Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Meta-templates

{{Fix}} is currently in the following categories:

Category:Cleanup templates
Category:Inline templates
Category:Wikipedia metatemplates
Category:Exclude in print

The sort key for each of these is {{PAGENAME}}. I think it makes sense for metatemplates to be sorted differently. The general rule could be, if a template is used as a metatemplate for a given category of templates, it should be specially sorted as a member of that category. So in this case, I think {{fix}} should specify:

[[:Category:Cleanup templates| ]]
[[:Category:Inline templates| ]]
[[:Category:Wikipedia metatemplates]]
[[:Category:Exclude in print]]

I chose space as the sort key in my examples, but asterisk or any of the other examples from Wikipedia:Categorization#Typical_sort_keys could be used. The point is to make the metatemplates stand out more. 68.165.77.107 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

Template:Update after

When the template {{update after}} is visible (i.e. tha date when the statement should be updated is in the past), one to three red question marks are placed right after it. Those are redlinks to pages like Wikipedia:Updating information/2009/09/20, Wikipedia:Updating information/2009/09 and Wikipedia:Updating information/2009 with empty text, so that you can use Special:WhatLinksHere to see what pages need updating since certain year/month/day. I think that categories are better for this purpose, so I suggest changing this template so that it adds the page to e.g. Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating since September 2009 instead, possibly sorted by date. Right now it adds the pages to Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating. If nobody is against, I will make this change. Svick (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the process for deprecation

What is the process for deprecated templates? Who decides? I've come here because I notice this page deprecates a number of citation templates. I wanted to the read discussion, and perhaps nominate a few more. (By the way, I fully support the deprecation of the citation templates mentioned on this page. In fact, I've been slowly removing pointless uses "wikiref" & "wikicite" from dozens of articles. Awhile ago I removed {{ref A}}, {{ref I}}, etc from hundreds of articles. So I guess I'm part of this project, without actually having joined.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've collected all the rest of the citation templates that I think are "deprecated" into Category:Deprecated citation templates. However, the are not all marked as deprecated (with {{tdeprecated}}). Some of them are not even in Category:Inline templates, and so are not part of your system at all. Should I go ahead and mark them appropriately? Or is there a process I should go through? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

See discussion below for coninuation of this subject. Debresser (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated templates

I saw on the project page a list of deprecated templates. Are you aware that there exists a category Category:Deprecated templates, whith a {{Tdeprecated}} template that add templates to this category? If these templates are really being deprecated, then you should consider to add that template, following the instructions on the category page. Then start eliminating transclusions of that template by changing it to its successor. If the intent was only to show that these templates are outdated and that better templates are available, then you should consider using another word than "deprecated" here on the project page. Debresser (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The category was added by CharlesGillingham in mid-August,[1] and who likewise has a discussion higher-up on the page.[2] The issue in context to my knowledge is that there is a proliferation of note systems: {{Ref}}, {{Note}}, {{Ref label}}, {{Note label}}, {{Cref}}, {{Cnote}}, {{Cref2}}, {{Cnote2}}, {{Scref}}, {{Scnote}}, and Cite.php. Secondly, in terms of which would be the "successor", Cnote was created after Note — although which should be depreciated may be the opposite.

There's a reason for this proliferation:

1. Lack of features and proper syntax. Lists are defined by the W3C[3] to begin and end with <ol></ol> or <ul></ul>, and list items <li></li>. Cnote and Note are pieces of text hooked on to an unordered list, which in a semantic web is improper; and in the future may deter search engines, since listed items with a definite progressive characteristic (e.g. A,B,C...) should be placed in an ordered list. Secondly, Cnote lacks certain features; for example, it helps to place the anchor in the list item rather than in the link, and the ability to use list styles as defined by the W3C.[4] This gave rise to Cnote2 from Cnote.
2. Style is another. Cref, which I am assuming was designed to succeed Ref, yields ^a[>] instead of ^[a].
3. Unawareness, Ref and Ref label are almost exactly the same; and I know for a fact that Scref was created as an alternative to Cref because of a combination of differing opinions on style and a lack of knowledge that Ref and Ref label exists.[5]

I could clear up how each system probably came about, but that's entirely up to you if you believe it would improve the discussion. I know that there has been some discussion to a merge one or two; for example, CharlesGillingham discussed with Gadget850 about reeling Scref back into Cref.[6] Now of course I have my own ideas about what can be done and what should. But what do you think? I think it's important to think this through before we make any major decision, especially if it involves more than those who have this page watched. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not create the category. However, I helped populate it, by moving templates into that were either (1) deprecated on their doc pages or (2) deprecated here on this page. My main interest is in simplifying Wikipedia for new users as much as possible. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I subscribe to that. Actually, I have removed the deprecated tags from quite a lot of citation templates. And the reason is that the right way to tag templates for deprecation is:

1. Have a discussion on the template talkpage, or on this project discussion page (preferably with a link to the discussion on the other).
2. Then add the {{Tdeprecated}} template, in the beginning in <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. Later, as the template tagged has become extinct, the noinclude tags can be removed. Also don't forget to add a date parameter, so that future editors may now when the template was deprecated.
3. Then the template may be turned into a redirect or nominated for deletion at wp:tfd.

