![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
When you use the Multiple Issues template with the Copyedit tag, it says grammer instead of grammar. I do believe grammar is the correct spelling? On the standalone tag itself, it doesn't seem to have this problem. kikichugirl inquire 21:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Merge from sandbox to make the list of issues collapsible. Default is expanded, can be overridden with collapsed=yes
. What's sparked it:
[1]. Inspiration: {{
Expand language}}.
Lfdder (
talk)
16:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
{{
Expand Spanish}}
was in positional parameter 2 - I removed the pipe which separated that from {{
context}}
; (ii) when {{
Expand Spanish}}
is used in template space, it displays documentation, which must be suppressed by using |nodoc=yes
; (iii) nested subtemplates which recognise the |demospace=
paramater (such as {{
Expand Spanish}}
but not {{
context}}
) should have that set to |demospace=main
when being used for demo/test purposes. I
made the appropriate amendments, and the only problem that I now see is a stray bullet emitted by {{
Expand Spanish}}
- but again, that happens for both live and sandbox. Therefore, Can I request a colon after "Issues"? DoctorKubla ( talk) 21:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Guys - WP:BOLD is all very well, but I would have liked to have the opprtunity to comment on this request before it was implemented (22 minutes - must be a record!) That said I support the initative but I am not keen on the extra line "Issues:" which this adds to every instance of the template. I've been working on an improvement in the sandbox, and invite comment on that. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
multiple issues}}
but in one of the subtemplates of {{
Expand Spanish}}
(the stray bullet is somewhere inside {{
hidden}}
, I think that it's associated with the </div>
</div>
or the {{#if:}}
immediately following those); but {{
Expand Spanish}}
and similar templates are not intended to be wrapped in {{
multiple issues}}
. Take it out of the testcases, and the stray bullet will disappear. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)I think I understand why the Talk link for this tage only links to the whole of the Talk page rather than to a specific section of it, but this is furstrating. I have used the tag for articles, identifying several issues, but by using the Multiple Issues tag anyone looking for the discussion on the Talk page that refers to it would be frustrated, for instance is there are many sections on the Talk page and/or if sections are added to the Talk page after the section that relates to the tag. Is there any way this could be changed to allow the Talk link to be anchored to a specifc section of the Talk page as happens with other Talk page links? LookingGlass ( talk) 10:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Multiple issues has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Here is the edit screen. In some browsers the hide
link is just off the right edge of the box. This can be fixed by decreasing the width in the following line of code:
|text = <table class="collapsible {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|collapsed}}" style="width:100%; background:transparent;">
A suggested decrease can be found in the sandbox and visualized on the testcases page. Either the sandbox can be copied/pasted to the live page, or the width can be decreased as follows:
|text = <table class="collapsible {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|collapsed}}" style="width:95%; background:transparent;">
Thank you in advance for your consideration! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 13:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! I spent some time working on a Lua rewrite of {{
Multiple issues}}
yesterday, which can now be seen at
Module:Multiple issues (with testcases at
Template:Multiple issues/testcases lua). It's still a work in progress, and I've only been writing Lua for a few days, so any and all feedback is welcome (maybe there are more efficient ways to do things? or weird Lua quirks I'm missing? or a way to avoid having to use pcall(), which just feels ugly?). Thanks in advance!
