Template talk:Views needing attribution

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Inline Templates, a collaborative effort to improve and manage Wikipedia'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.
Some discussion of this template may take place at the project's talk page, rather than here.Inline TemplatesWikipedia:WikiProject Inline TemplatesTemplate:WikiProject Inline TemplatesInline Templates

Link

Should this link to citing sources? Wouldn't WP:WEASEL be a better choice? --Ybbor ^T 02:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, bad choice of words

This template includes the phrase "Who says this?" in the tag. Who says something is not a matter of weasel words but of attribution, and since we have our shiny new attribution policy, WP:ATT, this template and its category should be renamed or moved to Template:Views needing attribution needed and Category:Articles lacking proper attribution. Doing so also removes the temptation of some to misuse and abuse this template. FeloniousMonk 17:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you discuss page moves on the talk page first (for more than 4 minutes)? It's far more intuitive (and far shorter) to type {{weasel word}} than {{views needing attribution}}. We don't call the {{fact}} tag {{statements that is unsourced}} even though it's more accurate because {{fact}} is far easier to remember and type. If we have a definition of what a weasel word is, why can't we use that definition when it applies?--Ybbor ^T 18:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template was clearly inaccurate and needed immediate fixing. Its original presentation "Use this instead of {{fact}} when it's not the fact you question, but the source of the fact. For example: 'The film was considered too violent for children.' Suppose there is consensus among Wikipedia editors of the article that this idea has general acceptance. But you feel that 'was considered' amounts to weasel words." confused weasel words with attribution. There "was considered" is clearly a point of view, not a weasel word, and so WP:ATT is relevant, not WP:WEASEL.

Frankly {{Fact}} is more than sufficient for dealing with attribution and weasel words, so this template really doesn't need to exist or should be redirected to the Fact template (as the dozen others people have tried to promote as necessary do). FeloniousMonk 19:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe the example provided before is bad, but it just seems awkward to use {{fact}} with something like "Some people say Montreal is the nicest city in the world.^{[citation needed]}" When "Some people say^{[weasel words]} Montreal is the nicest city in the world." is far more precise and tells the author exactly what the problem is. --Ybbor ^T 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would have been friendlier of FeloniousMonk to wait a bit for consensus to form on the move, but no harm has actually been done here. He was just being bold.

I agree with Ybbor that it's easier to type {{weasel word}} and that the superscript label looks nicer, but I also feel that "Views needing attribution" sounds better. It's more dignified, but more to the point it tells editors what to do: attribute the view!

Thus it works equally well for vanilla cases like "some people say Montreal is ..." and for more serious cases like some controversial political or scientific POV. But I was only planning to use it on standard "weasel words". Just check my contribs. When I think something is stated as fact which isn't really true I use {{fact}}, but when I think it's true or likely yet still cries out for a citation to support it, I use {{cn}}. --Uncle Ed 20:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but aren't {{cn}} and {{fact}} the same thing? Also can someone comment on whether this should link to WP:ATT or WP:WEASEL? As long as we already have an inliner for not citing a source, it seems to make so much more sense to link to WP:WEASEL. --Ybbor ^T 21:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]