Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

{{dubious}} on mobile[edit]

Here's what this template looks like:

The moon is made of cheese.[dubious ]

On mobile, the "discuss" link is hidden with a metadata class, so it looks more like this:

The moon is made of cheese.[dubious ]

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)

Self-sourcing examples[edit]

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)

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)