Template talk:Multiple issues/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

"Article=y" parameter broken

I just tried using this template with the article=y parameter to define its scope, but it still says "article or section". Did someone break the code in the template? This used to work. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - it was removed when a update to the template was reverted back. It should work now.--danielfolsom 00:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for sanity-check

I've made some minor changes to this template, in order to make it easier to memorise. Specifically, it will now accept all-lowercase forms of every parameter. I have ensured that the old parameters also work.

I've tested the changes at User:Jakew/sandboxtpl, and I think it's fine. However, I'd be grateful if someone more familiar with template syntax than I would check the changes for me, as I'd prefer not to accidentally break thousands of pages. Jakew 22:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

COI and COI2

Can this template be adjusted to support {{COI}} and {{COI2}}? Or does it support them and I just couldn't see that? — Athaenara 02:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The coi ones I think are too specific for this template to support them - and they're basically covered by POV. Uncategorized? You do realize that's for templates right?--danielfolsom 21:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

{{uncategorized}} isn't for template, it's for articles. You see the word template on its page because it's self-referencing to the current location of where it's appearing, maybe someone can fix that. It's not appropriate however because uncat is designed to appeared at the bottom of the page rather than the top. KTC 22:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template standardisation

There is a proposed policy at Wikipedia:Template standardisation watchers of this template might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Request too short lead tag

I think it would be nice to incorporate elements of {{tooshort}} for articles which do not have a sufficiently long lead. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 08:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

On it.--danielfolsom 20:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Request {{external links}}

Requesting {{external links}} be added. I use this one a lot, thanks, Bradford44 15:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That tag is generally placed in the external links section - and this tag goes on top of articles, so it'd be kinda backwards.--danielfolsom 20:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Likewise with {{uncategorized}}, which I just reverted. ←BenB4 12:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Other

Anonymous Dissent that other parameter is not acceptable. That's essentially allowing people to have a template without actually having to submit to scrutiny - because you can't delete it. Think about it - would we allow a template that had that? I'm removing it--danielfolsom 03:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Request {{deadend}}

Requesting {{deadend}}. -- Magioladitis 18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ok. I added it alone. -- Magioladitis 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Eclipsed?

With the standarization brought about from Wikipedia:Template standardisation is {{Articleissues}} eclipsed? Jeepday (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Most of the new "ambox" style templates are not significantly smaller than the old ones, they just look less cluttered when stacked. When this is used to replace 3 or more templates, it still takes up less space and does not have all the redundant wording that would be repeated with individual templates. Compare an article like Hyrule (or Horoscope for a less extreme example) with what it would look like with individual templates, even worse with the date params used on the individual templates. Mr.Z-man 16:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Also see Music of Alabama for an esp. long message. (The article needs it.) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation style

I have an article that has many inline citations, using the <ref></ref> syntax, but has inconsistently formatted them. That is, the references do not conform to an accepted manual of style for citing references, nor do they use citation templates. What template parameter should I use to tag the article for this? Bradford44 17:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think "citationstyle" would be the parameter you are looking for. Note though that if that is the only issue, you should just use {{citation style}} as this is only for articles with many issues (generally 3 or more). Mr.Z-man 17:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that although the solo template {{citation style}} would be appropriate, there is more than one issue and I would like to use {{articleissues}}. The "citationstyle" parameter currently produces text reading: "It is missing citations and/or footnotes. Please help improve this article by adding inline citations." As I previously stated, the article contains many citations and footnotes, but they fail to conform to a manual of style for citing sources, and I would like an "articleissues" parameter that addresses this problem. Bradford44 17:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've modified the citationstyle parameter to match the template. Mr.Z-man 18:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Bradford44 19:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

blpdispute

  • Has anyone noticed that the message for blpdispute is no longer showing up in the template through articles? Anthony Rupert 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Ahh - my mistake -I had removed it due to fear of misuse - but since that template does exist then obviously it should be on here - again, really sorry about that--danielfolsom 04:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Consistency with lowercase characters

Can we please keep all characters lowercase to be consistent? Examples that include upper- and lowercase characters are 'Citations missing', 'Inappropriate person', and 'Notable'. --Gary King 07:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I second this. Rocket000 09:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Sometimes i forget what i can do. :) Rocket000 09:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a problem in the "notability" option, I think. One occurence is still capitalized. This leads to problems with the category-by-month mechanism.

