Template talk:Article issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Template talk:Articleissues)

Template:Article issues is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Article issues template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This talk page has a tendency to attract repeated discussions of the same themes. Please read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:

The request to add {{uncategorized}} has been done many times and rejected, as that is supposed to be placed at the articles' bottom and this template on the top.

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 May 9. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] 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)

[edit] expert tag

The internal expert tag comes out munged when used as an element of the article issues template. THF (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an example? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ephemeris might have an example of what the OP means: whatever is put as the value for the expert parameter appears to be ignored and one gets only: "It is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. may be able to help recruit one." Here is what {{Article issues|expert=topic}} becomes:

84user (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So my opinion is in the case you need that many details, use the original template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "Thusly"

The "criticisms" parameter needs to be edited to get rid of "thusly." It reads:

It contains "Criticism" or "Controversy" section(s), thusly violating the Manual of Style.

See Wiktionary for thusly. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 02:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. The whole wording was not in accordance with the original template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spacing

In the last edit a space was introduced causing a gap between some entries (see List of InuYasha characters for an example). Please undo or fix the space. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Done-k I've fixed the spacing issue. No opinion on the change that was made that accidentally introduced the space.--Aervanath (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request: {{cleanup-link rot}}

How about {{cleanup-link rot}}? I'm starting to do some new page patrolling, and frequently find articles in need of the Article Issues template that have need for cleanup-link rot as well (as oftentimes links to sources are quickly thrown together without proper formatting). Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This should be added. Too many articles do not have their references in proper format.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request: {{Images needed}}

May we discuss adding {{Images needed}} as a parameter within this template? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are very few links linking to this one. Are you sure it's not better to handle this alone? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure. It is a relatively new and relatively little-used template, true. Is that sufficient reason not to have it available for use in consolidated presentations of an article's issues? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this would be a good one to include. It has far too much potential to be abused. There are few articles that need that kind of tag on them on the article itself, and most projects have their own arguments to tag it for needing an image. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

✗ Not done Magioladitis (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] noinclude and documentation is bleeding out to articles

the noinclude at the end of the template is showing up in the articles - Isubotic (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request: {{fancruft}}

Add it in as "It may contain too many intricate details with limited enyclopedic interest.", its a somewhat used template. ViperSnake151 01:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Magioladitis (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orphan link

Would it be possible to match the orphan link in this template to the one used in {{Orphan}}? More specifically I'm suggesting the following change:
no other articles [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{PAGENAME}}|link to this one]].'''
to:
no other articles [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere|target={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&namespace=0}} link to it]'''.
The reason I'm suggesting this, is so the link when clicked will only bring up the article namespeace. Any opinions?--Rockfang (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Magioladitis (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request: {{uncat}}

It would be very useful to have {{uncat}} incorporated into this template. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

✗ Not done Please check previous discussion before requesting. Uncat should be placed at the bottom and articleissues on the top. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request: roughtranslation

Could you please modify the text of roughtranslation from:

{{DatedAI
| name       = {{{roughtranslation|}}}
| message    = * It needs '''enhancing the [[WP:PNT|translation]]''' to [[Wikipedia:Good article|be goodlooking]].
| cat-date   = Rough translations from
| cat-undate = Rough translations
}}

to

{{DatedAI
| name       = {{{roughtranslation|}}}
| message    = * It needs an '''enhanced [[WP:PNT|translation]]'''.
| cat        = Rough translations 
}}

The wording on the message should be improved.
The template does not have date categories. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Magioladitis (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Out of date template

Can you please add Template:Out of date to this as well? Ejfetters (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone, please? Ejfetters (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done since we already have update. I would prefer if we treat temporal templates differently. I always check this tags and I seldom find the reason of the addition in the talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] BLP unsourced and BLP sources

Would anyone mind if I added {{BLP unsourced}} and {{BLP sources}} to this template? --Amalthea 13:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as they don't cause redundancy, i.e. displaying {{BLP unsourced}} with {{unreferenced}} or {{BLP sources}} with {{refimprove}}. Skomorokh 13:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good point, thanks, I only would have made sure that Friendly added only the more specific BLP issue. --Amalthea 13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added {{BLP sources}}, {{BLP unsourced}} was already in it, hid the non-BLP versions in case, and made some other cleanup. --Amalthea 09:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Great job. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement 'issue'

Please could someone change the "It's written like an advertisement" notice to "It is..."? Cycle~ (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC) ✓ Done Magioladitis (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

Please replace /It contains "Criticism" or "Controversy" section(s)/ by /It contains [[Wikipedia:Criticism sections|"Criticism" or "Controversy" section(s)]]/ as in Template:Criticism-section. 89.2.241.2 (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- ✓ Done, thanks. --Amalthea 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request: {{nofootnotes}} and {{morefootnotes}}

I thought they had already been added. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Check the archives please. These templates are supposed for the bottom of the article and not on the top. I noticed that many people put them wrongly on the top. Maybe we have to need a bot to move them at the bottom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

When there are multiple issues in an article, I find that linking in the references is often an early step in solving them, hence my request to add them. Upon checking the archives, there's no strong consensus against having it, but I don't think it's important enough to change. --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO this template serves us by minimising the space all these templates take, but we can't skip WP:LAYOUT or instructions given on the original templates. This is a very good template for all templates that go on the top. Of course, I would be more happy if we had more people removing templates by fixing issues rather than adding them. Right now there are thousands of forgotten templates all over Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Support: The documentation for {{Citations missing}} explicitly mentions the overlap with {{morefootnotes}} and {{nofootnotes}} and provides a matrix for illustration. Omitting these two as parameters therefore appears to be inconsistent (especially to inexperienced editors like me). I can see the point about templates-on-top and templates-below, but feel that consolidation of templates into this one overrides. As far as I can see WP:LAYOUT mentions maintenance tags only for the lead, and while {{nofootnotes}} suggests to place the template into the reference section, {{More footnotes}} just says into the article. If anything, it appears that {{nofootnotes}} would contradict WP:LAYOUT. Reading the archives, the argument why {{nocats}} should go to the bottom is convincing (this is where the edit is to be made), but the same argument supports the request: footnotes are not added by editing the reference section nor is their absence relevant for the reference section itself. Steipe (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If Morefotnotes syas different than the nofootnotes then it's a mistake. I still think that many people add nofootnotes and in fact they mean unreferenced. I have seen this happening hundreds of time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Req: intro length wikify

{{editprotected}} Please change text in the the intro length parameter in bold ("too long") to include a wikilink to WP:LEAD.

| message    = * Its introduction may be '''[[WP:LEAD|too long]]'''.

Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've linked to Wikipedia:Lead#Length which I think is even better! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Howto replacement stripped of link

It would be beneficial to link the perfectly adequate preexisting text of the "|howto" flag to WP:NOT#HOWTO or something else of the sort per the general style norm shown by other tags to {{Article issues}}. MrZaius^talk 19:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I updated the howto flag according to the original text in {{Howto}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick turn-around. MrZaius^talk 16:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Add moreref and morereferences to refimprove

I'd like to see moreref and morereferences as aliases for refimprove — I always get {{refimprove}} itself confused with {{citation style}} for some reason, and have been using {{moreref}} for years. Probably some other people do the same. Fix: replace existing line

| name       = {{{refimprove|}}}

with the line:

| name       = {{{refimprove|{{{moreref|{{{morerefs|{{{morereferences|}}}}}}}}}}}}

Hopefully uncontroversial, since the templates with the same name are already redirected like this. --Closeapple (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC) ✓ Done Magioladitis (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] support for {{update}} incomplete?

Support for {{update}} within {{article issues}} seems incomplete (or is it just the documentation) as 'update' can take a text explanation in a similar fashion to 'expert'. Could this please be addressed. Rjwilmsi 22:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Can update take a text? I don't see that in its code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I see what you mean. Should we update it? I think the idea was if someone needs something more specific then the original has to be used. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Uncategorized

{{Editprotected}} Any reason why the template doesn't include uncategorized?

Uncategorized

-->{{DatedAI
| name       = {{{uncategorized|}}}
| message    = * It has not been added to any '''[[Wikipedia:Categorization|categories]]'''. Please help out by [[Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ#How do I add an article to a category?|adding categories]] to it so that it can be listed with similar articles.
| cat-date   = Uncategorized from
| cat-undate = Category needed
}}<!--

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see the threads above: {{uncat}} is supposed to be placed at the bottom. Amalthea 17:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Just so you know, I searched the page first before making the above request, but searched for "uncateg" which didn't find the foreshortened "uncat".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit^[1]. :) Amalthea 19:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1.^ I assume this has been done to death already?^[2]

2.^ Well... maybe just a few times:-)

I added something on the page that it's difficult not to see :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Extra line feed

There seems to be an extra line feed being introduced somewhere in this template as can be seen at Id (comic). --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 17:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Amalthea 18:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 04:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request: {{In popular culture}}

This template should have support for the template:In popular culture issue box. Mintrick (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request: Refs need links

I don't believe this cleanup template exists yet, but it would be a nice addition here. It would go something like this:

Its references do not contain external links, making it more difficult to verify the content.

This is a fairly common issue, especially with articles written by experts who don't really know how to use our citation templates. See Micellar liquid chromatography as an example. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

First, this template should exist as an individual. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You did a good job creating this template but still don't understand where is this useful and I think it has be populated first. Article issues only merges existing templates. And in fact, not all existing templates but the most important from them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Okey doke. I will go about populating it. Afterwards I will provide some examples so that you and others can populate it as well. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are some examples: a chromatography technique, a bunch of minor planets, and an obscure rugby club. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I request {{gamecleanup}} be included in the template. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[1]

[2]