Template talk:Multiple issues/Archive 11

Problem with navbox display
Any idea why Template:Wikipedia template messages doesn't display properly on Template:Multiple issues, but looks fine on Template messages/General? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see two problems at Template:Multiple issues.
 * The paragraph beginning "The article will be put in the category "cat" if is specified," is indented when it shouldn't be
 * In the Other/all namespaces is producing the proper left-column heading, but the list items of the associated list2 are showing above the title, with no separators.
 * Curiously neither of these show when viewing Template:Multiple issues/doc. Viewing the page source for Template:Multiple issues shows that the opened at line 1075 (immediately after the phrase "which produces the line:") is not being closed; but where it should be (line 1077), there is a . This  is not closed until line 1156 and the missing  appears immediately afterwards, on line 1157

1152 1153 1154 1155 1156  1157  1158 1159 to something like: Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the correct preposition here? An expert on mathematics, or an expert in mathematics? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "in" seems better - good catch! GoingBatty (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that "in" preposition is only correct if subject is stated. As this parameter is optional (it doesn't spit error, so it will definitely be used with no subject argument), the template should be probably modified to:




 * I'm not a native speaker, so I may be wrong. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect in will work with both, but on certainly works as well in the former case. So I've gone with your suggestion. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, a possible way to avoid parser functions could probably be:
 * Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any reason to avoid using parser functions and your first suggestion works best in case blank parameters are used. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks great, Martin - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB support of new template design
In response to my AWB feature request, Rjwilmsi has suggested some new logic for AWB to merge templates into Multiple issues. I invite interested editors to contribute to the discussion there. I'm also collecting a list of templates for AWB to merge at User:GoingBatty/Multiple issues, and invite interested editors to update the list. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-functioning parameter
undue doesn't seem to be working. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comment of 13:34, 24 July 2012 in the section above about unconverted descriptions - although uses, it still squeezes the whole message into text, rather than splitting it between issue and fix. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * the template.  While Martin & I have updated many templates, there are probably others we missed.  Anyone want to generate a list of maintenance templates that use  that use the text parameter?  GoingBatty (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a list of pages in template namespace which transclude, where text is non-blank:


 * Template:Abbreviations/sandbox Template:AFC submission/created Template:AFC submission/misplaced Template:Afd-merge from Template:Afd-merge required Template:Afd-merge to Template:Afd-merge to/sandbox Template:Alumni/sandbox Template:Ambox/doc (yes, Ambox/doc. It's in the examples for small and type, also under "Technical notes") Template:Ambox/testcases Template:Article for deletion/dated Template:Article for deletion/dated/sandbox Template:Article issues/sandbox Template:Autobiography/sandbox
 * Template:Being translated Template:BLP IMDb refimprove/sandbox Template:BLP sources/sandbox Template:BLP unsourced/sandbox
 * Template:CIA-Sect Template:Clarify-section Template:Cleanup-biography/sandbox Template:Cleanup-HTML/sandbox Template:Cleanup-lang Template:Cleanup-list Template:Cleanup-list/sandbox Template:Cleanup-spam/sandbox Template:Cleanup-university Template:Cleanup-weighted/sandbox Template:Cleanup AfD Template:Cleanup FJ biography Template:Coding Template:Confusing/sandbox Template:Content Template:Context/sandbox Template:Contradict-other/sandbox Template:Copied to Wikibooks Cookbook Template:Copy edit-section Template:Copy section to Wikisource Template:Copy to Wikibooks Cookbook Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons/sandbox Template:Copy to Wiktionary Template:Copypaste Template:Copypaste/sandbox Template:Copyvio-revdel Template:Coverage Template:Create-list Template:Criticism title Template:Csb-pageincluded Template:Csb-pageincludes Template:Csb-wikipage Template:Current Template:Current-anytext Template:Current Australian COTF Template:Current disaster Template:Current person Template:Current related Template:Current severe outbreak Template:Current spaceflight Template:Current sport Template:Current sport-related Template:Current tornado outbreak Template:Current/sandbox
 * Template:Dabconcept Template:Dead link header Template:Dead link header/original Template:Dead link header/sandbox Template:Dead link header/sandbox2 Template:Debate Template:Dicdef Template:Dicdef/sandbox Template:Directory Template:Dispute about Template:Disputed-category Template:Disputed-list Template:Disputed title Template:Disputed/sandbox Template:Duplication Template:DYKissues Template:Dynamic list/sandbox
 * Template:Editorial Template:Empty section Template:Empty section/sandbox Template:End of season Template:Exit list Template:Expand section/sandbox Template:Expand/sandbox Template:Expert-subject-multiple Template:Expert-subject/sandbox Template:External links/sandbox
 * Template:Famous Template:Famous players generic Template:Fanpov/sandbox Template:Few references exist Template:Fiction trivia Template:Format footnotes Template:Format footnotes/sandbox Template:Formula missing descriptions Template:Further reading cleanup
 * Template:Gameplay Template:Geographical imbalance Template:GOCEinuse Template:GOCEuc
 * Template:Hasty Template:Historical congressional article Template:Hoax/sandbox Template:Hook Template:Hypothesis
 * Template:Ibid Template:Ibid/sandbox Template:Icon-issues Template:Importance-section Template:Improve categories Template:In-universe/sandbox Template:In popular culture Template:In translation Template:Inappropriate title Template:Incoming links Template:Indian cinema under construction Template:Indian pop cat Template:IndicL Template:Infobox problem Template:Integrate-section Template:InterTransWiki Template:Intricate template/sandbox Template:ISBN Template:ISSN-disclaimer
 * Template:Jagged 85 cleanup
 * Template:Lacking overview Template:Launching/Core Template:LDS Temple/Start Template:Lead too short/sandbox Template:Linear-gradient/testcases Template:Link up Template:Linkage Template:List Template:List dispute Template:List missing criteria Template:List missing criteria/sandbox Template:List to table Template:List years Template:Listcopy Template:Listmaybe Template:Local
 * Template:Magazine Template:Manual Template:ManualTranswiki Template:Math2english Template:Mbox/index Template:Mbox/testcases Template:ME-importance Template:Mediated Template:Medref/sandbox Template:Memorial Template:Merge FJC Template:Merge school Template:Merging from Template:Merging from/sandbox Template:Meyers Template:Mileposts Template:Misleading Template:Misleading/sandbox Template:Missing Template:Missing-taxobox Template:Missing information non-contentious Template:Mission Template:More-specific-links Template:More footnotes/sandbox Template:MOS Template:MOSLOW Template:MRfD Template:Multiple issues Template:Multiple issues/sandbox
 * Template:Nationalhistory Template:NCBI taxonomy Template:Needhanja Template:Needhiragana Template:Needkanji Template:Needs table Template:Neologism Template:New unreviewed article Template:New user article Template:New user article LSU Template:News release section Template:NFaudiooveruse Template:NFCC issue note Template:NFimageoveruse Template:NFimageoveruse/sandbox Template:No Copy to Wikibooks Template:No footnotes/sandbox Template:No plot Template:No prose Template:Noleak Template:Non-free-lists Template:Non-free-vio Template:Nonfiction Template:Not English Template:Notability/sandbox Template:Nothaweng Template:Notice/sandbox Template:Notice/test01 Template:NovelsWikiProject Collaboration Template:Now project Template:NPOV language


 * Of course several of those are not cleanup templates at all. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. misleading doesn't seem to be working either. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * was to the issue/fix form on 5 August. What problem are you seeing, and on which article? -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was trying to use multiple issues at Bolivarianism and can't get the misleading portion to display. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the edit history of the page has nothing in the last week or so, I can only assume that whatever you tried, you previewed but didn't save. Anyway, is how I would do it, and it looks OK to me: is this what you saw? -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. You're right, I was only previewing, with . That's the syntax I normally use. Does the misleading parameter not work that way for some reason? I'll try the wrapping in the future if I run into an issue like this. --BDD (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the old syntax (see Template:Multiple issues/doc/old). There were two main problems with it: every time a new cleanup template was created, or an old one deleted, we needed to add or remove both a parameter and a message in ; and when an existing cleanup template had its message amended, we needed to make a similar amendment to the corresponding message in . Looking at the template code, there isn't provision for misleading, although the parameter refimprove is valid. It's likely that misleading never existed as a parameter within ; although it is conceivable that it did at one time, but has since been removed for some reason.
 * The new syntax (see Template:Multiple issues) avoids all of these problems by not using any parameters other than the list of cleanup templates, and by using those templates to produce the messages. It's also easier to use, since you just put  before the normal cleanup templates, and   after them, and the rest is taken care of. That's what . -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. I noticed the documentation had changed but hadn't bothered with the specifics since it was still working the way I was used to in most cases. Thanks. --BDD (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Documentation - Why was that big table removed?
Documentation - Why was that big table removed? I can't remember all those things. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  18:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was removed because you don't need to remember all those things anymore with the new format. However, for those who still want to see it, the documentation states: "Please see Template:Multiple issues/doc/old for the deprecated syntax this template used previously."  Happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Replace PNG image with SVG
It seems this and some other popular images are still being used in PNG format despite SVG alternatives: Replace? — CobraWiki ( jabber 20:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

cleanup parameter should be removed
According to this RFC it should have reason parameter - as it is impossible here, cleanup parameter should be removed Bulwersator (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC) There is nothing impossible on Wikipedia! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While Cleanup has required a reason for several months, I believe a reason isn't required for all the cleanup parameters added before the RFC, right? GoingBatty (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Two bugs I noticed with this template:

 * One can get past the now compulsory "add a reason to the cleanup template" rule by using this template. Thus, this template needs to be modified to also require a reason for the "cleanup" issue.
 * I've observed that putting templates onto existing ones (like the "tfm" template on the "update" template) literally adds said template to the one above the issue representing the one which said template was applied to.

Both of these are demonstrated on this page in the "Examples for a Section" subheading of this template's documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karjam (talk • contribs) 09:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would note, that cleanup should be modified, not multiple issues. I failed to confirm the issue with cleanup (see below). Another observation is unclear: if the observation is about proposal templates (tfm, merge to/from), it should not be fixed as these templates are not supported with multiple issues; if it is about joining the existing tags, then it also shouldn't be fixed, as it is a feature, not a bug; if some other issue was supposed to get reported, clarification needed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC) updated 10:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I made a mistake about the issue with the "clean up" template. I guess it behave similar to the actual template: If the set date of the template is over "July 2012" or something, it would trigger the new behavior.

I made that mistake because it really did behave like that the last time I tried using that function in the template.

I guess this template was "improved" to add more info to "issues".

The second point could be problematic, as it could make this template kinda bulky and maybe a little bit ugly, if not more.

Perhaps the coding of the affected templates could also be modified to resemble the "issues" better?

NOTE: forgot to sign previously. I won't now: Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't say which article you are experiencing these problems on, nor whether you're using the old syntax (e.g. ) or the new syntax (e.g. ). -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was the old syntax. Sorry for not clarifying properly (I said "I guess this template was 'improved' to add more info to 'issues'").


 * Perhaps you could comment on the suggestions about "modifying the affected templates to resemble the 'issues' better" (ie, modifying the proposal templates to better support the "multiple issues" template). Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The only templates that should be wrapped in are those built using . The  template is not one of these: it uses . But this should not be a problem, since  is for use on templates, whereas  is for use on articles. Where are you seeing  being used on a template - alternatively, where are you seeing  being used on an article? -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please clarify the second issue (of the bullet list in your initial comment)? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So it is a bug - I saw the template litterally within an  template right over the wrapped  template within an example in the  template's documentation.


 * See for yourself. It's under "Example for a section".

Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. It's not the tfm placed inside multiple issues, just update indeed undergoes TfD, and this is the way the broad community is normally informed of such facts. This "bug" will be "fixed" in TfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, That would be because of, made in response to this request. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, when is used on article pages, the TfM notice inside  is much less obtrusive, see . It's also not too bad when wrapped in, as . -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've updated Template:Multiple_issues/doc so it doesn't display a cleanup section tag from years ago (before reasons were mandatory) and so it doesn't display a template undergoing TfD. GoingBatty (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When update is used inside Multiple issues, the tag states "Parts of this article (those related to article) are outdated." (see ). However, when update is used inside Multiple issues, the tag properly states "This article is outdated." (see Manhattan Skyline).  Could someone please fix this?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's because Template:Multiple issues/message always passes a first positional parameter, whose value is either "article" or "section"; but is expecting either a blank, or a reason in this parameter. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So how should we fix this? Change multiple issues, change update, or could someone generate a list of articles with update so we can convert multiple issues to the new format?  GoingBatty (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When I find articles that have multiple issues with update, I change it to update so it displays properly. However, I'm concerned there are lots of other articles that need to be fixed.  Anyone have a bright idea to fix these?  (see my questions above).  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Question
I'm quite interested how this square list dot is created, I mean normally * element 1 creates these circular dots. Thanks for any answers! --intforce (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * element 2
 * element 1
 * element 2
 * I see square dots in your post. Still, it can be tuned with "list-style-type" CSS property. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Found the code in MediaWiki:Common.css --LightForce (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Underlinked tag
Could someone add support for the newly-created Underlinked tag? As far as I can tell, the change appears very straightforward; just use the current code for other tags. I have tested the change in this revision to the sandbox, and the test case appears to function correctly. Thanks! Guoguo12 (Talk)  23:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No new old-style (deprecated) parameters are going to be added. It will work fine used in the new style, like this:


 * Anomie⚔ 02:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks anyway. Guoguo12 (Talk)  10:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Question about mixing old & new style
When mixing old & new style parameters, why does Molehill Empire now look OK, while an older version of the same article does not? Thanks! 00:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingBatty (talk • contribs)
 * This template uses parameter 1 only for the new-style parameters. The older version you linked uses parameter 1 for Video game cleanup and parameter 2 for refimprove and Orphan. It would be possible to support more unnamed parameters, but then where exactly do you draw the line? A better idea might be to make a tracking category for multiple issues using parameter 2 so they can just be fixed. Anomie⚔ 02:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, if you'll create the tracking category, I'll clean 'em up. Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters created. Not sure how long it'll take to populate. Anomie⚔ 17:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It got about 38 pages, which I've started to fix. A nice side-effect is that it's picked up cases where somebody put e.g. with neither equals signs nor dates, presumably because they thought that a bot (?AnomieBot perhaps) would apply the dates for them. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed all 29 pages in article space. Just under half were harmless, like an extra pipe immediately before the closing double brace. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you! GoingBatty (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just noticed. Several of these problems were caused by BattyBot edits [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Molehill_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=514921678] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armored_Core_2&diff=prev&oldid=514913335] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boston_University_Stage_Troupe&diff=prev&oldid=513856387] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheyenne_Central_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=513874962] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girideepam_Bethany_School&diff=prev&oldid=513875571] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Foss_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=513633309] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Institute_of_Humanitarian_Law&diff=prev&oldid=513814763] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tofurkey&diff=prev&oldid=509344139] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NFL_Street_3&diff=prev&oldid=514919012 This one] was the most subtle. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that when I started this thread, and I offered to clean them all up. How should this be documented on Template:Multiple issues/doc so no one else makes the same mistake I did?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How about amending the Usage section from "... which take their usual parameters." to "... which take their usual parameters. These templates should be placed on individual lines, but must not be separated from each other by pipes or template parameters"? -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good start, RedRose64! Could you work in that the consequence of incorrect usage could be the failure of some templates to be displayed?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "... which take their usual parameters. These templates should be placed on individual lines, but must not be separated from each other by pipes or template parameters, because that would cause some or all of the banners to be hidden."? -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Thanks so much!  GoingBatty (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ . -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that the old-style syntax is now unmaintained (no new old-style parameters added), may be a tracking category for old-style syntax should be created? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless someone has an instance of multiple issues somewhere using only cleanup and expert, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Multiple issues/message should serve. But note that mass changing from the old to new syntax without any substantial changes in each of those edits would fall afoul of WP:COSMETICBOT. Anomie⚔ 19:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't actually propose to clean this backlog, but having it at hand could be useful. At very least it allows to track the progress of new syntax adoption. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Mobile site uses full template text
I was surprised today to see that the Wikipedia mobile site uses the full template text within Multiple issues. For example, compare the difference between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster%27s_Home_for_Imaginary_Friends and http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster%27s_Home_for_Imaginary_Friends as an example. How can we change this template so only the issue is displayed on the mobile site? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's something to do with the in . -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Redrose64! Should I be posting this issue on Template talk:Ambox instead of here?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Possibly MediaWiki talk:Common.css, because the class  is defined in MediaWiki:Common.css. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted there - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * may have fixed it. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks much better now - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 January 2013
please replace with since has been turned in to a dab as a WP:TFD outcome.
 * name      =
 * template  = Wikify
 * name      =
 * template  = Underlinked

Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I've, but not added Underlinked. We are no longer extending support for the old syntax. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What about existing uses of the old syntax? Do they need to be changed to underlinked or what? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently they have all been amended or removed as appropriate. See Template talk:Wikify. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance template thoughts
I have been thinking about this for a while now and would love some more opinions. If this template were to be called 'issues' rather than 'multiple issues' could it serve as the default go to template for any article issues? (of course with a small bit of tweaking for the template). This would make the style across wiki even more consistent, by this I mean using this template even if only one maintenance tag was used on a page. What are other peoples thoughts?  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 04:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Currently, the text displayed when maintenance templates are used without multiple issues is much longer than what is displayed when they are within multiple issues. With your proposal, when would full vs. short text be displayed?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem with old-style expert parameter
I thought I brought this up before, but I can't find it in the archives. With the old style format of this template, either PsychologyNovember 2008 or November 2008 was acceptable. With the new style format, November 2008 now displays "This article needs attention from an expert in November 2008. (November 2008) ". There are hundreds of articles with this issue, such as Developmental psychology.

Is this something that can be fixed with a tweak to this template, or should I submit an RFBA to change November 2008 to the new format ? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've put a fix for this in the sandbox, if you'd like to test it. But it's an ugly hack, so I think your suggestion to change the format is a good one. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with the below? (see here)  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 14:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The only thing that is wrong with that example is the capitalisation of "july" - using code exactly as shown above will put the page into . But we are not discussing new syntax, but old, where the date parameter was associated solely with expert. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, we're talking about instances such as one of these:


 * GoingBatty (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What about converting all old style expert parameters to new style? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Magioladitis - That would work, and I have AWB all set up with the F&R rules to do just that for the 755 articles that use the old style mmmmm yyyy. Just wanted to be sure that we explore and rule out the option of changing the template first before I file the RFBA.
 * Martin - I'll check out your sandbox code tonight. Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally support the conversion. This will simplify the template's code too and this means that the pages using MI will render faster. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I also support conversion. User:Addbot recently went through converting many old style MI templates to the new style while performing general fixes.  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 18:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * here. GoingBatty (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * all the articles that had expert and update, plus those with nofootnotes, morefootnotes, singlesource (none of which are supported) and the deprecated wikify. GoingBatty (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

flexible text possible?
Can I add a free-form template (such as Hatnote) as an embedded template? I want to announce three issues, but one of them doesn't seem to have a template for that purpose, which is overreliance on a primary source in violation of WP:PSTS (not a lack of secondary sources but rather too much weight given to one primary source that has been criticized for inaccuracy when the criticism about the source has been excluded from the article) (the Undue template is somewhat misleading about the concern). If I can't include a hatnote or some other custom-text template, I guess I'd have to add a template below the Multiple Issues template, but I'd rather embed it in the box generated by Multiple Issues. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC) (Corrected my misspelling: 17:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC))
 * You can just hardcode it with ambox, e.g. something like this:


 * and then it should work fine inside this template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

propose to add Ambox to template as optional includable tag
I propose to edit the documentation to signify that along with the single-issue templates Notability, POV, etc. a custom text can be written for a single issue that lacks a suitable standard template by embedding Ambox with the other templates. A caveat is that Ambox won't generate the standard categorizations expected with other templates usually included in Multiple issues. (This follows my trying the other editor's suggestion above in a sandbox and seeing it succeed.) I'll wait a week for any response before editing the doc. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No objection. GoingBatty (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No objection. But there are so many maintenance templates, are you sure that a suitable one does not exist? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I searched for one and didn't find one. If one turns up, I'd rather use it, to support categorization. But, on the general proposition, given the question, I plan to add to this doc a provision that one should prefer a pre-existing template. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Request edit to editnotice
On Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Multiple issues, could someone please replace "(1000+)" to "(50,000+)"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done It's actually 58237 so I put 58000. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I suggested "50,000+" so you wouldn't have to change it as often as we continue to resolve issues and remove this template from articles.  GoingBatty (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of learning something new
I'm curious, is there documentation somewhere I can read that will help me understand how this template works better? This template is wrapped around multiple other templates, and I don't understand how the arguments are being passed. I would love to read some documentation on it or discuss it here or on my talk page so that I can understand it and perhaps implement some of it on the other wiki I administrate. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Bot to remove redundant "multiple issues" tags
Is there a bot to remove redundant multiple issues tags? I recently noted that a bot had removed a deprecated template and, in so doing, left a tag with only one issue. I see that this was raised as a bot request in February 2012 and a batch of edits were performed by GoingBatty, but it is unclear whether there is a bot doing ongoing maintenance on this (which simply hadn't kicked in yet in the case I mentioned), or otherwise if a renewed bot request should be made. —sroc (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't run the bot in a while. My intent was to run it monthly, but it's been a while.  I'm running it now.  Thanks for the reminder.  GoingBatty (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. I'm not all that familiar with bots; I had in my head that they ran continuously and automatically, but I suppose not (or not always).  Thanks again!  —sroc (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think some of the toolserver bots do run continuously. However, AWB bots have to be started up manually.  GoingBatty (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it a special regex or setup you use in AWB or one of the general fixes? I just recently got AWB permissions and haven't read through all of the general fixes yet.  I've just been using it for some custom regex jobs so far. Technical 13 (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * General fixes can do that. The difficulty is to create the list of pages that need to be fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I figured that would be the easy part, just create a list of all pages that link to Template:Multiple issues in the article namespace, no? Technical 13 (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the list, and then I skip pages that contain "multiple issues" after changes were made. I'm also running other bot tasks as well as manual work, and still try to do things away from the computer once in a while.  :-) GoingBatty (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What is this "Away from the computer" that you speak of? Sounds risky... ;) Technical 13 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple problems
Should the word "issue" perhaps be replaced with the correct word "problem"? Issue has many meanings, problem only one. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC))
 * It should not. There are many issues that aren't necessarily problems.  Many of the templates grouped into this package template are simply "style issues" which aren't technically "problems".  I hope this helps your understanding. Technical 13 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Movement to use only this template
What are peoples opinions on a movement to use only this template when adding issues to pages? i.e. We standardize everything, make it easier for bots to maintain and realistically have little or no style changes in the appearance of the actual 'box'  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would personally be opposed to such a thing at this point. This template "hides" the  which is an important argument in my opinion.  I occasionally will intentionally leave an issue template out of multiple issues (or move it out of multiple issues) if there is something that needs to be addressed more quickly than the others or the templates have been sitting on the page for years and nothing is being accomplished.  Also, as a person that runs AWB to fix stuff, there are still way too many pages using the old format of this template which completely defeats the claim that it would be easier for bots to maintain these pages (I actually have a rule with a set of three sub-rules that does just "okay" for changing the old style to new and even that is only about 85%). Technical 13 (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel that this is one template that could really do with a bit of LUA love. Thing I imagine we could do include ordering by date the tag was added, allowing certain templates to exist as a 'separate box' on the page while still using everything within one template etc.  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 11:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If that was the case, I would recommend creating (a) sandbox version(s) so that people could see your proposal in action. The big question would become, how would you propose everything be updated to use the god template and would this mean the deletion of the couple dozen sub-templates that are currently used? Technical 13 (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sure this is all in good time, currently this plan is in very early stages, I am sure I will post back here after I work out if it is actually possible and I have something to show!  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 04:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)