Template talk:Verify source

 
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

Do not move. Start the AWB before doing the move - not after. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
 * Struck out second proposal for now.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  15:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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Proposed edit to point to current rather than superseded policy
editprotected This template currently points to Verifiability, which has been superseded by Attribution. --Yksin 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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. &lt;sigh&gt; &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Yeah, I liked it the old way too, but whaddayergonnado.  Proto   ►  18:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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 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)


 * I don't really understand what your question or disagreement is. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)


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

Wikiproject Inline templates proposed
WikiProject Council/Proposals. I've been meaning to do this for a while. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Template: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)
 * 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). &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 05:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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
Need to add: (without the nowiki of course). — SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 03:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This goes on document page, not protected. Gimmetrow 03:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * Please take this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 10:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Related redirects
Perhaps a sysop could add this redirect I created,, to the related redirects section below? Lord Sesshomaru
 * Done, Garion96 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Lord Sesshomaru

Added type paragmenter
I added a type parameter to the template, so that


 * becomes . &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * becomes . &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

interwiki request
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)
 * ✅ --CapitalR (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

editprotected
could you please add to the parameters so it gives a list of all articles needing factual verification for a bot I am building. Most other templates like include this.
 * cat = Category:All pages needing factual verification


 * ✅ But categories should go on the documentation page, which is unprotected. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk)  08:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It was added to the documentation page - see 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)
 * 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 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)
 * Done --Stephen 01:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Edit request from Cymru.lass, 4 February 2011
Will someone please put  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)
 * ✅. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Template-protected edit request on 24 February 2018
Please add, per a nomination by  &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 February 2018
Please wrap the deletion notice into  tags. The template is now transcluding the deletion notice in all the articles it is used. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Transclusion of tfd tags in articles is completely intentional and not something that needs to be fixed. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2018
PLease remove the from the template. Nihlus 08:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Within or outside tags?
It should be noted that at the time this section was created, the template page makes no distinction as to whether the template should be placed within the tags, external to the tags, or if both are valid under which circumstances. Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 October 2021 by DesertPipeline
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

to

Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 16:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) I have updated the documentation accordingly. DesertPipeline (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)