Template talk:Multiple issues/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Severity of issues

A problem that can be brought up is that when all the issues are lumped together, the more serious and urgent ones don't stand out. This is a reason the individual tags have different colours and images so they can be better distinguished. The image we use currently doesn't accurately cover all the issues. Look here for a sample for some colours and images a template could have. –Pomte 00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be set so that different issues would trigger different icons or background colors. Basic things like cleanup and wikify would be the default (current version) while more severe issues (disputed) would trigger a the "question" image and very serious issues (yet to be added would trigger the stop hand.

Something like {{#if:{{{severeissue1|}}}{{{severeissue2|}}}{{{severeissueN|}}}|stop hand image|{{#if:{{{moderateissue1|}}}{{{moderateissue2|}}}{{{moderateissueN|}}}|Question mark image|regular image}}}} (where moderateissue and severeissue correspond to different issue variables. I think that'll work. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I did a quick test in my userspace and that works. What we need to do is create a hierarchy of importance to determine which issues are more important than the others. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair compromise. I was thinking multiple images and colours, but that would reduce readability. There's a huge list of cleanup/maintenance templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, and a condensed list on the talk page. –Pomte 04:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple images could work as well. While looking through the list of templates, it seems most use the current icon and the red question mark. There are really very few that use anything significantly different. I think the only major one that uses the stop hand is {{unencyclopedic}} which isn't used much. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Unencyclopedic}} shouldn't be covered here because it's an extreme almost-deletion tag that deserves special attention. {{totally-disputed}} is a good example of a template that combines 2 significant and related issues with an image at each side. –Pomte 06:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maintainability and scope

If any of the individual templates get changed, someone would have to notice to make the corresponding change here. Some of them are not worded very well, so I've reworded at both places in order to be consistent. Some of them are worded so similarly that I'm not sure we should have a corresponding parameter here for each of them. Should we come up with a more compact list here, or go for a free-for-all? –Pomte 03:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple issues category

Should we create a category for articles with this template, that is, articles with three or more problems so that articles with a lot of problems are grouped together? -- kenb215 talk 04:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Using Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Articleissues works well enough. The template already puts articles into multiple categories with long names, and I don't think one will make the situation better. –Pomte 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability

With my mediocre template skills, I would like to not have to be the one to do this, but what does everyone think about adding notability as one of the params in here?danielfolsom 03:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How would you condense it into one or two sentences that make the "deletion is imminent" message clear? –Pomte 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, as far as I'm aware of the {{Notable}} tag isn't about deletion...danielfolsom 11:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting template but...

As kind of stated above, I don't think it really works. I'd rather have all of the issues kept seperate as that makes it clearer to the editor on instant sight exactly what is wrong with the article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I would actually disagree - I think an editor can easily read all the issues on the template - in fact if your looking at just the code it's actually easier. But I really have no problem with either way - personally I use this if there are 3 or more templates needed, and I usually do singular templates if it's less - but you aren't thinking of nominating this for deletion are you?--danielfolsom 18:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just found out about this template. It makes the article much more presentable to the reader. Compare [1] with [2]. Mahanga^Talk 01:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree - and I too just stumbled upon it one day. However - I would almost suggest getting rid of the orange color that happens if you have certain things marked (like OR), I think that's a bit too attention grabbing, but then again I'm probably in the minority opinion --danielfolsom 01:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Add template

• I was just at Jews in apostasy and tried to add {{refimprove}} to this template, it is not set up for it. Can you add it to the list? Jeepday (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Some editors have attempted to add {{refimprove}}, but at least one editor is dead-set against it, on the grounds that it's redundant to {{citations missing}}. It's not. {{Citations missing}} is about the use of inline sources, as opposed to sources found only in a "references" or "external links" section. {{Refimprove}} is for general sourcing issues, as opposed to {{unreferenced}} which is used for completely unsourced pages. I'll re-add. Anyone arguing against its inclusion should discuss here on the talk page. szyslak 02:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get your reasoning for Citations missing being only about the use of inline sources? From the template: "This article is missing citations and/or footnotes." Unreferenced is for articles with no references what so ever, and citations missing is for articles with a few unsourced statements. You talk like I'm in a big minority with this thing - "Some editors have attempted" - according to the history - two, one of which was an ip address, the other was you. --danielfolsom 04:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think another editor tried to add it too, in addition to the request from Jeepday, who first brought up this issue on the talk page. {Citations missing} specifically mentions inline sources, while {refimprove} and the others don't. Do you not understand the difference between "citations and/or footnotes" and "references and sources" (as seen in {{unreferenced}} and {refimprove})? More importantly, however, I don't see how having parameters with overlapping purposes does any harm to this template. Should we remove all sourcing-related templates besides one or two? Is there such a thing as "too many options" on this template? Both {refimprove} and {Citations missing} are in wide use. If you truly think {refimprove} is redundant to {Citations missing}, I suggest nominating it for deletion instead of trying to keep it out of {articleissues}. szyslak 07:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Cluttered code would be the reason to not have multipe templates that serve the same purpose. And in this case the difference is so small that it's not worth it. I mean the templates even link to the same page! --danielfolsom 13:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What templates link to the same page? Jeepday (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The templates we've been talking about ... links are the blue ones! ...--danielfolsom 13:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, given it's populartity I'll yield to you on this one, however I am woried that this will only lead to people adding more useless or redundant templates (which per history has been done before). And Citations and references are really the same - footnotes are inline, citations are not neccesarily.--danielfolsom 13:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

They do not go to the same page. {{refimprove}} has never redirected to {{citations missing}} History Template:Refimprove and neither has the reverese been true History Template:Citations_missing. To the best of my knowledge the merge and redirect has never even been proposed. As szyslak pointed out they are completely different. You may be thinking of {{Citation style}} which is similar to {{citations missing}} but is still different. Jeepday (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Again - links are the blue ones - they link to the same page. This shouldn't need explaining.--danielfolsom 14:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I ask you again, please name the links that you say are going to the same page. The templates {{refimprove}} and {{citations missing}} DO NOT go to the same page and they are the only linked templates in this section. Jeepday (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

wow, ok, see I'm not going to degrade you THAT much, go to each of the templates - and click on the links. A link takes a page from one to another.--danielfolsom 14:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• LOL, maybe you should try clicking on them before making arguments like "And in this case the difference is so small that it's not worth it. I mean the templates even link to the same page! --danielfolsom 13:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)". Clicking here --> {{refimprove}} goes to a different page then clicking here --> {{citations missing}}
• One template has this text This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help to improve this article by adding reliable references. Material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed. and the other this text This article or section is missing citations and/or footnotes. This article or section contains insufficiently sourced phrases. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. You may improve the article or discuss this issue on its talk page. Help on using footnotes is available. and both have multiple outgoing links. ONE of those multiple outgoing links on each templates goes to Wikipedia:Citing sources. If your argument is that because each of these two templates happens to have a one of their multiple outgoing links to the same guideline, then you have not been clear in presenting your argument, Hence I ask you to name what you are talking about linking to what.

Signed Jeepday (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually that wasn't my main argument - and actually most of the links are based on waht page it was on - the only reason I kept going on about that is because for some reason you didn't understand what a link was. Either way though - read through the arguments and you'll notice that I said that citations and references are the same - only footnotes are inline, but because of the popularity I won't revert the template's addition - "LOL" (obnoxious much?) --danielfolsom 15:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand what a link is, I did not understand which links you were referring to. Jeepday (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright fair enough.--danielfolsom 16:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Template length and "cluttered code"

On the issue of "cluttered code", brought up by Danielfolsom: I think the template's code is laid out in a way that avoids visual cluttering, with the spaces and separate lines formed within <!-- ... --> tags. As long as we continue keeping the code well-organized, I don't see a problem with "too many" options. To those of you with extensive knowledge of the technical aspects of templates: Does a larger number of optional parameters cause a drain on the servers? With what I know, I tend to doubt it. So basically, the code in this template can be as long as we want it to be. However, if anyone's up to the task I wonder if we should alphabetize the parameters, if that wouldn't cause problems with its usage or require extensive editing of pages where this template is used. szyslak 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is we don't want to be redundant --danielfolsom 15:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Collapsible?

Any thoughts on making this collapsible? It would help to "pretty up" a little more, in a less drastic way than {{taginfo}} which is up for deletion. FYI, this is one of the templates that got me thinking about "template creep" (see my essay). heqs ·:. 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made it collapsible and a bit smaller in font size. --Android Mouse 19:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree—this hides what I believe is important info to keep in mind when reading an article. We don't hide normal tags, do we? east.718 at 18:58, August 10, 2007

The majority of readers aren't going to care about the article needing to be cleaned-up, wikified, or anything like that, and it will just take up uneeded screen space for them. If they do care, they can click the 'show' link. --Android Mouse 19:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but they should be informed if it contains factual errors, original research, no references, etc. A headline as generic as "this article or section has multiple issues" may not pique their interest enough to find out what it is. Maybe a middle ground would be to default to collapsed for minor issues and editor-only issues (like wikifying, cleanup, citation style, etc.), and uncollapsed for major ones. east.718 at 19:12, August 10, 2007

I don't disagree with you that they should be informed of the possible errors in the article. But I don't believe they should be forced to have them presented if they don't care. If they do, it isn't much of a hassle for them to click the 'show' button. Also, I've created a discussion at the village pump as I'm curious what other think. Which issues would you consider major? --Android Mouse 19:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OR, POV, synthesis, and disputed are my suggestions. east.718 at 19:56, August 10, 2007

Now that I think of it, aren't {{synthesis}} and {{OR}} basically saying the same thing? --Android Mouse 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that they're subtle but different. {{OR}} refers to straight-up original research consisting of claims not made in reliable sources; {{synthesis}} refers to synthesizing together citable claims into something that can't be cited (see also WP:OR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Iknowyourider (t c) 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that the subtle difference between them is enough for a seperate template. In order to avoid getting too far off topic, I've created a discussion on the synthesis talk page. --Android Mouse 21:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a compromise: defaults to collapse, but auto-un-collapse it iff it contains one of the more contentious tags (let's say the same ones that cause it to have an orange background). Readers will probably want to know about NPOV violations or disputed claims; they probably won't care as much about needing wikification or cleanup. Iknowyourider (t c) 19:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To expand on your idea, how about it always defaults to collapsed but the major issues automatically show, while hiding the more minor ones? The link would say "show all", after clicked it would say "hide all" to hide all of the issues, even the major ones. --Android Mouse 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I like that, but it seems like it would be extremely difficult to code. If you're up for it though, go for it! east.718 at 19:57, August 10, 2007

I'm not sure how this would be actually implemented but I'll try to pull together something, eventually. --Android Mouse 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've gone ahead and implemented Iknowyourider's suggestion. east.718 at 20:28, August 10, 2007

I'm pleased to see major issues are no longer being hidden. I had contemplated abandoning use of this template altogether and sticking with multiple tags (as ugly as that is) because some issues should be very obvious to inexperienced readers. 24.6.65.83 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like important tags are still being hidden. I definitely think things like tone tags should be immediately visible to all readers. Those tags are not just for the benefit of editors, but are also for the benefit of neophyte users of Wikipedia who will know to take the article with an added grain of salt. Having articles with major problems appear to be unlabeled as such hurts our credibility. What is the list of tags that aren't hidden now? Dekimasuよ! 13:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with "Expert needed" option

No matter what I enter as input, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, or WP:MIL - it does not come up on the article. What am I doing wrong? --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 03:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on your contributions I've assumed you have fixed this.--danielfolsom 03:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yepp, I figured it out just after posting the above question. I had to omitt the "Wikipedia:WikiProject" part. Thanks for your quick answer anyway. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 03:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Request {{citation style}}

Could someone please add {{citation style}} as a paremeter to this template. It is used when citations inconsistently, or fail to apply an appropriate manual of style or citation templates. Alternately, perhaps there is an analogous or coextensive paremeter already included that someone could direct me to? Thank you, Bradford44 16:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the addition of {{cleanup-laundry}} would be much appreciated. It is the tag for unencyclopedic lists. Bradford44 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. east.718 at 19:06, August 10, 2007

Template debugging

Two quick problems: 1. "state = uncollapsed" now appears to be non-functional; and 2. the description of the default state of the template is no longer accurate, and needs to be updated to reflect the recent compromise. Thanks, Bradford44 16:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop messing with the template format

