Forum:SH:Fact template description

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. JocastaBot (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Fact template description

Hello all. As discussion on the separate but tangentially-related thread mentioning this issue (Forum:SH:Differentiating the Fact and Citation templates) has essentially slowed to a halt, I thought I would take the time to mention this relatively separate issue (in terms of the direction the discussion went) up in its own SH so it may be discussed independently of the other, messier issue.

At this present moment, the ENTIRE description of {{Fact}} is as follows:
"Do not use this tag to label statements that you suspect to be false. Instead, insert the {{Disputed}} template at the top of the article or section and bring the issue up on the talk page. (WP:ATT)"

Many pages use this template, and as far as I can tell it's consistently used properly (requesting sources for specific statements or sections of an article for which you yourself cannot find one, so long as the content isn't explicitly false or otherwise unwelcome on the page). However, I've noticed that the description in no way describes how the template should be applied, and instead only elaborates on how it should not be applied. This serves as detrimental to new users or users unfamiliar with the template who are attempting to use or understand it.

While I'm sure I could bring a proposal for the template's description to be altered to CT with relatively no issue, I'm deeming it necessary to consult the Senate Hall first, just to make sure our collective understanding of the template's applications at least align and we can find an agreement on what the template's description should say.

Thanks all, - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

  • Btw it doesn't necessarily need a CT; just an admin to modify the page. Wording suggestions would be nice. OOM 224 09:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
    • My reasoning behind doing even an SH on it was because I wasn't even confident that everyone has the same idea of how the template is meant to be used. It seems that usage is consistent but I'm not 100% sure so I wanted to gauge opinions on that. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I like the way you yourself have defined its usage. WP:BOLD. That is all. :P Imperators II(Talk) 20:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)