Template talk:Needsource

Latest comment: 17 years ago by Night Gyr in topic Wordy and patronizing

Documentation

edit

Warning templates should always be used with the "subst:" keyword, as strongly suggested on Wikipedia:Template substitution. They are shown without subst here to reduce the display space occupied by this table, not to encourage their use without subst. For example, type {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}~~~~ (not {{uw-vandalism1}}) to warn common first-time vandals.

The levels of templates are:

  1. Assumes good faith
  2. No faith assumption
  3. Assumes bad faith; stern cease and desist
  4. Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning


Usage

edit
Usage Output
{{subst:Needsource}}   Hello, I'm John254. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
{{subst:Needsource|Article}}*   Hello, I'm John254. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
*You can use {{subst:Needsource|Article|subst=subst:}} to substitute the contained ParserFunctions.

Proposed Changes

edit

Please see the discussions of proposed changes to this template at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Citing sources. --SteveMcCluskey 13:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wordy and patronizing

edit

This template says a lot of irrelevant things and talks down to the editor that gets it. Why is "as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content" at all relevant? Whether there is a drive is irrelevant, the important part is that the user should cite their sources. The original version was much more concise, and I don't see anything good added by the new version. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Original meaning this one? Titoxd(?!?) 22:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, except without the mistakenly added signature. [1] before the rewrite that removed your version. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply