Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates/Archive 1

Proposals?
Part of the "charter" was to establish a proposals area. Another idea was to create Inline templates for discussion. As with WP:SFD, it would take a while to get "buy-in" at WP:TFD on WP:ITFD's "authoritativeness", but I would suggest that WP:ITFD would be useful both as "Inline templates for deletion" (renaming, merging) discussion area, which initially could be advisory toward any WP:TFD discussion of the relevant templates, unless/until it there is consensus that it should operate like WP:SFD, and as the place for proposals of new templates of this sort (thus "for discussion" instead of "for deletion"). WikiProject Stub Sorting went with widely separate proposal and delete/rename/merge areas, and the result has seemed to me to be a little chaotic. Thoughts? — SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 01:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Will there be so many changes that many types of discussions are needed? How about starting with a Proposals area being used for any proposed changes?  Suggestions, creation, alterations, or deletion.  It could be a subpage under this project, so as to keep this Talk page relevant to the project itself.  If specialization is needed then more specific pages can be created.  (SEWilco 04:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC))
 * /Proposals always seems to mean "proposals for new stuff"; what should we call it then? Heck, I guess we could literally call it /Inline templates for discussion.  —  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 05:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Requests, suggestions? Thesaurusize.  (SEWilco 19:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC))
 * I'm for /Inline templates for discussion; we could use WP:ITFD immediately, and moving the page someday to Inline templates for discussion would be less jarring. That's my !!vote. ;-) —  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 00:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm marking this as "Resolved" for now due to lack of interest in the topic, and evidence that the talk page is handling this function fine for the time being. The issue could always be re-opened later. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 08:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox for adopted templates
Maybe an infobox should be used for adopted templates. Initially it might primarily include a Category, with additional info being added as necessary. (SEWilco 04:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Is good plan. — SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 05:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Identified templates
I've categorized all of them (or flagged them for editprotected's to do so, where necessary) into Category:Inline templates (among other fixes, in various cases; several citation templates were not cat'd as such, while a few templates for non-ref footnotes were mis-cat'd as such). Most if not all of those editprotected's were just fulfilled. I would suggest that any newly discovered templates of this sort (regardless of their age) be filed in the "New" templates section on the project page until they are thusly processed. I'm sure more will turn up. I think our first order of business is indentifying and categorizing them (both in the "Category:" and for purposes of the project on its own page, so we know what we are dealing with. I got bold and have already flagged a few of them as problematic. —  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 10:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Resources section
Did someone manually add that material or is it just part of the default "new WikiProject page" stuff? Some of it seems kind of off-topic... — SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 10:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: To be more specific, I mean the two self-reference/WP-metadata items, one of which is moribund. These templates are WP-self-referential by definition, like all cleanup tags, so they are auto-exempt from Avoid self-references, no? —  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 10:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Those seemed like they might be relevant, and as I stumbled across them I tossed them in.(diff) Edit ruthlessly.  I'm busy with other things at the moment but this project is in my watchlist for further attention.  (SEWilco 19:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Date issues
Notice the current discussion about date consistency in Wikipedia:Village pump %28proposals%29#Date formats in cite templates. (SEWilco 23:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC))


 * I popped in there. Not sure my comments were all that debate-shaping.  I'm pretty happy to implement whatever the rest of WP wants in that regard. —  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 08:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To the extent this issue still "lives" it appears to be at Template talk:Cite_news, Template talk:Cite web, etc. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 08:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Microformats
Maybe WikiProject Microformats should be considered when designing format changes. (SEWilco 00:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Can you elaborate? I've noticed that project before and tried to figure out, but I don't understand what its goals are (nor, to the more immediate point, how it really relates to what we're up to here).  Are we thinking of doing something like hCard, but for issue-flagging with superscripts in plaintext?  &lt;confused&gt;  I'm not trying to be obtuse or anything, I just genuinely don't understand the point of that project, even though I know what a microformat is (I was using vCard when it was still a draft and no software in the world had yet implemented it; I think eff.org may have been one of the first sites in the world with vCards downloadable from the /staff page. :-)  —  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 09:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The format of inline templates will be adjusted by this project. The microformat standards should be considered.  For example, if this project changes an inline template which has a geographical coordinate then maybe the new format should include the geo microformat.  (SEWilco 16:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Today is the first time I've seen this discussion, but if you're still confused about microformats, I'd be happy to answer any questions, You might find microformat (heavily revised since you wrote the above) and hcard a good place to start. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 12:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There's currently discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive_11 about inline microformat templates. Comments from people in this wikiproject would be appreciated. --Para 23:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be under control there, and people are already noting that much of that discussion is off-topic; adding WP:WPILT issues to the discussion will just make it more off-topic. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 01:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's another long discussion at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 10. The issue with those particular templates is about to be solved, but the topic generally could use some more points if some haven't been made yet. Here, there, or anywhere else. --Para 10:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The debate seems to have died off completely. Anyway, yes, surely we should be cognizant of WikiProject Microformats's needs as we go forward, but there does not seem to be a large degree of "jurisdictional" overlap. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 09:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's unfortunately what one of the contributors causes to happen quite often . The overlap that should be in everyone's interests is the clarity of wikitext, especially in projects related specifically to issues with editing. It seems that people are not too interested however, as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/HTML remains quiet. I suppose the Village pump will be the next place to take this issue to to actually have some opinions. --Para 11:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Aside from your further ad hominem, "the Village pump will be the next place to take this issue to " sounds like forum shopping. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 12:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a discussion that should happen in user talk, not here (if it should continue at all). As for forum shopping, the VP is generally where lots of discussions about where consensus should go take place; I don't think it would be forum shopping to raise an issue there unless there was already a solid consensus about it at a more narrow venue, and someone disgruntled with the results tried to misleadingly "consensus-break" by re-raising an already settled issue as if had not been settled. Just my take. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 14:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Request that the brackets don't link
Copied from Template talk:Fact: I simply request that the brackets don't link, only the citation needed part needs to link. --98E 01:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates
 * Cc: Template talk:Fact
 * We have our first customer!
 * I suggest we discuss this at WikiProject Inline Templates instead of Template talk:Fact so that we can have a format that applies across all inline templates.
 * --Kevinkor2 07:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the pseudocode for fact is   if in main namespace, if date given, place article in Category:Articles with unsourced statements since date; else, place article in Category:Articles with unsourced statements; end if; place article in Category:All articles with unsourced statements; end if; start superscript; start wikilink to Citing sources; start span with style="white-space: nowrap;" and tooltip="This claim needs references to reliable sources"; if date given, add "since date" to end of tooltip; open square bracket; start italics; "citation needed"; end italics; close square bracket; end span; end wikilink; end superscript;

The request from would change this to: if in main namespace, if date given, place article in Category:Articles with unsourced statements since date; else, place article in Category:Articles with unsourced statements; end if; place article in Category:All articles with unsourced statements; end if; start superscript; start span with style="white-space: nowrap;"; open square bracket; start wikilink to Citing sources; start span with tooltip="This claim needs references to reliable sources"; if date given, add "since date" to end of tooltip; start italics; "citation needed"; end italics; end span; end wikilink; close square bracket; end superscript;

In code, this would be:

Please indicate if you accept or reject this change. --Kevinkor2 07:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Accept. I think 98E's request will result in cleaner looking output at the cost of a modest increase in template size. --Kevinkor2 07:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept Per Kevinkor2, the brackets shouldn't be linked. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 07:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. Will look better, makes more logical sense (the term, the footnote anchor, whatever it is inside an inline template that is being linked, does not actually include brackets; they are simply a typographical convention), and it will be more consistent with link their square brackets, so I don't know how this makes it more consistent. Of course, those numbered links are a lot thinner to require more clicking space. But I think the color difference between the text and the link &#91;citation needed&#93;  may be less aesthetic than the current format. &#91;citation needed&#93;  Someone could argue that the brackets are part of a meta-problem, so they should also link away to differentiate it from the actual content on the page. –Pomte 02:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to accept. If inline templates are to be standardized, it seems to be more proper form to unlink the brackets on all of them, especially considering the case of multiple links within them. –Pomte 01:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Update: Accept per dispenser's multiple links point below. 08:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC): I must've been smokin' crack when I wrote the struck part above; ref. citations do indeed link link the brackets. I must've been wishing they didn't.  For consistency's sake, then, we should have all of these superscripty things do that, shouldn't we? (Though I think I maintain that it isn't particularly logical, and my ultimate preference would be to have the developers change to stop doing that; however, I do also understand Pomte's take on the "link away to meta" perspective.) I'll just sit on my fence for a while. —  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: All the reference tools with brackets also link the brackets. (SEWilco 04:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment: By the way, this this the kind of debate I like to see. Many things are technically possible, but our work as a WikiProject will be more permanent and useful when we have consistency and consensus.--Kevinkor2 05:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, many other inline templates aren't linking their brackets. –Pomte 05:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose one has to decide whether to consider fact as being similar to reference templates or to other inline templates. (SEWilco 06:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC))
 * It's more that the some-do-some-don't thing with these templates simply points out a lack of consistency that needs fixing. Many were created in emulation of then-existing ones, without actually using their code at all, and this has caused a lot of divergence over time. WikiProject banners have been undergoing the same messification. —  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 08:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept: Multiple links in a superscript should be considered as in the case of dead link. Also, If memory serves me correct the outer brackets were hyper linked as to increase the clicking area.  —Dispenser 03:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact template did not originally include the brackets in the link, and I believe they were added to address a nowrap issue. Has the proposed version been checked for proper nowrap behaviour? Gimmetrow 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nowrap applies to the entire text, so there shouldn't be any problems. –Pomte 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept: Agree, the [edit] link at the side of each section doesn't include the brackets, so why should anything else? Just hypocrisises itself. Bennelliott  •  Talk  •  Contributions  14:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion: There appears to be a broad but not entirely unanimous consensus to not link the brackets, especially because some superscripted notes of this sort have more than one link in them. Some concern was expressed that this is inconsistent with style, but the countervailing observation was that the linking of brackets there was to make the very small links more clickable - a special case. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Classes
I'd like to see most of these templates have a specific class identifying on the outermost container element, so that they can be identified by user css and javascript

