Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:14, 6 June 2009

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 September 1. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Template:Unreferenced is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

A list of persistently discussed material which illustrates how current consensus came to be can be found at this subpage.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Maintenance messages should be externally purposed, too

The messages on the cleanup maintenance tags are primarily directed at WP editors. Shouldn't they communicate the specific concern to readers as it relates to their perspective as well? For example, the Unsourced tag should more clearly alert the average reader that the article or section contains unverified and unsourced statements, and the reader should take that into consideration; the request to editors should be secondary (although the automatic inclusion in a category broadcasts the alert nicely).

Suggested rewording (new text bolded):

This article does not cite any references or sources.

Readers should be aware that some content is missing citations and may not have been verified as coming from reliable sources. This may affect its accuracy and stability.

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

I mentioned at this the Template messages Talk page a while back with no response, so this may not be a high profile topic. However, I think that we editors tend to be insular and forgot there is a whole world of WP users who actually use WP for reference, research and entertainment. We should ensure pertinent maintenance tags address their concerns first.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please make the above suggested wording change to this template.
Jim Dunning | talk 16:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC) {{editprotect}}

Not done. Sounds like a disclaimer. --- RockMFR 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it a disclaimer. It is clarifying the issue to the casual reader. A reader (as opposed to an editor) may not fully understand that a notice that appears to be meant for editors only has an impact on his/her understanding of the articles content.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No disclaimers in articles states: Please take all steps necessary to ascertain that any information you receive from Misplaced Pages is correct and has been verified. Check the references at the end of the article. Read the article's talk page and revision history to see if there are any outstanding disputes over the contents of the article. Double-check information with independent sources. Yes, this does warn the reader that accuracy is not guaranteed, but it also directs the reader to "check the references at the end of the page." What if there are no references at the end of the page? It seems to me that the disclaimer focuses on situations where the article appears to be sourced, which is not the case for citations-needed tags. If it is redundant to warn about accuracy when sources haven't been supplied, how come it's okay to have {{disputed}}, {{current}} or {{POV}} when the same policy states, "PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN[REDACTED] MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING"? Wouldn't those templates duplicate the Disclaimer? Those templates do not even specifically ask for editor assistance, but appear to be directed at the reader.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

These templates indicate the status of the article with respect to our policies and whatnot. The addition you are asking for is solely for the purpose of warning readers, something that they should be able to do by themselves. --- RockMFR 05:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Blank line

{{editprotected}}
Remove line break between </span> and }} to avoid vertical space as in . -- Lea (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Specified time

Generally speaking, what is an adequate specified time that a new article or stub be marked with this template if it is to be helpful instead of obtrusive? I ask because I see many users seemingly abuse/tag a new article as soon as it's created. Wisdom89 (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would add it as soon as possible. Even the person creating the article could add it if a specific reliable source is unknown. Tagging articles with this notice is not abusive: it is an alert to editors asking for help in improving the article, and a notice to readers that accuracy and verifiability may be issues.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Separating verifiability and reliable sources

{{editprotected}} Would it be more helpful to wikilink to WP:V as well as WP:RS within this template, despite that the former contains links to the latter. Might be a more direct and expedient way of helping new users who have just created articles to navigate. Wisdom89 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This ones needs more people commenting before implementing. I would be against adding the guideline WP:RS to the template, the policy WP:V should be enough. Garion96 (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I figured that would be the feeling - I thought WP:V might be enough too, but then I thought about those those who would benefit. - new users come across the template after they create a page - if they are directed to verifiability, the might be loathe to read deep into it, but by providing two links which contain overlapping information, the message might be more easily conveyed. Of course, then it becomes a question of redundancy. In that case, would WP:RS just suffice? Just my two cents. However, I do see your point. Wisdom89 (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Just a heads-up: potentially relevant discussion at Template_talk:Refimprove#Dual-purposed. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Placement

Can we get consensus on placement, so it can be included in the documentation? This should clearly go at the top of an article, as with all other maintenance tags that describe entire articles. Based on what I've seen, placement in an empty References section is practiced mainly by inexperienced editors, doesn't make any sense, and isn't helpful. If there's a problem with an article as a whole, especially a serious issue like a complete lack of references, that's something people should see right away, at the top. It's at least as important as something like copy-editing required. Just because references have their own section doesn't mean the tag that describes their lack belongs someplace different than other maintenance tags. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:14, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I used to put it down the bottom, but up the top is a good place - both as maintenance template for editors and warning template to readers. - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. The top of the article is the best place for article-wide maintenance tags. Placing it on the talk page is especially problematic, because it hides the warning from most of the people who need to see it. --M@rēino 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

All main issue templates for article should be placed at the top of the page - sometimes they can be obtrusive and in your face, but with articles are poorly organized or badly in need of help, this is an essentiality. However, if the template refers to a specific section, that's where it should go - bar the reference area. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wording suggestion: third-party

I want to make this template's meaning more obvious to casual readers, e.g. those who think "there's references to this thing, look, there's a link to the project page!" I want to make it clear third-party sources are considered pretty important.

e.g.