Theopolisme (
talk)
01:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
multiple issues}}
into a form which is much more difficult to maintain for very little performance gain. I don't see anything above about advantages of a Lua version (other than "looks better than the original", which is subjective). --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
multiple issues}}
, if used per the present documentation, has exactly one parameter, being an unsorted collection of templates. It is not even a list, but a string: the only mandatory delimiters between the templates are the }}
which closes one template and the {{
which opens the next (newlines between the templates are recommended, but definitely optional), which are not part of the {{
multiple issues}}
syntax. Are you saying that Lua can take this string, split it up into individual templates, and sort these into some other order? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
00:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Mr. Stradivarius: Could you shed some light on why this was listed originally? Theopolisme ( talk) 23:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
|section=
parameter each time
Template:Multiple issues/message is called, but in Lua that can be done just once. Also, all the calls to
Template:Multiple issues/message can be reduced down to a table of data and a for loop. This means the module uses less code - after removing comments, it is already 2000 characters shorter than the template. That said, if we can finally fix all the transclusions to use the new system and get rid of the deprecated parameter code, a standard template is probably better. Also, Redrose, I didn't find Theo's code difficult to understand at all. I can appreciate that it will be hard to understand if you don't know any Lua, but on the other hand you shouldn't underestimate the amount of time and effort that you have put into learning template code. To someone new to both Lua and template coding, the Lua and the template versions might not appear so different in difficulty. —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
01:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
{{{1}}}
or {{{section|}}}
- or even their obvious equivalents like name.1
or name.section
but must instead analyse how something called name.args
is processed; and that processing might happen in a different module without there being any indication of that. Consider {{
cite book}}
: that has dozens of parameters, and invokes
Module:Citation/CS1, but I simply cannot see how that module processes a single parameter. I can see that there are two variables frame.args
and pframe.args
- one of these is the "real" .args
(presumably containing arguments as delimited name/value pairs) - but which one? Let's say that I'm interested in what has happened to a commonly-used parameter, like |title=A Book
- I can see that there is a variable data.Title
but how does the data get from frame.args
or pframe.args
(whichever) into data.Title
, how does data.Title
get put into the output stream, and what happens to it along the way? I look for it in
Module:Citation/CS1/Arguments and the only uses of title
are six times on four lines: I can work out that it's a local variable, of type string, and that it can be either "Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox"
or "Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox"
. What have the names of two sandbox modules got to do with the title of a book? I find that there is
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist, where there are no variables with title
in their identifiers. I see a string of value 'title', in the enigmatic line ['title'] = true,
but that doesn't help either.FYI - my bot request was denied. GoingBatty ( talk) 00:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It's been quite a while since the Multiple issues template was modified to take full templates instead of parameters (e.g. using {{
orphan}} instead of |orphan=
). Is it time to convert all the old style parameters to the new format, and then remove the deprecated functionality from the template? (This would also allow the AWB developers to remove code on their side.) If so, would it be possible to create a temporary tracking category that would show all the articles that still user the deprecated parameters, so we could convert them to the full templates? (Note that I'm looking for consensus before using the {{
edit protected}} template.) Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk)
05:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
@ MSGJ: would it be possible to re-enable the tracking category so editors can target those pages and make the change to {{ multiple issues}} alongside other non-cosmetic changes? @ Magioladitis: I might have missed something in one of the discussions but why is this not included in AWBs general fixes? Jamesmcmahon0 ( talk) 08:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, what's the point in a multiple problems template if it's longer than nearly as long as just listing the multiple problems? But it makes sense if it defaults collapsed though.
So I think it should default to collapsed, if the people are interested in helping or want to know what specifically are the problems, they can always expand it to find out.
And if it needs to be expanded in a particular article you can always set |expanded=false, but that doesn't seem to be the most sensible default.
Comments? GliderMaven ( talk) 00:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
multiple issues}}
always display less text when wrapped than when not wrapped, and they also display a bullet instead of the image. Consider {{
unreferenced}}
: if this is not wrapped, it shows "This article does not
cite any
references or sources. Please help improve this article by
adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and
removed." plus a date. But if wrapped, it shows only the first sentence and the date, see
Template:Multiple issues/testcases#One issue. Generally speaking, when there are three or more cleanup templates, wrapping them in {{
multiple issues}}
will always reduce the total height; for two cleanup templates, it may reduce or it may increase; for a single cleanup template, height is always increased by wrapping - but there's no point in wrapping if there's just one, since this template is called "multiple issues", not "single issue". --
Redrose64 (
talk)
11:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
unreferenced}}
have been set up to show less text when they're wrapped in {{
multiple issues}}
. I occasionally see templates that have their complete text inside multiple issues, and tweak the template code accordingly.
GoingBatty (
talk)
19:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC){{
Ambox}}
smaller before. Neither is gonna happen. —
Lfdder (
talk)
02:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)For the sake of argument, I've uploaded an example screenshot from the laptop I'm currently running on. The font size and general layout was just what it happened to be at the time:
The issue I have with it is that just two issues are taking up 8 horizontal lines of screen real estate, and the article text is actually only taking up 4. It's notable that the article has been tagged for over 3 years with one of the issues and 2 years with the other; so the tag is clearly not working particularly well.
It seems to me that 'multiple issues' are being given undue weight in screen real estate here; 8 lines for 2 issues is much, much too much. Collapsing it helps a great deal, that's down by half to 4 lines. I think even that is a bit too much, but I could live with 3 or 4 lines; 8 is obscene. GliderMaven ( talk) 04:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
Multiple issues}}
, not eight: the first item of text wraps once; the first issue doesn't wrap at all, and the second issue wraps twice; but it shouldn't be wrapping that often. There's something about your setup that's putting a large white area to the right of
the infobox. This white area is probably the full height of the page, since the {{
Multiple issues}}
seems to be centred between the left sidebar and an upward projection of the right-hand edge of the infobox, which compresses it sideways, causing the extra wrapping.{{
Multiple issues}}
, which is centred between the left sidebar and the right scrollbar. This extra width allows the first item of text and the first issue to fit on one line each; the second issue wraps onto a second line (between "subject" and "as") and so the whole box takes up less height - four lines of text in total. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
12:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC){{
Multiple issues}}
on
Business cycle is 86px high; if {{
Refimprove|date=June 2010}}
and {{
Undue|date=January 2011}}
are not so wrapped, they're each 52px high for a total of 114px. Therefore, {{
Multiple issues}}
reduces the space occupied by these notices by 28px. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
15:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)So I am trying to use the Multiple Issues tag in to hopefully consolidate the multiple tags scattered in the Graphene article over different sections due to over-zealous drive-by tagging. Such drive-by tagging is why many of the issues in the article have gone on unresolved and the quality of article has deteriorated to C rank since its nomination in 2011. However I need help, because I am not sure how to use this "|section=y" command. Could one of the experts of wikipedia help me? Physics16 ( talk) 00:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
|section=y
when one section of an article has more than one maintenance template, such as
Boomerang#Throwing technique. While the
Graphene article has several maintenance templates, I don't see any section that has more than one, so I don't think using {{
Multiple issues}} would be appropriate. Happy editing!
GoingBatty (
talk)
03:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I am a long-time fan of the template for articles, but after using it on a section of puppet state earlier, think it may be a little more efficient and intuitive for the 'section' parameter to work simply on presence, like with {{ refimprove}}. Since it's always the penultimate parameter (and the templates are always templates and the ultimate parameter), I imagine it should be relatively straightforward. So essentially the used template for sections would be {{multiple issues | section | [templates]}} rather than {{multiple issues | section=y | [templates]}}. — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 11:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
{{multiple issues|section=y|{{refimprove}}}}
parameters |section=
and |1=
are used. In {{multiple issues|section|{{refimprove}}}}
"section" is not |section=
, but |1=section
, and {{refimprove}}
is content of |2=
, not |1=
, so this change is not as straight forward as it may seem. It can be easily implemented with a couple of simple checks, but that would mandate the use of
parser functions, which are expensive in terms of performance. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
14:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
{{multiple issues|section=y|{{refimprove}}}}
and {{multiple issues|{{refimprove}}|section=y}}
are exactly equivalent - since |section=y
is a named parameter, its position is irrelevant. It therefore need not be the penultimate parameter - it works just as well as the ultimate parameter. By contrast, the list of templates must currently be placed in the first positional parameter, which may or may not be the ultimate parameter. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
|section=
could also be included empty on the documentation, and copy/pasted into an article so that "y" can be inserted. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
19:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Multiple issues has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi there, I am the Managing Editor in the Marketing and Advancement department at Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia. I have been given the task of updating the University's entry ( Victoria_University,_Australia). Someone has added a list of 'issues' at the top of the entry, and I want to delete this list as part of the copy update but do not know how. Any guidance would be much appreciated. Below is the 'issues' copy I would like to delete:
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2013) This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. (November 2013) This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (November 2013)
Thank you
140.159.2.245 ( talk) 08:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
Multiple issues}}
. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. The article's talk page is
Talk:Victoria University, Australia.{{Multiple issues |one source = November 2013 |refimprove = November 2013 |advert = November 2013}}
This template should be moved/renamed to something similar to "There are problems with this page", for reasons of clarity and common sense. To highlight but one aspect of the growing use of the word issues to refer to what used to be called problems, it degrades the word's unique meaning, which Merriam-Webster defines simply as "something that people are talking about, thinking about, etc.: an important subject or topic". [1] For instance, "The economy", "The weather", and "What is up with Donald Trump's hair?" can all be issues, and we do not have another word that expresses the same meaning quite so well; to dilute its meaning for the sake of euphemism merely obliges us to find another word to replace it. According to Wikipedia's five pillars, the site exists to "characterize information and issues"; therefore, to say that a given page "has issues" is somewhat meaningless.
