Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 No category?  
1 comment  




2 Wording (January 2023)  
8 comments  




3 Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability § Template:Sources exist  
1 comment  













Template talk:Sources exist




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Template
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


WikiProject iconReliability
WikiProject iconThis template is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

No category?

[edit]

The |cat parameter of {{Ambox}} is left blank in this template meaning, if I'm not mistaken, that it doesn't add the article to any categories. This makes it rather useless if the aim is that someone will actually fix the problem at some point.

Similarly it has a |date parameter but this is undocumented and seems pointless without a corresponding dated category.

I would create one, but I'm not sure if there's some magic that needs to be applied to make these type of cleanup categories work... – Joe (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wording (January 2023)

[edit]

Joe Roe, I think your stance vis-a-vis not pointing out that the current sourcing is below notability standards isn't airtight policy-wise (in response to WP:NEXIST, which I'm well aware of and often cite myself, there's WP:WHYN which is part of the same guideline and lays out why relying on fewer sources than the GNG standard can be problematic for an article), but I'm satisfied with the language we've arrived at following your most recent edit. signed, Rosguill talk 16:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Then I invite you to clarify consensus this and get it written down somewhere. At the moment far too many NPPers are holding article creators to a standard ("articles must contain citations to sources that demonstrate notability") that is simply is not stated anywhere in any of the guidelines we give to them (no, not WP:WHYN either), and it is deeply unfair. – Joe (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the consensus behind the use of this template is quite clear from the two times it's been taken to TfD and kept by a landslide. I don't think an update to notability guidelines is necessary, as I'm not arguing that articles "must contain citations to sources that demonstrate notability", and the existing guidelines are satisfactory in describing both why notability is important and how to establish it. This template essentially has the same function as {{expand language}}, but the sources are off-wiki instead of on a sister project, while also pre-empting and/or replacing prior {{notability}} tags. signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that summary of its function and I believe that's why it was kept at TfD (though personally I still don't see how that function is significantly different to the much more widely-used {{more citations needed}}). But it isn't consistent with the previous text of the template nor the but such sources are not currently cited that you added. Put simply, it is not a problem that "such sources" are not currently cited, so we shouldn't imply it is. That's all. – Joe (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording appears to be pulling double duty for both notability and verifiability. Personally I'd be in favor of shortening the text and focusing it on notability, e.g. An editor has performed a search and found that sufficient WP:GNG-passing sources exist to establish this subject's notability. These sources should be worked into the article to make it clearer that this is a notable topic. Issues with a lack of citations could be indicated by adding additional tags such as {{No footnotes}} and {{More citations needed}}. Just an idea, hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is way too long. fgnievinski (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I went ahead and condensed it just now.
By the way, I'm surprised Joe doesn't like this template, since this template is actually helpful to content creators, since it basically tells everyone to not bother trying to AFD the article since it has already been checked. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Condensing is good; changing the meaning to give instructions contrary to established policy not so much. Sources that establish notability do not need to be in an article. Sources that verify content need to be in an article. This is policy. The problem with this template is that nobody can specify what problem it exists to flag that isn't covered by other templates, but the last TfD insisted we keep it, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Joe (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability § Template:Sources exist. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Sources_exist&oldid=1192584839"

Category: 
WikiProject Reliability pages
 



This page was last edited on 30 December 2023, at 05:14 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view



Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki