Template talk:Better source

src: www.asha.org

Video Template talk:Better source

Nomination for deletion of Template:Better source

Template:Better source has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Sorry, but I think that this template breaks up the text with often unreasonable requests to replace primary sources. The proper way to address such problems is to name the primary source in the text and describe what it says accurately. Wnt (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If the requests are "often unreasonable" and cluttering the text, then remove the "unreasonable" requests that someone have requested and add a Template:Primary sources instead! Nobody is going to comprehend a single ^[primary?]! "Primary" what?! I restored the template text as it was before the deletion discussion that occurred here. Nobody is agreeing to that proposal therein to the change of the text to the unexplicable "primary?", but I object. A text cluttered with {{fact}} contains a lot of ^{[citations needed]}, and that's how it is. If there are to many, then some template applying to a whole section or the entire article be considered as a replacement. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

2015 followup: Well, "to name the primary source in the text and describe what it says accurately" is one way to approach use of primary sources on WP, but many uses of them are inappropriate. WP:NOR and WP:RS warn about this specifically. That said, these days there is a more specific template than this vague one, for that particular issue: {{primary source inline}}. -- SMcCandlish ? ? ¢ ?^???_??^?? 08:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:Better source

Made reason parameter display as tooltip

I changed the template such that it should now display the reason parameter as a tooltip if one was provided. It may take a couple days for the servers to catch-up (cache-up?). See Template_talk:Primary_source-inline#Display reason on mouseover for more information. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

src: s3-torquehhvm-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com

Redundancy discussion

The redundancy of the template is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates#Template:Better source. -- SMcCandlish ? ? ¢ ?^???_??^?? 08:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

src: mike.teczno.com-img.s3.amazonaws.com

Discussion affecting the wording of template documentation

An editor has suggested that the following wording be considered as an addition to the documentation:

"Don't use this if you suspect believe that no reliable sources exist for the material; delete the material instead (or tag it as completely unreferenced using {{citation needed}}). This template is intended for use when you do not personally have access to a reliable source, but you reasonably believe one might exist"

or something along those lines, see Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#What part does the "Better source" template play in rendering an unacceptable source usable, at least for the present?. Herostratus (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Strong oppose Suspicions should not influence which tag to use. Debresser (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, sorry, I mean to replace "suspicion" with "belief" and I made the change above. I think it's one thing to say "I personally don't have a good ref for this right now" and quite another to say "Although you never know, I bet no good ref exists or ever will". Herostratus (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is a difference between "suspicion" and "belief" in this regard, and I oppose that version for the same reason and with the same force. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia