Jump to content

Template talk:Independent sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Template talk:Third-party)

Question

[edit]

How does sources too closely related to the subject potentially prevent an article from being verifiable and neutral? You need to answer this question. 86.29.64.45 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to answer anything of the sort. We are all volunteers, under no obligations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People want to make themselves and their friends and associates look good, and they want to make their competitors and enemies look bad. Therefore, nobody is allowed to write about themselves, or their friends or associates, or their enemies or competitors. Only people who can't benefit from your success or happiness, and can't benefit from your failure or unhappiness either, are allowed to write about you. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

[edit]

I just used this template on Jeddah International Book Fair. I wanted to include a reason (and did; you can see it in the source), but this template does not have a reason= or talk= parameter. Both would be nice, though I think the former would be more useful in this case. If the second sentence began "Specifically,..." followed by the talk param, that would be good.

Separately, a vaguer request on wikilinks. The bold link to WP:BLOGS at the top of the template was inappropriate to my application; the sources are not exactly self-published, but they are clearly non-independent. Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources#Third-party versus independent explicitly discusses this distinction. WP:IS, WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:QUESTIONABLE might be more generallyrelevant. I proposed a small change to the policy at WP:BLOGS to fit, we'll see if it gets consensus. Linking "reliable, independent, third-party sources" to Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources, and not Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources or Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources or even Wikipedia:Reliable sources seems a bit arbitrary. I suspect the essay space has expanded since anyone reviewed the link targets, and the template might need a link-target update. I'm willing to write out a more specific request if there is agreement on an update. HLHJ (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template.
HLHJ, it's customary that tags requesting improvement to an article invite discussion on the article's talk page rather than including points in the template itself. For example Template:Lead too short ends with: "Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page."
Please discuss this issue on the article's [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]].
I think that is the more appropriate way to go. Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong redirect

[edit]

The template links to WP:SPS but should link to Wikipedia:Independent sources, the two are quite different. Please change: I will cross-post to WT:NPP. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong redirect edit request

[edit]

Per the above request: the template links to WP:SPS but should link to Wikipedia:Independent sources, the two are quite different. Please change: I have cross-posted to WT:NPP as this is one of the standard tags used. This should not be contraversial, Wikipedia:SPS is only one of the three aspects of independent sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are we OK with linking to Wikipedia:Independent sources, which is an essay rather than a guideline or policy? – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why not, that link is an explanation of policy. The current link is to a different topic than the template text. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
N.B.,looking at the template source in the sandbox it has
"by replacing them with more appropriate [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citations]] to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable]], [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources|independent, third-party sources]]"
This is to the link I mentioned, not SPS. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history, this template originally linked to Wikipedia:Independent sources back when @WhatamIdoing created it in 2011 [1]. It was retargeted to SPS shortly thereafter [2] by @SMcCandish. I think I would also prefer a link to the independent sources page and not to SPS. Toadspike [Talk] 09:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NIS section in particular would be the most fitting link IMO, because the linked phrase "too closely associated with the subject" refers to non-independent sources. Left guide (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before creating an edit request. Thus far we see two proposals here: 1) to make the bold link go to WP:Independent sources (editor Ldm1954), and 2) to make the bold link go to WP:NIS (editor Left guide). So this appears to need more input to reach an agreement. We also note that WP:IS is already linked later in this template's text. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 11:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth, please do not close this in the middle of the discussion. I will reactivate it. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Ldm1954: please forgive me but as noted in the {{edit template-protected}} banner, "Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template." As is painfully obvious, consensus is required before the "edit template-protected" template can be reactivated. You can place neutral invitations to this discussion on appropriate talk pages, and then hope for the best. Once again, sincere apologies because for better or worse, that is how this process must continue. Thank you for your consideration in this matter! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth, please note that SPS is not what is in the text, the tag confuses editors. To date the discussion is unanimous for a change Ldm1954 (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'd consider the WP:IS link to be a significant improvement over the status quo, but would prefer its section WP:NIS if consensus for it can be achieved. Left guide (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As a neutral observer, I must note that it's not enough for there to be unanimity for a change, there must also be a consensus for what to change to. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to the discussion, I have no problem with a change of SPS to NIS. That is a subsection of IS, so it is essentially the same. I think we are close to a consensus here, and so far this is uncontraversial. @Left guide and @Toadspike, do you agree with this? If so I will reactive the request a second time. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I support redirecting the link in the template to the independent sources page, with a slight preference for WP:NIS as the target. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please retarget to the independent sources page, I don't care which part of it. Toadspike [Talk] 14:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 15:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help! Paine  21:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Independent_sources&oldid=1333983535"