Template talk:Multiple issues/Archive 11

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 9

Problem with navbox display

Any idea why Template:Wikipedia template messages doesn't display properly on Template:Multiple issues, but looks fine on Wikipedia:Template messages/General? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I see two problems at Template:Multiple issues.

The paragraph beginning "The article will be put in the category "cat" if is specified," is indented when it shouldn't be
In {{Wikipedia template messages|state=expanded}} the |group2=Other/all namespaces is producing the proper left-column heading, but the list items of the associated |list2= are showing above the |title=, with no separators.

Curiously neither of these show when viewing Template:Multiple issues/doc. Viewing the page source for Template:Multiple issues shows that the <ul> opened at line 1075 (immediately after the phrase "which produces the line:") is not being closed; but where it should be (line 1077), there is a <li style="list-style: none; display: inline">. This <li> is not closed until line 1156 and the missing </ul> appears immediately afterwards, on line 1157

1152 </td>
1153 </tr>
1154 </table>
1155 <div style="clear: both;"></div>
1156 </li>
1157 </ul>
1158 </div>
1159 <table id="documentation-meta-data" class="plainlinks fmbox fmbox-system" style="background-color: #ecfcf4;">
1160 <tr>
1161 <td class="mbox-text" style="font-style: italic;">The above <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_documentation" title="Wikipedia:Template documentation">documentation</a> is <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Transclusion" title="Wikipedia:Transclusion">transcluded</a> from <a href="/wiki/Template:Multiple_issues/doc" title="Template:Multiple issues/doc">Template:Multiple issues/doc</a>.

The </table> closure at line 1154 is the end of the navbox. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed... Template:Multiple issues/message shows the first of these two problems in its documentation. The real problem must be in that template. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating. I've moved the </li> to what looked like the right place to me, but the problem is still apparent. All of these problems occur only when viewed inside {{documentation}} so I wonder if there is something in there which is causing a problem? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was Tidy confusion. The bare <li>...</li> output by {{Multiple issues/message}}, when inside the <div>s of the {{documentation}} template, was getting Tidy to put the rest of the text into another list element; when it wasn't inside those <div>s, apparently Tidy didn't get confused in the same way. Wrapping the invocation of {{Multiple issues/message}} in <ul>...</ul> (so there's no longer a bare <li>) seems to have fixed it. Anomie ⚔ 15:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good now - thanks to all! GoingBatty (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Invoke standalone templates

I think we will shortly be able to get {{multiple issues}} just to invoke the appropriate ambox which will neatly synchronise all the messages — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact I think we are now ready to do just that. (I notice you have been busy updating all the common ambox templates, and I've just dealt with {{cleanup}}.) Note that

{{Multiple issues/sandbox|unreferenced=May 2010}}

now produces

which is just {{Unreferenced}} inside the compact-ambox class. This is achieved through this method of passing a parameter template, which is the name of the corresponding ambox template, through to the /message subtemplate. If you could give me a hand doing this for the rest of them, we can speed this up? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Martin! While I'm willing to help, I'm confused as to what you're asking me to do to the templates. If you could please provide one diff example here, I'll be willing to then duplicate that over the rest of the templates. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The diff above is the best example I can give - the message, cat, cat-date and id parameters can be removed and a new parameter template is the name of the ambox template. Don't worry if you can't figure it out, I'll get to them eventually! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't change the protected {{Multiple issues}} template. Sorry! GoingBatty (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've only been working in the sandbox, which is not protected. Anyway all done now. Have a look at Template:Multiple issues/testcases and let me know what you think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you wanted me to work in the sandbox! Sorry I didn't understand that before.

In the sandbox, I removed the line break from after the wikify parameter so that the date would be visible. I also fixed the date parameter in {{news release}} so it will display properly here.

I prefer the new version because:

The text displayed inside Multiple issues matches the original templates.
The text displayed inside Multiple issues will change when the original templates change.
The text displayed in the test case is shorter than in the live template.
"(July 2012)" takes up less room than "Tagged since July 2012.", and is consistent with the original templates.
You achieved these improvements without changing the format that human editors and tools use for Multiple issues.

