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)[reply]

Now that Magioladitis has fixed all of the articles in Category:Pages with multiple issues using deprecated parameters, is it time to remove the old code from this template? I recommend we could do the following:

• Subst: All pages in Talk, Template talk, User talk, Wikipedia (these are static and should never change)
• Fix: Any articles that have the old style added
• No actions: All pages in Draft, Template, User, Wikipedia talk (these are sandboxes that the owner should change)

What do you think? GoingBatty (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and am willing to help with substitutions and fixes. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 13, GoingBatty I think we can start. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle and Wikipedia talk:AWB to make them aware of this conversation. GoingBatty (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the code at Template:Multiple issues/sandbox to remove the old code, which you can see at Template:Multiple issues/testcases. GoingBatty (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Umm... Okay, but I'd like to see an intermediate state where there is a section that adds all pages using a deprecated parameter name to a maint cat like Category:Pages using deprecated Multiple Issues parameters. At least until the old uses are all cleaned up. GB, do you want to add that to the sandbox or do you want me to?  :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical 13: I agree that old uses have to be cleaned up (per my suggestion above) before the changes are made to the live template, and I'm willing to do that cleanup. Could you please help me understand the difference between the existing Category:Pages with multiple issues using deprecated parameters and your proposed Category:Pages using deprecated Multiple Issues parameters? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Other than the category pagename doesn't meet the standards for page name ("Multiple issues" is a cased noun), which although I don't care about, others apparently do based on a recent discussion I was in, that is a fine category for the purpose. What I'm wondering is how that category is populated though, because it is not evident in the template itself. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical 13: The category is populated via Template:Multiple issues/message, which I think could be sent to TfD after this cleanup. GoingBatty (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. I have no fault with that at this time. How will that be affected by cleaning out all the code that supports those parameters. I'm assuming based on what I've seen it will have no impact, but want to be sure. I'd wait on sending that to TfD or sending the category to CfD for at least six months to make sure there aren't any rogue tools that are still adding the parameters and there are no users trying to add the old parameters not knowing better (I'd imagine that users are less likely than a tool). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical 13: I agree there's value in waiting to do the TfD/CfD. However, since the sandbox code doesn't call Template:Multiple issues/message, the category wouldn't get populated anymore once my proposed change to Template:Multiple issues is made. GoingBatty (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GoingBatty I think for drafts, we can either convert to new style or send for MfD any STALEDRAFT that has not been edited for 3 or more years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: We can fix articles in the Draft namespace too. Has the Draft namespace has been around for more than three years? GoingBatty (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GoingBatty my mistake. The latter refers to sandboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to send them to MfD as STALEDRAFT. CSD:G13 says, This criterion applies to all WikiProject Articles for creation drafts in project space and project talk space, as well as userspace drafts and drafts in the Draft: namespace that are using the project's {{AFC submission}} template. Simply tag them for G13 if they already have a AfC banner or tag with {{AFC submission|t|ts= timestamp |u= page creator |ns=118}} and wait six months. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GoingBatty In many cases in the talk space, adding nowiki tags was OK. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tag can be removed from many talk pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: I removed the tags from a couple of article talk pages. Using nowiki tags instead of substing on article talk pages is OK with me. GoingBatty (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now we are down to 27. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: Thanks for all your work on this - sorry I wasn't much help. The Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia articles are protected so only admins can edit them. I edited a couple, and the rest look like tests of the templates to be left alone. Do you think we're ready to change the template now? GoingBatty (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Just one question - what is the purpose of the following code? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{{1|}}}|pattern=style="display: none"|replace=|count=}}

@MSGJ: That's the magic I added to hide the {{orphan}} template, when it's supposed to be hidden. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: Should that be documented in a comment in the template code, so future editors of this template don't accidentally remove it? GoingBatty (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a comment in the template's sandbox. To clarify, that line is using the Module:String replace function to replace the pattern style="display: none" with nothing (i.e. remove it). {{Orphan}} by default hides its message, but we always show it when it's sandwiched inside {{multiple issues}}, so that's the trick that brings it back. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 13, GoingBatty, MSGJ let's wait 7 days to check whether any new items will be added. For instance, this happened yesterday. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird but today I noticed 2 more items pop-up. Some server delay prevents us from showing all pages with deprecated parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not weird, but commonplace. This "server delay" is called the job queue, and it used to work just fine: if a template was altered in such a way that there was a change to categorisation of pages transcluding that template, the category would be fully up to date inside the day, often in an hour or two. But around about the time that VisualEditor went live for all users (mid 2013), the job queue software was altered and is no longer as thorough as it used to be. Sometimes it can be months before a cat is properly shaken out. If absolutely necessary, we could ask Joe Decker (talk · contribs) to send Joe's Null Bot (talk · contribs) off to carry out a WP:NULLEDIT on all of these pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64 I guess I could run my script against all pages transcluding the template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64 and GoingBatty: I ran my script against all pages transcluding MI. Approx. 40 pages fixed. there is a small chance that I may have missed some parameters not covered by my script but these would be really few. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that even if we remove the old style code we should keep the tracking category for some time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: Could you please update Template:Multiple issues/sandbox with a proposal for how to keep the tracking category? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: maybe you could help us with that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes, GoingBatty, and Redrose64: et al. I guess Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters will catch any problems i.e. we can now use the sandbox version. Right? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: I added an example of the old style code to Template:Multiple issues/testcases, and it didn't add Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters to the page. GoingBatty (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty and Magioladitis:, just significantly increased the sensitivity of the tracking category, feel free to revert if it causes a problem, but the new tracking will catch "anything" that isn't used in the sandbox version, including parameters that were never in the template (typos, parameter misspellings, ...). Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note that there are two tracking categories in the live version, Category:Pages with multiple issues using deprecated parameters (which is now enhanced) and Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters (which only checks for |2=). in the sandbox version, I merged these into Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters since the additional tracked parameters will be removed at that point (and not just deprecated). Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: Thanks for that update - there are now many pages in Category:Pages with multiple issues using deprecated parameters to be fixed. Any idea why they're not being sorted alphabetically? (e.g. Internet television is listed under "R") Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: Upon closer inspection, it appears that the category is sorting based on the incorrect parameter instead of the article title. (e.g. Internet television has an incorrect |reason= parameter.) GoingBatty (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it sorts by _VALUE_PAGENAME, so first by the parameter name, then by title. it's easy to change if you check the tracking code. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes, GoingBatty, Redrose64, and Technical 13: et al. Sandbox version is now live! Please check for any problems. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: Thanks for updating the template, and thanks to everyone for helping. Since the template no longer uses Category:Pages with multiple issues using deprecated parameters, can this category be sent to CfD? GoingBatty (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think G6 would cover it ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Tagged with {{db-g6}} - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Does this mean that any instances of it I can find I can make an edit for the sole purpose of fixing now since it is no longer just cosmetic? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical 13: Yes - they should now show up in Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters. I suspect that the category will continue to be populated as the template change works through the job queue. I'm finding several instances where the template needs to be fixed, and cleanup categories need to be recreated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia and an editor has added this to a page I have edited. How can I remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.75.224 (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See response at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 22#How to know if issues are resolved and the issue box can be taken down. GoingBatty (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template uses the collapsible class collapsing method; however, jQuery’s collapse method (mw-collapsible) is available since MW 1.20, which is always loaded, so everything should be changed at one time to the Common.js version can be removed and thus the page load to be speeded up. Also, the “new” method works also without tables so (in my opinion) it’ll be semantically correcter. So please change

<table class="collapsible  {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|collapsed}}" style="width:95%; background:transparent;">
<tr><th style="text-align:left; padding:0.2em 2px 0.2em 0;"> This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} has multiple issues. <span style="font-weight: normal;">Please help '''[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve it]''' or discuss these issues on the '''[[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]]'''.</span></th></tr>
<tr><td>{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{{1|}}}|pattern=style="display: none"|replace=|count=}}
</td></tr></table>

to

<div class="mw-collapsible {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|mw-collapsed}}" style="width:95%;">
  <div style="padding:0.2em 2px 0.2em 0;">'''This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} has multiple issues.''' Please help '''[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve it]''' or discuss these issues on the '''[[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]]'''.</div>
  <div class="mw-collapsible-content">{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{{1|}}}|pattern=style="display: none"|replace=|count=}}</div>
</div>

