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
Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 8#Template:Notability-inline we will almost certainly have a redirect going from Template:Notability-inline to here, Template:Importance-inline, which implies (against WP:Notability#Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article) that inline content can be a notability issue. That isn't correct, is very misleading, and is likely to result in continued confusion. All existing cases {{notability-inline}} should be replaced with calls to {{importance-inline}}, and the page at Template:Notability-inline should be deleted and WP:SALTed, since (unless longstanding policy radically changes) it's impossible for an inline issue to be a notability issue, but someone meaning well would almost certainly but wrongheadedly re-create the "missing inline version". The notability version will serve no purpose. The {{Importance-section}} template serves the same purpose as {{importance-line}}, at a larger scale, and the wording of the two should be kept synchronized. The redirect from {{Notability-section}} to {{Importance-section}} should be deleted and salted for the same reason I propose doing this with the inline equivalent. The redirect from {{Importance}} to {{Notability}} is fine, because it's impossible for an entire article subject to be notable yet also be unimportant (i.e., unencyclopedically trivial; relevance, the other aspect of "importance" here, doesn't apply at the whole-article level, since there's no surrounding context for the article to be relevant within). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.04:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree. (Although, this is the wrong place for discussion. It would be Template talk:Notability-inline.) Still, the redirect should remain, even if contrary to guidelines. There are many redirects contrary to guidelines; it is sufficient that someone who thinks of the source should be thinking of the target. — Arthur Rubin(talk)16:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, with a bot process to clean-up and a bot note to user talk pages regarding why it should be importance-inline? Template:ii might be a good importance-inline redirect? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I could live with that, but I see zero value in keeping a redirect that just confuses people. It would be better even to have a protected page there, an "untemplate", kind of a soft redirect, with information on it about the issue, than just redirecting it and continuing the confusion. Per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, the fact that there are other misleading redirects around that confuse people about policy matters is not at all an argument for making more of them; we ought to be getting rid of them as many as is feasible. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.09:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't use this as a chance to educate editors on WEIGHT/IMPORTANCE as the only snowclones within articles of notability, you're going to come across taggers naturally seeking notability-inline. We can get bots to do an element of that pedagogy through user talk pages. It isn't an other crap exists issue, but a chance to improve editing in other users. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts at this have had no effect at all. I keep having to replace {{notability-inline}} instances in articles, and am going to have it spit a red error like we do with other template misuse. Five years is way too long an experiment in this. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