So I think it is time to update the "deprecated templates" section on the project page, and as templates are properly deprecated, they can be added anew. Debresser (talk) 07:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Inter-wiki template use - e.g. How do I use a template from en. at commons. ?

Hi. I'm wondering what a good way to use templates like {{tl:failed verification}} on commons is. How do I use a template from en. at commons. ? Commons doesn't have {{tl:failed verification}} or {{tl:fix}}, which it relies on. Is there a way to use interwiki links to do this? Make interwiki links to make it doable? Or do the templates have to be copied over, and is there a good way to do that? I don't feel like I know how to copy templates over properly. (I started to try and gave up.) --Elvey (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination for Template:Ref A, etc.

Template:Ref A and several similar templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --RL0919 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

New template MEDRS

A new template {{MEDRS}} has been added; it currently expands to "". I'm mentioning it here because {{fix}} says "please do not use this template to create a new sub-template without discussing and justifying the need for it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates". The new template is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) #New template. Eubulides (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any big deal, if the med-related article RS page is for it, and if there really is WP-wide consensus that a reliable source in medicine is somehow categorically different from one in every other field, an issue I remain skeptical about. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Says who

This question doesn't regard the template {{who}}, except that I think it is a grammatical error to redirect {{Says who}} who to {{who}}.

The template {{Says who}} doesn't give a correct maintenance string, f.ex. marking a POVvy unsourced statement (in intro of Ceto):

She should not be confused{{Says who}} with the minor Oceanid also named Ceto, or with various mythological beings referred to as ketos (plural ketea);...

should give:

She should not be confused^{[says who?]} with the minor Oceanid also named Ceto, or with various mythological beings referred to as ketos (plural ketea);...

but does give:

She should not be confused^{[by whom?]} with the minor Oceanid also named Ceto, or with various mythological beings referred to as ketos (plural ketea);...

which is an indication error, nonsense, and not what I intend with my grammatically correct template usage. Now, I would have added a parameter {{Says who}} or some such to get the correct result, but the d*rnd template is write protected for me (I know the reason, don't tell me!). Could anyone please add such an argument?! ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 10:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Or another unexpectedly possible solution: I can, myself rewrite the {{Says who}}, the redirect page. I expected 100:eds of uses, but instead found only 12 (!), which is quite easy to fix manually within an hour. May I? (failure to react will most probably result in a WP:BEBOLD attack!:^) ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 11:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Accomplished. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 16:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Awkward template

Resolved

 – Template exists (again?).

I was sent here to "re-ask" this question. :)

I swear that I remember way back when you could add: {{awkward}} just like {{citation-needed}} to a sentence or construction if it needed to be rewritten because it sounded awkward (just like the copyeditor's mark "awk" in newspaper editing) but you couldn't figure out how to appropriately rephrase it. It would make a little superscript ^awkward? or something like that. I have hunted for it, and can't find it! Am I crazy, or does it or something like it in fact exist? If not, I would suggest creating it, unless it has been removed for some particular reason. Thanks, Peace and Passion (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

I've created it here: {{awk}}. Could use some tweaking and better categorization. --Ludwigs2 13:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Self-citation

What's the point of this template? I really don't get it. And why does it categorize articles as having unsourced statements? Self-published != unsourced. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:SPS, self-pulished sources can only rarely be seen as reliable. If a statement isn't supported by a reliable source, then it is the same for Wikipedia as if wasn't sourced at all. Svick (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there already a "dubious source" template for that? (Though I don't know its name off the top of my head). --Cybercobra (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There is Template:Verify credibility, but Template:Self-citation is more specific. I think, in general, having more general template isn't a reason for deleting more specific one (if it's not too specific). But this template is used only in 9 articles, so I think deleting it is certainly a possibility. Svick (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that templates take time to propagate in active usage. I can think of many places I would use this template to flag the specific issue (mostly on bio and company stubs where the main or only source is a self-published bio or about-us page). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed further subcategorization and cleanup

Category:Inline templates has a Category:Inline cleanup templates subcategory. I propose at least the following additional subcats: Category:Inline dispute templates (some templates will be both dispute and cleanup, as is the case with their non-inlined counterparts), and Category:Inline citation templates. After stuff is appropriately recategorized, little will be left, and most of that will turn out to be miscategorized things that belong under Category:Typing-aid templates or Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates (the latter of which should be CfR'd to remove the "Wikipedia " prefix). After moving stuff around, I suspect that management of these templates will be a bit easier. At that point, we should explicitly add both the typing-aid and formatting-and-function categories to the inline cat. as subcats., to forestall any further misclassification of those two template types directly into the inline templates category (there's been quite a lot of that lately, including a bunch of topical subcategorization that I've moved and sent to CfR-speedy). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've created Category:Inline dispute templates, lacking any objection to doing so, and I've started categorizing things in there. The difference to me is, basically, if the content is being objected to or even challenged on the basis of policy, it's a dispute template; it's just messy, unclear, badly formatted, or doesn't make guideline thumpers happy, it's a cleanup template. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Applications

