Template talk:Cleanup/Archive 6

Requesting "discuss=" parameter
Can an optional "discuss=" parameter be added to the Cleanup template? The parameter would be used to link to a specific discussion section about the cleanup, either on the article's talk page or a different talk page. That would make it a lot easier to find the discussion about the cleanup, if any. A number of other templates have this parameter, for example Merge. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Seconded.--M4gnum0n (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I also support this. I think this should be allowed as an alternative to the reason parameter (which is proposed to be mandatory). Superm401 - Talk 22:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good idea. If it is specified then the link to the talk page should go specifically to that discussion, and the wording should make it clear that there is something to see there.  (If it is only subtly different from the default template wording, then people won't bother to check the link.) Zodon (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It turns out the template already has this feature, it just isn't documented. The parameter is  .  I added some documentation. Zodon (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a standard name for such a parameter? If discuss is the semi-standard, perhaps the parameter should be renamed before it gets used much?  Zodon (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification
Could the following code be added to the template.

It was decided above that this would be the best and most neutral way to advertise the RFC. It should display this on the template. Whether to make the reason mandatory for the cleanup template is being discussed. See the request for comment to help reach a consensus.

Thank you AIR corn (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, but with slightly different markup cribbed from tfd. Anomie⚔ 21:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am removing this text to "advertise the RFC". It is bad enough that this maintenance template (used for an editor to editor communications) appears in article space and not on the talk page (see Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/article). But this latest additional message (whatever one thinks of amber boxes) is a clear breach of the guidance in Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid: "Mentioning that the article is being read on Wikipedia, or to Wikipedia policy or technicalities of using Wikipedia should be avoided where possible."


 * Just think about it for a moment a reader looks up "widget makers in Ruritania" to find out about widget making in that country and in the middle of the information about that comes the comment "Whether to make the reason mandatory for the cleanup template is being discussed ..." that is just confusing for that ordinary reader. As it happens the first article that appears in the links list to this template it is called Alternate history and the template appears in a section called "Cross-time stories". So a reader who knows little about Wikipedia and cares less searches on "Alternate history" and clicks on the TOC entry for "Cross-time stories" the first thing they read in that section is "Whether to make...". Whoops!


 * The problem here is that some editors are getting to wrapped up in the process of providing information and not in the presentation of that information. -- PBS (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How is this different to a tfd notification? AIR corn (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * from Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." - editors should be notified about change that may affect more than 24000 pages Bulwersator (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a little controversy surrounding Anomie's edit, and I think it was wrong to revert without first discussing the reversion. The edit was a good edit, in my opinion, and the RfC notice really needs to be added back in as soon as practicable! –  PIE  (  C LIMAX   )  02:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I, also, don't agree that this causes a problem with self-references as described, since the notification would be formatted differently to the rest of the article. In my view, PBS should really consider putting it back. Tra (Talk) 03:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * PIE, it was not wrong to revert it (WP:BOLD -- an edit was made revert then discussion). Tra please read what I wrote about being involved in the process of creating an encyclopaedia rather than in the information contained within the encyclopaedia -- The edit in my opinion crosses that threshold and is against guidance.
 * "editors should be notified about change that may affect more than 24000 pages" (Bulwersator) At a technical level, if this change was to trigger a change in the watch list of editors who monitor any of the 25,000 pages, there might perhaps be a case for it, but this change will only trigger a change in the watch list of those who monitor the template not the pages on which it is placed, so it is a very inefficient way to inform interested editors of the change to the template and as an infringement in guidance that places a sentence that is not directly relevant to the information contained in 25,000 pages, so I will not revert my reversion. AIRcorn I had not appreciate that Tfd placed a message in article space, and I think that is a mistake as well (for the same reasons). If another administrator having read this conversation reverts my revert to this template then I have no objections to them doing so. -- PBS (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did read that bit but, in my view, the edit is the other side of that threshold. And this notification is to appear on articles not watchlists so it would still be visible. As for Tfd putting messages in article space, I still think it's a reasonable comparison to make. I would put the message back myself but I feel I'm getting a little bit too involved given that I'm expressing my opinion here and PBS's wording is somewhat ambiguous as to whether 'another administrator' refers to me or not. I'll leave this request open. Tra (Talk) 13:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There was clear consensus from editors on both sides of this discussion that a major change to this template should be discussed by as many of those that work with it as possible. There was an acknowledgement that TfD was not the ideal environment, but agreement that notification equivalent to that at TfD was necessary. This consensus has been unilaterally overridden (in good faith perhaps) by a technicality within the Manual of S***e. If the notification is not restored within 24 hours, the above discussion will be superseded by a TfD. —WFC— 19:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the CAT:PER queue doesn't get a huge amount of traffic so you would need to raise this somewhere that would get more interest. TfD is one venue but this generally isn't recommended unless you actually want to have the template deleted. There's also WP:AN to get attention from other admins. To be clear, I still (weakly) support the notification but I'd rather back off from putting it up myself. Tra (Talk) 20:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Restoring the the notification would be much more agreeable than converting this to a tfd. Some editors have already come here thinking it was a discussion about template delteion and that is likely to happen more often if it is held at tfd. The tfd notification is worded "The template below is being considered for deletion", which would only add to the confusion. At any rate PBS claimed WP:Bold for his edit. The next step in the process is "revert" then "discussion". The discussion has been done twice now (here and before it was implemented). The only thing stopping the revert is that most of us can't do it. Even if it is claimed that the first edit was bold and his was a revert the discussion is clearly in favour of having the notification. It is no coincidence that comments at the rfc have stalled since the notification was removed. AIR corn (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Administrators'_noticeboard Bulwersator (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Restored per above. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 00:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't belabor the point, PBS, but it was indeed wrong to revert before discussion in the sense that this is a protected page, and any edit that might be controversial is expected to be discussed first. I've been chewed out by admins in the past just for adding an Editprotected template prior to a discussion.  That WP:BOLD is appropriate when a page is not protected and all editors may be so bold.  When an admin has already made a change that another admin does not agree with, it is common courtesy for the disagreement to take place on a talk page prior to reverting that admin's edit.  Am I wrong? –  PIE  (  C LIMAX   )  10:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I came here because I thought that there was a bug that caused this thing to appear. Seriously, at first it looked like somebody screwed up a template because of the large horizontal rule and all the visible wiki-gibberish. It's really rather unsightly. I would suggest throwing away the horizontal rule, but then it could be argued that the reader's eyes would not be drawn to the unnaturally small notice nestled above the big yellow box. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was formatted this way to replicate the tfd notice. The assumption being (at least from me) that this was already an acceptable way to advertise changes to templates. I admit that it looks particularly bad when the template is in a section. I have no objections to improving the look of the message (it could possibly lead to a bigger discussion on how to advertise tfds too). I guess it could be argued that since this template should only be applied to aticles that are already considered messy it will not make that much difference to its overall look, but this type of message would be particularly bad on Good or Featured articles. AIR corn (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Hidden sig
Quite often the reason for the cleanup (and whether it was fixed) is unclear, especially if it sits for a year.

I am wondering whether it would be useful and technically feasible to implement automacical signing the template with the username of the tagger, so that one may ask for the original cleanup reason when in doubt. If possible, I would sugget to implement it similarly to hidden categories, so that it will not increase the clutter for a random reader, but seen for a dedicated editor with the corresponding option turned on. Lothar Klaic (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This would be awesome. In addition to helping with addressing old tags, it would help us identify chronic drive-by taggers and encourage them to be more specific, thus reducing the amount of backlog coming in. -- LWG talk 20:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not necessary. Even if you did ask the tagger for the reason s/he put the tag on s/he is not sanctioned by policy to answer you.Curb Chain (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, CC. The tag is dated, so if an editor wants to know who tagged the article, it's not that big a deal to go to the history page and focus on the date of the tag.  However, I have found that even experienced editors become so involved with other things that they don't remember such things even a short time after placing them.  So taggers are not usually able to remember why they tagged an article two years ago.  This is yet another good reason to make the   parameter such that the maintenance tag will only be visible if that parameter is completed. –  PIE  ( C LIMAX ! )  12:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVILITY is a core policy on Wikipedia. Even if someone is not forced to respond to talk page inquiries not attempting to cooperate at all is a clear violation of this policy. Nageh (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @PIE. Bit of a side note here, but I have found the date to be too broad with just the month and year. Many times tags are applied during a period of heavy editing and it can take a while, especially if the article is large and the edit summary is not obvious, to find the edit or editor that actually added the tag. A sig would help, but so would making the date narrower or some default message in the edit summary saying a tag has been added.
 * @Curbchain. I would think most editors would take a dim view of someone tagging an article with any tag and then refusing to explain why they have done so when specifically asked. Not sure it breaches civility, but it is good justification to simply remove the tag and if it is a pattern could lead further. AIR corn (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support either a more focused date or a default message in the edit summary. – PIE  ( C LIMAX ! )  18:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Nageh: Not answering someone has nothing to do with WP:CIVILITY and everything to do with WP:CHOICE.Curb Chain (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's a mixture of both. While you are free to ignore an inquiry you cannot constantly ignore any attempts for collaboration. Personally, if someone would never respond to good-faith questions I would consider this as incivil behavior. Nageh (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We are talking about Editor A messaging Editor B on the userpage. Editor B has every right to ignore messages on Editor B's userpage, but if Editor B chooses to collaborate in project space and chooses not to discuss and becomes disruptive, then WP:DISRUPT applies.  WP:Civil is a conduct policy, not a collabration policy, so no it would not apply.Curb Chain (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

PIE, you have mentioned a few times that the tag should be invisible if there is no edit summary. I have thought about this, but can't work out what advantage that would give. It might make articles prettier, but how does making it invisible help decrease the backlog or help the cleaners? We would probably just end up with a lot of templates on articles that would only be seen when somoene tries to edit the lead. AIR corn (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An invisible tag that's left in an article, together with a category listed that indicates the tag, will still key editors that something is needed without messing with the readability of the article. A maint. tag should be dealt with within a certain period of time or removed, and I'm told there are bots that do this.  A bot won't care if it's invisible or not.  If it's in the code, and it has not been dealt with, it will eventually disappear from the code, as well.  The time limits still need to be discussed, but that should probably wait until the proposal above passes or fails.  If it were up to me, though, maintenance tags would go elsewhere, perhaps the talk page.  I've never liked them to be placed directly in an article.  And that is yet another issue.  –  PIE  ( C LIMAX ! )  18:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Let us focus on why this sig will be useful, rather than why it will be useless. Here is another usefullness of it: some time ago I came across a obscure article which was cleanup-tagged a year ago with the specific reason, something like "layout does not conform wikipedia style". I spent 2-3 minutes trying to figure out what's wrong with the layout and came to the only conclusion that I am probably too stupid to edit wikipedia. Most probably the article was gradually fixed, but the tag was not removed, the editors being modest, just like me :-)

If I quickly knew who posted the tag, I would have asked them are they happy now. Otherwise my only option was to post the question in article talk page, to sit there unanswered, since the article was edited last time 4 months ago.

