possible subject

This template direly needs a link to the possible subjects that can be used as variables. Some time searching and I still haven't found them. MadMaxDog 06:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any wikiproject can be used. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the list of WikiProjects is already linked from the documentation subpage, which is not protected and can be reworded if you don't find the current version helpful. - BanyanTree 12:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be placed the talk page

I think that editorial comments like this should not be placed on the article page but on the talk page, after all discussion of editorial issues is why we have talk pages. (See Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/article#Most maintenance templates should be placed on the talk page --Philip Baird Shearer 10:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add date

Please allow the dating of templates, in a syntax similar to the cleanup tag. I'd be happy to help, if needed, although I lack admin access. MrZaiustalk 21:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 #if:(({1|))}|<br />This article has been tagged since '''(({1))}'''

CFD follow-up

Following up from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23#Pages needing expert attention subcategories, a modification to this template is needed. At present the template includes:

<includeonly>[[:Category:Pages needing expert attention from ((ucfirst:(({1))))} experts]]</includeonly>

This should be changed to:

<includeonly>[[Category:((ucfirst:(({1))))} articles needing expert attention]]</includeonly>

Just in case my template skillz aren't quite as l33t as they should be, ((Expert-subject|Canada)) would currently categorise the page into Category:Pages needing expert attention from Canada experts. This should instead be Category:Canada articles needing expert attention. Hope that makes sense. Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done. I've also (or am doing now) fixing the categories. Harryboyles 09:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Edit request date=June 2007

((EditProtected)) Template:Expert needed(edit talk links history) Please make the verbatum substitution to enable display of the "issue" in the template:

"If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly. </div>"
"If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly. ((#if:(({2|))}|<br><hr>(({2))}|''please use <nowiki>(({2))}</nowiki> to give a brief synopsis of the change you deem needed to this page.))((#if: (({date|))} |

::::since (({date))} ))</div>"

As a check, Talk:Type site should then display properly.
Change 2 request
Again, as a check, Talk:Type site should then display properly.

Thanks // FrankB 14:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there would be objection to the synopsis appearing on the actual page, as tags generally direct users to the talk page for further discussion. (This template is meant to be used on articles for attracting attention first.) –Pomte 22:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we're tinkering with this template, is there any practical reason at all why the text reading "[[Wikipedia:WikiProject (({1))}|WikiProject (({1))}]] may be able to help recruit one" couldn't be set not to render when a WP isn't specified? That would completely negate the need for Template:Expert and allow for this template to be moved there or that template to redirect here. MrZaiustalk 14:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Expert makes it easy to identify which tags haven't been specified, without the need for an extra maintenance category. This was supposedly the work of Wikipedia:WikiProject Expert Request Sorting. –Pomte 23:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both this template and the old expert template drag in a category: The template as is uses [[Category:((ucfirst:(({1))))} articles needing expert attention]] and the old template drags in Category:Pages needing expert attention. The extra category's already there, so it wouldn't be duplicating things, and would give a master location at the combined template's Whatlinkshere from which all expert requests could be accessed, if someone were wanting to just pick a couple at random. Combined with the added simplicity of maintaining and promoting just one template, it seems like a win-win to me. Note that, if this isn't done, the date fix would be useful on Template:Expert as well. MrZaiustalk 17:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the changes suggested in this section have consensus? --ais523 16:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't seem to be any objections to adding the date. MrZaiustalk 17:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable, but I'll leave this open a while just in case. --ais523 17:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. The usage still needs to be updated, and the actual category pages need to be created. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I wish the template to contain a talk page link. It would be appropriate to always let the usage of this template to be accompanying note on the talk page on exactly what scientific topic' that is related to badly in the article. This should help a great deal when asking an expert to give an opinion. Said: Rursus 08:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to do that, keep in mind that some of us have been under the (apparently mistaken?) impression that this template was a talk page template - Might want conditional language to not display the talk link when printing on talk namespace.
Other points still outstanding from above wish-list:
  • conditional language that makes this work without a WP specified, instead of rendering an explicit (({1))} on the screen - cat to the cat used by template:expert when missing an args (possibly controversial, but could make expert requests much simpler for the end user, allowing for this template to be moved over the obsolete template)
  • cleanup of displayed text?
  • text calling for date to be inserted ala other cleanup templates Mostly fixed MrZaiustalk 15:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MrZaiustalk 13:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • bump - Any comments on merging back expert-subject to here? There's little to no reason to maintain two separate templates. MrZaiustalk 10:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit request

((editprotected)) "Usage: Add the name of WikiProject after the vertical bar", right?

While the template itself is protected, the template's documentation sub-page (located at Template:Expert-subject/doc) is not protected. You should be able to edit that freely (this sort of situation is, if I understand correctly, exactly why we started making /doc pages for protected templates). That does sound like a good change, but you should get the credit for it yourself, no? ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, please add new posts at the end of the talk page in a new section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs "article/section" parameter

Currently, this template simply says "This article or section", and doesn't allow you to select one or the other, as many (most?) other templates here do. Can someone add this to the template? Maybe as an optional 2nd parameter (e.g., ((expert-subject|doohickies|section)). +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 10:18 25 September 2007 (GMT).

Multiple WikiProjects; talk page link; ...

At European Cooperative Society I wanted to insert an 'in need of attention from an expert' box, but couldn't get the ((Expert-subject)) template to do what I needed. The article is relevant to at least two WikiProjects - I picked the most relevant two in my opinion and designed the following box based on ((Expert)) and ((Expert-subject)) which refers to both WikiProjects and Portals. Apologies for just doing it in the article; there aren't any conditional templating statements in the box's code since I don't really understand them yet:

This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Please help recruit one or improve this article yourself. See the talk page for details. WikiProjects Law or Cooperatives or the Law or Cooperatives Portals may be able to help. This article has been tagged since January 2008.

I took the opportunity to include the text "Please help recruit one or improve this article yourself. See the talk page for details" from ((Expert)), and decided not to include "If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly", to save space and reduce clutter. So, following on from MrZaius' comments above:

-- Djmackenzie (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC), revised at 11:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I definitely think there should be an option to include multiple Wikiprojects/Portals - I've just seen this version of Pleasure, and it seems clear that sometimes there is more than one relevant Wikiproject/Portal, and so the option to have more than one in the same template would be a welcome addition for me.
Drum guy (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As most of the text would have to change to the plural to fit the multiple Wikiprojects/Portals, it might be easier to make a new template (e.g. ((expert-subject-multiple))). It might be possible (and desirable) to make the text displayed in the template change if there are multiple Wikiprojects/Portals but (I'm speaking with no experience) I guess this would probably be quite hard/complex to code. Gracias, Drum guy (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If only the change to being able to add multiple Wikiprojects was made, the template may look something like this:
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Wikiprojects Psychology, Philosophy or Neuroscience, or the Psychology, Philosophy or Neuroscience Portals may be able to help recruit one. If more appropriate WikiProjects or portals exist, please adjust this template accordingly. Category:Psychology articles needing expert attention Category:Philosophy articles needing expert attention Category:Neuroscience articles needing expert attention Category:Pages needing expert attention
Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This wouldn't be hard to put together. The only question is how many WikiProjects should it allow for? I'll put together a mock up. Adam McCormick (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a mockup at ((expert-subject-multiple)) that will allow for five projects in a two-column bulleted list. Let me know if you'd rather have some other format. Adam McCormick (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a general design note, wouldn't you want the maximum number of entries to be divisible by the number of columns? If you max out a 2 column list with 5 entries, you have a 3 entry list next to a two entry list. Seems a touch odd. MrZaiustalk 03:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to change, I actually set it to 5 before the columns were chosen. It can be changed to suit though. Adam McCormick (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Forgive my ignorance if this has already been addressed, but this template appears to violate Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid by refering to WikiProjects. I have two possible remedies: limit use of this template to talk pages only, or remove the references in the template but still allow the articles to be categorized as such. Thoughts? --12 Noon  05:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this falls under the third big bullet of this section, Templates like this one serve a necessary purpose just like references to WP:NPOV. It's my opinion that this is one of those allowable but not desirable examples where it is best not to remove the reference. Adam McCormick (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

multiple subjects?

there's a page with 4 of these tags for different subjects....is there a way to combine them?! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created (see above): ((expert-subject-multiple)) -- (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


((editprotected)) The target for the "portal" link in this template should be changed to Portal:Contents/Portals; Portal:Portals redirects there. GreenReaper (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Soxred 93 17:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]






accordingly. <small>

Gary King (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small description


This template should have a small description, similar to other templates. To do this, find the following:

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject ((ucfirst:(({1))))}|WikiProject ((ucfirst:(({1))))}]] ((#ifexist:Portal:((ucfirst:(({1))))}|or the [[Portal:((ucfirst:(({1))))}|((ucfirst:(({1))))} Portal]]|)) may be able to help recruit one.<br />
If a more appropriate [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProject]] or [[Portal:Contents/Portals|portal]] exists, please adjust this template accordingly. <small>((#if:(({date|))}|(''(({date))}'')))</small>


<small>[[Wikipedia:WikiProject ((ucfirst:(({1))))}|WikiProject ((ucfirst:(({1))))}]] ((#ifexist:Portal:((ucfirst:(({1))))}|or the [[Portal:((ucfirst:(({1))))}|((ucfirst:(({1))))} Portal]]|)) may be able to help recruit one. If a more appropriate [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProject]] or [[Portal:Contents/Portals|portal]] exists, please adjust this template accordingly. ((#if:(({date|))}|''((({date))})''))</small>

And you're done! Gary King (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both lines should be on the same line


This template currently has two lines, which stretches the box vertically unnecessarily. They should both be placed on the same line since they are related, and to make it easier to follow along when reading. Find:

one.<br />

And replace it with:

one. If

And you're done. Gary King (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style edits


I've made some tweaks to the wording and layout to match similar templates. Code is available at the new sandbox. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done The Helpful One 21:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the separate template?

I would like to reiterate that this template should not exist. There is no reason at all that its argument couldn't be fed to a more flexible Template:Expand which, essentially, would just be this template's code w/a single line of error handling to print the Template:Expand text when no WP is specified. The current system is a good deal more complicated than need be. MrZaiustalk 01:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate categories for WP:FILM

This template is currently populating three categories for WP:FILM, but it should be desirable to have only one. I've listed the duplicates at CfD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 24#Category:Films articles needing expert attention), but perhaps someone more familiar with this template can be of help? PC78 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lack of first parameter

Sometimes, this template is used without providing any un-named parameters. When one isn't provided, it looks horrible. I suggest replacing

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject ((ucfirst:(({1))))}|WikiProject ((ucfirst:(({1))))}]] ((#ifexist:Portal:((ucfirst:(({1))))}|or the [[Portal:((ucfirst:(({1))))}|((ucfirst:(({1))))} Portal]]|)) may be able to help recruit one.


((#if:(({1|))}|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject ((ucfirst:(({1))))}|WikiProject ((ucfirst:(({1))))}]] ((#ifexist:Portal:((ucfirst:(({1))))}|or the [[Portal:((ucfirst:(({1))))}|((ucfirst:(({1))))} Portal]]|)) may be able to help recruit one.))

Of course, I couldn't make this change - would an admin do it for me? Timeroot (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Is their a way to view how many articles have use this template? I mean for templates like Stub you can just click on the category, but how do you view all articles, portals...etc that have use a specific template

like Wikipedia templates and Navbox templates...etc -- (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'what links here' link, which is usually in the toolbox on the left, is probably what you want. I count 2493 in total. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When is this template preferable to Template:Expert-talk?

This template creates widespread potential for abuse. There are no criteria for adding the template and thus no basis for knowing when it is time to remove the template. It provides yet another reason for POV warriors and trolls to clutter articles with template spam, and yields no remedy to editors wishing to resolve the issue. If a dispute template is going to be so biased in favor of addition and against removal, then it should only be added to the talk page, which is what template:expert-talk does. Needless to say, the very concept of the template is problematic per WP:EXPERT, which was resounding rejected by the community. We have (by design, at this point) no way of verifying expert credentials, so it seems pointless to call for an expert. Any productive use of this template could be garnered by the talk page version or simply leaving notes on the associated WikiProjects. Savidan 23:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More troubling to me is that the template refers to "WikiProjects", which are social constructions which shouldn't have any mention on articlespace. I'm normally opposed to calls to move templates off articlespace and onto talk but in this case I think that's exactly the right call. Worth pointing out that if this template is deprecated in favour of ((expert-talk)) then it'll need removed from ((articleissues)) as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useless template

I find this template useless in comparison the simpler but "deprecated" Template:expert. The goal of any content template is two-fold:

Anyone adding an expert-whatever template in good faith perceives some content problem in the article but finds it beyond his expertise to fix it. But if the editor adding the expert tag knows where to look for experts, e.g. wikiprojects, he/she can just post a question/request there instead of adding the name of the wikiproect to a template. Adding the name of some wikiprojects to a template doesn't automatically trigger any alarm bells at those wikiprojects. So, I don't see how the name of the wikiproject appearing in the template on the article helps in any way. What is the intended workflow here? Is the casual reader supposed to go to the wikiproject and ask for help? I don't think so. That is the job of the editor who added the tag in the first place! How is the casual reader supposed to know whether an expert has of hasn't been contacted already? Given that we're not seeing duplicate "please fix this article" requests (not on the Math or CS wikiprojects anyway), it simply means that the casual reader is plain ignoring the "Wikiproject Blahblah" stuff appearing in the template 99.999% of the time. So cramming that information in the article serves no purpose. Pcap ping 19:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out the difference between this and expert on my own and updated the documentation to state it clearly. Pcap ping 05:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wording tweak

((Expert)) is now unused, so I've finally stuck a t3 on it. I've updated the sandbox here with some tweaks imported from the last version of that template: comments? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk parameter

((editprotected)) Please add a talk= parameter as I did here, to allow linking to a specific thread in the talk page. --Waldir talk 20:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not currently have a "See the talk page for details" sentence like Template:Expert does. If you are proposing to add one, then that is fine but it may be worth leaving the proposal for a few days in case anyone else has a comment on this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I fogot that detail. Yes, I think that'd be fine. The template is not too long right now, so I don't think that'll be a problem. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldir (talkcontribs)
Perhaps that sentence should not display unless the talk parameter is used? Because otherwise there might not be a discussion on the talk page and it would be irrelevant. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking. I agree, of course :) --Waldir talk 18:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from someone who works with the tag a lot, I think this is a good idea as well. If specific concerns have been raised it makes sense to have the option of linking to them. Unrelated point: maybe you can make it so that the template works without having to specify a WikiProject as well? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Then we could finally make ((expert)) redirect here instead of having that deprecated notice... --Waldir talk 20:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You read my mind. ((technical (expert))) already works that way so it shouldn't be hard to include. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I have updated the sandbox with the relevant code from ((technical (expert))), so it displays an invitation to categorise the tag if no WikiProject is specified. Probably needs further work before integrating it into the template proper, though.
Also, some time ago, User:Thumperward added a standard "see talk page for details" to the sandbox template. That can be modified to support a "talk" parameter. I have now modified this message to work just like ((expert)). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! I'd reactivate the editprotected now. --Waldir talk 21:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox ready to go live

((editprotected)) In the section above, we discussed adding a talk parameter to ((expert-subject)), as well as making sure it doesn't break when no WikiProject is assigned. These changes have been made in the sandbox.

Since nobody has objected, can the "live" version of ((expert-subject)) be replaced with the sandbox version? It would also finally let us redirect ((expert)), which has been deprecated for ages. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Tweaked the whitespace a little, to improve readability of the code. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, good. Now this thing with ((expert)) might finally be put to rest. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: ((expert)), its documentation and respective redirects all point here now. I've left its talk page alone for now. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

documenting date parameter and similarity of ((expert)) template


May an admin or I (I'm not an admin) please edit the template page to say the following, which are based on observations of Wikipedia's behavior? If either statement is wrong, maybe we need to say that, to educate editors.

The ((expert)) template works like the ((expert-subject)) template.

The date of adding the template may be the fourth parameter, as date=June 2024.

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

template:expert-subject/doc is not protected. If you want to make the documentation clearer, by all means dive in and fix it. I don't believe that this request requires an edit to the protected template code, so I'm disabling it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, that's now done, but it looks like the documentation and original pages are generally identical, which means we editors would likely rely on the authoritative page for what to do. Several templates are in the ((expert-. . .)) family but the ((expert)) template is specifically like this one, so that should be stated on the authoritative page. And many templates have a date parameter explained but this one didn't mention it, although it works and category pages support the parameter. What do you think of the edits going onto both pages? Nick Levinson (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one template, which is this one. ((expert)) redirects to this template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, transclusion; I forgot about that. So there's no need to edit the main page; editing the doc effectively does that. Thank you for telling me about editing doc instead. Both points are in the authoritative page.
Unless I misunderstand, no, the ((expert)) template as such is functionally separate, although the Template:Expert page itself does redirect to the Template:Expert-subject page and the transclusion into articles is from the same page. The ((expert)) template has appeared in an article and the article appeared in at least two Category pages until I edited the template as it appeared in the article. And, because it's simple to write, I assume it appears in many other articles instead of ((expert-subject)).
Thanx. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two were merged a while back (IIRC it was me who proposed the merge). The result is that the template acts like the old ((expert)) template did if it isn't given any arguments, but gives a different output if an "expert" is specified. However, there is only one codebase. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Half of Wikipedia is in need of experts. These tags IMO however will not bring them in. Not sure what us they are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New category

Suggestion for sorting expert requests already labeled with a WikiProject but lacking a specific maintenance category. Iceblock (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the template is changed to the following code (in addition to the documentation template).

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. Consider associating this request with a WikiProject.

The difference is that when a existing WikiProject is specified, but the expert-subject category (e.g. Category:Technology articles needing expert attention) does not exist, then the article is categorised into Category:Articles needing expert attention that needs a category instead of Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention. When the articles are identified in Category:Articles needing expert attention that needs a category, it is easier to create expert-subject categories for them. When the categories are created, the articles will soon move into the expert-subject categories. Iceblock (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples:

  1. No WikiProject specifed, e.g. ((expert-subject))
    • My suggestion doesn't make a difference
  2. WikiProject specified, e.g. ((expert-subject|Technology)), and Category:Technology articles needing expert attention exists
    • My suggestion doesn't make a difference
  3. WikiProject specified, e.g. ((expert-subject|Goa)), and Category:Goa articles needing expert attention doesn't exist

Users can go to Category:Articles needing expert attention that needs a category and look at its articles. If an article tagged as needing attention from WikiProject Goa, a user can create Category:Goa articles needing expert attention. When that category is created, articles tagged with WikiProject Goa will move into the category after a while.

The change I suggest makes it easier to identify categories to make for articles that are already tagged with a WikiProject, but don't have a specific category for articles needing expert attention.

As the template is changed since my first suggestion, this is the part I now suggest a change in.


| all  = ((#ifexist:Category:((ucfirst:(({1))))} articles needing expert attention
 |((ucfirst:(({1))))} articles needing expert attention
 |Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention


| all  = ((#ifexist:Category:((ucfirst:(({1))))} articles needing expert attention
 |((ucfirst:(({1))))} articles needing expert attention
 |((#ifexist:Wikipedia:WikiProject ((ucfirst:(({1))))}|Articles needing expert attention that needs a category|Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention))

Iceblock (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New editor seeks help

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new ((help me)) request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.
Think I have Bipolar-Cyclothymia. Dr Yankervich has referred me to Dr Hunt for official diag how can I help. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristian Wade (talkcontribs) 02:12, 3 January 2012‎

We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer, and contact an appropriate medical professional. DoriTalkContribs 10:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Template nominated at TFD, notice needs to be added. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 9 March 2012

Could someone add <noinclude>((Delrev|date=2012 March 9))</noinclude> to the page. The template is currently at Deletion review.

Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for an admin for this edit as you can see here. – Allen4names 05:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 18 March 2012

Could someone replace ((being deleted)) with ((Tfd)), as the discussion was relisted following Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 March 9.

Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tra (Talk) 19:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 29 March 2012

A recent TfD discussion has been closed as "keep and improve". In particular, several users have recommended encouraging or mandating the use of a reason parameter. Such a parameter is in line with what is supported by other templates, e.g., ((cleanup)). The proposed change implements such a parameter as an alternative to the current talk parameter, and additionally encourages the provision of either the reason or the talk parameter in the template (updated documentation here). Request copying over the sandbox to the actual template. Thanks! Nageh (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks! Nageh (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Not sure if the "reason" and "talk" parameters should be mutually exclusive. It might be possible a case that someone wants to note the reason on the page, and expands further on the talk page.--Salix (talk): 15:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I have update the sandbox to allow both parameters simultaneously. Nageh (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


There's a discussion that might be to interest of yours. extra999 (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The result of this AfD was to merge Template:Expert-subject-multiple into Template:Expert-subject. Can an admin please perform this edit?—Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 15:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technical adds to same category

The template ((Technical)) adds articles to Category:Articles needing expert attention in addition to Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical. Is this an appropriate use of the category? See the discussion at Template talk:Technical#Expert attention. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify documentation

The documentation: "It has the option of being assigned to a specific subcategory of Category:Articles needing expert attention, depending on the topic of the article." is ambiguous, I initially interpreted it as "you can add another option in the template usage for it to automatically add the article to the category." I prefer it to be replaced with "If a subject name is specified, the article will be automatically assigned to a specific subcategory of Category:Articles needing expert attention, depending on the topic of the article.--Theme (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improve this template

Sidelight12 Talk 02:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a first step I've made Category:Articles needing expert attention with no reason or talk parameter to identify articles with not justification. So far 4400 articles and counting, we need to wait until the job clue has finished to get the exact number.--Salix (talk): 07:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some templates already give an error message, if no reason is given. Opinions on whether this template overlaps with template:expand article, and if they can be used together. Sidelight12 Talk 09:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This article needs expert level attention on the subject in the area(s) of:" .
Reason/Comment: . See talk page.
Make the areas parameter optional. Have a mandatory either "reason" or "comment".
Areas can include: a specialty area, a section or topic of the article.
Reasons: These areas can be expanded. Clarification needed. Perspective would benefit article. Doubtful/Unsure of accuracy of material. Lacks depth.
See talk page: Optional parameter
Sidelight12 Talk

Could this be addressed by simply strengthening the wording on the documentation? Currently the description of "Parameters" reads:
3. (a) If you have started a discussion on the article's talk page, you may link to that (etc.)
(b) Alternatively, you may use the |reason= parameter (etc.)
This could be strengthened by adding, for example, the following.
3. Please indicate the reason that attention is needed, either on the talk page or directly in the expert-subject template.
(a) If you start a discussion on the article's talk page, (etc.)
The rest of the wording could probably be left as-is. Cnilep (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

multiple expert fields

Following from the never completed merge of Template:Expert-subject-multiple into Template:Expert-subject (this AfD).--Salix (talk): 21:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox version has four extra parameters (|ex2= through |ex5=) to handle multiple expert fields, and includes categorization for all of them. It's worded right now such that it only asks for a single expert from any one of multiple fields (see the testcases for examples). The wording can be changed if it's really being requested that multiple experts, each from different fields, work on the article/section. The other change is that only WikiProjects—not portals—are linked due to limited space. One generic link to WP:P is included so editors at least know the option is there, but they will have to find them on their own. — Bility (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template code can be synced with sandbox, examples are on the testcases page. — Bility (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just compared this with the live version [1]. There seems to be a difference with the text when portals are present, which you can see in the testcases. The live version links to a specific portal but the sandbox just links to Wikipedia:Portal. I'm not convinced a link to portal is really needed at all.
I haven't though about links to multiple projects. I don't think the issue came up in the recent deletion discussion. What did come through was including reasons for why the template was used. How does this work with multiple projects.--Salix (talk): 21:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note Template:Expert-subject-multiple can have multiple portals. If we are trying to do the merge from ((Expert-subject-multiple)) we do need to work out a way to map the parameters of that template to ex2 etc.--Salix (talk): 21:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the parameters are mapped fine if you want do portals (they use the same as projects), I just felt like we were running out of room with more than one project/portal up to a theoretical 10 links. Just a for instance, on an article like Music of Mongolia, it's already a pretty large ambox with only three links. For a solution, I think we can come up with a better way to display this secondary information, maybe with a list format or something. Another thing that's causing unnecessary bloat in the multiple version is the message to add more projects/portals, even when one exists. Expert-subject doesn't include that message if a project is already associated. As for "reasons for why the template was used", I have no opinion and that's not part of the merge with Expert-subject-multiple (see the TfD). A consensus among interested editors can happen after the merge, and isn't part of this edit request.
Final question then is, should the sandbox be updated to include individual portal links? If so I'll work on a more space-efficient means of including them. Otherwise, if individual portal links aren't necessary, can we sync to sandbox? Should the generic link to WP:P be removed? — Bility (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synced in its current state. if there are further refinements, let me know and I'll push the new updates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category needed

A solution for finding articles that are categorized (tagged with a WikiProject) in the template call, but their expert categories are not yet created. This makes it easy to create expert categories for articles already tagged with a WikiProject. Iceblock (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on the sandbox is welcome. The changes are:


Don't be afraid to ask if I have not explained this suggestion sufficiently. Iceblock (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the advantage mentioned above: Some explanation is at Category:Articles needing expert attention (category needed). Iceblock (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking category to catch unidentified subjects

Iceblock (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you perceive this to be a temporary measure (a "tracking category") to help you to create all the appropriate categories? If so, I have no objection. If you are proposing a permanent category, then we should probably think a bit more about the name of it. Category:Articles needing unspecified expert attention might be better for when the subject is not specified. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking of this as a temporary measure, to ease creation of new, appropriate categories. Iceblock (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay done. I will revert this (if I remember) in a few weeks then. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the edit, MSGJ! Is it okay to let this version stay until I have created all the categories, even if it takes more than a few weeks? As new expert requests may (and I think will) be posted on new articles, and not everyone is aware that a category should be created, I believe that a category with the same purpose should be made permanently. Name suggestions:

"Articles needing unspecified expert attention" does not exactly describe the purpose of the category. This is because the subject is specified in the template and matches the name of a WikiProject, the subject is displayed in the maintenance tag on the top of the page, but the page is not categorized by subject because the editor who tagged the page is not aware that a category must be created. Iceblock (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting Category:Articles needing unspecified expert attention for when the subject is not specified. That would leave Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention for those where the subject is specified but do not have any other category to be placed in. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I see! I agree with you! Iceblock (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possible code on /sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Simplifying the code by using the catcheck template is an improvement. I added a link to Portal:(({1))} and removed the category check for parameter ex1. Do you think it's a good idea to put articles with this template in a separate category as well as the usual ones if the WikiProject is misspelled or non-existent? Iceblock (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deployed and reverted because it was putting every article into Category:Articles needing expert attention which shouldn't happen. I need to check over the code again. RE your question, a mis-spelled WikiProject is treated exactly the same as a non-existent one, in which case the separate categories would not exist. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like only undated expert tags will put an article into Category:Articles needing expert attention.
If a correctly spelled WikiProject is specified, and the subject category does not exist, then the article is put into Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention. If a misspelled WikiProject is specified, then the article is not put into Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention. That's the difference I have found. Iceblock (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the period after (({reason))}

Entered into template Result
reason = Needs input from a nuclear physicist Needs input from a nuclear physicist.
reason = Needs input from a nuclear physicist. Needs input from a nuclear physicist..
reason = Needs input from a nuclear physicist! Needs input from a nuclear physicist!.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swpb (talkcontribs)

I'm not seeing this problem. Perhaps you could reproduce it on /testcases page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just reproduced that problem, as you asked. I came here because the problem also occurs at Paraguayan War. Art LaPella (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve the help instructions

I recently had reason to use this template (on the BitTorrent page if you want to know).

But despite me considering myself not a neophyte wikipedian, it wasn't clear to me exactly how to apply the template, especially the expert-talk (sub?)template.

Do not have parameters that are "sort-of" mandatory. As long as you provide a parameter with no further comment, it should remain fully optional. Until you reach consensus to make it mandatory, it should remain fully optional. When you do reach consensus, make it clearly mandatory in all respects. At no point in the discussion process should you have an "in-between" status!

A somewhat exasperated greeting, since I am tempted to use this template on its own talk/help page... ;) CapnZapp (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory reason

I'm not sure if these type of "expert" backlog are ever really addressed, but if this template is to stay, I think there should be a big red text error when a |reason= isn't added. Otherwise it's hard to see what the issue is. – czar 23:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 4 February 2016

Please insert

((error|This template requires either the ((code|reason)) or the ((code|talk)) parameter))


[[Category:Articles needing expert attention with no reason or talk parameter]]

In 85%[1] of its invocations[2], the template is used without either a talk or a reason parameter. The deletion discussion closed with "strongly consider making the reason mandatory" (my emphasis, clear consensus there), Czar asked for it one section above, I do (obviously), it makes sense, and there seems to be exactly no opposition to it. Paradoctor (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Unexplained expert tags can be and should be removed by any editor." This has been around since 2009, which is most of the template's history, so the vast majority of uses were in error at their incept date. It's high time for a BF ugly error message. I started on the backlog, so that shouldn't be an impediment, either. Paradoctor (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation for both parameters still says "You may...", not "You must...". Bazj (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, but that's because you don't have to use both. The documentation for the template begins with "Important: When adding this template to an article, state the specific issue". This, together with all the evidence already presented makes it clear that the spirit of the template is that a justification is essential for its use. Besides, the point of this edit request is to adapt the template to consensus, not the other around, right? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A few points where I disagree with you:
  • "but that's because you don't have to use both" - No. As it's currently documented you don't have to use either.
  • "the point ... is to adapt the template to consensus" - Yes. The consensus, as you stated in your edit request, is to "strongly consider making the reason mandatory". Czar's suggestion above is just a suggested way of moving towards that consensus. It is not itself the consensus.
  • The request would have over 4600 articles tainted with a big red error message. The whole point of template protection is to avoid edits that have that kind of effect. On that point I now feel certain enough to say Not done:.
A less invasive approach would be to have a bot task scan the 4600 pages in the category for the relevant wiki projects and place a notice on the talk pages of those projects that their attention is needed at [list of relevant pages for that project]. Those pages could then have this template removed by the bot. Whatever is left would need to be cleared by hand. Once the category is cleared it would then be reasonable to mark talk/reason as mandatory and to implement your request.
Regards, Bazj (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, 4448 articles. You have been busy. Bazj (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "tainted" Well, if that floats your boat... Paradoctor (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
marred, disfigured, corrupted, vandalised, take your pick.
Your removal of the template from so many pages doesn't look like you're considering the issues raised by the presence of the template. We need to assume good faith on the part of the editors who tagged the articles in question, which means there had to be an issue there which they considered needed expert attention. Are you going to flag up the articles you've edited with the relevant projects so that they will at least have a chance of receiving the required attention? Bazj (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Follow up

I guess they intended to sort the requests. No sorting in 7 years makes fore a pretty cruddy backlog.


@Paradoctor: I wonder how many of the "mis-tagged" articles have a history similar to that of Air21? In 2011 I tagged it for special attention by a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Defunct Airlines; in 2013, another editor merged the tag into "multiple issues", losing the Wikiproject - perhaps the "multiple issues" template didn't support it; in 2016, you removed the tag from the article because it had no Wikiproject. Mind you, the tag achieved nothing in five years, and my post on the talk page has attracted no comments. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]