Template talk:Expert needed

Category needed

A solution for finding articles that are categorized (tagged with a WikiProject) in the template call, but their expert categories are not yet created. This makes it easy to create expert categories for articles already tagged with a WikiProject. Iceblock (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on the sandbox is welcome. The changes are:

• When WikiProject is specified and exists, and expert category exists, then no longer categorize in Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention
• When WikiProject is specified and exists, and expert category does not exist, then categorize in Category:Articles needing expert attention (category needed)

Advantage:

• Articles that are correctly tagged with WikiProjects and lack a category will move into Category:Articles needing expert attention (category needed). Inspection of that category will then reveal needs for expert subject categories that are not created.

Don't be afraid to ask if I have not explained this suggestion sufficiently. Iceblock (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

About the advantage mentioned above: Some explanation is at Category:Articles needing expert attention (category needed). Iceblock (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Tracking category to catch unidentified subjects

• Suggest sync with sandbox. Special:PermanentLink/628281213
• Reasons
  • When WikiProject is specified, and expert category has not been created, articles will be categorized in Category:Articles needing expert attention (category needed), to make suggestions on what expert subject categories should be created
  • Reduce the number of cases when categorization in Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention occurs

Iceblock (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you perceive this to be a temporary measure (a "tracking category") to help you to create all the appropriate categories? If so, I have no objection. If you are proposing a permanent category, then we should probably think a bit more about the name of it. Category:Articles needing unspecified expert attention might be better for when the subject is not specified. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of this as a temporary measure, to ease creation of new, appropriate categories. Iceblock (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay done. I will revert this (if I remember) in a few weeks then. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making the edit, MSGJ! Is it okay to let this version stay until I have created all the categories, even if it takes more than a few weeks? As new expert requests may (and I think will) be posted on new articles, and not everyone is aware that a category should be created, I believe that a category with the same purpose should be made permanently. Name suggestions:

• Category:Articles needing expert attention and a category
• Category:Articles needing expert attention and an expert category
• Category:Articles needing expert attention and an expert subject category

"Articles needing unspecified expert attention" does not exactly describe the purpose of the category. This is because the subject is specified in the template and matches the name of a WikiProject, the subject is displayed in the maintenance tag on the top of the page, but the page is not categorized by subject because the editor who tagged the page is not aware that a category must be created. Iceblock (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I was suggesting Category:Articles needing unspecified expert attention for when the subject is not specified. That would leave Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention for those where the subject is specified but do not have any other category to be placed in. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, now I see! I agree with you! Iceblock (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible code on /sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Simplifying the code by using the catcheck template is an improvement. I added a link to Portal:{{{1}}} and removed the category check for parameter ex1. Do you think it's a good idea to put articles with this template in a separate category as well as the usual ones if the WikiProject is misspelled or non-existent? Iceblock (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I deployed and reverted because it was putting every article into Category:Articles needing expert attention which shouldn't happen. I need to check over the code again. RE your question, a mis-spelled WikiProject is treated exactly the same as a non-existent one, in which case the separate categories would not exist. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems like only undated expert tags will put an article into Category:Articles needing expert attention.

If a correctly spelled WikiProject is specified, and the subject category does not exist, then the article is put into Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention. If a misspelled WikiProject is specified, then the article is not put into Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention. That's the difference I have found. Iceblock (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remove the period after {{{reason}}}

Entered into template	Result
reason = Needs input from a nuclear physicist	Needs input from a nuclear physicist.
reason = Needs input from a nuclear physicist.	Needs input from a nuclear physicist..
reason = Needs input from a nuclear physicist!	Needs input from a nuclear physicist!.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swpb (talk • contribs)

I'm not seeing this problem. Perhaps you could reproduce it on /testcases page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I just reproduced that problem, as you asked. I came here because the problem also occurs at Paraguayan War. Art LaPella (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Please improve the help instructions

I recently had reason to use this template (on the BitTorrent page if you want to know).

But despite me considering myself not a neophyte wikipedian, it wasn't clear to me exactly how to apply the template, especially the expert-talk (sub?)template.

• Where, exactly, is expert-talk supposed to go?
• How, exactly, are you to link it to the main expert-subject template?
• What, if any, parameters are truly mandatory? (Currently, way hidden in the main body of text, it states that if no reason is given, the template can be removed. MAKE THIS WAY MORE VISIBLE. Thanks.)

