Template talk:Multiple issues/Archive 8

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.

{{ editprotected }}

There is an errow in the following; let's review:

<!--

 Restructuring

-->{{DatedAI
| name       = {{{restructure|{{{reorganisation|{{{organize|}}}}}}}}}
| message    = * It may need [[Wikipedia:Layout|reorganization]]''' to meet Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|quality standards]].
| cat        = Wikipedia articles needing reorganization
}}

(see source and scroll down until you found an above preview)

Notice that "'''" should be added before [[Wikipedia:Layout|reorganization]] because a result ended up like this: {{ Quote | {{ Multiple issues | restructure = August 2009 }} }}

--Gh87 (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Amalthea 11:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty important tag, and too many articles do not use the proper tools available for citing sources. --TaerkastUA (Talk) 12:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is supposed to be in the external links section not on the top of the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say that on the template page though, and I still believe it should be added, but it doesn't really matter. --TaerkastUA (Talk) 17:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I just wonder: Why there is no bot fixing this problem every month? It shouldn't be that difficult. Should we add a bot request? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It could be possible. --TaerkastUA (Talk) 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the {{Plot}} template was changed not to long ago. The changes should be reflected on this template. The message for plot in this template should be changed to:

It contains a plot summary that may be '''[[Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Length|too long]]''' or '''[[Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary|overly detailed]].'''

-kollision (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I propose {{offtopic}} be added to the template. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • {{offtopic}} is about a problem with a section not the whole article. Putting that message on the top of the article wouldn't be helpful. Garion96 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is time to include more common redirects into {{primarysources}}. Only "primarysources" is required to do so; redirects such as "primary sources" and "primary" are excluded as substitutes. --Gh87 (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the review:

<!--

 Primarysources

-->{{DatedAI
| name       = {{{primarysources|}}}
| message    = * It needs '''[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|sources or references]]''' that appear in [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|third-party publications]].
| cat-date   = Articles lacking reliable references from
| cat-undate   = Articles lacking reliable references
}}

--Gh87 (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we have support for {{toomanyphotos}}? TJRC (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This template has right now at most 20 tranclusions. My suggestion to these cases is to avoid adding it. We don't want articleissues to be the template of everything. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see support for {{citations broken}}. The options available now describe citations that are missing, unclear, or incorrectly used, but none describe citations that were valid but now are not. I've encountered many multiple-issue articles with citations pointing to pages that have moved or are completely gone. Any thoughts from other editors? --Drm310 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I really think that |discuss= should be added to this template, similar to most other cleanup etc. templates, so that we can specify a section on the talk page if there's one that corresponds to all these problems! Also, would anyone object if I removed the little "how to add more issues" section from the documentation, and the references to it? It's pointless given that only admins can edit the template! — Skittleys (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Sounds like it might be a good idea, but please get consensus before placing the {{editprotected}}!
2. No, it's not pointless. Admins need documentation as well.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is consensus required before an edit that has absolutely no impact on the template as it currently stands, especially since (a) consensus has never been requested to add support for other tags, and (b) the proposal is uncontroversial because it doesn't affect anything if you don't use it? The box at the top of this page says "Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus." (emphasis mine) This is a request for a feature that's built into the majority of these tags. I would think this is a great example of something where consensus can be assumed...... I do see your point about the documentation though. — Skittleys (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you update the sandbox or explicitly list the edit needed? Just sticking |discuss= isn't going to add functionality I suspect.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we need a "discuss" parameter. Most maintenance templates don't have it, I think. And if they do, it is almost never used, that I am sure about. And it is actually pretty simple: "prune" means prune, "unreferenced" means unreferenced, etc. No need to discuss every small thing. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this template has a slight error. The entry for synthesis is not bulleted, unlike the others.

| message = It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources. Please help add reliable sources about this topic.

Should be:

| message = * It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources. Please help add reliable sources about this topic.