The sense of issue as "a point to be decided", such as the issue of whether to wear a yellow shirt or a blue shirt, for example, dates from the early 1800s. [2] In this usual sense, not all issues imply that there are deficiencies or things in need of remediation. But this Wikipedia template does identify a need for improvements to a page, not just a general discussion or a selection between equally valid alternatives. In this context, the word problems is the most concise and unambiguous term.
There seems to be a growing belief that to simply call something a problem somehow evinces negativity, which is itself viewed as a problem. Issue is therefore often selected as a less offensive term. However, this is to place a subjective judgement or feeling ahead of clarity of meaning; in this context, "issues" is simply a euphemism and does not enhance the reader's understanding.
Coconutporkpie ( talk) 02:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: page not moved Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 04:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Multiple issues →
Template:Multiple problems –
This template refers specifically to 'problems'. The word 'issues', on the other hand, very often refers to matters that are not 'problems' at all. Using 'issues' as a euphemism for 'problems' is a relatively recent phenomenon, especially in the United States, and has the potential to cause confusion or annoyance, particularly for foreign readers (see here, for example). Whilst the word 'issue' sometimes works for some people, we should use the term that is clear and unambiguous to all. 86.170.130.156 ( talk) 03:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
When you use the Multiple Issues template with the Copyedit tag, it says grammer instead of grammar. I do believe grammar is the correct spelling? On the standalone tag itself, it doesn't seem to have this problem. kikichugirl inquire 21:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Merge from sandbox to make the list of issues collapsible. Default is expanded, can be overridden with collapsed=yes
. What's sparked it:
[1]. Inspiration: {{
Expand language}}.
Lfdder (
talk)
16:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
{{
Expand Spanish}}
was in positional parameter 2 - I removed the pipe which separated that from {{
context}}
; (ii) when {{
Expand Spanish}}
is used in template space, it displays documentation, which must be suppressed by using |nodoc=yes
; (iii) nested subtemplates which recognise the |demospace=
paramater (such as {{
Expand Spanish}}
but not {{
context}}
) should have that set to |demospace=main
when being used for demo/test purposes. I
made the appropriate amendments, and the only problem that I now see is a stray bullet emitted by {{
Expand Spanish}}
- but again, that happens for both live and sandbox. Therefore, Can I request a colon after "Issues"? DoctorKubla ( talk) 21:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Guys - WP:BOLD is all very well, but I would have liked to have the opprtunity to comment on this request before it was implemented (22 minutes - must be a record!) That said I support the initative but I am not keen on the extra line "Issues:" which this adds to every instance of the template. I've been working on an improvement in the sandbox, and invite comment on that. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
multiple issues}}
but in one of the subtemplates of {{
Expand Spanish}}
(the stray bullet is somewhere inside {{
hidden}}
, I think that it's associated with the </div>
</div>
or the {{#if:}}
immediately following those); but {{
Expand Spanish}}
and similar templates are not intended to be wrapped in {{
multiple issues}}
. Take it out of the testcases, and the stray bullet will disappear. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)I think I understand why the Talk link for this tage only links to the whole of the Talk page rather than to a specific section of it, but this is furstrating. I have used the tag for articles, identifying several issues, but by using the Multiple Issues tag anyone looking for the discussion on the Talk page that refers to it would be frustrated, for instance is there are many sections on the Talk page and/or if sections are added to the Talk page after the section that relates to the tag. Is there any way this could be changed to allow the Talk link to be anchored to a specifc section of the Talk page as happens with other Talk page links? LookingGlass ( talk) 10:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Multiple issues has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Here is the edit screen. In some browsers the hide
link is just off the right edge of the box. This can be fixed by decreasing the width in the following line of code:
|text = <table class="collapsible {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|collapsed}}" style="width:100%; background:transparent;">
A suggested decrease can be found in the sandbox and visualized on the testcases page. Either the sandbox can be copied/pasted to the live page, or the width can be decreased as follows:
|text = <table class="collapsible {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|collapsed}}" style="width:95%; background:transparent;">
Thank you in advance for your consideration! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 13:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! I spent some time working on a Lua rewrite of {{
Multiple issues}}
yesterday, which can now be seen at
Module:Multiple issues (with testcases at
Template:Multiple issues/testcases lua). It's still a work in progress, and I've only been writing Lua for a few days, so any and all feedback is welcome (maybe there are more efficient ways to do things? or weird Lua quirks I'm missing? or a way to avoid having to use pcall(), which just feels ugly?). Thanks in advance!
