Template talk:Independent source inline
Add topic | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Requested move 27 May 2015
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was moved. There's consensus to move, but this is a silly premise. Many templates use hyphens instead of spaces; I believe all stub templates do. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Template:Third-party-inline → Template:Third-party inline – Incorrect use of hyphenation in English. There are some other templates of this sort doing this, but most are now at titles without the hyphen before "inline", e.g. {{Self-published inline}}, which illustrates actually correct use of hyphenation, the same kind needed here in the compound adjective "third-party". --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose there used to be a convention to hyphenate between every word in a cleanup template name. I see no problem in the location of this template, given that a redirect already exists -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's a convention that we don't use any longer. Misuse of hyphenation like this is counterintuitive. Consistent page names are desirable for any number of reasons, from tool automation, to being able to edit /doc pages in series without having to repeatedly guess at alternative spellings with different hyphenation. Not seeing a problem with one name isn't, alone, a valid rationale to oppose moving it to another. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom and per Wikipedia:Template namespace#Template names. PC78 (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support The less hyphens - the better. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- See also Template talk:Primary source-inline#Requested move 27 May 2015. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Speaking as the person who created this template, I don't care. Whatever you all want is fine with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Wrong category
[edit]In the documentation it says this template adds the article to Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification. That's a category for articles with style issues, not sourcing issues. Does it actually add articles to that category and, if so, is it possible to change to a different one? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)