Template talk:Failed verification

message: This template is intended to be stronger than  or .  The intended use is when a plausible source has been provided, but an editor has thoroughly checked that source and found that it does not support the text of the article.  Robert A.West (Talk) 21:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation should just be removed and replaced with . This tag seems redundant. – Þ  06:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the mis-citing editor will simply put back the original bogus source. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mis-citing editor you mean? Such cases should go to talk. If the original editor continually reverts, take it to dispute resolution. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Failed verification reveals only 68 links, many of which are not in mainspace articles. It would seem this might be a good candidate for TfD. – Þ  20:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that was a typo.  Anyway, I don't disagree with your take on what process should be.  I'm simply countering the idea that the proper response is deleting instead of discussion. I.e., what's good for the gander is good for the goose in this case.  The point of the template is to generate discussion as to how to fix something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it an appropriate use of the tag to indicate that a link that has been given is now broken? It seems that does not fall under the instructions for its use; surely there is a difference between giving a citation that doesn't include what it is purported to and the url ceasing to exist and therefore being unverifiable?70.131.255.105 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When to use

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)
replies: text:  The proposal became a project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Inline Templates 70.131.255.105 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Wikiproject Inline templates'' proposed

message:  The last edit renders the template invisible. Could an admin please revert. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --- RockMFR 22:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last edit rendering the template invisible 

message: Should  be used inside or outside the ref?  Inside puts the message next to the citation and outside puts in the body of the article. ~
:I would say outside. It is important enough to cast doubt on the statement the citation claims to support. For many readers (myself included) merely seeing the footnote link provides some support for the statement. Rich Farmbrough, 07:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inside or outside the ref? 

message: Does anyone have a problem with renaming the template to ?  Its current title and all other redirects to it would continue to work transparently as synonyms.  We could go with , too, but I think the shorter form has the best combination of memorability and brevity.--Father Goose (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that. "Not in citation" is more succinct than the current title. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

text: So, no objections?  If not, I'll move it next time I swing back this way.--Father Goose (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to "Not in citation"? 

message: This template would be more useful if it could link to section of the talk page where the failed verification is discussed.  This feature is in some other inline templates so it shouldn't be too hard to implement.  Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, there are many cases where such a link would be most useful. Could you please implement such a feature? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Rich Farmbrough, 07:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to talk page 

message: A source is cited which is a top list that updates every week. Therefore there is no way to verify the source, since the data now is different. Wayback Machine does not happen to have the exact week the source is referring to. Is this the right tag for this or should something else be used? --Muhandes (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the question here, which seems more suitable for this discussion. --Muhandes (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this the proper tag for a content changing source? 

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) 02:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates 

message: According to the documentation, this tag should only be used if "the source says something other than what is contained in the article." "For example, if the article says that 26% of statistics are made up, and the source says that 32% of statistics are made up, then that information has failed verification."
In other words, this seems to say the tag should be used when the source given contradicts the statement. However, the tag's text simply says "not in citation given".
Should the text be changed to, say, "contradicted by citation", or should the documentation be changed to say the source simply needs to not support the statement, rather contradict it? --Chealer (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Does not support". When a reliable source blatantly contradicts the text in the article, the article text has to change, per WP:V, unless two sources contradict each other, in which case it's time for , a talk page discussion and more sourcing. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  02:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

text: This template is particularly useful when the statement is missing from the source as well as when it contradicts it. Using the above example, the article says 26% of statistics are made up but the source doesn't give any percentage. This is also failed verification, but there's no contradiction in this case. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both. So, is there any opposition to changing point 3 from "the source says something other than what is contained in the article" to "the source does not support what is contained in the article"? --Chealer (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we could also add an indication that if the problematic reference is the only one given to support a statement,  should also be added. Unless someone has a better idea of what to do in these cases. --Chealer (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

text: That helped a little, but the percentage example isn't helpful. This template is most often used for "judgement call" matters, in which an editor is seemingly engaging in novel synthesis or questionable interpretation of a source, not misquoting statistics. If a percentage were misquoted, it would simply be fixed, not flagged with this template.  We need a better example. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  22:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change text or documentation? 

message: I changed the documentation page to clarify when to use it. In short, this template should not be used if the source has no relevance to the topic. In such cases, the references should simply be deleted. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That helped a little, but the percentage example isn't helpful. This template is most often used for "judgement call" matters, in which an editor is seemingly engaging in novel synthesis or questionable interpretation of a source, not misquoting statistics. If a percentage were misquoted, it would simply be fixed, not flagged with this template.  We need a better example. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  22:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on when to use 

message: Is this template meant to be nested within the ref tag, or left in the text at the ref marker?  -- WikHead (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops - never mind. I see this has already been asked and answered above at #Inside or outside the ref?  -- WikHead (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nesting 

message: Any chance a "Reason" category can be added to this template? It would be useful if a "Reason" category could be included, with the "reason" displayed when hovering the cursor over the tag. I guess this could be considered a request... FWIW. --IJBall (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean a template parameter, not a WP:Category, and have changed the topic heading to reflect this.  Virtually all inline templates of this sort support a  parameter, it simply doesn't display in the article, and is a note for editors, in the wikicode. I've updated this template's documentation to illustrate how to use this. To change this behavior in these templates, to display in the article on mouse-over or some other event would be a bigger discussion than a change request here, e.g. maybe a WP:RFC opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, thanks. (And thanks for correcting me!) --IJBall (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a "reason" parameter? 

message: When using the "reason" parameter with double quote marks, then it doesn't properly reflect in the tooltip. For example:
produces: 
HTML:
not in citation given
-- intgr [talk] 11:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Can use " instead of ". --Obsuser (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is a limitation of HTML itself; the double-quote character has to be escaped, and we can't use any markup like italics.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

text: I updated the documentation, which was wrong about this parameter anyway (some time between the original 2014 discussion about it and now, someone implemented it as a tooltip – maybe even me – without updating the docs).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote marks break "reason" parameter 

message: Nearly a month has passed for discussion. I intend to make the change to "failed verification" I suggested above unless anybody wishes to discuss it more. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: . Jason Quinn (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I urge you to revert this change.  "Not in citation given" was a clear English statement.  "Failed verification" conveys only a vague meaning.  It's also off-putting to users. Does Wikipedia have an AI which is verifying claims?  Also, as you say, "not in citation given" is a stronger statement.  Since it's by far the most common case, a stronger statement is better.  The stated motivation for the change was that the wording wasn't correct when a page or chapter is needed, but per the response there's another template for this, so I don't see any benefit to offset the drawbacks. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: One possibility is that we could make , which is currently a redirect here, the main template if we want to use "Not in citation given" as the text. Another is that they are split into two different templates. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I'd be happy with either of these changes.  I'm not in the template editors group so I can't make changes myself. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Intend to change text to "failed verification"

message: This template is currently linking to Wikipedia:Verifiability, but the correct section is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Tagging_a_sentence,_section,_or_article. It seems that there's a shortcut, WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION, could the link be changed to that? Jbzdarkid (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad link 

message: Remove the punctuation around "(See discussion.)", make the S lowercase, and use instead a spaced en dash ( – ) to separate it from the phrase "failed verification". (This should be done for both instances of "(See discussion.)")
This is to change  to the more typographically consistent  when either the  or  parameter is provided. — Ardub23 (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 22:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 15 June 2020 

message: the "being considered for merging" tags looks terrible in mainspace; see for instance Columbia University. Can we change  to ?  talk 21:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 21:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 1 August 2020