Template talk:Expert needed

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

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 
:I'm not seeing this problem. Perhaps you could reproduce it on /testcases page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Please remove the period after <nowiki>{{{reason}}}</nowiki> 

message: 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.
* Where, exactly, is expert-talk supposed to go?
* How, exactly, are you to link it to the main expert-subject template?
* What, if any, parameters are truly mandatory? (Currently, way hidden in the main body of text, it states that if no reason is given, the template can be removed. MAKE THIS WAY MORE VISIBLE. Thanks.)
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)
thread_title:  Please improve the help instructions 

message: 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  isn't added. Otherwise it's hard to see what the issue is. – czar 23:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye. This was essentially required as a condition that the template survive WP:TFD to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandatory reason 

message: * The template cited Wikipedia:WikiProject Expert Request Sorting as the responsible project. It's been inactive since 2009 and, unless any participants object, will be tagged as defunct.
::I guess they intended to sort the requests. No sorting in 7 years makes fore a pretty cruddy backlog.
* The template is used by WP:Twinkle. A test edit shows it uses neither , nor . Since Twinkle is likely to be the source of most uses of this template, it's necessary to fix Twinkle first. A request has been submitted. Bazj (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This sounds good. I still agree with what I said above but I understand the dilemma of giving 4k+ articles a red error message. Please ping me again if discussion culminates in any sort of RfC/!vote. czar 00:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow up

message: 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)
replies: text: This post is partly incorrect. Discussion is continuing on my talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Air21

message: When the subject is a place, the resulting text reads incorrectly, e.g: "This article needs attention from an expert in India." It sounds as if the expert must be located in that place. Should "in" be changed to "on"? 109.149.185.65 (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording funny 

message: Since this page is protected and I'm nominating it for discussion, I need an admin or a template editor to put a  template at the top. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 19:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Izno (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion template 

message: with Asian Project and IPA. RCNesland (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Associate 

message: So is there any proof that use of this template actually gets anything done? I've seen uses dating back to 2008 that have gone completely unanswered. FoxTrot used to have it for several years, without response from anyone anywhere despite multiple alerts. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use 

message: Expert needed on t30 heavy tank
Also needed on t71 light tank
Thanks :) 174.60.116.143 (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: needed on tank articles

message: added an extra line of space to the top of the template, which is visible on mobile, e.g. at Uti possidetis. Please remove it. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Izno (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Hairy Dude (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacing 

message: Hi,
It would be great if we could edit the "talk page" parameter to make it go directly to one heading on the talk page. Recently I copyedited Machine olfaction and, in order to hopefully encourage an expert to help by reducing their need to scroll through irrelevant material, put all the issues into one heading on the talk page. However adding the heading to the template didn't do anyting, the template still linked to the (top of the) talk page. It would be great if it could go to a section of the talk page. Thanks in advance.--Philologia (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Like this? Reading the template's documentation is usually a good place to start. -- Cabayi (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the fix. I actually did read most of the documentation before using the template, but there was so much material that was irrelevant to my needs to be read before it got to the information I needed that my brain was overloaded by that time, I'm afraid.--Philologia (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to relevant talk page section 

message: When Expert needed line is wrapped with Multiple issues template the WP sentence is missing. For example: Abuja Gateway Consortium article. Missing the WikiProject Nigeria may be able to help recruit an expert. words.
Wondering if there is a different way of coding to make this work? Or template needs correction?
Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved template outside of MI so that the WP links appear. If no response, I will raise this issue at VP Technical. JoeHebda (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing WikiProject sentence 

message: I recently decapitalised (1, 2) the topics in the "WikiProject" parameters in quite a few occurrences, because "an expert in Statistics" is clearly not correct spelling (and the template re-capitalises the word in links and categories anyway). However, there is a problem in subprojects/work groups: 3, 4. The main project can be written with a lower-case letter without problems, but what comes after the slash is capitalised in the page name of the work group, but shouldn't be capitalised in the text of the template.  I can think of two ways to resolve this: Either create redirects from the lower-case spelling or create an optional separate parameter for the name of the WikiProject, in case it is different from what should be displayed. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: Is there a way to fix this template and make its presence more prominent to alert users who might actually be experts in the field, or should it just be deprecated? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , you pose a really good question, but I'm not sure starting right off with an Rfc, is procedurally the best way to deal with it; see WP:RFCBEFORE.  Just normal discussion, or even nominating it for deletion might be better. I'll be lurking and watching, because I'd like to see how you go forward with this, and what others say. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, the template has already been nominated for deletion two times, see the links in the header of the talk page. As far as the "reason" field is concerned, I have found it used in an article I have linked in the section above (#Capitalisation): Wakeby distribution. I'm not sure how helpfully it's used there either though. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thinking it might be useful, I've attempted to use it a few times, with a both a reason and discussion on the talk page, but I fear I was wasting my time. One of the instances you deleted earlier today (at Henry Eccles) does have a very good reason posted to the talk page, but it's not been addressed since 2011. At least in its present form I can't see that this template has any utility. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:     You bring up good points that do suggest that this template doesn't help at all. The reason I didn't want to TFD it is because I've tried to nominate  in the past for similar reasons (incessant drive-by tagging, unused "reason" fields, redundancy to more specific templates) but it keeps getting closed as keep. I will keep this discussion open a while longer to see if more people chime in before I decide whether or not to go to TFD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this template do any good? 

message: Template:Expert needed has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Izno (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request to complete TfD nomination 

message: Revolutions of 1989 has weird formatting and text issues regarding spacing and bolding, any explanations? -  || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Bizarre. I think it was that there were line breaks and spaces at the end of the parameter. That really shouldn't happen, though. Someone wiser than I might do well to look at the old version. jp×g 08:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, formatting  and ' tags reset after a line break. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting problems 

message: I wanted to report that after the February discussion, the Physics WikiProject decided to proceed with a very successful spring cleaning session.
Spring cleaning in numbers: on April 3, 2021, we had in total 245 articles in the expert-needed category (+ subcategories). On April 15, 2021, there were only 49 articles and all of them had a reason parameter. We had 15 articles PROD'ed, 3 articles AfD'ed, and 3 articles speedy deleted. In conclusion: 19 articles were deleted, 16 articles were transformed into redirects, and 1 article was widely expanded. --SimoneD89 (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Outstanding! I'm glad sorting out those templates wasn't a total waste of time. jp×g 17:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Special thanks go to all people involved in the cleaning for their efforts and dedication. I hope the results of the cleaning session will encourage other WikiProjects to start looking at the expert-needed categories (17% of the 196 revised articles were wiped/deleted). : only 36 articles left :). --SimoneD89 (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring Cleaning of the {{Cl|Physics articles needing expert attention|physics expert-needed category}} 

message: The last TfD deprecated the use of this tag without a rationale. Should we create a tracking category :Category:Articles using Template:Expert needed without a rationale for this issue? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: nvm, we already have this. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to handle unexplained tags 

message: The expert subject categories need a rehash. Recommendations:
# Start a CfD for all empty categories in :Category:All expert subject categories.
# Replace all tags combining two different subjects in one subject parameter, and start a CfD regarding these categories.
# Clean up overly narrow topics such as :Category:Blu-ray articles needing expert attention, which will be CfD'd shortly.
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert subject categorie 

message: The recent TfD for this template ended with consensus that the template should never be used without a reason or talk parameter. The talk parameter creates a useful link to the talk page. However, when this template appears within , the link to the talk page disappears. I think this should be fixed so that a talk page link always shows up, but I have no idea how I would fix that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . Tested positive on testcases page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 19:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk links hidden 

message: Please replace the current code with the sandbox version, to address the issue raised above. Thanks. Dan of La Mancha (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . Tested positive on testcases page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 19:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: The documentation for  currently says:
That seems to imply that for non-urgent requests only  should be used, not both. But the documentation for  says:
 
So there seems to be a conflict between the two guidelines that should be resolved. Joriki (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict with documentation for {{tl|expert needed talk}}