Template talk:Multiple issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Convert deprecated parameters to templates?[edit]

It's been quite a while since the Multiple issues template was modified to take full templates instead of parameters (e.g. using {{orphan}} instead of |orphan=). Is it time to convert all the old style parameters to the new format, and then remove the deprecated functionality from the template? (This would also allow the AWB developers to remove code on their side.) If so, would it be possible to create a temporary tracking category that would show all the articles that still user the deprecated parameters, so we could convert them to the full templates? (Note that I'm looking for consensus before using the {{edit protected}} template.) Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this makes sense to me. Editors have had long enough to get used to the new syntax. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Simplifying the template will also decrease rendering time for pages. This is certainly useful. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem I see with this is that there are still literally thousands of pages out there using the old syntax. I've seen requests on WP:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks to update some of these to the new format, and someone usually starts them and then gets yelled at by someone else citing COSMETICBOT saying that it's not a visible change and is disallowed. If this is something that everyone agrees needs to be done, there needs to be an addendum to that guideline saying that per X consensus, updating {{Multiple issues}} parameters is excluded from the cosmetic bot crud. Technical 13 (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
If there's consensus here to convert them, then I suggest we request to do a one-time bot run to remove them and ensure the edit summary links to the consensus here. GoingBatty (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Tracking category created, so we can see how many pages we are talking about. (0 and counting ...) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    As there didn't seem to be consensus for this, at this time, I've removed the tracking category. For the record: the population of the category, just prior to disabling it was 31,565. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    MSGJ, I don't see any opposition here. That would imply there is a consensus to get this done. There are four users saying this is a good idea and none saying "no"... Please restore the tracking category and GoingBatty let's get moving on getting this done. Thanks all for your hard work on the project! Technical 13 (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 26 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I see. So, there was one oppose. Okay, thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@MSGJ: would it be possible to re-enable the tracking category so editors can target those pages and make the change to {{multiple issues}} alongside other non-cosmetic changes? @Magioladitis: I might have missed something in one of the discussions but why is this not included in AWBs general fixes? Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Jamesmcmahon0 some editors disagree with us changing from old to new style since there is no gain in page's rendering time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I just did a very quick test using webpagetest.org and a version of the template with the depreciated para code stripped out({{User:Jamesmcmahon0/sandbox/mireduced}}. I had {{multiple issues}} with 2 issue notices and my stripped down version with the same two and got page load improvements of 0.2s. Would appreciate if someone more knowledgeable about the template code and page load times could do some tests. Repeat tests with different/different amounts of params would be needed . Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Default to collapsed?[edit]

OK, what's the point in a multiple problems template if it's longer than nearly as long as just listing the multiple problems? But it makes sense if it defaults collapsed though.

So I think it should default to collapsed, if the people are interested in helping or want to know what specifically are the problems, they can always expand it to find out.

And if it needs to be expanded in a particular article you can always set |expanded=false, but that doesn't seem to be the most sensible default.

