Template talk:Multiple issues/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


... for getting this to this stage. It works and it addresses all the concerns raised. Well done! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad a common ground was found. Thanks everyone for putting up with me :) --Android Mouse 02:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm very glad all this got sorted out as well. I was a big fan of the collapsibility, but I think that the scroll bar is an excellent compromise. And, Android Mouse, thanks a lot for coming up with the actual implementation. Iknowyourider (t c) 03:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, Android Mouse I hope you don't mind me changing the template out so that the background would be transparent (and b/c in general I think div tags are a bit better than templates). Typically I would've done that in my own sandbox - except I don't have one, and I'd probably have to go through the trouble of deleting it once i was done - so again, sorry bout that.--danielfolsom 04:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No need to be sorry. Getting the background transparent was two thirds of the work. Thanks for stepping in and fixing it. --Android Mouse 04:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


I love it, except that it takes 100% of the column width on what I thought was a fairly wide window. Is anyone opposed to the (supposed) site-wide standard of 85%? The scroll bar is clear no matter how thin it's rendered. ←BenB4 03:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you proposing changing the template width to 85%? --Android Mouse 04:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Is there any reason not to? ←BenB4 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I downsized it because I thought it was taking up too much space. Apparently it caused the opposite problem for you (I use a widescreen), which is why I like using em units over percentages. --Android Mouse 05:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The same problem, really: at non-widescreen window widths, it easily takes the whole article column width. 85% is supposed to be our standard for notice templates. ←BenB4 06:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I tested 85 on larger and small browsers (full and wide screen) - and it didn't work out that well on wide - so I tried a compromise at 70. If 85 is the site standard then there's not a single template that follows that "standard"--danielfolsom 21:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I set it to 45em which is about how it would be on a 1024x768 screen which should be smaller than it was before. --Android Mouse 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It looked much better when it was wider. Is there any reason it can't just be the same width as the all the other cleanup templates (whatever that may be)? Bradford44 14:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I liked it best at 70 percent (wider but not almost the entire screen) - which was supposed to be a compromise, so I think I'll change that back.--danielfolsom 15:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought 85% was the standard, there is a huge, site-wide vote at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/Archive 2005-05-24. ←BenB4 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Huge? I see 2 people, but whatever - 85% would just be bigger than any other template--danielfolsom 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"There were 183 votes cast by 60 voters" in May 2005. ←BenB4 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we're looking at the wrong section?--danielfolsom 02:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing div tags

I have added closing div tags so tha the html produced is balanced. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Android Mouse 02:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Scroll box height tweaked

I decided to be bold, and changed the height of the scroll box from 65px to 10ex. This way, the actually displayed height adapts to the current font size. My eyesight isn't the best, so I have have the browser font size turned up a couple of notches. With the old fixed-pixel height, the scroll box was almost unreadable, but with the font-relative height, I can about three lines. (Could stand to be increased, I think, but that's not important.)

Hope I didn't break anything. --Wasell(D) 05:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe unrelated, but now there's a scrollbar in the template box on the Rape statistics page. Guanxi 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I changed the height of the scroll-box from 10ex to 16ex, but then, seeing no improvement, I changed it back. 03:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Article" & "section" parameters don't seem to work

I tried including the "article" parameter, but it didn't seem to work. I did it like so:

{{Articleissues|article|<other parms> ... }}.

but the result still read "This article or section ...". Did I use it wrong, or is there a problem with the template? +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You probably have to do article=yes, I'll take a look at the page--danielfolsom 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
That could be. You know what the problem is, though, it that the documentation is ridiculously vague: it merely says "Use the article parameter if you use the template for the entire article, and section if it is used only for a particular section", without any niceties like what the exact syntax is. That might be good to put in there. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone fixed it. The correct syntax indeed is article=y (same for section); "y" can actually be any (non-space) character.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I did - i just did article=y to avoid confusion.--danielfolsom 03:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Does this box have to both scroll and hide?

