Template talk:Expert needed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Expert-subject)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computer science (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Category needed[edit]

A solution for finding articles that are categorized (tagged with a WikiProject) in the template call, but their expert categories are not yet created. This makes it easy to create expert categories for articles already tagged with a WikiProject. Iceblock (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on the sandbox is welcome. The changes are:

Advantage:

Don't be afraid to ask if I have not explained this suggestion sufficiently. Iceblock (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

About the advantage mentioned above: Some explanation is at Category:Articles needing expert attention (category needed). Iceblock (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Tracking category to catch unidentified subjects[edit]

Iceblock (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you perceive this to be a temporary measure (a "tracking category") to help you to create all the appropriate categories? If so, I have no objection. If you are proposing a permanent category, then we should probably think a bit more about the name of it. Category:Articles needing unspecified expert attention might be better for when the subject is not specified. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking of this as a temporary measure, to ease creation of new, appropriate categories. Iceblock (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay done. I will revert this (if I remember) in a few weeks then. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making the edit, MSGJ! Is it okay to let this version stay until I have created all the categories, even if it takes more than a few weeks? As new expert requests may (and I think will) be posted on new articles, and not everyone is aware that a category should be created, I believe that a category with the same purpose should be made permanently. Name suggestions:

  • Category:Articles needing expert attention and a category
  • Category:Articles needing expert attention and an expert category
  • Category:Articles needing expert attention and an expert subject category

"Articles needing unspecified expert attention" does not exactly describe the purpose of the category. This is because the subject is specified in the template and matches the name of a WikiProject, the subject is displayed in the maintenance tag on the top of the page, but the page is not categorized by subject because the editor who tagged the page is not aware that a category must be created. Iceblock (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I was suggesting Category:Articles needing unspecified expert attention for when the subject is not specified. That would leave Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention for those where the subject is specified but do not have any other category to be placed in. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, now I see! I agree with you! Iceblock (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Possible code on /sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Simplifying the code by using the catcheck template is an improvement. I added a link to Portal:{{{1}}} and removed the category check for parameter ex1. Do you think it's a good idea to put articles with this template in a separate category as well as the usual ones if the WikiProject is misspelled or non-existent? Iceblock (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I deployed and reverted because it was putting every article into Category:Articles needing expert attention which shouldn't happen. I need to check over the code again. RE your question, a mis-spelled WikiProject is treated exactly the same as a non-existent one, in which case the separate categories would not exist. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems like only undated expert tags will put an article into Category:Articles needing expert attention.
If a correctly spelled WikiProject is specified, and the subject category does not exist, then the article is put into Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention. If a misspelled WikiProject is specified, then the article is not put into Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention. That's the difference I have found. Iceblock (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remove the period after {{{reason}}}[edit]

Entered into template Result
reason = Needs input from a nuclear physicist Needs input from a nuclear physicist.
reason = Needs input from a nuclear physicist. Needs input from a nuclear physicist..
reason = Needs input from a nuclear physicist! Needs input from a nuclear physicist!.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swpb (talkcontribs)

I'm not seeing this problem. Perhaps you could reproduce it on /testcases page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I just reproduced that problem, as you asked. I came here because the problem also occurs at Paraguayan War. Art LaPella (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Please improve the help instructions[edit]

I recently had reason to use this template (on the BitTorrent page if you want to know).

But despite me considering myself not a neophyte wikipedian, it wasn't clear to me exactly how to apply the template, especially the expert-talk (sub?)template.

  • Where, exactly, is expert-talk supposed to go?
  • How, exactly, are you to link it to the main expert-subject template?
  • What, if any, parameters are truly mandatory? (Currently, way hidden in the main body of text, it states that if no reason is given, the template can be removed. MAKE THIS WAY MORE VISIBLE. Thanks.)

Do not have parameters that are "sort-of" mandatory. As long as you provide a parameter with no further comment, it should remain fully optional. Until you reach consensus to make it mandatory, it should remain fully optional. When you do reach consensus, make it clearly mandatory in all respects. At no point in the discussion process should you have an "in-between" status!

A somewhat exasperated greeting, since I am tempted to use this template on its own talk/help page... ;) CapnZapp (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Mandatory reason[edit]

I'm not sure if these type of "expert" backlog are ever really addressed, but if this template is to stay, I think there should be a big red text error when a |reason= isn't added. Otherwise it's hard to see what the issue is. – czar 23:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Aye. This was essentially required as a condition that the template survive WP:TFD to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 February 2016[edit]

Please insert

{{error|This template requires either the {{code|reason}} or the {{code|talk}} parameter}}

after

[[Category:Articles needing expert attention with no reason or talk parameter]]