Do not have parameters that are "sort-of" mandatory. As long as you provide a parameter with no further comment, it should remain fully optional. Until you reach consensus to make it mandatory, it should remain fully optional. When you do reach consensus, make it clearly mandatory in all respects. At no point in the discussion process should you have an "in-between" status!

A somewhat exasperated greeting, since I am tempted to use this template on its own talk/help page... ;) CapnZapp (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Mandatory reason

I'm not sure if these type of "expert" backlog are ever really addressed, but if this template is to stay, I think there should be a big red text error when a |reason= isn't added. Otherwise it's hard to see what the issue is. – czar 23:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Aye. This was essentially required as a condition that the template survive WP:TFD to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 February 2016

Please insert

{{error|This template requires either the {{code|reason}} or the {{code|talk}} parameter}}

after

[[Category:Articles needing expert attention with no reason or talk parameter]]

In 85% of its invocations, the template is used without either a talk or a reason parameter. The deletion discussion closed with "strongly consider making the reason mandatory" (my emphasis, clear consensus there), Czar asked for it one section above, I do (obviously), it makes sense, and there seems to be exactly no opposition to it. Paradoctor (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Pass - I'm passing on this one. I'm uncomfortable adding to 4600+ pages when the usage clearly wasn't an error at the time it was added. If there were some kind of switch so it added the for new transclusions and let old ones wait attention I'd do it. Or if there were some scheme in place to clear the backlog... But, as is, I'll pass, without prejudice. Bazj (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Unexplained expert tags can be and should be removed by any editor." This has been around since 2009, which is most of the template's history, so the vast majority of uses were in error at their incept date. It's high time for a BF ugly error message. I started on the backlog, so that shouldn't be an impediment, either. Paradoctor (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The documentation for both parameters still says "You may...", not "You must...". Bazj (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Certainly, but that's because you don't have to use both. The documentation for the template begins with "Important: When adding this template to an article, state the specific issue". This, together with all the evidence already presented makes it clear that the spirit of the template is that a justification is essential for its use. Besides, the point of this edit request is to adapt the template to consensus, not the other around, right? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A few points where I disagree with you:

• "but that's because you don't have to use both" - No. As it's currently documented you don't have to use either.
• "the point ... is to adapt the template to consensus" - Yes. The consensus, as you stated in your edit request, is to "strongly consider making the reason mandatory". Czar's suggestion above is just a suggested way of moving towards that consensus. It is not itself the consensus.
• The request would have over 4600 articles tainted . The whole point of template protection is to avoid edits that have that kind of effect. On that point I now feel certain enough to say Not done:.

A less invasive approach would be to have a bot task scan the 4600 pages in the category for the relevant wiki projects and place a notice on the talk pages of those projects that their attention is needed at [list of relevant pages for that project]. Those pages could then have this template removed by the bot. Whatever is left would need to be cleared by hand. Once the category is cleared it would then be reasonable to mark talk/reason as mandatory and to implement your request.

Regards, Bazj (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, 4448 articles. You have been busy. Bazj (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "tainted" Well, if that floats your boat... Paradoctor (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

marred, disfigured, corrupted, vandalised, take your pick.

Your removal of the template from so many pages doesn't look like you're considering the issues raised by the presence of the template. We need to assume good faith on the part of the editors who tagged the articles in question, which means there had to be an issue there which they considered needed expert attention. Are you going to flag up the articles you've edited with the relevant projects so that they will at least have a chance of receiving the required attention? Bazj (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Bazj's per-project preparatory solution. It would be good to know what the distribution is for each affected project. I can only assume all affected projects have a similar # of these, with a few outliers. Maybe the remaining, un-fixed, templates can be removed after a month or so of posting a notice to each project's talk page, unless there is an exceptional number of them.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Follow up

• The template cited Wikipedia:WikiProject Expert Request Sorting as the responsible project. It's been inactive since 2009 and, unless any participants object, will be tagged as defunct.

I guess they intended to sort the requests. No sorting in 7 years makes fore a pretty cruddy backlog.

• The template is used by WP:Twinkle. A test edit shows it uses neither |talk=, nor |reason=. Since Twinkle is likely to be the source of most uses of this template, it's necessary to fix Twinkle first. A request has been submitted. Bazj (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This sounds good. I still agree with what I said above but I understand the dilemma of giving 4k+ articles a red error message. Please ping me again if discussion culminates in any sort of RfC/!vote. czar 00:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Air21

@Paradoctor: I wonder how many of the "mis-tagged" articles have a history similar to that of Air21? In 2011 I tagged it for special attention by a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Defunct Airlines; in 2013, another editor merged the tag into "multiple issues", losing the Wikiproject - perhaps the "multiple issues" template didn't support it; in 2016, you removed the tag from the article because it had no Wikiproject. Mind you, the tag achieved nothing in five years, and my post on the talk page has attracted no comments. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This post is partly incorrect. Discussion is continuing on my talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 08:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

---

• Template:Expert subject → Template:Expert needed
• Template:Expert talk → Template:Expert needed talk

– The name of this template is a classic example of telegraphic writing, and really doesn't make any sense. It wrongly implies that the subject should only be edited by experts. Especially given that it's aimed at getting the attention of subject-matter experts who may not be experienced WP editors, it would be useful for this template (and its talk-page equivalent) to have a name that was accurately descriptive of the point of the template. For years we've been moving toward plain-English template names (at least for templates intended to be used by people, as opposed to subtemplates of meta-templates and whatnot). So, let's do that here. (I'm open to any reaonable alternative, like "Expert requested", "Expertise needed", yadda yadda.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support Hear, hear!, Randy Kryn 21:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support OP is dead on.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This move has been mishandled, so the pages appearing to regular users that would inform how to use the tag are essentially devoid of the information that appeared in the past. A move should not be made unless it is checked, and a move should not proceed until a comparable instruction set can accomplay the page. What exists now is disruptive. Please undo, or correct. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done @Leprof 7272: Thanks for pointing this out. I have moved the documentation and the other subpages of the template. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@John of Reading: Thank you vm for rectifying this. Less chance of tag misuse with the instructions in place. Cheers. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we like to not lose the documentation. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

As a result of this move, Template:Expert-verify is now a double redirect. It is protected, so an administrator will need to fix it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Antony-22:  Done - I'm not an administrator, but the redirect only had "templateeditor" protection. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Wording funny

When the subject is a place, the resulting text reads incorrectly, e.g: "This article needs attention from an expert in India." It sounds as if the expert must be located in that place. Should "in" be changed to "on"? 109.149.185.65 (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion template

Since this page is protected and I'm nominating it for discussion, I need an admin or a template editor to put a {{subst:tfd}} template at the top. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 19:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Associate

with Asian Project and IPA. RCNesland (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Use

So is there any proof that use of this template actually gets anything done? I've seen uses dating back to 2008 that have gone completely unanswered. FoxTrot used to have it for several years, without response from anyone anywhere despite multiple alerts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

needed on tank articles

Expert needed on t30 heavy tank Also needed on t71 light tank Thanks :) 174.60.116.143 (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Spacing

This edit added an extra line of space to the top of the template, which is visible on mobile, e.g. at Uti possidetis. Please remove it. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Hairy Dude (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

link to relevant talk page section

Hi, It would be great if we could edit the "talk page" parameter to make it go directly to one heading on the talk page. Recently I copyedited Machine olfaction and, in order to hopefully encourage an expert to help by reducing their need to scroll through irrelevant material, put all the issues into one heading on the talk page. However adding the heading to the template didn't do anyting, the template still linked to the (top of the) talk page. It would be great if it could go to a section of the talk page. Thanks in advance.--Philologia (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC) --Philologia (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 Note: Like this? Reading the template's documentation is usually a good place to start. -- Cabayi (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. I actually did read most of the documentation before using the template, but there was so much material that was irrelevant to my needs to be read before it got to the information I needed that my brain was overloaded by that time, I'm afraid.--Philologia (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Missing WikiProject sentence

When Expert needed line is wrapped with Multiple issues template the WP sentence is missing. For example: Abuja Gateway Consortium article. Missing the WikiProject Nigeria may be able to help recruit an expert. words.

Wondering if there is a different way of coding to make this work? Or template needs correction?

Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I moved template outside of MI so that the WP links appear. If no response, I will raise this issue at VP Technical. JoeHebda (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Tracking category needed

All articles tagged with this template should be added to Category:All_articles_needing_expert_attention similar to Category:All_articles_needing_rewrite. Currently {{PAGESINCATEGORY|Articles_needing_expert_attention}} gives the misleading output of 99. {{PAGESINCATEGORY|All_articles_needing_expert_attention}} should give an output of approx 5000. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It seems that all articles are already added to Category:All articles needing expert attention, as the parameter |all= for the {{Ambox}} template it calls already has this category listed. For example Chuck-a-luck is already in the category Category:All articles needing expert attention. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Evolution and evolvability Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Please add the text "[[Category:All_articles_needing_expert_attention]]" after the text "...{{Expert needed/catcheck|{{{ex5|}}}}}". Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 23:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Evolution and evolvability, can you please give an example of an article that would be changed or fixed by this code change to the template? As Dreamy Jazz wrote above, the proposed change appears to be redundant, but there may be something that we are failing to perceive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I was thinking about WP:Expert help. I'm looking to keep better track of articles tagged for more systematically inviting outside experts to edit them or submit compete re-writes. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

These categories are confusingly named, but I think I've got the gist of it from the documentation and the category description. I still don't see how your proposed code change to this template would affect anything. A specific example of a change that would result from this code modification would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 and Dreamy Jazz: My apologies. I finally see what you're saying. I must have been mistyping repeatedly and so kept getting "0" returned from {{PAGESINCATEGORY|All_articles_needing_expert_attention}}. Two separate items that I can't work out:

1. I can't see what's causing pages to be added to category:Articles_needing_expert_attention rather than the (empty) category:Articles needing expert attention (category needed)‎ or category:Uncategorized articles needing expert attention‎.
2. Do you know if there's any equivalent of {{clc}} that would be ale to report commons:Category:Disputed_diagrams]?

Thanks again for the assistance and apologies for not spotting my own errors earlier. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I am marking this edit request as answered; undo that change if I am wrong. The "category needed" category appears to be for uses of the template for which there is no existing category yet.

As for {{clc}} on Commons, please see my sandbox on commons, where I have created and deployed a copy of that template. I don't mess around on Commons much, but I assume that is OK to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Capitalisation

I recently decapitalised (1, 2) the topics in the "WikiProject" parameters in quite a few occurrences, because "an expert in Statistics" is clearly not correct spelling (and the template re-capitalises the word in links and categories anyway). However, there is a problem in subprojects/work groups: 3, 4. The main project can be written with a lower-case letter without problems, but what comes after the slash is capitalised in the page name of the work group, but shouldn't be capitalised in the text of the template.
I can think of two ways to resolve this: Either create redirects from the lower-case spelling or create an optional separate parameter for the name of the WikiProject, in case it is different from what should be displayed. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Does this template do any good?

Is there a way to fix this template and make its presence more prominent to alert users who might actually be experts in the field, or should it just be deprecated? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Literally every single article I've checked that has had this template on it, the template has done no good at all. I'm finding transclusions going back to 2009 where any "expert" has yet to show up. I get it. Confirmation bias is a thing. That's why I mainly do country music and retail, and why things like Simpsons episodes sometimes get more focus than quantum mechanics.

But does this template ever work? It doesn't seem to have a way of actively notifying WikiProjects or other circles where someone who says "Hey, I know a lot about X, let me help" can actually do so. It just sits there in a category. There is a "reason" field, but I never see that used either. I never see people who use this template bring it up on the talk page. It's just a drive-by tag that's slapped on for no reason because an article is underutilized, and it literally never seems to do any good.

For instance, Music of Arkansas has had an "expert" tag since 2012, but the tagger never said anything on the talk page, nor did anyone else. I sampled a whole bunch of uses of this template, and not a single one had anything in the "reason" field, nor any relevant discussion on the talk page. It also doesn't seem like one has to be an "expert" to improve an article. I wouldn't consider myself an "expert" on game shows, even though I have competed on one, but I still got Wheel of Fortune (American game show) to GA almost entirely by myself. I only know maybe five songs by The Forester Sisters, yet I got that one to GA as well. It seems that the mere purpose of this template is redundant; in the Music of Arkansas example, {{tone}} and {{reorganize}} seem to do a better job at explaining the issues in the article.