This article does not cite any third-party references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Or perhaps "third-party" should go in the second line of text:

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to third-party reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Any thoughts? I appreciate the problem of barnacle-like creep of subclauses on previously clear statements and templates, and the importance of avoiding such, and am personally fond of clearing such out ... but I've been tagging quite a few articles whose references are the home page for the topic itself and which, although arguably encyclopedic, could really do with a third-party reference or two - David Gerard (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor/small text is rarely paid attention to - your first example is clear and unambiguous. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Third party sources are much better but often I am glad enough that an article at least has a reference. Even if it is not a third party reference. Garion96 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You might as well include secondary sources then as well. Might be better to have the template encompass primary, secondary, and tertiary. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This template has been used, for some time, to indicate articles for which there are no references provided whatsoever. It does well at that task. If the issue is that better references are desired, that's the role for another template, not this one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Essentially echoing my thoughts. Nicely put. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, see Template:Primarysources. --- RockMFR 05:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Useage on image pages

I've noticed that this template is in use on many image pages. My first inclination it to remove these uses, but I know that the image side of Misplaced Pages has its own complex rules, and I want to make sure I'm not trampling on any of them first. --M@rēino 20:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like some of the tags were added when the images don't give a source where the image was obtained. You could tag these with {{no source}} instead; be aware that will start a deletion process, so you should notify the uploader if you add that tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at one of the images, and it was a coloured data map whose content I don't remember. The image had a source and a free license, but I think the tagging was because the image and the editor-prepared information contained within had no references. That seems, at least in passing, to be a legitimate function of this template. — pd_THOR | 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to tag such images with {{Original research}}--BirgitteSB 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiny stubs

Could we add a small, strictly-a-suggestion info box to the usage template that says something like this?

Alternatives Consider searching for references and adding them to the article, instead of this template. Consider not adding this template to extremely short articles.

I don't want to set out any strong rules here -- just to remind editors to "be bold" and to hint that this tag isn't particularly helpful on two-sentence-long dicdefs-with-possibilities, especially if the only edit to the article during the entire last year was the addition of the ref template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I've merged this box into the documentation. I also made the existing when-to-use statement bigger and easier to spot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No more categories?

{{editprotected}}

It seems that a recent edit has removed all the default categorization for articles tagged with this template. Perhaps I missed a discussion for this change, but otherwise it seems like a mistake was made. If that is the case, please revert or fix. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The pages are still categorised, but (I think all) the categories used by this template are now 'hidden', and they are listed at the bottom of the page in the edit screen, just above where categories usually are, or you can change your preferences in the 'Misc' section to show them on all pages. Most maintenance categories which do not aid navigation are now hidden using this new feature (see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-02-25/Technology report#New features). The recent edits enable categorisation to be disabled so the tags can be placed on pages for demonstration (such as Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Cleanup) without categorising the page. mattbr 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the stupidest template: why not delete it?

Really ... once the first citation is inserted into an article, the template is no longer correct. I think the template should be deleted immediately, since the "refimprove" template does the job much better and is not immediately outmoded when action is taken to comply with it. Tony (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking a further look, there's a big bold notice on the template page that says: "This template should be used only on articles that have no sources", followed by "In articles that have some sources, but not enough, the refimprove template should be used instead."

The implication is that as soon as the first citation is inserted into the article text, this template should be removed and replaced by the refimprove template.

I put it to you that it would be better to start with the refimprove template. Why not delete this one?

Have you looked into the names of the categories that these templates use? — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think is useful to have a separate category for those article without a single reference. It is a red flag that there could be larger issues. Also I think stubs should have at least one general reference as to show notability but I don't believe {{refimprove}} is appropriate for stubs. From your approach here I doubt you are open-minded about this but for the record I would definitely oppose grouping all the articles from here and {{refimprove}} into one category. --BirgitteSB 04:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it relevant to point out that the "big bold" text was neither big nor bold two days ago, but in general I'm with Birgitte: it's sometimes useful to be able to find articles in a zero-refs category instead of a someone-wants-more category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I understand about stubs, but for larger articles, the maintenance issue is important: as currently worded, the template becomes obsolete on first strike. Perhaps it should be explicitly framed for stubs and its use for larger articles discouraged. Tony (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No referencing templates at all should be put on stubs; the stub tag is sufficient. I don't see why it's a problem that the template becomes obsolete when a reference is added. The addition of even a single general reference on an article is an important step in the article development process, and this template is meant to encourage that step. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why, then, doesn't the refimprove template encourage the same thing just as well, without the impediment of almost immediate obsolescence? Tony (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to suggest a re-write of either template which makes you feel more content about their purpose in sorting articles into two different catagories.--BirgitteSB 13:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Most cleanup templates become obsolete when they are handled - {{capitalization}}, {{wikify}}, {{copyedit}}, etc. The point of the templates (if there is one) is to indicate the specific problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Most cleanup templates are still accurate until work on the issue has finished. This one is wrong after the very first move. Tony (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think refimprove does need to be changed. It's fine for all purposes. Tony (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For {{unreferenced}}, another logical next step is {{prod}} due to lack of references. For {{refimprove}}, that's not so logical. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether that is a theoretically good approach, and I think it is not. That approach is practically a very bad idea. It will gain more critics and trouble than you can imagine. Be careful not to use {{prod}} unless something is an obvouis hoax, or unless you are very experienced at taking things through AFD and know for certain what would garner no opposition.--BirgitteSB 13:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken dozens of articles through prod a month or two after seeing the {{unreferenced}} template applied, and only rarely had to step up to AfD - that's what comes from watching Misplaced Pages:Dead-end pages. Most of the time, the article has no particular value, and nobody cares - which is exactly why {{prod}} was created, IMHO. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Tony1, I basically think that if you don't like this template, then you are free to not use it. Other editors should have the option of using it at their discretion. I consider the likelihood of this template being deleted so small as to make WP:SNOWBALL relevant. We could go {{Round in circles}} on this, but I think that useful discussion is over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Um ... that's like saying if you don't like the prose in that article, don't read it. I have no intention of ever using this template. The issue is its immediate obsolescence, and the need for other WPians to have to change it to refimprove after the very first citation is entered into an article. I still say delete it. Tony (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about it, then you may certainly propose it at AfD. I suggest that it would be a waste of your time, but as far as I am concerned, you are free to make that choice. Of course, I also believe that further chatting about it here is also a waste of your time -- as chatting about your dislike of this template cannot have any practical impact on the template's continued existence -- but perhaps you find value in this discussion that I can't see. If that's the case, then as far as I am concerned, you are free to make that choice, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And what a waste of time your contribution is. I do feel strongly, but suffice it to alert people here that I will advise others to use refimprove rather than this silly thing whenever the issue comes up. Tony (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, because I tend to view refimprove as less useful. Its problem is that it doesn't say what needs to be referenced, so there's no concrete action that can be taken to resolve it. I prefer for people to simply leave a comment on the talk page explaining what issue they have, and I've been known to remove the refimprove tag soon after it was added if the article appears to be adequately referenced and no specific concerns have been raised. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'd remove "additional" from refimprove—it's just not necessary—and get rid of this "unreferenced" template completely.

