Template talk:Verify source

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Inline Templates, a collaborative effort to improve and manage Wikipedia's inline footnote, cleanup and dispute templates. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Some discussion of this template may take place at the project's talk page, rather than here.Inline TemplatesWikipedia:WikiProject Inline TemplatesTemplate:WikiProject Inline TemplatesInline Templates

Reliability

This template is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)[reply]

Proposed move

~~For easiness of use, I propose to move Template:Verify source ~~and Template:Verify credibility~~ to Template:Verify (overwriting the redirect). Λυδ α cιτγ 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck out second proposal for now. Λυδ α cιτγ 15:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Λυδ α cιτγ 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Strong Oppose: Huh?! {{Verify}} currently redirects to {{Not verified}} which is completely different. This move would change a big blue bar at the top of a zillion articles into a little footnote which says "verification needed". Am I missing something? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I assumed it would be a few redirects I could AWB, but it's actually a few thousand. Take back that request. Λυδ α cιτγ 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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)[reply]

Sorry, I tried to do everything at once and ended up with a mess. First I'd like to simply move this template. Once that's done, I'd like to propose merging Template:Verify credibility with the new Template:Verify. But for now, I'd just like to have this moved, so it's easier to type, which will encourage correct use of this as opposed to {{fact}} or {{citeneeded}}. Λυδ α cιτγ 15:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed edit to point to current rather than superseded policy

{{editprotected}} This template currently points to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which has been superseded by Wikipedia:Attribution. --Yksin 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- Done. Yeah, I liked it the old way too, but whaddayergonnado. Proto ► 18:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose

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

if it is doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, you may use ^{[verification needed]} tag to ask for source verification.

makes it as a marker for doubtful info that may lack citation. --Error 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what your question or disagreement is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand the question, assume somebody writes "John is the king of France^[1]", but when you look at the given source you can not verify that this is claim is made by the source. Thanks to the above comment I now know that Template:request quote can be used for this, but the names aren't very intuitive, and request quote isn't very widely advertised considering how important it is to verify that the cited sources really back up the material they claim to support. I think all that is needed is to point out in the documentation of this page that there exists a template called "request quote" for that purpose. --Merzul 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree, and over seven years later! have made such changes. -- PBS (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Check

{{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)[reply]

I wouldn't bother. {{Check}} redirects to {{Verify source}}; bots that fix redirects of this sort will take care of it (try adding {{Citation needed}} somewhere; you'll see it become {{Fact}} within a few days at most, generally). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It matters when you're not familiar with the template and you go looking for help on it - and you realise that there is no help on it. Just confirming that it's legitimate. I'll add a 'Related redirects' to the page similar to template:Fact. - Ctbolt 06:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date?

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

This template has no date-related mechanism. Perhaps you are thinking of {{fact}}? Gimmetrow 02:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does now. But it is fine to leave for the bots to add the date. Rich Farmbrough, 09:05 23 January 2008 (GMT).

Cat. fix

{{Editprotected}}

Need to add: [[Category:Inline templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] (without the nowiki of course). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This goes on document page, not protected. Gimmetrow 03:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward multilining

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)[reply]

Please take this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related redirects

Perhaps a sysop could add this redirect I created, {{Verifysource}}, to the related redirects section below? Lord Sesshomaru

Done, Garion96 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Lord Sesshomaru

Added type paragmenter

I added a type parameter to the template, so that

{{Verify source|type=reprint}}

becomes ^{[reprint verification needed]}. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

interwiki request

{{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)[reply]

Done --CapitalR (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

editprotected

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.

~~Done~~ But categories should go on the documentation page, which is unprotected. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you haven't done a thing :-|, I ask for this parameter as it is integrated into the template syntax and should have been set in the first place. Atyndall93 | talk 11:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was added to the documentation page - see [1] and the categories listed on the template page. I note the category you request does not exist (yet). — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 19:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but no one has yet to understand my request. I need the category added using that parameter to the actual template so it does not add the template itself to the category but all pages it is transcluded to so that I have a list of all pages that that template is transcluded on so that AtyndallBot (talk · contribs) can query that category and retrieve the 5 oldest pages. Could someone please do that and stop telling me that it should go on the doc page? Because that doesn't work. Atyndall93 | talk 00:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Step hen 01:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editprotected request involving this template

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)[reply]

Edit request from Cymru.lass, 4 February 2011

{{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 ? 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)[reply]

Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protect it then !

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)[reply]

Reason parameter

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)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

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)[reply]

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

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)[reply]

Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion of tfd tags in articles is completely intentional and not something that needs to be fixed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

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)[reply]

Done by Galobtter — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Within or outside <ref> tags?

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)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 21 October 2021 by DesertPipeline

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)[reply]

Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) I have updated the documentation accordingly. DesertPipeline (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So when is it supposed to be used?

'Please add the ^{[verification needed]} template only after you have made a good faith attempt to verify the information yourself, and you still have good reason to question whether the source is correct. For instance, you might not be in a position to verify a given source (perhaps the only source is in a library half-way across the globe, for instance). This alone does not mean you should add this template. Only add it if you have reason to believe checking the source is necessary.'

How can you make 'a good faith attempt' to check the source and nevertheless 'fail' to do so? The sources cited on Wikipedia can almost always be found in libraries. And what could be a 'reason to believe checking the source is necessary'? It seems to me that this template just functions as a loophole that allows people to arbitrarily place some kind of 'doubting tag' on a claim even when it is sourced, solely based on the fact that they don't like the claim and that it's not very easy for them to check it. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]