This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The {{ Template:Fact}} appears to cause wrapping problems in some cases. Using a Firefox 1.5 window set to 800x600 on my PC, the George Harrison article will have a horizontal scroll bar. The only content off screen is the end of the [citation needed] text produced by Fact. it happens to occur at the end of the last sentence in a paragraph, and the last line of text in the sentence ends near the right-edge of the window.
(I'll upload a screenshot if someone wants it.)
This may be an issue with Firefox; the problem occurs with both Firefox 1.5.0.10 and Firefox 2.0.0.2. I could not make it happen with IE6 or IE7. On the other hand, it may be an issue of non-compliance in IE6/7 that manifests itself as unwanted—but correct—behavior in Firefox. Reading the white-space parameter spec in CSS, it's not clear to me what should happen when an anonynous inline block such as created by SPAN has "white-space: nowrap" and the block doesn't fit.
It might take some fiddling for you to see the issue on your PC because of browser settings, fonts, etc. Adjust the window size until [citation needed] starts near the right-edge of the window, and see if a horizontal scrollbar appears. John Cardinal 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
and getting rid of the style.--
Kevinkor2 13:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
<sup class="noprint">[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources" style="white-space: nowrap;">[''citation needed'']</span>]]</sup>
Why I cannot see the inter-language links? I want to get a copy of them and add another one. please add [[ar:قالب:حقيقة]].-- Alnokta 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there really no german version of this template? --
Spitzl 11:56, 21 May 2007 (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)
I'd like to point out that I am disturbed by the fact that some editors seem to believe that it's okay to use these kinds of templates in articles before bringing the issue up on talkpages. In articles that do have references no less. For example, there have been people inserting fact-tags in medieval cuisine because they simply didn't have the patience to bring up their query on the talkpage first. Two of them were even inserted right into paragraphs that were cited, just not in the normal hyper-pedantic fashion of one-or-ore-note-per-sentence, and both of those were actually due to editors reading things into the text that just weren't there (or were only vaguely hinted at). I know that there are plenty of other editors who like to sprinkle fact-tags after a multitude of more or less random fact statements (anything containing a digit is particularly popular). And then there's this type of attitude towards verifying print sources; i.e. "I'm not going to actually take the time to do it, but I want you to cite an extra page for me anyway."
I'd just like to point out that I find this type of behavior problematic and not in the least diplomatic. If there are problems with an article and the only reason for doubt is plain ignorance or lack of patience (as exemplified in the link above), then people need to stop asserting their guesstimates and personal opinions in article space. Use talkpages first, have a modicum of patience, and then insert the fact tag. Or simply put your money where your mouth is and remove the statement altogether.
Peter Isotalo 12:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It should be capitalised. Jc iindyysgvxc 09:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please add the class "Template_Fact" (or something) to the sup tag (so, it would be like <sup class="noprint Template_Fact">
) so that these can be styled with css or javascript. I have a javascript that looks for these that broke when the appearance recently changed. --
Random832 13:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} In the third paragraph, the second sentence begins with the word "The ese". I do believe that this is supposed to be "These". This really should be corrected. 129.108.204.3 19:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the template now has the brackets in blue. I don't think this looks very good, and I liked it better with black brackets and blue words. Does this have to do with the many formatting discussions above? If possible, could it be changed back to black/blue/black instead of blue? I never really minded the occasional line break, but now it looks strange. Thanks! Reywas92 Talk 19:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}} Need to add: [[Category:Inline templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] (without the nowiki of course). — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 03:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
I simply request that the brackets don't link, only the citation needed part needs to link. --
98E 01:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} Can an admin please modify the code so as to allow a line wrap between citation and needed when it overflows? It makes lots of pages have horizontal scroll bars unnecessarily because the 'needed]' part sticks out too far to the right. Fullmetal2887 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The name of this template as {{fact}} can be misleading to editors unfamiliar with teh the template's usage, as well as general wikipedian practices. Often when I tag things using {{cn}} they can be quickly reverted with claims that I am claiming the statements to be innacurate, i.e. not a fact.
This tag should be used for statements and editor either 1)knows to be accurate, but doesn't have a source or 2)doesn't have the knowledge or resources to verify it's factuality, but has no good reason to doubt its accuracy. If an editor comes across a statement they have good reason to think is false, and that statement is unsourced, they should simply remove such a statement not tag it.