Can you please restore the previous look and feel of the template? It needs to be uncollapsed by default as it replaces multiple issues and need to be obvious to our readers. The font size does not work either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is unreasonable the way the template works right now. By default, major issues such as NPOV, OR, etc are shown. The minor issues such as cleanup templates are hidden by default as the average reader won't care about them, if they did they can click the show button. I feel (along with others as discussed above) this is a reasonable compromise. Also, what do you not like about the font size? --Android Mouse 23:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This template replaces multiple templates that are all visible. As such, there is no need to "hide" any of them. Leave all of them visible, with uncollapsed as the default. If an editor wants to use the collapsed version, he/she can do so. Font size needs to be the same as per all the warning templates, not smaller. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding (which may very well be flawed) was that the "point" of this template was to reduce template-cruft on articles (which can sometimes fill the entire first onscreen page). I'm not sure that most readers really care if someone thinks the article needs to be wikified, if it's orphaned, or if it uses weasel words, for instance. Iknowyourider (t c) 05:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "hide" is the right word for this. The issues are all still there, just not as large and distracting. I think another possible compromise for this disagreement could be that we add support for the template to auto show if a user previously clicked the show button on the template at another page, similar to how the TOC currently does. This although would probably require a modifcation to MediaWiki:Common.js. --Android Mouse 06:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to the template "cruft" that's allowed on article talk pages, there shouldn't be any crufty templates on articles at all. Anything that's there is there because we think it's important - if it wasn't important, we wouldn't have added the tags. If there is a long list of templates, we need to fix the article, not hide the templates. If a user is reading the article, they should be made aware that we know about the issues in a prominent fashion as well. It lowers our credibility if users see an article with pervasive tone issues, and warnings about such issues can only be found by uncollapsing this template. I don't agree with Jossi often, but I do here. The issue is not distraction, but disclosure. Dekimasuよ! 13:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with jossi also - regular templates aren't hidden - so they shouldn't be hidden here. Before this was a code that just put every template into one box - now it's just a table that hides them all - similar to {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and wikiprojects (the latter of which works because wikiprojects are far less important than cleanup templates). And frankly, Android Mouse, I don't know how you're saying what the important ones are. Why are NPOV and OR more important than unreferenced or weasel? I think the best solution is to just go back to how it was.--danielfolsom

• I agree with User:Danielfolsom. And can anyone tell me why, of the multiple issues with Nicola de Main, only one is shown when this template is used? Valrith 16:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

because it was set up like that. Per seeming (although perhaps temporary) consensus - agreement by User:Dekimasu, User:Valrith, User:jossi and User:Iknowyourider, I've changed the template - cleanup messages should never be hidden, there's a reason they go on the article page and that's for visibility, so hiding them is ridiculous, it'd be like having one page with, and one page without clean up tags, that's not how it works. Aesthetic aspects are far less important than article content.--danielfolsom 16:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was appropriate to remove the collapsible feature entirely. It would have been more appropriate to make the default state uncollapsed if you felt so strongly about this. There's no reason why a user would care if an article needs to be wikified, or cleaned up to fit the MOS, again if they did that show button is one click away. I think it is a tad obnoxious to have 5 templates thrown in the face of a reader as if they are required to fix them. Most of these tags are generic enough to go on about two thirds of the articles we have here. They're already overused and ignored. No reason for them to take up screenspace. --Android Mouse 17:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise, I would agree to re-add the collapsible feature, with state=uncollapsed as the default setting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the previous state was the compromise. If you feel that more tags are important over the rest, I would have no problem having more tags moved to the bottom where they are autoshown (in the previous version of the template). I also don't mind the font size being larger, although I would like for its previous horizantal width to stay the same. --Android Mouse 17:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm fine with that -although the collapsible thing was a problem because of the font (which I was kind of ok with, but another editor mentioned it). So finding a way to keep font size would be nice, or alternatively we could do overflow, having a scroll box.--danielfolsom 18:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the previous version with a larger font. If you feel other such as the weasel word tag or others deserve to be autoshown move them to the bottom of the template. I do like the scroll box idea though. Any idea how that could be implemented? --Android Mouse 19:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that does not address the concerns argued above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already addressed that, by suggesting the template remember each user's settings. What are you thoughts on that? What are your thoughts on the scroll idea? --Android Mouse 19:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The former would not work unless you get developers involved, which is not easy. The latter, does not work as per arguments presented: this template replaces other templates and article issus need to be shown in its entirety. If you can convince developers to make that change, I will support. But not before than happens. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I suggested the scroll idea was ease of access - it would be more apparent that there were multiple issues, that was my attempt at compromise --danielfolsom 21:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would it require involving developers? From my understanding, all it would require is an addition to MediaWiki:Common.js with a simple javascript function. Any sysop can edit, so it's not as if we have to contact anyone if we can get consensus for this. --Android Mouse 21:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Another vote for uncollapsed by default, for a couple of reasons. One is that the wording is vague, and could confuse the casual reader. (Saying the article has "issues" sounds like it needs a good therapist). Another is that it's important for the reader to easily see exactly what those issues are -- knowing that the article lacks primary sources or a npov can be important to how they read the article.

