Template talk:Sic

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Template:Sic is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Template-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Instead of saying "[sic]", to avoid the template being blended into the rest of a sentence, it should use <small></small> tags. ([sic]) That way, it's easier to pick out. (e.g., "at this point alot [sic] of people could care less")

—theMainLogan (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: This is a contentious edit, or this has already been discussed, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. If there is an existing discussion on the talk page please contribute to that section. If there is no existing discussion you may explain why this edit should be made in this section, or start a new section on this talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other uses?

Is it appropriate to use {{sic}} for a fact or spelling that another editor might, incorrectly, question and change? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in a quote, sure. If it's not, that's not what "sic" traditionally means. Also, it's hard to imagine how another editor would be less of an authority on what is correct than the editor who tagged it, so I don't see the point. An editor can always put a comment in the source text with an argument as to why it's correct as written, and I think that would serve the purpose. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not only is it easy to see how an editor who is not an SME would introduce errors into correct text, but it happens frequently. Perhaps there should be a {{stet}} template for this situation.

In the meantime, I have started putting in comments, e.g., for Amdahl 470V/6 I have the comment

in several places, but a more formal mechanism would be nice. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't mean to say that I can't see how one editor could be right and another wrong; I meant I can't see how Wikipedia would recognize one editor as an authority and another not. I believe a formal tag would be to say, "This was written by someone the community regards as an expert on the subject, so if you disagree with it, it's because you're wrong. Leave it alone." I can see you're not talking about that -- you're talking about a tag that says, "This is this way intentionally. Someone has specifically rejected the alternative you're considering", so that someone who thinks it's wrong will take the time to look it up and find out it's correct. Comments are used for that a lot. It generally does require some explanation of what the common mistake is -- a tag that just says "this is correct" won't make it clear what about it is correct. So the template would have to include that explanation. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other templates have a |reason= parameter, and I has assumed that anybody writing a {{stet}} template would follow suit. I'd be tempted to make it mandatory.

In the case that inspired this question, not only did the text have the incorrect model 479/V6 but a {{cite manual}} |title= also had the incorrect model, despite there being a |url= that would have allowed the editor to easily check the spelling from the title page. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about a direct quote that uses the wrong word (e.g., "decapitated head" instead of "severed head")? DS (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine any reader thinking that the article editor accidentally wrote "decapitated head" when the speaker actually said "severed head", so this is not an appropriate use of traditional sic. Traditional sic says, "It may look like this is a transcription error, but I assure you he actually said it." There is an alternate use of sic that many, including me, find valuable, but not everyone agrees: "The person did say this, but don't copy it in your own writing because it's wrong." Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HTML class

This template should wrap its output in a <span> tag with a class so that automated tools can pick up from the emitted HTML as well that the text isn't a typo. Opencooper (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template Documentation RE: Usage in Ref tags

I was struggling to figure out how to use the SIC Template properly in the context of the title parameter of a Ref tag set. After seeking help, @Rummskartoffel was kind enough to provide a working example and explained the challenge was attributable to trying to render a link within a link. Coming back to the SIC Template documentation I had reviewed before asking, I now see plenty of good examples of how to handle that use case; but that was not evident to me earlier because I was looking at the title parameter merely as a text string (since that's what it is when you create or edit it) and I could not find any material speaking to that (Reference) context. Without knowing quite the best way to approach that, could we find a way to draw attention to the applicability of the no-link template syntax as a means of handling the template's use when applied to Reference tag parameters, and maybe other text that later becomes links? In short, I did not recognize the no-link options as the solution to my problem because I was looking for a solution to a "Reference" problem, not seeing the connection between the two. I was thinking something along these lines: When applied to a title parameter within a <ref></ref> tag set or similar text creating links, the syntax of the template may be adjusted to {{sic|nolink=y}} (producing [sic] in the resulting linked text). ShoneBrooks (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that should be covered better.

This appears to be another case of the same thing described in the description of nolink by When the template is used within the displayed anchor text (right-hand visible portion) of an internal link (aka a wikilink) or external link, this parameter is essential to prevent incorrect formatting, as the link will be truncated otherwise. So I suggest that we simply generalize that, and to make the advice accessible to people looking for help using sic with ref tags, we include that as a second example:

This is necessary in some contexts where the link wikitext would interfere with the correct interpretation of the surrounding wikitext. These are some examples of places a call to the sic template will break the formatting unless it has nolink=y:
Within the displayed anchor text (right-hand visible portion) of an internal link (aka a wikilink) or external link

In the value of a parameter of a ref tag

We can add other common cases as we discover them. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds great, thanks! ShoneBrooks (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]