Inline Templates
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.

Broken "noinclude" tag?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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

Wikiproject Inline templates proposed[edit]

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

Cat. fix[edit]


((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 Category:Template documentation in noinclude). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Category problem[edit]

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))Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Please fix misspelling: preceeding[edit]

 – Fixed

"preceding" is misspelled in this template's definition:

|title=The text preceeding this tag needs specification

--DavidBiesack (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Not done

Can we make this link somewhere else? It doesn't have any explanation of what it means except the template page, which I had to pull up the wikitext source to get.

(To be fair, I think this tag should be replaced by putting a note on the talk page, as it's not relevant to the readers). (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too unspecific [ironically!] a request to act on, and people seem content with its present link to WP:Citing sources.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editprotected request involving this template[edit]


This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)(background check) 20:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update code[edit]

Please replace the present code by

<!--((Specify)) begin-->((Fix
| subst = <includeonly>((subst:</includeonly><includeonly>substcheck))</includeonly>
| link  = Wikipedia:Citing sources
| text  = specify
| title = The text preceeding this tag needs specification
| date  = (({date|))}
| cat   = [[Category:Articles needing more detailed references]]
))<!--((Specify)) begin--><noinclude>

This is the last template using ((Fix)) not to have substitution protection. Debresser (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 21:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Purpose? What is specificity?[edit]


According to documentation, "if [information] is likely true, but needs specificity, you may use ((Specify))". Therefore, I would think that if I read the following in an article, ((Specify)) would be appropriate:

Flying cars have advantages.
Flying cars have disadvantages.

But the documentation says ((Specify)) is "for information that needs citations to make it complete, or quotations that are used without citations". So it doesn't look like a way to indicate that the article's text is missing specificity. If this merely requests references, I think the template's name and text are misleading. And what would be the difference between this and ((Citation needed)) or ((Cite quote))? --Chealer (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would seem that the documentation is not altogether correct. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase it, so that is should conform better to the stated purpose of this template? Maybe the documentation was copied from another documentation file and ill adapted. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I'd like to clear up the purpose, which I find unclear. I would like input from others about what the intended purpose of this is, and if we can't tell, what the purpose should be. By "stated purpose", do you mean you consider the first sentence to be the actual intended purpose? --Chealer (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I understand the documentation, the example you gave above is where you should use ((Clarify)). This is for cases like:
- The speaker of the house said "bla bla bla", an analogous statement was made by the speaker of congress.((Specify))
That is, not for clarifying an ambiguous or simply unclear or unspecified statement, but for specifying the content of a statement. Debresser (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I, too, would like to see some clarification of the purpose of this template. I recently found the following passage: "Latin American liberation theology met opposition from power in the US." which clearly needed further specification as to who opposed liberation theology and how and when they did it.
A possible fix would be to add a field to the template where the user could spell out what needs to be specified. I'd try myself but I don't do code. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please fix misspelling: preceeding[edit]

As first pointed out above by User:DavidBiesack, three and a half years ago: the word "preceding" is misspelled in this template's definition.

|title=The text preceeding this tag needs specification

Please fix this. If you need evidence, see Wiktionary precede and preceding. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quite correct, so Done; note that it was the ((editprotected)) that drew my attention to this - without that, it would continue to have gone unnoticed. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I placed the editprotected. Thank you both. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please add Reason parameter[edit]


Would you please add a "Reason = " field to the template where the user could spell out what needs to be specified (a similar field is found in Template:Clarify). I've discussed the justification for this change above in the section #Purpose? What is specificity?.

It might be desirable to add the same Reason field to the other related templates. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thoughts, Debresser? Alakzi (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, and documentation updated. In general, adding a |reason= parameter is more helpful than not, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the nature of the request, and the original discussion about the template's unclear, vague purpose, and the related discussion at Template talk:Contradict-inline#Behavior of the 'reason' parameter, I've made this parameter add to but not replace the content provided by the tooltip.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please fix parameter handling, add text and post-text parameters[edit]

Wikilinks in the reason parameter value breaks the template's substitution. For example, "See Talk:Blah blah" will cause whatever article text following the close braces to become rendered as part of the italicised "specify text". ((Clarify)) suffers a similar problem, but it has post-text that overcomes it. Maybe add text and post-text parameters? To reproduce the problem, try adding a "See Talk page" link to my Specify edit here to produce an effect similar to my Clarify edit here. -84user (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Fixed. I added ((delink)) to the reason parameter, so it should automatically strip out any wikilinks. --Ahecht (TALK
) 15:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should 'needed' be Added to '[specify]'?[edit]

Should '[specify]' be Changed to '[specify needed]'? pl2nmOdXlm7ykr0 18:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hnnlm (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]