This article needs additional citations for verification.

Most articles that have insufficient (or no) citations and need a tag have a general problem. Otherwise, "fact" tags can be placed at one or more specific locations in the text. Tony (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Placing multiple act tags are in fact depreciated if they are used in multiple places if the problem is more general. They are intended for asking for a reference for a single disputed fact. Of all the article improvement templates in Misplaced Pages, I would say that this particular one is the most important and the most necessary. The first step in upgrading WP is at least catching and provided some references for the ones that do not have any. Its the minimum needed to enforce one of the core policies, of Verifiability. There are some policies or guidelines that I and others think perhaps mistaken or too stringent or too permissive, but the basic need to have some sort of evidence for the material in the encyclopedia is the primary reason why we can be trusted even as a ready-reference source. I think there is about 99% agreement on this one, and I am startled at an attack on it.

By the way, the next logical step after using thi template is not prod--we do not delete articles for having no references, we look for references and only delete them if we can find none after a reasonable search. Putting prod on articles that seem referenceable is a very poor idea unless one can document that there are in fact no apparent print or online references. Deleting unreferenced articles merely for being unreferenced has been repeatedly rejected by the community. DGG (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Copy

Is there any copy of this template? --Filipinayzd (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Why references redirects to unreferenced??

Hello, I don't understand quite well, why {{references}} template redirects to unreferenced template? I think, it should be a list of references template, by ex: ==References== <references/> --serhio 19:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For reasons lost in history, the template that expands to a <references/> is {{reflist}}, while {{references}} is "references are lacking". Big job to change now. (BTW, I'm assuming you wanted "nowiki" above, rather than "code"....) --Alvestrand (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}}

old → ← new

Description: Please replace Image:Question book-3.svg with Image:Question book-new.svg. I believe this is an uncontroversial edit because the images are fairly similar. I think that this new image reflects the colour scheme of the template a little better, and the image looks cleaner (note the visibility around the top of the question mark), and is smaller in filesize. Template:refimprove has already started using this image too. Thanks in advance! _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 15:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Though I bet the servers weren't too happy about it. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki redirect

Please fix The it.wp link should be to Template:F. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Garion96 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Move the date's location

{{editprotected}}

Move:

<small>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''}}</small>

To after:

removed.

Remember to add a space between the period and the date. This is to conform with other templates, which have the date at the very end of the message. Gary King (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Ah I also just realized that the extra small is unnecessary, so replace:

<small>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''}}</small></small>

With:

{{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''}}</small>

Gary King (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, missed checking back here. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we add a category

to this template so that we can easily track what articles need to be cited?♥_INchile 22:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There are categories, but they are hidden on the actual articles this template is used on. See Category:All articles lacking sources and the montly subcategories like Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006. Garion96 (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

ah, i see. hey is there any way to make the hidden categories be seen? or separate navigational/reader categories from procedural/editorial ones?♥_INchile 05:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You can see the categories normally by going directly to the category, but not on the article page itself. Only when you click on "edit this page" you can see a box with in there the info on transcluded templates and the hidden categories. Garion96 (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Citations missing

Template:Citations missing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. (This template is a potential merge-to or redir-to.) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can a different language[REDACTED] be the sole source?

There are several articles like Lasalle, Gard, Fressac or Cornillon that have "Based on the article in the French Misplaced Pages" as the only reference. Is the {{Unreferenced}} tag appropriate for these articles? Or is the French Misplaced Pages valid as a sole source?  — Chris Capoccia ⁄_C 11:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what others think, but I personally do not object to having references to other Misplaced Pages articles or other Wikipedias if there are no other references to use or if an article was based on another article or other Misplaced Pages, because I believe that even a weak or non-realiable reference is still better than no references at all. However, referencing Misplaced Pages is an example of self-referencing, and such self-references cannot be considered "true" references. If somebody wants to use them, they can only be considered a form of "intermediate" or "imperfect" weak references just to enable the reader know where the information they read comes from (and, of course, to enable them read anything with a grain of salt). Imagine if somebody based something on another Misplaced Pages article and put no references at all, some readers would assume that the writer wrote the article based on their experience and my believe that the writer thought that they knew what they were doing. However, if a (Self-)reference to another Misplaced Pages article is added, then the reader is warned that the information they read is simply a "copy" from a source which is unreliable and cannot be trusted as a "real" reference, so the readers can take care in their use of the information they read. Thus, I see self-references to other Misplaced Pages articles or other Wikipedias as warnings, or intermediate references until something better can be found, rather than "true" references. As such, I consider that it would be appropriate to say that an article only citing Misplaced Pages as a source can still be considered unreferenced, even if it contains a References section, as long as the only reference given is Misplaced Pages. However, this obviously doesn't apply in translated Misplaced Pages articles if they contain the original references given in the other Misplaced Pages. NerdyNSK (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I found my answer in WP:SPS: "Articles and posts on Misplaced Pages may not be used as sources."  — Chris Capoccia ⁄_C 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a little more complicated than that. For example if I write "Heathrow is the largest airport in Britain", it is more "likely to be challenged" (WP:PROVIT) than "Heathrow is the largest airport in Britain". But if someone does challenge it then one can either argue the toss on the talk page or add a citation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Style tweaks

{{editprotected}}

I've made some tweaks to the sandbox to match the styling used on similar templates. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Y Done The Helpful One 21:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Category

This template does not belong to category:cleanup templates. It is very difficult to track it without being listed there. Someone needs to add it to the category. --GPPande 19:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It belongs to the more specific category of Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates. What are you trying to track? — Satori Son 19:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Template incorrectly refers to unverifiable material

Unverified information may be removed. We do not require that the information be unverifiable before removal. This is the heart of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden of evidence; the burden is on the editor wishing to include challenged or likely to be challenged material to verify it. While we do have some Misplaced Pages mores urging editors to attempt to find sources before removing unsourced material, this does not turn the burden on its head, and the template should reflect the policy. Given the massive number of articles this is transcluded in, I came here seeking feedback before making the change.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the proposed change is not consistent with common practice and consensus. It has been repeatedly shown at AFD that a merely unverified article will be kept and that the nominator must try and fail to find sources before the article will be removed.--BirgitteSB 17:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You're conflating deletion of article norms with removal of unverified information norms. What happens at AfD with respect to whether an article is verifiable or not and thus should or should not be deleted is not relevant to the framed issue which speaks to WP:BURDEN, which is the standard this template directly invokes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This template is about entire articles, not about pieces of information. If you remove the unverified information referred to by the template you will be blanking the article as this only applies to articles where no sources are given at all.--BirgitteSB 04:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That is neither here nor there because the removal, per the template and the policy it quotes in shorthand, is not applicable to all material, but specifically to: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis added). It goes on to say: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging..."</nowiki>" This is long standing policy with bedrock consensus and is expressly not about unverifiable material but unverified material. The whole point of the policy section is that the burden is on the person seeking to keep or add the challenged information to source it, and it is no small thing that the template perverts the very policy it stems from. This is not discordant, and should not be confused with, the deletion standard that the subject of an article be verifiable (rather than verified).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This template is not used to mark "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged ". It is used to mark articles without any sources, changing this template to say "unverified material may be challenged or removed" is not good. None of the information in these article is verified and changing the language in a way that might encourage people to blank them or put them in AfD for containing only "unverified information" is a problem. So don't make the change that you proposed, because it does not have consensus. --BirgitteSB 23:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That is simply factually incorrect, as a simple reading of the template shows. The template says there are no sources, and material that is challenged may be removed, given that state of affairs. Willfully ignoring what it says gets us nowhere. Whether the template should remove the express language from WP:BURDEN entirely is another matter, but if it's going to invoke that policy, it cannot function to reverse the burden by requiring information be unverifiable before removal.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You very well may disagree with me, but claiming that I am "willfully ignoring" anything is out of line. However much I disagree with you, I assume that you believe what you state is true. I expect you to extend this same courtesy to me. Since you cannot manage that; I have no interest in further discussions with you.--BirgitteSB 19:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as the template goes, I agree, the point of the template is that no sourcing is provided in the entire article, so every disputed or likely-to-be-disputed claim is up for removal, since its source cannot have been properly indicated. AfD is about deleting the whole article, not specific content within it.

However, I don't think "unverified" is a good word choice. There is no policy that says that material in an article needs to be verified. It just needs to be sourced properly. There is no need that any editor or reader actually verify the source. If someone tries and fails, they can mark it as such, remove the false source or even the claim etc., but there is no policy saying they must try.

