Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates

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

Redefine "nonspecific"?[edit]

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)

Bugs with parsing quotes in reason in Template:Elucidate[edit]

See Template talk:Elucidate#Bugs with parsing quotes in reason. Discussion there. (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a variant of {{dubious}} that more explicitly says "sources conflict"?[edit]

Quite often I don't want to say or imply "I think this fact is wrong". I want to say "I don't know which source to believe", and I wish for an inline template like [sources conflict ]. Maybe even [conflicting ]?

Just to pick a recent example, Russell Oberlin died in late November. Most sources say on the 26th. But the New York Times says "Friday" (which would be the 25th) and The Guardian also says the 25th. However, this is not causing a WP:Accuracy dispute, i.e. a dispute on Wikipedia, between different editors. They're just all hoping more reports will come in which will allow the issue to be settled one way or the other. It's not like either answer affects his career or notability.

If it's unlikely the conflict will ever be resolved, then the article need to be updated. Either reword it to omit the uncertain fact, discuss the discrepancy, or add a footnote discussing the discrepancy. But where it is likely to be settled, such as current events with conflicting early reports, a quick tag is nice, in order to:

  1. Warn readers that the information is somewhat unreliable,
  2. Warn journalists looking for background, to reduce citogenesis, and
  3. Attract editors' attention to the issue

Although this is a documented application for {{dubious}}, is anyone else unhappy with that particular phrasing? (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a taskforce of WikiProject Templates?[edit]

--Fixuture (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Elucidate listed at Requested moves[edit]


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)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Template:Importance item ?[edit]

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)