevant. – Pee Jay 07:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This sidebar relates to a WikiProject that was created without authorisation from the WikiProject council and has now been deleted. The template is therefore no longer relevant. – Pee Jay 07:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Template now completely replaced by the more general {{ Infobox Cycling race report}}. EdgeNavidad ( talk) 07:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete, should be noncontroversial given the approval of Dr. Blofeld, who is the author and only significant editor. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Limited regional template which is essentially redundant to {{ Infobox settlement}}. I have created a conversion template, {{ Infobox Commune Cambodia/sandbox}}, but it cannot be simply used as a backend due to coordinates conversion problems (e.g., the use of coordinates rather than latd, and longd needed for a pushpin map). I am happy to do the conversion, or to show a proof of concept, but I thought I should check here first. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
{{Infobox settlement}}
. Happy for Plastikspork to convert as he proposes.
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits 10:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)The result of the discussion was Delete per this discussion and prior related discussions from May 5, February 25, February 4, and January 26 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment You are right here but not with Mures template. There, the latter one was created by Iadrian yu. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. A broad consensus exists across keeps and deletes that "a single source is not necessarily a problem". A suggestion was made to change the wording of the template to reflect this, I think that's a fine idea and it can be done or discussed further on the talk page. It looks like it's also widely acknowledged on both sides that there's a potential for misuse; the keeps thought this didn't merit deletion, while some of the deletes thought it did. Given that the large majority of contributors to the discussion want this kept and offer valid reasons, let's use the suggestion brought up by some of the keeps and offer individual coaching to people who misuse it. delldot ∇. 22:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
This template should be deleted because it is not in line with policy and does not help to improve articles.
There is simply no requirement in policy, whether in WP:V or elsewhere, that articles cite more than one source. For many articles, citing one high-quality source is perfectly OK, and the presence of this template encourages the needless tagging of such articles.
The usage instructions say that "a single source is considered less than ideal because a single source may be inaccurate or biased". This is not only unfounded in policy, but also fallacious: if the source is in fact inaccurate or biased, it should be tagged as such in the article using {{ verify credibility}} or a similar template; or the article should be nominated for deletion.
But adding another source just to make the tag go away will not improve the article, because the second source may just as well be as inaccurate or biased as the first one. In other words, it is false to assume that the quality of the sourcing is a function of the number of different sources that are being used. Sandstein 23:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No one has engaged Sandstein's point that there is no requirement that articles have more than one source, and there are many exceptions, even in areas supported by notability subpolicies (Consider that Lisa Loeb had a Top 40 hit, and eventually number one, with " Stay (I Missed You)" before she was even signed to a major record label. Wikipedia wasn't around at the time. But if it were, if someone who hadn't gotten a major record deal (which per WP:BAND establishes notability) had a top 40 hit, someone would have doubtless created an article about her and she would have been notable under that same subpolicy by virtue of having had the hit. There might only have been one reliably-sourced music press article about her at the time the single broke the Top 40. Would someone have slapped this template on the article on the grounds that well, there has to be another article out there somewhere? (Eventually, of course, there were, but for purposes of this hypothetical I'm talking about an article created on an artist whose single has just reached #40 who hasn't yet gotten a record deal). In parliamentary democracies it is sometimes the case that people go from non-notability and media obscurity to national legislative elected office overnight. There might be one article about them in a small local paper before the election. Would we insist on a second source then? The situation might change, but maybe they'd be comfortable in backbench obscurity and get no ink or pixels to the next election.
Major League Baseball teams have sometimes called up players from AA to the big leagues. They play one inning, they're notable for having played major-league ball. It would be likely that there would be little coverage of them prior to the callup, and maybe not even afterwards (although, granted, being called up from AA to the majors is notable enough in itself). Maybe one article in the news in the team's city.
My point is that if notability concerns motivate the placement of this template, then there should be a way to reflect a need for more sources in {{ notability}}, not a separate template. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
. There are some good points here about the shortcomings of the {[tlx|onesource}} template as it is written. The template serves a useful purpose, but it seems as though {{
refimprove}}
covers the same issue in a more general way.
Tim Pierce (
talk) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC){{
refimprove}}
template seems to imply there either is or should be an inline {{
cn}}
to a specific fact or quote whereas the {{
onesource}}
template more generally implies expanding the article to include more references than just the one.
My76Strat (
talk) 20:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC){{
refimprove}}
calls for improved references in general, but if that's the consensus, what about renaming {{
onesource}}
to {{
more sources}}
and rewriting it appropriately? I bet we can agree that there are many articles that need more sources, whether they already have one, two or five.
Tim Pierce (
talk) 20:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC){{
more sources}}
? That helps get around the implication that an article with only one source necessarily needs more, and can be applied to other articles with too few sources.
Tim Pierce (
talk) 00:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC){{
more sources}}
if necessary. :-) Of course, I see now that {{
more sources}}
once had its own text and was redirected to {{
refimprove}}
after a discussion not unlike this one. I feel more and more as though the answer is to rewrite {{
refimprove}}
to cover more cases.
Tim Pierce (
talk) 17:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)I have tried to find out where this one came from; I get the feeling it was one of those things that came up in an FAC or something like that. In any event no language requiring the use of multiple sources is, AFAICT, in WP:V, WP:CITE or WP:RS, pages I have been pointed to as supporting the use of this template.
It is certainly advisable to have more than one (reliable, repeat reliable) source for an article, especially given that WP:N usually requires two to establish notability. But this is not always a realistic expectation. Some editors seem to treat the two-source rule as if it worked backwards as well as forwards: something notable must therefore have more than one source.
But it doesn't. I have hated this template ever since last summer (I think) when another editor slapped it on St. Paul's (Zion's) Evangelical Lutheran Church, which I had created and had nominated for DYK. We have long accepted that the U.S. National Register of Historic Places and other national and international heritage designations confer notability regardless of whatever else exists as sources to do so. I found other sources for parts of the article not covered by the nomination form ... only to be told by one editor that truly notable article subjects have one source (and as if that wasn't enough, he subsequently suggested that, the sources and a photograph notwithstanding, I hadn't sufficiently proved the church even existed, much less that it was notable).
Later, to try and please these people, someone else added a whole bunch of marginal sources to this (or was it another?) article, sources which I would have never used.
So, yes, I've got a personal grudge against the use of this template and the underlying idea. It is bureaucratic in the extreme to assert ipso facto that a single source is not enough. Certainly when there has been no underlying policy discussion reflected in our official policies.
Any policy, and template arising from that policy, attempting to discourage the use of single sources should consider the quality of the single source (i.e., primary, secondary or whatever) and the likelihood that additional sources are readily available to our editors (I prefer not to cite through from sceondary sources, even if policy strongly encourages it ... it can be a sneaky way to conceal plagiarism). I really don't see how the legitimate issues here can't be addressed by changing the wording of {{ refimprove}} or {{ primary sources}}. Or at the very least have a policy discussions somewhere other than here to establish the correct use for this misbegotten template. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
incoherent}}
, {{
overdetailed}}
and {{
too many photos}}
just to name a few.
I didn't think so. The problem with this template is that it suggests that the single source is an issue in and of itself rather than in the context of establishing notability, or the reliability of the source or whatever other issue would make a single source undesirable. No one in this debate seems to have entertained the question of whether a multiplicity of sources is desirable for its own sake, which is what this template implies. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
This template, on the other hand, seems to suggest that we want more sources because ... we want more sources. It's "policy" made in the trenches (as it too often is, in and out of Wikipedia, but this is especially egregious). It reminds of when, a few years back, someone quite rightly noted that song articles in particular had a lot of links to their music videos at YouTube, often posted by that site's users in blatant violation of copyright (what else is new?). This not only didn't look good with our copyright policy, it's a potential DMCA violation for each occurrence. So, WP:EL was amended to be stronger and more explicit about not allowing links to copyvio posts, no matter how much they otherwise conformed with the policy. And the original creators of this went around with bots and AWB deleting all such links, mainly to YouTube videos.
However, the usual process of informing people about changes in policy took hold, and soon "no links to copyvio on YouTube" became understood by too many editors as "no links to YouTube, period", with the usual hilarity ensuing. Despite a section explicitly addressing this issue, some editors still think this is policy.
This has not done as much damage, but I think this policy needs to not only go back to the trenches, it needs to be buried in one. Getting rid of this template and finding ways to reword the other templates to address the single-source issue where there are concerns about the reliability of the source or notability of the subject would be a start. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
At the very least let us change the wording so it reflects that this not policy and that there are times when a single source is OK. Daniel Case ( talk) 14:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
to read "This article needs additional sources and citations for verification" and use that.
Tim Pierce (
talk) 19:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Really not needed anymore as I have used the sockpuppet template on each of them. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 23:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Completely unnecessary template. Per the standard for a television series, the writers, cast, etc don't belong, and almost entirely read links or links all to the same article. If you remove all the red links, links that don't belong, and links that all go to the same article, you are left with [1] -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Not in use, common usage is to put two or more {{ Deletion sorting}} notices on the AfD, just see today's AfD log as an example. Also, having two lines of the {{ Deletion sorting}} makes it easier recognizable that the article has been included in multiple deletion sorting lists than one line which, on first look, looks the same as if it were included in only one list. Thus, it should be deleted to keep the log pages more consistent and readable. The Evil IP address ( talk) 17:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
See below, the bot now uses {{ RfD subpage starter}}. The Evil IP address ( talk) 15:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
No longer in use, the bot uses {{ RfD subpage starter}}. The Evil IP address ( talk) 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Redundant template. – B.hotep • talk• 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Navigational template that consists entirely of redlinks. Since it only covers a band whose article has been deleted, none of the other links are likely to have articles. Nyttend ( talk) 12:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a project assessment banner for a WikiProject that was created without authorisation and has now been deleted. The template is therefore no longer relevant. – Pee Jay 07:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This sidebar relates to a WikiProject that was created without authorisation from the WikiProject council and has now been deleted. The template is therefore no longer relevant. – Pee Jay 07:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Template now completely replaced by the more general {{ Infobox Cycling race report}}. EdgeNavidad ( talk) 07:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete, should be noncontroversial given the approval of Dr. Blofeld, who is the author and only significant editor. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Limited regional template which is essentially redundant to {{ Infobox settlement}}. I have created a conversion template, {{ Infobox Commune Cambodia/sandbox}}, but it cannot be simply used as a backend due to coordinates conversion problems (e.g., the use of coordinates rather than latd, and longd needed for a pushpin map). I am happy to do the conversion, or to show a proof of concept, but I thought I should check here first. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
{{Infobox settlement}}
. Happy for Plastikspork to convert as he proposes.
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits 10:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)The result of the discussion was Delete per this discussion and prior related discussions from May 5, February 25, February 4, and January 26 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment You are right here but not with Mures template. There, the latter one was created by Iadrian yu. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)