Template talk:Sic

add parameter for nature of unusual matter?

This is a very useful template. Sometimes it's been necessary, or at least seemed a good idea, to specify just what the element is that might be mistakenly thought to be a transcription error, like "duplication sic" and "punctuation sic" and "formatting sic". Think we could add an optional parameter for this purpose? -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would love the above. It would be handy if an editor comment could show up on hovering over "sic". DCDuring 14:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

template doesn't work well within cite templates

My first encounter with this template was with a web article title with a misspelling, which I was formatting with a cite web template. I attempted to do something like

{{cite web
   |url = http://spelmeister.com
   |title = I Kan't Spel!{{sic}}
   |accessdate = 2007-05-26
 }}

...and wound up with some weird funk where the "external link" pointer wound up within the brackets of [sic] .

This looks like it would work correctly if the <nowiki> protection of the brackets in the template were still there. Is there any reason why these were removed?--NapoliRoma 01:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried solving this by copying the contents of the current sic template in place and adding nowikis around the brackets. Didn't solve it. There appears to be an inherent limitation into how much formatting one can do within a cite web template.--NapoliRoma 01:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't inherent to {{cite web}}, it's because you try to put an internal link ([[sic]]) into an external link, which isn't possible. Ms2ger (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

People use the wrong sic notation

People often use things like [sic] instead of this template. That's okay, except that it has no external internal oops link. If, like me, you use wikEd (see the Gadgets section of your prefs), you can use this regex to find misuses:

[^A-Za-z0-9{-]+sic[^A-Za-z0-9}-]+

It won't find the following:

1. Basically (surrounded by at least one letter on at least one side)
2. 51C (written in numbers)
3. 0,1,2,4sic (surrounded by at least one number on at least one side)
4. <!--sic--> or <!--sic --> (but it will find <!-- sic -->, unfortunatly) (surrounded by at least one dash on at least one side)
5. {{sic}} (surrounded by at least one curly brace on at least one side)
6. The like (anything like the above. If you can read regexes, you should be able to figure out anything else that won't be detected. The regex article has syntax info for POSIX, which I think this is...)

I hope this helps. --Thinboy00 @902, i.e. 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Those who want an internal link can write [''[[sic]]''] to produce [sic]. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

New features

Maybe I've tried to do too much with one template (see history and doc sub-page). Feedback is more than welcome. — CharlotteWebb 16:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Invisible version requested

I'd love to have a version of this template which was visible to editors but not to readers. I regularly trawl through WP, using AWB, to look for and correct "could of done", "was been considered" and similar phrases. A hard core of these are in quotes, song titles, etc. In the context in which they appear, "[sic]" would look unduly pedantic, and I wouldn't like to have it appear to the reader. But a template which editors could use, to label a word or phrase as "yes, this is the spelling/grammar used here, don't change it" would be great. It's a very neat idea to be able to split up an errant word, as in the "concensus" example, to make it invisible to search tools. Any chance of a version of {{sic}} with a "noshow" option? Or is there an existing template which does the same already? PamD (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you mean "visible to editors editing the article", one could use an html comment: <!-- sic -->. Or do you mean anonymous editors vs. logged in users? —EncMstr (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant visible to people editing the article. I'd like something as short and snappy to type as {{sic}} - I can never remember the codes for a comment, and using the button bar needs a bit of mousework. Perhaps I'll start to do that, nonetheless. Thanks. PamD (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I put a hide option in. The idea that the "sic"'d text is inside the template, for two reasons.

1. Shows what is being sic'd e.g. Tab la doat - you "sic" all three "words".
2. What's inside templates is ignored by WP:AWB typo fixers.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:00 24 August 2008 (GMT).

Why superscript?

In WP, superscript phrases are tags, not part of our intended text. This should be inline, which it looks like can be done by removing the ^and tags from the source code. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We also superscript reference citations and various other things. "Tags" is just shorthand for "templates", and this is an inline template. The inline templates (see WP:ILT) that indicate some kind of editorial commentary of any kind are in fact superscripted, quite consistently. The ones that are not are generally substitution-oriented (such as {{Frac}} and other formatters/converters, and shorthands of various kinds, such as {{Cuegloss|English|english}} in lieu of [[Glossary of cuesports terms#English|english]]). {{Sic}} is an editorial commentary, not formatter or shorthand, template. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please restore to the superscripted version. Rationale:

1. The consensus at WT:MOS, cited in the de-superscripting edit summary, does not in fact exist. The discussion only existed for 4 hours or so before the change was made, and multiple parties object to the change, at least one before the change was made, and discussion is still ongoing.
2. The place to determine the content of this template is Template talk:Sic (or at worst WP:TFD), not WT:MOS, and this change was not discussed here.
3. The change was not been discussed with WP:ILT, who would be fairly likely strenuously object if aware of it, having gone to many months of effort to bring the inline editorial commentary tags into conformity, with a consistent, editor- and reader-dependable style, form, and behavior.
4. The change ignored a recommendation at WT:MOS to create an alternative, non-superscripted {{Sic2}} (or whatever name). {{Sic}} is used quite heavily in WP and protected from random edits for a reason. It is highly unlikely that the de-superscripting has not had unintended negative effects in various places, because editors using it (often outside of articlespace) understood it to be superscripted and used it in contexts where this was the intended effect. If the consensus becomes in favor of non-superscripting of "sic" in main article text, then such a template might need to be created, but should not replace this one without consensus to do that here (or at TFD if necessary). Even then, ILT should be consulted, since not all reasons for inline editorial template superscripting and other consistencies are likely to be immediately apparent to editors of MOS, and ILT participants would otherwise be unlikely to know of MOS's decision and would thus routinely convert the new template to superscripted form when ILT eventually discovered it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)