This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
At the moment the tooltips used for inline tags that explains the problem purpose of the tag ends with a string that gives the month and year the tag was added like "(November 2013)". [Usually the actual dating is done by a bot soon after the editor adds the tag rather than the editor adding the date info themselves.] For new editors, there may be insufficient context to understand what the date in the tooltip means. I'm thinking that actually having it say "(tagged since November 2013)" may be worth the extra characters for that purpose. Also the word "since" is something of a small plea for help and may encourage new editors. Comments?
Jason Quinn (
talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 17:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Not all tags in {{ Inline tags}} are listed on the project page. Could someone active in the project add them? Thanx — Lentower ( talk) 14:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Inline_Templates#List_of_inline_templates, I've added some: "⇒[results]" type notes to the superscripted entries with the "⇒" in Big text. The additions mentioned were produced in this edit.
Notes: Some of the entries didn't produce working results. Some of entries with more than one template produced different results and, in these cases, the lines were split with the second line being given a double indent with a double asterisk or similar. ** I didn't want to disturb sequence without consultation but it may be worth getting content back into alphabetical order. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I recently looked at Template:Verify credibility to see whether that tag should be placed within a reference (e.g. {{verify credibility}}</ref>) or outside of it (e.g. </ref>{{verify credibility}}). I found no answer to my question, but did find the same question asked at Template talk:Verify credibility#Inline after citation number or at end of note?, dated June 2009. I'm guessing that template talk page is not watched by many editors.
Let me ask you, then (assuming you are out there): Is there be some more-or-less standard guidance for where to put reference-related inline citations such as {{ verify credibility}} or {{ primary source-inline}}? Should there be? If not, could there be an effort to add placement advice in each template's documentation? Currently Template:Failed verification/doc has a section on "How to use" which includes "Placement". That seems like a very worthwhile bit of advice. Cnilep ( talk) 04:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
, and thus be visible in the article prose, because it's important for readers to be aware of problems that rise to core policy level. For others, like {{
clarifyref2}} which is about citation formatting cleanup, as an example, no policy issue is raised, so it should go inside. For {{
deadlink}}, I think it should also go inside. If the citation is complete, it means someone bothered to check, and it's likely that archive.org will have a backup copy we can use with |archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
, i.e. it's a citation cleanup matter. By contrast, if it's just a bare URL inside <ref>...</ref>
, all bets are off, and it should be checked at archive.org immediately, and if it cannot be found, it should be removed and replaced with {{
citation needed}} (outside the ref tags). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not the Talk Page to develop a consensus on the issue of what to do for all tags. That issue is a very broad one, and needs input from the widest possible group of editors.
This issue should be decided on a tag by tag basis, with wide discussion canvassed for each tag on the Talk Pages of the {{ Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines}} the tag is meant to support, and other pages as appropriate. — Lentower ( talk) 17:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I posted this a few days ago on the "registration required" template, but have had no response, so I thought I'd try here. Would it be possible to add a "via" parameter to that template, comparable to the via parameter in the subscription template? We who have recently been given JSTOR accounts (see WP:JSTOR for more) would like to be able to indicate that articles can be accessed via that repository, and that it requires users to register before giving access. Currently, we're using the subscription template, but (since articles are available for free to those who register), it's not really the correct one to be using! Thanks, MeegsC ( talk) 18:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
|subscription=
and |via=
. --
Gadget850
talk 22:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
|registration=
. Both are supported. --
Gadget850
talk 02:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
A template linking to WP:BALL for Debian would be appreciated. 84.127.115.190 ( talk) 00:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
reason
parameter to {{
speculation-inline}}, but I am afraid that uninvolved editors would be tempted to fix this prematurely (
more information).
84.127.115.190 (
talk) 19:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This week I created
Category:Rail transport articles in need of updating and started populating it with articles within
WP:WikiProject Trains scope that were marked with {{
update}}, {{
update inline}} and {{
update after}}. While update after includes a parameter for an additional category (the fourth unnamed parameter), neither update nor update inline have such a parameter. Another editor suggested that we create a wrapper template that would call update and update inline as well as including the category. I don't see other projects creating wrapper templates like that, and I think the better solution would be to include an optional category=
parameter that would work like the category parameter in update after. Looking at the code for update after, it should be a simple matter to add this parameter, but I haven't yet because the template is in wide use and this project is noted on the template's talk page as maintaining the template. Thanks!
Slambo
(Speak) 16:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion of interest to this Wikiproject over template {{ Verify credibility}} called " move to 'Unreliable_source?'". Your thoughts are welcome. Jason Quinn ( talk) 00:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Third-party-inline to be moved to Template:Third-party inline. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Primary source-inline to be moved to Template:Primary source inline. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 11:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't the {{ According to whom}} template say "according to who"? — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 16:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I think this one is redundant and should probably be TfD'd. It's vague, its example of usage doen't make sense (shows citation to a tabloid, but then the |reason=
text says its because it's a citation to a company website), and more specific templates already exist that seem to cover whatever people need to cover, e.g. sourcing cleanup tags like {{
primary source inline}}
and {{
third-party inline}}
, along with a host of outright dispute templates like {{
dubious}}
, {{
unreliable source?}}
, {{
failed verification}}
, etc. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Given that people seem to want to keep it, does someone want to provide a sane example in its /doc of the best kind of use for it then, that is not better handled by some more specific template? I could provide some consistent example, but since I think the template is redundant, vague, and pointless, I'm probably the least appropriate person to provide a good example. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Here's what this template looks like:
On mobile, the "discuss" link is hidden with a metadata
class, so it looks more like this:
What is the purpose of this? Hiding links to talk is actively hostile to editors who prefer to read on mobile. Hairy Dude ( talk) 02:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The inline superscripted notation templates {{
Better source example}}
, {{bsex}}
, and {{
importance example}}
are available, useful for noting that sources of examples should not fall under
self-sourcing examples, and that the sources should discuss the significance of the example.
BrightRoundCircle (
talk) 01:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I've seen this tag used quite a bit, but never with the officially endorsed sense. Rather, the community seems to use it for citations that give an unreasonably broad page range, as in "I shouldn't have to look through 147 pages to verify this dubious statement." Conversely, the official meaning of the template seems to be redundant with "vague". Can we change the description of "nonspecific" to accord with actual usage? Eperoton ( talk) 01:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
See Template talk:Elucidate#Bugs with parsing quotes in reason. Discussion there. 80.221.159.67 ( talk) 06:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
-- Fixuture ( talk) 19:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Elucidate to be moved to Template:Explain. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
I'm not sure this is the proper place, but I would like to propose a {{ importance-item}}, asking about the importance of an item in a list article, or a list within an article. It might differ from importance-inline in having a discuss parameter. It might also have a long version, taking as unnamed parameter the name of the questionable list item, and links to verify importance, perhaps a shortened version of the research links in ??? . I don't want to do it myself, as I might make template syntax mistakes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
importance inline}}
(for things which in any context, including a list, might not pass
WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, i.e. which look to be unencyclopedic trivia or injection of non-notable businesses/products/people), and we have {{
relevance inline}}
(for things which in any context, including a list, may be off-topic). That would seem to cover both cases of list items that arguably shouldn't be present. If there was some clearly articulable need to generate list-specific wording, that could be done by just adding a new |list=y
parameter to these templates, rather than spawning a redundant additional template. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)New inline template: is this date calibrated?
I was bold and decided to create a template to identify radiocarbon dates that are ambiguous because they do not specify whether a calibration procedure has been applied. I am of the opinion that all radiocarbon dates on Wikipedia should be calibrated, since they correspond to the Gregorian calendar. Uncalibrated dates do not and are confusing to the layperson. Nicolas Perrault ( talk) 22:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your answer.
...I've seen recent tag bombing with it.
— User:PaleoNeonate 23:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
...it seemed strange to suddenly see all dates of an article tagged. 00:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree, 100%. I had inserted these tags, then realised it looked too sloppy and therefore created the top-of-article version. I should have gone back to the articles I dropped the inline version tags in and swap those tags for the top-of-article message. I'll try and do that soon (or feel free to do so).
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to do the work and specify if it's calibrated or not... 23:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
It's better to solve a problem than to declare that it exists, no question. But tagging is faster than solving the problem. Given the extremely large volume of ambiguous dates on Wikipedia, it does not appear practical for one or a few users to solve them all. But a single user can tag many of them, thereby allowing a large number of users to solve the large number of problems. Many tags exist for similar reasons (e.g., weasel words, peacock prose).
...shouldn't we simply select reliable sources that are likely to have made the distinction? 23:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Of course. But that's only part of the issue. The main issue, in my opinion, is resolving the inherent ambiguity in using "BP" (or BC/AD/BCE/CE) for dates younger than 50,000 years obtained by laboratory methods.
...the tag implies that this is the result of C14 dating (when there are various dating methods). 00:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure, good point. We could rename the tag from "is this date calibrated?" to "are these calendar years?". It would then be acceptable to write "22,000 to 17,000 cal BP" even if the dates were not obtained with radiocarbon (since "cal BP" means "calendar years BP", not "calibrated BP").
I have the impression that it would be better to avoid using primary papers and synthesis, then to simply reflect the dates given by review literature (and specify when the source does)... 00:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Does the review literature adhere to higher standards of clarity than primary research articles? I'm not sure. It would be a shame to avoid using primary papers as well as original research and syntheses altogether. This is especially the case for areas of research that have not recently been reviewed at length, such as Upper Palaeolithic North Africa (last reviewed in depth 44 years ago and not in English, Camps 1974).
At the heart of my template proposal is a more general proposal for Wikipedia: that all laboratory dates younger than 50,000 years be referred to as "cal BP", "cal years ago", or the like, every time they are used in the text. It is frustrating that most times one reads a date given as only "BP" or "years ago", one wonders what is meant.
Kindest regards, Nicolas Perrault ( talk) 06:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Category:Pages with misused citation needed templates has been nominated for rename. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — andrybak ( talk) 23:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
There is evidence [2] that constructive criticism such as inline-tagging correlates with editor retention (the new editors fix their own edits). Reverting, unsurprisingly, makes both vandals and potential new editors give up.
It's currently hard to tag using most semi-automated tools; reverting is much easier. There is substantial community support for better semi-automated inline-tagging tools. Hope this is of interest here! HLHJ ( talk) 06:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The documentation for {{ fix}} contains a reference to {{ fake fix}}, described as "used to create dummy versions of templates based on {{ fix}} for use in documentation" - but {{ fake fix}} actually just redirects to {{ fix}}. Is {{ fake fix}} dead, or redundant or what? Should that reference be removed from the documentation? Colonies Chris ( talk) 09:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
For instance, in the Gender Gap section of the QI article, it says:
Nevertheless, Toksvig has acknowledged Fry's delicate treatment towards his female panellists,[97] and she herself continues to encourage them to be smart and funny when they appear on the show. In 2018, Emma Cox of Radio Times highlighted a notable difference between QI and other "aggressively masculine" panel shows.[98]
I went to have a look at the 98 reference because I went "what notable difference?". But the 98 reference, [3] is a piece by Emma Cox, interviewing Sandi Toksvig.
The reference thus doesn't verify the claim Emma Cox of Radio Times highlighted a notable difference - its the primary source where Cox lets Toksvig comment on Cox asserting the show isn't "aggressively masculine".
It says:
“ | Toksvig’s calming presence means not only is she adept at soothing the anxious Bake Off contestants, she also encourages her female panellists on QI to be smart and hilarious, a far cry from shows like Mock the Week, which are widely criticised for being aggressively masculine.
“I hope QI is a comfortable place for women,” Toksvig says. “There are panel shows that struggle to get women on, and that’s because the women feel marginalised and stupid and in the edit are often seen just laughing at the boys and not saying anything at all even though I know for a fact in the recording they were clever. |
” |
But what inline template do I use in this case to convey that while the source does kind of say what our article claims, it should not be used to verify a claim like the implied "there is a notable difference between QI and aggressively masculine panel shows".
CapnZapp ( talk) 22:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
|reason=
). It's not that the source is inherently bad quality. And it's not as easy as "I looked through the source and couldn't find it verifying the claim you made" as "failed verification" would suggest. In this case you CAN interpret the source to verify the claim, but then you would not be fully understanding our policies. The source isn't an article verifying Cox highlighted this difference, and it isn't a source confirming the difference is notable. Instead it is an interview written by Cox, where she herself compares shows - with no evidence - and then simply edits in Toksvig's response. But Toksvig might not even have responded to that exact phrase! (Note how the "claim" isn't part of any transcript!) Besides, even if Toksvig's reply was directly to this claim, she might simply have decided to let it fly. Perhaps out of courtesy, perhaps she had other things on her mind. In short, as an endorsement, it's very weak indeed. In short, our text takes this "notable difference" for granted with zero evidence. So I'm like, what's the tag for "you're using the source wrong"? Again thanks
CapnZapp (
talk) 09:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
At the moment the tooltips used for inline tags that explains the problem purpose of the tag ends with a string that gives the month and year the tag was added like "(November 2013)". [Usually the actual dating is done by a bot soon after the editor adds the tag rather than the editor adding the date info themselves.] For new editors, there may be insufficient context to understand what the date in the tooltip means. I'm thinking that actually having it say "(tagged since November 2013)" may be worth the extra characters for that purpose. Also the word "since" is something of a small plea for help and may encourage new editors. Comments?
Jason Quinn (
talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 17:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Not all tags in {{ Inline tags}} are listed on the project page. Could someone active in the project add them? Thanx — Lentower ( talk) 14:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Inline_Templates#List_of_inline_templates, I've added some: "⇒[results]" type notes to the superscripted entries with the "⇒" in Big text. The additions mentioned were produced in this edit.
Notes: Some of the entries didn't produce working results. Some of entries with more than one template produced different results and, in these cases, the lines were split with the second line being given a double indent with a double asterisk or similar. ** I didn't want to disturb sequence without consultation but it may be worth getting content back into alphabetical order. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I recently looked at Template:Verify credibility to see whether that tag should be placed within a reference (e.g. {{verify credibility}}</ref>) or outside of it (e.g. </ref>{{verify credibility}}). I found no answer to my question, but did find the same question asked at Template talk:Verify credibility#Inline after citation number or at end of note?, dated June 2009. I'm guessing that template talk page is not watched by many editors.
Let me ask you, then (assuming you are out there): Is there be some more-or-less standard guidance for where to put reference-related inline citations such as {{ verify credibility}} or {{ primary source-inline}}? Should there be? If not, could there be an effort to add placement advice in each template's documentation? Currently Template:Failed verification/doc has a section on "How to use" which includes "Placement". That seems like a very worthwhile bit of advice. Cnilep ( talk) 04:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
, and thus be visible in the article prose, because it's important for readers to be aware of problems that rise to core policy level. For others, like {{
clarifyref2}} which is about citation formatting cleanup, as an example, no policy issue is raised, so it should go inside. For {{
deadlink}}, I think it should also go inside. If the citation is complete, it means someone bothered to check, and it's likely that archive.org will have a backup copy we can use with |archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
, i.e. it's a citation cleanup matter. By contrast, if it's just a bare URL inside <ref>...</ref>
, all bets are off, and it should be checked at archive.org immediately, and if it cannot be found, it should be removed and replaced with {{
citation needed}} (outside the ref tags). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not the Talk Page to develop a consensus on the issue of what to do for all tags. That issue is a very broad one, and needs input from the widest possible group of editors.
This issue should be decided on a tag by tag basis, with wide discussion canvassed for each tag on the Talk Pages of the {{ Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines}} the tag is meant to support, and other pages as appropriate. — Lentower ( talk) 17:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I posted this a few days ago on the "registration required" template, but have had no response, so I thought I'd try here. Would it be possible to add a "via" parameter to that template, comparable to the via parameter in the subscription template? We who have recently been given JSTOR accounts (see WP:JSTOR for more) would like to be able to indicate that articles can be accessed via that repository, and that it requires users to register before giving access. Currently, we're using the subscription template, but (since articles are available for free to those who register), it's not really the correct one to be using! Thanks, MeegsC ( talk) 18:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
|subscription=
and |via=
. --
Gadget850
talk 22:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
|registration=
. Both are supported. --
Gadget850
talk 02:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
A template linking to WP:BALL for Debian would be appreciated. 84.127.115.190 ( talk) 00:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
reason
parameter to {{
speculation-inline}}, but I am afraid that uninvolved editors would be tempted to fix this prematurely (
more information).
84.127.115.190 (
talk) 19:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This week I created
Category:Rail transport articles in need of updating and started populating it with articles within
WP:WikiProject Trains scope that were marked with {{
update}}, {{
update inline}} and {{
update after}}. While update after includes a parameter for an additional category (the fourth unnamed parameter), neither update nor update inline have such a parameter. Another editor suggested that we create a wrapper template that would call update and update inline as well as including the category. I don't see other projects creating wrapper templates like that, and I think the better solution would be to include an optional category=
parameter that would work like the category parameter in update after. Looking at the code for update after, it should be a simple matter to add this parameter, but I haven't yet because the template is in wide use and this project is noted on the template's talk page as maintaining the template. Thanks!
Slambo
(Speak) 16:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion of interest to this Wikiproject over template {{ Verify credibility}} called " move to 'Unreliable_source?'". Your thoughts are welcome. Jason Quinn ( talk) 00:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Third-party-inline to be moved to Template:Third-party inline. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Primary source-inline to be moved to Template:Primary source inline. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 11:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't the {{ According to whom}} template say "according to who"? — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 16:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I think this one is redundant and should probably be TfD'd. It's vague, its example of usage doen't make sense (shows citation to a tabloid, but then the |reason=
text says its because it's a citation to a company website), and more specific templates already exist that seem to cover whatever people need to cover, e.g. sourcing cleanup tags like {{
primary source inline}}
and {{
third-party inline}}
, along with a host of outright dispute templates like {{
dubious}}
, {{
unreliable source?}}
, {{
failed verification}}
, etc. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Given that people seem to want to keep it, does someone want to provide a sane example in its /doc of the best kind of use for it then, that is not better handled by some more specific template? I could provide some consistent example, but since I think the template is redundant, vague, and pointless, I'm probably the least appropriate person to provide a good example. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Here's what this template looks like:
On mobile, the "discuss" link is hidden with a metadata
class, so it looks more like this:
What is the purpose of this? Hiding links to talk is actively hostile to editors who prefer to read on mobile. Hairy Dude ( talk) 02:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The inline superscripted notation templates {{
Better source example}}
, {{bsex}}
, and {{
importance example}}
are available, useful for noting that sources of examples should not fall under
self-sourcing examples, and that the sources should discuss the significance of the example.
BrightRoundCircle (
talk) 01:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I've seen this tag used quite a bit, but never with the officially endorsed sense. Rather, the community seems to use it for citations that give an unreasonably broad page range, as in "I shouldn't have to look through 147 pages to verify this dubious statement." Conversely, the official meaning of the template seems to be redundant with "vague". Can we change the description of "nonspecific" to accord with actual usage? Eperoton ( talk) 01:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
See Template talk:Elucidate#Bugs with parsing quotes in reason. Discussion there. 80.221.159.67 ( talk) 06:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
-- Fixuture ( talk) 19:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Elucidate to be moved to Template:Explain. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
I'm not sure this is the proper place, but I would like to propose a {{ importance-item}}, asking about the importance of an item in a list article, or a list within an article. It might differ from importance-inline in having a discuss parameter. It might also have a long version, taking as unnamed parameter the name of the questionable list item, and links to verify importance, perhaps a shortened version of the research links in ??? . I don't want to do it myself, as I might make template syntax mistakes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
importance inline}}
(for things which in any context, including a list, might not pass
WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, i.e. which look to be unencyclopedic trivia or injection of non-notable businesses/products/people), and we have {{
relevance inline}}
(for things which in any context, including a list, may be off-topic). That would seem to cover both cases of list items that arguably shouldn't be present. If there was some clearly articulable need to generate list-specific wording, that could be done by just adding a new |list=y
parameter to these templates, rather than spawning a redundant additional template. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)New inline template: is this date calibrated?
I was bold and decided to create a template to identify radiocarbon dates that are ambiguous because they do not specify whether a calibration procedure has been applied. I am of the opinion that all radiocarbon dates on Wikipedia should be calibrated, since they correspond to the Gregorian calendar. Uncalibrated dates do not and are confusing to the layperson. Nicolas Perrault ( talk) 22:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your answer.
...I've seen recent tag bombing with it.
— User:PaleoNeonate 23:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
...it seemed strange to suddenly see all dates of an article tagged. 00:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree, 100%. I had inserted these tags, then realised it looked too sloppy and therefore created the top-of-article version. I should have gone back to the articles I dropped the inline version tags in and swap those tags for the top-of-article message. I'll try and do that soon (or feel free to do so).
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to do the work and specify if it's calibrated or not... 23:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
It's better to solve a problem than to declare that it exists, no question. But tagging is faster than solving the problem. Given the extremely large volume of ambiguous dates on Wikipedia, it does not appear practical for one or a few users to solve them all. But a single user can tag many of them, thereby allowing a large number of users to solve the large number of problems. Many tags exist for similar reasons (e.g., weasel words, peacock prose).
...shouldn't we simply select reliable sources that are likely to have made the distinction? 23:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Of course. But that's only part of the issue. The main issue, in my opinion, is resolving the inherent ambiguity in using "BP" (or BC/AD/BCE/CE) for dates younger than 50,000 years obtained by laboratory methods.
...the tag implies that this is the result of C14 dating (when there are various dating methods). 00:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure, good point. We could rename the tag from "is this date calibrated?" to "are these calendar years?". It would then be acceptable to write "22,000 to 17,000 cal BP" even if the dates were not obtained with radiocarbon (since "cal BP" means "calendar years BP", not "calibrated BP").
I have the impression that it would be better to avoid using primary papers and synthesis, then to simply reflect the dates given by review literature (and specify when the source does)... 00:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Does the review literature adhere to higher standards of clarity than primary research articles? I'm not sure. It would be a shame to avoid using primary papers as well as original research and syntheses altogether. This is especially the case for areas of research that have not recently been reviewed at length, such as Upper Palaeolithic North Africa (last reviewed in depth 44 years ago and not in English, Camps 1974).
At the heart of my template proposal is a more general proposal for Wikipedia: that all laboratory dates younger than 50,000 years be referred to as "cal BP", "cal years ago", or the like, every time they are used in the text. It is frustrating that most times one reads a date given as only "BP" or "years ago", one wonders what is meant.
Kindest regards, Nicolas Perrault ( talk) 06:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Category:Pages with misused citation needed templates has been nominated for rename. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — andrybak ( talk) 23:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
There is evidence [2] that constructive criticism such as inline-tagging correlates with editor retention (the new editors fix their own edits). Reverting, unsurprisingly, makes both vandals and potential new editors give up.
It's currently hard to tag using most semi-automated tools; reverting is much easier. There is substantial community support for better semi-automated inline-tagging tools. Hope this is of interest here! HLHJ ( talk) 06:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The documentation for {{ fix}} contains a reference to {{ fake fix}}, described as "used to create dummy versions of templates based on {{ fix}} for use in documentation" - but {{ fake fix}} actually just redirects to {{ fix}}. Is {{ fake fix}} dead, or redundant or what? Should that reference be removed from the documentation? Colonies Chris ( talk) 09:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
For instance, in the Gender Gap section of the QI article, it says:
Nevertheless, Toksvig has acknowledged Fry's delicate treatment towards his female panellists,[97] and she herself continues to encourage them to be smart and funny when they appear on the show. In 2018, Emma Cox of Radio Times highlighted a notable difference between QI and other "aggressively masculine" panel shows.[98]
I went to have a look at the 98 reference because I went "what notable difference?". But the 98 reference, [3] is a piece by Emma Cox, interviewing Sandi Toksvig.
The reference thus doesn't verify the claim Emma Cox of Radio Times highlighted a notable difference - its the primary source where Cox lets Toksvig comment on Cox asserting the show isn't "aggressively masculine".
It says:
“ | Toksvig’s calming presence means not only is she adept at soothing the anxious Bake Off contestants, she also encourages her female panellists on QI to be smart and hilarious, a far cry from shows like Mock the Week, which are widely criticised for being aggressively masculine.
“I hope QI is a comfortable place for women,” Toksvig says. “There are panel shows that struggle to get women on, and that’s because the women feel marginalised and stupid and in the edit are often seen just laughing at the boys and not saying anything at all even though I know for a fact in the recording they were clever. |
” |
But what inline template do I use in this case to convey that while the source does kind of say what our article claims, it should not be used to verify a claim like the implied "there is a notable difference between QI and aggressively masculine panel shows".
CapnZapp ( talk) 22:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
|reason=
). It's not that the source is inherently bad quality. And it's not as easy as "I looked through the source and couldn't find it verifying the claim you made" as "failed verification" would suggest. In this case you CAN interpret the source to verify the claim, but then you would not be fully understanding our policies. The source isn't an article verifying Cox highlighted this difference, and it isn't a source confirming the difference is notable. Instead it is an interview written by Cox, where she herself compares shows - with no evidence - and then simply edits in Toksvig's response. But Toksvig might not even have responded to that exact phrase! (Note how the "claim" isn't part of any transcript!) Besides, even if Toksvig's reply was directly to this claim, she might simply have decided to let it fly. Perhaps out of courtesy, perhaps she had other things on her mind. In short, as an endorsement, it's very weak indeed. In short, our text takes this "notable difference" for granted with zero evidence. So I'm like, what's the tag for "you're using the source wrong"? Again thanks
CapnZapp (
talk) 09:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)