Template talk:Not verified
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Template:Not verified has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit. |
See also: template talk:cleanup-importance
Contents |
[edit] claims
by "factual claims", you mean "claims" -- if the claims were factual, they would not need to be verified :) dab (ᛏ) 14:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, factual claims can be wrong. "Factual" distinguishes them from other types of claims. -- Kjkolb 14:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Changed wording
I changed "please expand the article, citing sources" to "please modify or expand the article so that it cites sources.", to better fit with a common case: The article that is too broad. Take, for example, McWords; many of the usages listed currently (as of November 3, 2005) are unverified, and the article appears to need to be pruned, rather then expanded. Thus, the change in wording. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed addition of date parameter
{{editprotected}} I would like to propose that an optional date parameter be added to this template as has been done with Template:Unreferenced, Template:Uncategorized, Template:Wikify, etc. I believe the proper code for the last line would be:
<small>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|<br/>This article has been tagged since '''{{{1}}}'''.}}</small>
The instructions would also need updated. My proposed text is posted at User:Satori Son/Sandbox, which others should feel free to improve. Thank you, Satori Son 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not made for now, please could you put the exact text you wish to put in here, and the exact text you wish to replace, then readd the editprotected tag? Proto::► 18:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed edit to point to current rather than superseded policy
The template as it exists points to superseded policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, which has been superseded by Wikipedia:Attribution. Suggested new text:
-
-
- Some information in this article or section does not attribute its sources and may not be reliable. (rest of text as it stands)
-
Thanks. --Yksin
- This change makes sense, due to the merging of the policy, so I have fulfilled the edit request with your wording.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've improved the wording slightly. Information is not an actor. It cannot perform the act of attributing. Uncle G 10:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deprecated template
Please remove {{PotentialVanity}} from the list as it is to be deleted. – Tivedshambo (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Done -- Harryboyles 13:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect to Template:Unreferenced
As a general rule I think that maintenance templates should go on the talk pages (see Most maintenance templates should be placed on the talk page)
As this template also carries some useful information for readers of an articles, there is a reasonable justification for keeping it on the article page, but I do not think that this template is as useful as Template:Unreferenced because its wording does not lend itself to being in a reference section, so I think this template should become a redirect to Template:Unreferenced --Philip Baird Shearer 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- The events of last year should have taught editors the error of the notion that we should not make it clearly visible to readers when content is suspect or unsourced. In any case, this template is not the same as {{unreferenced}}. The latter points out a lack of cited sources. This, in contrast, points out that some facts have not been checked against sources, and encourages editors to check them against sources (correcting them if necessary), citing the sources that they are checked against. (The wording of the template could be improved in this regard.) Uncle G 14:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- It seems from the directions given for this template "Please add this template after a good faith attempt to verify information." is for not for "some facts have not been checked against sources" but rather for some facts that have been checked and failed to be validated. If that is the case the text should be removed (possibly to the article talk page). If the facts are true but the article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources (copy and paste from current wording of {{unreferenced}}) then template {{unreferenced}} would be appropriate and a redirect of {{Not verified}} to {{unreferenced}} would seem to be appropriate. Jeepday 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] conflict & consensus
I notice that the current directions "Please add this template after a good faith attempt to verify information." for the template seem to be in conflict with the wording of the template. If the an editor has made a good faith attempt to attribute the articles content and failed, why would it be appropriate to add a template saying "may not be reliable"? Per Wikipedia:Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Could we get consensus on if this template is for facts that could not be verified or are not verified? Jeepday 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