By the way, questioning tags is talk page is always a proper way to handle the question which is being addressed in the current discussion about "cleanup-reason". But I begin to suspect that the real goal of this discussion is to find a way to handle tags quickly, without much thinking and talking, click teh AWB and done with it. Pity, then, if cleanup will turn into a war of bots.

(P.S. is there a wikipedia term for those who drive Twinkle, AWB, etc., you know, like in sci-fi/games those operators of walking/fighting machines?) Lothar Klaic (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I probably would not remember, after a year of editing Wikipedia and doing many other things, what my reason meant. – PIE  ( C LIMAX ! )  18:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this-- you can find when the template was added in the page history and contact the user asking him why he/she added the template. This would do nothing to solve the problem with years-old cleanup templates; the user who added it might not be on WP anymore, even if they were they probably wouldn't even remember why they added the template.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 18:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * re: "you can find" this was laready explained: it will take pains to find when. Lothar Klaic (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * re: "I dont remember why I added it" - then you will answer so, and the template will be happily deleted. This way you kill two hares: you get rid of tags nobody remembers about, and you do not accidentally delete something which is important enough to be remembered. Lothar Klaic (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If a tag was added to an article — without a reason given — a year ago (especially an article which gets lots of editing attention), and there is no obvious issue with the article, shouldn't the cleanup template be dropped anyway? With an article that gets edited a lot, it is quite possible that whatever issue prompted the tag would have been fixed in the meantime without people actively having been prompted by a cleanup tag. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article is heavily edited, it means people have an interest in the topic, and of course they will try to minimize the number of ugly tags on top. The main issue is with neglected articles, where nobody cares and nobody knows what's going on Lothar Klaic (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion - Link to edit where tag was added
It would be nice if there could be a link on the cleanup tag directing one to the edit in which the tag was applied. This would facilitate finding out who made the edit (as was suggested in the ). It would also give easy access to the edit summary (which might have information about why the tag was placed, similar to the reason field). I expect a bot would have to be employed to fill in the field (much as a bot can automatically fill in missing date fields). Side question/alternative - is there a tool that does this interactively? (I supply it with a tag and an article, and it shows me the edit where that tag was added). If such a tool exists, it might be handy to mention it in the documentation or on the talk page of this template (to assist editors in cleaning up articles). Zodon (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support something like this, not just for this tag but for most visible tags. Don't know anything about a tool to do this, but bots do something similar with Good and Fa articles (link to the version that passed) so I imagine it should be possible to implement. Might be something worth bringing up at the village pump. AIR corn (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Strong support - Much more useful than requiring the |reason= parameter. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. Maybe this isn't really necessary for cleanup tags that do hav the reason parameter but for the ones that don't we should have this so that we can easily contact the user who added the tag asking them why they did so.  And if their issues have been fixed (or if they don't remember why they added it) we can delete it.  This would be very helpful for reducing backlog of this tag; that way we know when an article no longer needs cleanup.  However this does not, and should not, remove the necessity to have a reason tag.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 16:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A big use of this could be to ask someone if the article now meets their standard. If you clean up an article (using the reason to guide you) it could be beneficial to ask the tagger if you have fixed their concerns. especially if it is an old tag and they are no longer watching the page. This would apply to a lot of tags (NPOV springs to mind, but there will be others). I think this would be more useful than the hidden signature, the exact date or standard edit summary mentioned above as it would take you straight away to the exact diff. AIR corn (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Question Is this technically possible? Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently, not without a bot. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose if this exclused mandatory reason. It'd be even more wasted time comparing the revisions, seeing what was cleaned and what not, and a moot point anyway since the tag would still not have an explanation on it on why it was put there in the first place. While it would seem a silver lining at first, it's still more headboggling than just removing the damn thing if you don't know why it's there or if obvious problems were solved. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No this will be as well as a mandatory reason, which has clear support from above. It is something that could be done to all clean up tags. AIR corn (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is assuming taggings are more than just taggings and that the edit is indicative of what is wrong in the first place. If the user tags a page, then obviously they haven't fixed what's wrong (otherwise they wouldn't be tagging). So how would a diff show what's wrong unless the user writes it in edit summary? And if they write it in edit summary, they may as well have written in in the tag itself. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's possible a reason was included in the edit summary when the tag was added. If nothing else, it makes it plain who added the tag, so they can be contacted if need be. Also, the diff between when it was added and the current version will display any improvements to the article, helping editors to know if a concern has been addressed. Currently, finding the edit where a tag was added can take minutes to find. This would eliminate that effort. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It can only help and should cost very little to implement. AIR corn (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Its main purpose would be locating the edit summary. --M4gnum0n (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - this would at least show the condition of the article at the time of being tagged. Skullers (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Some figures
You can see from these two boxes the relative number of reason fields filled in is about 25% in the current month, consistently increased from the days of yore. The number of articles with this tag is only about 10 per day, so maybe a "backlog clear up lite" is getting reasons into the templates where possible. And then maybe we could politely educate folk to add a reason field. Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC).


 * I could be wrong, but I think these show that polite educational methods have enjoyed only mild success thus far. I'm not saying we should be impolite, just that a more controlled guidance is called for to get editors to use what's fresh in their minds all the time to show other editors what needs to be cleaned up. – p i e ( Climax !)  21:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could a bot (or tool) scan talk pages for the word "Cleanup"? If someone is mentioning Cleanup on the talk it is likely to be in relation to why the tag was applied (even if it was a different editor) and the reason could then point there. AIR corn (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But there are times when the tag was not added at the time of when the talkpage section was added. Also note  is populated by at least template:prose.Curb Chain (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hum. 23,591/845 is 25%? Cuz I see it's 27:1 for non-tagged. Which makes around 3-4%. And I can reasonably put the last month's increase in "reason field" to... you know, the last month's tfd discussion and people trying to save their pet tag, not actual awereness or care. Many of those who like the idea of drive-by ading have (almost violently) pointed out that they'd like to keep it that way. And these are the people that actually bother reading the documentation and the tfd's. What about those who don't care to even do that? --Anime Addict AA (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One has to click the [show] links to get the figures for the months, AA. There were 141 with and 285 without by the end of March, so it had risen to about 49%.  Hope this helps. – p i e ( Climax !)  19:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Should the reason parameter be made mandatory
 PLEASE SEE BELOW 

Should the reason parameter for the cleanup template be made mandatory. A recent template for discussion was closed as no consensus, though the closer concluded that the discussion should certainly result in changes. A suggestion expressed during the discussion was that the reason parameter should be made mandatory. This RFC is to determine whether there is consensus to enact such a change. AIR corn (talk) (Extending rfc template for bot)  Chris  05:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC) 01:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Responses

 * Support As proposer. AIR corn (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose An equal number of people expressed that the convenience of not being forced to add a mandatory reason is one reason this template should be kept.Curb Chain (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The many person-hours of editor time wasted searching and trying to read your mind far outweighs the second or two it takes to add a reason. Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sparkie82, in absolute terms (hour for hour), you may be right. But your comparison is not really germane to the overall issue. I think the point Curb Chain is making is that this requirement will deter numerous users from using the template. So many of the well-placed cleanup templates that ultimately encourage users to improve neglected articles will not be placed. This is the reason that some people feel that convenience (as Curb Chain puts it) is an important trait for this most common of templates. I would also note that you might not be wasting your "person-hours" editing said article if the cleanup template wasn't there in the first place. The article would instead remain unnoticed, in poor form, and without the valuable improvements that you and other editors have to offer. ask123 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed you would not be wasting your time on that article: you would be using productively on some other article whose tagger was working with you, not against you. Thus some bad articles would actually be fixed, instead of all of them stagnating because the fixers cannot sift through the massive number of vague tags. -- LWG talk 21:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support as template without explanation what should be fixed is completely useless. Note that we may also need to find good way to implement this change as Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field lists 24423 articles and Category:Cleanup tagged articles with a reason field only 542 Bulwersator (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support If this template have to exist, than the reason should be mandatory. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Let's talk <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits? 22:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As template without proper explanation makes it almost impossible for other editors to edit an article in order to remove the template eventually. Onkar 22:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkarr (talk • contribs)
 * Note, above; signature are not mandatory. 05:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support If a cleanup is requested, we should know why the requester thinks something needs improvement.Saintonge235 (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - It will definitely make the tag less vague. What exactly needs to be cleaned up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadiomals (talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 March 2012
 * Support Back when the template didn't support the reason parameter at one point in time I eventually got so annoyed looking up the talk pages of articles tagged for cleanup just to find no reason or suggestions at all that I was pushing for addition of the reason parameter in the hope that people would be more articulate that way. It mostly hasn't worked out that way. Requiring use of either the reason parameter or a new talk parameter (linking to a relevant talk page section) is the only solution to effectively avoid such drive-by-tagging, requiring the tagger to think about the exact issues in need of cleanup. Nageh (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This "drive-by-tagging" argument is so overdone and completely anecdotal.Curb Chain (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I experienced it strongly back at the time, which was exactly why I was pushing for the reason parameter. I do admit that I see it much less frequently these days, which could be the strongest argument against my Support vote. Nageh (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If drive-by-tagging is so bad and exists, it must exist for other tags. These other tags, if driven-by-tagged, would mean either the article was not fixed, just tagged, or spam tagged/incorrectly tagged.  If an editor consistently did the latter, it would be vandalistic.  Can you quote such a case with this tag?Curb Chain (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes drive by tagging does exist, and its rise over the last five or six years does seem to correlate with the community decline Hence the theory that the decline in the community has been at least partially caused by the shift from the SoFixIt philosophy of our early years to the SoTemplateIt philosophy of today. This particular template is worse than others because the tagger hasn't even bothered to specify what they think is wrong with the article.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's not a problem.Curb Chain (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In many cases, what needs clean up will be quite apparent. On most articles there's always something needing work, anyway, so just get on it. "Mandatory" in what way? Can't save page without it? Violators subject to blocks? More likely: A reason to simply remove the tag without improving the article, an opportunity to scold someone on their talk page. The drive-by comments are needlessly hostile personal attacks. NB: was the page that led me here. I see things needing clean up without a 'reason' parameter. Alarbus (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that when it's not obvious you end up costing many editors many minutes or hours of time searching articles and talk pages looking for a reason.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the problems on any given page are so obviously apparent, then you're basically making the case why a page shouldn't need to be tagged at all. "Drive-by" tagging of various templates, without any reason provided, happens all the time.  