Template talk:Multiple issues/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

dead end tag

When articleissues includes a deadend tag, the article isn't getting into a deadend by month category. See Amgoria as an example -- the deadend tag in the articleissues template is dated October 2007, but the article was never placed into Category:Dead-end pages from October 2007. I have no clue how to fix this, but it really needs to be fixed so these articles get timely attention. Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ok not difficult. The tag is just text. The category is a different thing. I am fixing it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Fixed -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, call me crazy, but I'm still not seeing that category on the article, or the article in the category. I've even purged my page cache, and nada.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it has to do with the cache of the template in Wikipedia. Check the source code. They is no were All-dead end pages anymore but I can still see it in Amgoria as well. I think we have to wait a little bit for the Wikipedia servers to catch up. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll sit on my hands for a while. :) --Fabrictramp (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
ok check Amgoria. I reactivated the template by changing slightly the date of the deadend. It's working perfectly. woo woo. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I bow down before your awesomeness. ;)--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting {{Nofootnotes}}

This template is used for articles which include references, but not in-line citations. I don't think any other template currently included in ArticleIssues has this function, so could somebody add it, please? Terraxos (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Won't fixThis is a highly protected template. It's better to handle it alone. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that this has since been added. Equazcion /C 14:12, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be there are as Nofootnote, since 20 August 2007 and added by Jeandré du Toit. Is there anyway to check how many articles are using it through articleissues and remove it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am performing an AWB check to fix that. Moreover, this template should be placed at the bottom of the article and not in the top. Certainly, something we can't include in Articleissues. -- 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It took me a lot of time but the subject is handled. Nofootnote removed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you recheck your work with that? Since you removed it, a huge space is appearing after the "It does not cite any references" bullet. See List of Xena: Warrior Princess episodes for an example. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I simplified the code and I think now it's working (at least in my PC). Please check and tell me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm unable to get it to work. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Magioladitis removed it once he found out it wasn't supposed to go at the top of the article, where {{articleissues}} is supposed to go. See Template:Nofootnotes/doc.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 23:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting {{Self-published}}

Can someone add that? I don't feel like deciphering the template tonight.--Crossmr (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed but take care that the original template allows the users to specify the source in dispute. This feature is not included in the articleissues version. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"tooshort" parameter tagging articles for wikification

Can someone please remove the wikification category from the "tooshort" parameter? The stand-alone tag (now called "intro-tooshort") does not add articles to wikification categories, and removing the category from the "tooshort" parameter would remove inappropriately added articles from the already large wikification backlog. Cheers. – Liveste [talkcontrib] 21:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, fortunately that part of the code was fairly simple and I didn't break anything ~breathes again~ AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Tagged since ..."

I think "Tagged since February 2008." is a little lengthy, and makes the template less readable. Any objections to turning all instances of "Tagged since Month Year." into "(Month Year)"? Then it would read, for instance, "It needs additional references or sources for verification. (August 2007)" -- Lea (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "tagged since," as providing a month and year alone may lead to a misconception that the concern only applied to a past version of the article. After all, the point of tagging is to inspire editors to correct issues and then to remove the tag. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Did a super-quick research on this: Most cleanup templates seem to use the parenthesized (short) form (e.g. {{unreferenced}}, {{wikify}}, {{copyedit}}) or only use the date for categorization, not actually displaying it (like {{advert}}, {{importance}}). The ones that use the long form, like {{notability}}, are pretty long templates with explanations of several lines, where the short form would look funny. Since articleissues only has single-sentence descriptions per issue, using the short form would make more sense here, I think. (I doubt by the way that the short form would mislead readers, since it's already so widely used [and I find it pretty intuitive anyway].) -- Lea (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Mh, any further comments on this, anyone? -- Lea (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we can write "since Month Year" and omit Tagged. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting {{External links}}

Can somebody add that --— Typ932T | C  18:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability template misleading?

Hope this is the right place to ask about this. Using the "notability" parameter, what comes out, under "This article or section has multiple issues:", is "Its notability is in question." See here for an example. The statement "Its notability is in question." seems misleading because it's the not an article that should be notable, but the subject of an article. So I think the the statement should read "The notability of the article's subject is in question." I'm raising this because of the apparent misunderstanding as per this diff. Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC) It's a good point, I won't edit it as it's a complex template & I'd probably break it, but it should be changed. --Nate1481(t/c) 11:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the requested change though i also made it if you specify 'section=y' you get a reasonable result or if you specify 'article=y' it becomes article specific language. This was so that using notability for a specific section - like a trivia section - would still make sense. - Owlmonkey (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've tested all the cases, I wonder if the section language should instead be "The notability of the section's content" instead of "The notability of the section's subject" to be more clear. What do you think? - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Now I'm not sure. The section case can be seen here but in that example it really is the subject of the entire section which has notability issues, not just the notability of the respective contents. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, or there really is a difference in the section case between times when the entire section has questionable notability (in that case the times when the article's subject is set to music) or when individual items are questionable for inclusion in a section (like a classic trivia list where some are notable but many are not notable). That would perhaps then require custom templates for each case really. Or we could add a whole new specific case for "item notability" or something like that which would call out 'individual items in this section or article' lack notability, please add citations demonstrating the importance of each' or something like that. - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...but it now reads "The notability of the its subject is in question." - see here. Can someone remove the superfluous "the"? -- (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Should now be fixed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix! - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Is this issue worth adding to the list? Btyner (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because this is supposed to go at the bottom of the article and articleissues at the top. I think the subject was discussed at the past as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Added this. Placement isn't all that crucial for this. If there are already other issues, adding a little uncategorized message to the same box can't hurt. Equazcion /C 14:22, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry but I reverted this addition as happened on 4 September, 2007 as well by user User:BenB4. Check here for last year's discussion. If you want to make this addition please try to ensure a consensus first. I am negative for {{uncategorized}} and I explained why. Articleissues is supposed to replace all the boxed on the top of an article with a single one not change the way we tag the articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't much discussion about this at all. Is there an actual reason you're against this, other than that it's not the way it's normally placed? Equazcion /C 15:45, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
No, not really. The only reasons that a template cannot be included in Articleissues, imo, is: a) The template is highly-protected so it's better to handle alone and b) the template should not be placed in the top. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The template is full-protected. And? So what? That has no bearing on whether its message can be included in another template. And unless you have a reason the message is no good if placed on top, then this really is no argument. Equazcion /C 21:22, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Magioladitis. Uncategorized specifically says it goes at the bottom. If you feel it should start going at the top, I would expect you need to get it changed there first, by consensus, before askin::::::g it be included in articleissues which always goes at the top. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't. Bottom placement of uncat is because as a separate template there's a choice, so might as well put it where cat links usually reside. Placement of this isn't so important that it simply must go on the bottom, if we're already calling attention to multiple issues at the top. That's frankly ridiculous logic. The original template not working that way is simply not a reason. Forget the consensus procedure cause we're allowed to be bold and wait til someone has a real, actual objection -- unless you have an actual practical reason why this is a bad idea, it should be reinserted. Equazcion /C 23:40, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
"Being bold" doesn't mean "ignore consensus". Since there is a very strong consensus that uncategorized template goes at the bottom and articleissues template is just to merge templates and save space, i don't see why we have to ignore these rules. For the full-protected templates: Since changes are done only by administrators is better to have a separate handle and not inside a more generic template like this one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not a rule. It's consensus. For a different template. Full-protect is due to high probability of vandalism, not more major damage as a result of vandalism of the particular message. If this template were vandalized often it would be protected too, but it isn't so it's not. Again there is absolutely no reason to leave the message out of this template. If you yourself had an objection I'd say fine, let's discuss it. But you have no objection. You just think others would. That's not how it works. We can make a change and wait to see if people object. Your reason is basically that you think other people would disagree, which is no reason. Equazcion /C 00:37, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)
And your reason is basically "you want to" - that's not very convincing to me. You would like to add it into the template, discussion ensues, 2 people disagree (I could care less), and you are the person who then gets to choose what constitutes a valid opinion? That doesn't sound right to me. Mr.Z-man 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Who said I get to choose? Equazcion /C 01:25, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Oh and my reason for wanting to add it -- the purpose of this template is to consolidate issues so that multiple separate tags aren't necessary. Uncat is another article issue, just like any other. The question is why exclude it, not why add it. Equazcion /C 03:26, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)
You were telling the other people that their reasons were "no reason," it sounded like you intended to ignore their concerns and put it back in. Mr.Z-man 04:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering it. Two against one doesn't mean anything, or shouldn't. If anything I think more opinions are needed, which is difficult on this page since no one really watches it. I'd post an RfC if I hadn't already posted one below, and if I thought anyone would feel inclined to pay attention to this very minor issue. What I was saying was that my opponents' reasons are ridiculous. I stated an observation and I stand by it. I'm not sure how that's so different from any number of other disputes. But since again this is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things, I'm not going to sweat it. Just hope others come along eventually and comment. Equazcion /C 04:16, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

As you see, at least 5 people (including you) participate in the conversation and the subject has been discussed before. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

5 people including me participated in this discussion? Okay. And your point being what exactly? Equazcion /C 14:43, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)
This was an answer to the "no one really watches" this talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh huh. Equazcion /C 16:27, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I just found this discussion because I assumed the template had support for uncat and it didn't, so I came here to look it up. I must say that, despite some unnecessary aggressiveness on his part, I agree with Equazcion - it's another article issue and I don't see why placing it in the bottom would make things better. Just my 2 cents. Waldir talk 08:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving Articleissues to Article issues

I think this move had to be discussed first. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to revert it, but in the end, it doesn't really matter. The old title still redirects to the new title, and he does have a point about running words together. I don't really care either way. In general, I'm not in favor of undiscussed moves, but this is such a minor detail that it's not worth arguing over.--Aervanath (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes there is a point, but this is a highly-protected article and a discussion is always better. For example I was thinking the name "issues" instead of "article issues". -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying issues when we mean problems

I know this was discussed very briefly several months ago, but I propose, for discussion, changing the word issues to problems in this template. This usage of issues began in the software industry as a euphemism for bugs, which itself was a euphemism for defects. Regrettably, this new usage has spread, virus-like, into the real world, as in, "Jane obtained a restraining order because Dick has issues". In my opinion, this usage has no place in formal writing. It is a misuse of a word that has a different, well settled meaning in place of another word that means what the writer intends. In the case of Wikipedia:

  • The undecided question of whether something in an article should be changed is an issue to raise on the article's talk page.
  • This template, on the other hand, is a pronouncement that an article has problems that should be fixed.

I invite the opinions of other editors. Finell (Talk) 02:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you make an excellent point. Maybe we should phrase the introduction in a more positive way, such as This article needs improvement in several areas, or [You can] help [improve] this article in several ways. Here's an approximate example of what I have in mind. The brackets show what is implied by the introduction.
This is just a sample of what I have in mind. But such a message sounds much more user-friendly than a box that rattles off a long list of "issues". Confronted with this big, fat sticker on a newly created article, a newer user may feel intimidated, and might become discouraged as a Wikipedia editor, coming away with the impression that we don't welcome newbies. szyslak (t) 14:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Another possibility is, Here are some ways you can improve this article. szyslak (t) 14:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a major problem with people adding tags but with few removing. Recently, I checked many articles tagged as needing to be wikified since June 2007 and they were ok. Maybe we need a general message "If an issue is already handled, please feel free to remove it from the list" -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Magioladitis makes an excellent point, and I really like the phrasing of the example above. I say go with it. If no one objects in the next day or two, let's do it.--Aervanath (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting the tag to make it positive rather than negative is fine with me, provided that is is written in a way that indicates that particular areas for improvement have been identified and require fixing. Every article in WP, even FAs, can be improved, and most articles can be improved substantially. So it is important, in my opinion, for the tag to retain its present meaning: editors have determined that the the article in which it appears requires multiple, specified improvements to meet Wikipedia's standards. For example, for the tag to say of an article with no, or with clearly insufficient, source citations, that additional citations may help the article is not saying enough. Further, the language of this template must be consistent with, and retain the meaning of, the several maintenance templates that it subsumes.

If trying to rephrase the template's text in more positive language, but retaining its present meaning and keeping it consistent with the other maintenance templates, is going to require too much discussion and time, as I suspect, then the better solution is simply to to replace issues with another word. Problems was the best that I could come up with, but I am open to alternatives. There are phrases that can substitute for issues, but the ones that I have seen or thought of are too verbose and weaselly for a template message.

I agree with Magioladitis about the problem of maintenance templates persisting too long, but not the proposed solution. Rewriting the template to say that the article requires fixing (present tense), but maybe it doesn't and inviting others to remove the template, makes the template meaningless and makes Wikipedia look a bit foolish. It also invites tag-untag warring. The problem that Magioladitis identifies, and many others like it, is inherent in editing Wikipedia as an open wiki "that anyone can edit". The best we can do is to alert other editors to the problem, be sensitive to it ourselves, and remove templates when we observe that the problem has been fixed, as Magioladitis and many of us already do. Finell (Talk) 01:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In the beginning I thought of something more accurate: "If you handle an issue or it is already handled, please feel free to remove it from the list". But I think we are writing to much and the idea of Articleissues is to reduce text. I am open in ideas. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I support changing "issues" to "problems," but not the friendlification of the template. Make it friendly and inviting enough, and (as Finell said,) it will become pointless, i.e., something that could be assigned to any article.
As for people leaving tags on for too long, that's covered by the guideline Be bold. But we can't compel people to live by it. What we can do is freely remove templates that appear unjustified, explaining the move in the edit comment, e.g. (Removed template, problem is fixed). Might be a way to evangelize for better template control. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 02:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Would the alternate wording This article needs improvement in several areas address this issue for you? Or is that also too friendly and lenient in its wording? Of course, all articles need improvement to some extent, in one way or another. That's why experienced editors use discretion with maintenance and dispute tags. Otherwise, every single article in the encyclopedia would qualify for some type of message box. Of course, I don't want to pursue the "solve the problem of overtagging" line of discussion. I think that's a discussion for another talk page, perhaps Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes. To be clear, I don't want any wording that amounts to "Someone put this tag here because they think there's a little tiny problem that needs fixing, but you can fix it, or if you don't see what the problem is, you can just take it off and the page will be nice and pretty without this big, orange sticker." szyslak (t) 02:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If an article is orphan, I wouldn't say that this is a problem but a weakness. The same holds for "refimprove". I think the word "problem" is too heavy for some cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
As I said, problems was the best and most neutral word that I could come up with that conveys the intended meaning. What one, all-purpose word do you propose? I could live with weaknesses, but that strikes me as a bit weak. Finell (Talk) 02:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There are problems with issues and issues with problems. And weaknesses is weak. I'm not detecting a consensus for change. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
(interjecting) Correction: There are problems with issues and problems with problems. And weaknesses is still weak. Finell (Talk) 03:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
LOL. What about "This article needs improvement" then? (I still like the word "issues" but anyway) -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
"This article needs improvement" is fine with me, so long as the list is phrased in terms of needs or shoulds, not mays or coulds (this is sounding like an exercise in auxiliary verbs!). Issues, in this usage, makes my skin crawl. Magioladitis aside, there is a decent consensus for change, but the issue—and this really is an issue—to be decided is what to change the present language to. Finell (Talk) 03:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I like Szyslak's version above for the introductory text: "You can help improve this article in several ways:" If you don't like the "can", maybe we can rephrase it: "Please improve this article in the following ways" or something along those lines. Note the complete lack of auxiliary verbs. :)--Aervanath (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
You can say that about most articles. That language does not retain the meaning of the templates that it is intended to replace, which is that a particular article is sub-standard for specified reasons. Finell (Talk) 20:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)