Per the protection policy, I'm proposing this here. If another admin wants to make the change, feel free. Else, I'll do it myself if there are no objections. Oren0 (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. I took the liberty. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Template:All plot should be included in Article issues. The template conforms to policy and addresses a distinct issue, different from Template:Plot (a corresponding move request for {{Plot}} to a more specific template name is currently pending). --84.44.248.66 (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a widely used or accepted template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is, to both. The number of transclusions is simply due to the fact that {{Plot}}'s wording was recently changed to address a different issue. Almost all transclusions of Template:Plot date back to before the change of that template's wording. That's also why I requested the name change for {{Plot}}. Following that move, Plot will be kept as a redirect to the new and specific template name until all of the current transclusions have been disambiguated between the two very distinct templates. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am thus restoring the protected edit request. It is really an entirely uncontroversial request. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not an uncontroversial request so it has been removed. Edit protected is for a non-controversial request that has consensus. This does not. I have also opposed your move request. The number of transclusions has nothing to do with the wording change, and it is rather silly to even have two templates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Then please propose a rewording at the template talk page. The current wordings of the two templates address clearly distinct issues and the current wordings appear to have consensus. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already started a discussion to merge All plot to Plot. The current wordings really do not address different issues at all, just one uses longer wording. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The current wording of Plot appears to have a fairly strong consensus. Unless and until it emerges that there is in fact consensus to change its wording, All plot does indeed address a completely distinct issue. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think it would be appropriate to add allplot. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The parameter "roughtranslation" produces a message box with no explanation. Either the item needs to be removed from the documentation, or "roughtranslation" needs to be defined in the template code. —Quicksilver^{T @} 09:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed it from the documentation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Could the cleanup template {{local}} be added? --papageno (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Only 83 transclusions! -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The parameter importance seems to be duplicate of notable. Both add articles to Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability, both have similar messages and the table lists {{importance}}, that servers completely different purpose, as importance's stand-alone template. I think this parameter should be removed. Svick (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree but we have first to check if any articles that transclude Article issues use "importance" and replace it with "notable" -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I think the easiest way to do this is to add cat=Articles using article issues template with deprecated parameters (or some less awkward category name) to imporance's {{DatedAI}}. Svick (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Could some admin introduce the change mentioned in the last post above? Thanks. Svick (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be simpler just to get the template to treat importance the same as notability? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, that would be better. Svick (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Does my change look okay? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We want to discourage people to use importance, don't we? Otherwise there ll be many confusions of what importance does. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if you're happy to do the work in replacing these, I can add the tracking category? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please. I ll do the replacements afterward. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Uses of article issues template with deprecated parameters. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Great. You don't really need to create the category. This will do the job. We just to wait some days for this category to be triggered. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed/removed 25 tags today. I am really disappointed of the quality if the tags. I had to fix more than just the importance one. An article with more than 10 references was tagged as unreferenced for 2 years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Another 18 today. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Though the parameter name was confusing, the texts generated were, in my opinion, quite clear: one parameter (notability) was for articles of dubious notability and the other (importance) was for articles with no claim to notability. The latter is relevant to the criteria for speedy deletion, so the distinction may be important.--Boson (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So what do think we should do? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer a name change to something like "Notability-unclaimed" and a separate category but, on reflection, I'm not that worried.--Boson (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We went through this before with Template:importance which used to produce a similar message. In the end nobody could come up with an alternative wording so it was redirected to Template:notability. Now the importance template is used for something else entirely. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I was surprised when I couldn't find a corresponding single template. Forget I said anything. --Boson (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Did 200 replacements today (and 5 yesterday). -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No new entries since 8 February. We can remove the tracking category. Can someone do it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

1 entry from 8 February to 30 November which was added in April. Fixed it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the default "This article or section" has to become "This article" and leave it optional to change to anything else. This is common practise nowadays. This will make "article=y" useless. Moreover, more tags are referring to the whole article anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Debresser (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Code needs further simplification. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

While passive voice has its uses, very often I see it used to avoid being specific when details are unknown. I propose adding a passivevoice parameter to the {{Article issue}} tag for those cases when passive voice is improperly used or overused. Jojalozzo 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Better create a template for that first. Article issues mainly summarises other templates. --Magioladitis (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jojalozzo 23:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Let's see how people while respond. No rush to add it in Article issues. We don't add templates with few transclusions. Otherwise, we should add all cleanup templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Um... This discussion should be seen by all of you... --Jubilee♫clipman 10:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is on Tfd. I have worked on it a little and created the beginning of a documentation page. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the template should be collapsible, because if there are many article issues then it's too big. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Banners should be visible so editors come and fix them. It's the same reason we put them in the article and not in its talk page. --Magioladitis (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no parameter for unreliable sources? I guess it is (sort of) covered by primarysources.Stephen (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, because they are less than 150 transclusions? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any inherent reason why maintenance templates with relatively few transclusions can not be supported by this template. Of course, there should be broad consensus that a template is useful and appropriate. But apart from that, the number of uses may not be so important. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that {{Unreliablesources}} should be included. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Every transclusion of this template carries overhead from every parameter. There are are currently 466 dated maintenance templates on my list, and a fair few undated ones too, plus several thousand redirects, alternative capitalisations and so forth. At some point the overhead does become significant and we would have to redesign the template. Rich Farmbrough, 07:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

