Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Could the cleanup template {{local}} be added? --papageno (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The parameter importance seems to be duplicate of notable. Both add articles to Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability, both have similar messages and the table lists {{importance}}, that servers completely different purpose, as importance's stand-alone template. I think this parameter should be removed. Svick (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree but we have first to check if any articles that transclude Article issues use "importance" and replace it with "notable" -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I think the easiest way to do this is to add cat=Articles using article issues template with deprecated parameters (or some less awkward category name) to imporance's {{DatedAI}}. Svick (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Could some admin introduce the change mentioned in the last post above? Thanks. Svick (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be simpler just to get the template to treat importance the same as notability? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you're right, that would be better. Svick (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does my change look okay? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We want to discourage people to use importance, don't we? Otherwise there ll be many confusions of what importance does. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you're happy to do the work in replacing these, I can add the tracking category? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. I ll do the replacements afterward. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uses of article issues template with deprecated parameters. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. You don't really need to create the category. This will do the job. We just to wait some days for this category to be triggered. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed/removed 25 tags today. I am really disappointed of the quality if the tags. I had to fix more than just the importance one. An article with more than 10 references was tagged as unreferenced for 2 years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another 18 today. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though the parameter name was confusing, the texts generated were, in my opinion, quite clear: one parameter (notability) was for articles of dubious notability and the other (importance) was for articles with no claim to notability. The latter is relevant to the criteria for speedy deletion, so the distinction may be important.--Boson (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what do think we should do? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a name change to something like "Notability-unclaimed" and a separate category but, on reflection, I'm not that worried.--Boson (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We went through this before with Template:importance which used to produce a similar message. In the end nobody could come up with an alternative wording so it was redirected to Template:notability. Now the importance template is used for something else entirely. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I was surprised when I couldn't find a corresponding single template. Forget I said anything. --Boson (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did 200 replacements today (and 5 yesterday). -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No new entries since 8 February. We can remove the tracking category. Can someone do it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the default "This article or section" has to become "This article" and leave it optional to change to anything else. This is common practise nowadays. This will make "article=y" useless. Moreover, more tags are referring to the whole article anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Debresser (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Code needs further simplification. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While passive voice has its uses, very often I see it used to avoid being specific when details are unknown. I propose adding a passivevoice parameter to the {{Article issue}} tag for those cases when passive voice is improperly used or overused. Jojalozzo 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better create a template for that first. Article issues mainly summarises other templates. --Magioladitis (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jojalozzo 23:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Let's see how people while respond. No rush to add it in Article issues. We don't add templates with few transclusions. Otherwise, we should add all cleanup templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um... This discussion should be seen by all of you... --Jubilee♫clipman 10:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is on Tfd. I have worked on it a little and created the beginning of a documentation page. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template should be collapsible, because if there are many article issues then it's too big. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banners should be visible so editors come and fix them. It's the same reason we put them in the article and not in its talk page. --Magioladitis (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no parameter for unreliable sources? I guess it is (sort of) covered by primarysources.Stephen (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, because they are less than 150 transclusions? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any inherent reason why maintenance templates with relatively few transclusions can not be supported by this template. Of course, there should be broad consensus that a template is useful and appropriate. But apart from that, the number of uses may not be so important. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that {{Unreliablesources}} should be included. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to add {{uncategorized}} as an issue for this template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, but it has been discussed multiple times in the past so it would probably be worth reviewing the past discussions. The main issue seems to be that {{uncat}} is placed at the bottom of an article not the top. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]