In 85%[1] of its invocations[2], the template is used without either a talk or a reason parameter. The deletion discussion closed with "strongly consider making the reason mandatory" (my emphasis, clear consensus there), Czar asked for it one section above, I do (obviously), it makes sense, and there seems to be exactly no opposition to it. Paradoctor (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Pass - I'm passing on this one. I'm uncomfortable adding a big red error message to 4600+ pages when the usage clearly wasn't an error at the time it was added. If there were some kind of switch so it added the error for new transclusions and let old ones wait attention I'd do it. Or if there were some scheme in place to clear the backlog... But, as is, I'll pass, without prejudice. Bazj (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"Unexplained expert tags can be and should be removed by any editor." This has been around since 2009, which is most of the template's history, so the vast majority of uses were in error at their incept date. It's high time for a BF ugly error message. I started on the backlog, so that shouldn't be an impediment, either. Paradoctor (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The documentation for both parameters still says "You may...", not "You must...". Bazj (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Certainly, but that's because you don't have to use both. The documentation for the template begins with "Important: When adding this template to an article, state the specific issue". This, together with all the evidence already presented makes it clear that the spirit of the template is that a justification is essential for its use. Besides, the point of this edit request is to adapt the template to consensus, not the other around, right? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
A few points where I disagree with you:
  • "but that's because you don't have to use both" - No. As it's currently documented you don't have to use either.
  • "the point ... is to adapt the template to consensus" - Yes. The consensus, as you stated in your edit request, is to "strongly consider making the reason mandatory". Czar's suggestion above is just a suggested way of moving towards that consensus. It is not itself the consensus.
  • The request would have over 4600 articles tainted with a big red error message. The whole point of template protection is to avoid edits that have that kind of effect. On that point I now feel certain enough to say Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:.
A less invasive approach would be to have a bot task scan the 4600 pages in the category for the relevant wiki projects and place a notice on the talk pages of those projects that their attention is needed at [list of relevant pages for that project]. Those pages could then have this template removed by the bot. Whatever is left would need to be cleared by hand. Once the category is cleared it would then be reasonable to mark talk/reason as mandatory and to implement your request.
Regards, Bazj (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, 4448 articles. You have been busy. Bazj (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "tainted" Well, if that floats your boat... Paradoctor (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
marred, disfigured, corrupted, vandalised, take your pick.
Your removal of the template from so many pages doesn't look like you're considering the issues raised by the presence of the template. We need to assume good faith on the part of the editors who tagged the articles in question, which means there had to be an issue there which they considered needed expert attention. Are you going to flag up the articles you've edited with the relevant projects so that they will at least have a chance of receiving the required attention? Bazj (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Bazj's per-project preparatory solution. It would be good to know what the distribution is for each affected project. I can only assume all affected projects have a similar # of these, with a few outliers. Maybe the remaining, un-fixed, templates can be removed after a month or so of posting a notice to each project's talk page, unless there is an exceptional number of them.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  01:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Follow up[edit]

I guess they intended to sort the requests. No sorting in 7 years makes fore a pretty cruddy backlog.
  • The template is used by WP:Twinkle. A test edit shows it uses neither |talk=, nor |reason=. Since Twinkle is likely to be the source of most uses of this template, it's necessary to fix Twinkle first. A request has been submitted. Bazj (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This sounds good. I still agree with what I said above but I understand the dilemma of giving 4k+ articles a red error message. Please ping me again if discussion culminates in any sort of RfC/!vote. czar 00:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Air21[edit]

@Paradoctor: I wonder how many of the "mis-tagged" articles have a history similar to that of Air21? In 2011 I tagged it for special attention by a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Defunct Airlines; in 2013, another editor merged the tag into "multiple issues", losing the Wikiproject - perhaps the "multiple issues" template didn't support it; in 2016, you removed the tag from the article because it had no Wikiproject. Mind you, the tag achieved nothing in five years, and my post on the talk page has attracted no comments. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This post is partly incorrect. Discussion is continuing on my talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 08:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)



– The name of this template is a classic example of telegraphic writing, and really doesn't make any sense. It wrongly implies that the subject should only be edited by experts. Especially given that it's aimed at getting the attention of subject-matter experts who may not be experienced WP editors, it would be useful for this template (and its talk-page equivalent) to have a name that was accurately descriptive of the point of the template. For years we've been moving toward plain-English template names (at least for templates intended to be used by people, as opposed to subtemplates of meta-templates and whatnot). So, let's do that here. (I'm open to any reaonable alternative, like "Expert requested", "Expertise needed", yadda yadda.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
This move has been mishandled, so the pages appearing to regular users that would inform how to use the tag are essentially devoid of the information that appeared in the past. A move should not be made unless it is checked, and a move should not proceed until a comparable instruction set can accomplay the page. What exists now is disruptive. Please undo, or correct. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done @Leprof 7272: Thanks for pointing this out. I have moved the documentation and the other subpages of the template. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@John of Reading: Thank you vm for rectifying this. Less chance of tag misuse with the instructions in place. Cheers. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we like to not lose the documentation. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

As a result of this move, Template:Expert-verify is now a double redirect. It is protected, so an administrator will need to fix it. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 01:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Antony-22: Yes check.svg Done - I'm not an administrator, but the redirect only had "templateeditor" protection. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)