# Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates

## 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 [1] 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 (DiscussionContributions) 19:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

## User:YellowPegasus

FYI, 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)

## 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)

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)

## 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 [2] 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 [compromised link?] 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)

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)

## 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, 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)

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)

## 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)