-->{{#if:{{{notable|}}}|* Its '''[[Wikipedia:Notability|notability]]''' is in question. If notability cannot be established, this article may be [[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|listed for deletion]]. {{#if:{{checkdate|{{{Notable}}}}}|<small>Tagged since {{checkdate|{{{notable}}}}}.</small>[[Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from {{checkdate|{{{notable}}}}}]]|[[Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability]]}}<br/>}}<!-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by B. Wolterding (talkcontribs) 12:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks. I overlooked that. Rocket000 00:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: "The section "foo" needs additional references or sources for verification..."

i.e., have the template uniformly start with "This article..." and make it possible to tag a section for whatever from the template at the top. Personally I'm of the opinion that cleanup templates in article space ought to be as low-key as possible, and having them actually appear mid-article rather than at the top just to tag a specific section is unsightly. Seeing as this template is a great tool to improve an article's presentation when it has multiple issues, I was wondering whether it could step up and serve as an alternative to mid-article cleanup templates as well. --AceMyth 22:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if the reader has arrived at the section from another article that directly linked to the section, they would miss the template. (Yes, I realize this is a problem when the whole article has an issue, too.) --Fabrictramp 23:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Request {{unencyclopedic}}

I would like to use this template to clean up the pile of templates on Native science, but the 'Unencyclopedic' template is not supported. Could someone please add it to 'Article issues'? Thank you. Terraxos 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Magioladitis 21:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with categorization / "importance" option

When the "importance" option is added to the template and dated, it seems that the template puts the article into the category "Articles with topics of unclear notability", not into "Articles with topics of unclear notability from <date>". This is incorrect I think. See Tainted (comic) as an example. --B. Wolterding 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Just to clarify, the categories used should be identical to those for the "notability" option. They are correct there. --B. Wolterding 18:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i think i fixed it. Please check and tell me. -- Magioladitis 18:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but it's not yet completely correct. Currently the article (say Tainted (comic)) seems to be sent to both categories. The expected behavior is:
  • "Articles with topics of unclear notability from <date>", if "importance = <date>" was specified,
  • "Articles with topics of unclear notability", if "importance" was specified without a date.
--B. Wolterding 18:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
My code looks fine but... it doesn't work if there is no checkdate! The same for refimporove. We have to think of something. -- Magioladitis 18:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
By now, it seems to work. The example article is in the right category, and the incorrect entries are no longer in CAT:NN. Whatever you fixed, you hit the right point. Thanks for your help! --B. Wolterding 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but try to add "importance", "refimprove", "unreferenced" without a tag. I am trying in the Sandbox and the result is "no text". -- Magioladitis 19:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, it works!!! I was forgot you need something like "importance=y". It works just perfect in all cases now. I fixed refimprove as well. :) -- Magioladitis 19:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Grouping

Would grouping like templates with a commented heading be a good plan? For example all the citation templates, to enable people to pick just one of them more easily. May have missed a few or doubled up but you get the idea--Nate1481( t/c) 10:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

example

<!-- citations -->

| citations missing = November 2007
| citationstyle = November 2007
| citecheck = November 2007
| primarysources = November 2007
| refimprove = November 2007
| unreferenced = November 2007

<!-- MOS/organisation -->

| cleanup = November 2007
| copyedit = November 2007
| intro length = November 2007
| laundrylists = November 2007
| long = November 2007
| restructure = November 2007
| sections = November 2007
| wikify = November 2007

<!-- Tone/style -->

| advert = November 2007
| colloquial = y
| confusing = November 2007
| essay = November 2007
| fiction = November 2007
| howto = November 2007
| inappropriate person = November 2007
| in-universe = November 2007
| likeresume = November 2007
| plot = November 2007
| prose = November 2007
| proseline = y
| quotefarm = November 2007
| rewrite = November 2007
| synthesis = November 2007
| technical = November 2007
| tone = November 2007
| unencyclopedic = y
| weasel = November 2007

<!-- POV / OR-->

| advert = November 2007
| autobiography = y
| blpdispute = November 2007
| COI = y
| context = November 2007
| contradict = November 2007
| criticisms = November 2007
| disputed = November 2007
| expert = topic name
| globalize = November 2007
| histinfo = y
| inappropriate person = November 2007
| importance = November 2007
| OR = November 2007
| peacock = November 2007
| plot = November 2007
| POV = November 2007
| synthesis = November 2007
| unbalanced = November 2007

<!-- Content -->

| deadend = November 2007
| examplefarm = November 2007
| expand = November 2007
| howto = November 2007
| incomplete = November 2007
| notable = November 2007
| quotefarm = November 200
| tooshort = November 2007
| trivia = November 2007
| update = November 2007

Hmm - possibly, although I'm not sure it'll make much of a difference.--danielfolsom 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is not bad but I like the alphabetical sort better. -- Magioladitis 16:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
My reasoning is that it's easier to find the appropriates templates for an article, there is no reason why both couldn't be available for use. --Nate1481( t/c) 16:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe its helpful. Do you mean to add it in the manual? -- Magioladitis 00:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure on the layout of the new format template pages, the version above needs checking before it goes anywhere as i think there are at least 2 double ups & may be some missing --Nate1481( t/c) 11:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Case sensitivity

