Template talk:Not verified

message: by "factual claims", you mean "claims" -- if the claims were factual, they would not need to be verified :) dab (ᛏ) 14:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, factual claims can be wrong. "Factual" distinguishes them from other types of claims. -- Kjkolb 14:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: claims

message: I changed "please expand the article, citing sources" to "please modify or expand the article so that it cites sources.", to better fit with a common case: The article that is too broad. Take, for example, McWords; many of the usages listed currently (as of November 3 2005) are unverified, and the article appears to need to be pruned, rather then expanded. Thus, the change in wording. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed wording 

message: I would like to propose that an optional date parameter be added to this template as has been done with Template:Unreferenced, Template:Uncategorized, Template:Wikify, etc. I believe the proper code for the last line would be:
 
The instructions would also need updated. My proposed text is posted at User:Satori Son/Sandbox, which others should feel free to improve. Thank you, Satori Son 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not made for now, please could you put the exact text you wish to put in here, and the exact text you wish to replace, then readd the editprotected tag? Proto::► 18:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exact proposed text was in my Sandbox for quite some time, but since no discussion or action I have cleared it. I still think the date parameter should be added. -- Satori Son 15:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed addition of date parameter

message: The template as it exists points to superseded policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, which has been superseded by Wikipedia:Attribution. Suggested new text:
:::Some information in this article or section does not  attribute its sources and may not be reliable. (rest of text as it stands)
Thanks. --Yksin
::::For the record, Wikipedia:Attribution never superceded Wikipedia:Verifiability, that proposal failed.  --Wingsandsword 20:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edit to point to current rather than superseded policy 

message: Please remove  from the list as it is to be deleted. – Tivedshambo (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Harryboyles 13:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deprecated template

message: As a general rule I think that maintenance templates should go on the talk pages (see Most maintenance templates should be placed on the talk page)
As this template also carries some useful information for readers of an articles, there is a reasonable justification for keeping it on the article page, but I do not think that this template is as useful as Template:Unreferenced because its wording does not lend itself to being in a reference section, so  I think this template should become a redirect to Template:Unreferenced --Philip Baird Shearer 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that the difference you are making is sufficient to justify two templates. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I beleive that the current wording Some information in this article or section has not been checked against sources and may not be reliable. Please check for inaccuracies and modify as needed, citing the sources against which it was checked. places this template between  and  and marks it clearly as separate from each.  (note that I suggest a minor text change below; checked > verified)  Jeepday 02:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. -- Satori Son 01:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much better, I would like to suggest changing the two occurrences of checked to verified.  It would seem to more accurately represent the intent, as the editor should have attempted to check the information and would post this template when that good faith attempt  did not verify the information. Jeepday 02:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current line is terrible; see below.  Tempshill 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect  to [[Template:Unreferenced]] 

message: I notice that the current directions "Please add this template after a good faith attempt to verify information." for the template seem to be in conflict with the wording of the template.  If the an editor has made a good faith attempt to attribute the articles content and failed, why would it be appropriate to add a template saying "may not be reliable"?  Per Wikipedia:Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.  Could we get consensus on if this template is for facts that could not be verified or are not verified?  Jeepday 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. -- Satori Son 01:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much better, I would like to suggest changing the two occurrences of checked to verified.  It would seem to more accurately represent the intent, as the editor should have attempted to check the information and would post this template when that good faith attempt  did not verify the information. Jeepday 02:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current line is terrible; see below.  Tempshill 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  conflict & consensus

message: I have posted a request at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Template:Not_verified asking that the Date parameter be added to this template and that smackbot update it.  Jeepday (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Template:Not_verified 

message: :Information in this article or section has not been verified against sources and may not be reliable.
I think this line is, frankly, ridiculous in the extreme, because, and I am not being facetious here, it applies to every single article on Wikipedia.  Even a featured article has not actually had its content "verified against sources".  It might have lots of citations, true, but that's a very different matter.  And even if we had dedicated people who verified all the content of articles, every edit would move such an article away from having been "verified against sources".
I would prefer phrasing like:
:This article is insufficiently sourced.  Increased use of citations is recommended to increase its reliability.
(with whatever actual links would be most useful instead of those two.)  Tempshill 21:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Phrasing similar to what you are looking for is in .  It and  have different uses.  If you don't like the phrasing of  use  instead.  Jeepday (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tempshill ... and Jeepday. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad phrasing 

message: Requesting the addition of following line, directly after the sentence ending "... against which it was checked."
:
It appears to be standard practice to display the date on maintenance templates that take a date parameter (see  et al). --Muchness 16:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - Nihiltres(t.l) 16:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Display date

message: Add line at the end of the text:
"Unverified sources should not be added."
No idea why it is under protection, though. Thanks! --Cerejota 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. By the way, this template is protected to prevent highly visible vandalism; this template is transcluded thousands of places. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reword per TfD comment