Template talk:Sources exist
 | This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | Reliability | |||
| ||||
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)
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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
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)
- The current version is way too long. fgnievinski (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability § Template:Sources exist edit
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability § Template:Sources exist. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)