I think a lot of confusion over the usage of this template - i.e. whether it is calling into question the statements staus as fact, or just asking that a stated fact be sourced - could be solved by moving it to another name. But that's just a simple opinion citation needed.-- 138.77.2.130 05:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:Views needing attribution is related to the fact template and should be added to the see also section. -- Abdull 09:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}}
I have noticed that even if you leave a space before using the template like this "some fact {{Fact|date=May 2007}}", it still butts right up against the fact that needs to be cited, and doesn't look too good. I would request that where the syntax shows style="white-space: nowrap;" that it be changed to style="white-space: nowrap; padding-left: 2px" or similar. Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 14:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
So, how long do we let fact tags remain? If something has been uncited for 2 months, should it just be removed? Not a dog 01:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
change link of this template from Wikipedia:Citing sources to Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to find sources. After this section is added: [1]. This should be helpful for a new visitor. Currently this tag is helping nothing in improving verifiability Racky pt 08:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
i got tired of writing {{subst:fact-now}}
and made a copy at {{subst:factn}}
for lazy people like me. :) --
Indolences 22:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The current code used is:
<includeonly>{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements since {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]}}[[Category:All articles with unsourced statements]]}}</includeonly><sup class="noprint Template-Fact">[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources {{#if:{{{date|}}}| since {{{date}}}|}}" style="white-space: nowrap;">[''citation needed'']</span>]]</sup><noinclude>
{{/doc}}
</noinclude>
This causes problems if the template produces the last text on a line. Specifically, with some browsers, if the word citation fits on the line, but needed does not, the word needed will cause a horizontal scroll bar. A proposed fix would be:
<includeonly>{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements since {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]}}[[Category:All articles with unsourced statements]]}}</includeonly><sup class="noprint Template-Fact">[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources {{#if:{{{date|}}}| since {{{date}}}|}}">[''citation needed'']</span>]]</sup><noinclude>
{{/doc}}
</noinclude>
A comment in a section above says that an earlier comment said this could cause a different problem in some browsers. I couldn't find any comment that that could have been a response to, and it didn't cause any problems for me with Firefox 1.5 or IE 6. Unless that concern is correct, I recommend changing template code. -- kenb215 talk 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm disabling the editprotected. Once a solution is found, feel free to add another one. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit of a suggestion/discussion/request... Wouldn't it make more sense if instead of "citation needed" it would say "(citation needed)"? More in-line would seem to look more normal and make more sense to me. Althepal 04:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There is an xkcd cartoon about this template. Bkkbrad 12:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget the second joke in the image title (mouse over in most modern browsers). — Toby Bartels
The usage notes should be amended to state that the editor should make a good-faith effort to check the references given and do a basic search to find references first, and only add the tag if they are unable to find and add a citation. There is no need to cite every clause in every sentence, and too many lazy editors apply this tag in trivial cases. WP:SOFIXIT! Dhaluza 10:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The {{ Template:Fact}} appears to cause wrapping problems in some cases. Using a Firefox 1.5 window set to 800x600 on my PC, the George Harrison article will have a horizontal scroll bar. The only content off screen is the end of the [citation needed] text produced by Fact. it happens to occur at the end of the last sentence in a paragraph, and the last line of text in the sentence ends near the right-edge of the window.
(I'll upload a screenshot if someone wants it.)
This may be an issue with Firefox; the problem occurs with both Firefox 1.5.0.10 and Firefox 2.0.0.2. I could not make it happen with IE6 or IE7. On the other hand, it may be an issue of non-compliance in IE6/7 that manifests itself as unwanted—but correct—behavior in Firefox. Reading the white-space parameter spec in CSS, it's not clear to me what should happen when an anonynous inline block such as created by SPAN has "white-space: nowrap" and the block doesn't fit.
It might take some fiddling for you to see the issue on your PC because of browser settings, fonts, etc. Adjust the window size until [citation needed] starts near the right-edge of the window, and see if a horizontal scrollbar appears. John Cardinal 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
and getting rid of the style.--
Kevinkor2 13:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
<sup class="noprint">[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources" style="white-space: nowrap;">[''citation needed'']</span>]]</sup>
Why I cannot see the inter-language links? I want to get a copy of them and add another one. please add [[ar:قالب:حقيقة]].-- Alnokta 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there really no german version of this template? --
Spitzl 11:56, 21 May 2007 (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)
I'd like to point out that I am disturbed by the fact that some editors seem to believe that it's okay to use these kinds of templates in articles before bringing the issue up on talkpages. In articles that do have references no less. For example, there have been people inserting fact-tags in medieval cuisine because they simply didn't have the patience to bring up their query on the talkpage first. Two of them were even inserted right into paragraphs that were cited, just not in the normal hyper-pedantic fashion of one-or-ore-note-per-sentence, and both of those were actually due to editors reading things into the text that just weren't there (or were only vaguely hinted at). I know that there are plenty of other editors who like to sprinkle fact-tags after a multitude of more or less random fact statements (anything containing a digit is particularly popular). And then there's this type of attitude towards verifying print sources; i.e. "I'm not going to actually take the time to do it, but I want you to cite an extra page for me anyway."