As far as I'm concerned, it's little more than vandalism.  If an editor's time is so precious that they can't be bothered to go to the trouble of fixing the page themselves, then they should at least be required to provide (a) good, specific reason(s) why they're tagging.  Otherwise they shouldn't be tagging in the first place.--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See the tech section below on implementation -- it's not an issue. Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support This is one of the vaguest tags on wikipedia. What needs to be cleaned up is the question perplexing editors. Usually there is no note on the talk, but just a tag that tells nothing. If a reason is given, then upon addressing it the tag can be removed. This will reduce any disputes regarding tag removal. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm finding lots of problems in the article FBI and listing all of them would be a pain. Having a general cleanup tag is what's needed for that article. This tag serves that purpose in its current form. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b>talk 09:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And this article is a perfect example of drive-by tagging and/or irresponsible tagging. Naturally, every article that has not reached a featured status requires further improvements. But what on all earth is in such a desperate state of needing cleanup in the FBI article that it needs to be screamed out at the top of the article without saying what exactly? Because I do not know. Which is why I support mandating the reason parameter. Otherwise, why not tag it onto every non-featured article? And why not tag it onto older featured articles as well, 'cause for sure there will be something for cleanup, right? Nageh (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely. If you look at the edit history on that page, you can see that I've been working on that article. Tagging the article for general cleanup is not drive-by tagging or irresponsible tagging from my point of view; it alerts readers that there are problems with the article. The problems are of a different nature than if an article was short or incomplete. There are multiple problems with references and organization, the problems with references may not be obvious to the reader who doesn't check references, and I think that tagging the article to alert readers is an appropriate and responsible step, especially when I don't have time to check and fix everything on my own in one editing session. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b>talk 11:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Still, we cannot anticipate your thoughts. As an uninvolved editor looking at the FBI article I am completely at loss what exactly needs cleanup. If you do tag an article that way take your time to provide a reason on the talk page so other editors understand what is wrong with it. Nageh (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And what would stop you from stating the reason you wrote above, "multiple problems with references"? --hydrox (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are mixing two different issues. This discussion is about the proposed deletion of the template, not about what users should write on talk pages. It may be a fair criticism to say that I or another editor should leave a note on the talk page of an article which has this tag, but that doesn't mean that this template should be deleted. I feel strongly that the template should stay. If you want to propose a modification to the template that prompts people to leave a note on the talk page, I could consider supporting that. Deleting the template is a different matter. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b>talk 04:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the deletion discussion has been. This is about a possible improvement to the template, in this case making the editor who uses the template leave a reason. AIR corn (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Somehow I missed that. For the moment I'm opposed to making it mandatory for an editor to leave a reason because I'm not seeing this as a big problem, but I'd support having the template encourage the editor to leave a reason with the template and/or the talk page. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b>talk 06:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pine, I think you are one of the responsible editors who occasionally use this tag. The problem is when there are many taggers tagging many articles without a reason and by saving the tagger a second or two you end up costing many editors hours of time searching articles and talk pages looking for a reason when they could be making useful edits. Because you mistakenly thought that this was a deletion discussion, I think everyone would understand if you re-evaluated your original view on this. Let me know if I'm wrong, but based on your comments above, I don't think you would mind taking a second or to to add a reason, if you knew that it could save hours of editor time.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, If an editor finds many issues in an article, and is working on it, the proper tag would be under construction or in use. Otherwise, they can tag it with multiple issues or cleanup, provided that either the reason or the talk parameter is passed. A plain cleanup would be too vague for other editors or readers. --Waldir talk 13:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this discussion is about the reason parameter, not about whether the cleanup tag should exist. Anyway, a featured article is not only an article with no problems, it's also a comprehensive article, and probably one which is somehow distinguished - interesting pictures, excellent writing that make its reading pleasing. --Chealer (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support There are many instances where the reason for cleanup is not very clear; for example, what may need cleanup is a plot summary, or information about its history. If a reason is given, people will be more likely to fix the problem quickly. However, there are also times (like the above FBI example) that even if a reason is given, it might take too much time to list them all. Also, there are some articles where no reason is needed, since the whole article needs general cleanup. Nevertheless, making them mandatory would be of great help to articles that really need a good amount of improvement. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What Pine said, although I'm all for maybe... making it harder to be non-specific, or something, since usually actually specifying what's wrong is indeed quite useful. But other articles do just need cleanup in general - too much wrong with an article to list it all, at least for now, or multiple issues, themselves not really bad enough by themselves to warrant listing, just add up to a not so good article, or maybe none of the cleanup-messages seem entirely right, though anyone who actually reads it could probably figure something out. Meantime the article needs fixing. Poor article.  — Isarra (talk)  10:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pine originally thought this was a deletion request, so please don't base your opinion on his early comments.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can articulate a reason as you have above, then just do it in the tag. You can save editors a lot of headaches and valuable editing time.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support The tag is utterly useless without valid reasons and strongly encourages drive by tagging. Edinburgh  Wanderer  12:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sometimes what is to be cleaned up is obvious: sometimes it is not, and sometimes it is the entire article, but in a situation I feel does not warrant the placement of the stronger "full rewrite" tag. Many times "everything" will need to be cleaned up, if a reason is asked for. Sometimes too many things need to be cleaned up to summarize them pithily in a tag. Sometimes what needs to be cleaned up is hard to describe (I know, it sounds weird, but you know what I'm talking about), but is still obvious, such as a mismatch with the tone of the encyclopedia (but without itself being unencyclopedic), a wall-of-text effect or poor formatting, or just a poor je ne sais quoi. I most strongly oppose it if it will add a field with a list of multiple-choice pre-selected canned reasons and I can not express the reasons in my own words if I need to: no list, no matter how long, could possibly cover all of the possible different reasons for cleanup. I also most strongly oppose if it's any harder to use than adding a pipe and an equals sign followed by typing text. I'm not a web programmer, and too much stuff and too many processes require either a love of government-like tax forms (maybe that's a reason for another RFC!) or quasi-programming knowledge. St John Chrysostom view / my bias 13:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your constructive input. I sympathize with the sentiment of using a generic cleanup tag when the need for cleanup is obvious. A problem with that though is that what may be obvious to you/me may not be obvious to others. For example, this article is generically tagged for cleanup. While you may certainly find many things that need "cleanup" (basically everything related to WP:MOS) the real problem is much more profound: the article is so bad content-wise that in fact a "full rewrite" tag is almost warranted. Now if I hadn't provided a reason on the talk page for the cleanup tag when I added it would others not familiar with the topic of the article be able to tell what is wrong at its core? How do we solve this problem where people think it is so obvious that the cleanup tag is put there yet others can only spot MOS issues on the surface? Thank you, and I hope you interpret my reply as being constructive as well. Nageh (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * i don't see how this relates to the present discussion. presentation issues (MOS etc.) and content issues (ommissions, NPOV etc.) involve different types of expertise, and have their own specialized tags. if you think both types of tags are warranted, why not add the relevant ones? 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My question was directly related to the OP's statement, and was asking how you could make it clear what needed cleanup if you don't provide a reason at all. How is that not relevant??? Nageh (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * because at Template messages/Cleanup there's a whole bunch of tags that are far more specific, and can subst. for the "reason" param. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which seems to be an argument for not using the generic cleanup template at all. Note, I am not asking for advice on tagging, I am asking the OP how he would resolve the issue where the tagger thinks the reason is obvious but it may not be so for other editors. Omitting the reason parameter for "obvious" cases was a suggestion by the OP, not mine. A merely gave an example that what is obvious is quite relative. Nageh (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * well, i'm not making the argument for not using the generic template. i understood your point, but it rests on trying to divine what the tagger of such a template had in mind. who knows? i guess if one is interested and knowledgeable in the article/subject and/or its presentation then one will be able to decide whether the tag is relevant or not. i just don't think that the absence of a reason should immediately disqualify use of the tag - let's leave this up to each individual case. the concerned individuals could sort it out. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure JohnChrysostom wasn't taking about the obvious ones, here, but for the sake of arguing in whatever, the more specific tags do also categorise articles more specifically. This makes them easier for folks setting out to, say, do some copyediting to find the articles in need of copyediting, so if people use those, folks can come at these from both sides, article and maintenance list. The problem is the things that just don't categorise well - and muiltilisting something that needs a whole lot more than just a copyedit won't necessarily help someone looking for something to copyedit, since when fixing things, it can feel pretty pointless to just fix one thing and ignore the others.  — Isarra (talk)  21:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * JohnChrysostom, I'm sure you'd be willing to take a minute to type if you knew you could save many editors much more than that amount of time. This is all we are asking. Please --will you reconsider your opposition?  Sparkie82  ( t • c )  03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I don't see for which valid reason (laziness does not count) an editor should not explain in few words WHY and IN WHICH the article needs to be cleaned. Cavarrone (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is the most common unnecesary tag added to the articles and source of much confusion. I have removed several cleanup tags that seemed to serve no purpose whatsoever, with no discussion and page history revealing it was maybe added by some random IP without edit summary 2 years ago, but no one dared to remove it. Or maybe the original issue got eventually fixed, but the tag remained, because the exact issue was not identified. --hydrox (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This template could easily confuse an inexperienced editor who might not have the slightest idea why his or her article is being tagged. Including a reason makes it obvious to any editor "passing by" what needs to be done, and would encourage even a few brief revisions or edits from an editor interested in ensuring that our articles meet our guidelines.   dci  &#124;  TALK   17:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This template is spammed in articles when specific issues should be addressed instead. What exactly is it that needs cleaning up? The issues should be stated explicitly because if you can't say what they are, then there is probably no reason to tag the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose leaving a message on the talk page is a reasonable alternative. RJFJR (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. The problem is when people do neither. (Hence my suggestion of introducing a talk parameter linking to the relevant talk page section, used as an alternative to the reason parameter.) Nageh (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then reason may take form of "see Talkpage" Bulwersator (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, even simpler than my suggestion. Nageh (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose - this is a solution in search of a problem to fix. If including a mandatory field is supposed to stop "driveby tagging" - it wont. If people come to an article with a clean up tag and cannot see anything to clean up, then just remove the damn  tag. --  The Red Pen of Doom  21:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that by saving taggers a second or two you end up costing many editors many minutes or hours of time searching articles and talk pages looking for a reason. And if there is a good reason for the tag, many editors spend a bunch of time looking for it and eventually one of them finally removes the tag, then you're back where you started: the problem is still there and you've wasted hours of editor time for nothing. That's a problem looking for a solution, and requiring a reason is the solution. Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's better to have a "generic" template than creating miniature "talk boxes" within the article itself:
 * - We have talk pages for a reason. Providing the convenience (and requirement) of commenting with a single line may create the impression that it's enough to avoid using the talk page altogether.
 * - There can be no standard for the "vagueness" of the reason itself, one can put 1 or 2 words, a link to wp:example, or something more cryptic. To the suggestion that you can simply "ask" the tagger to clarify, we shouldn't encourage moving article discussion to a user's instead of the article's talk page.
 * - It puts too much emphasis on the judgment of one person.
 * - Tone. People sound different when criticizing things, unlike the neutral tone normally used inside articles. If a tag is correct in its observations but its tone is perceived (subjectively) as improper, should you re-word someone else's comment? Untag? Write your own line? A badly written tag will make it look worse.
 * - Considering that templates are not signed, scrutiny from a single (unidentified) editor placed inside a standardized template that is used across thousands of pages, gives the impression of text being reviewed (in bold text no less) on behalf of Wikipedia itself. Along with the phrase "to meet our quality standards" and the fact that it's most likely to be stamped on the contributions of newer or inexperienced editors, it can show a rather imposing or unfriendly image. - Skullers (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then reason may take form of "see Talkpage" Bulwersator (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The taggers reason is only shown on the page they are tagging, not throughout every page. Plus, taggers can add comments now anyway, all we are asking is to require a reason. The problem is that by saving taggers a second or two you end up costing many editors tons of time searching articles and talk pages looking for a reason.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Providing why the tag has been placed in certain article enables editors to know which is the specific problem for the page. I already suggested this in the previous discussion for the deletion of the template.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose As a regular page patroller, I often see articles that need cleanup in more than one area, and a generic "per Wikipedia guidelines" is the best you can do; it's often very difficult to describe every thing that needs to be cleaned up. Of course, providing some guidelines for cleanup in the article's talk page is recommended, and editors often do that. Most editors who perform cleanup can generally assess what needs to be cleaned up to improve the article without specific instructions. Finally, if a cleanup tag is on an article and shouldn't be there, editors (especially article patrollers) will simply remove it. Truthanado (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is much less difficult to take the time to describe what is wrong, even if it is just, "many issues too numerous to list, for example..." When there is no reason stated, editors don't know if it is a specific issue or a general issue. If the tagger has identified something please say what it is. Otherwise, it ends up costing many editors many minutes or hours of time searching articles and talk pages looking for a reason. Plus, how do know when to remove the tag? When the article becomes a GA or FA? It only takes a second or two to state the reason, and it saves much more than that for others.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose What if the article is completely f**ked (pardon my French) in all areas? NPOV, citations, etc? This template is a catch-all for article issues. If the reason is made mandatory, then it would be simpler to use a specific template (like this one) to tell people about the faults of the article. Agent 78787  talk  contribs 02:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. All this will do is frustrate and annoy editors. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Look at WP:TC if you want another reason there are plenty of Clean-up templates, this one is one is just a very vague one.  Jay Jay Talk to me 04:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The vagueness of it is why I am suggesting we make people leave a reason when they use it. AIR corn (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support—clearly the English Wikipedia is collapsing under the massive cleanup backlogs, and only a few cleanup tags (mostly copyedit and wikify) are getting the attention they deserve. One of the reasons the general cleanup template doesn't get such attention is that if you click a random article that needs cleanup, it's either in a very very poor state, or it's not clear what's wrong with it. In the first case, it would be helpful to convert it to "multiple issues" and then that can be categorized, among other things, for copyedit and wikify (there will be a greater incentive to do this for the tagger if they must work extra to add a reason anyway), and in the second case, the mandatory reason parameter would go a long way to clarify the problem. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is being a good example for what happens when no reason is provided or there is not explicit link to the talk page. For the example article I have given, there are so many things wrong that I pointed out that almost a full rewrite is needed and posted so on the talk page. Yet, someone in this discussion comes along, changes a bit of the wording, and removes the cleanup tag. It seems that it really is necessary to explicitly point out in the template what is wrong with an article rather than expecting another editor to guess. Also, as I had pointed out before what may be obvious to me as requiring cleanup may not be obvious to another person. Nageh (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The current template is ineffective. If the requestor does not take the time to put a reason in the template or on the talk page, how are future editors to know when the request has been fulfilled?   (Maybe the banner should not be displayed unless the template is complete) 66.87.2.85 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I wonder if the supporters of this initiative have actually seen how poor some of the worse articles are? The onus should be on those writing articles to make them decent in quality. At present I often add a cleanup tag if see something truly dreadful while on an AWB run; if I am forced to write a reason I will probably not. How will that benefit the project? --John (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By leaving a tag editors are basically saying I don't have the expertise or time to fix this so can someone else. Surely the onus on them should be to give the person who will eventually clean it up as much information as possible. How does applying a vague tag (with AWB no less) which already has over 24 000 unreasoned transclusions help the project? AIR corn (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why we have article talk and user talk pages, no less. I challenge you to do a random trawl through some of our articles and come back maintaining your position. If a tag is added and you genuinely can't figure why it was added, and you message the person who added it without result, you can happily remove the tag. --John (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are using the talk pages to explain the use of the tag then there is no problem. All the reason in the tag would have to be is "see talk page". If someone has read an article and thinks it needs cleaning up then it should not be a problem for them to say why. I would rather the person applying the tag takes a few seconds to put in their reasons than the person who potentially might clean up the article taking minutes to work out why it was applied. AIR corn (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is obvious there are some editors that who, like you, feel that an article cannot be cleaned up without a reason. It is also obvious there are articles that can be cleaned up by other editors even when no reason is provided and this tag is useful for these people as it sorts out articles that taggers felt had at least some/one kind of problem.Curb Chain (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Templates like this need reasons as to why the article needs cleanup. Otherwise it could be subtle vandalism. And people can add rationales saying why they really think it's a bad article. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 18:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. If a reason is not given, then the template should be rendered invisible until a reason is included. This should be made very clear to any editor who tries to use the template with no reason included.  During the edit preview, a notice to the editor that the reason= parameter must be filled in with the specific reason the editor feels that the template is needed or the template will not be visible in the article, should be specifed.  This will, of course, give rise to bogus reasons by a few editors, however it does drive home the fact that just placing this template in an article with no provision as to what needs cleanup is inadequate use of this template.  I disagree with the ideas regarding the inadequacies of new editors.  It might even prompt them to become more experienced editors by performing at least some of the cleanup themselves. –  PIE  (  C LIMAX   )  02:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * that's not a good enough reason. the readers of the article (a population far in excess of editors or contributors - two separate functions that people confuse with abandon) should not have to suffer through a badly rendered article just because someone feels like learning on the job. we are making assumptions about the readers' reactions to a visible tag without any basis or real data, other than it annoys nominally experienced users who are by definition dilettantes and therefore likely to be concerned with aesthetics readers may ignore. others have made assumptions about editors' possible use of the generic template without a reason. dont' assume; if the generic template is being used extensively without a reason, then there's a reason for it.65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Enlighten me: What is the reason that a generic template is being used extensively without a reason that warrants the current state of not providing a reason? Note, I don't think folks here are complaining about the addition of the tag on aesthetic grounds, we are complaining about its addition without any seeming reason. It is not obvious to me what is needing cleanup in this version of an article. And certainly it won't be obvious to a reader, either. Neither would a layman know what would be wrong with this article if I hadn't provided a detailed reason on the talk page. So why is it so bad that we require the tagger to at least add a link to a relevant section on the talk page? Nageh (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "that's not a good enough reason"? Maybe not.  At least it is a reason, which is more than a poorly rendered Cleanup tag has.  Just goes to show that a reason that might not be good enough is better than no reason at all. –  PIE  (  C LIMAX   )  09:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * methinks you misunderstood. if, notwithstanding the easily applicable alternatives, the tag is regularly used without a reason, then this regular, actual use is its own justification. neither you or me or anyone else need know the editors' rationale and whether it has logical basis or adheres to a particular editing philosophy. to repeat, hopefully for the last time: if you are interested in the specific article and subject, you will take the time and make the effort to find out how to properly respond to the tag - else you're as much a drive-by editor as anyone.
 * Nageh, i will check the articles you pointed out, and the statistics behind them. cursorily, i noticed that you are the most active recent editor and contributor to Forward error correction. i assume that the size of your contribution and the frequency of your editing signify both relative knowledge and willingness to get involved. then why not resolve the issue there and then? why come here and discuss theory when your favorite article needs action?
