Template talk:NRIS only

This template is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles

Category application is broken?

@Orlady and Dudemanfellabra: Question: In the test cases/sandbox I played with the template, and I can't seem to get it to apply the secret category. Can you take a look at it?

The reason it doesn't work on the testcases page is because it has a {{Main other}} template in the code so that it only categorizes mainspace pages. I just went to a mainspace page, added the template, and previewed the result to see if it worked, and it did. I didn't want to actually edit the page, but you can try it for yourself to determine it does indeed work.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

template wording

The template currently displays

This article relies entirely upon a single source, the National Register Information System (NRIS) database or one of its mirrors. Articles based solely on the NRIS may contain errors. Please help ensure the accuracy of the information in this article by providing inline citations to more reliable sources.

which does not apply properly to all the pages on which it displays. This message was recently improved from

This article relies entirely upon a single source, the National Register Information System (NRIS) database or one of its mirrors. Articles based solely on the NRIS may contain errors. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help ensure the accuracy of the information in this article by citing at least one more reliable source.

It was an improvement to give readers/editors some clear guidance, i.e. suggesting that just one inline citation to another source is what is needed, and it was an improvement not to refer them to a Talk page where there would probably be nothing to read.

However, the current text is currently not accurate for many articles. For example, this report currently lists about 855 cases where the message is mostly not accurate, because the articles plainly include information that is not from NRIS. Some include non-NRIS information without providing any source. Some/many of these include their sources in external links, which is now not preferred, but they are nonetheless sourced. For these, template:Nofootnotes would be a suitable tag, i.e.

This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations.

The template documentation asserts that the message is a variation on Template:One source, which displays

This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources.

which doesn't apply in all cases either.

It would be uniformly accurate to state something like what is stated on the template documentation page, i.e. that the article is one where "the only inline citations in the article or section are to the NRIS database."

How about:

(version A): This article lacks inline citations besides to NRIS, a database which provides minimal and sometimes ambiguous information. Please help ensure the accuracy of the information in this article by providing inline citations to additional reliable sources.

--Doncram (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't care much what the text in the template states, as long as it accords reasonably well with the logic that the bot uses to determine whether or not to add or remove it. That is, that the only inline citations in the article are to NRIS. (You do realize, by the way, that removing the tag without curing the underlying condition will just result in it being re-added the next time the bot runs, right?) Magic♪piano 21:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay good. I appreciate your general support that what the template says should accord with what it does. I'll change the wording to the above Version A now. --Doncram (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 05:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]