Template talk:Verify credibility
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Template:Verify credibility is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.
Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases. |
[edit] Proposed edit to point to current rather than superseded policy
Resolved. Moot; the ATT vs. V/NOR/RS conflict is long over.{{editprotected}} This template currently points to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which has been superseded by Wikipedia:Attribution. --Yksin 23:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I think WP:ATT is a huge mistake, but it's allegedly policy now, so we should stick with it unless/until it gets reforked back into WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:COI. <sigh> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] See also
Resolved. Needed edit done.{{editprotected}} Please remove {{potentialvanity}} from see also as it is deprecated. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikiproject Inline templates proposed
Resolved. Project now exists at WP:ILT.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)
- Project now exists at Wikpedia:WikiProject Inline Templates, and has its own talk page for any further followup. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cat. fix
Resolved. Needed edit done.{{Editprotected}} Need to add: [[Category:Inline templates|{{PAGENAME}}]], and change [[Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates]] to the more specific [[Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates]] (without the nowiki's of course). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- done. CMummert · talk 12:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ATT no longer policy
Template:Resolved:1=Moot; the ATT vs. V/NOR/RS conflict is long over. {{editprotected}}
ATT is no longer policy. As such, the old reliable sources link should be put back. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 08:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- already done by Centrx. CMummert · talk 12:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FYI: Problem with 2-column text not being correctly wrapped.
Example: Kate Moss#References
NevilleDNZ 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Has this issue been resolved yet? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Doc subpage
Resolved. Needed edit done; otherwise just an FYI.Hi, I've modified the template to include a documentation subpage (see WP:DOC). Please modify the template to:
<sup class="noprint">[''<span title="The material in the vicinity of this tag may cite questionable sources." style="white-space: nowrap;">this source's [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliability]] may need [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verification]]</span>'']</sup> <includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification]]<noinclude>
{{template doc}}
<!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>
Thanks! +mt 19:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like you missed the closing includeonly tag, but I believe I fixed that. Seems okay, otherwise. Done. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge and cleanup.
Resolved. Merge complete.We need to merge {{Verify credibility}} and {{Rs}}, with an eye to perhaps keeping both of the informative links in the former, but approaching the brevity of the latter. This template is one of the longest and most disruptive-to-the-reader of all the inline templates. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC) This is being discussed in more detail at Template talk:Rs#Merge. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Merge; the notability of a reliable source is covered by {{vc}}. +mt 19:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Disagree."Reliable source?" clearly questions the credibility of the source, whereas "verification needed" implies that the statement in question needs to be verified. I use {{rs}} where I don't necessarily dispute the assertion but dispute the reliability of the source. I have no objection to merging their categories, however; indeed, merged categories but seperate templates would I think be the best outcome. --kingboyk 12:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: The merge proposed is that of Template:Rs and Template:Verify credibility, not Template:Rs and Template:Verify source. I.e. the above "disagree" rationale is not actually applicable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Merge the other way around: Yep, got confused because somebody replaced a {{rs}} with a {{Verify source}} which is what led me here. Basic rationale still applies: to my mind, "reliable source?" is succinct and on-target, "this source's reliability may need verification" isn't. Your mileage may vary, and I can't say I'm terribly fussed, but there we are. I don't see why this template is problematic and, yes, I like it! :) --kingboyk 21:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and clean up per kingboyk, with caveats: The real name of the template should be {{verify source}} (per general trend at WP:WPILT, best exemplified by the comments of The Cunctator at WT:WPILT#Weasel words), with the more succinct {{rs}} available as a redirect; the text should read "[reliable source?] instead of the way too long-winded version, and the mouse-over tooltip should be the longer of the two versions or a combination of them, whatever is more explanatory for the reader and editor. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't merge as the templates stand. I think "reliable source?" is too terse. "Unreliable source?" would be better. The Jade Knight 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply comment: That's a different matter entirely; please do not block merging to quibble over the wording; the wording can be subject to its own discussion and this will be easier to resolve if we have one template to reword, not two mutually redundant ones. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- As it stands, I don't really feel that this template covers the same ground as the other. The Jade Knight 03:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Problem when adding category
Resolved. The templates have merged, and no further reports of this problem.In the Immanuel Velikovsky page, some time ago Icebear1946 (talk · contribs) tagged some references by Leroy Ellenberger with "{{verify credibility|article}}" (diff on 12:23, 19 July 2007). Just recently the page has appeared with an improperly formatted new category. Here is a snapshot by cut and paste. One of the lines, as edited.
How it appears:
The code for the category link appears as raw text in the article, and it only showed up after about 24 hours. Not sure why. I have replaced with {{Rs}} for the time being. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · contribs) 23:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fix: Link, length, dbl.-neg., bad faith, redundancy, cat., jargon, metatemplate
{{Editprotected}} Replace "=WP:RS" with "=Wikipedia:Reliable sources". Don't abuse shortcuts, please. :-/
Change "unreliable source?" to "reliable source?" The first version, which was a change that did not have consensus, is redundant (the same message is conveyed with more brevity in the second version), and amounts to a double-negative, in that the questionability of the source is already a negative by its very nature, so we do not need to introduce an explicit one. Furthermore, the longer, more negative phrasing assumes bad faith on the part of the editor that provided the source, and we don't do that.
Restore some of previous wording: Change "may rely on" back to the original "may cite"; not only less ambiguous, but removes the redundant overuse of "rely" and "unreliable".
Restore correct category: Change "=Category:Articles with unsourced statements", which is outright wrong, back to "=Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification".
Don't use wikijargon unnecessarily; not all editors are old hands: Change "vicinity of this tag" to "vicinity of this template".
Restore the use of {{fix}} as the metatemplate; {{fix-inline}} is a subcomponent of that metatemplate, not intended to be used alone (cf. code of {{fact}}, etc.)
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