 * (again, imo markup ie editing and content ie contributing are different, but interrelated things. some markup is generic and universal such as grammar. other markup is so dependent on knowledge of the content that only specialists can handle with accuracy). 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles are regularly vandalized, yet this regular, actual behavior is certainly not its own justification. Your logic is a bit strange. We do need guidelines so as to be effective in what we are trying to achieve ("an encyclopedia collecting the sum of human knowledge"), and in a sense we are discussing one such guideline.
 * Regarding the Forward error correction article, you misunderstood. Did you check my talk page comment? The article needs such a huge effort in rewrite or cleanup that I explained I'm not gonna tackle this anytime soon, alone. There are other articles awaiting my contribution. ;) The best I could do for the moment was to explain what was wrong with the article. Btw, I didn't know I was the most active contributor to that article until you told me so, considering my few edits, so it is certainly not my favorite article. Nageh (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * are you equating applying a tag with vandalism? the comparison you make is broad enough to be indeterminate, and therefore not a basis for action. as i said it was a cursory look to Forward error correction, a highly technical issue that in my non-expert eyes mainly needs specialist, not just generic editing. i saw your comment on the talk page, and seems knowledgeable. i also understand your reasoning above. you do understand, i hope, that by you making an involved comment on the talk page, and then deciding to do nothing about it (for whatever reason) is akin to supplying a cleanup tag without a "reason" parameter. you are perfectly within your rights to do either. the thing is, you are denying others the same right. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not equating, I was pointing out the incoherence in your arguments.
 * How can you say that fixing an article not by one self while leaving detailed commentary on the talk page is the same as not providing a reason parameter?? My detailed comments inform both readers and other editors about specific problems in the article. This does not oblige me to fix all the issues by myself in an instant, even if I would like to, but time is just finite. Nageh (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ok. i think i made my position clear, and i see yours. i don't think there's anything to be gained by continuing in this fashion. good luck. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no misunderstanding. You seem to feel that editors are mind readers just like those who readily apply this template without giving a rationale for its application.  Then with your "drive by" comment, you further go out of your way to make it appear that those of us who cannot read minds are no better than those who think we can read them.  Why anybody would be opposed to more clarity in editing is beyond my ken, especially when adding that clarity would take seconds as opposed to the time involved in an attempt to figure out the tagger's rationale. –  PIE  ( <b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial; font-size:small;">C LIMAX !</b> )  03:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * is it possible to stop assuming? don't assume that clarity is guaranteed by the presence of a reason. don't assume that it will take "seconds". don't assume that there can be no conceivable reason justifiyng the continuing presence of editors' choice. don't assume that clarity is guaranteed by the presence of a tag. don't assume to understand why anyone uses the template and why. don't assume that opposition to the proposal is the same as opposition to providing a reason for cleanup. it's not. if things stay as they are, anyone can provide a "reason" param. if the proposal passes noone will be able to do differently. imo, this requires a much, much higher bar than the comments you provided. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, much is assumed, and you say that as if it's a bad thing. Unless it's possible to render actual facts by showing study(ies) of the usage of the maintenance tag, then we are bound as editors to make the best decision possible based on the information that we have at hand.  To some, it may look as if this discussion is chock full of hasty generalizations and assumptions.  However, when you look closely at the arguments, you find several experienced editors who both Support and Oppose making good arguments for both sides.  This is why we have such an interesting controversy, here, not because everybody is making hasty arguments based upon assumptions.  The particular assumptions that you addressed are not made lightly.  In essence, what you say about how "anyone can provide a 'reason' param." will apply whether or not this proposal passes.  The only difference will be that everyone will be compelled to take some time to "reason out" why they are applying this tag.  For me, it is a case where a person reads an article and decides that it needs to be cleaned up.  That person adds a tag to the article while it is still clear in his or her mind what they feel needs to be done.  BAM  Here is the crux of this discussion.  Most editors still just add the tag and move on.  Those of us who feel that a reason should have been given are searching for a way to get that editor to type in his or her reason while it is still clear in his or her mind.  If you have a better way than what has been proposed, let's hear it! –  PIE  ( <b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial; font-size:small;">C LIMAX !</b> )  13:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * i don’t care at all about controversies. they are far too common and predictable to make any single one of them "interesting." as for this unneccessary and time consuming "controversy" about procedural minutiae, it indicates (imo) far more serious problems with wikipedia. but i'm not interested in pursuing that either. without wanting to be or to appear rude, i'll exit this discussion, restating my position: you propose to exchange the possibility of clarity with the certainty of reduced choice. that's a lousy trade. no deal. you need zero experience as an editor to accept or reject this. take care and thanks. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't care about controversies, then why are (or were) you here? If you're not interested in pursuing your perceived "serious problems" with Wikipedia, then why do you respond at all?  I propose to exchange the possibility of clarity with the hoped for improved clarity of this maintenance tag.  As for your rudeness, too late.  If you feel so strongly that Wikipedia has serious problems, then you must obviously have a rudeness agenda to come into this discussion, which you consider to be about "procedural minutiae", and make waves like an earthquake.  So your rudeness is a given, not that that's a bad thing.  If it takes some rudeness around here to finally fix this ratty tag, then so be it.  You are welcome to leave or stay, your choice.  And whatever you do, you must realize that in spite of your words above, your attitude and position are at the very heart of this controversy. –  PIE  ( <b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial; font-size:small;">C LIMAX !</b> )  17:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * oppose for the reasons i stated in above discussions.65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you meant Support and wrote oppose by mistake (based on your previous comments). If not, let us know.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly not. How can you even.. Skullers (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I scanned his/her comments and saw this: "well, i'm not making the argument for not using the generic template. i understood your point, but it rests on trying to divine what the tagger of such a template had in mind. who knows?" and other comments that looked like (s)he supported, but looking over it again now I see statements contradictory to that. Others here have gotten confused about this, opposing it, thinking it was a proposal to delete the tag. I want to make sure if (s)he really supports or opposes it.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  15:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (dab) from the 65.88.88.127 bot -
 * are there mechanisms to resolve good-faith reason-less tagging? yes
 * are there mechanisms to resolve abuse of such tagging? yes
 * is the proposed action (per the RFC) neutral? no
 * is the proposed action restrictive? yes
 * what is the restriction? universally diminishes editor options
 * is opposition to the proposal neutral? yes
 * what is the neutrality recourse? editors can easily use a number of other tags that are narrowly specific to reason
 * decision? oppose 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - "Cleanup" is a generic term that requires more specificity to address properly. Providing targets for clean up will accelerate the process. Joja  lozzo  23:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - (1) Often, an article is such a mess (e.g., ) that the problems are obvious. There is no value-add in listing a reason.  (2) Many of these article have multiple issues, and enumerating one or a small number of issues as "the reason" will server only to hide or downplay the several other issues not listed.  (3) For new u or less experienced users, the acceptable wikispeak reasons may not be easy to find or document. (4) even for experienced editors, in the case of a particularly messy article whose issues are apparent from the face of the article, chasing down a specific reason is just an unproductive use of that editor's time.  (5) I foresee a lot of frustration as a "custodian" of an article with lots of issues addresses the enumerated items, removes the cleanup tag, only to have it reinstated with a new reason.  An open-ended tag invites discussion on the talk page of the issues.  TJRC (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, depending on the outcome of this discussion, maybe a middle ground is to encourage editors to remove the cleanup tag when no reason is provided and the issues are not obvious to that editor. A tagging guideline could state that should the original tagger wish to re-add the template he must provide a reason. This is not intended to permit pointy removal of tags as we have our WP:Disruptive editing guideline for this. Nageh (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The proposal doesn't say that the tagger needs to enter a narrow, specific reason; it asked that the tagger specify a reason. If the problem is that the article has multiple issues, then say so. The problem is that by saving taggers a second or two you end up costing many editors many minutes or hours of time searching articles and talk pages looking for a reason when it is not apparent. Requiring the tagger to give a reason saves many hours of editor time on WP, put doesn't limit the use of the tag in the situations you mentioned.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the opposition, but do feel that your points are valid and worthy of response. A common theme of opposers is "what if the article is clearly, at-a-glance, terrible in all aspects?" I would suggest that a possible compromise here is to have a default reason (along the lines of "the article requires substantial cleanup in all aspects"). That reason would be consistent with the raison d'être of this template: to act as a simple, general tag for articles that are simply crap. It would also address your first, second and fourth point. At the same time, it would prompt editors who can't/don't want to remember every template to describe the specific issue they are using the template for. To point three, I would simply say that all good faith attempts to help out are welcome. Sometimes newbies place tags inappropriately and these tags should be removed, but a tag should never, ever be removed simply because valid concerns were not expressed with the latest jargon. Finally, on point five, surely an effective way of promoting continuous improvement of articles is exactly what supporters and opposers alike want? —WFC—  19:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - If one feels strongly enough that an article needs work to tag it, then one should be quite willing to assist in fixing things up through a statement regarding the problem or problems.Pauci leones (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What needs doing will be obvious to those best equipped to do it. Rothorpe (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What needs doing is to have the common courtesy to take the two seconds and enter a reason that saves the many editors who follow a lot of wasted effort.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's "2 seconds", it takes more thought to word it properly (in the judgment of the tagger). People sound and perceive differently. Though there is no standard for vagueness/tone/etc, by its nature it necessitates a negative one. Not everyone is that bold. To those pressured not to sound rude and/or discouraging to the original writer you may well be denying its use. Skullers (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Being bold enough to tag an article with a template but not being bold enough to say what is wrong with it doesn't sound right to me. Nageh (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the tone of my post above, I was a little hot last night on this subject and moving quickly, while trying to avoid edit conflicts on this busy page. Normally, I'd self-censor that stuff. I understand what Skullers is saying. Some readers are generally timid about criticizing others. I've made a suggestion below about changing the reason field to a comment field, maybe this will solve the problem.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  16:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong support - The proposal doesn't say that the tagger needs to enter a narrow, specific reason; it asked that the tagger specifyareason. If the problem is that the article has multiple issues, then say so. If the problem requires more explanation, then say, "see the talk page". If the problem is poor writing, then that's what you put down as a stated reason. This isn't rocket surgery, by requiring a reason, you save many WP editors many hours of time searching articles and talk pages looking for a reason when it is not apparent and it costs the tagger next to nothing. So what's issue? Do it.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (Had an edit conflict, so the timestamps on most of my previous edits are off -- for the record.)  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - If the problem with the article is "everything" then just type "everything." If there's too much stuff to list type "See talk page." As someone who's tried to clean up various articles, even these two reasons would help. They would certainly save time having to dig through edit histories for summaries to see if the tag is relevant or attempting to discern someone's rationale from out of thin air. I don't buy that editors will be confused either, they can read, you know. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - When I see an article with this template, I have to go through the all of it figure out what needs to be cleaned up. If I have a target, I can get right to work. I'm sure that I am not the only one who would be assisted by this. ReelAngelGirl   Talk to me!   Tea?  14:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It would be better to get rid of this template altogether, but if we can't do that requiring a rationale would be progress. Perhaps some that use it will find it quicker to use a more specific template and hopefully a few will actually fix the article instead of template bombing it.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A suggestion - Change the reason parameter to comment, but still require its use. Much of the objection to using it revolves around coming up with an specific reason. If it's a comment, instead of a reason, maybe there would be less reluctance to using it. Taggers would feel they didn't have to be precise or overly critical, yet still give guidance to editors. I don't know if this makes since, perhaps it's just semantic but maybe if those who support could give this little bit, we could reach a consensus.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  16:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with this assuming it would make any difference to those who oppose the proposal. Joja  lozzo  19:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What now!! Eh, uh, of course! Support!! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support If this template has to exist, then the reason should be mandatory. I can't understand what's so difficult about being required to put down a reason Tom B (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Again, repeating what was said above... it would make the template more effective. I think that Wikipedia is having enough problems with templates being put up and then sitting there for forever with no constructive changes being made that having to put a reason could really help with stagnation... /-\ urelius ♠  &#124;) ecimus  What'sup, dog? 18:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is still largely an open wiki - anyone can edit, and there is no systematic review. Unsurprisingly, we have lots of articles with quality issues. As a reader, I appreciate being warned when I'm about to read an article with issues, so that I may decide to read something else, or to read with extra vigilance. I imagine that is even more true for readers who are younger, less educated and/or less knowledgeable about Wikipedia.