Comments?GliderMaven (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I could possibly see it defaulting to a collapsed state if there were more than five issues possibly. But not for just a few... Technical 13 (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No, any time, ever. If the readers need to know what the problems are for any reason at all, they can push the 'show' button. Very, very often, one of the problems is the article is under referenced, which is blatantly obvious anyway, and very often somebody else has claimed that the article is incomplete and/or biased, but these are things which in every case would be fixed if the article was to go FA. In every case, virtually all the article tags are really telling you as a reader is that the article isn't FA, and should be read with caution. Big deal, I can see that. And the tagging often takes up literally half the screen (depending on screen size, zoom factor, fonts etc.) which is a layout disaster, it's way too much.GliderMaven (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree with that assessment, I'm sure many other disagree with it also. On the flip side, there are a fair number of editors that think there shouldn't be any tags on the articles at all, and would agree with you. I can see that you are unwilling to give and discuss it, you simply want it your way, don't want to talk about a middle ground, and that's all there is to it. Well, all I can say in that regard is good luck. That being said, I formally oppose this proposal to have all multiple issue template fully collapsed by default for all of the reasons brought out in the multiple consensus forming discussion in the past that have led up to its placement on the article page as is. Technical 13 (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I can only assume that you have no actual way of rebutting any of my points, since you haven't come up with a single reason why it shouldn't default to collapsed. You're supposed to come up with sensible reasons, not 'vote'.GliderMaven (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Where has this ever been discussed before? The collapsible feature seems to have been done last October, and there was no discussion here about the default.GliderMaven (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with GliderMaven. It makes sense that it should be collapsed to save space. Why only leave it open when there are up to five issues taking up space? They're all one click away for the interested reader/editor. sroc 💬 03:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with collapsing being an "option", but it shouldn't be the default. If they are collapsed by default they will be too small, all exactly identical, become too familiar and no-one will notice them. If they are expanded with a [hide] link for 2-5 (or even 2-3 issues), there will be enough change in each one to be noticed each time and are less likely to become familiar. There of course would be exceptions like on stubs or start class articles that only have a handful of lines of prose. Technical 13 (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
To return to the original point, "what's the point in a multiple problems template if it's longer than just listing the multiple problems", it isn't always longer, and in fact is normally shorter. See Template:Multiple issues/testcases#Wrapped vs not wrapped. This is because those templates that are designed to be wrapped in {{multiple issues}} always display less text when wrapped than when not wrapped, and they also display a bullet instead of the image. Consider {{unreferenced}}: if this is not wrapped, it shows "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." plus a date. But if wrapped, it shows only the first sentence and the date, see Template:Multiple issues/testcases#One issue. Generally speaking, when there are three or more cleanup templates, wrapping them in {{multiple issues}} will always reduce the total height; for two cleanup templates, it may reduce or it may increase; for a single cleanup template, height is always increased by wrapping - but there's no point in wrapping if there's just one, since this template is called "multiple issues", not "single issue". --Redrose64 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Popular maintenance templates such as {{unreferenced}} have been set up to show less text when they're wrapped in {{multiple issues}}. I occasionally see templates that have their complete text inside multiple issues, and tweak the template code accordingly. GoingBatty (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the original point is that it's always smaller collapsed. And I just checked, it's always collapsed for mobiles; and so far as I know nobody has ever complained about that.GliderMaven (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • GM, are you really trying to compare grapefruits to raisins? On a mobile device, you don't have any screen to spare and ti is reasonable to collapse those things; however, on a full resolution PC, there is no reason to hide those things. Let me ask you a question, if someone manually puts all of the tags into the {{Multiple issues}} wrapper template and puts the }} at the bottom of the page (I've seen it), wouldn't it being collapsed by default be against WP:COLLAPSE as ALL of the page content would be hidden? Even worse, what happens if the closing }} aren't on the page at all? These two scenarios would be impossible for the average reader and difficult for the "average" editor to figure out and fix. Technical 13 (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Even a child could handle that. They'd simply notice that the article had vanished and undo the edit.GliderMaven (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • My "full resolution PC" is an 11-inch laptop. This rubbish is ghastly to look at and a waste of (valuable) space. In fact, I find it more comfortable to read Wikipedia on my phone. In addition to collapsing this tpl by default, I've suggested making {{Ambox}} smaller before. Neither is gonna happen. — Lfdder (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
screenshot of Business cycle with uncollapsed tag.

For the sake of argument, I've uploaded an example screenshot from the laptop I'm currently running on. The font size and general layout was just what it happened to be at the time:

The issue I have with it is that just two issues are taking up 8 horizontal lines of screen real estate, and the article text is actually only taking up 4. It's notable that the article has been tagged for over 3 years with one of the issues and 2 years with the other; so the tag is clearly not working particularly well.