Apologies if this has been addressed before, but is there any way this template can be made case insensitive, so that e.g. "pov" has the same effect as "POV"; "Notable" as "notable"? It would make assimilating multiple cleanup tags on a page into the Articleissues template much easier, and render mistakes rarer. Skomorokh incite 22:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be nice but i don't think it's easy to implement. -- Magioladitis 00:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
case sensitivity seems to point to Case sensitivity without any need for a hand-wrought redirect; could this not be implemented in a similar fashion here?
Alternatively, could we just manually add "Notable=Month 0000" manually but not mention it on the template page?Skomorokh incite —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The case above is different. It's the first letter of an article, in our case "Notable" and "notable" are parameters. We could something like "IF Notable= month xxxx THEN notable = month xxxx", but then we had to do this for all the cases and the code is becoming awfully huge. -- Magioladitis 00:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Does the length/complexity of the code affect performance or is it simply a lot of trouble to go to? Because if it's the latter, I'd be tempted to use this solution. Skomorokh incite 01:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it' s trouble. There is always Show preview to check your mistakes and very clear instructions in the template of how to use it. Have you noticed many broken templates because of the case sensitivity? -- Magioladitis 01:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It's more a question of trying to get to grips with the template the first few times you use it. My initial experience after seeing it in use and thinking it a wonderful idea might help illustrate this: I had three or four cleanup templates, something like
{{NPOV}}
{{notability}}
{{original research}}
I copy/pasted the terms into the Articleissues format as follows:
{{Articleissues
|NPOV
|notability
|original research}}
Obviously, none of these showed up when I saved the page, much to my mystification. So I think it makes it unnecessarily cumbersome to convert the terms, and could frustrate users even more ignorant, lazy and code-illiterate than I.
Do you have any objection to including IF x THEN y code into the template on a case by case basis, in the interests of user-friendliness? Skomorokh incite 12:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I did some tests in the code, (here is one of my tries) but my idea of setting one variable as another doesn't work. For your example, remember that you also have to add =y. I forget it very often as well. If someone can do better than me is welcome. I think that before someone uses a template has to read the how-to instructions. For those who want to experiment with the code remember to use the Preview button and be aware that their changes affects 1,000+ articles. -- Magioladitis 13:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

16-Nov-2007: I am testing a separate version to allow some lower-case parameters and validate against misspelled inputs. See below: Validating lowercase parameters. -Wikid77 10:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


I think we have to experiment with {{#switch:"{{lc:}} to make all the parameters lowercase independently of how the user gives them. The switch transforms all the characters to lowercase. So: Notability, notability, NOtability will work all the same. This save us from duplicate entries. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to whomever has created this template. Great idea for really toublesome articles...--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 00:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vanity-boxes versus markup

16-Nov-2007: Many different people have come to various articles, and rather than adding any substantial new, sourced information, have mainly flagged the article with one of those holier-than-thou vanity boxes, "I, the self-righteous, proclaim this article, above all, defective!!!" They're not to blame for the tendency to throw a vanity-box over an article: many people have some strong opinions and given a soap-box (or vanity-box), rant they will.

This_SIGN_has_too_many_imagesand_it_needs_additional_sources_forverification.___________________Alerting_everyone_is_life_critical.___For_more_details_or_for_more___blocking your view keep reading this... is located in 100x100
This_SIGN_has_too_many_imagesand_it_needs_additional_sources_forverification.___________________Alerting_everyone_is_life_critical.___For_more_details_or_for_more___blocking your view keep reading this...
This_SIGN_has_too_many_images
and_it_needs_additional_sources_for
verification.___________________
Alerting_everyone_is_life_critical.___
For_more_details_or_for_more___
blocking your view keep reading this...
Magnify-clip.png
Vanity boxes clutter the scene.

After working on 10,000 articles, I realize those top-billed judgmental boxes are too tempting and typically become vanity-boxes, more than help the situation. I would eliminate most vanity-boxes, except in protected mode, and direct people to flag subsections of an article, not the top attention-getter. We've seen articles flagged by vanity-boxes for 2 years, with little improvement. Vanity-boxes are not the solution: many areas of Wikipedia are staffed by skeleton crews, with just a handful of people writing those articles. It is important to work with them, not simply cast judgments. Contact prior editors and determine when they might have time to help with rewrites.

As far as helping readers, a grandstanding top-rant is not the way: try flagging individual sentences with {{fact}} "citation needed" or "disputed" or even use the superscript tags "<sup>xxx</sup>" to add a particular pertinent comment: [sources disagree as to the date]. The vanity-boxes just clutter the article, with few details to really warn readers what to question as they read.

