Template talk:Verify

How about a nice box like template:deletion? --Mizipzor 14:40, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Because it is one statement that needs verification - not the entire article. This clearly identifies the statement and also allows multiple verification statements in an article. It is akin to Template:Unreferenced on Wikipedia that puts in "Citation needed". (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Luftballons for an example) --Shagie 14:57, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

I like it that way, useful but not obtrusive. --Senso 15:03, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Good points, I agree. --Mizipzor 15:17, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Perpetual verification

What mechanism is in place to prevent every article from constantly attracting "verify" tags? Compare this to "citation needed" on Wikipedia: the addition of a citation handily prevents (well, hopefully at least deters) future editors from adding another "citation needed" tag. But here, if I spend the time to research a fact/sentence/paragraph/article? marked "verify" and yank the tag, it'll pop back up again as soon as another editor decides that the statement is not glaringly obvious. This results in a perpetual verification cycle that wastes everyone's time and doesn't improve the quality of the wiki. (And, let's be honest: having "verified" the same sentence several times, are you really going to load up the game and check it again every time another editor demands verification? No; you either give up and let some other editor waste his time verifying, or you reflexively remove the "verify" tag making it effectively useless.)

I would much rather see something like a "disputed" tag--then the burden falls on the tagger to provide at least a basic level of evidence that the statement is incorrect. Making it an "active" process (as opposed to the current "reactive" process) would focus our effort on improving articles instead of constantly spinning our collective wheels. --Loci 00:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I assumed the idea was you link the "verify" tag to the talk page wherein you prove the point in question, you don't just yank it. Or was your comment made before "verify" tags linked to the talk page? ZortLF2 (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that yanking the verify tag removes the link to the talk page, and leaving it in implies that it hasn't been verified. --Lethosor (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible improvement: Add an optional parameter to the template which, when included, changes into a Wikipedia-style citation (see Template:Verify/sandbox). --Lethosor (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I got around to making some basic citation templates (e.g. {{cite}}, {{cite talk}}), which hopefully help make it more clear when statements are verified. It requires some type of source to be useful, of course, but this can be as simple as a comment on the article's talk page or a post in a forum thread. —Lethosor (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for options

I'm thinking that maybe this template should have some options on it to specify how it may be verified, such as {{verify|test}} to test in-game, {{verify|code}} to check the executable, or {{verify|bay12}} to ask the developers. My reason for this is that it seems to be unclear in some instances what the best course of action is for verifying a statement on a page, and these three things seem like the most likely ways one would do that. BlueManedHawk (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - this being an example of the first option. Silverwing235 (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

What do you want each option to represent? (I am not sure when I should use {{verify|bay12}}, if Tarn up to it why wouldn't we ask him for details about any and all issues). And do you want the parameter to affect the template behavior? (e.g. add to a different category or show a tooltip text (so people don't need to click edit) --Jan (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)