Template talk:Reference necessary
Previous version of template
Discussion precluded by Deletion discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I've just stumbled upon this template, and I have to say that I'm not a fan! Its use on an article results in something that looks pretty bad, and looks like the article's been vandalised; see e.g. Rabies#Symptoms. Is there are anything that can be done about the appearance? In fact, use of this template is clearly non-standard; I would suggest that before it's used any further, it should be discussed at e.g. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources... Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 20:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
My issue with the use of this template is that it is simply too ambiguous in its application. Have a look at this version of an article which was reviewed as a GAR. Entire paragraphs are encompassed as needing sources, although some, if not most of the content of the paragraphs is not contentious or really in need of support. The rationale for its use was that it makes it easier for the reviewer to not have to copy and paste examples of problems. However, by just highlighting the paragraph, one has no clue whatsoever what is being challenged. This is a sample paragraph that was singled out:"On 16 March 2002, he was the host on Saturday Night Live. In 2003, McKellen made a guest appearance as himself on the American cartoon show The Simpsons, in a special British-themed episode entitled "The Regina Monologues", along with Tony Blair and J. K. Rowling. In April and May 2005, he played the role of Mel Hutchwright in Granada Television's long running soap opera, Coronation Street, fulfilling a lifelong ambition. He is also known for his voicework, having narrated Richard Bell's Eighteen, as a grandfather who leaves his World War II memoirs on audiocassette for his teenage grandson."What is being challenged here? That he was on Saturday Night Live? That he voiced himself on The Simpsons? That he did a guest role on Coronation Street or that he narrated Eighteen? What about that is so controversial that we implemented an unsightly and unprofessional highlighting? Why would a Good Article reviewer be more interested in saving time in clarifying issues than specifically noting something that needs referencing? This template is a bad idea. That it has only been used on a few articles does not take away from the ambiguity that can result from its use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The current fix of this template looks horrendous. Wildhartlivie, your issue with the template is how it is used. The problem, then, is documentation. Fix the documentation, don’t discard the template. That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water. Oli Filth, your issue is simply that others don’t use it enough. Lack of use may speak more to its being more recent than other templates (it came over from the French and Italian Wikipedias). This template is quite valuable in those instances where more than one contiguous sentence needs referencing. In those cases, {{Fact}}/{{cn}} is not sufficient since that template is only to be used for one sentence needing citation. No, the problem with this template is that the formerly very pale color was unilaterally changed by an editor who will not take the time to find a less bold color than the highlighter yellow he selected, despite this active editor being requested to do so. It just needs to be put back to its pale color. But, as it stands now it is awful! — Spike (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
|
Version 2009-10-04 & Usage
I have reverted this template to the version that it was on 2009-06-12 by PhilKnight. So far that is the least intrusive version that still achieves this template’s goals, while not giving rise to deletion debates, and outright removals of the template where it is used.
Next, as JackLumber correctly pointed out in the deletion debate, we need to figure out how to get this template to add pages on which it appears to the appropriate categories for pages needing citations. For example: Category:All articles with unsourced statements. Anyone know how to do that?
Please remember: This template does not replace {{Citation needed}}. These templates are mutually exclusive. (See Usage Summary below.) {{Reference necessary}} fills the gap between {{Citation needed}} and {{Unreferenced section}}. That is, {{Reference necessary}} is to be used where two or more contiguous sentences require verifiable reference(s)/citation(s). {{Citation needed}} is used where only one sentence requires verifiable reference(s)/citation(s). Finally, {{Unreferenced section}} is used where an entire section requires verifiable reference(s)/citation(s). This distinction needs to be made clear in the {{Reference necessary}} documentation. Between the two of us, I hope that JackLumber and I can improve the documentation, but any suggestions would be welcome.
Usage Summary:
- {{Citation needed}}: → Used for one (1) sentence only.
- {{Reference necessary}}: → Used for two or more (≥ 2 )contiguous sentences.
- {{Unreferenced section}}: → Used for entire sections.
— SpikeToronto (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Something I mentioned to SpikeToronto in user talk I think but worth repeating here: Citation isn't really about sentences but about facts. This template is useful for a) tagging several contiguous unsourced facts, in one sentence or across several, in the same paragraph or other unbroken block, and b) for tagging one specific fact that is unsourced among a pile of otherwise sourced ones. I've tried to have the docs reflect this, but if my prose sucks please work on it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 08:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
"Example Text"
What's up with the text "Example Text" being put on every page this is used on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenlor (talk • contribs) 07:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Can you provide an example? No joke intended, but a wikilink would let me see it. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Categorization
The version of this template dated 03:29EST 23 January 2010, now causes any article on which this template is used to be added to Category:All articles with unsourced statements, Category:Articles with unsourced statements, and/or dated subcategories thereof. — SpikeToronto 08:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Syntax
With this edit, I added a syntax subsection to the documentation for this template. It can be seen in the template’s notes as a subsection of the usage section. I am not sure about the use of the word policy in the syntax structure. If anyone has a better suggestion I am open to it. Alternatively, you can edit it directly here. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 09:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I kinda rewrote the whole thing. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 08:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Notes re: Substitution
With this edit, I added a notes section to the documentation for this template. It reminds users that this template is not to be substituted using subst. Thanks — SpikeToronto 09:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)