Template talk:One source

Template:One source is indefinitely protected from editing as it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books: Reference works This template is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. For guidelines on this template's usage, see its documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook This template is supported by the Reference works task force.

This template was considered for deletion on 2009 September 8. The result of the discussion was keep.

This template was considered for deletion on 2010 May 12. The result of the discussion was keep.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Suggestion: add in an option to add in "type=yes" and make the template say "a single type of source". This is because I cannot find any other template that says "a single type of source". Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is a single "type of source"? Would need a crisp definition. Then, is that a taggable situation? -DePiep (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Certainly needs more discussion here. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

According to Dictionary.com, greatly is more formal than largely, so I think that "relies greatly or entirely" would be better for the encyclopedia than "relies largely or entirely". Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

•  Not done Since World War I, "largely" has received much higher usage in books, which tend to use formal language (see the Ngram). I don't think this is a straight-forward "one is better than the other" situation. You could seek consensus on this, I suppose, but I don't think it's really worth the time. The current language has worked fine since at least 2008, which is as far back as I looked. ~ Rob^Talk 01:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

My feeling for English says that "largely" sounds more natural and correct. I am not arguing with the proposing editor's dictionary findings, just saying how I "feel" the language. Debresser (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the same was true for me as well. ~ Rob^Talk 05:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Currently the template says "largely or entirely upon a single source". I suggest removing the word "largely" for several reasons or replacing it with something less vague. Firstly, per WP:GNG, "there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Neither does WP:V set a minimum number of reliable sources. For stubs or Start-class articles two reliable sources look perfectly ok in terms of verifiability. As such the word "largely" is prone to abuse which may result in drive-by tagging without talkpage discussions, such as in God Speed which currently has two citations from one source and five citations from another source, and yet is marked by this template. This in turn will increase the backlog of tagged articles that await improvement for several years already. Brandmeister^talk 09:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the problem with keeping "largely". If an editor thinks it is "largely" he should tag it. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The thing is policies don't prohibit using "largely" one source if at least two sources are cited. The very wikilink to "single source" leads to WP:RS which is not the relevant policy. Brandmeister^talk 13:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The template applies to the whole of an article or section, which will usually contain several sources. If a significant part of the article or section depends on information from one source, the template is relevant. If the article is a stub, and has only one or two sources, then obviously using this template would be out of place. f you think it is necessary to make this clear, then the documentation would be the perfect place, but truth is I think it is self-evident and does not need to be specified. I don't see widespread misuse of the template in such cases.

WP:RS should probably be the link for the word "source", not "single source". Or do you think there is another policy or guideline the words "single source" should link to? Debresser (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'd support tweaking the wikilink to the word "source" only. Still, I think once the notability is established, relying largely on one source when there are at least two sources does not always warrant a large orange tag hanging for an indefinite period. This is because a particular RS might contain a more detailed and thorough information about the article subject than the rest. So "largely" looks moot, also because editors may disagree on what is "largely". Brandmeister^talk 14:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Brandmeister; @Debresser: Apologies for digging up this old thread, I'm also having issues with the use of the term "largely". I'm not sure at what point it is satisfactory to remove a single source tag because of this term. Does "largely" mean more than half, more than two-thirds, more than three-quarters of the citations? What if some of them are bundled together with other citations, but this "single source" is still the most used one? --Grnrchst (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Also, for some articles a particular source could be more informative than others, so it would be natural to derive most information from it (assuming there's also at least one other source for cross-checking). Brandmeister^talk 17:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

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) 05:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add {{find sources mainspace}} to the template. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

 Not done see note at Template_talk:Unreferenced#Template-protected_edit_request_on_9_November_2019. If you want to just request someone else to make this later they can follow up below. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request to put a <small>{{find sources mainspace}}</small> on the template for articles, as it does with More citations needed and a few others, since it is fustrating to find sources using this template, which is its secondary purpose. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 02:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Edit: I've made an example of it on the sandbox (rev 928288055)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The "single source" should link to Wikipedia:Articles with a single source. The "sources" after "to additional" should then be linked to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 21:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible to have this direct articles, instead of to Category:All articles needing additional references, a subcat of that, like a new Category:All articles with only one source? I think this would be a very useful category to have separated, since the way one goes about improving a one-source article is different than the way one might go about improving an article tagged with refimprove. Someone trying to address the other tags that end up in Category:All articles needing additional references is typically trying to find a particular piece of information in a source somewhere. But to solve an article tagged as onesource, all you need to do is find another source and integrate information from it into the article. -- asilvering (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

This may be addressed elsewhere, but a question recently came up regarding the definition of "single source". Specifically, does "single source" mean a single reference (e.g., a single webpage) or a single source of information (e.g., a single website)? In the latter case, an article may have several references from the same source of information. Do both count as "single source" or only the former? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The latter, as I read it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The redirect T:ONES has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 28 § T:ONES until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The redirect T:SINGLE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 28 § T:SINGLE until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hyperlinked images need alt text because screen readers need some text to read in order to announce the associated link, and this template's icon is missing alt text; per MOS:ALT's suggestions, this alt text should probably be simply "icon":

{{Lemondoge|Talk|Contributions}} 07:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

We should not give an essay that is so disputed the elevated status it gets from the use of this template. That's just wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

The {{unreferenced}} and {{verify}} banners don't contain such a reminder (at least not by default), so I don't get why this banner has to be different. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" sentence to this template so that it matches its close couterparts, Template:More citations needed and Template:Unreferenced. Newbzy (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please make proposed changes to Template:One source/sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done, please see the sandbox. Newbzy (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 15:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply