Template:Who2: Difference between revisions
m (Unsubstifying template, so {{subst:Who2}} results in {{Who2|date=...}}) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 00:03, 25 September 2016
[who?]
Template documentationThis template is for when an article has engaged in name-dropping of a person or other entity without it being clear in the context who this party is or what their relevance is. It is a variant of the template {{non sequitur}}, and categorizes articles in Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification.
(This is very different from template {{Who}}, which is for unspecific, unverifiable claims like "according to some researchers"; that template categorizes in Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases.)
For more information on the template's usage and parameters, see the documentation of {{non sequitur}}:
|
PurposeUse this template in the body of an article as a request for other editors to clarify text that is likely to be confusing to readers because it is a non sequitur, especially the introduction of a name, term, or other reference that was not previously mentioned, and the relevance of which is unclear. This most often happens when material is moved from its original context, in which it made sense, and pasted into an earlier section or into a different page. It also often happens when a source is quoted as mentioning someone by name, and this name is not linked or explained in the context of the Wikipedia article. It also frequently happens when new editors used to an academic style use it in Wikipedia, e.g. writing "According to Johnson and Xiang...," without the article ever mentioning these people otherwise. It is not Wikipedia-normal to "namedrop" in mid-prose in this manner, even if it's a common form of attribution in journals in some fields. In this respect, encyclopedic writing is closer to news style than academic style: The reader needs to know why a particular person (or company, or whatever) is relevant before they'll understand why it's being mentioned; by contrast, academics in a field probably already know which other researchers are being referred to, and at least understand that the references to them are a short-hand form of citation to things given in detail in the footnotes. Most of our readers do not care about the footnotes, and Wikipedia content is often reused without them, so our article prose has to stand on its own.
This template is not for material that is probably irrelevant (use UsageThis is an inline template which should be placed immediately after the material in question, as with a footnote. For example: Parameters
Parameter descriptions:
StyleWhen resolving this template, please note that the excessively news-style or "headline-ese" form of explaining a reference, as in "according to historian Jane Doe", is considered substandard by many readers and editors, especially non-North Americans. The more complete form, "according to the historian Jane Doe", is preferred and is acceptable in all dialects of English. Note also the difference between a clipped reference like "Said Oxford historian Doe, ..." versus the more informative and easier to parse version "According to the historian Jane Doe of Oxford University, ...". Shortening might be appropriate if Doe and Oxford have previously been mentioned in the article. TemplateData
CategorizationAdding this template to an article will automatically place the article into Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification, or a dated subcategory thereof. Redirects
See also
|
