Template talk:Specify

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Specify is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

Contents

[edit] Broken "noinclude" tag?

It appears that something is broken relating to this template and its "noinclude" tag. I'm not exactly sure what the problem is, but it results in the text "<noinclude>" being appended to every use of this template (and following content being messed up as well). I'm attempting to fix it by following the format of other citation templates, e.g. cn, with respect to the category inclusion, though I'm not too confident it will work. If anyone knows a more appropriate fix, feel free to make it. -- Fru1tbat 14:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, after some experimenting, it appears it was the <noinclude> tag within the HTML comment that was causing the problem. It was obviously being parsed unexpectedly. I'm not sure what the intended behavior is, but the current version (without the <>) should work regardless of changes to the parser. I'm leaving the category inclusion the way it is for now, since it follows the convention used by other related templates. -- Fru1tbat 15:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Specificity

This template links to Wikipedia:Specificity, which seems to imply that it is for a different and more useful purpose than that described on the template itself. -- Beland 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

As stated by Beland, the template links to Wikipedia:Specificity. I propose that this be changed to Wikipedia:Citing Sources, in line with {{fact}}. me_and 23:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. --ais523 08:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Inline templates proposed

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inline templates. I've been meaning to do this for a while. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat. fix

{{Editprotected}} Need to add:

[[Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Inline templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

without the nowiki's of course. Might be best to move all this stuff to an unprotected /doc file (with the above cat's in includeonly, and Cat:Template documentation in noinclude). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The categories have been added. CMummert · talk 12:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category problem

This should not be putting article in Category:All articles lacking sources. But it is. Can someone please fix this?--BirgitteSB 16:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

Presumably the categories would need to be replaced with other categories, rather than just removed. Are there any appropriate candidate categories, or would they need to be created? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure. But I am sure that this shouldn't be putting them in a category for articles without sources when the tag is only relevant for a sentence or two. Maybe whatever category {{refimprove}} uses would work.--BirgitteSB 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Refimprove uses Category:Articles needing additional references, which also seems wrong for this one. A category like Category:Articles needing more detailed references (and its dated counterparts) would work, but I don't know all the right places to record a new maintenance category (for example, Rich Farmbrough needs to be notified and agree to create the new monthly categories that would result [1] ). I don't have any argument against changing this template, I just want it to be done right. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering this template has less than 500 uses I would just put Category:Articles needing additional references without the fancy date stuff. The current category needs that monthly stuff because it has over 83,000 articles. But there is no such need for that with such a small category. I setup the new category with all the proper maintenance tags.--BirgitteSB 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I changed the template, but eventually someone will have to set up the dated categories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)