Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates

Is there a variant of that more explicitly says "sources conflict"?
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. Maybe even ?

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, is anyone else unhappy with that particular phrasing? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You could try, or or  or , but none of those has a discussion parameter. I agree it would be better to discuss the discrepancy in the text if it is of long standing (unless you are in an infobox, in which case I'd say "25th[cite] or 26th[cite2] November"). I'd tentatively support creating . It seems as though English should have a more apposite word than "conflict", shorter than "mutual contradiction". The vagueness of "dubious" may be useful for averting conflict, but could be retained alongside a more specific tag. HLHJ (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, every template that serves a cleanup/dispute function should support a discussion-pointer parameter, and we should standardized them so that whatever the common names for them (discuss, talk, etc.) all work in all of them. This would be semi-tedious, but as such things go this really isn't that large a category of templates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, SMcCandlish. I must admit that except of very active articles, I rarely expect discussion, so I find "reason=" parameters more useful. I might use a "talk" param more if I could write a quick "reason" summary into it and have a talk page section automatically created, but I can imagine that making the odd mess; not everyone would read to see if it's discussed on the talk page first, for instance. But it might be worth the relatively small cost of duplicate sections. Or maybe I could give a reason and it would turn into a talk page section if anyone clicked "discuss"? HLHJ (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a bit of maintenance. So far nothing seems to have come out of this discussion (i.e. no actual edits to templates), right? The templates themselves can be found at contradict-inline, ambiguous, clarify and inconsistent (i.e. use tl to link to templates). CapnZapp (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

inline "Not covered by the body of article"
Is there a tag for "this fact in the lead section is then not discussed in the body of the article". Would be very useful and easy to understand. CapnZapp (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , by "tag" do you mean a template that generates a banner at the top of the article (or section) to which it applies, such as, say, expand lead (for a different problem), or perhaps an inline template like citation needed that generates a small, superscript notice embedded in the text? If you mean the latter, then you could use Not verified in body.
 * I believe there's a more central location in a guideline which has the text of the underlying policy or guideline you are talking about, but can't find it right now. The page Writing better articles has section #"Lead follows body", which reprises some guideline in the context of an explanatory supplement explaining how to implement the guideline while writing the lead of an article. But it's not the guideline itself. Mathglot (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I was asking about inline templates. CapnZapp (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If your second comment is related to how some templates link to the relevant policy governing them, then WP:LEAD would be my suggestion in this case. CapnZapp (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification of a discussion about making the "Year needed" template more general-purpose
Hello,

I have started a discussion on the template Year needed. Please join the discussion if you can.

Thank you, DesertPipeline (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup template for math
I would like to create some cleanup templates for mathematical equations to make it easier to point out when an equation is wrong or missing information. Would it be reasonable to make an inline template like Template:Clarification needed but that says instead undefined variables or something similar? I could do it but I am not an expert on template making (please ping me if you answer).--ReyHahn (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If you could list down several examples of the articles which needs those formula corrections, then please go ahead to create that template. But can you try to list down some of the articles which may need that templates? Chongkian (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Example needed
I suggest to add a parameter "reason=XXX" to the template, to allow an editor to specify what kind of example they have in mind. It should be displayed on mouse-over, similar to what does. See e.g. Principle of permanence, where I gave such a parameter, which is -of course- currently only visible in the source code. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What if that editor who put the tag doesn't really know any example of it? Hence that's why he/she insert that template. Chongkian (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:INLINE" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:INLINE&redirect=no Wikipedia:INLINE] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)