The Climate Change articles are under General Sanction probation. What happens frequently is eds will take talk page discussion "off-topic". There is a discussion here [7] about forming a protocol for "collapsing" or "removing" off topic talk so as not to bite newcomers. I suggested an inline template which points the user to WP:TPG might be beneficial as a precursor warning. Seems like a easy creation. If this works well, there may be one or two other applications to help improve civility. Any thoughts here? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Tony's protocol. ChyranandChloe (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again ... see the good work here Template:Inappropriate_under_talk_page_guideline too. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

made a template I needed - does it fit in this project?

the template is {{nono}} (sorry about the cute name). it's for inline refactoring of personal attacks, off-topic comments, or anything else buried in a block of otherwise useful text. Not the typical kind of template that goes here, but it is inline... --Ludwigs2 04:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Clarify|reason=" to be shown on link

I'd like to present this paragraph as an example why I feel we require an update for the Template:Clarify template. The problem in this case is, you as a Japanese speaker cannot see what needs to be clarified, unless you go to edit and read the source. With basic (and W3C compatible) Wiki->HTML rendering we could view reason= instead of a link on MouseOver.

I believe rare people bother to press the edit key just to see a clarification - which may or may not have a reason, the link as it is doesn't tell that, either. A random editor is unable to readily know if he/she actually has the required information, and would propably rather edit the article than seep through source "code". Thus clarify-edits are mainly accidental stumble upons, even if you did leave a reason. In a similar sense, bypassing reason= and adding reason to the article would create unnecessary clutter and make the article harder to read for a common user.

Unfortunately I'm not a programmer so I can't readily create this without further study, nor did I check who can or has the rights to do it (or which concensus is needed). I just feel the template as it is is getting obsolete, as clarify|reason= at the moment doesn't really do anything, while most parameters on most other templates actually do. Perhaps some bold people could put this under their thinking cap :) - aeris ^talk 03:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Completely oblivious to the post-text parameter. This is not an issue. - aeris ^talk 14:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts

This project is important enought that I'll enlist myself and partake now and then. A few reflections:

• {{citation needed}} and {{request_quotation}} make different requests, the first one for an external source (who says so?), the second one for a specific quote (what did (s)he say?), whether they should share code is just a maintenance issue, I can imagine a {{request|write what here!}}, where write what here! is one of citation and quotation, that might be practical for the user but not necessarily for the implementors,
• are there any recommendations for usage, such as how much, when, what to do if too many, anywhere?
• are there any recommendations for changing the template text, see the history of Template:Better source for an example of a slightly ridiculous zick-zack change (don't take my side, be objective, just an example!),

THX 10³! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Credibility failed template?

We have

• {{verify source}} to ask editors to check whether the material is supported by the source,
• {{failed verification}} to note that the material is not supported by the source,
• {{verify credibility}} to ask for a check whether the source is reliable (for that material), but no
• {{incredible}} {{failed credibility}} {{failed reliability}} {{failed verifiability}} to note that the source is clearly not reliable, but to ask for possible sourcing.

Should there be? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

interesting question. I want to say that {{failed verification}} and the ones you suggest probably shouldn't exist - if you find a source that can't be verified or that is clearly not reliable then you should just remove it. I also worry that something like {{failed reliability}} would mostly get used as a snippy content dispute snub rather than as a meaningful article tag (in fact, I have a hard time imagining a non-snippy use for it). --Ludwigs2 21:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can think of a specific use where it would be worthwhile keeping that tag in place, at least for a little while, while research is in progress. Given a source which frequently misquotes or gives (unreliable) opinions about things in real, potentially reliable, sources, it might be worthwhile to keep the pointer tagged in place while its source is checked. Similarly, the {{verification failed}} tag could lead to one of two improvements: replacing the article text with what the source really says, or finding a real source for what the article text says. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see the sense in that. I'll go ahead and whip up a template. or actually, maybe it would be better to add a parameter to the {{verify credibility}} template that changes it from a question to a statement. that way we save making a new template and make it easier for editors to just type in the value. --Ludwigs2 23:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The change went through. see the docs at {{Verify credibility}}. --Ludwigs2 07:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Which template is best for content changing source

A source is cited which is a top list that updates every week. Therefore there is no way to verify the source, since the data now is different. Wayback Machine does not happen to have the exact week the source is referring to. What is this the right tag for this, and what else should be done? {{failed verification}} seems right, but the problem is deeper, verification will always fail in such a case. --Muhandes (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is archived every week using WebCite, can't the information be preserved going forward? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It probably can, but it wasn't. Maybe it should have, but I'm certain very few are. To clarify, my question is what to do with such a reference which wasn't archived. --Muhandes (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that there is any case in which a source that changes weekly could be considered reliable. Wikipedia is not a news source, and we don't do current events, yah? --Ludwigs2 14:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Inline templates French style

