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.
How about {{cleanup-link rot}}? I'm starting to do some new page patrolling, and frequently find articles in need of the Article Issues template that have need for cleanup-link rot as well (as oftentimes links to sources are quickly thrown together without proper formatting). Thanks --AbsolutDan(talk)14:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not sure. It is a relatively new and relatively little-used template, true. Is that sufficient reason not to have it available for use in consolidated presentations of an article's issues? —ScheinwerfermannT·C21:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this would be a good one to include. It has far too much potential to be abused. There are few articles that need that kind of tag on them on the article itself, and most projects have their own arguments to tag it for needing an image. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to match the orphan link in this template to the one used in {{Orphan}}? More specifically I'm suggesting the following change: no other articles [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{PAGENAME}}|link to this one]].''' to: no other articles [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere|target={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&namespace=0}} link to it]'''. The reason I'm suggesting this, is so the link when clicked will only bring up the article namespeace. Any opinions?--Rockfang (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
✗Not done Please check previous discussion before requesting. Uncat should be placed at the bottom and articleissues on the top. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Done since we already have update. I would prefer if we treat temporal templates differently. I always check this tags and I seldom find the reason of the addition in the talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Please replace /It contains "Criticism" or "Controversy" section(s)/ by /It contains [[Wikipedia:Criticism sections|"Criticism" or "Controversy" section(s)]]/ as in Template:Criticism-section. 89.2.241.2 (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No. Check the archives please. These templates are supposed for the bottom of the article and not on the top. I noticed that many people put them wrongly on the top. Maybe we have to need a bot to move them at the bottom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
When there are multiple issues in an article, I find that linking in the references is often an early step in solving them, hence my request to add them. Upon checking the archives, there's no strong consensus against having it, but I don't think it's important enough to change. --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
IMO this template serves us by minimising the space all these templates take, but we can't skip WP:LAYOUT or instructions given on the original templates. This is a very good template for all templates that go on the top. Of course, I would be more happy if we had more people removing templates by fixing issues rather than adding them. Right now there are thousands of forgotten templates all over Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Support: The documentation for {{Citations missing}} explicitly mentions the overlap with {{morefootnotes}} and {{nofootnotes}} and provides a matrix for illustration. Omitting these two as parameters therefore appears to be inconsistent (especially to inexperienced editors like me). I can see the point about templates-on-top and templates-below, but feel that consolidation of templates into this one overrides. As far as I can see WP:LAYOUT mentions maintenance tags only for the lead, and while {{nofootnotes}} suggests to place the template into the reference section, {{More footnotes}} just says into the article. If anything, it appears that {{nofootnotes}} would contradict WP:LAYOUT. Reading the archives, the argument why {{nocats}} should go to the bottom is convincing (this is where the edit is to be made), but the same argument supports the request: footnotes are not added by editing the reference section nor is their absence relevant for the reference section itself. Steipe (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
If Morefotnotes syas different than the nofootnotes then it's a mistake. I still think that many people add nofootnotes and in fact they mean unreferenced. I have seen this happening hundreds of time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Req: intro length wikify
{{editprotected}}
Please change text in the intro length parameter in bold ("too long") to include a wikilink to WP:LEAD.
| message = * Its introduction may be '''[[WP:LEAD|too long]]'''.
It would be beneficial to link the perfectly adequate preexisting text of the "|howto" flag to WP:NOT#HOWTO or something else of the sort per the general style norm shown by other tags to {{Article issues}}. MrZaiustalk19:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see moreref and morereferences as aliases for refimprove — I always get {{refimprove}} itself confused with {{citation style}} for some reason, and have been using {{moreref}} for years. Probably some other people do the same. Fix: replace existing line
| name = {{{refimprove|}}}
with the line:
| name = {{{refimprove|{{{moreref|{{{morerefs|{{{morereferences|}}}}}}}}}}}}
Support for {{update}} within {{article issues}} seems incomplete (or is it just the documentation) as 'update' can take a text explanation in a similar fashion to 'expert'. Could this please be addressed. Rjwilmsi22:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. I see what you mean. Should we update it? I think the idea was if someone needs something more specific then the original has to be used. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Uncategorized
{{Editprotected}}
Any reason why the template doesn't include uncategorized?
