22:
129:
111:
216:
488:, which I don't find optimal. (The previous reference to the talk page was worse though; I don't think inline templates should link to the talk page, and not everyone who adds this template might explain what they mean on the talk page.) Anyways, if anyone has a better link (perhaps to some page that talks about quoting sources), feel free to adjust. --
363:
534:
194:
589:: at the time that I added the template, there were 3 supporting citations for a potentially-controversial statement about the POV of the subject of the article, but 2 were from blogs and the remaining 1 didn’t support the proposition. The {{fact}} or {{verify source}} templates would be most appropriate if all 3 of these were absent.
860:, with a preference for a paragraph either side as well. This provides an editor a good understanding of the context (enough for example to allow rewording the queried statement to more closely match the original source's intention, without sacrificing the flow of the article), but would generally be excessive for a footnote.
992:
Discussed, yes, but the explanation was not, I think, adequate. Explanations should indeed "remain verifiable in the future, even if the talk page is archived, and that a quotation in a footnote would serve that end better than a quotation on a talk page". The concern that we should demand the quote
403:
I would actually prefer something closer to the original. I use this template fairly frequently and notice that, because the template itself makes no mention that the quote is "to be provided on the discussion page", that it quite often is placed in the article, which often isn't appropriate, and
753:
documentation clearly states that the quotation should be on talk. Generally, the length of quotation needed to verify that the source supports the statement cited to it, and isn't being taken out of context (or similar), is greater than the amount of text that would be reasonable to have as a
729:
My only defence is to plead that my two words were an improvement on the previous two :) I disagree that the quotation should be requested to be provided on the talkpage; it should be included in the inline citation given for the claim, such as by utilising the |quote parameter of the citation
421:
Both Ham
Pastrami and Hrafn have valid points. The inline comment needs to be short to avoid readability issues and yet a brief comment does lead one to think the quote needs to be in the article text rather than on the talk page. I have requested a possible technical solution to this here:
387:
The change is an improvement but I think the verbiage does need to be reduced to a minimum, keeping in mind that the template might be used in succession. Put two or three of them in a paragraph and it destroys the flow of text. I'll make an edit in line with the original suggestion.
669:
How is an editor expected to infer that it "is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, to be provided on the discussion page so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or has been interpreted correctly" from its contents: ? Telepathy?
603:
Update: now it is cited to a reliable source, but one that appears to be password-protected; although a quote is now provided on the article’s Talk page, I think that the use of this template in that article illustrates the difference between {{fact}} and it.
645:
policy, which clearly states why such a citation is needed) on the same page (article mainspace) as the template itself. This is a very simple request, and does not require any clarification. Hence it can be made with reasonable clarity in only two
72:, a collaborative effort to improve and manage Knowledge (XXG)'s inline footnote, cleanup and dispute templates. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
959:-related templates)? It seems to me that the reference should remain verifiable in the future, even if the talk page is archived, and that a quotation in a footnote would serve that end better than a quotation on a talk page. —
823:
is a cottage industry among creationists, and we frequently find quotes employed by POV-pushers that turn out to have wildly different (and not infrequently diametrically opposite) meanings, when the full context is revealed.
296:
That's a lot of text for an inline tag. The analogous {fact} tag simply says, "Citation request". Couldn't this template just say "Quotation request" or "Verification request"? That'd make the template more usable.
888:
a (generally shorter) quote being included in mainspace, if it is thought beneficial for the reader -- in fact this happens reasonably frequently as a result of the talkpage quote.
507:, particularly "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." But even this is imperfect.
556:
the reason this is occurring is that the root template (fix) was modified to automatically add spaces between pre-text and text. I'll remove the extra space in this template.
404:
often means that the quote provided is shorter (to keep it to the point), meaning that context useful for evaluating whether it supports the original statement is lost.