In a case like:

The first king of Greece was called Moby Dick and weighed over 540 pounds.^{[citation needed]}

it is ambiguous what the request for a citation refers to; is it the bit about the weight, or the whole sentence? I saw something cool at the French Wikipedia: their counterpart of template {{citation needed}}, {{référence nécessaire}}, places a faint underline below the relevant passage, so that it is unambiguous what snippet of information a citation is asked for, as in:

The first king of Greece was called Moby Dick and weighed over 540 pounds.^{[citation needed]}

versus

The first king of Greece was called Moby Dick and weighed over 540 pounds.^{[citation needed]}

They use this also for other inline templates, such as {{qui}}, the French counterpart of {{who}}. Their source code doesn't seem to work here; it depends on a class="need_ref" that we apparently don't have.  --Lambiam 13:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We already have a template like that (I've seen it). I don't know its name though. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at template talk:citation needed. Suggestions to make this apply to all inline templates were made. Please contribute there :) --Waldir ^talk 21:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unifying {{who}}, {{says who}}, {{by whom}}, and {{which?}}

For a way to do that, see Template talk:Who#Unification.  --Lambiam 14:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

New inline template for acronyms and abbreviations

When I'm copy-editing, I sometimes find acronyms and abbreviations that are not written in full (anywhere in the article) and are not in popular media (e.g. print media). Wikipedia's Manual of Style require the full version and its abbreviation written at first occurrence. I propose a new inline template:

A set of rules apply to the various locations of the college, such as the Dining Hall and JCR to ensure standards of dress and manners are upheld.

I haven't found an inline citation such as this. What are your thoughts? Thanks,  Davtra  ^(talk) 06:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Tentative support. It looks good to me, and I double-checked the list here and at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Inline with article text and could not see anything that fit perfectly. (I'm not a regular at this talkpage though.) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've always used {{clarify}} for this in the past, but this could work. For it to be useful it needs its own cleanup category, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, this would be quite useful. --Waldir ^talk 11:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• I went ahead and created the template here.  Davtra  ^(talk) 02:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• why not change both the wording and the template name to "expand acronym" or something to that effect? I think it'd be clearer. --Waldir ^talk 21:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• What if it was an abbreviation, not an acronym? They are similar, however.  Davtra  ^(talk) 23:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We can use whatever is more common, and add a parameter to change the wording. --Waldir ^talk 10:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Should the template name be left as it is? I figure it's best to keep it as simple and memorable?  Davtra  ^(talk) 02:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think it'll be more intuitive (and discoverable) if renamed, even if just to "expand" (though I'd still root for "expand acronym") --Waldir ^talk 10:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Would the next step be adding this template to lists? I'm new to editing templates, so I have no knowledge about the procedures and other background information. Thanks,  Davtra  ^(talk) 11:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Add some documentation (for example, the parameter to change the text must be explicitly pointed out), categories, see also, etc. Use {{clarify}} as an example :) --Waldir ^talk 09:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

dated maintenance for templates

Is there a template similar to {{As of}} or {{Update after}} that can be used for a template that contains information that will change, but will not pass through to the articles on which the template is transcluded? When dated information is inlcuded in an article via template, there is no indication to an editor working through a maintenance category that it is an included template that needs to be edited, and not something located on the page itself. There should be a logical way to find templates needing updates under Category:Wikipedia template cleanup rather than list hundreds of pages with transclusions in article cleanup categories. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You could use the ordinary article templates, but enclose them in a <noinclude> tag. Svick (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

right word?

Hi everyone,

In a recent edit, I was not sure what word to use on a talk page comment.

It would be useful to have a {{right word?}} template for when an editor is not sure of what word to use, but is certain the word is not the right one.

If I was a less bold editor, I could have used it for these changes:

• Corporal punishment: "if" to "of"
• Southern Poverty Law Center: "it's" to "its"
• Abortion: "implicated" to "linked"
• Chick Publications: "track" to "tract"
• Philippe Lheureux: "previsions" to "predictions"
• Benjamin Wiker: "underpin" to "undermine"

It could also be used to flag wrong usage of a word, especially:

• anything from list of commonly misused English words; especially:
  • accept/except
  • acute/chronic
  • adverse/averse
  • affect/effect
  • aggrevate/mitigate
  • alternative/alternate
  • appraise/apprise
  • complementary/complementery
  • diffuse/defuse
  • e.g./i.e.
  • flout/flant
  • imply/infer
  • inherent/inherit
  • it's/its
  • lay/lie
  • literally
  • lose/loose
  • peruse
  • sit/set
  • there/their/they're/and there're.
  • to/too/two
  • venal/venial
• anything from Commonly misspelled words; especially:
  • affect/effect
  • capital/capitol
  • colonel/kernel
  • principal/principle
• a word having different meanings in British and American English; especially,
  • billion, trillion (see Long and short scales)
  • blow off
  • brilliant
  • cider
  • college
  • corn
  • fall
  • gallon, quart, pint
  • graft
  • hooker
  • intern
  • IRA
  • knickers, pants, shorts
  • knock up
  • liberal
  • life preserver
  • mid-Atlantic
  • professor
  • strike
  • table (verb)
  • through (time)
  • tick off
  • tout
  • trapezoid
  • waffle
  • wash up

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kevinkor2. It's possible to create your own custom inline template by using Template:Fix. So in your case, all you would have needed to do is type {{Fix|text=right word?}} plus whatever optional parameters you want in order to customize it, and it would've looked like this: -- œ^™ 09:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Registration required/doc

Confusing instructions on the above page. Where do you actually place the tag? The instructions and the examples show different things, or else I am terribly confused (probably the latter). Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The instructions seemed fine to me. The examples did show what the instructions were saying, but perhaps you misinterpreted the meaning, I've reworded it a bit to clarify: the tag is to be placed within the <ref> and </ref> tags and directly after the link, like so:

<ref>[http://pay-only-site.com Pay only site]{{Registration required}}</ref>

or, if using a citation template in your reference, it should be placed directly after the citation template, like so:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://pay-only-site.com|title=Pay only site}}{{Registration required}}</ref>

Did that help? -- œ^™ 09:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Library card required

I need an inline template similar to Registration required, but it would say Library card required. See Lee_Shippey#References for an example of references that could certainly use this template. I would make the template myself but I can't seem to find the instructions for doing so. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not just type out it, in plain text? Is there an advantage to typing {{Library-card-required-inline}} over typing Library card required? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't need a snarky comment about a perfectly honest suggestion. What exactly do the instructions < code > and < /code > do? I am not a computer programmer (not that there's anything wrong with that); I am an editor. Sincerely, still your friend although a bit miffed, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

See my reply to a similar request above. You can use the {{fix}} template to create any inline template you want. "Library card required" using {{fix}} would look like this: and you can change the link to have it point to where you want by using additional parameters. Another way to do it, and perhaps an easier way, would be to type: <sup>Library card required</sup> which would output ^{Library card required}, which I think was what User:WhatamIdoing was getting at when he said to just "type it out". To further explain, <sup> is the HTML tag for 'SUPerscript', so when you surround text with <sup> ... </sup> it superscripts the text. -- œ^™ 16:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, OlEnglish, for the good explanation. I tried what you said, but the instructions sup and /sup showed up in the text, so I removed them and was pleased with the result. Here is what one page looks like at Lee_Shippey#References. I like it a lot. Because they are in a different font and smaller, the notes don't district from the really important stuff. What do you think? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

GeorgeLouis, I was not being snarky. It's an honest question: Why do you need a template or any sort of fancy formatting to put the words "Library card required" at the end of a citation? Why don't you just type the plain old words "Library card required" at the end of the citation, exactly like you typed the plain old words "A longer version of this column appeared in the Kansas City Star" at the end of one citation in that article?

(The "code" formatting changes the font to monospace or 'typewriter font'), and thus I used it to indicate that it is the actual text you type.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, WhatamIdoing. I really don't like the way the References look when "Library card required" is in the same font as the rest of the citation. It is just too jarring. I prefer the look that results from a smaller typeface, as I noted above. Cheers! And have a great week! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you just want the text smaller, then the HTML code <small> is your friend. That produces Library card required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Inline note to would-be editors

I have seen inline notes within the edit window that warn editors at the precise edit point that they are about to make a common mistake, etc. These notes are only visible within the edit window and not in the article as publicly viewed. What is the process for creating one of these notes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyzpop (talk • contribs) 00:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean warnings like this one? If that's the case, see Wikipedia:Edit filter for more information. User<Svick>.Talk(); 21:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, what I'm referring to is something like this in the actual article: "Joe Blow was born Joseph Bloseph in Salt Lake City, Utah," and like this in the edit window (with *** replacing whatever the actual correct html code would be): "Joe Blow as born Joseph Bloseph ***!This is correct--see talk for discussion of incorrect "common knowledge" that birth name was Joseph Blow*** in Salt Lake City, Utah." I've seen this sort of insertion many times, used to head off frequent inaccurate changes to the same material, usually by people who think they know the facts but haven't read the discussion page before editing something there is general consensus on. I'd like to know what this kind of hidden inline note is called and how to implement it. Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. You are talking about HTML comments, which are supported in the wikicode too. They are written as <!-- some comment -->. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Invisible comments. User<Svick>.Talk(); 21:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Publisher missing

I created Template:Publisher missing based on Template:Author missing. May need some fixing (documentation, linking to). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding "reason=" parameter

Hello, regarding this thread I had at the Help Desk, is it possible to add a reason= parameter to Template:Verify credibility when failed=y? Thanks, --(Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) 64.85.217.215 (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Simply add it. Even though it is not supported, editors will see it when they edit the page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, will do. --64.85.217.215 (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Standardizations

Have registered here with some interest in corralling these kittens. Seeing no discussion I'm likely to make some bold edits toward obvious standardization, as well as set up a subpage with a better list than the present. Still learning some of the uses and cases with the more complicated ones. What isn't reasonable as bold edits I will make as proposals. Just letting you know that I'm getting started, as it's likely to be a slow process. JJB 19:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Standardized to lowercase message: full, POV tag, registration required, request quotation, source need translation, subscription required, third-party-inline.