Let's please get rid of the scroll bar on the tiny frame—I can't even read the first two items without giving it a tickle. If an article has three issues they should all be visible without screwing around with browser interface elements. If it has eight, then hopefully someone gets around to improving it right away. Michael Z. 2007-08-18 01:00 Z

I couldn't agree more. Whatever happened to the KISS principle? Bradford44 01:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the scroll bar, but I agree it makes the [hide] feature redundant. ←BenB4 04:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling doesn't work on some browsers. See Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Scrolling reference lists should never be used, because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such reference lists will display properly in all web browsers." Perhaps this template could be made more like {{ArticleHistory}} or {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
We did a browser check, and on them all of them worked - see the above.--danielfolsom 20:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The current style looks good to me, as long as we don't make it collapsed by default. I don't like the idea of "hiding" certain issues (sometimes serious ones like OR and disputed) in the interest of space saving. If we have to choose between the scroll bar and the show/hide, I would keep the show/hide (as long as it is expanded by default). As was said above, if an article only has 3 or 4 issues, one should not need to scroll to see them all. If an article has 8 issues, it should be very visible so readers know the article is not of high quality and so editors see that it needs a lot of work. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone ever want to [hide] it, the way it is now? ←BenB4 21:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't install a hojillion browsers to see if the scrolling works in them "all", but I can verify that it doesn't work with the the iPhone's Safari browser; it only shows the visible text and truncates the rest.

I know one of the arguments against {{scrollref}} was that it was incompatible with screenreaders--they would only read the portion of the scroll box which was visible and not the rest. Has the functionality of this template been tested with that? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling gone

I've gotten rid of the ugly scrollbar. There are clearly a lot of people against it. Another solution might be possible but I'm not sure that it's required. violet/riga (t) 15:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted for stated reasons - are you trying to start an edit war?--danielfolsom 22:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not very nice - an accusation like that. There are many, many comments on this page that show how many people dislike the use of a scrollbar. Further, it has long been community consensus that any implementation of scrollers are not acceptable, with templates deleted for such a reason (I think of the references scroller for one). violet/riga (t) 08:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Butting in to say that I completely agree with the previous statement. Scroll boxes make it hard read for us rear-sighted people using larger-than-usual font sizes. --Wasell(T) 10:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Regardless - if you completely ignore a discussion going on about the scroll box, and just decide to remove it - well there's really only one word I can think of for that. Feel free to take part in the discussion as others have done - but just editing and saying "I did this." doesn't help anything.--danielfolsom 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
O wow - and you did it again - yeah that actually is edit warring.--danielfolsom 16:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Never refer to my edits as vandalism - incivility can result in a block. Read WP:OWN and look at what you are doing here. The following people have made comments against the scrollbar as well as myself:
  • Kariteh
  • hisspaceresearch
  • Iknowyourider ("wouldn't object to going back to...")
  • Mzajac
  • Bradford44
  • SatyrTN
  • Wasell
  • Fabrictramp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fabrictramp (talkcontribs) 18:15, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
That is just the ones I spotted in a short perusal of this page. Where is this so-called "consensus" to use a scrollbar? It has already been shown that similar scrollbar systems have been removed and there is no need for this to have one. You are going against what is generally held to be a bad thing. violet/riga (t) 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is the recent change? OK, I probably won't use this template then, which provided a nice way to summarize the issues without completely losing our readers; we can't be taking up half a page to list issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)



Can {{introrewrite}} be added to the possibilities? I need it at Asperger syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure - I'll ad that by tomorrow--danielfolsom 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)



Please fix my attempt at adding Nofootnote which isn't working at Omar Torrijos. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-20t11:48z

What happened ?

This went from being a managable box to an embarrassment at Asperger syndrome; where did the nice small box go ? If I have to take up half a page listing all the article issues, I'll just forego the articleissues template, pick the worst issue and leave one tag only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone took out the scroll box despite the fact it was being discussed - I reverted.--danielfolsom 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Formal proposal to remove scrollbar

I'm tired of watching the edit warring, let's simplify the issues, and settle this by attempting to establish a consensus. I believe that that scrollbar should be removed, for the following reasons (virtually all of which I am paraphrasing from previous comments):

  1. It is ugly.
  2. It creates a printing problem.
  3. Scrollbars are generally deprecated by wikipedia.
  4. It has the frequent effect of hiding problems with the article (because all of the problems cannot be seen until one scrolls down).
  5. Using this template already drastically condenses cleanup tags; if an article has so many problems that this template still takes up the whole viewable top of the page, that's the article's problem, not the template's.
  6. And because of #4, the template makes it easier to ignore problems with the article. When the list of problems takes up the whole first page, people are much more likely to hurry up and fix them.
  7. (added by violet/riga (t)) Very little text can be seen when the window is small (due to screen resolution, sidebars, or other).
  8. (added by violet/riga (t)) Adds difficulty to reading - you have to use two scrollbars rather than just the one.
  9. (added by violet/riga (t)) It adds a box within the box, making it look bad
  10. (added by violet/riga (t)) The need for scrolling looks daft when the template is not as wide as it could be - we should try to expand the width rather than squash it up and use a scrollbar.