I think the word choice "unverifiable" reflects this fairly well, and is in agreement with the name of the policy itself, WP:V. However, I'd be fine with "unsourced" instead of "unverifiable". I definitely think that "unverified" sends the wrong message, as if there were official WMF censors who go through articles verifying them for foundational appropriateness. JackSchmidt (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe simpler wording would help? I've noticed lots of new editors take {{unref}} as if the article was scheduled for deletion. Here is something simple:

This article does not cite any sources. Please help make this article verifiable by adding citations to reliable sources.

One doesn't want to say too much on it, because most articles without sources are already pretty bare and need lots of work. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That works for me--BirgitteSB 23:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing it to remove WP:BURDEN entirely seems like a good solution. It is slippery for users not very familiar with the ins and outs of verification, sourcing, deletion etc. to understand how they interact and don't interact, and without the full quote from the policy it is apt to confuse (I can see many users thinking "what does "challenged" mean in this context?"). However, the change cannot say "please help make this article verifiable by adding..." That's a non sequitur. An article is either verifiable or it is not. Citing sources proves that information included is verifiable, and lack of sources, after looking, is evidence that information is unverifiable, but whether information is or is not verifiable is an unchanging state of affairs (except by new sources coming into existence). An article subject or information in an article can be ''verified by addition of sources, and sources can help verify" an article's subject or information in and article, but whether the subject or information is "verifiable" exists regardless of whether it has or has not yet been shown.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

How about:

This article does not cite any sources. Please help make this article more easily verifiable by adding citations to reliable sources.

I think this addresses your concern about "verifiable" being objective and true/false, and handles my concern that verification can only be done individually by each user. There is no official stamp of approval, "this article has been verified" thing. Why would anyone trust such a thing on a wiki? To me WP:V is a core policy because it answers the fundamental objection to "an encyclopedia anyone can edit": how can any reader trust its contents when anyone can write and rewrite the articles? Answer: the only material included is taken from reliable sources which are cited inline for easy verification. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what stamp of approval you're talking about and I think we're talking past each other because that suggestion still suffers from the same problem. Is it possible we have different understanding of what verifiable means? Verifiable means "capable of being verified." You would not say "help make this article more easily capable of being verified"; we "help verify an article by citation to reliable sources" and an article "is verified by citation to reliable sources." In any event, I don't think three users are enough for consenusus on removal of WP:BURDEN entirely from the template, given just how high use it is (though we're now 2; I've driven away BirgitteSB with my characterization of her post). I think I'll advertise a bit at the village pump later.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about "more easily verifiable," but disagree that adding a citation makes a claim verified, either objectively or practically on enwiki. Verification is done by the consumer of the article, the end-user, the reader, not by any editor (and this is supported by the wording in WP:V). Practically speaking, there are way too many objectively false statements with inline citations (for instance in mathematics articles). However, the reader can themselves verify the claims by going to the sources, noting the mistakes made in the wiki article, and coming away with useful knowledge. If the mistakes are particularly egregious (such as, the reliable source does not even address the claim), then there is a nice template, {{failed verification}}, for them to add, and in fact some of us at WP:FACT go around routinely to do this.

How about:

This article does not cite any sources. Please help make this article easier to verify by adding citations to reliable sources.

Having a rough draft we can agree on provisionally is a good idea before proposing at VP. What do you think about this? Should it mention the "inline" part of citation, or just be general? JackSchmidt (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points (unindenting):

• It's true that sources may be miscited and that they allow a reader to check themselves whether a citation verifies what it's cited to verify, but sources either verify what they purport to verify, or they do not, objectively. It is customary usage on Misplaced Pages to use verify as a verb mean "add source(s)", and verified as the past tense thereof. However, I would like to take a different tack (below), that sidesteps the whole issue.
• If the language from WP:BURDEN is going to come out, what's wrong with just keeping the current language? "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources" and appending "Verifiability of information is one of Misplaced Pages's core content policies"? That way we still invoke WP:V explicitly without the y / ied / iable suffix issue rearing its head.
• I started this with objection to the use of unverifiable in the template, when that places the burden, prior to removal, of finding and citing sources on the person challenging the material, which is directly the opposite of what the invoked policy section says. Maybe we can keep it almost the same but get rid of the issue by using the language from the companion template {{Refimprove}}, which states "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." In fact, this template in prior versions contained similar language: "Any unsourced material that has been or is likely to be challenged may be removed at any time." (prior version). I also note that both of these formulations, speaking of "unsourced" material, rather than material for which no source can be found, bolster my point that unverifiable in the current formulation is erroneous.
• To boil this down, I suggest, if we are to mention WP:V explicitly but get rid of the WP:BURDEN invocation:

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Verifiability of information is one of Misplaced Pages's core content policies.