Uncategorized
-->{{DatedAI
| name = {{{uncategorized|}}}
| message = * It has not been added to any '''[[Wikipedia:Categorization|categories]]'''. Please help out by [[Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ#How do I add an article to a category?|adding categories]] to it so that it can be listed with similar articles.
| cat-date = Uncategorized from
| cat-undate = Category needed
}}<!--
Aha! Just so you know, I searched the page first before making the above request, but searched for "uncateg" which didn't find the foreshortened "uncat".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. You did a good job creating this template but still don't understand where is this useful and I think it has be populated first. Article issues only merges existing templates. And in fact, not all existing templates but the most important from them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Okey doke. I will go about populating it. Afterwards I will provide some examples so that you and others can populate it as well. --Cryptic C62 · Talk23:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I would add it but I think we would lose a lot of information in the compact version:
{{DatedAI
| name = {{{gamecleanup|}}}
| message = * It may require [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup|cleanup]] to meet Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|quality standards]] or the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games|Video Games project's]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines|guidelines]].'''
| cat = All pages needing cleanup
| cat-date = Cleanup from
}}
Requesting {{Inappropriate tone}} be added. I believe this code could be used:
{{DatedAI
| name = {{{Inappropriate_tone|}}}
| message = * This {{{1|article}}}'s '''[[WP:TONE|tone]] or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia'''. Specific concerns may be found on the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]]. See Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles|guide to writing better articles]] for suggestions.
| cat = All articles needing style editing
| cat-date = Wikipedia articles needing style editing from
| cat-undate = Wikipedia articles needing style editing
}}
It would be good to have a parameter to add some thing along the lines of "Conversions to SI should be added to this article/section." JIMptalk·cont21:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
There are so few tranclusions of this one. Moreovet, Lightbot used to convert units regularly. I would prefer if we don't implement it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I already asked WP:AWB to implement something similar to Lightbot's job. Adding this template won't help. It's a rarely used one and when it's used the problem is easy to fix. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yew, because otherwise we could just add the whole list of templates having tenths of unused or rarely used parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
From what I can see, this suggestion is uncontroversial. If the expert parameter is set to a date or anything other than "y", and such a WikiProject or portal does not exist (the template assumes "Chess", not "Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess", for example), the template produces "It is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. may be able to help recruit one." See for example Sedation dentistry.
I suggest that the part
may be able to help recruit one.
be replaced with
{{#ifexpr:{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:WikiProject {{ucfirst:{{{expert}}}}}|1|0}} or {{#ifexist:Portal:{{ucfirst:{{{expert}}}}}|1|0}}|may be able to help recruit one.}}
In the cases mentioned above, this will remove "may be able to help recruit one.", as it only displays that text when the WikiProject or the portal exists. There should be a space before and after this snippet. Iceblock (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Ephemeris might have an example of what the OP means: whatever is put as the value for the expert parameter appears to be ignored and one gets only: "It is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. may be able to help recruit one." Here is what {{Multiple issues|expert=topic}} becomes:
This article states, "Don't use this template for a single issue. Use the appropriate single-issue tag instead." As a newbie, I can't find the documentation for a single-issue tag (Alice 19th has no references). Would someone please find the appropriate documentation and put a wiki link in that list? It's under Usage > Common Problems.
Thanks! Geekdiva (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
After I wrote this, I realized I was searching for "single-issue box" instead of "single-issue tag" and I found Template:Cleanup_tags. Would someone please add a link to this page in Common Problems? Thanks! Geekdiva (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
On more tip: The template is locked but the documentation is not. Everyone can edit the documentation, so I am leaving this task to you as an exercise. :) Happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Request: roughtranslation
Could you please modify the text of roughtranslation from:
{{DatedAI
| name = {{{roughtranslation|}}}
| message = * It needs '''enhancing the [[WP:PNT|translation]]''' to [[Wikipedia:Good article|be goodlooking]].
