Template talk:Importance inline

Importance and notability template cleanup

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). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)