• And if we are going to invoke the language of WP:BURDEN, without using the V word in any form:

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

• I prefer the latter and I think we should be mentioning the burden. No matter how much we link to policies, only some small subset of people will actually look at policy page and distill it. So, if we don't mention it in the template itself, it's lost on many. I also think getting rid of it is likely to be controversial. I also like your idea of adding inline citations in some form. So my final and preferred suggestion for the moment is:

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:V does not require material to be sourced, only to be verifiable in theory. Only quotes and things that are challenged or likely to be challenged "need" to be sourced. Uncontroversial facts that clearly could be verified in reliable sources do not need to be explicitly sourced. If a change is needed in the template here, the last sentence could be removed entirely. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As already stated at VPP, I agree, but the template is invoking WP:BURDEN, challenged material can be removed if unsourced, not unsourceable. See third template up for suggestion of what to replace the last sentence with, if WP:BURDEN material is to be taken out of the template entirely.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Fuhghettaboutit's last suggetion is good. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Books

For the new Book feature on Misplaced Pages, I think that this template should be added to Category:Exclude in print.

--Wyatt915✍ 16:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is done. The documentation for Category:Exclude in print clearly indicates this template should be added. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Presumably that goes in from Ambox? Rich Farmbrough, 17:34 4 March 2009 (UTC).

Table

How about adding a new parameter, table, for templates that would accompany an unreferenced table? "This table doesn't cite any...". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

{{unreferenced|table}} works already. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit requested

{{editprotected}}

Could someone add ({{Findsources}}) before the closing </small>. Kevin (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see some opinions on that first. We don't want to litter our articles with google links. I can accept that on {{BLP unsourced}}, but I'm not sure if we want that on all unsourced articles. --Amalthea 18:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Would seem a sensible solution. I'm unclear if any downside outweighs the added nudge for editors to find and add sourcing. -- Banjeboi 22:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What about maps?

As discussed at Template_talk:Fact/Archive_5#Version_for_maps.3F, we could use an unreferenced template which would say "this map is unreferenced". Also, we could use an inline version of {{fact}} to tag map captions in the articles to note that a map is unreferenced.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

{{unreferenced|map}} should work, no? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Although I'll note we still don't have inline version for captions - consider how many people actually bother clicking on a map picture to go to map page and will therefore not see the large template... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The tag would need to be rendered with the image at whatever resolution it's reduced to in thumbnail version to really work or be forced into the caption somewhere. Unless it appears immediately in the article it's not much of a warning as most in-article renditions of maps are large enough to not require clicking through to the full size image. PetersV       TALK 03:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have the means to add a tag to the image itself, but a citation needed and similar tags for captions seem feasible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change wording

This template has recently been changed to include the wording (ideally, using inline citations). I would like to propose the removal of that phrase:

I feel this may put off new editors (and maybe others) from adding references as the Misplaced Pages:Footnotes page is fairly intimidating to a new user (try reading it whilst imagining that you are new to wikipedia). Whilst I can understand the need to encourage users to use inline citations, I feel it is better for an article to have some sort of references than none at all. An article that is referenced but lacks inline citations can be tagged with {{No footnotes}} or {{More footnotes}}. We should encourage editors to add references and then maybe ask them to improve them once the article is referenced. The guideline Misplaced Pages:Citing sources which this template links to, states: Editors are free to use any method; no method is preferred. with respect to how to present citations (inline or not).

I have no problem with the phrase being used on {{refimprove}} as inline citations would be an improvement and the article is not unreferenced. I just feel that including it on this template does no good. For example: if an article had the unreferenced template on it but had a reference the template would be removed or replaced whether or not it had inline citations, however the (ideally, using inline citations) text in the template may put some users off adding refs to an unreferenced article due to the apparent complexity of doing so. This could leave an unreferenced article unreferenced due to lack of knowledge of how to do inline citations rather than lack of available sources.

Any thoughts?

ascidian | talk-to-me 14:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you make a good point Ascidian. I want to encourage use of inline citations but definitely not at the expense of causing some to forego any, and you may be right that if a user sees that they may throw up their hands and not add a general reference that they might have in its absence.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy that someone at least read this - I thought either I had proposed something completely insane or that no-one else cared!. As this thread is moving rather slowly, I have notified the editors that took part in the discussion that led to this change of this new proposal. ascidian | talk-to-me 15:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to (or should) remove the phrase... It isn't saying that inline citations are manditory... only that they are the ideal way to do it. It is good advice. We want new editors to learn how to format proper citations, and the Template points them to a page that can teach them how to do so. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the word change. For a completely unsourced article; a few references at the bottom in bullets points is still a significant improvement.--BirgitteSB 17:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the new wording. I think the old wording is better. It ties in much better with WP:PROVEIT --PBS (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) Philip, if you mean because the proposed insertion would encourage new editors to believe that generalised references at the bottom are a solution (and inline citations only "ideal", i.e., less than essential), yes, the insertion would be undesirable. There is no escaping the need for specific inline citations. Tony (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

For stub articles, and articles substantially based on a single source, I feel that the push towards inlnie citations is a distraction. I would prefer the reworded template (that is, without the "inline" part). --Alvestrand (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Tony1 that is exactly my point. Alvestrand See Template_talk:Unreferenced/Archive 1#Usage revisited this template is not meant to be used on stubs.

From the history of the article "15:20, 2 May 2009 Fuhghettaboutit (This is a long standing version, just not the last.. WP:V is non-negotiable and cannot be overruled. This overrules it. Unsourced material not unsourceable material can be removed per WP:BURDEN; leave offf inline citiation prod per discussion)". The version I reverted too was the Revision as of 17:23, 4 March 2009 which was also the version that reverted too before me. The wording of the version of 4 March 2009 was unchanged from at least November 2007.

