This template is within the scope of WikiProject Inline Templates, a collaborative effort to improve and manage Wikipedia's inline footnote, cleanup and dispute templates. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Some discussion of this template may take place at the project's talk page, rather than here.Inline TemplatesWikipedia:WikiProject Inline TemplatesTemplate:WikiProject Inline TemplatesInline Templates articles

This template is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability articles

Wikiproject Inline templates proposed[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

More frustration!!![edit]

What I wanted (knew had existed and thought I'd found only to discover it has been changed by the G&G of wikiworld) is the non-verifiable inline tag. In machine language of course there is virtually (sic) no such thing as non-verifiability merely existence of the fact that something has TO THAT DATE not been verified (another example of gobble-de-geek?).

However, my situation is that a citation (to a printed trade catalogue unavailable to "most" people, having been out of print for at least 40 years) is EFFECTIVERLY unverifiable and I find I am unable to note this!! My ONLY options are either to delete the citation and the claim it refers to (which is also "dubious" - or in common parlance: incorrect) or resort to a patchwork of inline tags.

What is going on with the amalgamation merge and bloat that wiki is obdurately engaged in?!?!? Is there nobody with some sanity to guide the good ship .... hello .... ok, dumb question!

Once more I ask myself what is the point in trying to improve wiki i.e keep it to its guiding principles (as intelligently interpreted by human reasoning) if wiki itself is set on a becoming a Boy's Own Manual of Captain America's exploits? Bah humbug. I want to pay wiki back for the role it has in my work but what is the point if 100 times as many people delight in destroying its very structural integrity? Again, rhetorical questions shouted into the storm.

LookingGlass (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redefine?[edit]

Please see discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Inline_Templates#Redefine_.22nonspecific.22.3F Eperoton (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]