(The indenting has no effect, you can insert it or not; just it’s more readable here.) Thanks! --Tacsipacsi (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to make the change from collapsible to mw-collapsible, if you say there is no difference in functionality. I'm more hesitant with the change from tables to divs, because all of our message boxes are built with tables. I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem good to mix the two systems. Perhaps a discussion on WP:VPT is the way forward? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want to go to the village pump; if you say not to change table to div, it should work if you just change collapsible to mw-collapsible, and so on. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tacsipacsi and MSGJ: How about trying it in the sandbox first? GoingBatty (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Tested. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tacsipacsi: Confirmed on Template:Multiple issues/testcases. Seems that the sandbox's hide/show action takes a little longer than before, but IMHO isn't a big deal if it means the article will load faster. GoingBatty (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice with the gentle fading in/out. Made the change. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the new effect on an article I was looking at. It looks great! Props to Tacsipasci for suggesting it. There's one issue I noticed, though: sometimes, the positioning of the hide/show link makes it look like a part of the text inside the box. Anyone know where I could bring this issue up? APerson (talk!) 16:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an ugly hack. It's sending every template through this module. What does it do, and can it achieved in a more efficient way? Wbm1058 might be able to explain. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You asked the same question in § Request to remove old-style parameters, and I answered there. I added a comment explaining this to the template on 17 February 2015, but due to {{high-risk}} and a desire not to overwork the job queue, it's waiting for a more substantive change to be deployed. The problem is that I don't know of a way for Template:Orphan to determine whether it's been sandwiched inside {{Multiple issues}} or not. When the orphan tag is over two months old, it's hidden on pages where it is the only issue reported (but still categorized). However we still want to show the message when it is one of multiple issues, so the "hack" is here to un-hide it. I guess we have to keep the hack for everything, unless Template:Multiple issues parses parameter {{{1}}} to see whether {{Orphan}} is part of that parameter. This more general implementation makes it easy to hide other standalone stale tags besides the orphan tag, while still showing them in {{Multiple issues}}, should consensus ever call for that.

Perhaps the more ugly hack is in Template:Orphan which had to look for parameter {{{multi|}}} getting passed to it from Template:Multiple issues/message. Since the old syntax is no longer supported, I believe I can now safely remove that hack from Template:Orphan, and thus simplify its logic. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can use class="hide-when-compact" to hide stuff when in compact mode. I'll have a think if there is any way to do the opposite. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to help me out with CSS stuff, as I've yet to formally learn that. I suppose if this template looked for "{{Orphan}}" in parameter 1, and replaced it with "{{Orphan|multi=y}}" then we could keep the check for parameter {{{multi|}}} in Template:Orphan and control the visibility there. I don't know which method is uglier ;) Oh yeah, I think I wanted to do it that way at first, but found that {{Orphan}} was already transcluded before I had a chance to test to see if it was there, it was already gone b/c it had already been transcluded... Wbm1058 (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how this can be achieved easily. The hide-when-compact is designed to suppress extra information when the template is used in its compact form. The situation was never envisaged when you would want to display more on the compact version than the full version. This is not intuitive. I've re-read the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 109#On Orphan tags again. As this particular idea was only actually supported by 6 editors, and as the implementation is so hackish and prone to breakage, what do you think about just removing this part? In other words, {{orphan}} will be invisible both on its own and inside this template, unless the personal CSS code is used. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent major discussion of {{Orphan}} was a June 2014 TfD, which closed with "the overwhelming consensus here is for the template to be retained." My implementation has not been prone to breakage; I can only recall one issue with it, related to my limited understanding of CSS, which was fixed in December 2014 by Jackmcbarn. Perhaps Jack can think of a more elegant CSS solution. The rationale for hiding stale standalone orphan templates is that people don't want to see that "big unsightly box" giving notification of a relative non-issue. The rationale for keeping it inside {{multiple issues}} is that, since we are already showing the "big unsightly box", adding one more line in that for orphans is no big deal. Whether it's "CSS compact" or not is really not relevant to the rationale. Regarding what's intuitive or not – Template talk:Orphan § Has this template stopped working? is why I favor showing newly placed templates for a month or two: people expect to see "cleanup" templates like this. If orphan is only one of two issues, and we hide it inside {{multiple issues}}, then readers will see "This article has multiple issues", but will only see one single issue. This is not intuitive, as they will expect to see at least two issues. Elimination of support for the old {{multiple issues}} syntax greatly simplifies the complexity of my solution; I will remove the "multi" logic from {{Orphan}}, which simplifies that template. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the rationale and I appreciate the effort you have spent in achieving this, but I still don't like it for the following two reasons.

• It is unintuitive, and it confuses editors. Even though it is working as intended, there are numerous threads on Template talk:Orphan opened by editors who are confused as to what it's doing and why. Sorry if I mistakenly suggested that it broke often, but you yourself said "the template logic is a kludge and thus prone to being broken by unrelated changes".
• We should not be putting all 126,000 transclusions of this template through some hackish code (which may well be expensive in terms of loading time) just for the benefit of one client template. Feel free to quote WP:PERF to me, but this is a general principle I work to.

Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current confusion at Template talk:Orphan mostly revolves around the use (or not) of the att and few parameters. That's all unrelated to the display of orphan messages inside {{multiple issues}}; I believe there is limited confusion over that aspect of it, and what confusion I've seen more revolves around template editors trying to understand how it works. I think at this point it is better to focus on removing redundant code from {{Orphan}} and clarifying the intent and design of the att and few parameters. Bear with me, and after that we can revisit behavior inside multiple-issues if necessary. Best, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As issues are addressed and their templates are removed, when the last issue is fixed, then this template should be removed as well. I added a check for uses of this template where no issues are specified, which is now in the sandbox awaiting deployment. See Template:Multiple issues/testcases#No issues for test cases. If there are no objections, I will deploy this soon. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I modified it a bit, so it doesn’t show the issue messages twice. Also, the error message appears in the box—I think it looks better, but it can be changed back if you don’t think so. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, that's much better. Thanks for that. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058 and Tacsipacsi: If you want to add a tracking category for {{multiple issues}} templates with no issues (or with only one issue), then I can have BattyBot remove the template more often. GoingBatty (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GoingBatty, I see that BattyBot 7 has been making this fix since February 2012. How does it find issues to fix? It seems to do just fine without needing a category. I also see that the vast majority of the fixes are for when there is a single issue, not no issues. This {{error}} check is not looking for single issues, just no issues. The intent and hope is that the editor introducing the error will see the big red message and act accordingly. If they don't, I patrol for error transclusions in main namespace and will generally remove them within a few days or less. Let's see how big a problem this is, and if the error transclusions become overwhelming then we can categorize for your bot, which I would then expect to run at least daily to fix this. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: I load all 120,000+ pages that transclude {{multiple issues}} and the bot checks each one. GoingBatty (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just made the sandbox version go live. We can revisit this and create the category if this turns out to be a big problem. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intrude after the fact, but shouldn't it be resolution of the penultimate issue that triggers {{multiple issues}} being removed? Once it is down to a single outstanding issue, then the wrapper is no longer applicable. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and BattyBot 7 can still periodically scan for those (monthly?) and fix them. It's all relative, but I think no issues inside the template is more severe an error than just a single issue. So I will patrol for those, which occur less frequently, and fix them more promptly than BB7 would. I just fixed a few of them, and most were caused by either vandalism or editor confusion, i.e. misunderstanding the template syntax: e.g. diff and diff. Some of them were old, long-term errors, so I don't think AWB, and thus BattyBot 7, is finding them all. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: I'm curious to know how you load all 120,000+ pages that transclude {{multiple issues}}. When I ask AWB to Make list "What transcludes page" Template:Multiple issues, it cuts it off at 25,000 pages. How do you get the rest? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: Bots can use Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/NoLimits plugin. Although it's called "NoLimits", I think there's actually a limit of one million. GoingBatty (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If only there was some way to determine how many issues are placed inside the template, then we could auto-uncollapse for one issue and auto-disappear for no issues. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can search parameter {{{1}}} to find what templates it contains. The key concept here is that parameter {{{1}}} will not contain "{{orphan}}", but rather the actual transcluded contents of that template. So if we find the text "is an orphan" in parameter {{{1}}}, we can be fairly certain that {{Orphan}} is one of the templates transcluded in parameter {{{1}}} (at least until someone modifies that template to change its message). But we would still likely use Module:String to search, and if you feel that is an expensive function, we would just be replacing one expensive use (find style="display: none") with another (find is an orphan). And we would still have the problem of (less savvy) template editors not understanding what we were doing. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following cleanup message templates have optional parameters to link to a specific section in a talk page:

• {{Cleanup}}: |talksection=
• {{Expert needed}}: |talk=

However these links are not shown in the abbreviated rendering when wrapped inside {{Multiple issues}} (see for example Acetone peroxide). Hence I would like to add an optional |talksection= to {{Multiple issues}} so that it is still possible to link to a specific section of the talk page where a centralized discussion about the issues raised by the attention banners can take place. I have prototyped the link in the sandbox and tested it here. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]