It seems to me that 'multiple issues' are being given undue weight in screen real estate here; 8 lines for 2 issues is much, much too much. Collapsing it helps a great deal, that's down by half to 4 lines. I think even that is a bit too much, but I could live with 3 or 4 lines; 8 is obscene.GliderMaven (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In your screendump, I count six lines of text within {{Multiple issues}}, not eight: the first item of text wraps once; the first issue doesn't wrap at all, and the second issue wraps twice; but it shouldn't be wrapping that often. There's something about your setup that's putting a large white area to the right of the infobox. This white area is probably the full height of the page, since the {{Multiple issues}} seems to be centred between the left sidebar and an upward projection of the right-hand edge of the infobox, which compresses it sideways, causing the extra wrapping.
When I visit Business cycle the infobox is close to the right-hand scrollbar, and the white gap between the two is small (just 1 em wide); so projecting the right-hand edge of the infobox upwards, there is more sideways space for {{Multiple issues}}, which is centred between the left sidebar and the right scrollbar. This extra width allows the first item of text and the first issue to fit on one line each; the second issue wraps onto a second line (between "subject" and "as") and so the whole box takes up less height - four lines of text in total. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The multiple issues box itself takes 2 lines of space, because the box edge itself consumes two lines of text, and then there's 4-6 lines of text on top of that. That's far too much. The problem goes away (mostly) if we collapse by default.
It doesn't seem particularly specific to my account, I tried logging out, and got similar results.
This is clearly a case where the mobile version is doing the right thing, it's very wrong to assume that everyone is reading wikipedia on a very large screen. In effect this is saying that the tag at the top is always far more important than the article itself, particularly on small screen or with bigger text sizes.
In practice, these are virtually always minor issues, if they were really serious issues of life-threatening importance the text would have been edited already more specifically instead of being tagged.GliderMaven (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Rose, in response to your comment above, I agree that some of the "issue"s are too wordy and too long causing unneeded word-wrap. As such, I've BOLDly made a couple of edits to a couple of the issue templates themselves. I'd like to be able to see the wording of the BLP version of {{Undue}} trimmed down at least a little, but did not want to change that wording at all without some discussion first. Anyone that wants to give me a list of "issue" templates that are too wordy and have excessive word-wrap, I would be happy to continue trying to trim them a little to reduce the wrap issue. This will by default shorten the box. I still am opposed to collapsing all by default for everyone (although I could probably write a userscript for those that really want it) because I strongly believe that it will reduce participation in fixing the issues that caused the articles to be tagged in the first place. Technical 13 (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say that the text was too long or too wordy. I said that there's a great big white area down the right-hand side of that screenshot, which is causing lateral compression and so forcing unnecessary word wrapping at Business cycle. If the white area could be eliminated, there would be more space. I believe that this is a user setting.
On my screen, the uncollapsed {{Multiple issues}} on Business cycle is 86px high; if {{Refimprove|date=June 2010}} and {{Undue|date=January 2011}} are not so wrapped, they're each 52px high for a total of 114px. Therefore, {{Multiple issues}} reduces the space occupied by these notices by 28px. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I get the same behaviour when I'm logged in or not. The point is that collapsed gives reasonable behavior in all cases. It's also clear from the screenshot that the uncollapsed behavior very definitely does not. The layout should be sensible over the widest possible screen and font sizes; but it clearly isn't working well.
It's also highly questionable as to why the multiple issues box uses bullet points and separate lines for each of the issues, and why they are so verbose, you could potentially just have a single word or much shorter phrase, and hyperlink it for each issue.
These tags shouldn't be a punishment to the reader for daring to open a page in Wikipedia! It seems to me that that's exactly how it's being looked at; you're apparently trying to punish the users into editing the page.GliderMaven (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
GliderMaven, considering that Rose and I get the same numbers for box heights (and I get the same number son two totally different machines; one a PC with Win7 home using Firefox 26 and the other a laptop with Win Vista using Opera 12), it is obviously an issue on your end. There is no consensus to collapse this template by default, and a page with only two issues on it shouldn't be forced collapsed either, especially since I've gone through the two specific issue tags on that page and shortened them so there would be no word wrapping. Let me ask you a question, are you viewing that page on a computer (what size screen), tablet, or mobile device in desktop mode? Perhaps some code can be added to the template for people with especially narrow displays so that the template renders, but collapses itself after 3-5 seconds. Technical 13 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't get that big white space, and it's obviously the cause of this problem, so I've left a note at WP:VPT#Wasted space on right-hand side constraining width. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I use "|section=y"?[edit]

