![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 |
{{ editprotected}}
- Please do not subst: this template.
- The following code is the recommended use; it will produce the uncategorized template with an appropriate date as its parameter:
{{subst:dated|uncategorized}}
It says no to subst it then the next example shows it. Peachey88 03:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
With the revamping of our templates, I think it's time to revisit the placement of this template. It was usually placed at the bottom, were categories are; but shouldn't we now aim to put it at the top, where it can stack with other templates, and where 99% of users expect them to be?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The title line should be bold to match other article templates. In a similar vein, it also makes sense to add to the date parameter so it has (MONTH YEAR) at the end of the "Please categorize this article to list it with similar articles." text. I'm not sure how to go about implementing this into the current template and since it is currently protected, it is kind of a pain to test it out... regardless it doesn't seem like it is a terribly hard change and I'm sure you can re-use code from other templates that are out there...
Paul
C/
T
+ 15:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the correct code:
| text = '''This {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:-0}}=article|Category=category|Image=image|Template=template|page}} is [[Wikipedia:Categorization|uncategorized]].'''<br /><small>Please [[Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ#How do I add an article to a category?|categorize]] this {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:-0}}=article|Category=category|Image=image|Template=template|page}} to list it with similar {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:-0}}=articles|Category=categories|Image=images|Template=templates|Wikipedia=project pages|pages}}. {{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''|}}</small>
Paul C/ T + 15:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone object to this template being added to Template:Articleissues? There seems to be some concern there that such an addition might garner some objection, since uncat is supposed to be placed at the bottom of an article, while the articleissues template is always placed at the top. Would this actually be a problem for anyone? Thanks for your input. Equazcion •✗/ C • 00:43, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Uncategorized should be placed at the bottom and Articleissues on the top. It is better to give specific instructions to editors in order to help them improve the article. Having uncat at the end serves this purpose. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 00:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
What about articles that have at least one category, but clearly need more? Is there any template for them? Richard001 ( talk) 01:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any serious objection to putting this at the top? I guess if the article doesn't have any other issues, then there's really no pressing reason to have it at the top. However, when there are other issues, it seems illogical not to include this in with the others when consolidating them with the {{ articleissues}} template, even though articleissues does go at the top, not the bottom. Any comments?-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please add af:Sjabloon:Ongekategoriseerd. Thanks! -- Eivind ( t) 05:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
other template ( Template:Uncategorized template) has the same way of using as this one, i guess this template should be used for articles not templates -- Osm agha ( talk) 13:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, allow me to be perfectly blunt: I hate this tag. Adding a category to an article only takes a few seconds, it seems to me it would be better in 95% of cases to just do that instead of adding the tag. However, I'm guessing I won't find a lot of support for just doing away with it and asking editors to just add a category themselves, so I have another idea. What if this template was changed to a category in it's own right : "uncategorized articles". This would avoid clutter on the page for what is really a relatively minor problem, and persons wanting to add cats can just go to the category's page and take their pick. What do you think? Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I've made some tweaks to the template styling in the new sandbox to match the proposals at WT:TC#Standardisation of template styling. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
If an article includes an article issue template (e.g. {{ wikify}}, {{ COI}}, {{ deadend}} ) etc, should one add systematically {{ uncategorized}} if there is no category other than the ones in these templates? -- User:Docu
to be listed on the category needed page. Can someone fix it so it isn't there anymore? Postcard Cathy ( talk) 12:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Should this template be added to articles which already have a sorted stubtype? These all assign categories, which have parent categories within the general tree of categories, so the article is categorised by being given a sorted stubtype. PamD ( talk) 08:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw an example today where a vandal had wiped the references and categories from an article, and a bot came along shortly afterwards and added this tag. Someone then recategorised the article, eventually an unreferenced tag was added, gradually some references were added, and it ended up taking months to edit the article back to where it had been, where a simple revert would have sufficed.
There isn't very much we can do to prevent unfortunate situations like that. However it does seem to me that this template was written with brand new articles in mind, and the wording—"The template has not been added to any categories—doesn't apply well to the situation where an article has been decategorised by a vandal. Would it be possible to reword it so as to encourage the good people who follow along behind the bots to check the edit history before proceeding with categorisation?
Hesperian 00:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
please place this template in the WikiProject Categories. Mephiston999 ( talk) 12:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
So it's been a while since this was discussed. With tagging tools like Twinkle and Friendly now available as gadgets, the use of automated tagging has gotten very common; those tools always add cleanup tags to the top of the page, and have the ability to clump them into a {{ multiple issues}} tag where appropriate. Adding tags at the bottom of the page might have been common once, but more often than not I see historically bottom-dwelling tags like {{ nofootnotes}} and {{ uncategorized}} at the top of pages now; I think this really should be the default for all cleanup tags at this point. As such, I'm thinking of removing the suggestion that this belongs on the bottom, and then proposing it be added to {{ multiple issues}} for use by the gadget taggers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you of a community discussion regarding a bot proposal. The bot would automatically tag new articles with matinence tags, such as this template. More details can be found at the proposal. Thank you, Ⓢock 16:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I've located a small problem that occurs when this template is placed on a category page. As shown by this revision of Category:Joint Venture Schools, when this template is placed on a category page, this template says:
"This category has not been added to any categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar categorys."
This should instead say "categories". I believe the problem stems from using a {{ pagetype}} template followed directly by an S. Can someone please make it so that it automatically corrects for this when it's on a category page? This page may be helpful. Thanks. -- vgmddg ( look | talk | do) 21:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an iner-editor communication which does not give any useful information to the causal reader of an article, so this information should be placed on the talk page, as they are there for precisely such editor to editor communications.
Further as most stubs are in a category adding it to stubs is wrong as they are already in a category. -- PBS ( talk) 21:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
{{Uncategorized}}
be replaced by a bot?The article states that {{Uncat}}
will be replaced by a BOT. But since
Template:Uncat redirects to
Template:Uncategorized, will {{Uncategorized}}
also be replaced? —
Kri (
talk) 11:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Evidently we have four templates that tag articles (and some other pages) for categorization problems. I revised section See also thus:
Offhand I think all of the templates in the second column should be deleted leaving WP:TMC alone. -- P64 ( talk) 18:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone have this so it is like the {{ category improve}} template, so it has categories by month and year. That way to cut down on the amount of articles in the parent category of Category:Uncategorized pages. So they can be easier to find, and help clear backlog quicker. -- Clarkcj12 ( talk) 18:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
One of the most overused templates. I understand if a bot is adding this, but otherwise skip this step and just add a category. Consider the "touch it once” principle – less touches means more efficiency. This template turns one touch (add category) into two touches or more (add template, add categories, remove template). Jack N. Stock ( talk) 18:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per a recent discussion at
Talk:Main Page, please add the following text to the beginning of this template: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Main Page||
in the second line after the comment. You will also need to add }}
on the second-to-last line after </includeonly>
. The purpose of this edit is to prevent this template from doing anything when accidentally added to the main page by scripts. —
Compassionate727 (
T·
C) 14:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 |
{{ editprotected}}
- Please do not subst: this template.
- The following code is the recommended use; it will produce the uncategorized template with an appropriate date as its parameter:
{{subst:dated|uncategorized}}
It says no to subst it then the next example shows it. Peachey88 03:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
With the revamping of our templates, I think it's time to revisit the placement of this template. It was usually placed at the bottom, were categories are; but shouldn't we now aim to put it at the top, where it can stack with other templates, and where 99% of users expect them to be?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The title line should be bold to match other article templates. In a similar vein, it also makes sense to add to the date parameter so it has (MONTH YEAR) at the end of the "Please categorize this article to list it with similar articles." text. I'm not sure how to go about implementing this into the current template and since it is currently protected, it is kind of a pain to test it out... regardless it doesn't seem like it is a terribly hard change and I'm sure you can re-use code from other templates that are out there...
Paul
C/
T
+ 15:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the correct code:
| text = '''This {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:-0}}=article|Category=category|Image=image|Template=template|page}} is [[Wikipedia:Categorization|uncategorized]].'''<br /><small>Please [[Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ#How do I add an article to a category?|categorize]] this {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:-0}}=article|Category=category|Image=image|Template=template|page}} to list it with similar {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:-0}}=articles|Category=categories|Image=images|Template=templates|Wikipedia=project pages|pages}}. {{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''|}}</small>
Paul C/ T + 15:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone object to this template being added to Template:Articleissues? There seems to be some concern there that such an addition might garner some objection, since uncat is supposed to be placed at the bottom of an article, while the articleissues template is always placed at the top. Would this actually be a problem for anyone? Thanks for your input. Equazcion •✗/ C • 00:43, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Uncategorized should be placed at the bottom and Articleissues on the top. It is better to give specific instructions to editors in order to help them improve the article. Having uncat at the end serves this purpose. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 00:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
What about articles that have at least one category, but clearly need more? Is there any template for them? Richard001 ( talk) 01:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any serious objection to putting this at the top? I guess if the article doesn't have any other issues, then there's really no pressing reason to have it at the top. However, when there are other issues, it seems illogical not to include this in with the others when consolidating them with the {{ articleissues}} template, even though articleissues does go at the top, not the bottom. Any comments?-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please add af:Sjabloon:Ongekategoriseerd. Thanks! -- Eivind ( t) 05:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
other template ( Template:Uncategorized template) has the same way of using as this one, i guess this template should be used for articles not templates -- Osm agha ( talk) 13:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, allow me to be perfectly blunt: I hate this tag. Adding a category to an article only takes a few seconds, it seems to me it would be better in 95% of cases to just do that instead of adding the tag. However, I'm guessing I won't find a lot of support for just doing away with it and asking editors to just add a category themselves, so I have another idea. What if this template was changed to a category in it's own right : "uncategorized articles". This would avoid clutter on the page for what is really a relatively minor problem, and persons wanting to add cats can just go to the category's page and take their pick. What do you think? Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I've made some tweaks to the template styling in the new sandbox to match the proposals at WT:TC#Standardisation of template styling. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
If an article includes an article issue template (e.g. {{ wikify}}, {{ COI}}, {{ deadend}} ) etc, should one add systematically {{ uncategorized}} if there is no category other than the ones in these templates? -- User:Docu
to be listed on the category needed page. Can someone fix it so it isn't there anymore? Postcard Cathy ( talk) 12:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Should this template be added to articles which already have a sorted stubtype? These all assign categories, which have parent categories within the general tree of categories, so the article is categorised by being given a sorted stubtype. PamD ( talk) 08:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw an example today where a vandal had wiped the references and categories from an article, and a bot came along shortly afterwards and added this tag. Someone then recategorised the article, eventually an unreferenced tag was added, gradually some references were added, and it ended up taking months to edit the article back to where it had been, where a simple revert would have sufficed.
There isn't very much we can do to prevent unfortunate situations like that. However it does seem to me that this template was written with brand new articles in mind, and the wording—"The template has not been added to any categories—doesn't apply well to the situation where an article has been decategorised by a vandal. Would it be possible to reword it so as to encourage the good people who follow along behind the bots to check the edit history before proceeding with categorisation?
Hesperian 00:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
please place this template in the WikiProject Categories. Mephiston999 ( talk) 12:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
So it's been a while since this was discussed. With tagging tools like Twinkle and Friendly now available as gadgets, the use of automated tagging has gotten very common; those tools always add cleanup tags to the top of the page, and have the ability to clump them into a {{ multiple issues}} tag where appropriate. Adding tags at the bottom of the page might have been common once, but more often than not I see historically bottom-dwelling tags like {{ nofootnotes}} and {{ uncategorized}} at the top of pages now; I think this really should be the default for all cleanup tags at this point. As such, I'm thinking of removing the suggestion that this belongs on the bottom, and then proposing it be added to {{ multiple issues}} for use by the gadget taggers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you of a community discussion regarding a bot proposal. The bot would automatically tag new articles with matinence tags, such as this template. More details can be found at the proposal. Thank you, Ⓢock 16:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I've located a small problem that occurs when this template is placed on a category page. As shown by this revision of Category:Joint Venture Schools, when this template is placed on a category page, this template says:
"This category has not been added to any categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar categorys."
This should instead say "categories". I believe the problem stems from using a {{ pagetype}} template followed directly by an S. Can someone please make it so that it automatically corrects for this when it's on a category page? This page may be helpful. Thanks. -- vgmddg ( look | talk | do) 21:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an iner-editor communication which does not give any useful information to the causal reader of an article, so this information should be placed on the talk page, as they are there for precisely such editor to editor communications.
Further as most stubs are in a category adding it to stubs is wrong as they are already in a category. -- PBS ( talk) 21:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
{{Uncategorized}}
be replaced by a bot?The article states that {{Uncat}}
will be replaced by a BOT. But since
Template:Uncat redirects to
Template:Uncategorized, will {{Uncategorized}}
also be replaced? —
Kri (
talk) 11:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Evidently we have four templates that tag articles (and some other pages) for categorization problems. I revised section See also thus:
Offhand I think all of the templates in the second column should be deleted leaving WP:TMC alone. -- P64 ( talk) 18:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone have this so it is like the {{ category improve}} template, so it has categories by month and year. That way to cut down on the amount of articles in the parent category of Category:Uncategorized pages. So they can be easier to find, and help clear backlog quicker. -- Clarkcj12 ( talk) 18:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
One of the most overused templates. I understand if a bot is adding this, but otherwise skip this step and just add a category. Consider the "touch it once” principle – less touches means more efficiency. This template turns one touch (add category) into two touches or more (add template, add categories, remove template). Jack N. Stock ( talk) 18:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per a recent discussion at
Talk:Main Page, please add the following text to the beginning of this template: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Main Page||
in the second line after the comment. You will also need to add }}
on the second-to-last line after </includeonly>
. The purpose of this edit is to prevent this template from doing anything when accidentally added to the main page by scripts. —
Compassionate727 (
T·
C) 14:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |