Forum:Flagging Sentences

This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Flagging Sentences

Flagging sentences in articles

As of now, we have a variety of templates for indicating when an article needs editorial attention. Most of our prominent editors are probably aware of {{delete}}, {{update}}, {{merge}}, {{cleanup}} and such.

But there are other templates out there for marking individual/specific sentences for review. Here's a compilation of some very useful templates regarding this topic:

This wiki has a number of templates which put small, in-line statements within the body of article-pages which seeks specific improvements from our editors. These include:

Attribution request templates
Categorized into articles with statements that need more specific attribution:

Primary documentation at {{says who}} These all do the same thing, but put different, contextually-appropriate phrases into the body of the article:

• {{which}}
• {{by whom}}
• {{says who}}/{{sezwho}}
• {{who}}

Clarification request templates
Categorized into articles with statements that need clarification:

This indicates that a statement, as worded, makes so little sense that one can't figure out how to improve it. It's not meant as a statement of incredulity. It's also not saying with this that one doesn't believe the statement. It's saying that the statement is so poorly written that no one has any real idea what the statement means.

• {{what}}

Source request templates
Categorized into articles needing citation:

These templates challenge the veracity of a statement, to one degree or another, by indicating that the statement needs better valid sourcing:

• {{fact}} or {{source}}
• {{disputed}}
• {{facts}}, categorized into articles needing additional citations

Discussion

How would the community feel on integrating these specific templates into our daily wiki routine here at Nukapedia? ^{Some Assembly Required!} 19:57, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

I was completely unaware that these templates existed. However, the {{Fact}} template serves the same function as the {{verify}} template, as I discovered the other day when an anon used it in an article. (I'm going to assume that this is why you have brought these up because that edit sparked curiosity as to why the anon used that template).

Also, some of these templates seem a little superfluous. The what template seems rather pointless as most of our editors have an above average grasp on the English language, and utilize this to make sure our articles are clear and readable. I could see anons using it as a reliable marker for sentences that do not make sense in articles, but speaking from personal experience if I see something that I don't understand or doesn't read well I will go in an fix it myself rather than leave it up for someone else.

However I think that the Attribution request templates would be quite helpful, especially in articles marked as needing further citation. ---bleep196- (talk) 20:14, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

I just took a quick second to test the {{Fact}} template. It performs the exact same function as the {{verify}} template. It even adds the verification needed template to the page. That is a problem as I currently utilize the Verification Needed category to keep track of pages with bugs, and if we start using this template it will make an already arduous task even more difficult. Perhaps if we could separate the two I could see it being used how you are intending, but in it's current form it causes issues. ---bleep196- (talk) 20:21, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

I took the fact/verify comparison into consideration. I had figured we could adapt verify into bug use only, with fact being used for the general article-space content.

You are right to a degree. However, every single one the templates I mentioned above places their corresponding sentences into a maintenance category. So the tags aren't just there for editors to stumble upon. Instead, the tags will actually lead editors to pages in dire need of revision. Working with Wikipedia, these templates are extremely effective. While we are not Wikipedia, we do operate off of relatively similar mechanics, which leads me to believe these templates might be effective here, as well. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:22, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm...if they are each put into maintenance categories, and we can get users to regularly start using them we could start to pinpoint and raise the quality of all our articles. It's an interesting prospect. Right now however it seems that the Fact template is tied directly back to the verify template. Gunny will need to look at the code and figure out how to separate the two. ---bleep196- (talk) 20:28, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Although, admittedly, that sounds all well and good in theory only at the moment. Thanks a lot for your feedback, and I appreciate your initiative in discovering that hiccup with the fact template. Please let me know on here if you have any further thoughts. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:31, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Gunny discovered that a redirect created by porter in 2009 was causing Fact to act like the verify template. He deleted the redirect so the problem should be resolved. ---bleep196- (talk) 20:34, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

That was fast. :) Well, if the community approves of the proposed template additions, I already have everything written out in a notepad - ready to be copied over to Nukapedia for immediate use. The big one will be updating our guidelines and setting up a guide for users to understand how to use our maintenance templates. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:36, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

These sound like essential tools in our push to reference everything. When I compare us to the Dr Who Wiki it is like night and day. Every statement the have is directly linked and referenced to which episode/book/comic it came from leaving no doubt as to the source. Having these will hopefully help us achieve that level of authority. Agent c (talk) 20:55, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

I approve of some attribution-templates, they're quite nifty. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

Anybody else? We're going to need a bit more feedback before I feel comfortable enough to add these templates to the wiki. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 18:47, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

I feel it necessary to say that I may (I did) have told people to use the {{verify}} in order for us to check facts with the creeping fear that I was interfering with bug verification.

With those fears now a reality, I feel potentially responsible and I apologize. Either way, I love these templates because it allows me to get my cake for the citation project that's only just begun and not have to steal it from the bug verifying people. Best regards --The Ever Ruler (talk) 21:59, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

You're fine. :P There weren't really any set rules involved with how we use the verify tag. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 03:58, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

No reason not to include these and have guides on how to use them properly. Implementing these will make things a lot easier when a new game comes around. ^sectator_apocalypsi 22:06, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

Many templates or one?

You know, there's another way to go about this. It's as simple as creating one {{Notation}} template and using a switch to have it display the different things and add categories or whatnot, similar to the way mbox works. Using it would be {{Notation|fact}} instead of {{Fact}}. Using one template rather than multiples allows for easier format control for consistency's sake. Just throwing that out there. The Gunny   16:01, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

If it requires a switch to split each notation up into different categories, then isn't this alternative pretty much the same thing where we have to determine whether we're using something like {{Fact}} or {{Update}} - etc.? I really don't mind adding the templates, and it seems to me that it'd be simpler for our editors to just type {{Fact}} than {{Notation|fact}}. I guess what I'm saying is that it might be a little more work on my end, but it'd be less work/possible confusion for editors using the templates. Because to use the notation template, they'd still have to be aware of which switches they could use. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 16:22, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

Either way. Six of one, half dozen of another. They'll either have to learn all the different template names, or learn those same names to use as a switch. If you've already got the templates done, I reckon that's probably the easiest way to go. The Gunny   22:49, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely a good point in all of this, though. I'll have to have an alternatives section on each template page that summarizes and links to other similar templates. However, I would like to hear opinions from everyone else over this. We still haven't gotten much feedback here yet. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:00, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

Update

I'm sorry for keeping this forum on hold for so long (I completely forgot to finish this up once the Holidays came around). I will be creating these templates later in the night, and expect an additional forum to go up explaining what exactly is being added, and how to use these new templates. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 22:44, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

Can we roll this into that? as there seems to be some synergies there. Agent c (talk) 19:31, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 19:36, January 26, 2014 (UTC)