Maybe like how the body element on the page itself has the class "page-Template_Fact", the sup element could have the class "transclude-Template_Fact". --Random832 02:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note, fact itself already has the class "Template-Fact", per my earlier request - ideally i'd like to see something or other become a standard for all pages intended to be transcluded. There should probably be another class that simply identifies all "superscripted bracketed templates" of this sort, etc. (multiple classes can of course be included on a single tag as a space-separated list) --Random832 02:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Any progress on this idea? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nowrap for entire phrase or not?

 * Copied from Template_talk:Fact. Gimmetrow 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin please modify the code so as to allow a line wrap between citation and needed when it overflows? It makes lots of pages have horizontal scroll bars unnecessarily because the 'needed]' part sticks out too far to the right. Fullmetal2887 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This problem should be solved by getting rid of the &lt;span&gt; tags and instead putting &amp;nbsp; between citation and needed. You can see the difference here. The top paragraph has the current format; the bottom paragraph uses &amp;nbsp;. Make your browser window thinner until you see a difference in line wrapping. The top paragraph is the one that creates a scroll bar, at least in Firefox 2. –Pomte 01:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact template had nbsp for quite a while and it was changed to a nowrap span for a reason. Gimmetrow 03:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have found the reason: "Using &amp;nbsp; to prevent linebreaking is klugey; do it with CSS instead." This is not convincing so far. Are there browsers that do not prevent linebreaking with &amp;nbsp;? –Pomte 04:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My browser (IE7) orphans "[" when "citation needed" does not fit on the line. I believe it feels there is a line break opportunity before a tag.--Kevinkor2 14:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How about &#91;citation needed&#93; ? This would allow wrapping only on the space between the words, at the cost of slightly (2x) larger code. --cesarb 01:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Has this issue been resolved yet? What is our fix-inline meta-template doing? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 08:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

'Attribution' Tag
I only just joined this project, so forgive me if my suggestion is somehow naïve. I use the 'who' tag often, as in: Some groups oppose these measures. It seems to me that one could simplify this tag to "who?", as in: Some groups[who?] oppose these measures. It's short and non-distracting, and its meaning is obvious -- I've had people inappropriately swap my 'attribution needed' with a 'citation needed' tag, possibly believing their meanings to be the same. With this tag, the difference should be obvious. Additionally, it would nicely compliment the weasel word tag.

Yay? Nay? --Xiaphias 05:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It would have to be rethought and redocumented and might just spawn a more general "attribution needed" inline tag; despite its name who is used more broadly than to ask "who said that". It might also be questionable whether weasel word is needed (or countervailingly whether not only is it needed, why don't we have a lot more inline templates with finer-grained meaning?) It's a debate we haven't really had yet. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 06:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A template that says [who?] would definitely be a lot more intuitive, but it's an issue that's not as important as the need for attribution. It's possible for the groups to remain unspecified: some reliable sources can say only that "some groups oppose this" without saying what those groups are. In that case, maybe it's better to write "there has been opposition to this". –Pomte 06:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A further issue is that there are multiple templates of this sort all trying to serve effectively the same purpose; see WikiProject Inline Templates and below.  I reject my lack of certainty in June (above), and now maintain that we need one inline template for flagging weasel words, and it probably should not say "attribution" due to the abortive but still semi-active attempt to replace WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:RS with WP:ATT. A mass-merger is needed. I'm personally in favor of who as the eventual target, but I think we could probably come to consensus step-wise, and merge all "who-ish" templates into who, and merge all "weasel-ish" templates into weasel-inline, then discuss merging the remaining two into one. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 09:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See also, below.

Dead links
Found my way here from dead link - is it worth suggesting on that template's page to people that they use the Internet Archive or a similar project to try and find a cached version of the 404'd link, rather than mindlessly plastering articles with dead link? Neil ( ► ) 12:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably. See dlw and related. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 06:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The optional url parameter already implies this. I've added more explicit instructions. –Pomte 06:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Related WP?
Maybe this project should be listed as being related (a child?) of WikiProject Templates, and a link (parent?) from here to there. (SEWilco 15:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Done. –Pomte 17:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)