The scrollbar should be eliminated, and the box uncollapsed by default, but collapsable.Bradford44 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Support per above. Bradford44 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per above, especially the printing and deprecation problems. It's not a matter of personal preferences; it's simply a matter of accessibility and having a template that works. Kariteh 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per above. You just beat me to doing this - thanks. violet/riga (t) 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support for the above well-stated reasons. --Fabrictramp 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, don't want to get involved in this, but if the scrollbox is eliminated, I won't use the template at Asperger syndrome. We are hard at work trying to rescue a featured article, and what attracted me to this template was its small size. If I have to have half a page of issues, I just won't use it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • So can we just count that as a opposed vote - as you're obviously against the removal?--danielfolsom 19:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No, in general, if I want to Oppose, I do. I commented. I see the problem from both sides. I think the solution is to think outside of the box and regenerate the template so that it's minimized in size if the scrollbox is to be dropped. We need a summary box for articles with multiple issues. Can someone design it in a way that it runs the sentences together into a paragraph ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Additional comment: in general, I hate scrollboxes and understand the printability and accessibility issues. What if ya'll were to think outside the box, and find a way to shorten up this template by stringing sentences together, so you could drop the scroll while retaining the template functionality? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support per above. Also, I will play my shitty-eyesight card once more: Scroll boxes don't work well with larger-than-normal font sizes. (Wikipedia:Accessibility doesn't cover this, but it bloody well should!) --Wasell(T) 17:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support scrollbox removal, neutral on collapsable - I still think we should go back to how it was before all of this--danielfolsom 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: before the decision is made make sure to allow time for users that support the scroll box (i.e. Ben, Android, Iknowyourider ect. get there voice in - and also, remember that a majority is not neccesarily a consensus).--danielfolsom 19:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the removal. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose scrollbar removal; get rid of the [hide] box instead. ←BenB4 19:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I did that a while ago ...--danielfolsom 20:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support. As violet/riga has pointed out, we can simply widen the template. See {{original research}} and {{totally disputed}} for examples of wide warning boxes. This template is much narrower than common tags such as {{cleanup}} and {{refimprove}}. Many of the comments taking up three or four lines could thus be reduced to two, or even one. szyslak 21:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment While I am, again, in favor of trashing the scroll box - just making it wider won't do anything. The original problem was that the template took up too much space vertically. Before anything was changed - each tag fit on one line, but that was seen as an issue - so I don't know who mentioned making it wider first - but if you look at the history and you've been following the discussion then you know that comment is completely irrelevant.--danielfolsom 00:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Each tag fits on one line? That totally depends on window size (screen res. etc.) violet/riga (t) 07:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • On my display, each tag currently needs 2 lines, if it's dated. --B. Wolterding 07:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - in particular due to #6. The reason for putting templates on the page is to alert editors, not to annoy them, and the scroll box may hide important issues from their view. For example, editors might not notice that lack of notability, or lack of independent sources, is a problem that should be dealt with, and they might be very surprised when the article is nominated for deletion later. Issues don't get solved just by hiding them in a scrollbox. --B. Wolterding 07:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There - can we just leave it now?

Seriously - we don't need to hide this template - and it's ridiculous that people think we need to. No other clean up template has a "hide" function - because clean up templates are meant to always be displayed - otherwise, we would put them on talk pages. So rather than figure out a way for people to ignore the issues on this template - why don't we all go around and actually try to fix an article.--danielfolsom 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. --Fabrictramp 17:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I entirely agree. --B. Wolterding 10:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to bring back Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article and get that going properly in an effort to make this place look much better and more organised. It would involve too much time though and would take more work than I'm wanting to put in right now. It's a shame that we have to live with horribly boxy, non-standard width templates all over our articles. violet/riga (t) 10:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Template standardisation. Please comment. violet/riga (t) 10:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A)There is no longer such thing as a "standard width". Almost every template is different. B) Boxy? You want circles?--danielfolsom 14:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A) well that's kinda my point! violet/riga (t) 14:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There's something wrong with the coding - an extra break tag I expect. I'm looking for it now but any help would obviously be appreciated - for example see Third World.--danielfolsom 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - I found it - someone messed up the BLP one - and the break tag was outside the if tag.--danielfolsom 18:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea

This template merely makes it easier for those who, while doing no constructive work, derive great satisfaction of telling others they are wrong to feel good. All too often, we already see busybodies going tagging articles with these ugly templates and making no effort to explain their precise complaints on the talk page, leaving those who would like to help having to completely digest the entire article and then GUESS as to what the tagger was complaining about. It can take 10 seconds to tag and article and hours to fix the problem, but the tagger has a self-delusional perception that he is some kind of hero when, in reality, he did NOTHING to improve the article. This is just a way for some smug taggers to mark a lot of articles and feel proud of themselves for really have shown those who created the article who wrong they are. Some juvenile editors get a lot of satisfaction in doing that. This kind of feedback belongs on the TALK page, not in the article. Just go look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Articleissues and tell me how often you see a detailed entry on the corresponding TALK page about the details of the complaints. Many of the articles so-tagged are long (40K of more). Yet this big, dumb ugly template shoves itself right upfront and declares "this article stinks". This is not constructive. How many of the taggers have actually ever done the WORK of fixing the problem and then REMOVING such a tag? Probably very few. This is a race to the bottom: it encourages the scenario of all chiefs and no indians, because the moment these taggers control what is at the top of an article who quality you actually care about, then they are in control and you have to struggle GUESSING as to what they were complaining about. It is a "classroom" mentality: everybody wants to be the "teacher", trying to shove everyone else into the subordinate role of student. This is terrible idea.--Francis45 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you try raising this issue at Wikipedia talk:Cleanup? Seems to me that your quarrel is not with this specific template, but with the concept of cleanup templates. szyslak 23:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
My problem with this one specifically is that it encourages weak-minded editors whose days are not good days until they have told somebody that they are wrong to mark every article in the encyclopedia. Even for people who feel prepared to do to address one or another kind of article issue, this template obscure where these complaints are. Now, these unproductive editors and just smear on a long list of unspecified complaints in seconds with a tagging that will last a long time. There are unproductive editors who love this template, but for the project, article quality and collaboration, this is the wrong way to go.--Francis45 05:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - apparently you're a sock.--danielfolsom 18:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to Kill some Templates

Ok - let's take a look at some temps we have and their purpose:

Template Purpose
Template:Citations missing Missing citations AND/OR footnotes (i.e. inline citations)
Template:Nofootnote Missing in text citations
Template:Refimprove Missing citations/Needs more references (same thing)
Template:Not verified Redirects to Template:Refimprove
Template:Citation style Given the OR clause in Citations missing this really isn't needed - since articles should use the footnote system anyway

This is ridiculous - these templates essentially do the same thing. I propose that we keep Template:Citations missing & refimprove. Not verified i'm removing now since it doesn't even exist any more. So the ones to debate is Nofootnote.--danielfolsom 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Keep Citations missing and Refimprove
  • Kill everything else

Support Nofootnote just isn't worth it - it's essentially a more specific citations missing - and that's a bad thing because that means there are some articles citations missing can be applied to that nofootnote can't.--danielfolsom 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that. We probably have section specific templates for all of them too and multiple redirects. I tried to get rid of some section specific ones a while back (is saying "article or section" that confusing?!) but ultimately failed. People seem to like having lots of templates to cover every possible situation instead of only a few templates that can cover multiple circumstances. For whatever its worth though, you have my full support. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Hopefully this time people see the light ;).--danielfolsom 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I think the ones that need to be removed are {{citations missing}} and {{not verified}}. I disagree with your summary of what each of the other templates are used for:

  • {{refimprove}} For when an article has some sources, but needs more of them. (needing more references and missing inline citations are not the same thing)
  • {{nofootnote}} When an article has a list of sources, but no inline citations.
  • {{citation style}} When an article either fails to use citation templates, or fails to adhere to a style guide such as the Chicago Manual of Style, or mixes different citation styles. (needing to use a consistent citation style is not remotely the same thing as missing citations or footnotes)

These are clearly very different and specific problems. It is possible to have all of these problems simultaneously, or any combination of them, or only one of them and not the others. Bradford44 00:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference is - i'm going by what the templates say. Citations missing says it is missing references and or footnotes - meaning the article is missing either inline citations or just citations in general - thus nofootnote is obsolete. Citations style is not when an article fails to use citation templates - again, how you use it is irrelevant. It says it is when there is not a consistant citations style - however that is also obsolete since the only citations style that should be used it the inline citations style- so Citations missing applies. Refimprove I said should be kept.--danielfolsom 20:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To compromise I'm going to find a way to combine the templates - where it'll still be ok if people use one name instead of the other - just give me a few days.--danielfolsom 21:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Done - I combined them--danielfolsom 21:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)