Template talk:Article issues
Template generates categories[change source]
...that do not exist; nor do they exist for each of the issue tags seperately. What do we do about this: A: Create the issues categories for both this and the separate issue tags B: Remove all categories from this page Purplebackpack89 04:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- No to both of those, because it's not this template, but the individual templates that are put together into this one. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nah, it's not that. I sandboxed individual no-source templates, and they didn't give me cats. It's because the code for this was copied from EN, but the code for the individual ones weren't Purplebackpack89 02:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- What did you say? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- No sources doesn't give cats, even there. Probably should've tested with something else. Of those, two give blue categories and three give red categories; the red ones should be created or deleted. Purplebackpack89 17:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please do tests only in the sandbox, not out in article space. Furthermore, the redlinks contain hidden cats that have issues with different articles on different dates, because it was necessary as it was on en to track articles with problems by date. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- No sources doesn't give cats, even there. Probably should've tested with something else. Of those, two give blue categories and three give red categories; the red ones should be created or deleted. Purplebackpack89 17:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- What did you say? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nah, it's not that. I sandboxed individual no-source templates, and they didn't give me cats. It's because the code for this was copied from EN, but the code for the individual ones weren't Purplebackpack89 02:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The question is, do we need to clog our articles with a bunch of red categories? To me, the answer is a resounding "no", and the easiest way to do that is to make the other templates like nosources, e.g. not auto-generate a cat when placed Purplebackpack89 17:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- When you fix the article, you can remove the tag. When you remove the tag, you remove the redlinked cats. So start working on the article! :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's a non-sequitor. No one editor can be expected to fix all the articles tagged for a particular problem, especially here, where 90% of all articles could be slapped with multiple tags. The problem is that red linked-categories make articles worse, and should be avoided Purplebackpack89 17:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think he/she can, especially given the work on Christian right, where you were able to remove most, if not all, of the tags. You don't see users going around slapping the 90% or so articles here, do you? If you think the redlinked cats should be avoided, start working on the article! :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't make any sense. It took me quite a bit of time to do one article; and there are thousands of articles with these problems. And yes, I do see people tagging them Purplebackpack89 18:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think he/she can, especially given the work on Christian right, where you were able to remove most, if not all, of the tags. You don't see users going around slapping the 90% or so articles here, do you? If you think the redlinked cats should be avoided, start working on the article! :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's a non-sequitor. No one editor can be expected to fix all the articles tagged for a particular problem, especially here, where 90% of all articles could be slapped with multiple tags. The problem is that red linked-categories make articles worse, and should be avoided Purplebackpack89 17:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Change text to 'some' issues[change source]
Can we change "many" to "some" in the generated banner? The text currently reads, "This article has many issues" but that seems wrong for two issues, and iffy for three (how many is many?). Just changing the word to "some" would cover all the bases. Mathglot (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)