Forum:CT Archive/Source tempaltes revisions?

Forums &gt; Consensus track &gt; 

I mentioned this in the Forum already, in a thread that I hijacked and which was subsequently hijacked back. Anyway...

Silly_Dan and I have been talking (relevant conversation can be found here) about a lack of perfection in the current Verify and Sources tags. I've found several articles lately (mostly of new creation, but some otherwise) that listed sources which either I thought were incorrect or were obviously totally bogus. I suggested this template as a possibility to Silly_Dan to use in such circumstances. I've been told that originally the Verify was for this, but that tag specifically says that the article has NO sources or appearances. Similarly, Sources says that it just needs MORE sources, and doesn't link to the relevant talk page, so more than likely nobody is going to check to see if someone has written an explanation there that they think a source is just plain wrong. Therefore, I'm proposing we either edit the two templates we have, or begin using the new one I've suggested (or a variation of it- this is simply an idea that may need reworking and/or rewording).

We decided to seek community input, and after the point of this being lost in the Senate Hall thread, I decided to get formal about it. So here are some options:

Option 3. Leave current templates as they are and add Inaccurate tag as well

 * 1) I think this covers all bases, but I'm open to consensus or other suggestions. Wildyoda 19:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)