Template talk:Citation needed/Archive 6

Arcayne's proposal was actively opposed in a discussion on Talk:Ibiza, however, he continues to engage in excessive fact tagging on other articles, ignoring the outcome of that discussion which also brought in editors and administrators from a third opinion request. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is an inaccurate application from more than three months ago (I guess it's better than offering 18-month old diffs, lol). The more immediate and appropriate application would be (in example):

As stated before, the advantage to using statement specific tags allows to pinpoint those areas needing citation (and honestly, all of the tagged info needs citation). While it is agreed that the Ibiza example was extreme - the material should have simply been removed as uncited instead - the previous reasoning remains. If there is no way to determine what in a section (or, heaven forbid, article) needs citation, notoriously short attention-spanned editors are going to move right on and not make any effort to clean up the article at all.

The targeted tags catch the eye, which offers the opportunity to cite the uncited statement. Cited statements improve the article, and by extension, the encyclopedia. Uncited statements, allowed to fester unfixed for months and years is the stuff that Washington Post articles, decrying how WP is nothing but a bunch of kooks posting vandalism, bitchfests or incorrect information are made of.

Some folk say they are ugly, and I agree, they are ugly. If a casual reader sees a lot of info tags noting something is uncited, it might just make that reader want to contribute to the article in the form of a citation, and this an new editor enters the fold. At the very least, they are going to know that the article is still under construction, and not take the article at its face value (and yes, they would tend to overlook the more general setion an article unreferenced tags, and yes they might take uncited, unproven info as accurate).

The disadvantage to keeping these target tags is that it compels us to act to find those citations or to remove those uncited statements.It forces us to be intellectually honest, and not pretend that all our articles are sound pieces of rock-hard fact. Frankly, I would hate to remove the info from the above Silent Running production section, because it all looks interesting. But if it is genuine info, it was culled from somewhere - a citation exists. Instead of removing the targeting tags which identify the unsubstantiated info and using more general tags, effectively sweeping the need for specific citation under the rug, maybe utilizing them allows for the new user or old hand to seek out a citation or two.

It bears pointing out that the above example of the Ibiza article (with cn tags) inspired a protesting editor to seek out six different citations where none had been before. Prior to the targeting tags, one citation had been added (by myself). After the more general unreferenced tags were put in place, two (both by myself), since May. I would say that the history shows my reasoning to be correct. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a film production section from Silent Running. Any production content will be attributable to either one, two, or possibly three sources. There is no need for multiple citation tags, because it is likely the information originates from a very limited set of sources. I suggest that most if not all of the information can be sourced to at least one book and the DVD. Further, much of the information already has sources, but you aren't reading for comprehension. When a sentence says "Trumbull stated on the commentary accompanying the DVD release", that means the statement can be found on the DVD. When a statement attributes something to the "Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame in Seattle, Washington", all you have to do is check the website. So you are still using fact tags incorrectly and failing to pay attention to what the material actually says. In this example you provide, an "unreferencedsection" tag is favored over multiple fact tags. Try to pick another example for a different answer. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Points of clarification: while another editor has indicated that the source of the production information is "likely" concentrated in 1-3 sources, other films stand as representation that production info is often one of the more largely cited parts of an article with many different sources being used to reference information present in it. And while someone alluding to content on a DVD is nifty for conversational musings, an encyclopedia needs citations. Forgive me if I choose to adopt a "prove it" stance that the info is available on the DVD. The same goes for the scifi museum quip. Adding a general unreferenced tag generalizes the need for sources and presents a facade that the only a few bits need citation, and that most of the info is correct, when in actuality, a lot of it is in verification freefall. It is as intellectually dishonest as repeatedly (and uncivilly) noting that someone is oblivious to a policy simply because their interpretation of said policy differs from their own. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but as other editors have repeatedly pointed out to you, we aren't dealing with "other" articles. We are dealing with this one, and most of the information in the production section of the article you offer as an example can be found in one source, namely the documentary, The Making of Silent Running which is included on the DVD. The rest of the material is already attributed to other sources, such as Starlog, the SF Museum, etc. The film you offer up for discussion is a cult film from 1972, so by default, sources aren't going to be as plentiful. You probably aren't going to be able to find (or need) 102 unique sources that are used in a recent film article, like the 2007 film Transformers. And while skepticism is healthy and encouraged, we don't adopt a false skepticism based on ignorance. As I reminded you above, a "prove it" stance is only taken when an actual challenge to the material is made. If you don't have the time to verify the material yourself, then make a request on the talk page. Adding multiple fact tags to material that is already attributed, uncontroversial, and appears on the DVD is not helpful. My experience with you on several articles leads me to believe that you still misunderstand the citation guidelines and are using the fact tag as a weapon rather than as a means to help improve the article. Just because you do not have the time nor the inclination to do actual research, check and verify sources, and discuss challenged material, doesn't give you the right to add an excessive and disruptive number of fact tags. You've been asked to stop by many editors, and explanations for why you should stop have been provided many times. Your reasoning is not justified by any policy or guideline, so I suggest you stop using the fact tag in a disruptive manner until you learn how to contribute positively to Wikipedia. This means collaborating with editors and working towards agreement; it does not mean forcing your pet theories and strange interpretations of template usage upon the rest of us. You've been told this time and time again by many editors. If you truly want to help improve Wikipedia, use the talk pages to discuss the topic with your fellow editors. Do not use the article as a battleground where you employ fact tags as weapons. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I won't be replying to the repeated suggestion that I don't know my way around Wikipedia. If you care to rephrase your post so as to be less confrontational, you might get a response. Not before - which is something of shame, since I would point out how your assumptions are largely incorrect in your post. Try a little less condescension. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nutshell: If an article has no references, and you are unable to find them yourself, you can tag the article with the template {{

