This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I just tried using this template with the article=y
parameter to define its scope, but it still says "article or section". Did someone break the code in the template? This used to work. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I've made some minor changes to this template, in order to make it easier to memorise. Specifically, it will now accept all-lowercase forms of every parameter. I have ensured that the old parameters also work.
I've tested the changes at User:Jakew/sandboxtpl, and I think it's fine. However, I'd be grateful if someone more familiar with template syntax than I would check the changes for me, as I'd prefer not to accidentally break thousands of pages. Jakew 22:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Can this template be adjusted to support ((COI)) and ((COI2))? Or does it support them and I just couldn't see that? — Athaenara ✉ 02:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The coi ones I think are too specific for this template to support them - and they're basically covered by POV. Uncategorized? You do realize that's for templates right?--danielfolsom 21:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a proposed policy at Wikipedia:Template standardisation watchers of this template might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be nice to incorporate elements of ((tooshort)) for articles which do not have a sufficiently long lead. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 08:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Requesting ((external links)) be added. I use this one a lot, thanks, Bradford44 15:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous Dissent that other parameter is not acceptable. That's essentially allowing people to have a template without actually having to submit to scrutiny - because you can't delete it. Think about it - would we allow a template that had that? I'm removing it--danielfolsom 03:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Requesting ((deadend)). -- Magioladitis 18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
With the standarization brought about from Wikipedia:Template standardisation is ((Articleissues)) eclipsed? Jeepday (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I have an article that has many inline citations, using the <ref></ref> syntax, but has inconsistently formatted them. That is, the references do not conform to an accepted manual of style for citing references, nor do they use citation templates. What template parameter should I use to tag the article for this? Bradford44 17:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we please keep all characters lowercase to be consistent? Examples that include upper- and lowercase characters are 'Citations missing', 'Inappropriate person', and 'Notable'. --Gary King 07:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
-->((#if:(({notable|))}|* Its '''[[Wikipedia:Notability|notability]]''' is in question. If notability cannot be established, this article may be [[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|listed for deletion]]. ((#if:((checkdate|(({Notable))))}|<small>Tagged since ((checkdate|(({notable))))}.</small>[[Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from ((checkdate|(({notable))))}]]|[[Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability]]))<br/>))<!-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by B. Wolterding (talk • contribs) 12:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
i.e., have the template uniformly start with "This article..." and make it possible to tag a section for whatever from the template at the top. Personally I'm of the opinion that cleanup templates in article space ought to be as low-key as possible, and having them actually appear mid-article rather than at the top just to tag a specific section is unsightly. Seeing as this template is a great tool to improve an article's presentation when it has multiple issues, I was wondering whether it could step up and serve as an alternative to mid-article cleanup templates as well. --AceMyth 22:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to use this template to clean up the pile of templates on Native science, but the 'Unencyclopedic' template is not supported. Could someone please add it to 'Article issues'? Thank you. Terraxos 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
When the "importance" option is added to the template and dated, it seems that the template puts the article into the category "Articles with topics of unclear notability", not into "Articles with topics of unclear notability from <date>". This is incorrect I think. See Tainted (comic) as an example. --B. Wolterding 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but try to add "importance", "refimprove", "unreferenced" without a tag. I am trying in the Sandbox and the result is "no text". -- Magioladitis 19:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Would grouping like templates with a commented heading be a good plan? For example all the citation templates, to enable people to pick just one of them more easily. May have missed a few or doubled up but you get the idea--Nate1481( t/c) 10:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
<!-- citations -->
| citations missing = November 2007 | citationstyle = November 2007 | citecheck = November 2007 | primarysources = November 2007 | refimprove = November 2007 | unreferenced = November 2007
<!-- MOS/organisation -->
| cleanup = November 2007 | copyedit = November 2007 | intro length = November 2007 | laundrylists = November 2007 | long = November 2007 | restructure = November 2007 | sections = November 2007 | wikify = November 2007
<!-- Tone/style -->
| advert = November 2007 | colloquial = y | confusing = November 2007 | essay = November 2007 | fiction = November 2007 | howto = November 2007 | inappropriate person = November 2007 | in-universe = November 2007 | likeresume = November 2007 | plot = November 2007 | prose = November 2007 | proseline = y | quotefarm = November 2007 | rewrite = November 2007 | synthesis = November 2007 | technical = November 2007 | tone = November 2007 | unencyclopedic = y | weasel = November 2007
<!-- POV / OR-->
| advert = November 2007 | autobiography = y | blpdispute = November 2007 | COI = y | context = November 2007 | contradict = November 2007 | criticisms = November 2007 | disputed = November 2007 | expert = topic name | globalize = November 2007 | histinfo = y | inappropriate person = November 2007 | importance = November 2007 | OR = November 2007 | peacock = November 2007 | plot = November 2007 | POV = November 2007 | synthesis = November 2007 | unbalanced = November 2007
<!-- Content -->
| deadend = November 2007 | examplefarm = November 2007 | expand = November 2007 | howto = November 2007 | incomplete = November 2007 | notable = November 2007 | quotefarm = November 200 | tooshort = November 2007 | trivia = November 2007 | update = November 2007
Hmm - possibly, although I'm not sure it'll make much of a difference.--danielfolsom 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been addressed before, but is there any way this template can be made case insensitive, so that e.g. "pov" has the same effect as "POV"; "Notable" as "notable"? It would make assimilating multiple cleanup tags on a page into the Articleissues template much easier, and render mistakes rarer. Skomorokh incite 22:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
16-Nov-2007: I am testing a separate version to allow some lower-case parameters and validate against misspelled inputs. See below: Validating lowercase parameters. -Wikid77 10:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to whomever has created this template. Great idea for really toublesome articles...--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 00:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
16-Nov-2007: Many different people have come to various articles, and rather than adding any substantial new, sourced information, have mainly flagged the article with one of those holier-than-thou vanity boxes, "I, the self-righteous, proclaim this article, above all, defective!!!" They're not to blame for the tendency to throw a vanity-box over an article: many people have some strong opinions and given a soap-box (or vanity-box), rant they will.
After working on 10,000 articles, I realize those top-billed judgmental boxes are too tempting and typically become vanity-boxes, more than help the situation. I would eliminate most vanity-boxes, except in protected mode, and direct people to flag subsections of an article, not the top attention-getter. We've seen articles flagged by vanity-boxes for 2 years, with little improvement. Vanity-boxes are not the solution: many areas of Wikipedia are staffed by skeleton crews, with just a handful of people writing those articles. It is important to work with them, not simply cast judgments. Contact prior editors and determine when they might have time to help with rewrites.
As far as helping readers, a grandstanding top-rant is not the way: try flagging individual sentences with ((fact)) "citation needed" or "disputed" or even use the superscript tags "<sup>xxx</sup>" to add a particular pertinent comment: [sources disagree as to the date]. The vanity-boxes just clutter the article, with few details to really warn readers what to question as they read.
Many vanity-box templates allow adding the keyword parameter "section|" for the tag to be placed within a more limited section, rather than demanding attention as a top-billed rant. Consider the grandstanding vanity-boxes to be a management flaw, not a reason to hate people: if managers knew better, they wouldn't have gone down that dead-end vanity road. Remember, Wikipedia is also an interesting long-term study in failed management concepts and error-prone software designs, as well as a repository of knowledge. Learn from those mistakes and improve. -Wikid77 07:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
16-Nov-2007: I am installing a new revision to allow some lower-case parameters and validate against misspelled inputs. It allows some common lower-case parameters & validates 18 spellings:
Many misspelled parameters now display error-messages, rather than still being ignored by Template:Articleissues. -Wikid77 11:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be included? I dorftrottel I talk I 19:46, November 23, 2007
I added a parameter that selects the category added when a user selects in-universe, to help with my disambiguation/sorting of Category:Articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. Also, I'm not sure how to describe that parameter on the documentation page, though. Any thoughts? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
((contradict-other))
It's not the same thing as ((contradict))
, which refers to self-contradiction exclusively. ((contradict-other))
is for two articles that contradict each other. --Thinboy00 @143, i.e. 02:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Contradict-other -->((#if:(({contradict-other|))}|* It appears to '''contradict''' another article. Please see discussion on the linked [[((#switch: ((lc:(({2))))}|here=((TALKPAGENAME))|there=Talk:(({1))}|((TALKPAGENAME))))|talk page]]. ((#if:((checkdate|(({contradict-other))))}|<small> Tagged since ((checkdate|(({contradict-other))))}.</small>[[Category:Articles contradicting other articles]]))<br/>))<!--
Right now I am to tired to implement it. I'll try tomorrow if none else makes it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to change the expert to use the more proper expert-subject? The way it is now, articles are not being properly sorted into their expert needed categories, so I've had to go back to having article issues for most stuff, and expert separate so the articles will be properly put into their appropriate categories.AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Another request...could ((introrewrite)) also be incorporated? :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not a widely used template, but a valuable one - there are hundreds of articles that don't have an intro section, many of them as yet untagged. Anyway, I'd like to add 'articleissues' to Industrial Rock: Established Acts Which Experimented with the Genre to clear up the templates on that article, but ((Intromissing)) isn't one of the parameters. Could someone add it please? Terraxos (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)