# Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates

## 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[citation needed].

does the MOS state we should use:

Wikipedia is cool.[citation needed]

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)

## 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)

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)

## dating tags with "(tagged since November 2013)" instead of "(November 2013)"

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)

Sounds like a helpful clarification. Reify-tech (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, User:Reify-tech. I started a conversation a couple days ago at the Village Pump about this hoping to gather more opinions. Nobody has responded so it doesn't seem like many people care. I'm inclined to go ahead with this. I think I will announce the intended change on the {{citation needed}} talk page and make the change in a day or two. If there's no backlash from the roolout, we can proceed with the rest. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• No Opposition, to Jason Quinn's proposed change. I think this is fine either way, and a slight code change would be un-noted by most editors. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 04:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support sounds good (and helpful) to me. –Quiddity (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support"—the next extra clarification is worth the space. 01:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Actually, what's the purpose of the date? It certainly doesn't help the reader - having a two-month or 12month date doesn't tell anything about the tagged sentence. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Good question. The date lets readers (and more importantly editors) know how long the statement has needed improvement. The longer a statement has been tagged, the more a statement should be considered difficult to source and this factors into one's estimate of the statement's reliability. (Of course, the article's traffic rate also influence's this so we are assuming at a given traffic level.) In that sense, the date is important to readers. To editors, it serves the same purpose but it can now help decide whether or not the statement has "had its chance" to be sourced. If the statement is contested, that can be important to decide whether to remove it or not. In practice, it also helps navigate the article history to find out when a section was edited. So, I would say that the date info is definitely useful and should not be removed. I've also noticed in my editing that an old date on occasion "nudges" me to get around to looking for a source; so, there's some psychological effect at work too. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Stongly support, but suggest one word addition, "since", as a shorter variant conveying all the same meaning. Support is based on the ability of non-Wikipedians to understand the tag. Any change is unnecessary for us, crucial for a first time visiting student. An alternative would be to provide an explanation on mouse-over, leaving the length of the tags unchanged. Note, date is crucial to determine boldness of editing. A section that has been unreferenced for years may best be redacted, for if not corrected and made verifiable in three, it may be never referenced as required. Three months since being tagged? Whole other conclusion. Cheers, look forward to this change. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2014 (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)

## 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)

## Leaflet for Wikiproject Inline Templates at Wikimania 2014

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

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

## Not all tags in {{Inline tags}} listed

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)

## Placement of ref-related tags

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)

I would propose that if, like {{verify credibility}}, they affect a WP:Verifiability analysis, that they be placed outside the <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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
1. Please see similar discussion at Template talk:Page needed#Where to place the template.
I wish that "dead links" were named something else. E.g. "link not reachable". The present name encourages deletion, which is rightly against the guidelines. — Lentower (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I second the opinion that most inline templates should be placed outside the ref tag so that it appears in the main article. Otherwise readers aren't alert to the deficiency of the reference or that it's possible they could improve it. I too have noticed that the documentation never seemed to state where to place these inline tags. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:12, 9 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)

This is a good place to develop consensus for what to do with the inline templates. What is not a good place is a template's talk page since that should be for discussion of the template itself. I would agree that it is a good idea to ask for more input and I would agree we should consider what tags may be exceptions (hence why I said "most" above). Jason Quinn (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Lentower. I also think there is editorial judgement involved in where is the most appropriate place. For example "dead link" is really an editor to editor message (house keeping) -- that is different from some other messages that may be aimed at readers as a warning. For example "better source needed" could be placed either in or outside the inline citation it real depends on how much it is there as an editor to editor message (ie the editor putting in the template thinks that the information is probably verifiable in a reliable source, but thinks that the current source is not as reliable as it ought to be) and how much it is there because the editor wants to warn the reader inline that the content of the preceding sentence or sentences may be inaccurate because it is based on an unreliable source (for which the editor doubts can be found in a reliable source, but has posted the template as per advise in PROVIT as an "interim step") and so the reader should take that into consideration. So I think an hard and fast rule on placement which would result in bots and AWB users scuttling about implementing a hard and fast rule would be on balance damaging to the project. -- PBS (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not very interested in "hard and fast rules" or automated enforcement (especially for rules that tags always be put in the article text). However, I think it would be beneficial to provide an optional suggestion for some individual templates, on the template documentation page, if there is a sensible default for those individual templates. I'm not interested in instruction creep, but I also don't want to have people re-invent the wheel every time they wonder what might be best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

## ⇒[results]

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)