Standardized to unlinked single brackets: inline warning, romanization needed. JJB 13:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Created: daymonth (redirect to "date missing"). JJB 14:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Improved links: buzz, inline warning, InlineXend, nonspecific, primary source-inline, registration required, request quotation, season needed, subscription required, TBD, update after. JJB 17:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Inline Templates

This page indicates where some of the work of WikiProject Inline Templates can be directed. However, Template:Inline tags, the project page WP:INLINE, and the Category:Inline templates have dramatically different versions of what templates are included (navbox, list, category). I am working on standardization and this will include significant changes to all three pages. Discussion should probably centralize at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates. JJB 12:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Any way to get Citation Needed By shortened?

Just discovered this tag, and think it's a great idea. But I'd rather type "cnb" than "Citation Needed By" (like "cn" for Citation Needed). I'm using a Playstation controller to type, otherwise it wouldn't be such a problem. Thanks? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Just noticed "cnby" works. That's short enough. I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Which, why

I've just swapped the redirects from {{which}} → {{which?}} and {{why}} → {{why?}} to being the other way around for consistency with other similar templates. This should now standardize the punctuated versions of inline templates being alternative names for them. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Bots parameter in template:dead link

Hi, I'm posting here since this is more active than Template talk:dead link. Does the |bots= parameter do anything? I didnt see anything the code that signified it did, so what is the point of adding this parameter? Legoktm (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Who, whom?

Some of the inline citation templates challenging statement sources were confusingly named and exhibiting some duplication, so I've been bold and done a little merging and redirecting. Here's how the situation was when I found it just now; an arrow indicates a redirect.

• {{By whom}} produced "[by whom?]" - linking to WP:WEASEL
• {{By whom?}} → {{By whom}}
• {{Whom}} → {{By whom}}
• {{Whom?}} produced "[according to whom?]" - linking to WP:NPOV
• {{According to whom}} produced "[according to whom?]" - linking to WP:WEASEL
• {{According to whom?}} → {{Whom?}}
• {{Says who}} produced "[says who?]" - linking to WP:WEASEL
• {{Says who?}} → {{Says who}}

You can see that a couple of the templates with question marks in their titles redirected to different templates than what you would expect to get by removing the question marks from their titles, and two identical messages linked to different places.

Here's what I changed it to:

• {{By whom?}}, {{By whom}} - unchanged
• {{Whom?}} and {{Whom}} → {{According to whom}}
• {{According to whom?}} → {{According to whom}} - linking to WP:WEASEL
• {{Says who?}} and {{Says who}} → {{According to whom}}

I've updated {{Inline tags}} as well. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to talk about {{whom}}. Maybe I should make a new section, but I'll try this here. {{who}} currently makes superscript "who?" but {{whom}} currently makes superscript "according to whom?". So let's take it as granted that we should have both, but then why shouldn't we have a simple superscript "whom?". For example, at [8] in the end of introduction is a {{who}} giving a superscript "who?". But the "who" easily refers to the "academic historians" which are objective. It would seem more natural to a refer to them then with the objective "whom" rather than the subjective "who". Use of {{whom}} and the superscript "according to whom" in this case for example just gives an unnecessary recasting of the expression uses in the clause. Obviously there is no necessity in these matters, {{who}} can be used, but I think having a template with a simple superscript "whom?" would allow a more polished result. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User:YellowPegasus

FYI, YellowPegasus (talk · contribs) is removing the specialized classes from various template messages and replacing it with class wikitable. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Worldhistory generates dead links

The little-used template {{Worldhistory}} generates dead links. I replaced the specific use I encountered with {{cite web}} and an archiveurl. I leave it to one of the 52 editors watching this talk page to decide what to do with the template itself. 72.244.206.254 (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Template talk:Fix

I have started a discussion about {{Fix}} that would affect all inline templates that use it. I ask for comment about a change to the tooltip that this template generates. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for help with Template:cite IETF

I've hit a parameter parsing issue which I've raised at Template talk:cite IETF, but I don't have the technical knowledge to fix it myself, and fear that just raising it on that talk page will result in the problem never being noticed by anyone who knows what they're doing. So I'm raising it here in the hope that asking for help more widely will get someone who knows what they're doing.

