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
This template is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability articles
Requested move 27 May 2015
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was moved. There's consensus to move, but this is a silly premise. Many templates use hyphens instead of spaces; I believe all stub templates do. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Third-party-inline → Template:Third-party inline – Incorrect use of hyphenation in English. There are some other templates of this sort doing this, but most are now at titles without the hyphen before "inline", e.g. {{Self-published inline}}, which illustrates actually correct use of hyphenation, the same kind needed here in the compound adjective "third-party". --Relisted.George Ho (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there used to be a convention to hyphenate between every word in a cleanup template name. I see no problem in the location of this template, given that a redirect already exists -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a convention that we don't use any longer. Misuse of hyphenation like this is counterintuitive. Consistent page names are desirable for any number of reasons, from tool automation, to being able to edit /doc pages in series without having to repeatedly guess at alternative spellings with different hyphenation. Not seeing a problem with one name isn't, alone, a valid rationale to oppose moving it to another. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as the person who created this template, I don't care. Whatever you all want is fine with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