Theopolisme (
talk)
01:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
multiple issues}}
into a form which is much more difficult to maintain for very little performance gain. I don't see anything above about advantages of a Lua version (other than "looks better than the original", which is subjective). --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
multiple issues}}
, if used per the present documentation, has exactly one parameter, being an unsorted collection of templates. It is not even a list, but a string: the only mandatory delimiters between the templates are the }}
which closes one template and the {{
which opens the next (newlines between the templates are recommended, but definitely optional), which are not part of the {{
multiple issues}}
syntax. Are you saying that Lua can take this string, split it up into individual templates, and sort these into some other order? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
00:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Mr. Stradivarius: Could you shed some light on why this was listed originally? Theopolisme ( talk) 23:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
|section=
parameter each time
Template:Multiple issues/message is called, but in Lua that can be done just once. Also, all the calls to
Template:Multiple issues/message can be reduced down to a table of data and a for loop. This means the module uses less code - after removing comments, it is already 2000 characters shorter than the template. That said, if we can finally fix all the transclusions to use the new system and get rid of the deprecated parameter code, a standard template is probably better. Also, Redrose, I didn't find Theo's code difficult to understand at all. I can appreciate that it will be hard to understand if you don't know any Lua, but on the other hand you shouldn't underestimate the amount of time and effort that you have put into learning template code. To someone new to both Lua and template coding, the Lua and the template versions might not appear so different in difficulty. —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
01:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
{{{1}}}
or {{{section|}}}
- or even their obvious equivalents like name.1
or name.section
but must instead analyse how something called name.args
is processed; and that processing might happen in a different module without there being any indication of that. Consider {{
cite book}}
: that has dozens of parameters, and invokes
Module:Citation/CS1, but I simply cannot see how that module processes a single parameter. I can see that there are two variables frame.args
and pframe.args
- one of these is the "real" .args
(presumably containing arguments as delimited name/value pairs) - but which one? Let's say that I'm interested in what has happened to a commonly-used parameter, like |title=A Book
- I can see that there is a variable data.Title
but how does the data get from frame.args
or pframe.args
(whichever) into data.Title
, how does data.Title
get put into the output stream, and what happens to it along the way? I look for it in
Module:Citation/CS1/Arguments and the only uses of title
are six times on four lines: I can work out that it's a local variable, of type string, and that it can be either "Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox"
or "Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox"
. What have the names of two sandbox modules got to do with the title of a book? I find that there is
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist, where there are no variables with title
in their identifiers. I see a string of value 'title', in the enigmatic line ['title'] = true,
but that doesn't help either.FYI - my bot request was denied. GoingBatty ( talk) 00:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It's been quite a while since the Multiple issues template was modified to take full templates instead of parameters (e.g. using {{
orphan}} instead of |orphan=
). Is it time to convert all the old style parameters to the new format, and then remove the deprecated functionality from the template? (This would also allow the AWB developers to remove code on their side.) If so, would it be possible to create a temporary tracking category that would show all the articles that still user the deprecated parameters, so we could convert them to the full templates? (Note that I'm looking for consensus before using the {{
edit protected}} template.) Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk)
05:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
@ MSGJ: would it be possible to re-enable the tracking category so editors can target those pages and make the change to {{ multiple issues}} alongside other non-cosmetic changes? @ Magioladitis: I might have missed something in one of the discussions but why is this not included in AWBs general fixes? Jamesmcmahon0 ( talk) 08:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, what's the point in a multiple problems template if it's longer than nearly as long as just listing the multiple problems? But it makes sense if it defaults collapsed though.