So I am trying to use the Multiple Issues tag in to hopefully consolidate the multiple tags scattered in the Graphene article over different sections due to over-zealous drive-by tagging. Such drive-by tagging is why many of the issues in the article have gone on unresolved and the quality of article has deteriorated to C rank since its nomination in 2011. However I need help, because I am not sure how to use this "|section=y" command. Could one of the experts of wikipedia help me? Physics16 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Physics16: {{Multiple issues}} is used with |section=y when one section of an article has more than one maintenance template, such as Boomerang#Throwing technique. While the Graphene article has several maintenance templates, I don't see any section that has more than one, so I don't think using {{Multiple issues}} would be appropriate. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Thank you for your insight ^_^ Physics16 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Rewriting 'section' parameter for presence instead of boolean[edit]

I am a long-time fan of the template for articles, but after using it on a section of puppet state earlier, think it may be a little more efficient and intuitive for the 'section' parameter to work simply on presence, like with {{refimprove}}. Since it's always the penultimate parameter (and the templates are always templates and the ultimate parameter), I imagine it should be relatively straightforward. So essentially the used template for sections would be {{multiple issues | section | [templates]}} rather than {{multiple issues | section=y | [templates]}}. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: in {{multiple issues|section=y|{{refimprove}}}} parameters |section= and |1= are used. In {{multiple issues|section|{{refimprove}}}} "section" is not |section=, but |1=section, and {{refimprove}} is content of |2=, not |1=, so this change is not as straight forward as it may seem. It can be easily implemented with a couple of simple checks, but that would mandate the use of parser functions, which are expensive in terms of performance. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 14:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Another way of putting it is that in the present syntax, {{multiple issues|section=y|{{refimprove}}}} and {{multiple issues|{{refimprove}}|section=y}} are exactly equivalent - since |section=y is a named parameter, its position is irrelevant. It therefore need not be the penultimate parameter - it works just as well as the ultimate parameter. By contrast, the list of templates must currently be placed in the first positional parameter, which may or may not be the ultimate parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so the current form is essentially positionally agnostic to whether it is a section parameter or a contained template, since the section parameter is specified and the template one isn't? If it's not practicable, don't worry about it; just a thought. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The unnamed parameter approach might seem simpler, but in fact the current approach is probably more robust and less likely to confuse. It's only two characters which are saved after all. The |section= could also be included empty on the documentation, and copy/pasted into an article so that "y" can be inserted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 July 2014[edit]

Hi there, I am the Managing Editor in the Marketing and Advancement department at Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia. I have been given the task of updating the University's entry (Victoria_University,_Australia). Someone has added a list of 'issues' at the top of the entry, and I want to delete this list as part of the copy update but do not know how. Any guidance would be much appreciated. Below is the 'issues' copy I would like to delete:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2013) This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. (November 2013) This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (November 2013)


Thank you


140.159.2.245 (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Multiple issues}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. The article's talk page is Talk:Victoria University, Australia.
Since you state "I am the Managing Editor in the Marketing and Advancement department at Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia", it's likely that you have a conflict of interest, and so should refrain from editing the article. This does not prevent you from posting comments at its talk page, however.
Considering your primary question: if you click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page, you will see that at the very top of the editing box is the line
{{Multiple issues |one source = November 2013 |refimprove = November 2013 |advert = November 2013}}
That is the line which produces those messages, and so is the line that should be removed in order to remove the messages. But before doing that, you should not just consider the conflict of interest, but also consider whether any of the listed issues still apply: if there is any doubt, it's best to discuss on the article's talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)