Template talk:No source

Request

I want to nominate this redirect for RFD. May you please add {{subst:rfd}} around the content then? George Ho (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Just in case: . George Ho (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho:  Done -- John of Reading (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Namespace-specificity

The outcome of the RfD discussion was that this template should transclude as {{Di-no source}} in the file namespace and as {{Citation needed}} in articles. But what should its behaviour be in other namespaces? I've set it up so that it will transclude {{Citation needed}} everywhere but on files. This is because article text (which may contain this template) can generally be found all over the place: in drafts or user sandboxes, quoted in discussions or copied for reworking on article talk pages. If anyone has any thoughts, now is a good time to share them. Pinging participants in the discussion: George Ho, Godsy, Primefac, AngusWOOF, Tavix, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Rich Farmbrough, Secretlondon, Nyttend.

Also noting the template outputs somewhat cluttered wikicode when substed, which might be relevant for editors who subst their {{cn}}s for automatic filling in of the date parameter. I hope this isn't going to be a frequent occurrence. – Uanfala 22:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• I, for one, think your setup is good; we don't need {{Di-no source}} in other namespaces, but {{Fact}} is useful in multiple places. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Good call. I wouldn't worry about the subst: we could simply replace the template where-ever it is used. I think we could probably code the clutter away too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC).
  
• I don't know. The Template:source is deprecated because it refers to multiple templates. I think if the name of this template refers to more than two templates, then I would favor deprecating (De-bolded. George Ho (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)) this template and turn it into an error message. --George Ho (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  Given that the RFD just closed as "disambiguate", this seems like a highly unlikely outcome. Primefac (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  Well, then no objections to the dabpage and namespace-specific. --George Ho (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC); modified, 21:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think the one-namespace-exception is good; {{citation needed}} is acceptable for every namespace except File. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)