So user:Fuhghettaboutit please show me through the edit history how you justify the statement "This is a long standing version", because AFAICT it is not. I suggest that you gain consensus for changes before making them. --PBS (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" is not an improvement on "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed" because I think that the older wording better sums up Verifiability in its whole. But let us discuss it further and see if there is better wording which we can all live with. --PBS (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is an imporevement and a crucial one, because the former says the opposite of what Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says. Specifically, material does not need to be unverifiable (unsourceable) to be challenged and removed. It only needs to be unverified (unsourced).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. This one goes to the heart of Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy afaic - global references are often too hard to check for volounteers with limited time or interest. "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability". There is a quick guide to useing refs - Misplaced Pages:Footnotes#How_to_use -

Yes it does go the heart of verifiability. That's the point. The policy states that unverified material may be challenged and removed, not unverifiable material. That turns the burden on its head. That's all this is about.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

How to use

A simplified explanation is given at Help:Footnotes

1. Place a <ref> ... </ref> where you want a footnote reference number to appear in an article—type the text of the note between the ref tags.
2. Place the <references /> tag or {{Reflist}} tag in either a "Notes" or "References" section as explained in the Guide to Layout — the list of notes will be generated in that section.

The ref BOT will often add titles, leaving the finessing to more experienced editors. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 07:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that inline citations are a definite improvement on global references in an article especially in terms of verifiability. However this template should be used only for articles with exactly zero references, so I think that any hurdles to add a reference (global or inline) should be avoided, as any form of valid reference added must be an improvement? It is the same volunteers with limited time or interest you note above who might be put off by having to add refs with inline citations rather than a global ref and then do neither, which would leave an unreferenced article still unreferenced. ascidian | talk-to-me 23:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Should the template employ "unverifiable" or "unverified"?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This is a dispute over which word to use in the high-use template, {{unreferenced}}, "unverifiable" or "unverified" to properly invoke WP:BURDEN.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Unverifiable mean not able to be sourced.
• Unverified mean not yet sourced.

Verifiability is one of our core policies and its subsection, WP:BURDEN, provides that:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed... Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles.

The disputed language in the template is the WP:BURDEN invoking: "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." That present construction, using unverifiable as opposed to unverified, functionally reverses the burden of WP:BURDEN. What it says can be restated as: "Material that cannot be sourced may be challenged and removed." By so stating, it requires the person challenging the material to show it can't be sourced. The policy says the opposite. It is the person wishing to add or restore material that has the sourcing burden. That's the dispute in a nutshell.

Upon changing the word to "Unverified", I was reverted. Discussion was had higher on this page and a bit more two sections up. I eventually settled on changing it to an equivalent of unverified—unsourced as at least one person objected to either verified or unverifiable. Note that for a time, approximately April - June, 2007 the template existed at various versions which properly invoked the burden, then stating "Any unsourced material that has been or is likely to be challenged may be removed at any time."

On June 26, 2007 "unsourced" was changed to the non-equivalent "unverifiable." From then until now it has persisted with versions of that language, with no one apparently commenting or showing they noticed the change.

In any event, WP:V is core policy and cannot be overruled. I believe this bowdlerizes it and I think getting this right is important—WP:BURDEN is important; thus stating correctly the burden when invoking it is important; this template is transcluded (as of this writing) in 127,664 articles, and it is more likely that a new user will see the burden through this template at the top of an article they created, than they are to actually visit the underlying policy page it invokes. I am being stubborn on this because I have seen much conclusory statements that unverifiable is better, but none providing any trenchant reasoning why it is better or why I am not correct, and I think this is a serious matter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This template has always been poorly worded, and this is just one aspect of that; of course it should be "unverified". In addition, I was howled down last year when I complained about the awkward wording "This article does not cite any references or sources", which would be neater and more formal as "This article cites no references or sources". A third, overarching problem, is that as soon as a single reference is added to a tagged section, the template becomes wrong ... plain wrong. That is why I've been advising editors not to touch this one with a bargepole, and instead to use {{refimprove}}. Tony (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The template is not poorly worded. It reflects the current policy that material must be verifiable, not verified. This is not some poor diction, this is an important policy distinction. Gigs (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• To say there was a dispute between unverified/unverifiable is a mischaracterization. My objection was that it is problematic to prompt people to remove information that is "not yet sourced" from an article known not to have a single source, which is of course everything. However I don't support the template saying "unverifiable" either. We should be prompting people so search for sources on this particular template rather than prompting them with language which is about more fine-grained situations. --BirgitteSB 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • BirgitteSB My original post sought the change from one word to the other, only. That's all I sought. You were the first responder and objected. Maybe you misread it then?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Disagreeing with your proposed change != supporting no change at all. The RFC summary describes this a choice between unverified vs unverifiable, when in fact there was significant discussion about removing the language from WP:BURDEN entirely. And there were proposals made that contained neither word.--BirgitteSB 19:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • That's true, but only because you objected to my change of the one word, and others commented, so I sought other ways to accommodate people. I wanted the change of one word; I still want the change of one word; it's all I ever wanted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I would support some of the versions above that don't mention WP:BURDEN. But I really think the template is OK right now. Gigs (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely leave it as unverifiable the policy is named "verifiability" not "verification". As it says on my user page "The idea that people are not free to add unsourced knowledge goes strongly against the entire idea of a wiki. Unsourced is not the same thing as unverifiable." Leave the template alone, it's fine the way it is. Gigs (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Gigs, instead of simply championing unverifiable, can you respond to the fact that the template invokes WP:BURDEN, and apparently changes the burden by its use of that word? That's the sharp issue. You seem to have a problem with WP:BURDEN by your statement. But that doesn't change the fact that this template invokes it on the one hand, but says something inimicable to it on the other.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Your understanding of WP:BURDEN is incorrect. Material that is verifiable may not be removed, regardless of its current sourcing. Looking at the above conversation, this was pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people. This is a long standing and community wide consensus, and attempting to change it on the talk page for a template is not the right way to go. Gigs (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • No. Simple and objectively. WP:V states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed." If you want to change the policy, fine, but that discussion doesn't belong here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You can't take a single part of a single sentence out of context and present that as the entire policy.