| cat-date = Rough translations from
| cat-undate = Rough translations
}}
to
{{DatedAI
| name = {{{roughtranslation|}}}
| message = * It needs an '''enhanced [[WP:PNT|translation]]'''.
| cat = Rough translations
}}
{{Multiple issues|rewrite = August 2009| roughtranslation = August 2009}}
produces--{{Multiple issues|category=no| rewrite = August 2009| roughtranslation = August 2009}}
Please see my edit. The above text should have included roughtranslation. If you put it in, the Template will simply ignore it. It never shows up? Please fix?Prapsnot (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This template has been misused in conjunction with the application "Friendly" to create a drive-by multiple issue template as a badge of dishonor, requiring reverts to engage talk, and thus potentially contributes to edit-warring rather than the stated goal of consolidating existing cleanup templates in direct contravention of the spirit of the guideline: "if an article has many problems, please consider tagging only the most important problems. A very lengthy list is often less helpful than a shorter one. Remember that tags are not intended as a badge of shame." Please point out the guideline here to instruct in the proper use of the template. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather discuss my point instead of my communication strategy. I didn't notice a specific suggestion for consolidating the discussion, nor should it necessicarily be so because of the nature of the topic. Maybe there should be some discussion at WP:CIVIL as well. The course of this discussion makes me more inclined to think this template may need a hard look. Aren't templates susceptible to abuse subject to deletion? Yes, my opinion has definitely been influenced. Mostly because it doesn't seem like I've found a response so far which suggests an understanding of the type of culture it takes to make Wikipedia work most smoothly. Perhaps a diversity of opinions will create a more acceptable consensus. That's what I'm hoping.
Sorry, but your point is pointless. The template is being used in an appropriate fashion. Your disliking templates and then reverting rather than actually addressing the issues is what is not appropriate. People to do not tag articles purely as a "badge of shame" but to indicate noted problems with the article. Fix the problems, then you can remove the template, rather than complaining about people actually pointing them out. And no, this template isn't being abused nor subject for deletion. If you aren't getting the responses you want, perhaps you should realize you likely are not going to. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 13:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
At least your response is on-topic, and I appreciate that. You still haven't shown an understanding of the reason the quoted language was added to the guideline, which is regrettable. You also assume using a template alone suffices to point out a problem clearly, and that doing it in laundry list fashion is even more efficacious. You further make the sweeping claim "this template is not being abused". I know, I know, you clicked "What links here" and read each and every article to make sure that all the points were accurate. Rather than convince me that my tactic of deletion and proposed deletion is inappropriate, you have reinforced the proof that its use creates more engagement. Justification for edits, including templates, may always be demanded of editors.
BTW, your post contained an error in diction. Does my saying so without detail help you correct your diction going forward? Do you even know to which error I refer? Would it help you further if I made further claims about the errors of your post without going into detail? Of course, we're not here to make better posts; we're here to make better articles. All the same, the nature of mere criticism contrasts clearly with constructive criticism; one is snarky and one actually assists. So long as folks continue to use the template as a Big Red Pen, the rest of us are free to reveal as mistaken the notion that it's permanent ink. It ain't. ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's being misused enough to be honest. Can we not make the tag larger? Also, perhaps we could add the following:
"readable" This article appears too professional, and is in need of more gratuitous inline tags to make it less readable
"inoffensive" There is not enough information here to start a really good flame war. Please add some and go onto the Talk: page at once and argue over some strained POV issue
"signaltonoisetoohigh" This page contains too much information, at the expense of Wikipedia tags. Please demand some more citations. Do not, under any circumstances, remove things you believe are false, just demand citations instead.
"noncliquecompliant" While this page appears to be interesting and well formed, please add some tags, please, 'cos Wikipedia editors who have been here for too long have forgotten that the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to create an informative encyclopedia, and have instead become obsessed with inserting inline criticism into articles.
I think these fixes should help with the tag a lot. Also if we can change that damned { { cn } } to expand to something like "[BIG EXCLAMATION MARK] The previous word was not backed up with a link to some website whose reliability we can have a big argument over on the Talk: page", then that would be great. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
