Template talk:NoMention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Example, please

Can you please provide an example where this template would make sense on an article?? What is How to fix it doing in the main namespace? What's the difference between this and Template:Fact? Lastly, will these tags not show up in our data users (e.g., Answers.com)? --Regards,  Perfecto 05:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia:How to fix it. I felt I needed both plain text and toolTip/link have self-descripting names. Hence this detour. Click the link "confirmation needed" and see the usage. An example is now in 1973. (I was strongly tempted to leave this one as a home exercise :). Reason: I am increasingy worried with errors and bullshit in year/day lists. The difference from template:Fact is that it says "reference needed". Year/day lists do have references, but in many list items these references don't give the exact date. One cannot rely on the date in, say, 1956 list: where do you think the mistake/trolling is easier to detect: in this list or in the topic article?. Lastly, I could not care less about our friends from answers.com. They have programmers, I guess. Let them work for their money. I am working for free. mikka (t) 05:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. "This comment is used to mark items of various list articles which are not linked to any wikipedia articles that comment on the item in question, according to a general rule of wikipedia: Cite sources" is four dependent clauses in succession and is hard to understand. Can you please clarify? Also can you be more specific than "a general rule of wikipedia: Cite sources" — or perhaps I lost you there as well. -- Perfecto 05:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The text is still raw, I admit. Let me finish 1973 first until I am not too bored by playing 'bot. mikka (t)

I don't think I need to say "welcome" for other people to improve it.mikka (t) 05:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see the mess in the day and year lists. The template needs a better name. I was afraid you're starting something similar to Template:Fact, adding the tag a few dozen times, and then getting tired with it. If it serves the same purpose as Template:Fact, then I strongly suggest you rephrase/expand that one instead. The machine will have one less part, so to speak. I've gone through Wikipedia:Templates for deletion and learned this there.

No, they serve different purposes and make different requirements. Template:fact requires external references or books. My template requires internal consisitency/verifiability. THere would be no need in it if wikipedia had database capability. I will try to think of a different name (not necessarili bette one), to avoid confusion. mikka (t) 08:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I also doubt the instruction Wikipedia:How to fix it should redirect to this template, instead of other Wikipedia fixup projects.

FWIW, I say keep WP data clean, i.e., avoid self-references, avoid HTML tags, avoid mixing WP tags with encyclopedia text, and so forth. Our data users rely on WP data consistency (e.g., "==" headings instead of <H2> tags), and I bet many of them have no programmers. But that's just my opinion. -- Perfecto 05:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] it is a REAL plague!!

When I made it a trial run for year 1973, I placed a dozen of marks, but I didn't expect that this problem of non-referenced events is a plague for recent years! It looks like some people just grab a newspaper and add evens into here without bothering to make them into any article. Of 15 entries in January 2005, 4 are, i.e, > 25% are "noMentioned". January 2000: 7 of 12, i.e, more than half, are out of thin air.

This rases some real issues: is wikipedia a wikiChrono? Are these "noMentioned" events of encyclopedic value? If yes, why they are not in articles? mikka (t) 08:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What's that, for example? For all I see here it may well be a troll's hoax:

• January 16 - In Sacramento, California a commercial truck carrying evaporated milk is driven into the state capitol building killing the driver.^{Confirmation needed}

Is it a really notable event? (OK, OK "capitol", sure thing. But is it really a big deal? It is not, like, White House. Anyone can pass by and piss on the wall of this capitol and cops will not notice.) mikka (t) 09:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This one even better:

• January 13 - President George W. Bush faints after choking on a pretzel.^{Confirmation needed}

Shall we laugh or mourn? mikka (t) 09:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)