Template talk:Unreliable source?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Verify credibility)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Inline Templates
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 after citation number or at end of note?[edit]

Should this template be placed after the citation number (outside of the </ref> tag) or at the end of the reference note (within, ie before, the </ref> tag)? Could we have instruction on the page template page? Hyacinth (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol wait.svg I, too, came looking for that information in the template's documentation. I know these things take time, but if 5 years is not sufficient, do we keep waiting? Cnilep (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it usually placed outside the reference note. Debresser (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

As per User:Cnilep's edit on 16 July 2014, the answer became "after citation number". This is wise choice because readers need to be alert to bad references. If the tag is placed within the ref tags, there's a big chance that they will falsely assume a citation was valid because few look at the references compared to the article text. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In cases where there are multiple supporting references, some patently reliable and others potentially unreliable, suggest using inside the ref tags. This is a better solution than removing 'unreliable' references, in my opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Make "reason" parameter show up in tooltip[edit]

In this template's sandbox I implemented a change that would show contents of |reason= parameter in a tooltip. I belive this change is not controversial, because this is the way most inline templates operate for quite some time. (See {{citation needed}} or {{according to whom}} for examples.) The result of the change may be examined at this template's testcases page. Any objections? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done This was done by User:Trappist the monk on 18 January 2015‎ and appears to be working correctly. See Template:Unreliable source?/testcases. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

move to "Unreliable source?"[edit]

This page, {{Verify credibility}}, was created on 15 February 2006‎ and has basically just said "unreliable source?" since it was made an inline tag after the {{Rs}} template merge back in 13 September 2007‎. There are currently two particular redirects, {{Unreliable source?}} and {{Unreliable source}} (created afterwards on 7 January 2009‎ and 11 June 2008‎, respectively) that point here and closely match the template's text. I suggest we move this template to "Unreliable source?" so that the text matches the template name. This eliminates the question as to whether the template's name means the same thing as what the template is asking. It would also be in concordance with the naming scheme generally used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Inline Templates. (In particular, the question mark is often included by templates asking a question so "Unreliable source?" is preferable to "Unreliable source".) In general, I think this kind of renaming is wise. Wikipedia's inline tags have more or less settled down now. The Wild West days are gone. Now that we know through hindsight how templates "should have been" named to begin with, it is wise to "untangle" redirect knots created by the whirlwinds of history past. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I second your proposal. I have had similar thoughts more than once. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I've gone ahead and did it. It was a move over a redirect so it was fairly simple. For some reason the subpages did not move with the page despite the fact that I am very sure I had that option enabled. I moved them individually instead. I did the initial cleanup of the documentation. Still need to do some cleanup of the Template:Unreliable source?/testcases page, of some double redirects, and miscellaneous stuff here and there (like checking WikiProject Inline Templates to make sure its info matches). I'll wait to see if any major issues are caused by the move and slowly ensure the rest of that stuff is done. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I've now fixed the double redirects (about 6 or 7). So things should be working more or less as they should. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Have Twinkle and bot operators been informed? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
No. Does Twinkle use this template at all? I started the thread Inline template "Verify credibility" moved to "Unreliable source?" on the Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to give them a heads-up. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't remember which bot adds the "date=" field to tags, but it also Standardizes the name.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

certain only works for "y" and "yes"; broken otherwise[edit]

As can be verified in the testcases page, when |certain= is set to "n" or "no", it removes the question mark rather than preserving it. This is, of course, not what is wanted. The same removal is done if |certain= is set to any other string. Although, a convention is needed, I suppose in that case, the question mark should also be preserved. This bug is something that should be fixed at some point. Any takers? Jason Quinn (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I was successful in making the certain parameter work with "y", to the exclusion of all other values. The previous version just checked if the parameter was defined at all, and any value triggered it. Haven't edited templates for a while, and frankly forgot how to, but it shouldn't hard to add "failed" as a parameter and "yes" as a value. Debresser (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
|failed= now works as a parameter. If we want more values to be supported like "TRUE" or whatever, this can be implemented with {{yesno}}, but most templates do not bother with this and the added complexity is generally not worth it. If you actually want the template to parse negative values, that adds a great deal more complexity, and we virtually never do such two-way parsing of parameters for positive and negative values. Probably over 99.9% of template parameters that take any such value actually operate on any value at all (i.e., if the documentation says you can use |munged=y, supplying |munged=n or |munged=barbecued chicken lips! will produce the same result. We only implement the "opposite value gives opposite result" option when there's a good reason to do so, e.g. the |deadurl= parameter of the citation templates produces markedly different output, depending on what the value is and whether an archive URL has been provided. Similarly, some templates have operator-overloaded parameters that can produce stock output if fed a recognizable positive or negative value, or custom output if fed something that is neither. No needs like that seem to be in play here.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Doc cleanup[edit]

I've normalized the documentation between {{Unreliable source?}}, {{Unreliable medical source}}, and {{Unreliable fringe source}}, and fixed parameter inconsistencies in the template code during the process.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)