Great job, Martin! GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

One question: Are you going to include the code that includes Category:Articles using Multiple issues with deprecated parameters into the revised template? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually took that code out as part of the simplification (took the code down from 35k to 8k!) but it can be put back in if needed. My thinking was that these parameters have been deprecated for nearly two years and that category is empty. There must be a limit to how long we keep track of these things, and surely every editor has stopped using those old parameters now? In any case, they should soon realise because the template won't display the parameter they have used ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's OK with me to remove that part of the code. Should the category be deleted too? GoingBatty (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to have the template add the category for an article using any unknown parameter, without listing each incorrect parameter? For example, I just corrected an article that used |Self-published=. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No, at least not until Scribunto is finished and deployed. For now, you'd have to (have someone) process a database dump to find the articles. Anomie ⚔ 18:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Deployment

I've deployed this code and it seems to be working well. A couple of points:

Is this template ever deployed on sections of articles? If so, we should probably feed "section" to each template so that they display "This section ..." instead of "This article ..."
Do people prefer "This article has multiple issues" or "This article has several issues"?

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Using AWB to compare all transclusions of Template:Multiple issues with all articles containing the text "section=y", I found five articles: Blood, Sweat & Tears, Eddy (fluid dynamics), Endogenous money, Nottingham University Business School, and Tashi Dondrup. However, each of these articles have the template in the lead, so they should probably have the section parameter removed. What's a better way to search for all instances where a template uses a specific parameter?
I prefer "This article has multiple issues" since it matches the template name.

GoingBatty (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the use in sections, your method should work pretty well except it wouldn't find |section=yes, etc. I've added a tracking category to find all of these. There seem to be quite a few so I'll work up the code in the sandbox shortly to fix the wording on these.
Is that the only reason ;)

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that tracking category. I'm going through each article in the category to see if the section parameter is valid or not, but it seems like most are. My method also doesn't catch those that have something like "section=November 2009", which I'm fixing. Now that you've seen there are quite a few uses in sections, will you be deleting the category from the template? If you intend to keep the category for a while, I'll go create it as a hidden tracking category.
Yes, "multiple" and "several" seem like synonyms to me.

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue on sections should hopefully now be resolved. Let me know of any problems! Tracking category removed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a handful of templates which it won't work on, for example {{cleanup-rewrite}}, {{POV}}, {{overly detailed}}, because these templates do not use {{{1}}} to identify sections. We'll need to make them consistent with the others somehow, but some are using that parameter for something else, which makes things trickier ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Another example of non-standard usage - {{disputed}}, which looks for |what=section - it uses {{{1}}} for the section heading on the talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A minor issue - when you use |unreferenced=, the date is the right size. However, when using |unreferenced= with |section=y, the unreferenced date is bigger than the other dates. See Tibia (video game)#Allusions to other conceptual fantasy genres. GoingBatty (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have noted this problem in #Minor error above. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought that looked familiar. :-) GoingBatty (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This edit has broken the demos at Template:Multiple issues#Adding new issues and Template:Multiple issues/message#Usage. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know, but all that stuff is out of date now. I would suggest there is no need to add any more templates to this template the "old" way, as they can more easily be accommodated the "new" way. I'll update the docs shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Documentation updated! Hope it looks okay. I've moved the old docs to Template:Multiple issues/doc/old and linked to it from the new documentation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Old documentation was more useful

The documentation in Template:Multiple issues/doc/old had one feature that made it much more useful than this one: it indicated the severity of each tag. That made it easier to decide which tags were more important and which could be left off for now. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this sort of information would be better placed somewhere else, like Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. I'm sure that page could be redesigned to be clearer and easier to use. The documentation of this template should explain what this template does, not attempt to descibe the whole system of article maintenance templates. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Such information seems to fit more in some essay, which can be subsequently linked to the corresponding pages. It may even become a guideline once the text is polished enough. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A guideline would be very useful. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge templates

I think we are ready now to merge {{Article issues}} with {{Multiple issues}}. In the new merged template, both types of syntax will work (even a mixture of the two). However I think we should encourage editors to use the new syntax. Code is in the sandbox, see test cases. Are there any concerns about doing this? Would people prefer it the new template to reside here (multiple issues) or there (article issues)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The new syntax looks good, but I'm concerned how tools such as AWB will be able to handle adding/changing/removing parameters/templates from the new/mixed syntax. Are there any other tools that we need to consider? GoingBatty (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be more worried about twinkle. I'll post a note over there to let them know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You're rigth, AWB does have a general fix for multiple issues. Would you be able to post a notification over there? Ideally, AWB would convert to the new syntax. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've revised my AWB feature request. I'm looking forward to using a new SVN that has this bug fix so I can get more specific with the request (or report more bugs). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It makes more sense for the template to be called "Multiple issues" since it refers to multiple issues with a particular article. I think it's used more than "article issues," which I'd never known of till recently. Also, shouldn't the examples in the documentation should be changed from "{{article issues}}" to "{{multiple issues}}?" Just a thought... —Comp dude¹²³ 03:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I've made that change. Okay we'll leave the template here. (For historical background, this template was called {{article issues}} significantly longer than it has been called {{multiple issues}}.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, nice work, people! Thank you, everyone who contributed. This is much easier to remember than the slightly different key words & punctuation of the old one. – Fayenatic London 17:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposing 3 additions

I would like to propose adding the following three issues to this template:

All 3 of these are going to be used in the upcoming curation toolbar for PageTriage (which supports using the Multiple issues template. Kaldari (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You can already do this. Use the following syntax:

{{multiple issues|1=
{{condense|date=July 2012}}
{{overlinked|date=July 2012}}
{{cleanup-tense|date=July 2012}}
}}

--Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the "1=" is not necessary, and is not in the template documentation. GoingBatty (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably the docs should explain that any Ambox-based template can be used in {{multiple issues}}? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

When describing what templates can be used, the documentation refers to "article maintenance templates (see Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup), which take their usual parameters". I think the non-technical description is valuable to those editors who don't know what Template:Ambox is. Would it be appropriate to have both? GoingBatty (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of linking the list of {{Ambox}} transclusions as an easy way to have an up-to-date easy to maintain list of possible values. I can't imagine a better solution in this case (there are probably some maintenance templates that can't be used there, eg. {{citation needed}}), but if one exists, it is surely worth adding to the docs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

When I look at the list of templates with Ambox transclusions, I see many that are not appropriate to include inside Multiple issues (e.g. {{Not English}}, the "Copy to" templates, {{Weapons of mass destruction}}, {{Timeline Tour de France Winners}}, {{Greek myth (earth)}}). Did you have a better way to get a list of transclusions that is preferable to Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup? GoingBatty (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I forgot that transclusions would include templates with maintenance tags. Probably Category:Article message templates (which is auto-populated) is the most accurate mean of collecting direct {{Ambox}} users. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Another group of {{ambox}} templates which shouldn't be used inside {{multiple issues}} is those which haven't yet had their descriptions converted from the old |text= method to the new |issue=|fix=|info= method. Not sure how far Martin's got with that lot. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Expert-subject

When using {{Expert-subject}} or |expert= with a Wikiproject parameter inside {{Multiple issues}}, the text simply states "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject." I think it would be valuable to see the Wikiproject name. How about changing the {{Expert-subject}} template from:
| issue= '''needs attention from an expert on the subject'''.
to something like:
| issue= '''needs attention from an expert on {{{1|the subject}}}'''.
Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the correct preposition here? An expert on mathematics, or an expert in mathematics? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"in" seems better - good catch! GoingBatty (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that "in" preposition is only correct if subject is stated. As this parameter is optional (it doesn't spit error, so it will definitely be used with no subject argument), the template should be probably modified to:

| issue= '''needs attention from an expert {{#if:{{{1|}}}|in {{{1}}}|on the subject}}'''.