WP:PROVEIT. Fact tags aren't used for unchallenged claims or for people who aren't willing to discuss or look for references. If you don't have the time to help look for sources or to discuss why you think the material is questionable, you should not be using this template. Viriditas (talk

) 21:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your "nutshell" statement of how the guideline exists currently doesn't appear to be a correct interpretation of current guidelines, or actually address how my suggestion would improve citation efficacy. If you wish to do so (again, w/out coupling your remarks with personal attacks, incivility or claims that I am unfamiliar with policies/guidelines), please feel free. If you cannot do this, and insist on attempting to poison the well of reasoned debate, you will not be responded to.

I would point out that your notation of WP:PROVEIT sidesteps the verification that the info is actually in the DVD. With citation, it becomes verifiable. Without it, it is simply your unverified claim that it is. Thus, the need for targeted tags to address unverified statements. It did not escape notice that your comments also sidestepped how targeted tags are actually more effective in attracting citations than the more generalized unreferenced tags. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:V makes clear, if you come across unreferenced material, add the unreferenced tag to the article or section. It's really very simple, and I'm not going to allow you to waste any more of my valuable time discussing it, as you seem to be engaging in attention-seeeking behavior. Multiple editors have already disagreed with your implementation of the fact tag, so there is nothing more to discuss. Viriditas (talk

) 21:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't more polite. No civility, no response. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You can find the quote here. Making the claim that a direct quote from a policy/guideline "doesn't appear to be a correct interpretation of current guidelines" is absurd. You keep forgetting that in addition to being unsourced, the claim has to be doubtful, in other words, challenged. Not all material on Wikipedia requires sources. The fact is, the example you gave provided an appropriate number of attributed sources in the text. Since the sources are spelled out, it is easy to verify the material, which is exactly what I just did above. So, you are confusing the difference between unsourced material, challenged material, and formatting sources - three separate steps. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You want to polite-en that up some more? Again, suggesting I don't know policy is only going to get you ignored. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting that a quote from the guideline (which is incorporated into policy) was a "misinterpretation" speaks for itself. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it really doesn't, as you are quoting that which my suggestion was to alter. You applying it as an argument, to whit, arguing that I am suggesting the policy doesn't exist when in point of fact the matter isn't such at all is something of a straw man argument. I am suggesting a change in policy, and with what little respect remains, I think I understand your point of view clearly, and have for the past two days' worth of posts. As most of it was full of personal attacks and incivility, a lot of it went largely ignored. Could I now trouble you to allow someone else to respond? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are a suggesting a change in policy, then you are in the wrong place. Has that occurred to you? Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's occurred to me. This venue was to get opinion from a number of different editors, not just from one with an admitted axe to grind. Additionally, you initially suggested this as a forum to discuss the matter. I never saw it as the only or event he final venue where this matter would occur, but rather an initial step, seeking opinion. As you and I cannot work together, perhaps you should have acted on a bit of initiative to recognize this, offering an idiosyncratic polite opinion and then allowed others to offer theirs, instead of turning it into a pissing contest.

