Template talk:Verify source

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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. 
The result of the debate was Do not move.  Start the AWB before doing the move - not after.  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

message: *Strong Oppose: Huh?!   currently redirects to  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)
thread_title: Survey

message: This template currently points to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which has been superseded by Wikipedia:Attribution. --Yksin 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edit to point to current rather than superseded policy 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't really understand what your question or disagreement is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: ''Wikiproject Inline templates'' proposed

message:  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)
replies: text: I wouldn't bother.  redirects to ; bots that fix redirects of this sort will take care of it (try adding  somewhere; you'll see it become  within a few days at most, generally). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Template:Check

message: *
Need to add:  (without the nowiki of course). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 03:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This goes on document page, not protected. Gimmetrow 03:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cat. fix

message: 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)
replies: text: Please take this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 10:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward multilining 

message: I added a type parameter to the template, so that
* 
: becomes .  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added '''type''' paragmenter 

message: 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)
replies: text: --CapitalR (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki request 

message: could you please add
|cat = Category:All pages needing factual verification
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.
: But categories should go on the documentation page, which is unprotected. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done --Stephen 01:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  editprotected 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editprotected request involving this template 

message: Will someone please put {{#ifeq:|{{subst:NAMESPACE}}|Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates|}} 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)
replies: text: . — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Cymru.lass, 4 February 2011 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protect it then ! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reason parameter 

message: Please add , per a nomination by   ery (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 24 February 2018 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Transclusion of tfd tags in articles is completely intentional and not something that needs to be fixed.  ery (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 24 February 2018 

message: PLease remove the  from the template. Nihlus 08:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done by  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2018 

message: 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 <ref> tags, external to the tags, or if both are valid under which circumstances.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Within or outside <ref> tags? 

message: 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
| title = The material near this tag needs to be fact-checked with the cited source(s).
to
| title = The material near this tag needs to be fact-checked with the cited source(s).
Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 16:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you :) I have updated the documentation accordingly. DesertPipeline (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 21 October 2021 by DesertPipeline