I'd just like to point out that I find this type of behavior problematic and not in the least diplomatic. If there are problems with an article and the only reason for doubt is plain ignorance or lack of patience (as exemplified in the link above), then people need to stop asserting their guesstimates and personal opinions in article space. Use talkpages first, have a modicum of patience, and then insert the fact tag. Or simply put your money where your mouth is and remove the statement altogether.
Peter Isotalo 12:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It should be capitalised. Jc iindyysgvxc 09:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please add the class "Template_Fact" (or something) to the sup tag (so, it would be like <sup class="noprint Template_Fact">
) so that these can be styled with css or javascript. I have a javascript that looks for these that broke when the appearance recently changed. --
Random832 13:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} In the third paragraph, the second sentence begins with the word "The ese". I do believe that this is supposed to be "These". This really should be corrected. 129.108.204.3 19:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the template now has the brackets in blue. I don't think this looks very good, and I liked it better with black brackets and blue words. Does this have to do with the many formatting discussions above? If possible, could it be changed back to black/blue/black instead of blue? I never really minded the occasional line break, but now it looks strange. Thanks! Reywas92 Talk 19:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}} Need to add: [[Category:Inline templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] (without the nowiki of course). — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 03:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
I simply request that the brackets don't link, only the citation needed part needs to link. --
98E 01:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} Can an admin please modify the code so as to allow a line wrap between citation and needed when it overflows? It makes lots of pages have horizontal scroll bars unnecessarily because the 'needed]' part sticks out too far to the right. Fullmetal2887 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The name of this template as {{fact}} can be misleading to editors unfamiliar with teh the template's usage, as well as general wikipedian practices. Often when I tag things using {{cn}} they can be quickly reverted with claims that I am claiming the statements to be innacurate, i.e. not a fact.
This tag should be used for statements and editor either 1)knows to be accurate, but doesn't have a source or 2)doesn't have the knowledge or resources to verify it's factuality, but has no good reason to doubt its accuracy. If an editor comes across a statement they have good reason to think is false, and that statement is unsourced, they should simply remove such a statement not tag it.
I think a lot of confusion over the usage of this template - i.e. whether it is calling into question the statements staus as fact, or just asking that a stated fact be sourced - could be solved by moving it to another name. But that's just a simple opinion citation needed.-- 138.77.2.130 05:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:Views needing attribution is related to the fact template and should be added to the see also section. -- Abdull 09:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}}
I have noticed that even if you leave a space before using the template like this "some fact {{Fact|date=May 2007}}", it still butts right up against the fact that needs to be cited, and doesn't look too good. I would request that where the syntax shows style="white-space: nowrap;" that it be changed to style="white-space: nowrap; padding-left: 2px" or similar. Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 14:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
So, how long do we let fact tags remain? If something has been uncited for 2 months, should it just be removed? Not a dog 01:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
change link of this template from Wikipedia:Citing sources to Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to find sources. After this section is added: [1]. This should be helpful for a new visitor. Currently this tag is helping nothing in improving verifiability Racky pt 08:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
i got tired of writing {{subst:fact-now}}
and made a copy at {{subst:factn}}
for lazy people like me. :) --
Indolences 22:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The current code used is:
<includeonly>{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements since {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]}}[[Category:All articles with unsourced statements]]}}</includeonly><sup class="noprint Template-Fact">[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources {{#if:{{{date|}}}| since {{{date}}}|}}" style="white-space: nowrap;">[''citation needed'']</span>]]</sup><noinclude>
{{/doc}}
</noinclude>
This causes problems if the template produces the last text on a line. Specifically, with some browsers, if the word citation fits on the line, but needed does not, the word needed will cause a horizontal scroll bar. A proposed fix would be:
<includeonly>{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements since {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]}}[[Category:All articles with unsourced statements]]}}</includeonly><sup class="noprint Template-Fact">[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources {{#if:{{{date|}}}| since {{{date}}}|}}">[''citation needed'']</span>]]</sup><noinclude>
{{/doc}}
</noinclude>
A comment in a section above says that an earlier comment said this could cause a different problem in some browsers. I couldn't find any comment that that could have been a response to, and it didn't cause any problems for me with Firefox 1.5 or IE 6. Unless that concern is correct, I recommend changing template code. -- kenb215 talk 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm disabling the editprotected. Once a solution is found, feel free to add another one. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit of a suggestion/discussion/request... Wouldn't it make more sense if instead of "citation needed" it would say "(citation needed)"? More in-line would seem to look more normal and make more sense to me. Althepal 04:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There is an xkcd cartoon about this template. Bkkbrad 12:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget the second joke in the image title (mouse over in most modern browsers). — Toby Bartels
The usage notes should be amended to state that the editor should make a good-faith effort to check the references given and do a basic search to find references first, and only add the tag if they are unable to find and add a citation. There is no need to cite every clause in every sentence, and too many lazy editors apply this tag in trivial cases. WP:SOFIXIT! Dhaluza 10:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |