Template talk:Todo

Example use of todo mentioning adding an image

The example use for todo Mario Kart includes a bullet point for "add image of course", which I feel would cause confusion from how that is what Template:Image is for. A todo for "add image" would not get categorized properly, and could cause a request to get buried in an unrelated area. Now, if a todo is being used as a "hey, this article is in development, these things are planned by [USER]", then that seems like a good use case for a todo asking for an image, as it is more of the user promising that these things will get done, not a request that the user making cannot complete on their own. I'm not sure if I am looking into this too deeply, or if this could use a change or clarification. --Spencer PK (talk) 03:15, March 16, 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I see that the example has been adjusted, thanks! Self-replying so future users know this is resolved. --Spencer PK (talk) 16:23, March 16, 2026 (UTC)

Multiple subjects

In scenarios where information on a large span of topics are needed (for example: History section needing information on a variety of games), are editors supposed to use multiple templates? If not, can the template be modified to allow multiple subjects?--TheCatLover738 (talk) 23:28, March 16, 2026 (UTC)

adding more than one template works properly (see Water at the time of writing), so maybe just doing that will suffice for now. — eviemaybe (talk) 00:02, March 17, 2026 (UTC)

Looking at Water, the lack of subject categories is certainly a problem. Say someone is looking to provide all information on every Wario Land game, they would not find water because it does not have the category to convey such information is missing. --TheCatLover738 (talk) 00:39, March 17, 2026 (UTC)

Subject-specific notices

For the subject-specific notices, what about articles that need information trimmed down like Super Pyoro and the pages that were tagged with {{rewrite-remove}}? Saying it "needs information" doesn't really make sense in this case; maybe "This (subject)-related article needs improvement"? Mario JC 11:11, March 23, 2026 (UTC)

I think those categories are supposed to be specifically for when more information is needed. Therefore if an article needs to have info removed or reformatted it should be tagged with the basic {{todo}} and not a subject variant.--Steve (talk) 13:31, March 23, 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. Mario JC 11:57, March 24, 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, this was changed and the categories were renamed. --Steve (talk) 18:09, April 3, 2026 (UTC)

No section categories?

If there's one thing I don't really like about the Todo templates compared to {{stub}} or {{rewrite}}, is that it doesn't include any categories for sections needing improvement even when it's tagged as a section notice; something that literally every other notice template we have does feature. And it's not like it's all too difficult to implement, either, especially since all sorts of subjects have been split into their own template rather than being combined into a single template (which is also strange IMO; would they all need to be split up when there's switch codes out there that allows all of these subjects to be represented into a single template?) rend (talk) (edits) 12:47, April 4, 2026 (UTC)

Multiple templates was an intentional design decision by the proposer so that they would show up as suggestions in the editor when you started typing the template name. Using a single template, those suggestions wouldn't be there. A category exists for sections when there is no subject specified. Having that for every subject is possible but it wasn't mentioned in the proposal, it only mentioned "Category:Articles needing Mario Kart-related information", so as far as I know there is only supposed to be that and not "Category:Articles with sections needing Mario Kart-related information". I think doubling the number of categories just for sections would be a bit much but I can't speak if this was supposed to be done since it wasn't mentioned. Doubling the categories is a somewhat big change so I will have to wait for the proposer to weigh in if that's supposed to be done before implementing such a change. --Steve (talk) 15:18, April 4, 2026 (UTC)

The section categories would indeed be too much. The reason the old proposal had them is because there was no other way to cut the group up. Now that we get more granular topic-related splits, what benefit do we gain from splitting the six articles in Category:Articles in need of Donkey Konga improvement into two categories? — eviemaybe (talk) 14:56, April 22, 2026 (UTC)

Syntax is borked

I think somebody accidentally a word when making this template. For example, it's being used on Donkey Konga 3, but the box says "This section needs Donkey Konga improvement." which makes no sense, lol... Shadow2 (talk) 02:53, April 18, 2026 (UTC)

I do not notice anything incorrect about the wording of the template you used as an example. --TheCatLover738 (talk) 16:41, April 18, 2026 (UTC)

What does "Donkey Konga improvement" mean? What exactly is improvement of the Donkey Konga variety? Shouldn't the box simply say "This section needs improvement"? Shadow2 (talk) 23:24, April 21, 2026 (UTC)

"Improvement of the Donkey Konga variety" is exactly what it is. The section needs information about the game Donkey Konga or its sequels. In the case specified, it needs Donkey Konga 3 information. --TheCatLover738 (talk) 23:41, April 21, 2026 (UTC)

Okay, looking at Category:To-do notices, I see what's trying to be done here. They're categorized headers for specific subjects, ie the Luigi's Mansion series. Then they should definitely be rewritten, because what's written on them is not proper English grammar. They should say "This Luigi's Mansion article needs improvement." Move the subject link to that spot and then it'll make sense. Shadow2 (talk) 13:55, April 22, 2026 (UTC)

Your suggested sentence would not work for the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door partner articles that require Super Mario-kun information. The partner articles themselves would not be considered Super Mario-kun articles. --TheCatLover738 (talk) 14:08, April 22, 2026 (UTC)

What about "This article needs Donkey Konga-related improvement"? — eviemaybe (talk) 14:57, April 22, 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the history, it apparently used to say something similar to this, but was changed to the nonsensical version we have now. Shadow2 (talk) 23:23, April 22, 2026 (UTC)