I appreciate there is a very slight difference between this and {{Primarysources}}, however would a merge be possible? Addhoc 15:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there should be. Primary sources is for when those are the only cited sources; this is for when there's an improper but not necessarily exclusive reliance on them. You could have an article that uses only primary sources and is ineligible for this template if it uses them properly and only for basic descriptive claims. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This author is a prolific journalist and his life history is supported by countless references in published material - both the book and contributors panel cited are sufficient.

Resolved

 – No consensus for proposed change.

Isn't a little bit off these article are put in Accuracy Dispustes rather NPOV Disputes? Would anyone object to a change?--BirgitteSB 14:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Moot.

Is there some reason we don't allow |section on this like we do on almost all templates of this sort? In many if not most cases, a self-published source problem is going to occur in one section of article, not throughout the entire thing. The code to do this can be trivially borrowed from another template, like {{refimprove}}. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. The code was already in there; I've updated the documentation to reflect this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Brigitte above that this template should not put articles in Category:Accuracy disputes. An article which "may contain improper references to self-published sources" has a problem with its referencing, not necessarily with its accuracy. It is similar to categories like {{One source}}, {{Primary sources}}, {{Refimprove}}, {{Third-party}}, {{Unreliable sources}} and {{Unreferenced}}, which slot articles in Category:Articles lacking sources or Category:Articles lacking reliable references. If nobody disagrees, I will edit the template so that it puts articles in Category:Articles lacking reliable references. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Debresser (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the template as announced above. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published means that the source was written and published by the same person or organization ...": same as who/what? Same as the topic of the article, or same as the person writing the content and supplying the source? I'm not sure whether this is about, for example, sourcing information about a company to the company's own website and press releases, or about editors sourcing their contributions to external materials that they, themselves, wrote, as though that gets around the bar on original research. Can the answer be made explicit in the documentation? Largoplazo (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the absence of a response in nine months mean I'm free to interpret it as I want? Largoplazo (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]