Template talk:Not verified

See also: Template talk:cleanup-importance

-

claims
by "factual claims", you mean "claims" -- if the claims were factual, they would not need to be verified :) dab (&#5839;) 14:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, factual claims can be wrong. "Factual" distinguishes them from other types of claims. -- Kjkolb 14:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Changed wording
I changed "please expand the article, citing sources" to "please modify or expand the article so that it cites sources.", to better fit with a common case: The article that is too broad. Take, for example, McWords; many of the usages listed currently (as of November 3 2005) are unverified, and the article appears to need to be pruned, rather then expanded. Thus, the change in wording. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed addition of date parameter
editprotected I would like to propose that an optional date parameter be added to this template as has been done with Template:Unreferenced, Template:Uncategorized, Template:Wikify, etc. I believe the proper code for the last line would be: The instructions would also need updated. My proposed text is posted at User:Satori Son/Sandbox, which others should feel free to improve. Thank you, Satori Son 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not made for now, please could you put the exact text you wish to put in here, and the exact text you wish to replace, then readd the editprotected tag? Proto ::  ►  18:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Exact proposed text was in my Sandbox for quite some time, but since no discussion or action I have cleared it. I still think the date parameter should be added. -- Satori Son 15:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed edit to point to current rather than superseded policy
The template as it exists points to superseded policy Verifiability, which has been superseded by Attribution. Suggested new text:
 * Some information in this article or section does not attribute its sources and may not be reliable. (rest of text as it stands)

Thanks. --Yksin


 * For the record, Attribution never superceded Verifiability, that proposal failed. --Wingsandsword 20:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This change makes sense, due to the merging of the policy, so I have fulfilled the edit request with your wording.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've improved the wording slightly. Information is not an actor.  It cannot perform the act of attributing. Uncle G 10:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Deprecated template
Please remove PotentialVanity from the list as it is to be deleted. – Tivedshambo (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- Harryboyles 13:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Template:Unreferenced
As a general rule I think that maintenance templates should go on the talk pages (see Most maintenance templates should be placed on the talk page)

As this template also carries some useful information for readers of an articles, there is a reasonable justification for keeping it on the article page, but I do not think that this template is as useful as Template:Unreferenced because its wording does not lend itself to being in a reference section, so I think this template should become a redirect to Template:Unreferenced --Philip Baird Shearer 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The events of last year should have taught editors the error of the notion that we should not make it clearly visible to readers when content is suspect or unsourced. In any case, this template is not the same as unreferenced.  The latter points out a lack of cited sources.  This, in contrast, points out that some facts have not been checked against sources, and encourages editors to check them against sources (correcting them if necessary), citing the sources that they are checked against.  (The wording of the template could be improved in this regard.) Uncle G 14:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems from the directions given for this template "Please add this template after a good faith attempt to verify information." is for not for "some facts have not been checked against sources" but rather for some facts that have been checked and failed to be validated. If that is the case the text should be removed (possibly to the article talk page). If the facts are true but the article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources (copy and paste from current wording of unreferenced) then template unreferenced would be appropriate and a redirect of Not verified to unreferenced would seem to be appropriate. Jeepday 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. This template is not the same as unreferenced.  The latter points out a lack of sources.  This notice points out potentially unreliable content that has not been checked against sources. Uncle G 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think that the difference you are making is sufficient to justify two templates. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I beleive that the current wording Some information in this article or section has not been checked against sources and may not be reliable. Please check for inaccuracies and modify as needed, citing the sources against which it was checked. places this template between unreferenced and Disputed and marks it clearly as separate from each. (note that I suggest a minor text change below; checked > verified)  Jeepday 02:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

conflict & consensus
I notice that the current directions "Please add this template after a good faith attempt to verify information." for the template seem to be in conflict with the wording of the template. If the an editor has made a good faith attempt to attribute the articles content and failed, why would it be appropriate to add a template saying "may not be reliable"? Per Verifiability '''The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Could we get consensus on if this template is for facts that could not be verified or are not''' verified? Jeepday 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just read the earlier wordings of the template: "Some of the information in this article or section has not been verified and might not be reliable. It should be checked for inaccuracies and modified as needed, citing sources."  I'm strongly tempted to revert this edit, which made the wording unclear and seems to be the root cause of confusion here. Uncle G 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the earlier wording is more in line with Uncle G's arguments and makes the template significantly different then Unreferenced. I would support a reversion to the old text and closing the redirect suggestion. Jeepday 13:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the wording. Does that clarify matters? Uncle G 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. -- Satori Son 01:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better, I would like to suggest changing the two occurrences of checked to verified. It would seem to more accurately represent the intent, as the editor should have attempted to check the information and would post this template when that good faith attempt  did not verify the information. Jeepday 02:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The current line is terrible; see below. Tempshill 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Template:Not_verified
I have posted a request at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough asking that the Date parameter be added to this template and that smackbot update it. Jeepday (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad phrasing

 * Information in this article or section has not been verified against sources and may not be reliable.

I think this line is, frankly, ridiculous in the extreme, because, and I am not being facetious here, it applies to every single article on Wikipedia. Even a featured article has not actually had its content "verified against sources". It might have lots of citations, true, but that's a very different matter. And even if we had dedicated people who verified all the content of articles, every edit would move such an article away from having been "verified against sources".

I would prefer phrasing like:


 * This article is insufficiently sourced. Increased use of citations is recommended to increase its reliability.

(with whatever actual links would be most useful instead of those two.) Tempshill 21:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Phrasing similar to what you are looking for is in refimprove. It and Not verified have different uses.  If you don't like the phrasing of Not verified use refimprove instead.  Jeepday (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tempshill ... and Jeepday. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the OP. This template is very misleading because it implies that articles not carrying it have been verified against sources, and are reliable, which is certainly not the case. I suggest that it should be deleted. Matt 01:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

The process of verifying is a big gap. Rich Farmbrough, 13:31 2 August 2007 (GMT).

Display date
editprotected Requesting the addition of following line, directly after the sentence ending "... against which it was checked."

It appears to be standard practice to display the date on maintenance templates that take a date parameter (see et al). --Muchness 16:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done - Nihiltres ( t .l ) 16:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reword per TfD comment
Add line at the end of the text:

"Unverified sources should not be added."

No idea why it is under protection, though. Thanks! --Cerejota 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. By the way, this template is protected to prevent highly visible vandalism; this template is transcluded thousands of places. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)