This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Unreliable source? template. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Template:Unreliable source? 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. |
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Should this template be placed after the citation number (outside of the </ref> tag) or at the end of the reference note (within, ie before, the </ref> tag)? Could we have instruction on the page template page? Hyacinth ( talk) 10:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
As per User:Cnilep's on 16 July 2014, the answer became "after citation number". This is wise choice because readers need to be alert to bad references. If the tag is placed within the ref tags, there's a big chance that they will falsely assume a citation was valid because few look at the references compared to the article text. Jason Quinn ( talk) 20:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
As can be verified in the
testcases page, when |certain=
is set to "n" or "no", it removes the question mark rather than preserving it. This is, of course, not what is wanted. The same removal is done if |certain=
is set to any other string. Although, a convention is needed, I suppose in that case, the question mark should also be preserved. This bug is something that should be fixed at some point. Any takers?
Jason Quinn (
talk) 21:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|failed=
now works as a parameter. If we want more values to be supported like "TRUE" or whatever, this can be implemented with {{
yesno}}
, but most templates do not bother with this and the added complexity is generally not worth it. If you actually want the template to parse negative values, that adds a great deal more complexity, and we virtually never do such two-way parsing of parameters for positive and negative values. Probably over 99.9% of template parameters that take any such value actually operate on any value at all (i.e., if the documentation says you can use |munged=y
, supplying |munged=n
or |munged=barbecued chicken lips!
will produce the same result. We only implement the "opposite value gives opposite result" option when there's a good reason to do so, e.g. the |deadurl=
parameter of the citation templates produces markedly different output, depending on what the value is and whether an archive URL has been provided. Similarly, some templates have operator-overloaded parameters that can produce stock output if fed a recognizable positive or negative value, or custom output if fed something that is neither. No needs like that seem to be in play here. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
|certain=y
doesn't apply, just leave the parameter out. Someone else can implement the no
functionality if they want, of course, but I have bigger fish to fry. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 13:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)I've normalized the documentation between {{
Unreliable source?}}
, {{
Unreliable medical source}}
, and {{
Unreliable fringe source}}
, and fixed parameter inconsistencies in the template code during the process. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
dubious}}
or some other related tags), when it is for tagging a specific citation as being to a potentially unreliable source. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 13:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)If there are multiple sources listed that are all unreliable, saying "unreliable source" sounds weird compared to "unreliable sources". Template:Unreliable sources inline even redirects here! Solomon Ucko ( talk) 07:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)