Template talk:One source

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was TEMPLATE MOVED per discussion below. The transclusions are fewer than 100; they could be fixed by dilligent hand, or by a bot request. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Template:Moresources → Template:Onesource — WP:CTT lists {{moresources}} and {{more sources}} right next to each other. They have essentially identical names but are different templates: one requests more sources, and the other warns that the article only uses one source. I'm already in the process of updating the small list of transclusions of {{moresources}} (the "one source" template) to the redirect I just made to it, {{onesource}}, taking care to switch to {{more sources}} instead if the context suits it. I'd also bet that most of the people using {{moresources}} thought they were using {{more sources}}. See how confusing this is? {{moresources}} should also probably redirect to {{more sources}}. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support. I always thought these names were confusing, but both templates serve a unique purpose, so renaming is appropriate. -- Satori Son 17:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• comment perhaps there is a better name, like template:fewsources instead of onesource... (like few incoming links) 132.205.93.32 23:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We can make any number of redirects to whichever name we choose, but for now the main issue is moving it to a template that isn't so confusing alongside {{more sources}}. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not opposed to a different name but "fewsources" still sounds ambiguous and isn't consistent with the wording of the template, which states that the article only uses one source. Perhaps that would be better as a redirect to another template. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Usage

The instructions for using this template currently say "This template alerts readers that citations in an article or section may be inappropriate or misinterpreted. Examples include quotations taken out of context and false assertions about a source's facts or conclusions." That would seem to be a straight copy from Template:Citecheck and doesn't make sense here (and it's the same story for the rest of the "usage" instructions. I've not seen this template used before today; would someone who does use it be able to correct the instructions (and have a look at Template:Self-published for the same reason? Bencherlite 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

The template said, "image = none <!--intentionally left blank -->", but why not use the standard reference image, Image:Question book-3.svg? I've put in the question-book image, but feel free to revert or raise objections. -- Lea (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Move to talk page

This is yet more template clutter. Comments like this should be on the talk page not the article page. That is what talk pages are for. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New Usage guidelines

The usage guidelines of this template do not seem to coinside with the meaning of the template, but seems to be more like {{Citecheck}}. The following is the current wording.

This template alerts readers that citations in an article or section may be inappropriate or misinterpreted. Examples include quotations taken out of context and false assertions about a source's facts or conclusions.

When using this template the text should have:

• Citations in footnote, Harvard referencing, or some other standard format.
• Multiple citations (or one key citation) that an editor tried to verify and found that the article passage misstated or misconstrued the original source's content.

Please try to improve the article or make a good faith attempt to verify the citations in question before adding this template, and discuss the matter on the talk page. If only one citation is problematic, or there is a desire to tag particular citations, consider using {{failed verification}} instead.

Articles that merely lack references or have POV problems should be flagged with some other template.

I propose the following wording for the usage of this template.

This template alerts readers that an article or section may be based largely or entirely on a single source. Examples include articles with only one citation or one listing under references.

When using this template the text should have:

• Citation in footnote, Harvard referencing, or some other standard format.
• One key citation that an editor can verify.

Please try to improve the article or make a good faith attempt to find additional citations before adding this template, and discuss the matter on the talk page. If the one citation is problematic consider using {{failed verification}} instead.

Articles that merely lack references or have POV problems should be flagged with some other template, such as {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}}

Note that some sections based on one source may not be a problem and no tag is necessary. For an example see this section.

Mathman1550 (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has replied, I'm going to assume that either no one checks this page often, in which case it can be reverted, or no one cares how it is written, so in either case I'm going to change the page to read as I have written above. Mathman1550 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

New version for several similar sources

I would like to create a new template, combining this template with aspects of {{globalize}} and {{POV}}, with the text "This article relies largely or entirely upon several source that represent similar POV and may not represent worldwide, neutral POV." The wording should probably be tweaked, the rationale however is that some articles may be referenced by multiple sources, but if all sources represent the same POV, and are thus not representative of the sources in general, the article has POV issues due to biased sources. Comments? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a wrong approach:

• If several reliable sources support the same POV, then this is pointing to scholary consensus rather than an undue presentation of a minor or fringe POV.
• Also, you completely misunderstand WP:NPOV if you think there is something like a "worldwide, neutral POV" out there. NPOV is a policy ruling out presentation of different POVs in wiki articles. Not one or several POVs are supposed to be "neutral", but the overall presentation of different POVs in wikipedia articles.
• Third, tagging an article sourced by WP:RSes just because one alleges that a POV might be missing, without having a clue what POV that would be, is really not the right thing to do. The right thing to do here is: If you think the POV supported by the sources presented in the article is given undue weight or is challenged by scholars not yet presented, get those sources, add them, and if then editors disagree about how the sources are presented, you can tag and discuss.

For these reasons, a tag like the one proposed is not needed at all. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I have seen attempts - in the name of a global perspective - to put news sources from state-controlled media in autocracies like Russia and China on a par with reliable sources from Western democracies. The issue is less one of a global perspective than of free or non-free press. This template could easily be used as an excuse to introduce POV into articles. Lampman (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the idea of a "worldwide point of view" just doesn't make sense for certain types of articles, such as "Criminal damage in English law". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Which reminds me of a fantasy I had about the {{globalize}} tag. If an editor placed it, the software would start an interview:

Q: So, global perspective is missing from this article about a single country's practice?

A: Yes, of course! It's only about one country!

Q: But a "global perspective" on this issue exists?

A: Of course!

Q: And your reliable sources for that are... what, now?

A: I don't have any.

Q: Sorry, tag denied!

This was shortly after I had an editor fussing at me because an article on a common disease(!) cited more scientific studies done by English-speaking people than by those with other native languages. Worse, many of the studies we cited that were done in non-English-speaking countries were (*gasp*) published in English-language medical journals owned by British or American corporations. Apparently, to have a proper "global perspective" on the disease, we needed to make sure that a majority of the cited sources involved studies done in non-English-speaking countries, involving solely non-English-speaking patients, by solely non-English-speaking researchers, published in journals solely owned by non-English-speaking corporations registered to a non-English-speaking country, because we all know that a virus can tell what language you speak. (Actually, I forget what the article was, so it might not have been a virus.)

Back on the topic: I see no advantage to having this template. Plain old {{globalize}} and the (required) talk-page explanation is sufficient to handle this situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I completly agree that we need to safeguard against tag spamming. In the past I've seen editors try to add npov-like templates to articles claiming exactly what whatamIdoing showed - that the article doesn't represent some important POV, but failing to even give sources proving that such a POV exists (or that it has reliable sources to back it up). My problem with globalize template is two-fold: 1) it implies that there is a worldwide view, where in fact some obscure issue may not have it and 2) the word "worldwide" redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, which seems primarily concerned with issues of digital divide and thus, with dominance of Western POV over others. Thus this tag is not really applicable to a situation in which there is no "worldwide" or "Western POV", but instead, the article is biased by representing a POV of one non-Western country, and ignoring a POV of another. Or when the article is biased by representing a POV of one Western country and ignoring a POV of another Western, where non-Western POVs don't exist anyway... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I support a template, or better, a guideline for something like this, since templated articles take forever to get fixed. The nonsupporters don't offer any solid reasons to be against it, except for "I see no advantage.." In this case, the proposer would like to provide why we need excessive templates. For instance, you may say that it's a more specific template, or that it's an optional addition over using two separate ones; though to move this thing along, if this is the "wrong" approach, then what is suggested to be the "right" approach?WhatisFeelings? (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The "right" approach is: Research. If one feels that the sources presented express "similar POV" and by inductive reasoning concludes that thus it does "not represent worldwide, neutral POV", the existance of which is also uncertain, one has to do research and not place tags like "Something else might be out there, and this article may not contain it". If one's research then turns out empirical results, one can compare this with the POVs already stated, and if one's results do not or only partially overlap with what is already stated, one adds what is missing following WP:NPOV, a policy also providing the procedure of how to proceed if one's results make it evident that the sources provided are WP:fringe. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

After more thought, I think we have a template that seems to fulfill the role I intended for this one: {{Undue}}. No need to have to many copies... still, if we can come up with good names, we can redirect them to this template, which in any case seems to be a bit heavily worded.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

when to use?

usage section currently says:

“ This template alerts readers that an article or section may be based largely or entirely on a single source. Examples include articles with only one citation or one listing under references.