Many vanity-box templates allow adding the keyword parameter "section|" for the tag to be placed within a more limited section, rather than demanding attention as a top-billed rant. Consider the grandstanding vanity-boxes to be a management flaw, not a reason to hate people: if managers knew better, they wouldn't have gone down that dead-end vanity road. Remember, Wikipedia is also an interesting long-term study in failed management concepts and error-prone software designs, as well as a repository of knowledge. Learn from those mistakes and improve. -Wikid77 07:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed the phenomenon described here, but do not agree with the "vanity box" label. (I'd accept the label if the tag also included the tagging editor's identity, e.g. "Tagged by SmugTagger since MONTH YEAR.") Yes, it would be nice if more editors worked on removing issues rather than floating about slapping tags on articles. But it should be allowed that many editors do both, and the removal of tags is far less noticeable than their addition.
I do sometimes feel aggrieved about a small cadre of editors who seem to think every article should abound in footnotes, whether or not facts are in dispute. My response, though, is to remove any {{unreferenced}} template that is not supported by a specific comment (in page history) or, better, a discussion on the talk page. So far none of these removed templates has been restored, to my knowledge. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, I think every article in wikipedia should be well referenced. (And yes, it really tweaks me when people remove unref tags when no references have been added *grin*). Since wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it's very important for readers to be able to go to the sources and evaluate for themselves how well the article stands up.
But ultimately, is this the place for this discussion?--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Validating lowercase parameters

16-Nov-2007: I am installing a new revision to allow some lower-case parameters and validate against misspelled inputs. It allows some common lower-case parameters & validates 18 spellings:

  • allows lowercase: NPOV (same as "POV"), npov, pov, "or" (for "OR");
  • allows aliases: notability (for "notable"), etc.;
  • validates against invalid spellings: "dispute" (needs "disputed"), "peacocks" (should be "peacock"), "criticism" (should be "criticisms"), etc.;
  • validates against old upcased names, catching: Criticisms, Notability, Peacock, Plot, Prose, etc.

Many misspelled parameters now display error-messages, rather than still being ignored by Template:Articleissues. -Wikid77 11:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Now there is a problem that I would like tho avoid. Try Articleissues with both parameters NPOV and POV tagged differently. Two lines will appear instead of one. Just having copies of the same code for different parameters is a solution but not the solution. -- Magioladitis 11:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Your efforts are much appreciated. Skomorokh incite 17:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

{{Importance-sect}}

Shouldn't this be included? I dorftrotteltalk I 19:46, November 23, 2007

Articleissues is supposed to be on the top of an article. So, I'm not sure. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not supposed to be on top of the article when the section=y parameter is passed. I dorftrotteltalk I 02:09, November 24, 2007
If section=y is used, then just use the importance parameter. Mr.Z-man 23:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

in-universe-cat

I added a parameter that selects the category added when a user selects in-universe, to help with my disambiguation/sorting of Category:Articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. Also, I'm not sure how to describe that parameter on the documentation page, though. Any thoughts? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe just add "parameter customized"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Request {{contradict-other}}

It's not the same thing as {{contradict}}, which refers to self-contradiction exclusively. {{contradict-other}} is for two articles that contradict each other. --Thinboy00 @143, i.e. 02:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This tag needs to take as paremeter the article which contradicts. Interesting. We need something like that but to allow parameters.

Contradict-other -->{{#if:{{{contradict-other|}}}|* It appears to '''contradict''' another article. Please see discussion on the linked [[{{#switch: {{lc:{{{2}}}}}|here={{TALKPAGENAME}}|there=Talk:{{{1}}}|{{TALKPAGENAME}}}}|talk page]]. {{#if:{{checkdate|{{{contradict-other}}}}}|<small> Tagged since {{checkdate|{{{contradict-other}}}}}.</small>[[Category:Articles contradicting other articles]]}}<br/>}}<!--

Right now I am to tired to implement it. I'll try tomorrow if none else makes it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I checked and they are less than 30 articles tagged with this tag. IS it worthy to add it in articleissues? -- Magioladitis (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Expert to Expert Subject?

Would it be possible to change the expert to use the more proper expert-subject? The way it is now, articles are not being properly sorted into their expert needed categories, so I've had to go back to having article issues for most stuff, and expert separate so the articles will be properly put into their appropriate categories.AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed (I hope) —Ms2ger (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It does not seem to work. The WikiProject/Portal has to be added to the expert tag and the expertsubject tag seems to be without use. --rxnd (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Introrewrite

Another request...could {{introrewrite}} also be incorporated? :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed The text is long but it cannot be reduced. It must give a link to the talk page and instructions how to do it. Moreover, it was a little tricky to handle the categories. I hope everything works fine. Someone please try it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting {{Intromissing}}

It's not a widely used template, but a valuable one - there are hundreds of articles that don't have an intro section, many of them as yet untagged. Anyway, I'd like to add 'articleissues' to Industrial Rock: Established Acts Which Experimented with the Genre to clear up the templates on that article, but {{Intromissing}} isn't one of the parameters. Could someone add it please? Terraxos (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)