If the goal is simply to clean up the appearance of the article, that can easily be done by putting the maint templates at the bottom of the article. Or better yet, by doing the work that needs to be done. --Fabrictramp 20:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the word 'issues' either, although I haven't thought of anything that would sound better. In my opinion the point is to cleanup the appearance of the article. I don't understand why you would suggest putting the templates at the bottom of the article, that would make them even less visible than if they defaulted to being 'hidden'. --Android Mouse 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am assuming someone will read the whole article and get to the templates. Not necessarily a valid assumption! ;-)--Fabrictramp 21:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Section Break

I think I've lost what we're talking about. It appears to me that there's consensus that the template should by default be uncollapsed, and the discussion is over whether the template should now be collapsible at all. I would actually say we shouldn't have it collapse at all - this would be the first mainspace template to have that ability - and I think that, again, the aesthetic aspects shouldn't override content issues - and no editor should have the ability to make them override content issues, so having a parameter that does just that is insane to me. And besides - isn't that almost inviting an edit war, I mean as stated above I'm not the only one that thinks that they shouldn't be collapsed - and then there are a few editors (although seemingly far less) that think it should be. I honestly think the best solution is to go back to the way it was before all this.--danielfolsom 21:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your objection to having it autocollapsed, but I don't understand why you are objecting to having it collapsible at all. Why should we force a reader to look at the issues if they don't want to see them? --Android Mouse 21:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Because other templates don't have a "hide" function. The same reason we don't put the cleanup templates on the talk page.--danielfolsom 23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Scroll box

Here's a quick implementation for the scrollbox idea. Thoughts? --Android Mouse 21:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice! I'd say increase the horizontal size by maybe 10-20%, and double the vertical size; with that, I'd love it. Iknowyourider (t c) 21:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I might like it better if the scrollbox had room for more than 1.5 issues.--Fabrictramp 21:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I increased the vertical and horizantal size. It should now display about 3 issues before needing to scroll. --Android Mouse 21:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty nice - although I would keep the same background color and make it slightly bigger - it's kind of hard to read. Yikes - that {{scrollbox}} template is awful - I'll try to fix that up a bit, it doesn't even use wiki code.--danielfolsom 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just changed it up a lot, but I think I still like how this template was before more than the proposed - the scroll box just clutters it up and makes it difficult to tell which is which.--danielfolsom 00:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That may be a good compromise. The scrollbar is a more obvious device than a "show" link. My only question is: what about browser compatibility? does it degrade gracefully or not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Works fine in Firefox 2, Opera 9 and IE7. Could anyone with IE6 installed test? --Android Mouse 00:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm checking a bunch of browsers - including Safari, Flock , Firefox, IE5 and IE7, Konquerer and more, but it'll take about 20 minutes....--danielfolsom 00:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So far I know it works on these browsers:

• Opera 9
• Firefox 2
• IE7
• Safari for windows
• Flock

Hopefully more to come (baring catastrophe)--danielfolsom 00:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

crap - catastrophe happened - my computer shut down in the middle, so I can't say for sure but I think that they work on linux browser's. Alright, I got to be off--danielfolsom 01:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and move the proposed design to the template since it has worked in all browsers tested and there appears to be fairly good support for this change. Also, I tested it in the w3m and it's viewable too (it doesn't scroll, but then again w3m doesn't have that functionality anyways). --Android Mouse 01:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And, it seems to be broken again. Check out Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. I'm only seeing one of the three issues being properly displayed. Gangsta rap is not displaying POV. Third World is missing OR. And that's just the first three I randomly checked. 24.6.65.83 01:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

POV, OR and a few others got deleted somehow in the process. It's fixed now. --Android Mouse 02:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is also OK, but is there any way to make the scrollbar encompass the entire template, and then disappear when collapsed? east.718 at 14:11, August 13, 2007

The scrollbox causes problems when printing articles. Kariteh 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bump. Kariteh 08:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What does it cause the page to look like? I don't have a printer so can't check myself. --Android Mouse 08:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks exactly the same, and it's precisely the problem: you can't scroll the template box on paper. Kariteh 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I hate the way that scrollbox looks in this template. It looks awful. On top of that, it makes it harder to see what the article issues actually are. Please revert it back to how it was before, or maybe I'll just do it myself.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The scroll box was/is a compromise to hiding/showing the refs, sadly I believe you may be the only one against it - there's a consensus for the scroll box.--danielfolsom 10:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm against it too. Scrollboxes are awkward and non-useful; there are many people who print articles, and scrollboxes can't be scrolled on paper. Kariteh 11:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment stands - support is needed to change it back as when it was changed there was a consensus.--danielfolsom 14:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of taste, the scrollbox is simply unusable because it's uncompatible with printing. Kariteh 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean a solution won't be found. I'm sure it's somehow possible to make the template conditional and not have it display in a scrollbox if displaying the print page. --Android Mouse 18:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about the scroll box for a few days now, and I'm firmly against it, too, for both aesthetic and printing reasons. --Fabrictramp 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment stands - it appears Android mouse, Iknowyourider, BenB4 and jossi are for the scroll box, and hisspaceresearch, Kariteh and Fabrictramp are against (I'm neutral per above) - that's not a consensus to change it back (as no objections were raised during the change - consensus was there).--danielfolsom 15:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you link to where that concensus is? I'm not doubting you, I'm just not finding it and I'd like to see the reasoning. Maybe there's something I'm missing about this. --Fabrictramp 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It was on this page- we all discussed it, and the only two people to present objections (myself and jossi) later either went neutral (myself) or supported it (jossi), the decision was made at the beginning of the scroll box heading (the debate started at: Please stop messing .... (heading))--danielfolsom 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On re-reading that section, I still don't see that a scroll box was what was being debated -- it's possible others may have felt the same and so, like me, didn't comment on the scroll box issue. (In fact, when I left my comment in that section, there was no scroll box in the template).--Fabrictramp 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

First I suggested it as a possibility, then Android created it at "Scrollbox". Fabricamp that's impossible - you left your comment when the scrollbox section existed - and you specifically mentioned the scroll box. "I might like it better if the scrollbox had room for more than 1.5 issues.--Fabrictramp 21:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)" However again, I'm fine with "debating" it - but consensus was towards the scroll box, so consensus to remove is needed - and right now that consensus doesn't exist.--danielfolsom 18:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make it clear - I was referring to my comment in the "Please stop messing .... (heading))" that you refered me to (saying that's where the debate occurred). The scroll box did not exist then. --Fabrictramp 13:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So in conclusion - what's the game plan? Are we to debate this (in which case I'd probably be against the scroll box and for going back to how it was before it was collapsible) or are we going to leave it as is (which I'm probably more comfortable with - not debating is nice, and frankly I'm not that upset with the status quo)--danielfolsom 15:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I was in favor of collapsibility and the scroll box originally, after all this debate, I feel pretty much the same way — I'm happy with the status quo, but I wouldn't object to going back to non-collapsible, non-scrolling. ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 15:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I don't think it really has been discussed -- widespread support was declared four hours after it was proposed. However, it's a bit moot. I just randomly clicked on a dozen articles that use the template, and none of them had a scroll box, presumably because they didn't have enough issues to merit one. (But that's also an argument against the scroll box -- very few articles will have enough issues to have a big, ungainly "article issues" box in the article.) At any rate, if a discussion does take place, please put it in a clearly labeled section of its own so people will know what's being discussed. --Fabrictramp 22:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How's this one: Scroll Box--danielfolsom 13:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)