Template talk:Cleanup-date

Problem with the tag
There is a problem with the tag... at the bottom of the template. Zer T 00:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What's the problem, and what are you attempting to accomplish? You replaced the parameter (the date of addition) with the current date, and then you replaced the correct category with an incorrect category.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 00:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Better sorting
It would probably be better if you split date into year, month, and day, using numbers. That way the category list does not put "April 2005" and "August 2005" right next to each other.

Output
This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality. This article has been tagged since

August 2005. See How to Edit and Style and How-to for help, or this article's talk page.

2005-08-20

&mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley&rarr; &#x2709; 23:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sync with Template:Cleanup
Template:Cleanup has been revised recently per discussion on that talk page. I don't know why both templates are protected but this template should be synced to reflect those edits. Please unprotect or an admin should make the appropriate changes. --Bk0 (Talk) 13:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Too bad it's protected, otherwise it would have already been synched up... which means I agree that this needs to match current standards (standards-matching is something that I like in template series). -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  23:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, the continued unprotected status of the more specific cleanup templates (of the ones I went to the template pages for, anyway) means that this template is the last of the "old style" templates -- the one with the small print at the bottom. -- WC  Quidditch  &#9742;   &#9998;  00:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Template:Cleanup has been unprotected. Will someone please unprotect this template as well? --Bk0 (Talk) 00:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. &mdash;David Levy 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Bk0 (Talk) 00:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it odd this Bk0's concern on the template since he seems to hate the conception of it, at first... Anyway, my question is: why isn't this "update" of template:cleanup made in the first one? I'm not a template expert, but I thought it was possible to add optional parameters to the template syntax, I mean, making it work whether someone use it as {cleanup} (for backward compatibility) or {cleanup|MonthYear} thus making this version unnecessary. Plus, if they are synced, why isn't there a reference for the "simple use" of it, which is "{subst:Cleanup-now}", as it is in template:cleanup? Sorry for not go on browsing to find those answers on my own this time even thought I actually did it a little. --Caue (T | C) 12:54, Tuesday 2006-10-31 (UTC)

Delinking month-year date
I'm delinking the monht-year date, since there's little point linking aticles to the dates they were supposed to be cleaned up! I will boldit to keep it looking similar. Rich Farmbrough 22:31 13  May 2006 (UTC).

urgent
URGENT: Someone lost the closing < / noinclude >, which results in the explanatory ... being splattered all over pages. 68.39.174.238 06:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed. heqs 07:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite as a WikiTable
I've re-coded the template using wiki table format. I used Help:Table and its links as a reference guide. Cwolfsheep 00:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh good god that's the most ugly thing I've ever seen, please someone revert it quickly before someone subst's the template then it's stuck like that forever--205.188.117.13 01:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:All pages needing cleanup
I added this, User:Patrick removed it. It's existence mirrors Category:Articles for deletion, Category:All orphaned fairuse images, and similar which exist in addition to month by month categories and that I did not create. If the category is not restored, this cleanup section of Wikipedia will be indefinitely removed from the category and backlog tracker as the alternative (following all the month categories and summing) is technically prohibitive and adds unnecessarily to the bandwidth requirements of the bot. Dragons flight 14:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your statistics are nice, but I am not sure the entry on cleanup on that statistics page is worth all the additional clutter in the lists of categories on article pages.--Patrick 00:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)