Template talk:Undue weight
Documentation
editThis template is missing documentation. Please add some documentation or links to other templates to help find the relevant templates. Ndanielm (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Talk section link request
editPlease make this template (and Template:Undue-section) support linking to a talk page section instead of the whole talk page. See eg. Template:Cleanup. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 05:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 13 March 2016
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: templates and their associated pages moved. wbm1058 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Undue → Template:Undue weight
- Template:Undue inline → Template:Undue weight inline
- Template:Undue section → Template:Undue weight section
– Names of templates, especially those likely to be encountered by new editors (particularly tag left as complaints pertaining to content they've just added) need to have names that make some kind of sense to someone who is not already a Wikipedia policy expert. There's been a steady sea change over the last 5 years to moving templates from opaque jargon like {{fact}} to plain English like {{citation needed}}. Even if the redirects remain in use, they are auto-converted to the more descriptive names by various bots and AWB scripts. This is more cleanup in the same direction. Note in particular that the names of the variant templates make no sense at all at present; something being inline is not undue, and it is not undue for something to be sectioned. The weight given to something in that material is what is undue. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support, per nom, clearer data in a name, especially a short name such as this, assists both new and "seasoned" editors. Randy Kryn 18:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Per Nom. Always good ideas this guy. ◕‿↼ InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. An excellent proposal. — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support, more descriptive titles is always better for templates.--Zoupan 18:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support. If something is undue, it should probably be deleted entirely. Undue weight means some weighting is undue. Weight is not implied by the word undue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Help!
edit | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I have put this request here, because it is more likely that this will be the page requiring the edit. This template is used on Rupert Murdoch, where there is an error in bolding - it doesn't recognise the closing ''' as closing the opening ''', instead causing a displayed ' and the rest of the line in italics. Why?--Launchballer 23:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, it turns out there were unbalanced single quotes used to italicize "Forbes," and this caused the parser to bold the rest of the template. See [1] Cheers, Sn1per (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)