Template talk:Self-contradictory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Contradict)
Jump to: navigation, search

vague phrasing[edit]

Now here is a Template you can just apply whenever you don't "get it" after a quick skim-through. No need to air what you personally find self-contradictory at the relevant Talk page. Just paste this tab and move on. Tailored for the after-school hacker who is mildly bored with Wikipedia but unwilling to commit overt vandalism. --Wetman 20:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I changed the wording from the sarcastic-sounding "if you can guess which parts" to phrasing that includes a link to the article's talk page, encouraging this use instead. If the template still seems useless to you, you may want to nominate it at WP:TFD. --Tabor 19:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

reference to talk[edit]

Changed reference to talk to be more similar to that used in Template:POV, in order to imply some kind of onus on the person who adds the template to also start the relevant discussion. Arbitrary username 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Made the template suitable for application to a single section as well, as some articles have contradictions concentrated like that. For example, brick has three different standards in the same section, two of which claim to be universal. Falcon 00:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Added the contradict-section template to the template messages page. Falcon 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Should this template have parameters, such as This article appears to contradict {other article}.? If a consensus is reached, I will revise the template to reflect this. --Richard0612 18:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this would be useful, but perhaps it should have its own dedicated template, such as {{contradictother}}? --Tim1988 talk 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

section parameter[edit]

I added a new section parameter to this template that allows it to be used for both sections and entire articles. With this new parameter {{contradict-section}} may no longer be needed. Can be used with other 'about' parameter.

Examples of use:

  • {{contradict|section}}
  • {{contradict|section|about=test}}
  • {{contradict|about=test|section}}

Let me know if you have any other questions or if this causes other issues I am not aware of.--NMajdantalk 18:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The tag contradicts itself[edit]

The part about see the discussion on the TALK page, lol. Af648 10:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


This template would link to the talk page and the copyeditor would include a section in the talk page talked contradict to specify the contradiction. In other case, the contradict template could be deleted from the article, because one does not know the contradict reason and talk about it. --Mac (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have noted a non-obvious contradiction in Grease (film)#Soundtrack, and would like to have single template that advises of the contradiction and also refers to the talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, working on it now. Spitfire19 (Talk) 19:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Done Spitfire19 (Talk) 19:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

friggen hilarious[edit]

oh I just couldn't help but comment
I think that this tag/notice is so friggen funny! I mean its like something off of unencyclopedia andyzweb (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to talk page should be improved, maybe parametrized[edit]

If you tag an article as self-contradictory, the template generates a link to the talk page, but not to a specific section in the talk page. If you tag a section as self-contradictory, the template generates a link to a section in the talk page titled "section" (in lower case yet).

If people are going to create a section in the talk page to talk about the contradiction, then it would be more helpful if the {{contradict}} template actually linked to that section of the talk page.

I suggest that (1) by default the link should always be to a section titled "Contradiction" in the talk page, and (2) a new parameter should be added to the template, allowing the section title in the talk page to be specified. For example, on the page Sky,

  {{contradict|about=the color of the sky}}

would link to Talk:Sky#Contradiction, but

  {{contradict|about=the color of the sky|talk=Black, Blue, or Gray?}}

would link to Talk:Sky#Black, Blue, or Gray?.

The parameter name "talk=" is just the first thing I thought of; if there are other templates with a similar parameter, the same name used for those should be used here.

Of course, in some cases there is no need for talk page discussion anyway, because the "about=" parameter says it all and the person fixing the error knows how to correct it. But in that case my proposal would make no difference; if the section "Contradiction" does not exist, the link will still go to the top of the page. -- (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. In writing the above, I chose my example as a joke, inspired by an example in the Indian Hill style guide for C. But the joke turns out to be on me: there actually is a section on the talk page for Sky with the title: "The color of the sky is in dispute again!"!. -- (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Remobe "about" parameter[edit]

See Template talk:Contradict-other for a proposal to remove the "about" parameter from this template. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Template: inconsistent[edit]

If I understand its documentation, template {{inconsistent}} should be used whenever a particular sentence(?) can be tagged, meaning inconsistent with something in the rest of the page.

If so, that should be mentioned here. Offhand I suppose that the {inconsistent} are a majority of the merely {contradict} --in contrast to contradict-other. --P64 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing or defective parameters[edit]

The parameters of this template are severely lacking. If there's a date one, I couldn't get it to work. In the preview, the year would show up but not the month; when I didn't input any date information, none displayed, not even the year. And there doesn't seem to be a working way to direct the link to a specific section of the talk page. I inserted |article and that did what it was supposed to, but it also made the talk page link to #article. I tried changing the order of the parameters without success. Hope someone can address this. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Appears to have been updated since then or a temporary problem. Hyacinth (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The "See also" section could benefit from some clean-up[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

The 3 & 4 lines would be clearer in this form: (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, largely as proposed, which garnered a clear majority of support (and the lone dissenter on a couple of issues was reasonably well refuted). I say "largely" because Template:Contradiction inline will not be moved as it has been merged since the RM began and Template:Contradict-inline will not because it has been struck by the nominator. No prejudice against starting a new RM for that template. — Jenks24 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

* Template:Contradict-inlineTemplate:Contradicts inline – These names are a confusing mess on multiple levels. See details in post below.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: Template:Contradiction inline has merged into Template:Contradict-inline, since the default (no parameters) behavior of the latter would simply serve precisely the same function as the former.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

In more detail: The current names are hopelessly confused and confusing (dare I say self-contradictory?):

All this non-standard abuse of hyphenation is slowly being purged from the template names in favor of plain English over the last several years. The only hyphenation in the proposed names is that used for compound modifiers in standard English. The word "contradict" by itself has been used in the original names in mutually conflicting ways, and the modification "contradiction" used inconsistently. The proposed new names clearly identify exactly what the problem is in each case, in natural language that makes sense in the differing banner and inline contexts of the templates, instead of making editors try to guess, and without resorting to contorted, redundant constructions like "contradict-other-multiple".

As a separate matter, {{Inconsistent}} can be merged into {{contradicts inline}} (presently {{contradict-inline}}), because the problem being flagged is the same: the claim in question contradicts other material that is specified by the template, and it doesn't matter whether that's in another section of this article, or a section at a different article.

Also, a bot or some AWB scripts could be used to merge {{contradicts other}} (presently {{contradict-other}}) into {{contradicts others}} (presently {{contradict-other-multiple}}), and moved to {{contradicts other}} as a unified template; the two templates serve the same purpose, but have incompatible parameters, but the one with the unhelpful parameter configuration is used too many times to manually replace it. The old {{contradict-section}} has already been merged.

Whatever the ultimate outcome, Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects should be updated to normalize all instances to the new names, and Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Dated templates updated to use them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support, makes sense, and gives easier coding. I don't know much about the coding, but since SMc and I seem to the only folks here today, and the request seems well reasoned, and he brought the refreshments, a second to this motion. Randy Kryn 21:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Randy Kryn, @Insertcleverphrasehere: Template:Contradict-inline should not be Template:Contradicts other inline; that template can be used to flag contradiction anywhere, including in the same article (the default behavior!), so such a rename would just lead immediately to another RM to correct it. Template:Contradicts inline really was chosen for a reason. Secondly, two major aspects of this rename are conciseness and natural language (i.e. parseability, memorability). No one wants to type out "contradicts multiple others", and "multiple others" is a redundant way of saying "others"; that they are multiple is known because "others" is plural. I really did think about this carefully. So, please reconsider your proposed changes to the original proposal.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Debresser: I meant to ping you on this, not Randy.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi. Editors are thinking I made those two suggestions, so please reread my comment, which doesn't mention any suggestions. Thanks. Randy Kryn 22:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Randy Kryn: Noted. I didn't scan the posts correctly, and pinged you the first time instead of Debresser (fixed).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.