Template talk:Multiple issues/Archive 9 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Multiple_issues/Archive_9

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Multiple issues. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Could we add another type, citations and/or references to work the same as citations missing? It's odd that the template I'll normally use is {{citations}} but I can't just use "citations" as a parameter here. — Timneu22 · talk 17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Would someone like to add "{{no footnotes}}" to this template? I would give it a try, but I'd really have no idea what I was doing! Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There is/was a discussion in the placement of this template. An editor removed an information about the placement but I think the discussion shows the opposite. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see this added as well. I just tried to add it to the articleissues template on Gurkha War, and was surprised to see it didn't work, when almost every other maintenance template is supported by this one. Robofish (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Morefootnotes}} is another one that could be added. I suppose both those templates are partially covered by {{Citations missing}}, but it's not very specific. Robofish (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Bump. Please add {{no footnotes}}. Wizard191 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the amount of bold text in individual message lines matter? I just notices that "orphan" message look far more prominent than "cleanup". It looks like (example):

• It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
• Very few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this page from other articles related to it.

I suspect that it was unintentional, but these lines just look different. Have you considered using the same formatting (either all-bold or all-plain) for the messages? East of Borschov (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this depends on the original templates.-- Magioladitis (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The original templates have mostly been standardised to make the whole problem clause bold; for instance, {{cleanup}} bolds a lot more than it does here. Parity here would be good. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we change the wikilink embedded in the "fansite" term to link to WP:FAN rather than WP:FANCRUFT; the existing link seems unnecessarily pejorative. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't they go to the same place either way? —fetch·comms 20:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Original template now redirects to {{fanpov}}. I'll change the text in accordance with the fanpov text. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The {{fancruft}} template is {{overdetailed}} now, {{fanpov}} is something a little different. I'm for at least adding an overdetailed parameter with the same effect as fancruft. Overdetailed sounds friendlier. The rename discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 22#Alternate name for fancruft notice.ospalh (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Keywords are case sensitive. If you use a keyword with case other than as documented, it will be ignored. Most other templates I've used do not have case-sensitive kewords. --Kvng (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, almost every template in broad use is case-sensitive, because the templating system itself is case-sensitive. It's possible to catch the use of initial capitalisation with additional code but it's uncommon and adds quite a bit of complexity to template designs. In this case that would be rather a large increase in footprint for a template already 30k long for only marginal benefit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would love to have {{No footnotes}} added into one of multiple issues, so I would not have trouble entering it separately. Also, you can add its redirects, such as {{more footnotes}}. --Gh87 (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you see this above? This idea was declined, because the footnote-related templates are expected to be placed at the bottom of an article, as opposed to the things in "multiple issues" which go at the top. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not actually true. Firstly, putting the template in the refs section itself is no longer encourages. Secondly, it was declined because the request was to make it an alias for the refimprove line, which would be incorrect. Frankly I think this has been asked for often enough by now that including it really should happen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I would love to have it added as rather {{no footnotes}} by itself than an alias of {{refimprove}}. --Gh87 (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Gh87, just to clarify something: {{More footnotes}} is NOT a redirect of {{no footnotes}}. Please read instructions when and how these templates imply. Please use the templates in order to help other editors to fix the problems. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the info; right now, I will create a separate discussion. --Gh87 (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is {{more footnotes}} not added to the list? Nevertheless, I do not want it as an alias of any other template; rather I want it itself to be added. Not to be confused with {{no footnotes}}. --Gh87 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the current layout very much, with the bullets. I think it doesn't align neatly as the other amboxes do. Here's a little experiment I did (note: might break at any time, since it depends on several template sandboxes. I'll upload a screenshot next, for stability and future reference).

The current layout: {{Multiple issues|sections=1|colloquial=1|3O=1|grammar=1|crystal=1|BLP IMDB-only refimprove=1|date=September 2010}} A typical ambox:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectitur adipisci elit. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

My proposal:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) No issues specified. Please specify issues, or remove this template. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

What do you think? --Waldir ^talk 11:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference image here, in case something changes in the pages this demo relies on. --Waldir ^talk 11:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the bullets actually. And all those horizontal lines look rather messy. Sorry, because you must have spent ages preparing that. What I don't like about this template is the inconsistent use of bold text, and I don't like the small text either. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

