Template talk:Not verified in body

suggested fix
Should you fix this template (its documentation) by adding a reference to the tagged statement? After all, one quality of articles where this template is appropriate is that they do not contain citations in the lead. Shouldn't the doc instruct the reader to not only provide a reference, but to integrate it to the main text body?

That is, please consider having the documentation tell us not only to provide a citation, but also to reproduce the claim from the lead in the main text body and there add the reference. The tagged statement in the lead should ideally not have to be touched (except to remove this template). Right? CapnZapp (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"Not in body" template
We need a template to indicate facts that violate MOS:INTRO:

Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

That is, not in body is not the same as not verified in body.

The latter's documentation (this page) lists as one of the criteria for use: "One of the facts in the lead is not verified in the article's body and you seek verification of that fact."

But what if you DON'T seek the verification (because it's sourced right there in the lead) and instead just want to say "this well-sourced bit isn't mentioned or discussed again in the remainder of the article."

CapnZapp (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two three distinct use cases:

a) something is discussed and sourced in the lead, but never expanded upon or even mentioned by the body of the article

and

b) something is discussed in the lead, and further discussed in the body, but the specific claims made by the lead are not sourced anywhere.

and, let's not forget

c) something is discussed and sourced in the lead, and discussed (and possibly sourced again) in the body.

I would argue that "citation needed" is not appropriate for use case a.

In use case b, I can see why we want a specialized phrasing (and thus why this template exists instead of just relying on ).

In use case c, there is no verifiability issue at all. The sole issue is MOS:LEADCITE. That is, an editor could want to discuss the appropriateness of putting any citations in the lead, and/or whether they fit better in the body of the article. I can understand if we conclude no special tag template is needed for this use case.

Please either heed my suggestion in the following talk section, or split the two templates again, so they can be different tools for different uses. CapnZapp (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Linked article
This template produces some text that links to Citation needed.

However, this template was semi-recently renamed "Not verified in body" from "Citation needed lead".

I would like to discuss if this changes our analysis of which link is more appropriate.

The point of this template is not a concern over unsourced material (where the current link is appropriate) - it is specifically concerned about whatever is discussed in the lead does not reappear in the body of the article. I would suggest we change the link to instead lead here, so the reader is greeted with


 *  This template is specifically intended to challenge a fact in the lead section of an already well-sourced article, where that lead is clearly intended to function as a summary of the content, but the fact tagged does not appear in the body.

instead of


 * To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, Wikipedia provides a means for anyone to question an uncited claim. If your work has been tagged, please provide a reliable source for the statement, and discuss if needed. 

The point is that providing a source is much less than ideal in this case, since that source should probably not appear in the lead. The message should be less concerned about unsourced material and more concerned about making sure the lead discussion is mirrored in the body of the article.

PS. Also see the previous talk section. Thanks.

CapnZapp (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)