Template talk:Multiple issues

Expert to Expert Subject?

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.Collectonian (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

 Fixed (I hope) —Ms2ger (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It does not seem to work. The WikiProject/Portal has to be added to the expert tag and the expertsubject tag seems to be without use. --rxnd (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Introrewrite

Another request...could {{introrewrite}} also be incorporated? :) Collectonian (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 Fixed The text is long but it cannot be reduced. It must give a link to the talk page and instructions how to do it. Moreover, it was a little tricky to handle the categories. I hope everything works fine. Someone please try it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting {{Intromissing}}

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)

dead end tag

When articleissues includes a deadend tag, the article isn't getting into a deadend by month category. See Amgoria as an example -- the deadend tag in the articleissues template is dated October 2007, but the article was never placed into Category:Dead-end pages from October 2007. I have no clue how to fix this, but it really needs to be fixed so these articles get timely attention. Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ok not difficult. The tag is just text. The category is a different thing. I am fixing it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, call me crazy, but I'm still not seeing that category on the article, or the article in the category. I've even purged my page cache, and nada.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the cache of the template in Wikipedia. Check the source code. They is no were All-dead end pages anymore but I can still see it in Amgoria as well. I think we have to wait a little bit for the Wikipedia servers to catch up. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll sit on my hands for a while. :) --Fabrictramp (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ok check Amgoria. I reactivated the template by changing slightly the date of the deadend. It's working perfectly. woo woo. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I bow down before your awesomeness. ;)--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting {{Nofootnotes}}

This template is used for articles which include references, but not in-line citations. I don't think any other template currently included in ArticleIssues has this function, so could somebody add it, please? Terraxos (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

 Won't fixThis is a highly protected template. It's better to handle it alone. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that this has since been added. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:12, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be there are as Nofootnote, since 20 August 2007 and added by Jeandré du Toit. Is there anyway to check how many articles are using it through articleissues and remove it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am performing an AWB check to fix that. Moreover, this template should be placed at the bottom of the article and not in the top. Certainly, something we can't include in Articleissues. -- 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It took me a lot of time but the subject is handled. Nofootnote removed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you recheck your work with that? Since you removed it, a huge space is appearing after the "It does not cite any references" bullet. See List of Xena: Warrior Princess episodes for an example. Collectonian (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done I simplified the code and I think now it's working (at least in my PC). Please check and tell me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm unable to get it to work. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Magioladitis removed it once he found out it wasn't supposed to go at the top of the article, where {{articleissues}} is supposed to go. See Template:Nofootnotes/doc.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 23:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting {{Self-published}}

Can someone add that? I don't feel like deciphering the template tonight.--Crossmr (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed but take care that the original template allows the users to specify the source in dispute. This feature is not included in the articleissues version. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"tooshort" parameter tagging articles for wikification

Can someone please remove the wikification category from the "tooshort" parameter? The stand-alone tag (now called "intro-tooshort") does not add articles to wikification categories, and removing the category from the "tooshort" parameter would remove inappropriately added articles from the already large wikification backlog. Cheers. – Liveste [talk • contrib] 21:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed, fortunately that part of the code was fairly simple and I didn't break anything ~breathes again~ Collectonian (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Tagged since ..."

I think "Tagged since February 2008." is a little lengthy, and makes the template less readable. Any objections to turning all instances of "Tagged since Month Year." into "(Month Year)"? Then it would read, for instance, "It needs additional references or sources for verification. (August 2007)" -- Lea (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "tagged since," as providing a month and year alone may lead to a misconception that the concern only applied to a past version of the article. After all, the point of tagging is to inspire editors to correct issues and then to remove the tag. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Did a super-quick research on this: Most cleanup templates seem to use the parenthesized (short) form (e.g. {{unreferenced}}, {{wikify}}, {{copyedit}}) or only use the date for categorization, not actually displaying it (like {{advert}}, {{importance}}). The ones that use the long form, like {{notability}}, are pretty long templates with explanations of several lines, where the short form would look funny. Since articleissues only has single-sentence descriptions per issue, using the short form would make more sense here, I think. (I doubt by the way that the short form would mislead readers, since it's already so widely used [and I find it pretty intuitive anyway].) -- Lea (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mh, any further comments on this, anyone? -- Lea (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we can write "since Month Year" and omit Tagged. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting {{External links}}

Can somebody add that --— Typ932^{T | C}  18:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability template misleading?

