This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Multiple issues. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It would be great if someone could add that; I'm not good enough with templates! Thanks for all your useful work on this, Drum guy (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Errors (bugs) in "expert" and "expertsubject" tags
The tags "expert" and "expertsubject" do not work as described. Using "expertsubject = Biology" renders:
{{Articleissues
| expertsubject = Biology
}}
Using "expert = April 2008" renders:
{{Articleissues
| expert = April 2008
}}
The "expert" tag actually works as "expertsubject" is supposed to:
{{Articleissues
| expert = Biology
}}
Please correct the template or correct the description on the template page.
We can't have special parameters. I think someone could fix it by omitting the date parameter and using the special ones but I think it's complicated. Better treat Expertsubject alone and not in Articleissues. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The template still says, in several cases throughout the wiki, "It is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. may be able to help recruit one." which is very ugly. It is one the first things people read when browsing to a page containing the template. Since the template is permanently protected and I have no knowledge of templates anyway, whom do I have to ask or who should pay attention to fix this? Ðæltåþíç (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to template editing so I'm a little wary of trying to do this myself. Could someone please add a {{do-attempt}} option to this template? Otherwise I'm going to have to keep adding it as a separate template.
Thanks! --Aervanath'ssignatureisboring18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this even necessary to have in this template? I mean, if an article has so many problems that it needs a rewrite, what else needs to be said? Anthony Rupert (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it needs rewrite because it's confusing. Usually rewrite refers to the content. Orphan, deadend, etc. are different issues. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Problem with "roughtranslation"
When I enter eg.
{{Articleissues
| roughtranslation = May 2008
| wikify = May 2008
}}
at roughtranslation there is text "Tagged since Error: invalid time" instead of "Tagged since May 2008}}
What is the syntax to recruit experts from multiple WikiProjects? For example, for an article on diet: "This article is in need of attention from an expert. WikiProject Food and Drink or WikiProject Medicine may be able to recruit one."
Won't fix Template reads "Please place this template at the bottom (not the top) of the page, where readers will look for the categories". Articleissues is to be placed on the top. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
ah. ok. On another note... Might it be possible to rephrase "This article or section has multiple issues" such that having only one issue (e.g. when others are resolved) does not leave an "odd" message? Thx. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You know, this isn't the first time someone's requested that {{uncat}} be included in this template. Is it really crucial that it go at the bottom, instead of at the top? The articles that are tagged with uncat are almost always stubs, so usually what you get is articleissues at the top, with four or so issues, and then one paragraph, and then uncat at the bottom, which, to me, looks really strange. I would've already put it in if I hadn't noticed the debate at the {{uncategorized}}, above. I note that Waldir has just added his two cents there, supporting the inclusion of uncat into articleissues as well.--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It is always better to give specific instructions to editors for how they do something and where they should edit. Fro the same reason if the problem is in a specific section, it's better to place a tag there and not on the top. I am thinking of creating a multiple issues tag for the bottom of an article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as the specific instructions go, we can add this: "<small>Please add categories to the bottom of this article.</small>"
Unrer "should be placed at the top of an article" (from its manual). We need do some research. I won't be online this week, so next week I'll check that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to inform the editors I don't agree with the addition of nocats in the template by Aervanath the week I have informed I won't be online with "no consensus so the editors decide" excuse. Where the tag for no categories is placed is not a consensus for articleissues but for the original template itself. I would like more editors to express their opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted nofootnotes and uncategorized because if editors start adding this tags it will be very difficult to revert. I checked and someone already asked in Template talk:Uncategorized if the use of it in Articleissues would be a good idea. Sorry Aervanath but I disagree and I see many problems caused by the addition you did. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I added this issue yesterday, but it was reverted for the following reason:
Prophecy is used only by one article! Let's keep things simple
Huh? Do you mean the separate {{prophecy}} template is used in one article, or that it's only used in one article via this template? If it's the latter, well, sure it's not used in too many articles yet, because I just added it! Anthony Rupert (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I checked the "What links here" and I found only one article. Not via Articleissues but as a separate template. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think yes. If you do, I'll support you. It seems this template is rarely used. The only article using it, it was prodded for deletion! :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This template does not transclude the normal cleanup templates. If you are asking for the parameter name to be changed, that cannot be done. --- RockMFR18:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Travelguide
-->{{DatedAI
| name = {{{travelguide|}}}
| message = * It is written like a [[WP:NOT#TRAVEL|travel guide]] and may require [[WP:CU|cleanup]].