While I feel you have something to offer the wiki-en, I don't really feel the particular need to be schooled by you, as most of your lessons and advice are couched in the most uncivil of ways, and many of the lessons are ones I have already learned (despite your oft-repeated protestations to the contrary). As this isn't a new complaint of mine (or others), you are consequently either unaware of how to offer constructive criticism, or feel invulnerable to the

repercussions

of offering its opposite. Consequently, your opinion, while noted, is usually dismissed or simply ignored by me, except in those instance when I feel I should post to prevent you from effectively poisoning the well of editorial interaction. You don't like me: message received, I got it. The feeling is mutual. Perhaps you can unclench now.

Now, if your continued posting is a matter of

win any argument with me, feel free. I will simply repost my initial inquiry in another section with the hopes of garnering opinions other than your own. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

23:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss template usage not policy or guideline changes. Your original argument appeared to concern itself with usage and was focused on changing the usage of the template. When I brought up policy and guidelines, you said you wanted to change them. So if that's what you want, this isn't the place for it. Try using the talk pages for the policies and guidelines I pointed you to above, particulary the first one,

fact}} tag for challenged statements, and 3) Inline citation style. For each of these three, different techniques and varied applications are used. Often, the solution depends on the individual article; there is no universal, across-the-board method. Most importantly, the fact tag is not used for all three instances, but is applied judiciously as needed; That's the most important thing to keep in mind. I'm not saying you lack common sense, but it's something you should consider before hitting the save button. Viriditas (talk

) 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I do consider it, Viriditas. I understand the citation issues, backwards and forwards. Again, I understand your point. and would very much like to hear from others. Could you please withhold posting long enough to allow others to do so? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly there's a technological solution to this problem? I mocked up a template for extended citation issues at User:Ludwigs2/:cb - needs some work, but the basic idea looks like this (using a paragraph from the Ibiza thing above):

Ibiza is considered a popular tourist destination, especially due to its legendary and at times riotous nightlife centered around two areas:

Paul Van Dyk, Sasha, John Digweed, Erick Morillo and David Guetta

.

basically it grays out a section of text (probably a better way to do that, true) and adds a single cite tag at the end, and then uses a popup to indicate what kinds of citations are needed. what do you think? --Ludwigs2 18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its's great, Ludwig. It doesn't ugly up the text, but notes which parts of the text are not solid/cited - I presume that was the aim, yes? Of course, something this new would require some discussion, but I think this might be a way to solve the problem technically.  :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, if you think it's worthwhile, I'll pretty it up a little and drop it over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Inline_Templates, see what kind of feedback it gets. or is there a better place to drop it? sorry, still kinda new around here...  :-) --Ludwigs2 23:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe a variation on shading idea has been proposed before in the past without success. I'm not entirely certain where I first read it, but I think it was on one of the cleanup template discussions or possibly on ANI. In any case,

WP:CITE, fact tags should only be used if a claim is doubtful. Editors who tend to misuse the fact tag need to be pointed to this guideline. Viriditas (talk

) 10:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if you can provide the link to where (and if) the previous proposal actually was discussed, that would be nice to see, so as to compare it to the current proposal, and actually verify the accuracy of your statement. Without it, your evaluation is somewhat less than useful. And I think you have been here long enough to know how consensus is frequently variable. Respectfully, everyone knows how to deal with editors who don't know how to use fact tags; try to stay on topic, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, five days later and no link means we can discount that, and move on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please can I take the first part out of the green {{Left66}} box? It distracts me!

Many thanks, Drum guy (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the emphasis of:

Please add the correctly formated 'date=' parameter which is used in sorting. It allows the tag to invoke the proper chronologically organized clean-up category. If you don't specify it, a bot will have to do so.

I personally think that a bot doing it makes sense as it saves time for us valuable human editors. I'd like to change that to say that you can add the date= parameter, that's it's useful and that a bot can do it for you if you don't.

Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

After adding the code, which evaluates whether the date parameter is right, to Template:Fix, I want to ask whether we should remove the code which is duplicated here. I understand that by doing this, we'll remove the code which checks in namespaces other than the Article namespace. However, at the moment we're making at least two ifexist calls per transclusion, which is expensive in terms of performance. Is it worth the performance gain to remove the code? Harryboyles 05:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC) {{

{{#ifexist:Category:Articles with unsourced statements since {{{date}}}||[[Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template]]}}, is unneeded (its also an expensive parser function) and can be safely removed. — Dispenser 13:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Right then. I've removed the code. I'll ask Rich Farmbrough to see about adding the check for other namespaces to {{fix}} as he was the one who put it in this template initially. Harryboyles 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to the template broke the code. Please ensure you test codes before implementing them. This is used on many thousands of pages. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is how the template should become. This keeps the NAMESPACE check intact, and doesn't break the includeonly. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Take 2. This time I reverted to revision on January 11, 2008 by Rich Farmbrough, the last revision before I added the code in the first place. I made sure to include the change made by EVula as that was not related to this particular piece of code. From the sample of articles I tested from Category:All articles with unsourced statements, it appears to be fully working. Harryboyles 07:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, you also removed this unrelated code (The fact that something occupies the same space does not necessarily mean its related) as well as reverting my comment that I had explicitly added (as can be seen one thread up) because people kept adding categories at the wrong spot. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I've changed it to your version. Maybe I need a WikiBreak. Harryboyles 13:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

ATM I'm getting over 50,00 articles for SmackBot to process, where I would expect to get maybe 1200. I need undated items to be in a category where I can pick them up. I did look at adding that code to {{

7 July 2008

(GMT).

OK had to revert this, {{

8 July 2008

(GMT).

) 05:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The most likely explanation is because it interferes with {{

fact}} by several months. Viriditas (talk

) 10:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I just meant how the template appears, not its actual name. I already knew about

C. Raleigh (talk

) 04:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

But even the name appearing in the text would confuse people with the cite template. It's also ambiguous. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the meaning - that the statement is questionable - is as obvious to non-Wiki editors with [cite]. Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no reason to change it from Citation needed. It is very clear. Cite just doesn't really convey what is going on.--

Crossmr (talk

) 01:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Besides, if we change it, we'd be breaking with tradition, ^[citation needed] is a form of Wikipedia culture. It's almost a "trademark" of Wikipedia. Long story short, no. ViperSnake151 20:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Documentation is for readers AND editors

Resolved

 – No objections to revert.

The documentation is not aimed solely at editors of pages, but also at those who edit (or might be tempted to edit) the template itself, and work with it in various ways. Therefore we may consider "User" and "Technical" documentation requirements. Please do not remove great chunks of the technical matter simply because they are not needed by the average "user".

8 July 2008

(GMT).

subst:Fact?

I'm confused. The example uses "subst:Fact" like this:

Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident{{subst:Fact

Then immediately after, this rule seems to contradict the usage:

Always subst: the {{DATE}} or {{Fact-now}} templates. NEVER subst {{fact}}.

Am I reading this wrong or is this an error?--Rrand (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

it was a mistake on the page. in fact, the whole help page needed a cleanup, so I went ahead and did that. --Ludwigs2 23:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Use DATE2

The date given by DATE is not according to international standards (ISO 8601) and I think we should use that for all template parameters. I've raised a question about modify {{DATE}}, but I'm unsure if we just shall start using {{DATE2}} which return the date in a correct format YYYY-MM, instead of MMMM YYYY. Nsaa (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Change_DATE_from_monthname_year_to_year-month. Nsaa (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If we do that we would have to fix all existing articles, which will number about 300,000, plus the cats, maybe 2-300 to be moved. Although we could transition at the beginning of a month, I think considerable confusion would ensue. Also it seems to me that "August 2008" is more human readable than "2008-08".

12 August 2008

(GMT).

not necessarily - I don't see any problem with leaving the old format intact, while setting up new entries to be in the new format. pages with the old version will disappear over time... --Ludwigs2 23:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the transition approach I mention . Note that the fix template contains the date checking code, and therefore all templates that use fix would have to be checked to see if they use that feature, an if so all the other templates that use that category would have to be changed at the same time. Also the multiple issues template would need careful work.

13 August 2008

(GMT).

Doc: Difficult to edit (and to read). . .

This discussion was moved here from

Template talk:Fact/doc

.

This template has so much sidetalk going on inside it that it is difficult to edit. In addition, it is filled with

talk

) 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

did that - check to see if it's more readable now. --Ludwigs2 23:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. The simplest way to solve this is to remove all the fancy instructions and tell people to use {{

12 August 2008

(GMT).

that works for me; I'd rather have bots doing the work anyway. maybe we should just edit the template itself to blank the date parameter (set line 6 to |date= )and then the entire issue become moot. --Ludwigs2 23:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That would result in all 100,000 articles with fact templates being taken out of their dated sub-categories.

13 August 2008

(GMT).

lol - that would suck a bit, wouldn't it.  :-) --Ludwigs2 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Example of what happens when people try to .. be clever? {{Fact|{{subst|DATE|date=July 2008}}}}

13 August 2008

(GMT).

Parameters 1 and 2

I'm a bit uncertain that the advice to use parameters 1 and 2 (and maybe more) for comments is wise. These parameters might be needed in future. If a comment is needed surely an HTML comment would be better?