 * As a reader, I do not need to see the problems. This is not to say that reviewers shouldn't be encouraged [more] to enter a reason, to use a more specific template, to communicate with editors introducing issues, or to directly fix issues. This is also not to say that it should be tolerated to revert without justifying after someone removed a cleanup tag which didn't specify a reason - just like any other unjustified revert shouldn't be tolerated. This is also not to say we shouldn't make it easier to identify what prompted the addition of such a tag (either by pointing to an edit identifier, the contributor or a more precise tagging time). This is simply to say that we are badly missing both quality, and quality assessments. --Chealer (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An oppose followed by two paragraphs of reasons to support the proposal? WTF???  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  02:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reasons should be included unless it's obvious what the issues are. Sometimes, it's quite obvious what they are. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I see only good in the proposal, even after reading the oppose arguments above. Nurg (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Extremely Strong Support - As someone whose main wiki activity involves working through tag backlogs, I waste hours doing work that would have been completely unnecessary if tags were limited to cases where they will actually contribute to the improvement of the article involved. While there is certainly a small amount of potential value lost in the inexperienced editors who won't be willing to go to the trouble, it will be far outweighed by the savings in editor-hours. The 5 minutes it takes an experienced editor to decipher an ambiguous tag are much more valuable than the 5 minutes it takes an inexperienced editor to figure out how to tag properly. -- LWG talk 03:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Attempting to assume good faith here, but the only way I can interpret this comment is "My five minutes are more valuable than some n00bs five minutes". I find that attitude extremely offensive and potentially harmful to the project in the long term as recruiting newbs and taking advantage of any positive contributions they can add will be essential. --  The Red Pen of Doom  15:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not my attitude at all; I think the barrier to new editors is one of the few valid arguments against this proposal. But I think we should encourage new editors to contribute constructively. If all an editor does is generate tasks for other editors without doing anything to help accomplish those tasks, then their contributions are actually a net loss for the community. The cleanup tag in particular is very much a WP:SOFIXIT issue: if an editor understands wikipedia well enough to use the tag, they should understand it well enough to go ahead and fix the problem, or at least provide useful information that will make it easier for others to fix it. -- LWG talk 17:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * When has it ever taken five minutes for an experienced editor to decipher a properly placed cleanup tag? If such a tag is used properly, it should not take more than ten seconds to identify issues. Otherwise, the tag should simply be removed. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Properly placed tags are fine. The problem is that it takes time to confirm that a tag is improperly placed before removing it. Requiring a reason parameter would, if nothing else, at least confirm that the editor placing the tag has actually given a few seconds' thought to the issue. Even just "poor paragraph organization in several places" would be infinitely better than nothing. Without a reason, an editor has to check for all of the potential problems before removing the tag, which is a big waste of time and brain cycles. -- LWG talk 04:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the cleanup tag is a general tag; an editor should not have to check for all potential problems (because it is expected that a more specific tag would be used if there was one specific problem). My personal usage of the tag applies to articles that have multiple, obvious problems. If an article has poor paragraph organization, then I, and hopefully everyone else, would pick a more appropriate tag, such as cleanup-reorganize. Again, in my experience, it has never taken me more than ten seconds to identify a problem in an article, even if it is very long (as the problem usually becomes length!) and I simply remove a tag when I can't easily identify an issue. Of course, this is just in regards to my own encounters with the cleanup tag, but I have never found it difficult or vague in the slightest. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are the first five random articles I got that have this tag. Could you take 50 seconds and tell me what you think the reason for tagging each article was, and whether that issue is now resolved so the tag may be removed? -- LWG talk 16:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the more convincing arguments at the tfd was that this tag is useful for newer editors that know something needs cleaning up but don't know all the different tags that are available to use. A kind of catch all. It should be easier for a casual editor to just remember this tag and leave a reason than to hunt through all the clean-up tags for one that matches the situation. I would hope the more experienced of us would use more specific tags. AIR corn (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - As a GOCE member, I can attest that the most annoying thing for a guild member is reading through a page tagged with "copyedit" and finding all of three comma usage errors and "color" spelled "colour" (which is, by the way, a technically acceptable alternate spelling). It oftentimes feels like people go around "stamping" anything they think could use a little proofreading. This, it seems, is a similar issue. Most people will only notice blatantly bad formatting/style, and neither know nor care about MoS guidelines or the consistency of our "house style". Stamping the page just calls attention to it. Nobody's going to bother looking for Waldo unless we inquire as to his location. The purpose of this template should be to mark specific things you know are wrong but don't have the time or know-how to set right, so that someone else can come along and fix it quickly. I think sometimes people get a little template-happy, and then we get huge backlogs that leave Wikipedia so slapped-up with tags over long periods of time that people start losing faith in the quality of our content. Mandating the reason template will reduce this sort of misuse. It's better to have a few errors in an article than to have a big sign up for a month requesting that someone fix the bad formatting before anyone else notices. Bronsonboy HQ 03:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. If a more specific template cannot be used, then a generic one should explain the concern. The tagger should know and tell why the generic tag is necessary if they cannot use more specific ones, and subsequent editors shouldn't be guessing what they meant. Poor articles are poor articles and tagging them hardly helps the backlog. Addressing specific issues one at a time helps backlog. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with a lot of the previous support statements. We can pretty much assume every article under GA requires some form of cleanup. Use of the tag at the moment simply conveys a vague notion that an article may need cleanup without properly specifying use. Even if some taggers do actually post their concerns on talk pages, this tag is so easy to abuse with drive-by tagging that will leave editors somewhat at a loss as to exactly what needs doing. -- Sabre (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree that it makes it easier for editors to identify the problem if a reason (or even just a word like 'References') that directs the editor to where they need to clean up. If the clean up is required throughout the article, then something like 'General cleanup' should be written. Kinkreet (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I haven't read all the responses to this, but my feeling is that I shouldn't be forced into typing a reason for cleanup. I use the cleanup tag to indicate that the article has many problems. The "reason" I would enter is, "this article is a mess". That's what the cleanup tag means, at least in my mind. Also it is a nice simple tag for newer uses to use. Let's not make wiki-speak more complicated than it already is. Yes, there are many articles tagged with this. And we'll probably never clean it all up. So what? We'll never be done writing the encyclopedia anyway. There will always be cleanup to do whether or not it is specified with a "reason". --Fang Aili talk 19:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "this article is a mess" would be perfectly fine by me, and vastly better than nothing. The main benefit of this requirement is to give me as a backlog worker some idea of why the tag was originally placed, so I can easily determine whether the issue is now resolved. If I know that the original reason was just "this article is a mess" then I am free to remove the tag when I no longer deem it be a mess, whereas with no reason specified I am left wondering if I have missed something. -- LWG talk 20:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Fang Aili, for being up front about the way you use this tag. When you use this tag, but you don't specify a reason, not even a "this article is a mess" reason, I would be interested to know what you expect.  Do you expect other editors (who often check the category and come to these articles with a desire to fix what's wrong) to read your mind?  There you are, with the types of edits necessary to clean up the article fresh in your mind, and yet you don't leave a reason so that other editors will know why you added the tag?  What's up with that?  Do you at least open a discussion on the article's Talk page to give other editors at least an idea of what you feel is necessary to change?  (Please note that it is very important to me that I do not in any way make you feel badly about this.  I would just like to understand the reasoning and logic of adding this maintenance tag without showing or listing the things you feel need to be cleaned up.) –  PIE  ( <b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial; font-size:small;">C LIMAX !</b> )  22:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I do not want to have to add a reason for all articles that require cleanup, because sometimes there are many issues with an article, it would take too much time, and it could reduce or constrain editor creativity, making them less open-minded and focusing them on solving one problem when there are many. There are other more specialized templates out there, and currently this is in a general "catch-all" usage which is necessary for articles with many problems and articles that don't necessarly fit into one single problem/reason. BlowingTopHat (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Attempting to determine why an article was tagged where no reason is given is also a huge waste of editors' time. An article tagged "cleanup" without a reason is no easier to fix than an article with no tag at all, and given the sheer number of articles with that tag it does little to help editors find articles in need of fixing. -- LWG talk 21:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support In some large and complex articles it is sometimes nearly impossible to find why or where it needs cleanup. Plus I personally feel that this template is being overused on articles that do not need cleanup at all. Requiring a valid explanation will reduce the unnecessary use. Charles Dayton  (Talk)  12:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support If there is a problem worth tagging, the person responsible should make it known why there's a problem, plain and simple. -Kai445 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per my previous comments at TfD and this talk page. What I would stress to the doubters is that we are not dictating particular standards for the reason parameter. As has been stressed above, "this article is a mess" would be appropriate for articles where the problems are numerous and obvious at a glance (in theory these are the articles this template should be used on). More descriptive reasons for less obvious problems would save massive amounts of time for the people attempting to do the work, and ensure that tags are not inappropriately removed. —WFC— 19:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Not everybody knows more specific templates, but people can at least type a few words saying what they found wrong with the article. With a mandatory reason, an experienced editor might use a script that looks for key words in the reason parameter and suggests more specific templates. Without it, nobody knows what the tagger meant. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A brief list, some major points, some minor. Other editors can shorten the list as items are addressed. Varlaam (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with most points listed by supports above. Although I do admit that it can be tiresome to have to list small things that need to be improved, on the other side it would be possible to specify the need for a more general cleanup. Making the reason tag mandatory would ensure that they're used the way they should be - not as flaming instrument but as a somewhat objectively understandable request for improvement on a specific problem. This would also make it a lot easier to remove the tags (sometimes I've read or edited articles where I've wondered whether I should remove such tags or not).Erget2005 (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Hyacinth (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reason for your vote :p Skullers (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Ahem, we've got WP:TC for specifics; and same reason as placed by TJRC and others in opposition. All reasons requiring a cleanup can easily be placed on talk, we do not necessarily need to clutter the article with more bigger tags. Again, it will not stop tag by drive, because one might readily place the string, "a lot of reasons, and it is completely a mess" or similar strings to the param, . Having the parameter "reason" is helpful, and often really be necessary, but making it mandatory does not work. My best insight is that,   parameter be used in such a way that, an editor can place a link to the talk entry describing and discussing cleanup; that would rather speed up improving article than simply pasting notes on article about how to cleanup. »  nafSadh  did say 17:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be wonderful if taggers would point to a specific section on the talk page. Yet, so many times I find nothing on the talk page, niente, nada. At least, when you are forced to provide a reason it becomes obvious whether the tagger has given some thought before tagging or not. Nageh (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From my point of view as a backlog shoveler, the main benefit of this rule would be to distinguish between drive-by tags and legitimate issues that just weren't obvious to me at first glance, allowing me to remove the former without fear of removing the latter. Currently, when I see a cleanup tag which lacks a talk page clarification I cannot easily tell whether it is safe to remove it. -- LWG talk 18:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – I don't find these boilerplates terribly informative. If an article is fishy I don't need some casually plopped-down box telling me so. I think that if you're going to cast aspersions on an entire article, then at least have the courtesy of enumerating your concerns. Vranak (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support - As i said at the TFD this template is useless without a mandatory reason. Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Duplicate vote. Edinburgh   Wanderer  23:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly support – It is so annoying when you see this template with out a reason parameter. People who are too lazy to add them should know that the rest of us cannot read your mind, and it's not that obvious to us why the article needs cleanup if you don't add a reason.  Adding a reason should be strongly encouraged by having a bot be created that posts a message on people's user talk pages telling them they added a cleanup tag but failed to provide a reason why and that they are strongly encouraged to do so.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 04:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Editors should be encouraged to give a reason and/or explain the tag on the talk page, but not mandated to do either. In fact, I would prefer editors to be encouraged to discuss things on talk rather than adding reasons to the template, but that doesn't really fit with the AWB culture of rapidly tagging large numbers of articles.  I don't see a reason an editor shouldn't be allowed to place a generic cleanup template on an article accompanied by a discussion on the talk page.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what we are proposing with this RFC. The tagger should provide a reason either inline (reason=This is the reason.) or within a section on the talk page (reason=See Talk:#Section), but not use the tag without providing any reason at all, which happens too many times, IMO. Nageh (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't what he is proposing. He says that people should not be mandated to do provide a reason.  That means people should not be forced to provide a reason.Curb Chain (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please reread Slawomir's last sentence. I don't think we are asking too much if we request the template to be accompanied by a pointer to the relevant section on the talk page. Nageh (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are asking too much and this is beyond the scope of this rfc.Curb Chain (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then obviously you do not understand what all these discussions are about. Nageh (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? What test do you have to prove so?Curb Chain (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I am mainly a reader of Wikipedia and do editing as part of maintaining a resource I find useful and as reciprocity to give freely since I have received freely. Cleanup tags are distracting and ugly when I come to an article. They do not help me find the information I need. Though I see their utility, I consider them unencyclopedic; Encyclopedia Americana, Britannica, and World Book all lacked cleanup tags. Thus cleanup tags should be removed as soon as the problem is cleaned up. However, without a reason, it is not clear why the tag is present. This has prevented me from removing them in the past. I have read articles and they seemed fine to me, but with the tag there, I wondered if the other editor saw something that I didn't and I didn't want to take the time to go through the voluminous talk page. Having read this discussion, I believe that the solution to my personal problem is just  to be bold in removing vague cleanup tags. However, for the sake of my fellow casual editors, requiring the reason and/or a talk page pointer could reduce the number of still-around-after-4-years cleanup tags. BrotherE (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support alternative – Simply put: I support solving the problem, not making the  parameter mandatory. The problem is that Wikipedia has an unimaginably huge room for improvement while it lacks sufficient enthusiastic bold editors; in fact, it is losing them. Most of the existing editors or visitor see the problems but do not dare to fix them. Fleet Command (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The template is infinitely more useful when a reason is given.165.123.24.44 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose I'm sure this point has been made in this rather lengthy discussion, but the ambiguity of this tag is its real strength. Specific complaints can be addressed with other templates; this one serves as a warning to the reader that the article doesn't represent Wikipedia's best, and an exhortation to editors to make it otherwise. It is difficult for me to see why we should retain this template if more specific complaints are always to be listed. Keep in mind that WP:RESPTAG is just an essay. --BDD (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The primary purpose of cleanup templates (which I mean generally) is to help people clean up Wikipedia. We have a general warning to readers, General disclaimer. Superm401 - Talk 22:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: the following three replies have been moved from the section "Technical Implementation", as they belong in this section. * Support as per proposal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. However, I would support requiring either  or the proposed   at the tagger's discretion. `discuss=` would simply link to a talk page section. I've used cleanup without a reason, believing in good faith that the issues would be mostly apparent to other editors. However, I accept that we all view articles differently, and even a brief reason or talk page comment is useful. Superm401 - Talk 22:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is your opinion then please change your vote to support. See, where I suggested a talk parameter, and this discussion, where it is suggested to simply state reason=See talk section.. The specific implementation, i.e., adding a talk or discuss parameter, is a trivial case. Nageh (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't support the proposal as stated by Aircorn. Right now, the template says, "The talk page may contain suggestions.", so I can post on talk, then tag with just cleanup.  I support changing the second step to require a discussion link, but I don't think editors should have to make their own phrasing and link.  I think I've made clear that I would support a different proposal. An easy link to an individual section would be very useful on busy talk pages.Superm401 - Talk 03:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I don't understand. You said you would support requiring either the reason or the talk/discuss parameter. This is what this proposal would effect. Nageh (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that people have suggested a talk/discuss parameter elsewhere on this page. However, that is not part of Aircorn's proposal at the top of this section.  I would support a new, reformulated proposal that allowed both reason= and discuss=. Superm401 - Talk 22:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While this proposal asks for the reason be made mandatory, it doesn't say how this is to be achieved. A possible solution might be to have default text in the template saying "See Talk:Pagename" and if possible a bot could then remove tags that contain this text but no corresponding talk page section after a day or two. The aim is to only have cleanup tags with reasons on articles. I am open to any ideas on how to accomplish this and if this succeeds it will probably involve another long discussion or two on how to implement it. AIR corn (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The template is very broad and so could therefore be added to half of the articles on WP. I want to see a day when there are no longer any big banner templates strung across the top of an article, and forcing an editor to add a reason is one way of achieving this goal. I have added the template using Twinkle on occasion and not always added a reason when Twinkle asked me to. That is sloppy editing behaviour in my opinion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It would be much simpler for many beginner users to be able to tag simply as cleanup, than to have to understand how the "reason=" parameter works, and what the possible reasons are. This would keep those users from becoming discouraged, and possibly not tagging an article that required cleanup, while a cleanup template that is not tagged as reason can probably be fixed most of the time simply by an older member asking why the cleanup is needed, and then correcting the tag.14jbella (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could this be set to alert someone whenever one is created without a reason tag allowing someone to quickly message the user who tagged it to figure out why it was tagged.14jbella (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as per proposal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and presumably ugliness is too: when no reason is supplied, it's often not obvious what can be done.  I rarely improve pages with no reason for their cleanup tags simply because I don't know what to do to resolve the objections of whoever placed the tag.  14jbella's objection can easily be overcome by simple instructions: the warning message resulting from the lack of a reason could include really basic instructions on how to fix the problem.  Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A ridiculous proposal that seeks to sacrifice the readability and functionality of the encyclopedia, and its hope for improvement, to an aesthetic criteria that only experienced editors grow to hate. If the article's bad enough to warrant a cleanup tag, then the aesthetics of the tag are the least of its worries. To say otherwise is brushing the issue under the rug. Shadowjams (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoever in this discussion said the proposal's rationale was based on aesthetic grounds??? And sacrifices functionality? On the contrary, it is aimed at improving functionality by providing a reason somewhere, either inline or at the talk page, but not no reason at all. Sigh. Nageh (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - seems to serve it's purpose rather nicely, in my eyes, for those circumstances where an article needs attention in many different ways. I'd rather see one of these on a page than multiple tags listing specific areas of concern when it's pretty obvious what they are.  Nik the  stoned  10:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It didn't get deleted in February? How disappointing... Well, in that case making "reason" mandatory is the very least we could do. Alternatively, I propose renaming this template to . Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 14, 2012; 13:22 (UTC)
 * Support. the template is essentially useless without the reason parameter. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 00:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Useless without a hint as to why article was tagged. Nobody Ent 01:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In most cases where cleanup is required, the reasons are evident, and are multiple. If any specific problems exist in the article, templates exist to report them. Cleanup is used by editors when there is no specific problem to be reported, but the article is obviously of low quality. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most the wiki is of low quality: That is what we have rankings like Stub, Start, etc. Cleanup should be reserved for articles with serious issues such as misuse of formatting code, disorganized lists of information, etc. -- LWG talk 20:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The inclusion of a tag - especially a drive by tag - is simply a copy and paste exercise. Making useful suggestions perhaps on the talk page would be much more useful. It might even be better if the editor who puts the tag down were to spend some time fixing the identified problem(s) instead of simply moving on.
