Template talk:Context

"Context"
The link to the word "context" on this template just goes to a disambiguation page with a dicdef on it. It's basically akin to saying "read the dictionary, you newbies, and learn what the word context means." Until some Context comes along that explains precisely why articles need context (this would be a very good idea), I'm going to remove the link. --Ardonik.talk* 19:57, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * What about linking the word to Make technical articles accessible?  Sala Skan  18:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to layout link
It might be useful to put a link to the Guide to layout on the context template. Articles with the context tag often have a terrible layout and formatting. I think the guide is a better link than the Manual of style because it is more concise. This way the authors of the articles may be able to do some of the work themselves, if they don't know how. What do you guys think? -- Kjkolb 07:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Using subst:context, Noinclude
The section inside the segment shows up when you use the structure. Is there a way to fix that? Also, using doesn't categorize the article that it's applied to. The Literate Engineer 03:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, don't use subst for it :) Stifle 17:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add category sort key
This template is protected. It needs a sort key added to the category link, so

needs to change to

– Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 01:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Or better off, please unprotect this page. Stifle 20:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit done. As for unprotecting it, that's not going to happen, as this is a high-risk template.  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that, as it is included on exactly 18 pages at this time. Thanks for sorting the edit, though. Stifle 16:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit request
 To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and make it more accessible to a general audience, this article may require cleanup.

The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please help Wikipedia by improving the introduction according to the guidelines laid out at Guide to layout. You can discuss the issue on the talk page.


 * Done.  howch e  ng   {chat} 00:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * After the edit, the template adds articles to Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification, instead of Category:Wikipedia articles needing context. This is indeed what Stifle requested above, but I doubt whether this was really his/her intention. Besides, the &lt;noinclude&gt; explanation at the bottom was not changed. Could either of you please clarify? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is this template not editable? -- Reinyday, 17:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Somebody decided that it is a high-risk template, and high-risk templates are protected.
 * I suppose the reasoning is as follows. The template is used on over a thousand pages. If the template were not protected, somebody could edit it and include an indecent or inflammatory picture and so very easily deface a thousand Wikipedia articles. Since we know from experience that such puerile people exist, it has been decided to put some protection in place.
 * O, I see you are actually an experienced Wikipedian, so you probably already know most of it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Simplifications needed
IMHO this template looks awful, due to its use of changes in font sizes and its unnecessary line breaks. I also think some minor wording changes are warranted. Here's an alternative I'd like to suggest:  To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and make it more accessible to a general audience, the introduction to this article may require cleanup. The introduction provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please help Wikipedia by improving the introduction according to the guidelines laid out at Guide to layout. You can discuss the issue on the talk page.

or this:  To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and make it more accessible to a general audience, the introduction to this article may require cleanup. The introduction provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please help Wikipedia by improving the introduction according to the guidelines laid out at Guide to layout. You can discuss the issue on the talk page.

for comparison, here's the current version:

 To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and make it more accessible to a general audience, this article may require cleanup. The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please help Wikipedia by improving the introduction according to the guidelines laid out at Guide to layout. You can discuss the issue on the talk page. <?pre>

Thanks. 69.3.70.28 22:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC).


 * I don't really see why. The linebreaks clearly separate the concept of cleanup and needing more context. Stifle (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Newer proposal
I think it would be better to completely remove the sentence about the page requiring cleanup. It is distracting. The focus of this template should be on the phrase "The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter.", and that text should come first.

My suggested version:  The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please help Wikipedia by improving the introduction according to the guidelines laid out at Guide to layout. You can discuss the issue on the talk page.

--Srleffler 04:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the note above a couple of months ago, but there has been no response. I made the corresponding change in some of the other cleanup templates (which were not edit protected), and it seems to have "stuck" there. Would an admin either implement this change or discuss it? (Why is this template edit-protected, anyway? Surely it is not more highly used than say wikify--Srleffler 04:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, done. The template was protected because it's heavily used; see High-risk templates. I'm not familiar with this procedure. If you think that it should be unlocked, you can try to request unprotection at Requests for page protection. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Two minor edits needed
As mentioned on Template messages/Cleanup, the code



should be replaced with



so that the template can be used on instruction pages without putting the instruction page into the category.

Also, the "See also" list for this template includes context itself. Kickaha Ota 14:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done--Commander Keane 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

editprotected When someone added Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup, it got added old-style. Can that be fixed? Thanks. Libcub (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done in a moment. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit


This template will categorise tagged articles into Category:Wikipedia articles needing context.


 * This template is a self-reference.
 * Please do not subst: this template.

Comments on proposed version
Can you explain why it should be changed? In particular, why do you want to introduce an icon? The template already grabs the reader's attention. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. These messages have to attract the attention of editors without distracting readers from the article. I think on balance it's better now than it would be with a picture in it – Gurch 14:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why limit to introduction?
I'm curious why this template limits the lack of context problem to introductions. I've encountered various articles in WP that entirely lack context. Also, many shorter articles don't exactly have introductions. Would it be OK just to change the template to say "this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter"? Budding Journalist 07:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed there should be a field to specify an alternative to where it currently says "The introduction to this article". Either "This article" or "This section" would be appropriate alternatives. __meco (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternative
editprotected Ok - the category that the articles with this template go into is ambiguous - and since I've seen this template used like this - I'd like to create a parameter so that we can change "article" to (I'm pretty sure this is the right format - haven't had to do this for a while) "" -- daniel  folsom  02:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused. Do you want the category text editable (i.e., ) or the text of the actual box (i.e., introduction to this  provides)? Currently, the category can be specified using the category= parameter. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait in the response - just the text - I think the category is ambiguous - it just says wikipedia articles that need context ... so it does not have to be changed.-- daniel  folsom  04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

General Clean up
please remove the Template:Not verified and Template:Unsourced from the see also section as they redirect to other listed templates. additionally please use Transclusion for the non-template content of this template. Jeepday (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

+Cat
I think Category:Cleanup_templates should be added to this template. I couldn't find it, and having it in that category would help. &mdash;ScouterSig 00:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor bug in template?
If this template is date tagged (e.g. {context|November 2007}), the word "article" is replaced with the specified date so that the text displayed reads The introduction to this November 2007 provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. I assume that this is a bug, and that the dated text should read either ...this article from November 2007... or ...this November 2007 article ... see Buenos Aires Football Club and Embraer MFT-LF. Random inspection of appropriate categories suggests that most instances of this template remain untagged, so the problem is not particularly noticeable. --Romney yw (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Add the date
Add an optional date field so that  is possible.

Find:

]].

Replace with:

]].

Done! Gary King ( talk ) 15:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 17:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Should this go on talk pages?
My impression is that this template should go on talk pages, not on main pages. It is not a message to readers, but rather a request to editors. Right? Sam (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really. There's pretty thorough consensus that content-type cleanup templates still belong on articlespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Style tweaks
Requesting sync with the new sandbox to bring this template in line with the styling used on other modern ambox templates. No content changes, just tweaks to the styling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think there is possibly too much bold in the proposed version. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you compare it to the toomanyseealsos in the documentation section, it's roughly the same amount of text. Bolding the entire verb clause consistently seems like a good idea to me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't think it's really a big change. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Request
Please add  to. Compare e.g. Template:Bio-context. Debresser (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Debresser (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"introduction", again
In practice, this template is used not only for articles where the lede isn't clear enough but also where that applies to the article as a whole. I reckon the words "the introduction to" should be removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've now pushed this change. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change "good introductory style" link
The second sentence of this template message currently reads "Please help improve the article with a good introductory style". I'd like to replace that with something like "Please help improve the article by providing more context for the reader" (I've made this change in the sandbox). I'm open to suggestions for alternative wording, but I think is a more appropriate section to link to than  (especially when this template is used to tag a section rather than a whole article). Colin M (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Since some time has passed without any objection and I believe this should be an uncontroversial change, I'm going to go ahead and make an edit request.

Merge the change at Template:Context/sandbox (as of this request), which alters some of the text shown in this cleanup template, and links to a different MOS section. See above for rationale. Colin M (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"Details" doesn't display when used with Multiple Issues tag
If the template is placed inside a Multiple Issues tag, the message entered in the Details parameter is no longer displayed. This is in contrast to the Expert needed tag, which does continue to display the reasons.

I think it's important for this to display, as it gives passing editors an idea of whether they can fix the problem.

I've just had to partially undo a bot edit because of this, and include an HTML comment about it as well.

Musiconeologist (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)