Template talk:Fact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

should the template for this not instead be {{Prove}}? That seems more relevant. "Fact" would be stating that there is a fact (which is the opposite of what we want. Whereas 'prove' or another synonymous word would imply the correct meaning of 'proving' the sentence in question. Benniguy talkchanges 20:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The template {{fact}} says "needs proving" a succint question and answer. {{fact}} goes beside a fact that needs to be checked or sourced. We are not saying it is wrong, which your idea would suggest, merely that the fact is controversial or unusual enough to need a source--Bärliner 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
but the word 'fact' would imply that it is a 'fact'. Logically thinking, if you didn't know that it meant 'Needs proving', you wouldn't know what it meant. Therefore, should we not logitisize the template? it wouldnt be hard... all we'd have to do is move the template... and then all the ones that are already done as 'fact' would get the same thing anyway, so its not like they would suddenly all stop working. Benniguy talkchanges 20:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. {{fact}} is also being widely used in English Wikipedia. I think having this template with the exact similar name won't be bad, because people who edit there will be able to edit here as well, without learning new names.
  2. We can use redirects! We can create a template named "prove" which redirects to Template:Fact. That way, people can also use {{prove}} in the articles, and have the same effect. - Huji reply 21:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That would be a good idea. That way, people who only speak simple english and people who are used to EN's way, will both be able to use one. :) Benniguy talkchanges 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 Done You can use {{prove}} from now on. - Huji reply 21:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :)))) Benniguy talkchanges 22:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Needs proving" talking down to people[change source]

{{editprotected}} I'm alright with simple english, but not Child-directed speech when this is meant for ESL students. It talks down to people. So I think instead of "needs proving", "source needed" is better, but since I can't edit the page how do I change it (I am only somewhat familiar with the MediaWiki software)? --User:Liamnsw

I concur! Or "Need sources" as that is less formal (with ESL learners in mind). It makes no sense as is. A source doesn't prove anything, but shows that a statement is backed by supporters and is more likely to be accurate. Besides, I think the general guideline should be: (1) avoid long sentences, because ESL learners will lose focus if they have multitude of multiclause sentences. (2) promote active vocabulary development when necessary (they won't be reading an article on mathematics if they want mathematical words to be omitted, for example), but don't use superfluous words when there are words that can fit at the cost of 2-5 more syllables or can be explained in parentheses with brevity. -- 203.217.41.136 (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
What about "[source?]"? That seems to address both of your concerns and get the message of the template across. @Lauryn (parlez) 21:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Proof" perhaps isn't the best word to use[change source]

{{editsemiprotected}} I know it's simple and all, but only mathematical theorems can be proven. What most statements need would be "citations", or, perhaps more simply (although, IMO, less accurately), "evidence". Even the most widely accepted scientific theories (e.g. evolution) are far from being proven, and this is why they are referred to as theories, rather than as theorems - simpleWP probably shouldn't be perpetuating the common confusion between "proof" and "evidence". Dendodge (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

See above; that's what I would vote endorsing at any rate (Lauren's suggestion...). Goblin 15:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!
Ah, yes, I somehow missed that - presumably because the problem being discussed there was of a different nature and I only scanned this page cursorily. I would also endorse that suggestion (not that my noob endorsement means much). Dendodge (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the content of this page should be changed to "[source?]" as Lauryn had suggested. Also, I'm putting a notice here so that more people can join the discussion. NotImportant 15:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Lauryn's suggestion, or also "needs source". PrincessofLlyr talk 16:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with needs source. Makes it clear that a source is needed, not click here for the source.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I slightly prefer [source?] Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I would like Lauryn's old suggestion put into place.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the template to the suggestion made by Lauren above per the consensus appearing above. I appreciate that it's only bee 24 hours from start to finish, but a discussion this in depth(!) is rare at the moment, so it's pretty clear it's supported by the community. If this isn't welcome, feel free to revert per BRD. Goblin 15:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!
I'd go with [needs source], but I'm ok with [source?]. EhJJTALK 16:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)