Hope this is the right place to ask about this. Using the "notability" parameter, what comes out, under "This article or section has multiple issues:", is "Its notability is in question." See here for an example. The statement "Its notability is in question." seems misleading because it's the not an article that should be notable, but the subject of an article. So I think the the statement should read "The notability of the article's subject is in question." I'm raising this because of the apparent misunderstanding as per this diff. Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.56.123 (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC) It's a good point, I won't edit it as it's a complex template & I'd probably break it, but it should be changed. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the requested change though i also made it if you specify 'section=y' you get a reasonable result or if you specify 'article=y' it becomes article specific language. This was so that using notability for a specific section - like a trivia section - would still make sense. - Owlmonkey (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've tested all the cases, I wonder if the section language should instead be "The notability of the section's content" instead of "The notability of the section's subject" to be more clear. What do you think? - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm not sure. The section case can be seen here but in that example it really is the subject of the entire section which has notability issues, not just the notability of the respective contents. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, or there really is a difference in the section case between times when the entire section has questionable notability (in that case the times when the article's subject is set to music) or when individual items are questionable for inclusion in a section (like a classic trivia list where some are notable but many are not notable). That would perhaps then require custom templates for each case really. Or we could add a whole new specific case for "item notability" or something like that which would call out 'individual items in this section or article' lack notability, please add citations demonstrating the importance of each' or something like that. - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...but it now reads "The notability of the its subject is in question." - see here. Can someone remove the superfluous "the"? --81.157.176.240 (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Should now be fixed. Collectonian (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

{{uncategorized}}

Is this issue worth adding to the list? Btyner (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because this is supposed to go at the bottom of the article and articleissues at the top. I think the subject was discussed at the past as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Added this. Placement isn't all that crucial for this. If there are already other issues, adding a little uncategorized message to the same box can't hurt. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:22, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry but I reverted this addition as happened on 4 September, 2007 as well by user User:BenB4. Check here for last year's discussion. If you want to make this addition please try to ensure a consensus first. I am negative for {{uncategorized}} and I explained why. Articleissues is supposed to replace all the boxed on the top of an article with a single one not change the way we tag the articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't much discussion about this at all. Is there an actual reason you're against this, other than that it's not the way it's normally placed? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:45, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. The only reasons that a template cannot be included in Articleissues, imo, is: a) The template is highly-protected so it's better to handle alone and b) the template should not be placed in the top. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The template is full-protected. And? So what? That has no bearing on whether its message can be included in another template. And unless you have a reason the message is no good if placed on top, then this really is no argument. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:22, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Magioladitis. Uncategorized specifically says it goes at the bottom. If you feel it should start going at the top, I would expect you need to get it changed there first, by consensus, before askin::::::g it be included in articleissues which always goes at the top. Collectonian (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. Bottom placement of uncat is because as a separate template there's a choice, so might as well put it where cat links usually reside. Placement of this isn't so important that it simply must go on the bottom, if we're already calling attention to multiple issues at the top. That's frankly ridiculous logic. The original template not working that way is simply not a reason. Forget the consensus procedure cause we're allowed to be bold and wait til someone has a real, actual objection -- unless you have an actual practical reason why this is a bad idea, it should be reinserted. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:40, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

"Being bold" doesn't mean "ignore consensus". Since there is a very strong consensus that uncategorized template goes at the bottom and articleissues template is just to merge templates and save space, i don't see why we have to ignore these rules. For the full-protected templates: Since changes are done only by administrators is better to have a separate handle and not inside a more generic template like this one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a rule. It's consensus. For a different template. Full-protect is due to high probability of vandalism, not more major damage as a result of vandalism of the particular message. If this template were vandalized often it would be protected too, but it isn't so it's not. Again there is absolutely no reason to leave the message out of this template. If you yourself had an objection I'd say fine, let's discuss it. But you have no objection. You just think others would. That's not how it works. We can make a change and wait to see if people object. Your reason is basically that you think other people would disagree, which is no reason. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:37, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

