Template talk:Specify

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Broken "noinclude" tag? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. --ais523 08:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Specificity 

message: 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)
thread_title: ''Wikiproject Inline templates'' proposed

message: Need to add: 
 
 
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  in noinclude). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 03:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The categories have been added. CMummert · talk 12:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cat. fix

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  uses would work.--BirgitteSB 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  ). 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Category problem 

message: "preceding" is misspelled in this template's definition:
:|title=The text preceeding this tag needs specification
--DavidBiesack (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix misspelling: preceeding 

message: 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). 87.194.58.136 (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Too unspecific [ironically!] a request to act on, and people seem content with its present link to WP:Citing sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editprotected request involving this template 

message: Please replace the present code by 



This is the last template using  not to have substitution protection. Debresser (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: -FASTILY (TALK)  21:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update code 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Thoughts, ? Alakzi (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done, and documentation updated. In general, adding a  parameter is more helpful than not, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add Reason parameter 

message: 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".  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)
replies: text: . I added  to the reason parameter, so it should automatically strip out any wikilinks. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 15:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix parameter handling, add text and post-text parameters

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