Template talk:Who

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 "Name a specific person" Template needed 2 Label text 3 Cat 4 Too harsh? 5 Wikiproject Inline templates proposed

[edit] "Name a specific person" Template needed

[This discussion is copied from its original source to provide historical background] --SteveMcCluskey 13:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen many historical articles with statements like "Democritus found fault with the philosophers around him..." without giving examples of those unnamed philosophers. I'd like a simple in line template analagous to ^{[citation needed]} or ^{[original research?]} to go after such a vague description of unnamed actors. At present the Template name who seems to be vacant; it should expand to something like "insert specific name"

Its application would extend beyond historical articles to descriptions of current events, political and religious movements, etc.

I don't know how to go about this, but I suspect a reader of this page does. --SteveMcCluskey 01:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put a draft of a template on my sandbox. I'd appreciate any comments on the idea. --SteveMcCluskey 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm generally against the proliferation of these kinds of templates, but as far as they go, it's good. I'd rather see all these things remain on talk pages whenever possible.--ragesoss 00:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I really wanted something like this the other day at liger, but I just ended up ranting on the talk page. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Label text

The current wording displayed is 'name a specific person/group'. To suddenly make an imperative statement to the reader in the middle of the paragraph doesn't make a lot of sense. This is a message to editors, not for readers. The template:fact template displays 'citation required'. This is more helpful. It alerts the reader that the current text may not be verifiable. I think something similar would be appropriate to this tag. In the absence of any better idea, I go so far as to say exactly the same 'citation required' text would be appropriate. That way, the reader would be tipped off, but the appropriate 'weasel word' category would be added to the article. Something like 'specific citation required' might also work - Crosbiesmith 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Or how about a simple ' unattributed '? This would flag unattributed opinions to editors and readers alike. And it's short. - Crosbiesmith 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold. I've changed the text to attribution needed, in keeping with citation needed'. - Crosbiesmith 08:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat

I've changed the cat to be cromulent with the documentation. 213.48.182.7

[edit] Too harsh?

I think this template serves a good purpose -- but doesn't serve it as effectively as it could because it's both overly specific and too harsh.

We should be able to use this template to send a polite message that attributions should be specific rather than generalized -- as both a reminder to those who already know it, and to newer editors who may in good faith believe that Wikipedia will benefit from a high-level summation of what opinions are out there on a particular issue.

This template, however, points to "Avoid weasel words". "Weasel words" is a phrase we want to be very, very careful about bandying around, because it makes strong implications of bad faith -- it implies that someone has deliberately phrased things vaguely with an intent to deceive. If an editor trying to figure out why this tag was placed next to text they added looks at the template itself, this impression will only be reinforced: "This tag is for placement after descriptions of a group of persons ... when there are no specific examples of identifiable individuals from that group that could be used to verify the statements or beliefs attributed to the group." (emphasis added) Could one read this as simply meaning "no specific examples have yet been provided?" Certainly, but one could also read it as "no specific examples could be provided and this is something the adder of the text tried to cover up with weasel words."

Consider a new editor, for instance, who adds the sentence "Many believed Rubin Carter to be innocent of the murders he was charged with." If you said to that editor "Well, who believed that?" he could easily answer you: "Bob Dylan, for one, who wrote the famous protest song 'Hurricane' about the supposed miscarriages of justice in the Carter case." If you use this tag in its current form, however, then this new editor adds a statement that is completely true, only lacking in specifics, and is BITTen for it (so it would surely be perceived) with an implied accusation that he is using "weasel words".

I feel certain that we can modify this tag so that it presents clear guidance on what needs to be improved without presenting the same implications/accusations of bad faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:WEASEL. There is no implication or presumption or bad faith. It is actually a very helpful document on writing and logic that addresses a set of related problems that many inexperienced writers are susceptible to. This template is just fine the way it is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but yes there is an implication of bad faith. The fact that the implication is produced by the connotations of the existing phrase "weasel words" rather than anything denoted at WP:WEASEL is irrelevant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the name or wording of a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, take it up on the talk page of that policy or guideline, or at the Village pump if you think the problem is big enough that it needs to be raised there. Complaining about it on the talk pages of random, peripherally-connected templates isn't going to get you anywhere. This template is specifically intended to refer to that policypage, and the template and its regular editors probably do not care what that policy is called or what wording it evolves to have over time. It simply happens to be the policy about unattributed "some people say..." nonsense in articles, which is what this template flags as needing cleanup. There is no alternative policy that addresses this issue that this template could draw from instead, ergo this template isn't going to stop referring to that policypage. This is not the venue for the grievance you have. PS: I do not actually agree with your insistence that the very phrase "weasel words" implies bad faith. It is after all about the wording, not about the editor; words by themselves do not have good or bad faith, only the intentions of the editor who wrote them do. But that's really not of any relevance at all to this template, which doesn't even say "these are weasel words" in the first place; it says "attribution needed". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Inline templates proposed

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inline templates. I've been meaning to do this for a while. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)