Short version of the problem: when two relatively rare parameters are used at the same time, the result is wrong. I've given more detail, including an example of the problem and what it should look like, at Template talk:cite IETF#Bad formatting when using editors and section links.

Help?

—me_and 21:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have a coding problem and don't get an answer here, then I think you might want to ask at Help talk:Citation Style 1. That seems to be a place to find the technical people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much for the pointer! —me_and 16:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

intend to add ending punctuation to inline tags that use template Fix

I intend to add ending punctuation to inline tags that use {{Fix}}. The template has been changed now to use the "(April 2013)" style dating. It's much nicer. It's now clear that the inline templates that use {{Fix}} should have ending periods on their default reason parameter (which shows up as a tooltip). I have already added periods to {{citation needed}} and {{clarify}}. If you can think of any reason this should not be done for other templates that use Fix, please let me know. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Misleading-inline?

Is there a tag for a statement which is true, nominally referenced in a source, but misleading?

Example: A is used as a resource by B

while the source, B's page, lists A in the "resources" section. I've presently used {{disputed-inline}} and {{undue-inline}}, (it would probably be WP:UNDUE even if it were accurate), but is there a {{misleading-inline}}? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... not to my knowledge. That sounds like a good thing to put together. Want to try hashing out a wording for the template documentation? — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:CIRCULAR, it may be relevant. Roger (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Template Source need translation - Links to an unhelpful destination

Working at AfC we would like to use template:Source need translation to tag foreign language sources that support controversial statements which need translation per WP:NOENG to allow us to verify them. As such we require that the template link to that relevant policy section and not to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English which addresses different issues - articles in need of relocation to other language wikis. Can the template be amended or should we make a new AfC specific template for this? BO | Talk 11:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Intend to change "may" to "possibly" in template's title text

As some of you may have noticed, I have been making tweaks to the inline templates' title text. So far I have mostly been doing two things:

• Replacing "in the vicinity of" with "near" because it is more succinct (i.e., less wordy) and it's simpler English too (so it's slightly more accessible) yet means exactly the same thing.
• Adding trailing punctuation. This is minor polish to make the templates consistent in their usage of ending punctuation. There was a choice here: ending or no ending punctuation but I think ending punctuation has a few minor advantages and went with it.

Now, I have noticed another potential issue with the wording on many of the tags concerning the word "may". For instance, {{Attribution}}'s text says "This sentence may contain perspectives and opinions without stating whose they are." Of course, the text means "This sentence possibly contains perspectives and opinions without stating whose they are." but it could be misinterpreted as "This sentence is allowed to contain perspectives and opinions without stating whose they are." Exactly the opposite of what's intended! So there's a clear problem with ambiguity here and unless a fix is worse than the problem it should be made. Replacing the word "may" with "possibly" (along with other tweaks to make it work) seems to solve the issue with only a few extra characters to the tooltip and I intend to proceed unless somebody notices a good reason not to. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A template to mark a reference URL as compromised

There's an interesting suggestion at the help desk (here at the moment, but will be archived here):

Upon reading about the Flip Video there was a bright red circle from World of Trust (WOT) on one of the sources so I went and checked it at sucuri.net [9] and found that McAfee has blacklisted the site for spreading malware. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the source but I deleted the reference. Is there a template to add to a source, like the dead link template {{Dead link}} along the lines of notification for a compromised server? It's possible that once the domain deals with it's security issues the site will be unlisted but then I will have deleted the reference.

• Is going through and deleting compromised servers source references the correct procedure or do we tag them with some template that I do not know about? 97.85.168.22 (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The only relevant advice I can find is from WP:DEADREF, "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working today". I can't find a suitable warning template for this case, though. It would be simple enough to create something like to warn readers. Apparently the place to propose this would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Has such a template been proposed before? Would it be useful? -- John of Reading (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This wouldn't be too hard to have a bot patrol links and compare them to a security blacklist. Yeah! I had a useful idea! 97.85.168.22 (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

After about 10 or 15 minutes of looking, except for the tangentially-related Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam and its Wikipedia:Spam blacklist, I haven't found any relevant policy, guideline, or Wikiproject related to protecting the user from malware and attack sites. Wikipedia:WikiProject Malware is an article-related project so it's not apropos. I don't know of any particular inline template either although one would be easy enough to create. I would personally just delete the link if I suspected it opened readers to danger. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Inline overload

Are there any guidelines against over-usage of inline tags? For a case in point, the middle and later body of Mail art has practically every uncited sentence drilled on its accuracy and specificity. 8ty3hree (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The closest thing I'm aware of is WP:OVERTAGGING, which I suppose translates to inline tags too. In the case of the example you gave, I agree it's sort of extreme. I'm not sure what if anything should be done. Perhaps the most obvious thing to do would be to contact the tagger and ask them if they would help improve the article. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:inline warning

{{inline warning}}

Why does this template currently provide a question mark instead of the custom cleanup note? -- -- -- 22:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

@Pathoschild and Kevinkor2: Ping! Just in case the 2 earliest authors have input.