| cat-date = Wikipedia articles needing style editing
| cat-undate = Wikipedia articles needing style editing from
| cat = All articles needing style editing
}}<!--
Is full protection really necessary? In the logs, I noticed it was raised from semi after a single instance of vandalism. Otherwise, vandalism has been virtually nonexistent since semiprotection started. Why isn't semiprotection good enough? Is this page being targeted by a persistent vandal or banned user I don't know about? While this template is used on almost 5000 articles, that doesn't even put it in the top 500 most used templates. I was planning substantial improvements in the display text of this template, so that each entry harmonizes better with the current wording of the individual templates. If the community decides that full protection is indeed necessary, I can write up the wikicode, and post it for an administrator to add. szyslak (t) 04:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I know that. I just wanted to see what this page's regular editors think before I send it through that backlogged process. szyslak (t) 06:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I would also like to see it unprotected, for the reason that I also would like to make edits to it. There are still a lot of templates that this article doesn't include. However, at just over 5,000 transclusions, this is a high-risk target (admittedly one of many, as you pointed out). So there are arguments on both sides. I support dropping to semi-protected for now, but if the vandalism happens again, I would have to support re-upping the level.--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage07:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should restore full protection if semi proves insufficient in the future. As for whether this template is inherently "high-risk" enough for semiprotection, I think that's a discussion for another time and another talk page. (I might bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy sometime in the future.) I plan on waiting a few days for any further discussion before I send it to WP:RFPP. Of course, anyone else is welcome to do so anytime. szyslak (t) 23:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
The "wikify" parameter needs a space after the period in its main text ("It may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards."). There is no space between the period and the "Tagged since" string. See e.g. Ralph Begleiter. -- Rob C. alias Alarob19:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
To clarify a little: any of the other issues listed in this template can be removed once an editor has fixed them. "Recent death" is not a fixable situation (not by our editors, anyway; you might want to ask this guy, instead).--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage03:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I would oppose adding the merge tags to articleissues. Merge tags are there to invite editors to a discussion about the future of the article, and therefore, like deletion tags, need to be kept separate to call attention to those discussions. However, I do agree that {{off-topic}} and {{relevance}} could be added. So:
I've canceled the editprotected for now until we can agree. My thinking was that articleissues can also be used for sections, so a section template wouldn't be out-of-place. However, I think a template that says "Parts of this article may be off-topic or lacking relevance to the subject matter" would be somewhat useful. Do you know of one we could add?--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage07:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that this "Parts of this..." would make things more complicated than just having the templates in the correct section. Certainly, we could transform Articleissues to work with sections as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There already is a section parameter, and the default text reads "This article or section has multiple issues" (emphasis mine). That's why I thought that adding these wouldn't present a problem.--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage20:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Word "issues" could be improved ("problems")
I don't think that "This article has multiple issues" is as appropriate or meaningful as perhaps a better name, such as "This article requires refinement in multiple areas" or any of another dozen phrases I can think of off the top of my head. Anyone have any good ideas? Msa11usec (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
None that I think can be applied as well to the range of concerns this template addresses. I favor leaving it as it is. -- ℜob C.aliasⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ22:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I would say probably no. Under-construction isn't so much an issue as a temporary notifier - it'd be like having semi-protected in Articleissues. And, underconstruction usually needs to stand out so people know it's there - and to do that I think it really needs to be a separate tag.--danielfolsom03:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
These two items describe the intro length, yet they're not listed in the template description next to the other areas on intro. I'm not even sure that toolong is listed (as is says the same thing as "introlength". Too short is way at the bottom and says nothing about it being associated with the lead. I had to look at the source code to figure out what was what. Since it is protected, I ask that someone expand the description to easily identify these. Thanks Morphh(talk)14:03, 09 September 2008 (UTC)
I've altered the docs to reflect that the tooshort parameter is representative of {{intro-tooshort}}. Also, since {{toolong}} is now a redirect to {{verylong}}, instead of {{intro-toolong}}, I've cleaned up the docs to reflect that, as well. Also, for the sake of consistency with the corresponding templates:
Responding admin: Please add a parameter "intro-tooshort" that is a duplicate of the current "tooshort" parameter. Please do not remove the tooshort parameter, as that will break any transclusions of the template that currently use "tooshort". In the same vein, and for the same reasons, please add a parameter "intro-toolong" that is a duplicate of the current "intro length" parameter. I would also request that the text generated for those issues be updated to reflect the wording of the templates they represent, if necessary. Many thanks,--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
No. There was a discussion about that. Nofootnotes is supposed to be placed at the bottom of the article. Articleissues on the top. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I know that Friendly can consolidate new tags into articleissues, but it cannot currently consolidate tags which were already in place: this has to be done by hand. Does anyone have a script that does this? If not, could someone write one?--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage09:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion - may also need new template as well
While I was slogging through Marlins ballpark, I was struck by the glaring need for a tag (or a line in {{articleissues}}) that states with no ambiguity "too much detail" ({{toomuchdetail}} or {{too much detail}}, perhaps?), as opposed to the current {{toolong}}, which is a bit generic and offers as an option splitting into a new section (in the case of a section with too much detail, splitting off would simply move the problem to a new article). Could "toomuchdetail" be incorporated here, or is there something similar already in existence that might not be "evident"? If not, this might also be a worthwhile standalone tag. 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at the Marlins ballpark and I see what he/she means. It is excessively detailed but doesn't appear that either {{toolong}} or {{fancruft}} is appropriate. At one point in the article, a day-by-day account of an ongoing lawsuit is presented. Splitting is clearly not an option. As presented in the article, the detail is clearly not appropriate for a general encyclopedia. I suppose that if there is a version of [[tl|toolong}} that does not offer splitting as a remedy of the problem, it could work. B.Wind (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that could be said of primarysources, refimprove & unreferenced. Rather than have multiple cleanup templates, I suggest you include nofootnotes as well, so that the template tags an article or section for multiple issues, and displays all warnings in a single box. Could you add nofootnotes in any case? --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Done Please remember that in order the fix to take effect in an already existed template, the article transcluding it must be refreshed/edited. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Multiple issues. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
