Template talk:Multiple issues/Archive 1

message: If any of the individual templates get changed, someone would have to notice to make the corresponding change here. Some of them are not worded very well, so I've reworded at both places in order to be consistent. Some of them are worded so similarly that I'm not sure we should have a corresponding parameter here for each of them. Should we come up with a more compact list here, or go for a free-for-all? –Pomte 03:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintainability and scope 

message: Should we create a category for articles with this template, that is, articles with three or more problems so that articles with a lot of problems are grouped together? -- kenb215 talk 04:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Articleissues works well enough. The template already puts articles into multiple categories with long names, and I don't think one will make the situation better. –Pomte 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues category 

message: With my mediocre template skills, I would like to not have to be the one to do this, but what does everyone think about adding notability as one of the params in here?danielfolsom 03:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you condense it into one or two sentences that make the "deletion is imminent" message clear? –Pomte 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, as far as I'm aware of the  tag isn't about deletion...danielfolsom 11:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: As kind of stated above, I don't think it really works. I'd rather have all of the issues kept seperate as that makes it clearer to the editor on instant sight exactly what is wrong with the article.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually disagree - I think an editor can easily read all the issues on the template - in fact if your looking at just the code it's actually easier. But I really have no problem with either way - personally I use this if there are 3 or more templates needed, and I usually do singular templates if it's less - but you aren't thinking of nominating this for deletion are you?--danielfolsom 18:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I just found out about this template. It makes the article much more presentable to the reader. Compare  with . MahangaTalk 01:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree - and I too just stumbled upon it one day. However - I would almost suggest getting rid of the orange color that happens if you have certain things marked (like OR), I think that's a bit  too attention grabbing, but then again I'm probably in the minority opinion --danielfolsom 01:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting template but... 

message: * I was just at Jews in apostasy and tried to add  to this template, it is not set up for it.  Can you add it to the list?  Jeepday (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some editors have attempted to add , but at least one editor is dead-set against it, on the grounds that it's redundant to . It's not.  is about the use of inline sources, as opposed to sources found only in a "references" or "external links" section.  is for general sourcing issues, as opposed to  which is used for completely unsourced pages. I'll re-add. Anyone arguing against its inclusion should discuss here on the talk page. szyslak 02:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you get your reasoning for Citations missing being only about the use of inline sources? From the template: "This article is missing citations and/or footnotes." Unreferenced is for articles with no references what so ever, and citations missing is for articles with a few unsourced statements. You talk like I'm in a big minority with this thing - "Some editors have attempted" - according to the history - two, one of which was an ip address, the other was you. --danielfolsom 04:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think another editor tried to add it too, in addition to the request from Jeepday, who first brought up this issue on the talk page. {Citations missing} specifically mentions inline sources, while {refimprove} and the others don't. Do you not understand the difference between "citations and/or footnotes" and "references and sources" (as seen in  and {refimprove})? More importantly, however, I don't see how having parameters with overlapping purposes does any harm to this template. Should we remove all sourcing-related templates besides one or two? Is there such a thing as "too many options" on this template? Both {refimprove} and {Citations missing} are in wide use. If you truly think {refimprove} is redundant to {Citations missing}, I suggest nominating it for deletion instead of trying to keep it out of {articleissues}. szyslak 07:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cluttered code would be the reason to not have multipe templates that serve the same purpose. And in this case the difference is so small that it's not worth it. I mean the templates even link to the same page! --danielfolsom 13:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What templates link to the same page? Jeepday (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates we've been talking about ... links are the blue ones! ...--danielfolsom 13:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, given it's populartity I'll yield to you on this one, however I am woried that this will only lead to people adding more useless or redundant templates (which per history has been done before). And Citations and references are really the same - footnotes are inline, citations are not neccesarily.--danielfolsom 13:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They do not go to the same page.   has never redirected to  History Template:Refimprove and neither has the reverese been true History Template:Citations_missing.  To the best of my knowledge the merge and redirect has never even been proposed. As szyslak pointed out they are completely different.  You may be thinking of  which is similar to  but is still different. Jeepday (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again - links are the blue ones - they link to the same page. This shouldn't need explaining.--danielfolsom 14:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I ask you again, please name the links that you say are going to the same page. The templates  and  DO NOT go to the same page and they are the only linked templates in this section. Jeepday (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wow, ok, see I'm not going to degrade you THAT much, go to each of the templates - and click on the links. A link takes a page from one to another.--danielfolsom 14:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually that wasn't my main argument - and actually most of the links are based on waht page it was on - the only reason I kept going on about that is because for some reason you didn't understand what a link was. Either way though - read through the arguments and you'll notice that I said that citations and references are the same - only footnotes are inline, but because of the popularity I won't revert the template's addition - "LOL" (obnoxious much?) --danielfolsom 15:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand what a link is, I did not understand which links you were referring to. Jeepday (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright fair enough.--danielfolsom 16:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The point is we don't want to be redundant --danielfolsom 15:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add template

message: On the issue of "cluttered code", brought up by Danielfolsom: I think the template's code is laid out in a way that avoids visual cluttering, with the spaces and separate lines formed within  tags. As long as we continue keeping the code well-organized, I don't see a problem with "too many" options. To those of you with extensive knowledge of the technical aspects of templates: Does a larger number of optional parameters cause a drain on the servers? With what I know, I tend to doubt it. So basically, the code in this template can be as long as we want it to be. However, if anyone's up to the task I wonder if we should alphabetize the parameters, if that wouldn't cause problems with its usage or require extensive editing of pages where this template is used. szyslak 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is we don't want to be redundant --danielfolsom 15:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template length and "cluttered code"

message: No matter what I enter as input, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, or WP:MIL - it does not come up on the article.  What am I doing wrong?  --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 03:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on your contributions I've assumed you have fixed this.--danielfolsom 03:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yepp, I figured it out just after posting the above question.  I had to omitt the "Wikipedia:WikiProject" part.  Thanks for your quick answer anyway.  --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 03:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with "Expert needed" option 

message: Two quick problems: 1. "state = uncollapsed" now appears to be non-functional; and 2. the description of the default state of the template is no longer accurate, and needs to be updated to reflect the recent compromise.  Thanks, Bradford44 16:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template debugging

message: I think I've lost what we're talking about. It appears to me that there's consensus that the template should by default be uncollapsed, and the discussion is over whether the template should now be collapsible at all. I would actually say we shouldn't have it collapse at all - this would be the first mainspace template to have that ability - and I think that, again, the aesthetic aspects shouldn't override content issues - and no editor should have the ability to make them override content issues, so having a parameter that does just that is insane to me. And besides - isn't that almost inviting an edit war, I mean as stated above I'm not the only one that thinks that they shouldn't be collapsed - and then there are a few editors (although seemingly far less) that think it should be. I honestly think the best solution is to go back to the way it was before all this.--danielfolsom 21:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your objection to having it autocollapsed, but I don't understand why you are objecting to having it collapsible at all. Why should we force a reader to look at the issues if they don't want to see them? --Android Mouse 21:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because other templates don't have a "hide" function. The same reason we don't put the cleanup templates on the talk page.--danielfolsom 23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Break

message: Here's a quick implementation for the scrollbox idea. Thoughts? --Android Mouse 21:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice!  I'd say increase the horizontal size by maybe 10-20%, and double the vertical size; with that, I'd love it. Iknowyourider (t c) 21:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might like it better if the scrollbox had room for more than 1.5 issues.--Fabrictramp 21:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I increased the vertical and horizantal size. It should now display about 3 issues before needing to scroll. --Android Mouse 21:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I just changed it up a lot, but I think I still like how this template was before more than the proposed - the scroll box just clutters it up and makes it difficult to tell which is which.--danielfolsom 00:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That may be a good compromise. The scrollbar is a more obvious device than a "show" link. My only question is: what about browser compatibility? does it degrade gracefully or not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works fine in Firefox 2, Opera 9 and IE7. Could anyone with IE6 installed test? --Android Mouse 00:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm checking a bunch of browsers - including Safari, Flock , Firefox, IE5 and IE7, Konquerer and more, but it'll take about 20 minutes....--danielfolsom 00:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: crap - catastrophe happened - my computer shut down in the middle, so I can't say for sure but I think that they work on linux browser's. Alright, I got to be off--danielfolsom 01:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And, it seems to be broken again. Check out Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. I'm only seeing one of the three issues being properly displayed. Gangsta rap is not displaying POV. Third World is missing OR. And that's just the first three I randomly checked. 24.6.65.83 01:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: POV, OR and a few others got deleted somehow in the process. It's fixed now. --Android Mouse 02:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also OK, but is there any way to make the scrollbar encompass the entire template, and then disappear when collapsed? east.718 at 14:11, August 13, 2007
The scrollbox causes problems when printing articles. Kariteh 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Bump. Kariteh 08:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does it cause the page to look like? I don't have a printer so can't check myself. --Android Mouse 08:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it looks exactly the same, and it's precisely the problem: you can't scroll the template box on paper. Kariteh 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The scroll box was/is a compromise to hiding/showing the refs, sadly I believe you may be the only one against it - there's a consensus for the scroll box.--danielfolsom 10:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm against it too. Scrollboxes are awkward and non-useful; there are many people who print articles, and scrollboxes can't be scrolled on paper. Kariteh 11:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment stands - support is needed to change it back as when it was changed there was a consensus.--danielfolsom 14:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of taste, the scrollbox is simply unusable because it's uncompatible with printing. Kariteh 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean a solution won't be found. I'm sure it's somehow possible to make the template conditional and not have it display in a scrollbox if displaying the print page. --Android Mouse 18:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've thought about the scroll box for a few days now, and I'm firmly against it, too, for both aesthetic and printing reasons. --Fabrictramp 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment stands - it appears Android mouse, Iknowyourider, BenB4 and jossi are for the scroll box, and hisspaceresearch,  Kariteh and Fabrictramp are against (I'm neutral per above) - that's not a consensus to change it back (as no objections were raised during the change - consensus was there).--danielfolsom 15:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you link to where that concensus is? I'm not doubting you, I'm just not finding it and I'd like to see the reasoning. Maybe there's something I'm missing about this. --Fabrictramp 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was on this page-  we all discussed it, and the only two people to present objections (myself and jossi) later either went neutral (myself) or supported it (jossi), the decision was made at the beginning of the scroll box heading (the debate started at: Please stop messing .... (heading))--danielfolsom 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On re-reading that section, I still don't see that a scroll box was what was being debated -- it's possible others may have felt the same and so, like me, didn't comment on the scroll box issue. (In fact, when I left my comment in that section, there was no scroll box in the template).--Fabrictramp 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry if I didn't make it clear - I was referring to my comment in the "Please stop messing .... (heading))" that you refered me to (saying that's where the debate occurred). The scroll box did not exist then. --Fabrictramp 13:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Although I was in favor of collapsibility and the scroll box originally, after all this debate, I feel pretty much the same way — I'm happy with the status quo, but I wouldn't object to going back to non-collapsible, non-scrolling.  ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 15:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously, I don't think it really has been discussed -- widespread support was declared four hours after it was proposed. However, it's a bit moot. I just randomly clicked on a dozen articles that use the template, and none of them had a scroll box, presumably because they didn't have enough issues to merit one. (But that's also an argument against the scroll box -- very few articles will have enough issues to have a big, ungainly "article issues" box in the article.) At any rate, if a discussion does take place, please put it in a clearly labeled section of its own so people will know what's being discussed. --Fabrictramp 22:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this one: Scroll Box--danielfolsom 13:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scroll box