Note, it's only transcluded in 2 articles currently. –Quiddity (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That template was created a long time ago. I think it was originally intended for user warnings and later repurposed as an article template. I don't see any problems with changing or repurposing this template if needed. —Pathoschild 17:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, one of the two must be changed: Either this Project page (#List of inline templates) should be updated (with the words "to provide a custom cleanup note" changed or deleted) or the template itself should be restored to its former function. -- -- -- 20:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think deleting the template would be best, as it is essentially unused. I've started Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 13#Template:Inline warning. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been deleted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- -- -- 05:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Math-specific inline

Just a suggestion as I've just been looking to see if such a template exists and it seems one does not. What about an inline template just for math problems? I want to be able to do

$f(x)={\frac {2\pi x}{\log _{2}\!\left(some\,stuff\right)}}.$ ^{[dubious math]}

Radiodef (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Could be a use for it, but what about the existing "Dubious" template? Why do we need a new template for this? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Radiodef: I think the underlying problem that you're trying to solve here is that of "category intersection". I haven't re-investigated this lately, but I think User:Svick/WikiProject cleanup listing is probably what you want. (mathematics is not currently included (it can be requested on the talkpage), but see WikiProject Arthropods listings for example). HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Equivalent for use outside article space

Sometimes I want to use something along the lines of your templates outside of article space, for example on unclear template documentation. Is there anything appropriate for such use? —SamB (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What unit

Hi, I recently came across an instance where an area was described as "###, ### Sq." This is obviously very unhelpful. I was surprised to find there wasn't a template such as {{What unit?}}/{{Which units?}} Could a redirect be made and the documentation be made more clear if I've just missed this, otherwise could one be created? Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:TOC limit Template:Infobox peerage title

I need this template to use in wikia.

Can anyone print the code i need.

Also:

Template:Ahnentafel bottom (edit) Template:Ahnentafel top (edit) Template:Ahnentafel-compact5 (edit) Template:Cite book (edit) Template:Citebook (edit) Template:CitefckLRbook (edit) Template:Infobox peerage title (edit) Template:Infobox royalty (edit) Template:Reflist (edit) Template:TOC limit (edit) Jose Luis Zambrano De Santiago (talk)

Jose Luis Zambrano De Santiago (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Does MOS state inline templates after punctuation?

Is there a portion of the MOS that states that inline templates should be placed after punctuation? For example, instead of:

Wikipedia is cool.

does the MOS state we should use:

Wikipedia is cool.

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen that. I doubt that it would be codified, both because you might fact tag specifically the last word (i.e., the whole sentence is fine except the last word or phrase) and also because such tags are theoretically supposed to be so temporary that it is pointless to standardize them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's in the MOS for template tags but it is in the MOS for reference footnotes (see MOS:PUNCTFOOT). It seems as if they ought to be used the same way. Plus, many of the templates' documentation (including for {{citation needed}}) says to put to the template after the punctuation. Regardless what the MOS says, we can ask which way is better. Putting the tags after punctuation is far better... no only visually but because I think putting it before the tag seem to end up causing editors to add doubled punctuation marks (before and after). Jason Quinn (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

PS The tags are clearly not temporary, and, in practice, they often linger for years. So questions about standardization do have a basis and it should be considered. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

PPS There are, of course, certain times when it is appropriate to put the tag in the middle of the sentence somewhere. This may be needed to make it clear what's being questioned. Common sense should rule. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Jason. Agreed that there are times when the tag belongs in the middle of the sentence, but if it should be placed after the last word, it should be placed after the punctuation too. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that it is valid for cn tags to stay indefinitely, even if not permanently.  I agree that we are not trying to discourage tags in the middle of sentences.  Experienced editors know to put refs after any punctuation, but this is learned behavior, so it is worth repeating.  As for the special case of needing to tag the last word before the punctuation, documentation could be added that such a usage should include a note in either the reason parameter or talk page discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• QuestionIs there any reason why this matters enough to be worth discussing one way or another. ? DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• The template tags should be placed under the same locational guidelines as those for the reference footnotes, because when an actual reference is added, it is usually substituted for the template tag. Let's not burden editors with different rules for placement, when the template tags are basically placeholders for or commentary flags for footnoted references.

As for "why discuss it here?", it's better than the random editing back and forth that would occur in the absence of any clear guidelines. That's why there is a WP:MOS. Reify-tech (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Musical genre-specific "citation needed" tag

There is a discussion going on at the Music genres task force about creating an inline for statements about an artist's genre which are not supported by sources - a specific sub-template of {{cn}} or a page/section banner cleanup tag. If editors involved here would like to comment, please see the discussion here. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Does there exist

In tabular or spreadsheet form, a list of all tags, correlating the article, section, and in-line tags that are precisely comparable (and listing all variants of each, in each category?) If so, please post a link here. Thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)