 | Template:Sic is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
sic and CS1/CS2 citation templates edit
A related discussion about the possible use of {{sic}} in conjunction with CS1/CS2 citation templates, related issues and potential solutions: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Journal_template_&_sic --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- The nowiki tag you added is messing things up. Please revert. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- See Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Related_edits_to_the_sic_template
- --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 22 June 2022 edit
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Instead of saying "[sic]", to avoid the template being blended into the rest of a sentence, it should use <small></small> tags. ([sic]) That way, it's easier to pick out. (e.g., "at this point alot [sic] of people could care less")
—theMainLogan (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: This is a contentious edit, or this has already been discussed, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. If there is an existing discussion on the talk page please contribute to that section. If there is no existing discussion you may explain why this edit should be made in this section, or start a new section on this talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Other uses? edit
Is it appropriate to use {{sic}} for a fact or spelling that another editor might, incorrectly, question and change? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- If it's in a quote, sure. If it's not, that's not what "sic" traditionally means. Also, it's hard to imagine how another editor would be less of an authority on what is correct than the editor who tagged it, so I don't see the point. An editor can always put a comment in the source text with an argument as to why it's correct as written, and I think that would serve the purpose. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, not only is it easy to see how an editor who is not an SME would introduce errors into correct text, but it happens frequently. Perhaps there should be a {{stet}} template for this situation.
- In the meantime, I have started putting in comments, e.g., for
Amdahl 470V/6
I have the comment<!-- The V goes before the slash -->
- in several places, but a more formal mechanism would be nice. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't mean to say that I can't see how one editor could be right and another wrong; I meant I can't see how Wikipedia would recognize one editor as an authority and another not. I believe a formal tag would be to say, "This was written by someone the community regards as an expert on the subject, so if you disagree with it, it's because you're wrong. Leave it alone." I can see you're not talking about that -- you're talking about a tag that says, "This is this way intentionally. Someone has specifically rejected the alternative you're considering", so that someone who thinks it's wrong will take the time to look it up and find out it's correct. Comments are used for that a lot. It generally does require some explanation of what the common mistake is -- a tag that just says "this is correct" won't make it clear what about it is correct. So the template would have to include that explanation. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Other templates have a
|reason=parameter, and I has assumed that anybody writing a {{stet}} template would follow suit. I'd be tempted to make it mandatory. - In the case that inspired this question, not only did the text have the incorrect model 479/V6 but a {{cite manual}}
|title=also had the incorrect model, despite there being a|url=that would have allowed the editor to easily check the spelling from the title page. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Other templates have a
- Yeah, I didn't mean to say that I can't see how one editor could be right and another wrong; I meant I can't see how Wikipedia would recognize one editor as an authority and another not. I believe a formal tag would be to say, "This was written by someone the community regards as an expert on the subject, so if you disagree with it, it's because you're wrong. Leave it alone." I can see you're not talking about that -- you're talking about a tag that says, "This is this way intentionally. Someone has specifically rejected the alternative you're considering", so that someone who thinks it's wrong will take the time to look it up and find out it's correct. Comments are used for that a lot. It generally does require some explanation of what the common mistake is -- a tag that just says "this is correct" won't make it clear what about it is correct. So the template would have to include that explanation. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
HTML class edit
This template should wrap its output in a <span> tag with a class so that automated tools can pick up from the emitted HTML as well that the text isn't a typo. Opencooper (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)