Template:Specify
Sarna News
[specify]
Template documentationThis template may be used to tag statements that seem to be sourced but lack sufficient specificity as to what exactly is being drawn from the source. This situation most often arises when sources are over-summarized to an excessive level, without sufficient care for whether the result has a clear enough meaning to be properly verifiable.
Contents
Usage[edit]
Typical:
A questionably verifiable statement here.{{Specify |reason=One-liner description of the problem. |date=April 2024}}
Examples[edit]
- The Speaker of the House proposed extending the sunset clause in section 24 by another two years, while a similar amendment was proposed in the Senate.[specify][1]
"Similar" has no clear meaning here, and could refer to something similarly phrased but radically different in scope, or instead, to an effectually identical provision worded very differently, so it is too unclear to count as being properly sourced without more specificity. - The paper's conclusions were questioned in some follow-up studies, but confirmed by others.[2][3][4][5][specify]
It should not be left to the reader to play a guessing-game with regard to which studies did and did not confirm the conclusions, especially since the citation data may already provide a lot of contextual cues about the reputability of the two sets of conflicting results without having to pore over the studies' texts. - Latin American liberation theology met opposition from power in the US.[specify][6]
Clearly needs further specification as to who opposed it, how, and when, or the claim is too vague to really be verifiable, and seems like a conspiracy theory in Wikipedia's voice.
When to use and not to use this template[edit]
Do not use this tag to label text which appears doubtful or false. Otherwise, please use another more appropriate tag for doubtful claims, as described below. For passages that are confusing, unclear, ambiguous, or missing a clarifier of some kind (i.e. the problem is with the wording, not the sourcing), use {{Clarify}}.
Regarding unsourced or poorly sourced information:
- if it is likely true, but needs specificity, you may use {{Specify}}
- if it is not doubtful, you may use {{Citation needed}} tag to ask for better citation in order to make the article complete.
- if it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, you may use {{Verify source}} tag to ask for source verification.
- If it is doubtful and harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source.
- If it is very doubtful and very harmful, you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first.
TemplateData[edit]
TemplateData for Specify
This template may be used to tag statements that seem to be sourced but lack sufficient specificity as to what exactly is being drawn from the source. This situation most often arises when sources are over-summarized to an excessive level, without sufficient care for whether the result has a clear enough meaning to be properly verifiable.
| Parameter | Description | Type | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reason | reason | A brief reason for the tag; do not include any double quotes. | String | optional |
| Date | date | An optional date parameter that records when the tag was added. If this template is added without the date parameter, the date parameter will be added soon after by a [[WP:BOT|bot]].
| Date | required |
See also[edit]
- BattleTechWiki:Citing sources
- {{More citations needed}}, popping up a box saying an article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable
- {{Quote without source}}, tagging a request for citation, used for quotations that needs citations to make it complete, but not for seemingly doubtful or false texts
- {{Unreferenced}}, tagging an article or section as unreferenced
- {{Unreliable source?}}, to be used when a statement is sourced but it is questionable whether the source is reliable
- {{Verify source}}, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false