We can think of other ways of separating the entries from each other. Off the top of my head, I can think of an alternating pattern of subtle background colors, like {{Navbox}} does. Do you think it'd be better? Or can you think of any way to make this less... unaligned? The content and formatting of each notice is another issue altogether, which I'd love to discuss and help improve afterwards. --Waldir ^talk 11:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the existing style. --Magioladitis (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The existing style is cleaner than both dividers and alternating background colours IMO. A bulleted list is also the most semantically-valid way of presenting this information. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; allow me a final proposal: do you think if the horizontal lines were shorter, aligned to the left (say, around 15px long) it would be better, or would you still prefer the original layout? Note that it could be achieved with the bulleted list styled with css, so semantic validity would be preserved. Here's a mockup. --Waldir ^talk 18:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd still prefer the current style. I would rather not resort to custom styling unless there's a pressing reason to. I'm not even sure what you mean by the present lines not aligning properly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that as it is, it doesn't feel as "boxed" as the other amboxes. For some reason the text of this template always looked a bit less structured than that of the other warnings, but I guess it's just me :) --Waldir ^talk 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

When using the "section=" attribute, the following is displayed:

"This section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page."

Shouldn't it be "...help improve it" instead? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point.  Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose this parameter be added to the template. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

606 transclusions. Is that considered enough to add here? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, and furthermore {{copypaste}} should be a high-priority fix (as it's a copyvio) rather than just another cleanup point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Very useful for biographies of the recently deceased. I use it quite a bit, but when there's other issues on the page it's awkward to group all of the other tags and leave this one by itself. Thanks. elektrikSHOOS 08:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Small comment: Less than 100 transclusions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please add {{pagenumbers}} and {{no footnotes}}. I would propose what text to add, but I'm scared I'm going to play with the prearranged style that some individual(s) ha(s|ve) already set to the page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I disabled the editprotected request. Adding {{no footnotes}} was requested and denied before, because it isn't usually placed at the top of the article. {{pagenumbers}} has less than 200 transclusions and that is too little. Only templates with many transclusions are included in this template. Svick (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't read the discussion about {{no footnotes}} properly. Svick (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I stopped checking for transclusions on {{no footnotes}} at about 4000, and there only consensus at this point seems to be that there's no consensus, and it is frequently used at the top of the page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This is requested on practically a monthly basis now. It's time it was just added and then this wouldn't keep coming up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I can be ok with that as soon as we have Wikipedia:Bot_requests#No_footnotes.2C_morefootnotes.2C_unreferenced. I want to have a picture of the level of confusion between the different tags. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Silly me for not checking the archives before requesting, but yeah if the wheel squeaks enough, maybe it needs oil. Do we have consensus to add then, so long as the bot request is put in?Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Declined - I checked this editprotected request, but I don't perceive a consensus yet, and I see no proposed code for the change. If you expect the admin who closes this to do the coding, you may get interesting results. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to see {{no footnotes}} added to this template. What I really want is "not enough footnotes" but as "no footnotes" is presently worded, it will do. As for consensus I see no one arguing against. Jeh (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I propose that this be added to the template. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

323 transclusions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm proposing that we put this at the top of this talk page to help cut down on irrelevant unnecessary/repeated proposals:

Consensus has established only cleanup tags that are regularly placed on the top of an article or section should be included in this template. Therefore, templates such as {{uncategorized}} or {{nofootnotes}} have been rejected as they should be placed either on the bottom of the article or in a specific location such as the references section. When proposing a new addition to the template, please be sure it is supposed to go at the top of an article or section, otherwise it will likely be rejected by other editors.

Do you think this would help? If anyone has a better template (It's just using {{tmbox}} right now) or wording in mind I'm all for it. elektrikSHOOS 21:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I love the "Multiple Issues" template but I almost never get to use it! Today I tagged Kett's Rebellion for {{One source}} and {{Pagenumbers}} and I wanted to combine them into the multiple box. However, using -

{{Multiple issues|Pagenumbers|One Source}}

Will produce the following: {{Multiple issues|Pagenumbers|One Source|date=September 2010}}

And using -

{{Multiple issues

| One source = August 2010

| Pagenumbers = August 2010

}}

Gives me: {{Multiple issues | One source = August 2010 | Pagenumbers = August 2010 }}

So I left the two tags separate. Does this template only work with one of the example issues listed in the full syntax section, or is it possible to add a parameter not specifically mentioned there? (If so - how?) ocrasaroon (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It only works with the parameters it has been programmed for. Try "onesource" instead of the way you have it coded. I don't think it takes "pagenumbers" at all. However, the documentation may not be up to date with the actual code. Another thing I've found is that it makes a difference how you capitalize the parameters. Code them exactly as shown in the doc for the template for best results. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I updated the documentation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Another issue is, date is not really optional as the documentation says, as providing keywords with no date parameter produces similar parsing errors:

In Template:Multiple issues, found parameter #1 as " advert

";

...expected equal-sign: plot=y, or plot=May 2007.

Can the date be made entirely optional for each parameter by defaulting to null string? Also, why not provide a single-date parameter, like date=November 2010, which should summarize the date for all parameters? --188.123.231.4 (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This would make the code much more complicated with no real gain. All cleanup tags must be dated in order to get their right prioririty in the cleanup queue. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But we must accept that not all editors will follow instructions or do what they are supposed to do. The template should be able to cleanly handle an empty date and not produce errors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it gives a warning to fix. The only thing we could do is to update the message because plot=y isn't a valid parameter aymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It could give a warning to fix, but it should not produce a parsing error (if that is what is happening). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Took some time to look through source. Yes, this is not a parsing error but some broken parameter validation code which does not accept empty numbered template parameters 1-4. This validation does not work as intended, it will only pick up any empty parameter and will not really detect mismatched parameter names if they are assigned any value.

I propose this code best be modified into "unknown keyword" warning, validation removed, and alternative spellings such as upper/lowercase or misspelling converted as valid alternative parameter names, as in "BLPrefimprove" "refimproveBLP" "BLPsources" "BLP sources" which all produce the same message.

In regard to a single date parameter, I'm proposing a "common date" parameter for the whole template, so "tagged since" will appear on the first line in the message header, not after each individual issue. For example, if you're tagging an article with multiple issues in a one single edit, you would only add this date parameter and leave keywords for specific issues with no date, not tag every issue with the same date. Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 22:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I was abusing Template:Template sandbox to try some ways to improve parameter validation and found that specifying parameter|, paremeter=|, and parameter=""| gives inconsistent results, despite what meta:Help:Template#Parameters defines as "empty parameter"... 8( --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 00:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add a couple templates to the Multiple issues box. The first couple are listed below:\

1. Template:More footnotes if it is at the top of the article (over 5500 transclusions)
2. Template:Unreliable sources if it is at the top of the article. (Has about 400 transclusions including redirects)
3. Template:Verify credibility if it is at the top of the article. (Is the inline varient of Unreliable sources. But not always used inline. About 2200 transclusions including redirects)

Please let me know if you have any comments. If there are no negative responses in 7 days I will proceed with adding them to the template. I will also notify the AWD developer team to add them to the Multiple Issues logic for AWB. --Kumioko (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

2 and 3 feel like the same template and would be redundant to add separately, so just picking one would probably be the best option. Otherwise I have no qualms. elektrikSHOOS 07:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. That brings up a good point. After reading the documentation for the 2 I feel that they both accomplish the same task. I am going to recommend they be combined to eliminate having an unnecessarily similar template. --Kumioko (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What about Template:Infobox requested, should be a welcome addition too.. --188.123.231.4 (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Could Template:ISBN be added too? GoingBatty (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the Infobox requested I think that is a talk page template but Ill look into it. I am going to cleanup the code of this template so it does not create a bunch of redirects as it currently does. I will add these to the list of available messages and then notify the AWB crew once it has been implemented so they can add the new parameters to the AWB Multiple issues code. --Kumioko (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

One more - could Template:Too few opinions be added too? GoingBatty (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another - could Template:BLP sources also be added? GoingBatty (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Self-notes: ISBN: 220 translusions, Too few opinions: 151, BLP sources: 33k. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that some {{Multiple issues}} parameters work with or without a space (e.g. deadend= and dead end=). However copyedit= works but copy edit= does not, even though the proper spelling of the template is {{Copy edit}}. Could someone please allow {{Multiple issues}} to support copy edit=, so that the AWB could be changed to combine {{Copy edit}} templates into {{Multiple issues}}? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done but please don't expect Multiple issues to cover any template name and redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making this change, and for setting my expectations about future requests. Could you please elaborate on which templates/redirects {{Multiple issues}} should cover and which it should not? Thanks again! GoingBatty (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that several of the parameters generate links that are redirects as do several of the template examples. I think that we need to clean this up to use the actual link rather than redirects. This template and its parameters are used on tens of thousands of articles and we are not doing ourself any favors by perpetuating a society of link redirectionism. A couple examples are unsourcedblp ~~> BLP unsourced and primarysources ~~> Primary sources. I would have fixed this myself but I do have admin authority and the template is protected. If this seems like a reasonable suggestion though I can write the code and put it in the templates sandbox for an admin to implement. --Kumioko (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The template logic supports |technical= but it's not listed in the template documentation. Thanks Rjwilmsi 08:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I just used this template on a new article and it was quite amazing what parameters I could not strike out. One that seemed to be missing though is plagiarism or copyright violations. I searched the archive of this page and found nothing. I would have thought that would be high up there with recent happenings involving Featured Articles on the front page and all that. You could argue WP:SOFIXIT but an editor might just have seen the problem and be forced away from the computer, alerting others of the need for action.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Can someone please remove the extra spaces between the closing brackets and the <noinclude>? It adds unnecessary white space to the top of articles it is employed on. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone please do this quick. It affects every single article with this template on them, and some people, including myself, will be looking for which template has these extra empty lines. Too bad it's this fully protected one. I'll try and grab someone here so that it can be done ASAP. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay I asked User:Killiondude to help out, which he did, so thanks to him. I believe I asked him to catch all the whitespace that I found; I sandboxed a version at Template:Multiple issues/sandbox, also, which seems to be good. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles with deprecated parameters are now located in Category:Articles using Multiple issues with deprecated parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any are showing up. Did you already sweep through and fix them?--Kumioko (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed about 1,600 pages yesterday. :) I removed |article= and rename |OR= and |or= with |original research=. I also had to manually fix some undated parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok thanls for clarifying. --Kumioko (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please update the documentation to show that |expert= can be used in one of two ways:

• |expert=subject |date=December 2010
• |expert=December 2010

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Documentation isn't protected. You can do it yourself. Btw, if possible can you please add all parameter alternatives to the documentation so I can later apply these changes to AWB's code? Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've made the change I wanted to the documentation. Adding all parameter alternatives would be a post-holiday project. GoingBatty (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. No rush! I would do it but I am busy myself too. Incorrect AWB alerts aren't that serious. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done GoingBatty (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Just reviewed the template code while updating the documentation, and have some suggestions for consolidating/removing parameters:

• Remove |expand=, since {{expand}} is being deleted (This parameter isn't included in the documentation)  Not done There is an active DRV
• Remove |3O=, since {{3O}} is only to be used on talk pages. (This parameter isn't included in the documentation)  Done deprecated
• Consolidate |biased= into |POV=, since {{biased}} redirects to {{POV}}  Done deprecated
• Consolidate |blpdispute= into |dispute=, since {{blpdispute}} and {{dispute}} redirect to {{disputed}}  Done deprecated
• Consolidate |do-attempt= into |orphan=, since {{do-attempt}} redirects to {{orphan}}  Not done It categorises in different categories. More in Template_talk:Orphan#Do-attempt
• Consolidate |grammar= into |copy edit=, since {{grammar}} redirects to {{copy edit}}  Not done It should be the same with {{copyedit|for=grammar}}
• Consolidate |laundrylists= into |laundry=, since {{laundry list}} and {{laundry}} redirect to {{cleanup-laundry}}  Done consolidated
• Consolidate |proseline= into |prose=, since {{proseline}} redirects to {{prose}}  Done deprecated because it was directing to different categories. We can re-add at some point if needed

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Kumioko (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Answered some. The rest seem reasonable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I added |expand= to the documentation. If {{expand}} does get deleted, I hope you'll also remove |expand=. GoingBatty (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you removed |biased= instead of merging it in with the code for |POV=. I'm OK with that, as long as there's a plan to convert all the articles using |biased= into |POV=. GoingBatty (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. :) There were only 2 occurrences of biased. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Done almost all. Very good job GoingBatty! -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Same to you, Magioladitis! Thank you for making the appropriate changes, and explaining the reasons why you are not making some of the changes. I've made some more changes to the documentation today. GoingBatty (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)