Template:Fix

Warning! This template is extremely complex; we highly insist that you refrain from editing it unless you are skilled with advanced wiki syntax and parser functions.

This template is based off Wikipedia's template Article Issues, which lists issues on an article that need to be fixed based on simple keywords that are typed into template parameters. The template (referring to this template) can hold up to only eight issues, so make sure you list the most important ones of there are more than eight issues. Each issue also needs to be tagged with the month and year it was reported, to show how long the issue has been there. Each issue parameter is labeled "issue[number]" and each date tag parameter is labeled "date[corresponding issue number]." A list of recognized issue keywords is shown below; if you have any suggestions for more, please leave a message on the talk page.

List of Recognized Issues

Issue keyword	Issue description	Other keywords
advertise	The article looks like Billy Mays wrote it (i.e., it is written like an advertisement).	advert, ad, Billy Mays
colloquial	The article uses too many colloquiasms, which are words that are like used in like a "slangy" way. This issue like extracts, uh, I mean... detracts a lot from an article's professor-y-ness or something, as you can like see from this example.	slang, slangy
confusing	It is confusing to them. Stuff like this has some words that are bad, so please do something about it. The article is very confusing to readers. Articles like this usually use vague, foggy, or unclear words that can muddle the reader, as you can see in the example above.	vague, foggy, unclear
contradict	The article contradicts itself.	none
expert	The article is in need of an expert concerning a particular subject (e.g., electronics, Greek Mythology, sailing, etc.).	expertise
gone	The article has one or more sections missing.	missing
grammar	The article has minor grammatical mistakes, such as verb tense confusion, improper use of punctuation, and pronoun mistakes.	none
jargon	The article contains too many professional phrases used by the members of a specific group (such as the words "Roger" and "Niner").	prof phrase
lead text gone	The lead description that provides an introduction to the article is missing when needed.	lead gone, intro gone
lead text long	The lead description that provides an introduction to the article is too long.	lead long, intro long
lead text short	The lead description that provides an introduction to the article is too short.	lead short, intro short
links	The article does not have enough links to other articles or is missing vital links to supposedly related articles.	linkify, dead end
long	The article is too long and overrated.	overrated, lengthy
non-fiction	The article's content includes too many real-world references that are not treated as spoofs.	real, realistic, real-world
opinion	They think that the article has too many opinions in it and no facts! Hmph! Well, I think it's just fine! Why can't we write opinionistic articles, anyway? (This issue is closely related to the "POV" issue.)	none
short	The article is too short and has insufficient information.	stub, small
person	The article is not written in the grammatical person that fits its context.	person (grammar), pronoun person
POV	The article's point of view is tilted to one side instead of being neutral.	NPOV, unbalanced
reorganize	The article's sections need to be reorganized to become more comfortable for reading.	rearrange, refurbish
stale	The article has not been edited in a long time. (Once an article becomes so stale that it is out of line with many wiki events, replace this keyword with "update.")	old, ancient
trivia	The article's trivia section is too large.	trivial, misc
update	The article needs an update to realign with current wiki articles and events.	refresh
other	If none of the above issues fit your description, create your own issue by typing "other" into the parameter, then typing an issue description in an adjacent parameter titled "other[corresponding number]".	none