And your reason is basically "you want to" - that's not very convincing to me. You would like to add it into the template, discussion ensues, 2 people disagree (I could care less), and you are the person who then gets to choose what constitutes a valid opinion? That doesn't sound right to me. Mr.Z-man 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Who said I get to choose? Equazcion •✗/C • 01:25, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Oh and my reason for wanting to add it -- the purpose of this template is to consolidate issues so that multiple separate tags aren't necessary. Uncat is another article issue, just like any other. The question is why exclude it, not why add it. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:26, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

You were telling the other people that their reasons were "no reason," it sounded like you intended to ignore their concerns and put it back in. Mr.Z-man 04:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering it. Two against one doesn't mean anything, or shouldn't. If anything I think more opinions are needed, which is difficult on this page since no one really watches it. I'd post an RfC if I hadn't already posted one below, and if I thought anyone would feel inclined to pay attention to this very minor issue. What I was saying was that my opponents' reasons are ridiculous. I stated an observation and I stand by it. I'm not sure how that's so different from any number of other disputes. But since again this is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things, I'm not going to sweat it. Just hope others come along eventually and comment. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:16, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

As you see, at least 5 people (including you) participate in the conversation and the subject has been discussed before. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

5 people including me participated in this discussion? Okay. And your point being what exactly? Equazcion •✗/C • 14:43, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

This was an answer to the "no one really watches" this talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:27, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I just found this discussion because I assumed the template had support for uncat and it didn't, so I came here to look it up. I must say that, despite some unnecessary aggressiveness on his part, I agree with Equazcion - it's another article issue and I don't see why placing it in the bottom would make things better. Just my 2 cents. Waldir ^talk 08:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Big & ugly

The coding is too long and complex for me to make any headway here, so would it be possible for someone who's better at this than me to slim this thing down a little? Perhaps some whitespace could be removed, some text size reduced, line-height, etc? I appreciate the intention here, but posting even one issue with this template produces a box the size of two normal maintenance tags. There's just so much empty space. Thanks if anyone can give this some attention. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:43, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I moved the footer text to the top, into the same line as the heading. This saves a great deal of empty space. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:58, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Think I made some good headway. Here's how it was before:

and now:

Equazcion •✗/C • 19:09, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well, I prefer the first version. It is easier to be read. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how, since aside from repositioning some text, the only real change that would have anything to do with readability is text size -- which was increased, not decreased. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:01, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I can't explain it exactly. :) But the first box motivates me to read all the lines and in the second my eyes skip the first line because it's long and has 3 bold key-words. I won't revert your edits unless more people agree with me. I am just stating my opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No it makes perfect sense -- it'd be great if every notice could be placed in a box as large as possible, that'll make them attract more attention, but we have to keep in mind the cost vs. benefit of space to noticeability. The old version wasted a lot of space (and was an eyesore, not only in my opinion). Equazcion •✗/C • 00:23, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the old version as well. Anthony Rupert (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I really think the old version was much too big, and I've seen other people complain about this as well, at articles where it's posted. I placed an RfC in this section to get more input. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:12, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

PS I don't see why there should be any dispute here. No other tag contains a tiny footer that extends the box and creates extra unused space. There's no reason this one should be any different. I understand that the box has gone unchanged for so long that people are simply used to it the old way, but try to think about the actual merits. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:30, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

What about something like this?

I think it addresses both issues. --Waldir ^talk 09:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that Equazcion had already made the change he proposed. I am surprised that noone reverted, since from this discussion it seemed there wasn't much support to his proposal... --Waldir ^talk 12:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember that the editor went and made the change. For some reason I forgot to revert. I agree with your version + add a link to the talk page. I suggest you go and change it back. Since the article has mutpliple issues it's implied that it should be edited! No reason for big letters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but before editing the template I'll wait for more people to comment here. That way instead of two moves (revert, then change) we can make only one. --Waldir ^talk 13:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got no objection. It's all the same to me, honestly.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting {{Review}}

It would be great if someone could add that; I'm not good enough with templates! Thanks for all your useful work on this, Drum guy (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Anthony Rupert (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Errors (bugs) in "expert" and "expertsubject" tags

The tags "expert" and "expertsubject" do not work as described. Using "expertsubject = Biology" renders:

Using "expert = April 2008" renders:

The "expert" tag actually works as "expertsubject" is supposed to:

Please correct the template or correct the description on the template page.

-Pgan002 (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What are supposed to be the correct texts? If I just interchange Expert with Expertsubject are we ok? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Expertsubject is not working for me, see Jack of all trades, master of none. "expertsubject=Literature" does not yield either the required {{Expert-subject}} text or an error message. Any help appreciated. Skomorokh 06:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Any chance someone will take a close look at this? Gracias, Skomorokh 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't have special parameters. I think someone could fix it by omitting the date parameter and using the special ones but I think it's complicated. Better treat Expertsubject alone and not in Articleissues. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Skomorokh 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Request {{do-attempt}}

Hi, I'm new to template editing so I'm a little wary of trying to do this myself. Could someone please add a {{do-attempt}} option to this template? Otherwise I'm going to have to keep adding it as a separate template. Thanks! --Aervanath's signature is boring 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference of this template and {{orphan}} ? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Orphan}} just states that the article has very few or no incoming links. {{Do-attempt}} additionally says that someone tried to de-orphan it unsuccessfully.--Aervanath's signature is boring 23:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Further explanation: {{do-attempt}} has two parameters: "date" (when it was originally tagged as orphaned) and "att" (the date when the de-orphaning was attempted). Thanks for your help!--Aervanath's signature is boring 05:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not compatible with this template. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

 Won't fix per Stifle -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Managed a work-around which let me integrate it. Good opportunity to learn WP:ParserFunctions--Aervanath's signature is boring 15:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

{{rewrite}}

• Is this even necessary to have in this template? I mean, if an article has so many problems that it needs a rewrite, what else needs to be said? Anthony Rupert (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it needs rewrite because it's confusing. Usually rewrite refers to the content. Orphan, deadend, etc. are different issues. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with "roughtranslation"

When I enter eg. {{Articleissues | roughtranslation = May 2008 | wikify = May 2008 }}

at roughtranslation there is text "Tagged since Error: invalid time" instead of "Tagged since May 2008}}

Why? Can someone fix it?

Kubek15 ^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 10:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed Fixed that and onesource as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

parameter: expert=topicname

What is the syntax to recruit experts from multiple WikiProjects? For example, for an article on diet: "This article is in need of attention from an expert. WikiProject Food and Drink or WikiProject Medicine may be able to recruit one."

69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling error in Unenclyclopedic entry

Spelling in message displayed - 'contains' should be 'contain'.

Seajay (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed Magioladitis (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

need nocats=

Would someone familiar with this template please add support for {{nocats}}? Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 Won't fix Template reads "Please place this template at the bottom (not the top) of the page, where readers will look for the categories". Articleissues is to be placed on the top. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

ah. ok. On another note... Might it be possible to rephrase "This article or section has multiple issues" such that having only one issue (e.g. when others are resolved) does not leave an "odd" message? Thx. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is a single issue. Just replace the template with the proper template. ;) -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, this isn't the first time someone's requested that {{uncat}} be included in this template. Is it really crucial that it go at the bottom, instead of at the top? The articles that are tagged with uncat are almost always stubs, so usually what you get is articleissues at the top, with four or so issues, and then one paragraph, and then uncat at the bottom, which, to me, looks really strange. I would've already put it in if I hadn't noticed the debate at the {{uncategorized}}, above. I note that Waldir has just added his two cents there, supporting the inclusion of uncat into articleissues as well.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is always better to give specific instructions to editors for how they do something and where they should edit. Fro the same reason if the problem is in a specific section, it's better to place a tag there and not on the top. I am thinking of creating a multiple issues tag for the bottom of an article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as the specific instructions go, we can add this: "<small>Please add categories to the bottom of this article.</small>"

What do you mean by a "multiple section tag"?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues. I fixed it above. We can create another tag for the tags that have to go to the bottom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. How many tags are there like that? I only know of uncat. Also, some ppl put unref at the bottom.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Unrer "should be placed at the top of an article" (from its manual). We need do some research. I won't be online this week, so next week I'll check that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to inform the editors I don't agree with the addition of nocats in the template by Aervanath the week I have informed I won't be online with "no consensus so the editors decide" excuse. Where the tag for no categories is placed is not a consensus for articleissues but for the original template itself. I would like more editors to express their opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted nofootnotes and uncategorized because if editors start adding this tags it will be very difficult to revert. I checked and someone already asked in Template talk:Uncategorized if the use of it in Articleissues would be a good idea. Sorry Aervanath but I disagree and I see many problems caused by the addition you did. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

{{prophecy}}

I added this issue yesterday, but it was reverted for the following reason:

Prophecy is used only by one article! Let's keep things simple

Huh? Do you mean the separate {{prophecy}} template is used in one article, or that it's only used in one article via this template? If it's the latter, well, sure it's not used in too many articles yet, because I just added it! Anthony Rupert (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked the "What links here" and I found only one article. Not via Articleissues but as a separate template. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• In that case, I apologize. Maybe we should nominate that template for deletion then? Anthony Rupert (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think yes. If you do, I'll support you. It seems this template is rarely used. The only article using it, it was prodded for deletion! :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Anthony Rupert (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation style

{{editprotected}} {{citationstyle}} is a redirect to {{citation style}}. Please revise Template:Articleissues to directly use {{citation style}}. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This template does not transclude the normal cleanup templates. If you are asking for the parameter name to be changed, that cannot be done. --- RockMFR 18:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Travel guide

{{editprotected}}

Pretty much every article which uses {{travel guide}} has multiple issues.

 Prose

-->{{DatedAI
| name       = {{{travelguide|}}}
| message    = * It is written like a '''travel guide'''.
| cat-date   = Cleanup from
}}<!--

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The above fixed:

 Travelguide

-->{{DatedAI
| name       = {{{travelguide|}}}
| message    = * It is written like a [[WP:NOT#TRAVEL|travel guide]] and may require [[WP:CU|cleanup]].
| cat-date   = Wikipedia articles needing style editing
| cat-undate   = Wikipedia articles needing style editing from
| cat          = All articles needing style editing
}}<!--

-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, yeah, use this one. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Added; I also changed a few WP: shortcuts to their full titles while I was at it. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can we get travel guide bolded to fit with other issues too? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Done.  Sandstein  21:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dates in Template:Articleissues/doc/Fulltext

The page Template:Articleissues/doc/Fulltext shows up in each of the categories involved, particularly Category:Dead-end pages from March 2008 where it is the last remaining item in the category, keeping the category from being deleted. Is it okay to change all the dates in Template:Articleissues/doc/Fulltext to July 2008? Or should Category:Dead-end pages from March 2008 get deleted even though it isn't "empty"? Or will that category stick around forever, with just a single item in it? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The category can be deleted, even though there is technically an article in it. However, it is certainly possible to change all the dates in Fulltext to July 2008, if you like. Be bold!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Now all dates are "July 2008" :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Grammar

{{editprotected}} Please add {{Grammar}} to this template. Thank you.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Now I'm off to update the documentation. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 00:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Full protection

Is full protection really necessary? In the logs, I noticed it was raised from semi after a single instance of vandalism. Otherwise, vandalism has been virtually nonexistent since semiprotection started. Why isn't semiprotection good enough? Is this page being targeted by a persistent vandal or banned user I don't know about? While this template is used on almost 5000 articles, that doesn't even put it in the top 500 most used templates. I was planning substantial improvements in the display text of this template, so that each entry harmonizes better with the current wording of the individual templates. If the community decides that full protection is indeed necessary, I can write up the wikicode, and post it for an administrator to add. szyslak (t) 04:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I rechecked the special page I linked to above, Special:MostLinkedTemplates. This template is number 837 on the list. szyslak (t) 04:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You can request un-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that. I just wanted to see what this page's regular editors think before I send it through that backlogged process. szyslak (t) 06:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I would also like to see it unprotected, for the reason that I also would like to make edits to it. There are still a lot of templates that this article doesn't include. However, at just over 5,000 transclusions, this is a high-risk target (admittedly one of many, as you pointed out). So there are arguments on both sides. I support dropping to semi-protected for now, but if the vandalism happens again, I would have to support re-upping the level.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should restore full protection if semi proves insufficient in the future. As for whether this template is inherently "high-risk" enough for semiprotection, I think that's a discussion for another time and another talk page. (I might bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy sometime in the future.) I plan on waiting a few days for any further discussion before I send it to WP:RFPP. Of course, anyone else is welcome to do so anytime. szyslak (t) 23:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting travel guide

I would like to request {{travel guide}} be added to this template. --papageno (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)