When using this template the text should have:

Citation in footnote, Harvard referencing, or some other standard format. One key citation that an editor can verify. Please try to improve the article or make a good faith attempt to find additional citations before adding this template, and discuss the matter on the talk page. If the one citation is problematic consider using instead.

Articles that merely lack references or have POV problems should be flagged with some other template, such as {Unreferenced} or {Refimprove}

Note that some sections based on a single source may not be a problem, so no tag is necessary. For an example see this section.

”

How is' This template alerts readers that an article or section may be based largely or entirely on a single source. Examples include articles with only one citation or one listing under references'. reconcileable with ' Articles that merely lack references or have POV problems should be flagged with some other template, such as'...

These two instructions taken together seem to say the tag should only be used if only one source is present, but this is not a sufficient reason for using it. Then what are the other necessary grounds which must be true before the tag becomes appropriate?

Do I take it that if a text has two citations from the same source (eg different pages from some book on the subject), then again it would not be appropriate to use this tag (because the condition of just one citation is not satisfied) Sandpiper (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"should only be used if only one source is present" yes, this is the exact reason for this template. The second section you quote says articles which "merely lack references" have zero souces so there is no discrepancy with that at all. The second section also mentions POV, which has nothing to do with the number of sources, so neither has a conflict with "should only be used if only one source is present".

As for 2 citations from the same book it says "one citation or one listing" so either would fulfill the requirement. Mathman1550 (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have more than once seen the tag 'lacks references' attached to a text with 0, 1 or even more than that existing references. Certainly people use it on a page with one or two general refs at the bottom. So I still don't really see the purpose of this one, a special tag for the case of exactly one ref on a page? I don't understand its purpose. I'm not going to look and see if there is, but logically does this mean there is a twosource tag, a threesource tag, a four....? Sandpiper (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I found the documentation lacking, so I just rewrote it. Is this new version clearer? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, it is clearer. I can't say if it is more correct, because I didn't know what its intended purpose is. Regards. Sandpiper (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Associated category

As I commented in the recent TFD, the category associated with this template could be improved. Currently it categorises pages into Category:Articles lacking reliable references; however, Category:Articles needing additional references may be more appropriate (as the existing references may be reliable, just insufficient). Robofish (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The TfD agreed on this, and I see no reason not to do this, so I have changed the associated categories. Fram (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

It would be helpful if the template description page either contained an explicit copy of the actual contents of the default first sentence ( i.e. showing single source is meant rather than single source), or if the template provided the facility of adding a second sentence. Either would be useful to cover cases where only a slight tweak to what appears is wanted. Melcombe (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Another suggestion that could be done is a removal notice. 86.29.64.45 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Stubs

Is this template intended to be used for stubs that are about one to two sentences long? --LauraHale (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

use in other language versions

Can this template be used in other language versions of WP? How would one go about making it available to others versions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.130.159 (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

request, with "section" parameter, choice to delete 2d sentence

For {{One source|section}}, deleting the second sentence in the resulting display would be a nice option. Opening a Talk discussion may be redundant. In some cases, just seeing the section and the tag will be enough notice. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 January 2015

Suggestion: add in an option to add in "type=yes" and make the template say "a single type of source". This is because I cannot find any other template that says "a single type of source". Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What is a single "type of source"? Would need a crisp definition. Then, is that a taggable situation? -DePiep (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Certainly needs more discussion here. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 June 2016

According to Dictionary.com, greatly is more formal than largely, so I think that "relies greatly or entirely" would be better for the encyclopedia than "relies largely or entirely". Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done Since World War I, "largely" has received much higher usage in books, which tend to use formal language (see the Ngram). I don't think this is a straight-forward "one is better than the other" situation. You could seek consensus on this, I suppose, but I don't think it's really worth the time. The current language has worked fine since at least 2008, which is as far back as I looked. ~ Rob^Talk 01:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

My feeling for English says that "largely" sounds more natural and correct. I am not arguing with the proposing editor's dictionary findings, just saying how I "feel" the language. Debresser (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the same was true for me as well. ~ Rob^Talk 05:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Currently the template says "largely or entirely upon a single source". I suggest removing the word "largely" for several reasons or replacing it with something less vague. Firstly, per WP:GNG, "there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Neither does WP:V set a minimum number of reliable sources. For stubs or Start-class articles two reliable sources look perfectly ok in terms of verifiability. As such the word "largely" is prone to abuse which may result in drive-by tagging without talkpage discussions, such as in God Speed which currently has two citations from one source and five citations from another source, and yet is marked by this template. This in turn will increase the backlog of tagged articles that await improvement for several years already. Brandmeister^talk 09:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with keeping "largely". If an editor thinks it is "largely" he should tag it. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The thing is policies don't prohibit using "largely" one source if at least two sources are cited. The very wikilink to "single source" leads to WP:RS which is not the relevant policy. Brandmeister^talk 13:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The template applies to the whole of an article or section, which will usually contain several sources. If a significant part of the article or section depends on information from one source, the template is relevant. If the article is a stub, and has only one or two sources, then obviously using this template would be out of place. f you think it is necessary to make this clear, then the documentation would be the perfect place, but truth is I think it is self-evident and does not need to be specified. I don't see widespread misuse of the template in such cases.

WP:RS should probably be the link for the word "source", not "single source". Or do you think there is another policy or guideline the words "single source" should link to? Debresser (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd support tweaking the wikilink to the word "source" only. Still, I think once the notability is established, relying largely on one source when there are at least two sources does not always warrant a large orange tag hanging for an indefinite period. This is because a particular RS might contain a more detailed and thorough information about the article subject than the rest. So "largely" looks moot, also because editors may disagree on what is "largely". Brandmeister^talk 14:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Brandmeister; @Debresser: Apologies for digging up this old thread, I'm also having issues with the use of the term "largely". I'm not sure at what point it is satisfactory to remove a single source tag because of this term. Does "largely" mean more than half, more than two-thirds, more than three-quarters of the citations? What if some of them are bundled together with other citations, but this "single source" is still the most used one? --Grnrchst (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Also, for some articles a particular source could be more informative than others, so it would be natural to derive most information from it (assuming there's also at least one other source for cross-checking). Brandmeister^talk 17:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC of potential interest

An RfC is underway that could affect this template and may therefor be of interest to watchers of this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding Twinkle maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Love

Love you so much! Nirmalhial (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Jesusloveyou Nirmalhial (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 November 2019

Please add {{find sources mainspace}} to the template. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done see note at Template_talk:Unreferenced#Template-protected_edit_request_on_9_November_2019. If you want to just request someone else to make this later they can follow up below. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 November 2019

I request to put a <small>{{find sources mainspace}}</small> on the template for articles, as it does with More citations needed and a few others, since it is fustrating to find sources using this template, which is its secondary purpose. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 02:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit: I've made an example of it on the sandbox (rev 928288055)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 March 2021

The "single source" should link to Wikipedia:Articles with a single source. The "sources" after "to additional" should then be linked to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 21:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Maintenance category

Is it possible to have this direct articles, instead of to Category:All articles needing additional references, a subcat of that, like a new Category:All articles with only one source? I think this would be a very useful category to have separated, since the way one goes about improving a one-source article is different than the way one might go about improving an article tagged with refimprove. Someone trying to address the other tags that end up in Category:All articles needing additional references is typically trying to find a particular piece of information in a source somewhere. But to solve an article tagged as onesource, all you need to do is find another source and integrate information from it into the article. -- asilvering (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Defining "single source"

This may be addressed elsewhere, but a question recently came up regarding the definition of "single source". Specifically, does "single source" mean a single reference (e.g., a single webpage) or a single source of information (e.g., a single website)? In the latter case, an article may have several references from the same source of information. Do both count as "single source" or only the former? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The latter, as I read it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)