This template was considered for deletion on 2018 February 23. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
This template is one of several templates used to provide or request sources for articles. |
Inline Templates | ||||
|
Reliability | ||||
|
The result of the debate was Do not move. Start the AWB before doing the move - not after. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
For easiness of use, I propose to move Template:Verify source
and Template:Verify credibility to Template:Verify (overwriting the redirect). Λυδαcιτγ 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Question. There are three active templates now; unless I misunderstand this seems to reduce them to two. What functionality overlaps and what is lost? --Dhartung | Talk 03:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
((editprotected)) This template currently points to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which has been superseded by Wikipedia:Attribution. --Yksin 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of this template is not clear. The wording points to using it to request a check against a source that is already cited, sort of Template:Request quote but
makes it as a marker for doubtful info that may lack citation. --Error 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Merzul's comment above; Template:Request quotation would be good to mention.
Also, I find this to be misleading: "Use this tag to label text which appears doubtful or false, in order to request source verification" (emphasis mine). Verification is confirming that info from a (hopefully well-cited) source has been accurately (and neutrally) represented by an article. So this template is ostensibly for requesting that statements made in the article merely be checked against their sources. But by emphasizing plausibility & truthfulness, which don't directly have anything to do with Wikipedia's verifiability policy, I believe it leads some to think the template is for questioning the quality and truthfulness of the sources themselves, rather than questioning how accurately and neutrally the sources have been characterized in Wikipedia. I just saw it used that way on a page I watch, at least. So I suggest we change the lede to something more like the following: Use this template to tag statements which appear to mischaracterize their sources and to request verification of those statements against their sources. What do you think? —mjb (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
((check)) is being used by some editors. Can we write in the page that this can be used also or that it's an old form no longer used? thanks - Ctbolt 04:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the syntax for applying the date when using this template? When I use this template it usually does not apply the date, but at least one time it did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.164.142 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 9 April 2007
Need to add: [[Category:Inline templates|((PAGENAME))]] (without the nowiki of course). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
When at the end of a line, the square bracket does not wrap with the word, which makes the tag look very awkward and scruffy. Could this be avoided by including the square brackets within the span? Verisimilus T 22:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a sysop could add this redirect I created, ((Verifysource)), to the related redirects section below? Lord Sesshomaru
I added a type parameter to the template, so that
((editprotected))
Can you add interwiki link [[ja:Template:要検証]] or create documentation subpage? thanks. --219.164.57.180 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
could you please add
|cat = Category:All pages needing factual verification
to the parameters so it gives a list of all articles needing factual verification for a bot I am building. Most other templates like ((cleanup))
include this.
This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
((edit protected))
Will someone please put ((#ifeq:((NAMESPACE))|((<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE))|<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates]]</includeonly>|))
in the template, right after <!-- ((Failed verification)) begin -->
? This will categorize the page in Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates if it is substed. Thanks! --- c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 02:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Finding vandalism on this "protected" page, I deleted it - or tried to. Not realising how the page had been "protected" I did a poor job of it. However, I hope that whoever is "protecting" this page will, through this, now notice the vandalism their "protection" failed to "protect" it against and delete it properly. FWIW IMO if "protection" not only offers no protection but also prevents editors from protecting pages from vanadalism then it is a totally redundant device. LookingGlass (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest adding a reason parameter, for adding optional additional text explaining the reason for the template. This is a parameter used in template:citationneeded and others. An example that came up where I'd find this useful: a sentence cited two sources, one was a book I can't access, and a personal website. I removed the citation to the personal website, because it wasn't a reliable source, but can't determine if the book verifies the information in the sentence on its own. I want to leave some indication that it should be double-checked. Agyle (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add ((subst:tfd|type=inline))
, per a nomination by My name is not dave ((3x|p))ery (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please wrap the deletion notice into <noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags. The template is now transcluding the deletion notice in all the articles it is used. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
PLease remove the ((Template for discussion/dated))
from the template. Nihlus 08:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
It should be noted that at the time this section was created, the template page makes no distinction as to whether the ((verify source)) template should be placed within the <ref> tags, external to the tags, or if both are valid under which circumstances.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello,
Please can a reason parameter be added to this template, so the tooltip text can be changed? There is a suggestion for it from 2014 on this talk page, but nobody responded to it. I presume the change is uncontroversial.
Specific request, in case the previous is insufficient
Please change
| title = The material near this tag needs to be fact-checked with the cited source(s).
to
| title = (({reason|The material near this tag needs to be fact-checked with the cited source(s).))}
Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)