145:
915:
949:
Why does this template request a quotation to be added to the talk page, as opposed to adding a quote in a footnote (say using the quote= parameter of the various
76:
709:{{fix |link=Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability |text=verify |title=quotation needed ''on talk'' from source to verify |pre-text=Request quotation on ] to }}
918:& its date-based sub-category (as I discovered while looking into the code for it to do the above sample code)? This template is used to request a quote
313:
Thank you for your suggestion{#if:| regarding ]}}. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Knowledge (XXG) is a
1080:
788:, where I came from to this template. We have controversial claims that have been cited to sources that do not support them in the past, so what we do is
325:. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out
265:
149:
68:
53:
1085:
322:
1062:
1036:
219:
423:
348:
344:
153:
136:
116:
605:
590:
542:
1054:
993:
on Talk because creationists "quote-mine", assuming it's a valid concern, affects only a vanishingly small percentage of citations.
688:
It takes a bit longer to explain something using
English rather than telepathy, but I've found it to be generally more reliable. ;)
298:
1058:
1032:
1010:
As a programmer, I interpret this as a reference which is not quoted. Is this supposed to mean a "reference without a quote"? --
673:
As I suggested above, it would be better to have something like , with 'talk' linking to the article's talkpage. This actually:
653:(i.e. on article talk) for reasons that are not explicitly stated in, but must be inferred from the relevant policy (which is
336:
326:
33:
541:
My browser displays 2 spaces between “need” and “quote.” Is there any reason that there is an in the “pre-text”?
815:
Such short quotes may be sufficient for verification on
Stormfront, but they are inadequate for where I generally work, in
706:
As far as I can tell, from putting together code from this and other templates, the code required to implement this is:
933:
895:
867:
831:
765:
719:
695:
514:
468:
410:
1027:
I infer it to mean a place where you state a fact using the reference, but not putting an exact quotation between
792:. The reader can see clearly how the statement is being supported, and decide for themselves what to make of it.
209:
352:
852:
I use this template fairly regularly, and when I'm asked how much text I'd like to see, I generally reply the
39:
609:
594:
546:
205:
This template uses incorrect
English. "Quote" is a verb, not a noun. It should be "quotation," not "quote."
451:
the material that is cited to the reference -- generally where the source is relatively inaccessible); and
393:
983:
964:
304:
789:
785:
206:
332:
230:
504:
461:
I would suggest that the template be expanded to , with 'talk' linking to the article's talkpage.
572:
489:
373:
1015:
953:
431:
389:
340:
658:
485:
238:
Some people prefer to discuss changes before making them. There's nothing wrong with that. —
979:
960:
301:
271:
241:
758:
thinking is that it should stay that way (though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise).
712:... which yields: (the talk-link doesn't work here because this is already a talkpage).
677:
Informs the editor of the correct policy, and how that policy is relevant to the request.
141:
1066:
1040:
1028:
1019:
997:
987:
968:
939:
901:
873:
837:
798:
793:
771:
740:
735:
701:
613:
598:
580:
550:
520:
497:
493:
474:
435:
415:
397:
381:
377:
356:
307:
279:
249:
233:
223:
661:-- which is what is currently linked to). This is clearly a more complex request, and
654:
1074:
565:
1011:
820:
427:
289:
This template addresses a common need, but it's hampered by its excessive length.
816:
144:
of
Knowledge (XXG) articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the
994:
929:
891:
863:
827:
761:
715:
691:
586:
510:
464:
406:
215:
128:
110:
884:
Also, I would point out that having a quotation requested on talk does not
561:
I have a question, though - shouldn't this template get merged with the
649:
This template on the other hand, is meant to be requesting a quotation
321:
link at the top. The
Knowledge (XXG) community encourages you to
317:, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the
314:
975:
440:
I think that the current template omits two important points:
266:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject
Council/Proposals#Inline templates
15:
914:
Why does this template currently put the tagged page into
631:
974:
Never mind, I see that this has been discussed under
856:
paragraph from which the statement is being sourced
585:I don’t think so. See where I put the template in
424:
WP:Village pump (technical)#Can a template do this?
75:Some discussion of this template may take place at
641:template requests a citation (with a link to the
1055:Category:Articles requiring requested quotations
916:Category:All articles with unsourced statements
634:, this is not really a "similar template" to :
268:. I've been meaning to do this for a while. —
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
8:
457:the quote should be placed (on the talkpage)
86:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Inline Templates
734:to see the source for the contested claim.
105:
47:
926:, the statement in question is sourced.
