Template talk:Primary sources

Template:Primary sources 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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Primary sources template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 2 months

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Withdrawn, 4 April 2022, see discussion.
Keep, 5 November 2015, see discussion.

Template-protected edit request on 4 October 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"This article relies too much on references to primary sources" is a wordy sentence—"This article relies excessively on references to primary sources" flows much better and falls in line with other similar templates. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done per WP:BOLD — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Failing test section + BLP=yes

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

@GhostInTheMachine:, can you look at test {{Primary sources|section|BLP=yes|date=October 2022}} which appears to be failing? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I added the tests. The code does not cope with both BLP and Section together — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The test now fails "correctly"!? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK now to sync the sandbox back to live? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a moment to remember why I did this, but it still seems valid. It is to cope with both section and BLP=yes at the same time. The tests seem clean. Thanks @Nihiltres: for the catch — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

I think the wording of the template should convey the significant misuse of primary sources, as opposed to excessive. Excessive seems to imply overwhelming usage, which is not always the case even when a template might be appropriate (particularly when used for sections small enough to have used a small number of sources, and where primary sources might only be misused one or a couple of times). Perhaps it should be changed to something along the lines of "This article inappropriately relies on references to primary sources," or simply "This article relies on references to primary sources." TheGEICOgecko (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 5 December 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add "Article" between "this" and "by" Lina211_{Follow your dreams} 03:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be clear enough from the context of the message; this ought to be a "less is more" situation IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done For some reason, the template did not match the documentation. Having "this" without a word following it was grammatically awkward. I added "article" as the default, per the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 17 April 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "secondary or tertiary sources." to "secondary or tertiary sources to this section." if parameter 1 is section. Timothytyy (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: if this were edited, then the sentence would read: "Please improve this section by adding secondary or tertiary sources to this section," which would use the word "section" twice and sound strange. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]