Hey, WikiProject Timeline Tracer! The above templates are meant for cleanup and content addition in articles, but are redundant to {{tl|histinfo}} and other templates, such as {{tl|refimprove}}. In addition, WikiProject notices should go on an article's talk page. May I suggest that these templates be deleted, or that they go to the article's talk page? Any suggestions are appreciated! Thanks, GracenotesT § 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:Hi there. Those templates are specific to chronological or time-line lack of references, unlike the general ones. Therefore are indicating to the editors precisely what they must look for, not just references but to verify dates and time-lines.
:The templates have been well received in all articles where we placed those and the editors showed fast compliance so the templates are working well in their purpose and speed up historical referencing by narrowing the focus to what exactly needs reference.
:The placement on talk pages didn't yield results and was ignored so we started to follow the same strategy than other projects and placing them in the main article. We also have developed small templates which don't disturb the main appearance of the article and are placed at the footnotes. I hope this clarifies your doubts, thank you for your suggestions. Daoken 07:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
::The guidelines were adapted following the concern presented . See WP:TIMETGD Daoken 08:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
:::These templates most certainly are not redundant, they address directly the issues regarding historical validity and allow the editors to know exactly what is missing. The new guidelines are, I think, a reasonable view. ☤'ProfBrumby 13:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Would it be possible to use more accessible terminology than "historical references"? For example, "historically [adjective] references" ([adj] could possibly be "reliable"). How an article should be corrected under the project's guidelines is somewhat unclear to me; do any participants have an example diff I could see? Thanks, GracenotesT § 00:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
::"Reliable" could awake some controversy and debate about how reliable is a given source. But it can be for example "historical/timeline specific sources" or "timeline confirming references/sources". Do you have any suggestion?
::About your other question, a simplified view is:
:::a) an article describes dates and facts happening at one point in time but fails to source those claims, or
:::b) an article describes its subject but fails to describe its history or development timeline, or
:::c) an article claims a lineage but fails to source that claim.
::The article's editors then must, in case:
:::a) insert sources for verification of those claims, or in case
:::b) provide a well sourced history or timeline of the article's subject, or in case
:::c) insert sources that verify the claims.
::You may go to WP:TIMETST and search the categories for seeing some examples of how articles were improved.
::At this point, with thanks for your input, after trying to integrate your suggestions, and said in a most friendly way, it could be most interesting to know how you came to be interested in our project. I see that your interest is not enough for joining but nevertheless you show remarkable interest in the details of the project. I hope you can clarify my doubts. Thank you again for your most useful suggestions. Daoken 08:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
::After some thinking, perhaps "sources for chronology/history verification" ? Is this sounding more accessible? Daoken 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)