Template talk:Unused source
What action is required?
[edit]If this is a cleanup template, its documentation should explain how to resolve the issue. Also, the template should assign an appropriate maintenance category. I have removed the inappropriate one that apparently resulted from copy/paste creation of this template.
I question the need for this template; why not just move the unused reference into a "Further reading" section and move on? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Added an appropriate maintenance category. I wouldn't always put an unused reference into "further reading" if, for example, the source is too broad in scope). Schierbecker (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I guess why tag it at all, then? Removing it or moving it to Further reading seems to be as easy as tagging it, unlike {{copy edit}} or {{citation needed}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be wise to remove it. An article may rely heavily on a bibliography source, especially an article in development. A bibliography source should usually only be removed if it is irrelevant, outmoded or its relevance cannot be easily determined. Schierbecker (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- If it would not be wise to remove the source, the template instructions that you wrote should probably state that. Again, I don't think that this template is useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be wise to remove it. An article may rely heavily on a bibliography source, especially an article in development. A bibliography source should usually only be removed if it is irrelevant, outmoded or its relevance cannot be easily determined. Schierbecker (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I guess why tag it at all, then? Removing it or moving it to Further reading seems to be as easy as tagging it, unlike {{copy edit}} or {{citation needed}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)