Template talk:Issue

message: Given the name of the template, why don't we use it for all periodicals? It makes little sense to restrict something with such a general name merely to comics. --Adoniscik(t, c) 16:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repurpose 

message: Please replace the entire code of Template:Issue with Template:Issue/sandbox, which calls the more generic Template:Volume needed a.k.a. Template:Issue needed, and accounts for the special categorization needs of comics, and move the documentation to the /doc page where it belongs. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: PeterSymonds (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Where's the consensus for that change established? Hiding T  12:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the total lack of objection to the above (i.e. only other) thread on this page, the one asking for genericization, which makes eminent sense and has been met with no opposition in over 6 months. This template may be deployed widely (and often improperly, due to its contradictory documentation which partially suggestsed that it should be used on non-comics articles). But it has been superseded, and its talk page has been moribund for over half a year. Regardless, its actual deployed usage is unaffected in any way. Or, the really short answer to your question is: WP:BOLD. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We tend to centralise discussion in the comics project to the project talk page.  Since no-one else supported the comment up above either, it's kind of hard to use it to justify anything.  All I'm thinking is that we've got wide ingrained usage of the template across Wikipedia, and that maybe it requires a bit more thinking about and planning. Hiding T  09:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Obsoletion part 1

message: Someone with some time on their hands needs to do an AWB session that replaces all occurrences of  or  with , and all instances of {{issue| or {{Issue| with {{volume needed|c=y|
Then this template can simply be redirected to much more generic . If comics editors want a shortcut template they can use something like a  or  that uses the code presently at [Template:Issue/sandbox]], but they should not hold onto a clearly generic and non-comics template name of this obviousness. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I'm confused.  What's going on and what's being proposed? Hiding T  12:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: General cleanup, is the short answer. The longer one is already embedded in all of the above material. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Longer answer: Either a) the AWB run I proposed should be done (by me or someone else); or b1) one or another of the now-redlinked template names I suggested should be created and copy the code of this (now--modified) template should be put there and b2) a different AWB run should change all of this templates calls to that one. And, regardless, this template name should eventually redir to Template:Volume needed a.k.a. Template:Issue needed, because 1) 's genericization has been proposed with good reasoning and no opposition for quite some time, 2) it is good to consolidate template functionality as much as is practical, and 3) because of this template's only-just-now-fixed documentation self-contradictions, it has sown confusion, and improperly resulted in non-comics articles being categorized in a comics cleanup category. I didn't mention before that either of these AWB cleanup efforts will need to be handled with care, because of the non-comics fallout, which should use  proper, not a comics variant. PS: I'm pursuing this in the line of WP:ILT cleanup; I'm not a random passerby. Some thought went into this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm still getting confused.  If this template is just going to end up a redirect, then actually, that doesn't need to happen, does it? I think there's a real left hand/right hand situation here.  Talk me through it again in baby steps, because I'm going to have to sell this down the line. The awb stuff is secondary, I've got an awb bot account with permission to deprecate templates that can run that once we get the ramifications worked through, but right this second, I'm not sure of the ramifications, and how it affects the wide usage of the template. I'm not seeing the contradiction you assert existed, so I guess it's a phrasing issue rather than a direct contradiction. I don't dispute this isn't random passerby, but on the face of it, it actually looks like random passerby.  Someone suggested the idea six months ago, and nobody else agreed or disagreed, it's got close to three years of usage, it's going to need more discussion by all affected users than has happened.  I don't want to go the WP:BRD road this second, but that isn't an out of order path to take. From my end, it's looking like comics functionality is going to change. You're saying people will no longer be able to tag something with  and it will do what they expected, and what it was set up to do. And that was going to happen without them actually being consulted. That's a big change, and I'd say it likely does merit some consultation, and is going to take baby-steps to get implemented. As to WP:ILT cleanup, I'm not sure I see how that has any relevance. WikiProjects don't operate in isolation. Let's get on the same page here.  Has WP:ILT thought of dropping notes to other project talk pages introducing themselves?  I'd never heard of the project until now. I'm not outright objecting, because I get the value of what you are saying, but like I said above, there are potential ramifications that need to be thought about.  Standardisation is not always a good thing. So, after all that rambling, how will someone achieve the same functionality as they got typing ? I don;t think there's going to be much traction if they have to go c=y.  I base that on the confusion using the project banner causes. Hiding T  10:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Obsoletion part 2

message: Per above, I'm going to go through with WP:AWB and replace {{Issue with {{Volume needed|c=y then redirect  to . MClay1 (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprecating template