It's not really clear to me how the subtle distinction between ((primary sources)) and this template warrants their separation. The former's transclusion count also trumps this one's. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, as noted on Template talk:Primary sources, this cleanup template links to two essays that have cleanup (merge) tags on them. That's just wrong. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I've reworded the template to better differentiate it from ((primary sources))
, ((self-published))
and other related templates, and (more importantly) to link only to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not to random, disused essays that are flagged for merging because they are redundant. The tone is borrowed form ((self-published))
and is less hostile (this is important, because 90% of the time or more, this tag will be used on an article created or heavily edited by a noob, since experienced editors know better). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 20:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This template doesn't currently work with ((multiple issues)), despite the documentation for that template suggests all tags listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup should be supported. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I can see the need for the template, sometimes. But it's inclusion in most cases is not subject to any consensus, and makes wikipedia look plain ugly. Can we at least move it to the bottom of the page for the humans to review first?
Leng T'che (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
move to bottom - Leng T'che (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute about the application of the tag here (items 2, 3, and 5 in the table of contents), and at the related article, that might warrant the attention of those familiar with the tag if they have interest/time.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The template uses the phrase "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject", but the instructions state "This template is used in articles to identify articles that name sources, but that are biased". (Emphasis mine). Although I find it very surprising, this seems to have created a bit of a dispute elsewhere. So I figured that I should check here. Does the wording mean that the template can only be used on articles that both rely completely on non-independent sources and are biased, or is the intent for it be used on articles with no independent sources where there may be a bias, but we don't know? Alternatively, is it the intent to say that articles that rely solely on non-independent sources are biased, by definition, and therefore might warrant the tag? - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
According to the template documentation:
This template is used in articles to identify articles that name sources, but that are biased because every source named has a very close connection to the subject [...]
This seems to be setting a pretty high bar for use of this template – is it really necessary that every source have a very close connection to the subject? Based on the preceding comments in this section, it seems that ((third-party)) is appropriate when there is at least some question about a conflict of interest in the sources. Also, "used in articles to identify articles" is pretty clunky. I propose changing the documentation to read more like:
This template is used to identify articles that rely on a significant number of sources that appear to have a close connection to the subject [...]
Biased is omitted because there are other templates that directly address bias, such as ((POV)). Also, whether an article is biased or not, a significant lack of reliable, third-party sources seems sufficient reason to tag the article for reasons of verifiability alone. I'm open to any suggestions. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Widgets, Inc. manufactures widgets. The company was founded in 1924 by William Widget.[1] The current CEO is Bob Barnacles.[2] The headquarters is in Lake Wobegon.[3] As of 2016, they employ 250 people.[2]
[1] www.widget.com/history
[2] www.widget.com/staff
[3] www.widget.com/contact_us
Every source listed is the company's website. Every source listed fully, and even authoritatively, verifies the material. These are all permissible uses of self-published sources according to WP:V and even WP:BLPSPS.
But there's no reason to believe that this article is unbiased. Where's the information about the factory fire in 1937? Where's the information about the bankruptcy in 2008?
We can and should trust such sources to provide reasonably accurate information. But we cannot and should not trust such sources to provide complete and unbiased information. For example, a university website can be relied upon to provide an accurate title for a staff member and a list of projects and accomplishments, but it is highly unlikely to provide any unfavorable information about that same staff member. If you build an article solely from non-independent or "COI" sources, then you will not get an NPOV article. You will get a fully verifiable, but "subject's own POV" article.
Now you have proposed two changes:
Consider this:
Widgets, Inc. manufactures widgets. The company was founded in 1924 by William Widget.[1] The current CEO is Bob Barnacles.[2] The headquarters is in Lake Wobegon.[3] As of 2016, they employ 250 people.[2]
[1] www.news.com/widget-anniversary-story
[2] www.news.com/new-ceo-for-widget-inc
[3] www.news.com/widget-factory-relocation
Same article. Same neutrality problem, due to the omission of all unfavorable information. 100% independent sources. This is not a material improvement in terms of educating our readers about this company.
TLDR: The tag should be used to identify important problems in article content, and to give interested people a hint about how to fix them. Please don't encourage people to use it when the article content seems (to the best of your current knowledge) to be okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Template:Third-party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest that "This article may rely..." be changed to "This article possibly relies..." for the sake of eliminating ambiguity. The same should go with some other templates. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
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) 05:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)