Template talk:Fact

This new version, obviously ported over from WP, needs to be RWified. There should only be one category, and most of what's in the template won't get used here (ie, all that date tracking stuff). I'm going to try to merge the two versions (the one that is commented out and the WP one) without breaking it. Unless someone else beats me to it. human^{be in} 17:59, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, thanks. The only feature I wanted was that the template did not cause talk pages and the template itself to be included in the category. Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 00:06, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I thought so (as well as adding the cat to articles). But I broke that part off in my Grand Simplification, sadly. Still, on talk pages it should be nowiki'd anyway, right? So people can see what the template looks like? Or conversely, if it still flagging an uncited statement, no harm in that being catted wherever it is. If you want I can still dig out the old version and see if I can RWify it but keep the "space" conditionals. human^{be in} 01:03, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I think you acheived all of the functionality I wanted. The template it self is not in the category, right? The talk pages can be handled with nowikis. Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 01:36, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Good, I didn't want to muck up what you were trying to do. What caught my eye at first, of course, was that the tag linked to WP, which I found odd. Anyway, no, the template is not in the cat, and most uses in talk are to show what it looks like anyway. As far as really tagging things in talk, well, that's why they are there, right? To discuss and work out before (or after) being in the article. Anyway, glad I didn't broke it too far. human^{be in} 12:56, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I think I once made the edit about talkspace-no-includes in the CP version (but that was before they had the ParserExtension). But it'd be slightly more complicated here since we got a boatload of namespaces. I'll keep it in mind, but it may take a while, if anything. --Sid 07:51, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Nice work on the parser thing, Icewedge! human 22:39, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Something seems to be broken here. As can be seen in Planned obsolescence, the template adds unnecessary linebreaks and doesn't add the Unsourced category. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 05:49, 6 February 2008 (EST)

What do you expect when you use it to tag every other word? Sheeshhhh, you were bored, weren't you? Looks like RA found the bug & fixed it, though. human 13:47, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Afraid^{[citation needed]} not.

--AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:03, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Dang, I fixed that, but the cat thing doesn't seem to be working now. human 14:08, 6 February 2008 (EST)

OK, I couldn't "fix" it - apparently that parser thing always screwed it up? So I went back to the simple version that cats any place it is used. Which is sad, because that mucks up talk pages and fun and stuff. Maybe Icewedge can figure out how to get the parser to work right and not add an extra linefeed/space? human 14:16, 6 February 2008 (EST)

I FIXED IT! (I think, I hope!) Whoo hoo. What it needed: a pipe at the end for a "no characters" default, and "Main" is not called "Main" - {{NAMESPACE}} in "Main" returns ""! So that is now the functioning option there. human 15:04, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Not sure about this

The description says in respect of the second reason for the tag: "2. The author at the time was not exactly sure of the fact they were writing, and is begging your help to make sure it is correct. " and suggests to readers: "In either case, your immediately dropping whatever you are doing, researching the matter to the best of your ability, and fixing the article, would be appreciated. " Isn't this the wrong way round? Isn't it for readers to put fact tags in so the original author can justify the articles, and not for the author to put fact tags in so that readers can justify the article.--Bob^{bing up} 12:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

I would agree in the "anti-Aschalfly" sense of repudiating "I assert, you research". However, this is a wiki, and we work together to our common aims. Sometimes someone is rolling on an article, and is almost sure of something but not absolutely, so they "fact tag" their writing - it's not just a "homework assignment" for other editors (heck, they may plan on returning with a ref/correction), it's also a warning to readers to take the claim with a grain of salt. That, however, is just my opinion. I do know that from time to time it has worked in the "collaborative" way, at least. human 12:49, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

I would never do it myself. Might put something on the talk page though.--Bob^{bing up} 16:35, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Link

Currently, the template links to RationalWiki:Citatation Needed, which was deleted about a week ago. Either it should be recreated, or the template should be changed. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:45, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

The content of citation needed should be noincluded in the template, and the template should link to itself. I'll check now... human 22:04, 28 April 2008 (EDT) (done) human

Wa happen?

Why is the template suddenly causing a <p> to be inserted? (see above above for xample)   ^Contribs_Talk 03:01, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

CRs before the noinclude tag. I think I fixed it. human 15:02, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Minor problem

I just noticed (at inquisition) that if this template is at the very end of a paragraph, the following CRs seem to be ignored.^{[citation needed]}

Hopefully this example will show this. Nope. Something weird at that article perhaps? (I fixed it there by putting the template before the final period/full stop for now).[1] ħuman 02:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it was caused by the parser function somehow. - π 02:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! ħuman 06:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fact vs. Quote

Suggestion: Because a large number of the times ^{[citation needed]} is used is on places where we want a quote from CP or aSK, I propose there be a separate template that would yield ^{[quotation needed]}. This would let people distinguish between places where a scholarly source is needed and where a diff link or something is needed. Lyra § talk 04:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Very good idea. It's better to be more specific if all we want is some kind of diff link, in my opinion at least. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 04:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

+1 make it so - David Gerard (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

fact|joke

The "joke" parameter makes a joking use of the template look exactly like a serious use. Would using ^{[citation NOT needed]} not be better for the jokes? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. On it. Ty^{Bother me} 11:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

+1 Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Joke parameter

I realise the section above me is the reason that {{cn|joke}} displays as ^{[citation NOT needed]}. But could there be another optional parameter that makes it appear as normal, for situations where the use of the template is obviously a joke (e.g. on user pages, pages with humour tags at the top)? For instance, you could have {{cn|joke=normal}} or {{cn|joke|display=normal}} render as ^{[citation needed]}, but without the page being categorised. I just don't like the word "NOT"; it's a stylistic choice, but I'd prefer it to look like a genuine cn tag. Bilorv (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)