I'm not a native speaker, so I may be wrong. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect in will work with both, but on certainly works as well in the former case. So I've gone with your suggestion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, a possible way to avoid parser functions could probably be:

| issue= '''needs attention from an expert in {{{1|the subject field}}}'''.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason to avoid using parser functions and your first suggestion works best in case blank parameters are used. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks great, Martin - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB support of new template design

In response to my AWB feature request, Rjwilmsi has suggested some new logic for AWB to merge templates into Multiple issues. I invite interested editors to contribute to the discussion there. I'm also collecting a list of templates for AWB to merge at User:GoingBatty/Multiple issues, and invite interested editors to update the list. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-functioning parameter

{{undue}} doesn't seem to be working. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

See my comment of 13:34, 24 July 2012 in the section above about unconverted descriptions - although {{undue}} uses {{ambox}}, it still squeezes the whole message into |text=, rather than splitting it between |issue= and |fix=. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the {{undue}} template. While Martin & I have updated many templates, there are probably others we missed. Anyone want to generate a list of maintenance templates that use {{ambox}} that use the |text= parameter? GoingBatty (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a list of pages in template namespace which transclude {{ambox}}, where |text= is non-blank:

Extended content

Of course several of those are not cleanup templates at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. {{misleading}} doesn't seem to be working either. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

{{misleading}} was updated to the issue/fix form on 5 August. What problem are you seeing, and on which article? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to use {{multiple issues}} at Bolivarianism and can't get the {{misleading}} portion to display. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the edit history of the page has nothing in the last week or so, I can only assume that whatever you tried, you previewed but didn't save. Anyway, here is how I would do it, and it looks OK to me: is this what you saw? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm. You're right, I was only previewing, with {{multiple issues |misleading=July 2012 |refimprove=July 2007}}. That's the syntax I normally use. Does the misleading parameter not work that way for some reason? I'll try the wrapping in the future if I run into an issue like this. --BDD (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the old syntax (see Template:Multiple issues/doc/old). There were two main problems with it: every time a new cleanup template was created, or an old one deleted, we needed to add or remove both a parameter and a message in {{multiple issues}}; and when an existing cleanup template had its message amended, we needed to make a similar amendment to the corresponding message in {{multiple issues}}. Looking at the template code, there isn't provision for |misleading=, although the parameter |refimprove= is valid. It's likely that |misleading= never existed as a parameter within {{multiple issues}}; although it is conceivable that it did at one time, but has since been removed for some reason.

The new syntax (see Template:Multiple issues#Usage) avoids all of these problems by not using any parameters other than the list of cleanup templates, and by using those templates to produce the messages. It's also easier to use, since you just put {{multiple issues| before the normal cleanup templates, and }} after them, and the rest is taken care of. That's what I did at Bolivarianism. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I noticed the documentation had changed but hadn't bothered with the specifics since it was still working the way I was used to in most cases. Thanks. --BDD (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Documentation - Why was that big table removed?

Documentation - Why was that big table removed? I can't remember all those things. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It was removed because you don't need to remember all those things anymore with the new format. However, for those who still want to see it, the documentation states: "Please see Template:Multiple issues/doc/old for the deprecated syntax this template used previously." Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Replace PNG image with SVG

It seems this and some other popular images are still being used in PNG format despite SVG alternatives:


PNG	SVG

Replace? — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 20:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

cleanup parameter should be removed

According to this RFC it should have reason parameter - as it is impossible here, cleanup parameter should be removed Bulwersator (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC) {{multiple issues|demospace=Main|{{cleanup|demospace=main|reason=[[RTFM]] before posting!|date=August 2012}}}} There is nothing impossible on Wikipedia! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

While {{Cleanup}} has required a reason for several months, I believe a reason isn't required for all the |cleanup= parameters added before the RFC, right? GoingBatty (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Two bugs I noticed with this template:

One can get past the now compulsory "add a reason to the cleanup template" rule by using this template. Thus, this template needs to be modified to also require a reason for the "cleanup" issue.
I've observed that putting templates onto existing ones (like the "tfm" template on the "update" template) literally adds said template to the one above the issue representing the one which said template was applied to.

Both of these are demonstrated on this page in the "Examples for a Section" subheading of this template's documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karjam (talk • contribs) 09:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

~~I would note, that {{cleanup}} should be modified, not {{multiple issues}}.~~ I failed to confirm the issue with {{cleanup}} (see below). Another observation is unclear: if the observation is about proposal templates (tfm, merge to/from), it should not be fixed as these templates are not supported with {{multiple issues}}; if it is about joining the existing tags, then it also shouldn't be fixed, as it is a feature, not a bug; if some other issue was supposed to get reported, clarification needed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC) updated 10:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

{{multiple issues| {{cleanup|nocat=yes|date=August 2012}} }}

I made a mistake about the issue with the "clean up" template. I guess it behave similar to the actual template: If the set date of the template is over "July 2012" or something, it would trigger the new behavior.

I made that mistake because it really did behave like that the last time I tried using that function in the template.

I guess this template was "improved" to add more info to "issues".

The second point could be problematic, as it could make this template kinda bulky and maybe a little bit ugly, if not more.

Perhaps the coding of the affected templates could also be modified to resemble the "issues" better?

NOTE: forgot to sign previously. I won't now: Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't say which article you are experiencing these problems on, nor whether you're using the old syntax (e.g. {{multiple issues|cleanup=August 2012}}) or the new syntax (e.g. {{multiple issues|{{cleanup|date=August 2012}}}}). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It was the old syntax. Sorry for not clarifying properly (I said "I guess this template was 'improved' to add more info to 'issues'").

Perhaps you could comment on the suggestions about "modifying the affected templates to resemble the 'issues' better" (ie, modifying the proposal templates to better support the "multiple issues" template). Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The only templates that should be wrapped in {{Multiple issues}} are those built using {{ambox}}. The {{tfm}} template is not one of these: it uses {{ombox}}. But this should not be a problem, since {{tfm}} is for use on templates, whereas {{Multiple issues}} is for use on articles. Where are you seeing {{Multiple issues}} being used on a template - alternatively, where are you seeing {{tfm}} being used on an article? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please clarify the second issue (of the bullet list in your initial comment)? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So it is a bug - I saw the {{tfm}} template litterally within an {{Multiple issues}} template right over the wrapped {{update}} template within an example in the {{Multiple issues}} template's documentation.

See for yourself. It's under "Example for a section".

Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's not the {{tfm}} placed inside {{multiple issues}}, just {{update}} indeed undergoes TfD, and this is the way the broad community is normally informed of such facts. This "bug" will be "fixed" in TfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, That would be because of my edit, made in response to this request. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, when {{update}} is used on article pages, the TfM notice inside {{update}} is much less obtrusive, see here. It's also not too bad when wrapped in {{multiple issues}}, as here. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've updated Template:Multiple_issues/doc#Example_for_a_section so it doesn't display a cleanup section tag from years ago (before reasons were mandatory) and so it doesn't display a template undergoing TfD. GoingBatty (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

When |update= is used inside Multiple issues, the tag states "Parts of this article (those related to article) are outdated." (see [1]). However, when {{update}} is used inside Multiple issues, the tag properly states "This article is outdated." (see Manhattan Skyline). Could someone please fix this? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's because Template:Multiple issues/message always passes a first positional parameter, whose value is either "article" or "section"; but {{update}} is expecting either a blank, or a reason in this parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So how should we fix this? Change {{multiple issues}}, change {{update}}, or could someone generate a list of articles with |update= so we can convert {{multiple issues}} to the new format? GoingBatty (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

When I find articles that have {{multiple issues}} with |update=, I change it to {{update}} so it displays properly. However, I'm concerned there are lots of other articles that need to be fixed. Anyone have a bright idea to fix these? (see my questions above). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