Is this just my confirmation bias, or is this a valid concern? Is there any proof that its use actually helps in any scenario, or is it just 100% prone to drive-by tagging and superfluous to other maintenance tags? I saw the same thing happen with {{expand}} ages ago for much of the same reasons (excessive drive-by tagging, little to no explanation whenever the tag was used, redundancy to other tags).

In short, Is there a way to fix this template and make its presence more prominent to alert users who might actually be experts in the field, or should it just be deprecated? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer:, you pose a really good question, but I'm not sure starting right off with an Rfc, is procedurally the best way to deal with it; see WP:RFCBEFORE. Just normal discussion, or even nominating it for deletion might be better. I'll be lurking and watching, because I'd like to see how you go forward with this, and what others say. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact, the template has already been nominated for deletion two times, see the links in the header of the talk page. As far as the "reason" field is concerned, I have found it used in an article I have linked in the section above (#Capitalisation): Wakeby distribution. I'm not sure how helpfully it's used there either though. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thinking it might be useful, I've attempted to use it a few times, with a both a reason and discussion on the talk page, but I fear I was wasting my time. One of the instances you deleted earlier today (at Henry Eccles) does have a very good reason posted to the talk page, but it's not been addressed since 2011. At least in its present form I can't see that this template has any utility. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: @1234qwer1234qwer4: @MichaelMaggs: You bring up good points that do suggest that this template doesn't help at all. The reason I didn't want to TFD it is because I've tried to nominate {{cleanup}} in the past for similar reasons (incessant drive-by tagging, unused "reason" fields, redundancy to more specific templates) but it keeps getting closed as keep. I will keep this discussion open a while longer to see if more people chime in before I decide whether or not to go to TFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• You are right to an extent, I think. I've also never seen this template result in articles getting the help they need. But I don't think it should be deleted (so I don't think going to TfD is the answer). The issue is that it needs to be advertised to "experts" better. Where do we find these experts? Off the top of my head, i can think of two routes: (a) advertising to WikiProjects, like a eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket may have a "Articles requiring a cricket expert" list, a bit like the WP:AALERTS lists (maybe Headbomb could have some thoughts on this). The second is the average reader. Perhaps someone in academia or something stumbles across an article and have the expertise to clean it up. For those cases, the template needs to change to produce a better call-to-action rate. Perhaps its usage should be more clear with what the problem is (ie require posing a question), or something else. Not sure. Just spitballing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• I sometimes check these for medicine-related articles. You can see the backlog at Category:Medicine articles needing expert attention. I mostly find these tags worthless. See, e.g., Acid peptic diseases. It was added by someone who mostly edits language-related articles. This is nothing about this article that suggests we need an actual expert involved. I suspect that the thinking was that this is about medicine, so only experts should edit those articles. Hammer, you might appreciate the tags at the top of Alcoholic lung disease. It needs an expert to clean up the article. What needs to be cleaned up? Just that it needs an expert. I might guess that the editor wants the ==Management== section to be non-empty, but, again, there's nothing obviously wrong with this article.
  In terms of problem-solving, I think that it might be useful to require a reason, with a big red error message in the template when the reason is omitted. It would probably also be useful to set POV-style rules around removal: either the need is explained well enough for the next editor to understand what needs to be fixed, or the next editor can summarily remove it. That would improve the signal:noise ratio. From there, perhaps it could be integrated into AALERTS. We could also run a notification/cleanup campaign to reduce the number of tagged articles that are unlikely to need attention from actual experts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination

Template:Expert needed has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:template for discussion|help=off}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edit, 2021 March 20

About a week ago, I went through Category:Articles needing unspecified expert attention and cleared out all 1,564 entries by categorizing them into appropriate WikiProjects. While this is all fine and dandy, several more have appeared in the category since then. Moreover, the conclusion of the TfD was to deprecate uses of the template without the reason= parameter filled. Therefore, I propose that this revision of the sandbox (which I've validated on all the test cases) be put into the main template, which will throw a big-ass red error if you fail to supply a category. This will prevent a backlog from accruing, and make the template useful again. Later on (if I remember to do it, or if someone else remembers to do it), it would be great to do this for the reason= parameter as well. jp×g 00:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not entirely certain about implicating WikiProjects, even in a warning message. Not everyone is going to understand what that is requesting. --Izno (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I am impressed with the amount of work you have put in on this. I used to work on the expert needed pages listed at the Astronomy and Physics project pages. I never ran into one with a reason and that was a real pain. Looking at the TfD discussion it seems clear that there is support for getting both a reason a the subject. Since we can usually tell the subject from the Wikiprojects on the talk page I think enforcing a reason rather than a Wikiproject should be the way to start. Perhaps instead of asking for a project, having the message say that the template will be deleted if no reason is given would work.

Many of the science projects have links to the proper expert needed category on their main project pages. I am familiar with WP:AST, WP:CHEM, WP:COMPSCI, WP:MATH,and WP:PHY. Do any of the non-technical projects make use of the expert needed template and the sorting? StarryGrandma (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I would be fine with having the red-notice parameter be reason= instead of project categorization. Either one is fine: I think that as long as we prevent it from getting used without any specification at all, that would be an improvement. I will try to rejigger the sandbox later and make it do this. jp×g 19:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Template changes still being worked on based on the above discussion. For what it's worth (as TFD closer) having the reason parameter used was the main concern. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Formatting problems

Revolutions of 1989 has weird formatting and text issues regarding spacing and bolding, any explanations? - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Bizarre. I think it was that there were line breaks and spaces at the end of the parameter. That really shouldn't happen, though. Someone wiser than I might do well to look at the old version. jp×g 08:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Right, formatting '' and ''' tags reset after a line break. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Spring Cleaning of the physics expert-needed category

I wanted to report that after the February discussion, the Physics WikiProject decided to proceed with a very successful spring cleaning session.

Spring cleaning in numbers: on April 3, 2021, we had in total 245 articles in the expert-needed category (+ subcategories). On April 15, 2021, there were only 49 articles and all of them had a reason parameter. We had 15 articles PROD'ed, 3 articles AfD'ed, and 3 articles speedy deleted. In conclusion: 19 articles were deleted, 16 articles were transformed into redirects, and 1 article was widely expanded. --SimoneD89 (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@SimoneD89: Outstanding! I'm glad sorting out those templates wasn't a total waste of time. jp×g 17:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Special thanks go to all people involved in the cleaning for their efforts and dedication. I hope the results of the cleaning session will encourage other WikiProjects to start looking at the expert-needed categories (17% of the 196 revised articles were wiped/deleted). Spring cleaning continued: only 36 articles left :). --SimoneD89 (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

How to handle unexplained tags

The last TfD deprecated the use of this tag without a rationale. Should we create a tracking category Category:Articles using Template:Expert needed without a rationale for this issue? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

nvm, we already have this. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Expert subject categorie

The expert subject categories need a rehash. Recommendations:

1. Start a CfD for all empty categories in Category:All expert subject categories.
2. Replace all tags combining two different subjects in one subject parameter, and start a CfD regarding these categories.
3. Clean up overly narrow topics such as Category:Blu-ray articles needing expert attention, which will be CfD'd shortly.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• At the very least we can merge sub-topics of the same topic to reduce the unnecessary granularity. --Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk links hidden

The recent TfD for this template ended with consensus that the template should never be used without a reason or talk parameter. The talk parameter creates a useful link to the talk page. However, when this template appears within {{multiple issues}}, the link to the talk page disappears. I think this should be fixed so that a talk page link always shows up, but I have no idea how I would fix that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Please replace the current code with the sandbox version, to address the issue raised above. Thanks. Dan of La Mancha (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Tested positive on testcases page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 19:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Conflict with documentation for {{expert needed talk}}

The documentation for {{expert needed}} currently says:

"This template flags an article for the badly-needed attention of an expert or experts in the subject(s) specified (please use {{Expert needed talk}} on the talk page for non-urgent requests)."

That seems to imply that for non-urgent requests only {{Expert needed talk}} should be used, not both. But the documentation for {{Expert needed talk}} says:

"This is for use on the talk page in conjunction with {{Expert needed}} on the article's main page."

So there seems to be a conflict between the two guidelines that should be resolved. Joriki (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)