Inline Templates | ||||
|
![]() | Reliability | |||
|
This template uses incorrect English. "Quote" is a verb, not a noun. It should be "quotation," not "quote."
⇒
Bayerischermann
-
19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
This template addresses a common need, but it's hampered by its excessive length.
That's a lot of text for an inline tag. The analogous {fact} tag simply says, "Citation request". Couldn't this template just say "Quotation request" or "Verification request"? That'd make the template more usable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The change is an improvement but I think the verbiage does need to be reduced to a minimum, keeping in mind that the template might be used in succession. Put two or three of them in a paragraph and it destroys the flow of text. I'll make an edit in line with the original suggestion. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 12:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Both Ham Pastrami and Hrafn have valid points. The inline comment needs to be short to avoid readability issues and yet a brief comment does lead one to think the quote needs to be in the article text rather than on the talk page. I have requested a possible technical solution to this here: WP:Village pump (technical)#Can a template do this?. -- Low Sea ( talk) 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the current template omits two important points:
I would suggest that the template be expanded to [Request quote on talk to verify, with 'talk' linking to the article's talkpage. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
"Quotation" currently links to WP:CITE, which I don't find optimal. (The previous reference to the talk page was worse though; I don't think inline templates should link to the talk page, and not everyone who adds this template might explain what they mean on the talk page.) Anyways, if anyone has a better link (perhaps to some page that talks about [literally] quoting sources), feel free to adjust. -- Lea ( talk) 18:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
My browser displays 2 spaces between “need” and “quote.” Is there any reason that there is an in the “pre-text”? 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 00:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to this edit, this is not really a "similar template" to [citation needed]:
How is an editor expected to infer that it "is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, to be provided on the discussion page so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or has been interpreted correctly" from its contents: [ quotation needed]? Telepathy?
As I suggested above, it would be better to have something like [Request quote on talk to verify, with 'talk' linking to the article's talkpage. This actually:
It takes a bit longer to explain something using English rather than telepathy, but I've found it to be generally more reliable. ;) Hrafn Talk Stalk 14:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, from putting together code from this and other templates, the code required to implement this is:
{{fix |link=Wikipedia:Verifiability |text=verify |title=quotation needed ''on talk'' from source to verify |pre-text=Request quotation on [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk]] to }}
... which yields: Request quotation on talk to verify (the talk-link doesn't work here because this is already a talkpage). Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC) [Just noticed that my sample code didn't match my original recommendation, above -- altering to match. Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC) ]
Why does this template currently put the tagged page into Category:All articles with unsourced statements & its date-based sub-category (as I discovered while looking into the code for it to do the above sample code)? This template is used to request a quote from an already cited source, so by definition, the statement in question is sourced. Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Why does this template request a quotation to be added to the talk page, as opposed to adding a quote in a footnote (say using the quote= parameter of the various {{ citation}}-related templates)? It seems to me that the reference should remain verifiable in the future, even if the talk page is archived, and that a quotation in a footnote would serve that end better than a quotation on a talk page. — AlanBarrett ( talk) 09:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
As a programmer, I interpret this as a reference which is not quoted. Is this supposed to mean a "reference without a quote"? -- Chealer ( talk) 23:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Should this not add the articles to a Category:Articles requiring requested quotations? HaltlosePersonalityDisorder ( talk) 21:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Inline Templates | ||||
|
![]() | Reliability | |||
|
This template uses incorrect English. "Quote" is a verb, not a noun. It should be "quotation," not "quote."
⇒
Bayerischermann
-
19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
This template addresses a common need, but it's hampered by its excessive length.
That's a lot of text for an inline tag. The analogous {fact} tag simply says, "Citation request". Couldn't this template just say "Quotation request" or "Verification request"? That'd make the template more usable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The change is an improvement but I think the verbiage does need to be reduced to a minimum, keeping in mind that the template might be used in succession. Put two or three of them in a paragraph and it destroys the flow of text. I'll make an edit in line with the original suggestion. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 12:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Both Ham Pastrami and Hrafn have valid points. The inline comment needs to be short to avoid readability issues and yet a brief comment does lead one to think the quote needs to be in the article text rather than on the talk page. I have requested a possible technical solution to this here: WP:Village pump (technical)#Can a template do this?. -- Low Sea ( talk) 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the current template omits two important points:
I would suggest that the template be expanded to [Request quote on talk to verify, with 'talk' linking to the article's talkpage. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
"Quotation" currently links to WP:CITE, which I don't find optimal. (The previous reference to the talk page was worse though; I don't think inline templates should link to the talk page, and not everyone who adds this template might explain what they mean on the talk page.) Anyways, if anyone has a better link (perhaps to some page that talks about [literally] quoting sources), feel free to adjust. -- Lea ( talk) 18:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
My browser displays 2 spaces between “need” and “quote.” Is there any reason that there is an in the “pre-text”? 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 00:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to this edit, this is not really a "similar template" to [citation needed]:
How is an editor expected to infer that it "is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, to be provided on the discussion page so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or has been interpreted correctly" from its contents: [ quotation needed]? Telepathy?
As I suggested above, it would be better to have something like [Request quote on talk to verify, with 'talk' linking to the article's talkpage. This actually:
It takes a bit longer to explain something using English rather than telepathy, but I've found it to be generally more reliable. ;) Hrafn Talk Stalk 14:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, from putting together code from this and other templates, the code required to implement this is:
{{fix |link=Wikipedia:Verifiability |text=verify |title=quotation needed ''on talk'' from source to verify |pre-text=Request quotation on [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk]] to }}
... which yields: Request quotation on talk to verify (the talk-link doesn't work here because this is already a talkpage). Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC) [Just noticed that my sample code didn't match my original recommendation, above -- altering to match. Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC) ]
Why does this template currently put the tagged page into Category:All articles with unsourced statements & its date-based sub-category (as I discovered while looking into the code for it to do the above sample code)? This template is used to request a quote from an already cited source, so by definition, the statement in question is sourced. Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Why does this template request a quotation to be added to the talk page, as opposed to adding a quote in a footnote (say using the quote= parameter of the various {{ citation}}-related templates)? It seems to me that the reference should remain verifiable in the future, even if the talk page is archived, and that a quotation in a footnote would serve that end better than a quotation on a talk page. — AlanBarrett ( talk) 09:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
As a programmer, I interpret this as a reference which is not quoted. Is this supposed to mean a "reference without a quote"? -- Chealer ( talk) 23:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Should this not add the articles to a Category:Articles requiring requested quotations? HaltlosePersonalityDisorder ( talk) 21:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)