I'm quite interested how this square list dot is created, I mean normally

* element 1
* element 2

creates these

element 1
element 2

circular dots. Thanks for any answers! --intforce (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I see square dots in your post. Still, it can be tuned with "list-style-type" CSS property. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Found the code in MediaWiki:Common.css --LightForce (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

{{Underlinked}} tag

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone add support for the newly-created {{Underlinked}} tag? As far as I can tell, the change appears very straightforward; just use the current code for other tags. I have tested the change in this revision to the sandbox, and the test case appears to function correctly. Thanks! Guoguo12 (Talk) 23:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: No new old-style (deprecated) parameters are going to be added. It will work fine used in the new style, like this:

{{multiple issues|
{{underlinked|date=September 2012}}
}}

Anomie ⚔ 02:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks anyway. Guoguo12 (Talk) 10:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Question about mixing old & new style

When mixing old & new style parameters, why does Molehill Empire now look OK, while an older version of the same article does not? Thanks! 00:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingBatty (talk • contribs)

This template uses parameter 1 only for the new-style parameters. The older version you linked uses parameter 1 for {{Video game cleanup}} and parameter 2 for {{refimprove}} and {{Orphan}}. It would be possible to support more unnamed parameters, but then where exactly do you draw the line? A better idea might be to make a tracking category for {{multiple issues}} using parameter 2 so they can just be fixed. Anomie ⚔ 02:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, if you'll create the tracking category, I'll clean 'em up. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters created. Not sure how long it'll take to populate. Anomie ⚔ 17:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It got about 38 pages, which I've started to fix. A nice side-effect is that it's picked up cases where somebody put e.g. {{multiple issues|notability|refimprove}} with neither equals signs nor dates, presumably because they thought that a bot (?AnomieBot perhaps) would apply the dates for them. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I fixed all 29 pages in article space. Just under half were harmless, like an extra pipe immediately before the closing double brace. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! GoingBatty (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed. Several of these problems were caused by BattyBot edits [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] This one was the most subtle. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that when I started this thread, and I offered to clean them all up. How should this be documented on Template:Multiple issues/doc so no one else makes the same mistake I did? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

How about amending the Usage section from "... which take their usual parameters." to "... which take their usual parameters. These templates should be placed on individual lines, but must not be separated from each other by pipes or template parameters"? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a good start, RedRose64! Could you work in that the consequence of incorrect usage could be the failure of some templates to be displayed? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"... which take their usual parameters. These templates should be placed on individual lines, but must not be separated from each other by pipes or template parameters, because that would cause some or all of the banners to be hidden."? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks so much! GoingBatty (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Done Updated. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that the old-style syntax is now unmaintained (no new old-style parameters added), may be a tracking category for old-style syntax should be created? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone has an instance of {{multiple issues}} somewhere using only |cleanup= and |expert=, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Multiple issues/message should serve. But note that mass changing from the old to new syntax without any substantial changes in each of those edits would fall afoul of WP:COSMETICBOT. Anomie ⚔ 19:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't actually propose to clean this backlog, but having it at hand could be useful. At very least it allows to track the progress of new syntax adoption. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Mobile site uses full template text

I was surprised today to see that the Wikipedia mobile site uses the full template text within Multiple issues. For example, compare the difference between http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Foster%27s_Home_for_Imaginary_Friends and http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster%27s_Home_for_Imaginary_Friends as an example. How can we change this template so only the issue is displayed on the mobile site? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's something to do with the <span class="hide-when-compact">...</span> in {{ambox/core}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose64! Should I be posting this issue on Template talk:Ambox instead of here? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Possibly MediaWiki talk:Common.css, because the class hide-when-compact is defined in MediaWiki:Common.css. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Posted there - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This edit may have fixed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks much better now - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 January 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please replace

| name       = {{{wikify|}}}
| template   = Wikify

with

| name       = {{{underlinked|}}}
| template   = Underlinked

since {{wikify}} has been turned in to a dab as a WP:TFD outcome. Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: I've removed Wikify, but not added Underlinked. We are no longer extending support for the old syntax. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What about existing uses of the old syntax? Do they need to be changed to underlinked or what? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently they have all been amended or removed as appropriate. See Template talk:Wikify#Edit request on 9 January 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance template thoughts

I have been thinking about this for a while now and would love some more opinions. If this template were to be called 'issues' rather than 'multiple issues' could it serve as the default go to template for any article issues? (of course with a small bit of tweaking for the template). This would make the style across wiki even more consistent, by this I mean using this template even if only one maintenance tag was used on a page. What are other peoples thoughts? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the text displayed when maintenance templates are used without {{multiple issues}} is much longer than what is displayed when they are within {{multiple issues}}. With your proposal, when would full vs. short text be displayed? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem with old-style expert parameter

I thought I brought this up before, but I can't find it in the archives. With the old style format of this template, either |expert=Psychology|date=November 2008 or |expert=November 2008 was acceptable. With the new style format, |expert=November 2008 now displays "This article needs attention from an expert in November 2008. (November 2008)". There are hundreds of articles with this issue, such as Developmental psychology.

Is this something that can be fixed with a tweak to this template, or should I submit an RFBA to change |expert=November 2008 to the new format {{expert-subject|date=November 2008}}? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I've put a fix for this in the sandbox, if you'd like to test it. But it's an ugly hack, so I think your suggestion to change the format is a good one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with the below? (see here)

{{MI|
{{orphan|date=july 2013}}
{{expert|Psychology|date=November 2008}}
}}

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that is wrong with that example is the capitalisation of "july" - using code exactly as shown above will put the page into Category:Orphaned articles from july 2013. But we are not discussing new syntax, but old, where the |date= parameter was associated solely with |expert=. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we're talking about instances such as one of these:

{{Multiple issues|expert=November 2008|orphan=July 2012|unreferenced=January 2013}}
{{Multiple issues|expert=November 2008|orphan=July 2012|{{incomplete|date=January 2013}}}}

GoingBatty (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What about converting all old style expert parameters to new style? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Magioladitis - That would work, and I have AWB all set up with the F&R rules to do just that for the 755 articles that use the old style |expert=mmmmm yyyy. Just wanted to be sure that we explore and rule out the option of changing the template first before I file the RFBA.

Martin - I'll check out your sandbox code tonight. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I totally support the conversion. This will simplify the template's code too and this means that the pages using MI will render faster. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I also support conversion. User:Addbot recently went through converting many old style MI templates to the new style while performing general fixes. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

BRFA filed here. GoingBatty (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

flexible text possible?

Can I add a free-form template (such as {{Hatnote}}) as an embedded template? I want to announce three issues, but one of them doesn't seem to have a template for that purpose, which is overreliance on a primary source in violation of WP:PSTS (not a lack of secondary sources but rather too much weight given to one primary source that has been criticized for inaccuracy when the criticism about the source has been excluded from the article) (the Undue template is somewhat misleading about the concern). If I can't include a hatnote or some other custom-text template, I guess I'd have to add a template below the Multiple Issues template, but I'd rather embed it in the box generated by Multiple Issues. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC) (Corrected my misspelling: 17:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC))

You can just hardcode it with {{ambox}}, e.g. something like this:

{{Ambox|issue=This article over relies on a primary source in violation of [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|WP:PSTS]]}}

and then it should work fine inside this template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

propose to add Ambox to template as optional includable tag

I propose to edit the documentation to signify that along with the single-issue templates Notability, POV, etc. a custom text can be written for a single issue that lacks a suitable standard template by embedding {{Ambox}} with the other templates. A caveat is that {{Ambox}} won't generate the standard categorizations expected with other templates usually included in {{Multiple issues}}. (This follows my trying the other editor's suggestion above in a sandbox and seeing it succeed.) I'll wait a week for any response before editing the doc. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No objection. GoingBatty (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No objection. But there are so many maintenance templates, are you sure that a suitable one does not exist? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I searched for one and didn't find one. If one turns up, I'd rather use it, to support categorization. But, on the general proposition, given the question, I plan to add to this doc a provision that one should prefer a pre-existing template. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Request edit to editnotice

This edit request to Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Multiple issues has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Multiple issues, could someone please replace "(1000+)" to "(50,000+)"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Done It's actually 58237 so I put 58000. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I suggested "50,000+" so you wouldn't have to change it as often as we continue to resolve issues and remove this template from articles. GoingBatty (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of learning something new

I'm curious, is there documentation somewhere I can read that will help me understand how this template works better? This template is wrapped around multiple other templates, and I don't understand how the arguments are being passed. I would love to read some documentation on it or discuss it here or on my talk page so that I can understand it and perhaps implement some of it on the other wiki I administrate. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Bot to remove redundant "multiple issues" tags

Is there a bot to remove redundant {{multiple issues}} tags? I recently noted that a bot had removed a deprecated template and, in so doing, left a {{multiple issues}} tag with only one issue. I see that this was raised as a bot request in February 2012 and a batch of edits were performed by GoingBatty, but it is unclear whether there is a bot doing ongoing maintenance on this (which simply hadn't kicked in yet in the case I mentioned), or otherwise if a renewed bot request should be made. —sroc (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't run the bot in a while. My intent was to run it monthly, but it's been a while. I'm running it now. Thanks for the reminder. GoingBatty (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I'm not all that familiar with bots; I had in my head that they ran continuously and automatically, but I suppose not (or not always). Thanks again! —sroc (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think some of the toolserver bots do run continuously. However, AWB bots have to be started up manually. GoingBatty (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it a special regex or setup you use in AWB or one of the general fixes? I just recently got AWB permissions and haven't read through all of the general fixes yet. I've just been using it for some custom regex jobs so far. Technical 13 (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

General fixes can do that. The difficulty is to create the list of pages that need to be fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I figured that would be the easy part, just create a list of all pages that link to Template:Multiple issues in the article namespace, no? Technical 13 (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the list, and then I skip pages that contain "multiple issues" after changes were made. I'm also running other bot tasks as well as manual work, and still try to do things away from the computer once in a while. :-) GoingBatty (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What is this "Away from the computer" that you speak of? Sounds risky... ;) Technical 13 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple problems

Should the word "issue" perhaps be replaced with the correct word "problem"? Issue has many meanings, problem only one. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC))

It should not. There are many issues that aren't necessarily problems. Many of the templates grouped into this package template are simply "style issues" which aren't technically "problems". I hope this helps your understanding. Technical 13 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Movement to use only this template

What are peoples opinions on a movement to use only this template when adding issues to pages? i.e. We standardize everything, make it easier for bots to maintain and realistically have little or no style changes in the appearance of the actual 'box' ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I would personally be opposed to such a thing at this point. This template "hides" the {{{fix}}} which is an important argument in my opinion. I occasionally will intentionally leave an issue template out of multiple issues (or move it out of multiple issues) if there is something that needs to be addressed more quickly than the others or the templates have been sitting on the page for years and nothing is being accomplished. Also, as a person that runs AWB to fix stuff, there are still way too many pages using the old format of this template which completely defeats the claim that it would be easier for bots to maintain these pages (I actually have a rule with a set of three sub-rules that does just "okay" for changing the old style to new and even that is only about 85%). Technical 13 (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel that this is one template that could really do with a bit of LUA love. Thing I imagine we could do include ordering by date the tag was added, allowing certain templates to exist as a 'separate box' on the page while still using everything within one template etc. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If that was the case, I would recommend creating (a) sandbox version(s) so that people could see your proposal in action. The big question would become, how would you propose everything be updated to use the god template and would this mean the deletion of the couple dozen sub-templates that are currently used? Technical 13 (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sure this is all in good time, currently this plan is in very early stages, I am sure I will post back here after I work out if it is actually possible and I have something to show! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)