          "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Misplaced Pages editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them."

          That's a far cry from what you are implying. The only way you can possibly get your interpretation is to ignore every other part of the policy and only look at that sentence fragment. That doesn't reflect what the consensus is. The policy is verifiability, not verification. Gigs (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I am not implying anything. I grow weary of this and this is all sidetrack which I shouldn;t have bit on. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." How could it be any clearer? You are a not a new user by registration but you only have 670 edit to articles so you probably don't see WP:BURDEN in practice very often for its uncontroversial, plain meaning. So you want to see consensus as to what it means? Okay. Here's multiple links to people applying it for its straightforward use. 1, 2‎, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. The burden is on the person who wishes to keep challenged material to find sources. Not the people challenging the material. The template's use of the one word over the other switches that burden.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) It should read "Unverifiable Unverified material may be challenged and then removed." That would better reflect the process in the context of a completly unsourced article. Of course, if it is a biography of a living person with no sources, just nominate the article for deletion.

I realise the process is different when someone adds a silly claim to an otherwise decent article; those can and should be deleted on sight. But that is not the context this template is used in. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the 1st word, agreed, tho "Unsourced" or "Unreferenced" would be better - someone can "verify" something without actually sourcing it if they're not used to the WP jargon. I don't agree with "then", since removing unreferenced nonsense is itself the challenge, and some editors don't consider their unreferenced silly edits to be nonsense. The burden should be on the people trying to turn the encyclopedia into Usenet or a messageboard. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-06t16:05z

The purpose of the template is to alert editors that there is a problem with the article, to wit the article needs verification. It warns them that if no verification is fourthcoming information might be deleted. The template must be seen as a step in a process. At the point in that process when this template is added, the unsourced information is in a sort of "Shrodeger's cat" state... it might be removed and it might be kept, depending on whether it is eventually sourced.

Now, what happens after the teplate is applied is a different issue. Ideally, the person who adds the template attempts to fix the problem and find sources... however, he/she is not required to do so. The burden falls on those who wish to add or retain information to source it. On the other hand, simple courtesy demands that we give our fellow editors a reasonable amount of time to do so.

This brings us to the "unverified" vs. "unverifiable" debate. Our policy states that unverifiable information may be removed. That means that, if there is a reasonable belief that something can be verified, we leave it. However, the contrary argument is also true... if there is a reasonable belief that something can not be verified, we may remove it. If, after tagging the article or statement, and giving other editors a reasonable amount of time to provide sources, no sources are forthcomming, then it is reasonable to reach the the conclusion that no sources exist... and that the information is unverifiable. We may at that point remove it.

In other words, we maintain a balance between immediate removal and everlasting retention of unsourced information. With this ballance in mind, "unverifiable" is the better wording. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar wrote "if, after tagging the article or statement, and giving other editors a reasonable amount of time to provide sources, no sources are forthcomming, then it is reasonable to reach the the conclusion that no sources exist... and that the information is unverifiable. We may at that point remove it." Sorry, but I disagree. It might be apparent that potential sources exist, but that examining them would be more work than any volunteer editor is inclined to undertake. For example, it might require examining the laws of every state of the U.S., traveling to a library to examine a manuscript, or reading a source in a foreign language. So it isn't necessarily unverifiable, it just requires more effort or expense than any of the participating editors care to undertake. Of course, the material may still be deleted after a reasonable period of time; if the adding editor didn't see fit to brag about all the wonderful source-based research he/she did to justify the claim, it is reasonable to assume that he/she didn't do any source-based research. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• BURDEN goes both ways. The majority of text on Misplaced Pages is inadequately sourced, but nobody complains or removes it. Once some text has raised suspicions, it is incumbent on the uploader to provide verification, but this goes outside the scope of the template. The template is for unsourced articles, but the removal of the text is not because it is unsourced, but because the remover feels that it is untrue. This means that the remover's WP:BURDEN is to have done some research to see if it cannot be immediately verified. The template should read "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." Joey the Mango (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment