Following User talk:Kanashimi#Expand by language templates in .7B.7BMultiple issues.7D.7D, I would like to discuss here whether or not Category:Expand by language Wikipedia templates should be grouped into {{Multiple issues}}. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Later archived to User talk:Kanashimi/Archive 1#Expand by language templates in .7B.7BMultiple issues.7D.7D. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been brought to my attention on my talk page. I agree that the question needs discussion, as currently we have two tools fighting each other: the AutoWikiBrowser general fixes thinks that the "Expand language" templates do belong inside {{Multiple issues}}, leading to edits like this one; but Cewbot (talk · contribs) has been told that these templates do not belong there, leading to followup edits a few hours later like this one. This is, of course, a waste of server resources and of editor time spent reviewing watchlist entries and page histories.

Personally I think that the "Expand language" templates don't belong inside Multiple issues. They highlight an editing opportunity, but don't represent an "issue" with the article, whose content may be correct and well referenced as far as it goes. Although these templates are currently mentioned in the index of cleanup templates, they were added there only in June this year.

A complication is that AutoWikiBrowser's list of cleanup templates is coded into the program and can only be changed by a software developer. AWB software releases are infrequent. Whichever way this discussion goes, AWB's list needs to be changed, either to remove the 150 "Expand language" templates from the list or to add the 20+ missing ones. (Other parts of the list also need attention - phab:T309090)

Pinging @1234qwer1234qwer4: the author of this thread; @AngryHarpy and Kanashimi: who also took part in the archived discussion; @N8wilson: who added these templates to Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup; @Reedy: who is the most recent active AWB developer; and @MB: who contacted me about the issue. I'll also post at WT:AWB. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

One other[edit]

Combined[edit]

Two other[edit]

Combined[edit]

Discussion[edit]

I agree this needs to be resolved one way or the other to end the tool conflict. I'm leaning towards including. While Expand Languages may technically not be a "cleanup" issue, that distinction would be lost on the average reader. The wrapper just says "issues" and expanding is an "issue" of some kind. Combining saves valuable real estate and lets readers get to the text faster. MB 14:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the docs for {{Multiple issues}} begin Using too many individual article message boxes can distract from the article… (emphasis added) and continue in a spirit that seems less concerned with distinguishing among types of messages and more concerned with limiting visual and focal disruption to the reader. --N8_wilson 🔔 16:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to review this more closely it looks appropriate to go ahead and revert the change that caused the incongruence in tooling here. That change looks more like a bold edit than a community-supported change to the existing consensus. I note that the referenced discussion took place over 3 hours between 2 editors 1 of which took a somewhat detached tone suggesting wider discussion would be appropriate.

Let's leave this discussion open because the spirit of the revert here isn't to shut down dialogue but rather to fix it yourself instead of just talking about it per WP:BOLD. It looks like we broke something and I think this reversion is a quick fix while discussion continues. This also shouldn't be misconstrued as a criticism of the initial bold change that the revert undoes - in fact the B in WP:BRD is encouraged and welcomed. In this case, it just took a really long time for the community to notice that the previous bold change might not be the best long term solution and should be discussed further before proceeding. --N8_wilson 🔔 14:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the formula representing the Gini-Simpson Diversity Index in this article is inaccurate. There are two possible ways to generate this index but the formula in the article is neither. They don't match the cite in the article at the bottom of the page<ref><http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/simpsons.htm >. Slgarry (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Multiple issues}}. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. Izno (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Description of suggested change: having example (as well as default) 'y' to 'Enter any text here to replace the word "article" with "section" in the template.' is pretty confusing imo Michael H (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Wording changed – editor Michael H, is that better? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

freaking amazing now mate Michael H (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Description of suggested change: maybe allow the collapsed by default do be activated trough just 'y'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael21107 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Description of suggested change: Per the discussion at WP:IANB#MakeMobileCollapsible gadget, I'd like to propose that we conditionally remove the mw-collapsible [show/hide] links when the page is loaded in Minerva

Diff: Special:Diff/1188836674

/** 
 * Don't show the [show/hide] toggle in the mobile skin due to
 * the deployment of the MakeMobileCollapsibleGadget -- Sohom 
**/
body.skin-minerva .multiple-issues-text > .mw-collapsible-toggle {
	display: none;
}

I think should be a pretty uncontroversial hack to prevent this issues from showing up :) Lmk if there are any issues (ping @Izno and @Alexis_Jazz) Sohom (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. OK, since this has been pending for 10 days with no comments, I think it's fair to implement this. I've modified it slightly to not use body. Let me know if any issues arise. SWinxy (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SWinxy: It doesn't hide the link without body. Would you add that in per the original request? SilverLocust 💬 06:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SilverLocust Wait. Doesn't Minerva hide all message boxes? Why are we hiding it when the whole thing is going to be hidden anyway? I removed body because (afaik) the browser's parser will select the body element anyway. Is there a place where this can be seen to work vs not? cc Sohom Datta. SWinxy (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SWinxy: There is a great deal that is confusing me about this. I was going to say that, of course, message boxes certainly show in Minerva — but actually they show on Minerva if you have en.m.wikipedia in the URL rather than en.wikipedia (i.e., it hides on the desktop site when you explicitly select MinervaNeue, but not on mobile).

But I think I agree that the presence or absence of body is not what is causing the issue. (I just thought that because when I tried putting it in the /sandbox and then previewing it on mobile, the show/hide button was no longer there in the edit preview. But that seems to have just been odd behavior in the preview.)

I shall keep trying to figure out what is going on. SilverLocust 💬 03:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mirabile dictu, that really did fix the issue. After some further testing in the sandbox and on testwiki (where, I believe, there is less caching), I became convinced that adding body would fix the issue, and just made the edit (since it would either fix it or make no difference). SilverLocust 💬 04:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so uh, nothing needs to change? SWinxy (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (Between the time I asked you to add body and now, I became a template editor.) Also, I've found a note in mw:Extension:TemplateStyles#Caveats that explains why this was necessary: "use a selector such as body.skin-vector .myClass; specification of the body element is required and must be followed by a descendant combinator (i.e. the space)." SilverLocust 💬 11:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on getting templateditor! SWinxy (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]