I second Rich on that. This template was not designed to cover every single template out there. We can still use separate templates to cover uncommon/rare issues. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to add {{uncategorized}} as an issue for this template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support this, but it has been discussed multiple times in the past so it would probably be worth reviewing the past discussions. The main issue seems to be that {{uncat}} is placed at the bottom of an article not the top. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Since the template's been moved without any actual edits to its self-referential source code, there's a rather ugly "1. REDIRECT Template:Multiple issues/message" showing inside the template everywhere it's transcluded. Can we get the template fixed to eliminate this? I think it requires a search/replace for "Article issues/message" --> "Multiple issues/message". --Darkwind (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

...which could affect this template. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_17#Template:Expand. GregorB (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

These Ambox based templates, please check the internal comments, diagnostic messages and categories, subpage references as well as the documentation. (I'm sure I am the worst offender.) Rich Farmbrough, 11:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC).

{{editprotected}} Any chance of adding the two IMDB-specific BLP templates - {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} and {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} to this template? I've boldly added them to the sandbox, but I'm not sure if the categorization is working correctly. I do see the text in the test cases page, but I'm unsure of how to test the categories.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 05:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

These templates are brandy new. Were they created after consensus? Do you have a related discussion about them? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There was discussion here, after which I created them. Soon after, they were nominated for deletion here, which closed with the nominator withdrawing the nomination. Support was 100% keep. Certainly I'm willing to get wider consensus for these if needed.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 07:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The sandbox version does seem to be getting the categories right, as shown for a test of "BLP IMDB-only refimprove" in this version of Mark Fite article. --doncram (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The templates are designed not to be judgmental about the use of IMDB, but just to describe factually that an article is wholly or largely sourced to IMDB. IMDB is a source that has been subject of lots of previous debate and a failed proposal, because some of it is reliably entered by IMDB staff but at least some IMDB information is entered wikipedia-style by anyone. I have been applying it in place of "BLP unsourced" for articles that have IMDB as a source. There are many hundreds of articles clearly created only from IMDB which have gotten confusing "BLP unsourced" tag. Correcting the tag to be more descriptive gives readers and editors a better clue why an article is being tagged as needing reference improvement (when it clearly has a reference), and it allows editors who wish for better-than-IMDB-attribution to focus on adding other sources. The tags have been applied in more than 1,000 articles, mostly by me but also by User:Shaun in Montreal and User:Lvklock. Our usage has received some initial questioning when encountered by some, but then been supported. For example, one user in the anti-IMDB camp inquired at User talk:Doncram#Reilly but we talked it out at User talk:Off2riorob#doing tagging of "BLP IMDB refimprove" and "BLP IMDB-only refimprove". I think there is adequate consensus to make this change to the Multiple Issues template.

Updating the Multiple Issues template is now somewhat urgent, as there are several hundred articles where I anticipated that "BLP IMDB refimprove=date" or "BLP IMDB-only refimprove=date" were valid fields within Multiple issues template, and i replaced "BLP unsourced" for those. Currently those articles appear as if all their referencing issues were removed, because the new labels and categories are not recognized. There are currently 268 and 660 articles in Category:Articles sourced only by IMDB and Category:Articles sourced by IMDB. These numbers which will increase by a few hundred if/when this update to Multiple Issues template goes through. Please just make the change! :) --doncram (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As the one who added the {{editprotected}} template, let me revise my earlier statements by saying that the sandbox template is working for the test cases, and also for the categorization for the BLP IMDB templates. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks,  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 07:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry but the sandbox was not up to date. Would you mind synchronising it and then reapplying your proposed edits? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I'll add a new section with editprotected when I get it done (won't be right now, have to head to work for the day). Thanks  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 12:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I have added the IMDB tags into the template's sandbox per the previous section. Here's the changes I'm proposing. I synced with the production version of the template before making the edits, so you should be able to copy the entire sandbox into the main template to make the change. Thanks for the help.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 23:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. We got there in the end :) Let me know if there are any problems with this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much!  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 15:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)