继承人小说汤宁txt全集在线免费阅读 v1.0 完整版
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
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)
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)
Redefine?
[edit]Please see discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Inline_Templates#Redefine_.22nonspecific.22.3F Eperoton (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)