So I think it should default to collapsed, if the people are interested in helping or want to know what specifically are the problems, they can always expand it to find out.
And if it needs to be expanded in a particular article you can always set |expanded=false, but that doesn't seem to be the most sensible default.
Comments? GliderMaven ( talk) 00:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
multiple issues}}
always display less text when wrapped than when not wrapped, and they also display a bullet instead of the image. Consider {{
unreferenced}}
: if this is not wrapped, it shows "This article does not
cite any
references or sources. Please help improve this article by
adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and
removed." plus a date. But if wrapped, it shows only the first sentence and the date, see
Template:Multiple issues/testcases#One issue. Generally speaking, when there are three or more cleanup templates, wrapping them in {{
multiple issues}}
will always reduce the total height; for two cleanup templates, it may reduce or it may increase; for a single cleanup template, height is always increased by wrapping - but there's no point in wrapping if there's just one, since this template is called "multiple issues", not "single issue". --
Redrose64 (
talk)
11:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
unreferenced}}
have been set up to show less text when they're wrapped in {{
multiple issues}}
. I occasionally see templates that have their complete text inside multiple issues, and tweak the template code accordingly.
GoingBatty (
talk)
19:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC){{
Ambox}}
smaller before. Neither is gonna happen. —
Lfdder (
talk)
02:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)For the sake of argument, I've uploaded an example screenshot from the laptop I'm currently running on. The font size and general layout was just what it happened to be at the time:
The issue I have with it is that just two issues are taking up 8 horizontal lines of screen real estate, and the article text is actually only taking up 4. It's notable that the article has been tagged for over 3 years with one of the issues and 2 years with the other; so the tag is clearly not working particularly well.
It seems to me that 'multiple issues' are being given undue weight in screen real estate here; 8 lines for 2 issues is much, much too much. Collapsing it helps a great deal, that's down by half to 4 lines. I think even that is a bit too much, but I could live with 3 or 4 lines; 8 is obscene. GliderMaven ( talk) 04:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
Multiple issues}}
, not eight: the first item of text wraps once; the first issue doesn't wrap at all, and the second issue wraps twice; but it shouldn't be wrapping that often. There's something about your setup that's putting a large white area to the right of
the infobox. This white area is probably the full height of the page, since the {{
Multiple issues}}
seems to be centred between the left sidebar and an upward projection of the right-hand edge of the infobox, which compresses it sideways, causing the extra wrapping.{{
Multiple issues}}
, which is centred between the left sidebar and the right scrollbar. This extra width allows the first item of text and the first issue to fit on one line each; the second issue wraps onto a second line (between "subject" and "as") and so the whole box takes up less height - four lines of text in total. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
12:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC){{
Multiple issues}}
on
Business cycle is 86px high; if {{
Refimprove|date=June 2010}}
and {{
Undue|date=January 2011}}
are not so wrapped, they're each 52px high for a total of 114px. Therefore, {{
Multiple issues}}
reduces the space occupied by these notices by 28px. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
15:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)So I am trying to use the Multiple Issues tag in to hopefully consolidate the multiple tags scattered in the Graphene article over different sections due to over-zealous drive-by tagging. Such drive-by tagging is why many of the issues in the article have gone on unresolved and the quality of article has deteriorated to C rank since its nomination in 2011. However I need help, because I am not sure how to use this "|section=y" command. Could one of the experts of wikipedia help me? Physics16 ( talk) 00:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
|section=y
when one section of an article has more than one maintenance template, such as
Boomerang#Throwing technique. While the
Graphene article has several maintenance templates, I don't see any section that has more than one, so I don't think using {{
Multiple issues}} would be appropriate. Happy editing!
GoingBatty (
talk)
03:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I am a long-time fan of the template for articles, but after using it on a section of puppet state earlier, think it may be a little more efficient and intuitive for the 'section' parameter to work simply on presence, like with {{ refimprove}}. Since it's always the penultimate parameter (and the templates are always templates and the ultimate parameter), I imagine it should be relatively straightforward. So essentially the used template for sections would be {{multiple issues | section | [templates]}} rather than {{multiple issues | section=y | [templates]}}. — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 11:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
{{multiple issues|section=y|{{refimprove}}}}
parameters |section=
and |1=
are used. In {{multiple issues|section|{{refimprove}}}}
"section" is not |section=
, but |1=section
, and {{refimprove}}
is content of |2=
, not |1=
, so this change is not as straight forward as it may seem. It can be easily implemented with a couple of simple checks, but that would mandate the use of
parser functions, which are expensive in terms of performance. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
14:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
{{multiple issues|section=y|{{refimprove}}}}
and {{multiple issues|{{refimprove}}|section=y}}
are exactly equivalent - since |section=y
is a named parameter, its position is irrelevant. It therefore need not be the penultimate parameter - it works just as well as the ultimate parameter. By contrast, the list of templates must currently be placed in the first positional parameter, which may or may not be the ultimate parameter. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
|section=
could also be included empty on the documentation, and copy/pasted into an article so that "y" can be inserted. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
19:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Multiple issues has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi there, I am the Managing Editor in the Marketing and Advancement department at Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia. I have been given the task of updating the University's entry ( Victoria_University,_Australia). Someone has added a list of 'issues' at the top of the entry, and I want to delete this list as part of the copy update but do not know how. Any guidance would be much appreciated. Below is the 'issues' copy I would like to delete:
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2013) This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. (November 2013) This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (November 2013)
Thank you
140.159.2.245 ( talk) 08:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
Multiple issues}}
. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. The article's talk page is
Talk:Victoria University, Australia.{{Multiple issues |one source = November 2013 |refimprove = November 2013 |advert = November 2013}}
This template should be moved/renamed to something similar to "There are problems with this page", for reasons of clarity and common sense. To highlight but one aspect of the growing use of the word issues to refer to what used to be called problems, it degrades the word's unique meaning, which Merriam-Webster defines simply as "something that people are talking about, thinking about, etc.: an important subject or topic". [1] For instance, "The economy", "The weather", and "What is up with Donald Trump's hair?" can all be issues, and we do not have another word that expresses the same meaning quite so well; to dilute its meaning for the sake of euphemism merely obliges us to find another word to replace it. According to Wikipedia's five pillars, the site exists to "characterize information and issues"; therefore, to say that a given page "has issues" is somewhat meaningless.
The sense of issue as "a point to be decided", such as the issue of whether to wear a yellow shirt or a blue shirt, for example, dates from the early 1800s. [2] In this usual sense, not all issues imply that there are deficiencies or things in need of remediation. But this Wikipedia template does identify a need for improvements to a page, not just a general discussion or a selection between equally valid alternatives. In this context, the word problems is the most concise and unambiguous term.
There seems to be a growing belief that to simply call something a problem somehow evinces negativity, which is itself viewed as a problem. Issue is therefore often selected as a less offensive term. However, this is to place a subjective judgement or feeling ahead of clarity of meaning; in this context, "issues" is simply a euphemism and does not enhance the reader's understanding.
Coconutporkpie ( talk) 02:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: page not moved Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 04:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Multiple issues →
Template:Multiple problems –
This template refers specifically to 'problems'. The word 'issues', on the other hand, very often refers to matters that are not 'problems' at all. Using 'issues' as a euphemism for 'problems' is a relatively recent phenomenon, especially in the United States, and has the potential to cause confusion or annoyance, particularly for foreign readers (see here, for example). Whilst the word 'issue' sometimes works for some people, we should use the term that is clear and unambiguous to all. 86.170.130.156 ( talk) 03:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)