13 August 2008

(GMT).

that was (historically) the way it was done. I'd have preferred to use dummy parameters (like 'comment=' and 'user='), but I have no idea how many pages already use the positional parameters for that purpose. we'd probably need a bot to clean it up, at this point... --Ludwigs2 20:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Latin link

Latin is missing among the "other languages." This page should be linked to la:Formula:Citatio_desiderata —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.242.222 (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Influence

I note User:shimgray/citation needed. If this trend continues, we may want at least to link to this in the documentation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Easier and less error prone

Well not really... I see all sorts of munging of "subst" and "date" with various combinations of brackets, braces, colons and pipes. Any objection to removing that part of the documentation? Rich Farmbrough, 02:10 22 October 2008 (UTC).

Yah, I think nuking the section, folding mention of the date tag and the bot in somewhere else. Since we have the bot, no need to manually date the tag, that's why we have the bot.  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: cite from specific source

I write a few articles in my sandboxes. Sometimes I write before I have the resource to cite from. This is quite a specialized request, but it might be helpful for other editors to use as well when they are constructing articles and edits. Can the template be amended to allow for a citation tag from a specific source? For example, if I typed {{fact|San Francisco Chronicle}} it should give me a message that says [Citation needed: San Francisco Chronicle].

Or is there a way to do that now, but I just don't know it? --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

that's easy enough to do, I suppose, except that it risks producing overly-long citations. I'll make a request to add in a parameter called 'source', that changes the the boilerplate 'citation needed' to 'cite from source', but it might get rejected.

{{

editprotected

}}

per above discussion, can the line:

|text=citation needed

be changed to

|text={{#if:{{{source|}}}|cite from {{{source}}}|citation needed}}

--Ludwigs2 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The wording seems a little confusing to me. If someone came across "cite from San Francisco Chronicle" in an article, they might think that the information has been cited from the San Francisco Chronicle, rather than a citation being needed. --- RockMFR 22:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this I intend to use only in my sandbox, though it doesn't quite seem that a fact tag can be used in a sandbox, and not used in a mainspace article. I don't know much about making templates, so is it at all possible, if this is typed: {{fact|San Francisco Chronicle}}, to make the template read [Obtain citation from San Francisco Chronicle]? --Moni3 (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. That behavior would be pretty easy to get: {{#if:{{{1|}}}|obtain citation from {{{1}}}|citation needed}} should do the trick (I did drop your capitalization on "obtain," just to keep consistent with the current template). I'm not immediately aware of a reason an optional parameter would be a bad idea. The precise wording should be worked out pretty carefully, as RockMFR mentioned -- so far, Moni3's works fine for me. As far as naming the parameter, I'm not sure if we should go with 1 or source; a numbered param would be easier to use, but leaves us open to trouble, later, if we change the semantics. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that it appears to be relatively simple. How difficult is it to alter the template? Is there an RfC required with consensus and all, or is it fairly simple to allow editors to start using the amended template right away? I don't know the process of it. School me. --Moni3 (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's just for editorial purposes, why not just use a wikitext comment:

{{fact}}<!-- look in S.F. Chronicle -->

Of course this is not visible just looking at the text.

If it's just for yourself, you could create a template in your own user space, and enter it like so:

 {{User:Moni3/fact}}

The danger of adding this is that suddenly 10,000 fact tags may have 20-word notes and make articles look even more like ass, ass, ass. I am initially opposed to the idea of adding such a parameter. But perhaps a solution to consider is a note that stays hidden but adds a visible flag, indicating its presence. Perhaps an asterisk or other symbol with a tooltip, like after this sentence.^{[citation needed*]}

 —Michael Z. 2008-08-31 17:59 z

the other issue to consider it that the 'fact' template adds pages to cleanup categories, which probably isn't appropriate for sandboxed work where only one person is editing. I suggest if you make a userfied version, take off the category assignments. in fact, just say so and I'll happily make a template for you in your user space.

and Luna - am I confused, or do you have your IF statement terms reversed? --Ludwigs2 19:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, crap! You're right. Fixed up above, and thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As Michael and Luna said, I think that a userspace version of the template would be better here. Luna has volunteered to help with the.

Before changing the real template to start using a parameter it had previously ignored, we would want to do some analysis to see whether a large number of articles are already using the parameter for other sorts of comments. I'm going to disable the editprotected request for now. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 12:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

well, maybe we could split the difference: contextualize everything in an {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User|...}} block. that way the notes can only appear in user sandboxes, and will have no effect on articles in article space. --Ludwigs2 02:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)