Template talk:Source assess table

Collapse

This table should collapse by default. It is otherwise quite overbearing in an AfD discussion. Also for what it's worth, AfD is not supposed to include image icons. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I on the other hand, would like to have an optional parameter to not collapse by default. I just used this in a user-page discussion of sourcing, and there I want it displayed by default. It may be that in an AfD one would want it collapsed by default, but not in all uses. I could add such a parameter, but I don't want top do that without consulting the creator and others. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That's fine with me, as creator. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 13:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now added the parameter |startopen= to the template (after sandbox testing). See the documentation, which i have also updated. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, Czar, icons for support and oppose votes are disfavored at AfD discussions,and most other consensus discussions on enwp, but other icons such as are used in this template are not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't follow. Decorative images are eschewed across the encyclopedia, from tables of flag icons to images at AfD. If I recall correctly, it was originally about page load time and accessibility, but it's also just that it's obnoxious to call attention to a visual element when the focus should be on the arguments and consensus. At most, a unicode green tick or red X should be sufficient for a table at a glance without needing images. czar 01:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I've replaced the images with unicode, but I don't think either is "obnoxious", and I'd oppose getting rid of the icons – they are a good way to quickly understand a table, even for those with reduced color vision. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 16:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

NCORP Source Assess Table

Is it possible to have a version which has different headings such as "ORGIND Independent Content", "CORPDEPTH In-depth coverage", Reliable, Count towards NCORP? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You're looking for {{ORGCRIT assess table}}. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 15:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I need. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Collapse bar background

When this template has over 10 rows, it becomes overbearing if left uncollapsed, so good that it can be, but when it is collapsed it blends in with all the other regular bold text at the AfD. If the collapsed version borrowed from {{cot}} or {{hat}}, it would make sense if it had a little background color to distinguish its collapsed form rather than no background. czar 17:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Good idea; done. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 21:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Issue with rendering when external links have query parameters and src= is not used

Hello! Posting this here because it seems to be where general discussion about these templates take place. Let me know if I should post to Template:Source assess instead. Template:Source assess currently seems to have an error with external link urls containing query parameters, in the first paramter, without src=. Example below.

Source:

{{SAT|startopen=yes|
{{SA|broken [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Source_assess?foo=bar]|i=y|r=y|s=y}}
{{SA|works [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Source_assess]|i=y|r=y|s=y}}
}}

Right now this renders with an error in the first source cell. Image:

Actual live render:

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
				✔ Yes
works				✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

—siroχo 09:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Table links

Anyone against me changing the links for:

"Independent?" from Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources (a redirect to the latter) to Wikipedia:Independent sources

"Reliable?" from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources to Wikipedia:Reliable sources

"Significant coverage?" from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline to WP:SIGCOV

Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 05:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

No responses, so I'll go ahead and do that. it's lio! | talk | work 10:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)