784:Well, check out how we're using them at
140:, a collaborative effort to improve the
162:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Reliability
107:
49:
1053:Should this not add the articles to a
89:Template:WikiProject Inline Templates
66:This template is within the scope of
21:
19:
7:
337:New contributors are always welcome
38:It is of interest to the following
1081:WikiProject Inline Templates pages
945:Why not add a quote in a footnote?
345:many reasons why you might want to
14:
1031:. I respond....five years later.
976:#We need more than "quote needed"
335:to try out your editing skills.
1006:What is an "unquoted reference"?
532:
361:
214:
192:
165:Template:WikiProject Reliability
127:
109:
20:
725:15:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
665:be explained in only two words.
484:"Quotation" currently links to
1:
1086:WikiProject Reliability pages
1067:21:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
1041:21:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
940:15:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
902:15:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
874:15:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
838:15:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
799:15:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
772:15:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
754:footnote in mainspace, so my
741:15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
702:14:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
521:04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
498:18:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
475:05:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
398:12:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
382:18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
308:10:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
229:Why not move it yourself? :)
1020:23:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
988:10:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
969:09:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
920:from an already cited source
614:16:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
599:16:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
581:00:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
551:00:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
357:12:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
259:Wikiproject Inline templates
69:WikiProject Inline Templates
1059:HaltlosePersonalityDisorder
1033:HaltlosePersonalityDisorder
819:-related articles -- where
730:templates. This allows the
684:the quote should be placed.
224:19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
1102:
530:
436:17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
416:14:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
280:16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
190:
998:18:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
910:Erroneous categorisations
339:. You don't even need to
323:be bold in updating pages
148:, where you can join the
134:This template is part of
122:
92:Inline Templates articles
59:
46:
250:09:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
234:14:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
503:The closest I think is
137:WikiProject Reliability
77:the project's talk page
447:a quote is needed (to
201:Grammar problem fixed.
786:Stormfront (website)
343:(although there are
168:Reliability articles
622:We need more than "
79:, rather than here.
328:how to edit a page
154:list of open tasks
34:content assessment
680:Tells the editor
221:
184:
183:
180:
179:
176:
175:
104:
103:
100:
99:
1093:
958:
952:
938:
900:
872:
836:
796:
770:
738:
724:
700:
578:
575:
570:
564:
536:
535:
519:
473:
414:
368:
365:
364:
278:
275:
274:
244:
220:
218:
212:
202:
196:
195:
170:
169:
166:
163:
160:
131:
124:
123:
113:
106:
94:
93:
90:
87:
84:
83:Inline Templates
61:
60:
54:Inline Templates
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
1101:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1071:
1070:
1051:
1029:quotation marks
1008:
956:
950:
947:
936:
927:
912:
898:
889:
870:
861:
834:
825:
794:
768:
759:
749:The template's
736:
722:
713:
710:
698:
689:
628:
576:
573:
568:
562:
539:
538:
533:
529:
517:
508:
482:
471:
462:
413:
405:
366:
362:
287:
276:
270:
269:
263:
240:
211:Bayerischermann
210:
203:
200:
198:
193:
189:
167:
164:
161:
158:
157:
91:
88:
85:
82:
81:
12:
11:
5:
1099:
1097:
1089:
1088:
1083:
1073:
1072:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1007:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
946:
943:
932:
911:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
894:
879:
878:
877:
876:
866:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
830:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
777:
776:
775:
774:
764:
744:
743:
718:
708:
694:
686:
685:
678:
667:
666:
651:somewhere else
647:
627:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
601:
558:
557:
531:
528:
525:
524:
523:
513:
481:
478:
467:
459:
458:
452:
419:
418:
409:
385:
384:
359:
349:193.95.165.190
319:Edit this page
294:
293:
286:
283:
262:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
191:
188:
185:
182:
181:
178:
177:
174:
173:
171:
132:
120:
119:
114:
102:
101:
98:
97:
95:
73:
64:
57:
56:
51:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1098:
1087:
1084:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1076:
1069:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1048:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1005:
999:
996:
991:
990:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
972:
971:
970:
966:
962:
955:
944:
942:
941:
937:
935:
931:
925:
924:by definition
921:
917:
909:
903:
899:
897:
893:
887:
883:
882:
881:
880:
875:
871:
869:
865:
859:
855:
851:
850:
849:
848:
839:
835:
833:
829:
822:
818:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
800:
797:
791:
787:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
773:
769:
767:
763:
757:
752:
748:
747:
746:
745:
742:
739:
733:
728:
727:
726:
723:
721:
717:
707:
704:
703:
699:
697:
693:
683:
679:
676:
675:
674:
671:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
637:
636:
635:
633:
625:
621:
615:
611:
607:
606:69.140.152.55
602:
600:
596:
592:
591:69.140.152.55
588:
584:
583:
582:
579:
571:template? --
567:
560:
559:
555:
554:
553:
552:
548:
544:
543:69.140.152.55
526:
522:
518:
516:
512:
506:
502:
501:
500:
499:
495:
491:
487:
479:
477:
476:
472:
470:
466:
456:
453:
450:
446:
443:
442:
441:
438:
437:
433:
429:
425:
417:
412:
408:
402:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
383:
379:
375:
371:
360:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
331:, or use the
330:
329:
324:
320:
316:
312:
311:
310:
309:
306:
303:
300:
292:
291:
290:
284:
282:
281:
273:
267:
260:
257:
251:
248:
245:
243:
237:
236:
235:
232:
228:
227:
226:
225:
222:
217:
213:
208:
186:
172:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
138:
133:
130:
126:
125:
121:
118:
115:
112:
108:
96:
80:
78:
71:
70:
65:
63:
62:
58:
55:
52:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
1052:
1009:
948:
928:
923:
919:
913:
890:
885:
862:
858:as a minimum
857:
853:
826:
821:quote-mining
760:
755:
750:
731:
714:
711:
705:
690:
687:
681:
672:
668:
662:
650:
642:
638:
630:Contrary to
629:
624:quote needed
623:
540:
509:
483:
463:
460:
454:
448:
444:
439:
420:
390:Ham Pastrami
386:
369:
327:
318:
295:
288:
264:
258:
246:
239:
204:
146:project page
135:
74:
67:
40:WikiProjects
29:
980:AlanBarrett
961:AlanBarrett
817:Creationism
527:extra space
302:Will Beback
272:SMcCandlish
242:SMcCandlish
159:Reliability
142:reliability
117:Reliability
1075:Categories
587:Alan Keyes
152:and see a
150:discussion
1049:Category?
795:Skomorokh
737:Skomorokh
632:this edit
505:WP:BURDEN
285:Verbosity
978:above. —
954:citation
886:preclude
643:relevant
537:Resolved
370:Improved
261:proposed
231:Salaskan
197:Resolved
30:template
1012:Chealer
756:current
751:current
659:WP:CITE
574:Ludwigs
486:WP:CITE
428:Low Sea
333:sandbox
247:‹(-¿-)›
187:Grammar
995:Jayjg
732:reader
663:cannot
657:, not
646:words.
449:verify
341:log in
36:scale.
934:Stalk
930:Hrafn
922:, so
896:Stalk
892:Hrafn
868:Stalk
864:Hrafn
832:Stalk
828:Hrafn
766:Stalk
762:Hrafn
720:Stalk
716:Hrafn
696:Stalk
692:Hrafn
682:where
515:Stalk
511:Hrafn
469:Stalk
465:Hrafn
455:Where
426:. --
411:Stalk
407:Hrafn
372:. --
347:).
28:This
1063:talk
1037:talk
1016:talk
984:talk
965:talk
854:full
790:this
655:WP:V
639:That
610:talk
595:talk
566:fact
547:talk
494:talk
480:Link
432:talk
394:talk
378:talk
353:talk
315:wiki
299:·:·
490:Lea
445:Why
374:Lea
305:·:·
1077::
1065:)
1057:?
1039:)
1018:)
986:)
967:)
957:}}
951:{{
612:)
597:)
569:}}
563:{{
549:)
496:)
434:)
396:)
380:)
355:)
199:–
1061:(
1035:(
1014:(
982:(
963:(
626:"
608:(
593:(
577:2
545:(
492:(
430:(
392:(
376:(
367:Y
351:(
277:ツ
207:⇒
156:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