 * Support. I can see a variety of opinions on this matter here. I suspect that those that are opposed are those who place most of the tags and those who support this idea are those who add the most content. While this last statement is likely to be a gross over simplification I suspect it may in essence be correct.DrMicro (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If the article sucks badly, then it is seen without template, so in this case its purpose AFAIK is to list the page in the category, to be scheduled for mopping. For a lazy drive-by tagger, this demand for reason is easily circumventable: just put "reason=it sucks". A reminder bevore saving about the missing reason can be a good idea. But the anticipated formal removal/disabling of thousands of old tags is not so good. A dubiois template may be just as easily removed, as placed. If diligent, leave a note in the talk page. If nobody objects within reason, then done with it. Lothar Klaic (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The hope is that drive-by taggers will just say "reason=it sucks". If they do, then it is super easy to go through the list of tags and remove the drive-by ones. As it is, it takes a significant amount of time to distinguish between frivolous drive-by tags and legitimate tags whose reasons just weren't immediately obvious. This is time that backlog works don't have to spend fixing more articles. -- LWG talk 20:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the reason for the cleanup tag will be obvious 95% of the time. While use of reason should be encouraged, it should not be mandatory. The only significant impact making this field mandatory will make is create a humongous cleanup backlog where we have to cleanup the cleanup backlog, and a bunch of people will remove the tags without doing any cleanup. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are five random articles that are tagged with "cleanup". Can you please give me your take on what the obvious reason they were tagged is? (also, this section is for technical implementation. You probably meant to post in the support/oppose section above.) -- LWG talk 19:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed that's what I meant. As for the core of the question, bad invocations of the template should obviously be removed, and so are dated use where the concerns no longer apply, but that's not an issue with proper use of the template (e.g. Anticuchos (no solid lead, lack of wikification, single-sentence paragraphs, etc...). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that you feel it would be uncontroversial to just remove any use of this tag where the issues are not immediately obvious? Because that would satisfy my main concern, which is about the blight of tags where no one is sure what the problem is and no one wants to take time for a thorough check before removing. -- LWG talk 00:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I'm saying that there's no problem removing a tag if you can't figure out why it's there after spending a reasonable amount of time looking at the article. For example that Kanako Maeda article, which you consider to 'not be immediately obvious', had several pretty obvious cleanup issues, such as several spacings mistakes, bare links for reference, one empty section, a tiny 'bio' section which should have been incorporated in the lead, a lead with irrelevant facts about the series rather than facts about the actress, no stub template, unitalicized titles of series, etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm representing the viewpoint of a backlog shoveler here. If the tag had had "poor lead, multiple formatting errors" as the reason it would have taken me about 3 seconds to determine that yes, there are problems, and whether those problems are ones I can handle or whether they should be left to someone with more interest in the article. As it is, if I have to spend "a reasonable amount of time" just determining what action is required, the task of working through 20,000 backlogged articles becomes insurmountable. Making the reason parameter mandatory would involve several extra seconds of thought for the tagger, and would drive some percentage away from tagging, but would greatly streamline the task of actually addressing the problems, which is, IMO, more important. I'd rather see more articles actually being fixed while some go untagged because it is too much trouble for the tagger than see all problem articles tagged and few fixed because it is too much trouble for the fixer. -- LWG talk 15:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying it's so hard for someone to actually write "no solid lead, lack of wikification, single-sentence paragraphs" if they add the tag? And that stating the "obvious" reason would be unnecessary in general? --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have already commented at 01:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC).Curb Chain (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And based on the time stamp that is this same comment, which I did not add. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I may have accidentally duplicated your comment when I moved several comments from the "technical implementation" section to here. Sorry about that. -- LWG talk 19:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - the template is too vague to be of any use unless there is a reason for the tag provided. Wer900 (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for the same reasons I supported this in the AFD. I read all of the oppose comments above, but find them not convincing at all. 83.87.4.157 (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support — I have often seen this template with no reason and no discussion on the talk page. I find it difficult to take seriously people who criticise others for sloppiness but cannot be bothered themselves to write a line or two describing the problems that irk them. I would favour this approach: upon seeing problems in an article, (1) try to fix them; if you cannot or do not have the time, (2) report them on the talk page (you don’t have to list all the problems, by the way; just do what you can); if you cannot even do that, please relax and do not feel so important that you must tag the article right now; if the article is so problematic, someone else will take care about it, so please just leave it alone. In fact, I would favour making the proposed discuss field mandatory so that discussion becomes a pre-requisite for tagging. When finding many fundamental problems with an article, the first impulse (shy of fixing) should be to discuss. When the talk section itself becomes substantial enough, then it becomes judicious to tag the article, with a link to the discussion. — Wlgrin 07:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support — I believe that if someone has already used time to find problems within the article, they should specify those problems. Otherwise, the second to come would have to (upon seeing the tag) search the article a second time to find the problem themselves, thereby negating some effort of the first to come.  Even a general description of what is wrong would help increase efficieny of time and work.   Shirudo   talk  08:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Comments: 1) Several have commented that an article may have too many problems to list. But, as others have pointed out, we aren't looking for a laundry list, just give a general brief reason to point us into the right direction so we aren't looking for one thing when you were looking at another. 2) Some have commented that, with some articles, the reason will be obvious. As already said, what may be obvious to one may not be obvious to others. 3) An example of a situation where wasted time could have been avoided. A user added a cleanup template with no reason listed. With other editors baffled asking each other on the Talk page if they saw any problems, she was asked (3 days later) on her User Talk what the issue was. She replied that the article (which was about a British neighborhood) is full of spelling errors such as every use of the word "color" being spelled "colour." The cleanup template was soon removed. 4) I try to add an edit summary to every edit I make regardless of how many changes or how obvious the changes may be. I haven't found it difficult to explain what I've done in the few characters permitted for an edit summary. The times I felt a clearer explanation was needed, I followed up with a comment on the article Talk page. IMHO, if it isn't too difficult for us to explain what we did in an edit summary (yes, I know some people don't seem to bother with edit summaries), I don't think it would be so difficult to give some kind of a reason. And, since adding this template to a page, by its own purpose, will affect other editors, and since a given reason will help save those editors some time, I feel, IMHO, that the reason should be mandatory. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think comment 3 is particularly important. One advantage of this is that we will be able to quickly decipher tags that have been missapplied. I suggested it in a discussion above, but it was purely hypothetical. An actual example of this is great evidence for the usefulness of this proposal. AIR corn (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Wikipedia is littered with stupid little templates which clutter articles and make them look less reliable than they really are to our readership. We make it far too easy for someone to say "Cleanup!" and then just wander off and let others bear the load.  Requiring them to (at the very least) give a reason why they think it needs cleaning will slow down the people who seem to delight in littering our articles with pointless tags and encourage people to fix the problem themselves - or at least give others a clear indication of what needs to be done.  It's also a lot easier to remove a ridiculous cleanup tag if the reason for it being there is explicit and demonstrably wrong.  SteveBaker (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Apart from many other good reasons mentioned above it makes removal of the template a less hit and miss affair. At the moment it is usually unclear exactly what requires cleanup so, after an editor has done some cleaning s/he may either: Remove the template before all required cleanup has been performed or leave the template when no further cleanup is required. The only alternative to leaving vast swathes of spurious templates is to be bold and remove them and assume someone will put them back if they still feel the article needs work. PRL42 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support vague templates like this help neither readers nor editors. Tagging an article with such a banner should at minimum give a good hint as to which areas the article is lacking and provide sufficient links to appropriate guidelines to help inexperienced editors learn how to write better articles. The banner is overused and encumbering its use will encourage more thoughtful application. <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  15:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not convinced by the 'drive-by tagging is no problem' rationale, as someone who works on a similar backlog, it's my opinion that drive-by tagging with no reason given for a tag like this hides the articles which actually do need action, but the tagger themselves didn't want, or know how to fix it. If your reason why cleanup is required is too long and complex to go in the reason parameter, then put it on the talk page, how else are people meant to decipher why cleanup is needed. This change will mean that a little more time will be required to tag an article, but it will reduce the number of person-hours required to clean up the an article, that seems like a plus for the project in genreal. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  16:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - editors need to be provided at least a basic feedback on where and how to improve the article. Whether that's on the template or in the talk page I don't care; a mandatory |reason= or |discuss= or |whatever= parameter will do in any case. – Kosm  1  fent  17:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Most of my edits are done by looking at clean up lists, which means most of them are made to articles I'm not an expert on. A generic 'clean up' tag usually results in me just moving on to the next item in the list. Also, given how often 'merge' tags aren't accompanied by a new section in the talk page, I don't think that's an acceptable alternative to this proposal. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose silly bureaucratic non-sense like this debate and over complication of a simple thing like a cleanup tag is part of the reason why my edit count has dropped from thousands of edits a year to almost none. People wonder why there are a lack of editors and why people retire, this conversation sums it up nicely.  It's  a simply self explanatory tag, don't over complicate the mater. Ridernyc (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that because people discuss the operation of Wikipedia - in a manner that in no way forces you to take part - you reduce your editing activities by several orders of magnitude and go to the effort of not only commenting but voting on something that you do not appear to believe should even be being discussed in the first place. Not wishing to be rude but you seem extremely confused. Why not simply ignore discussions that are of no interest to you? PRL42 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because if I ignore the conversation then the simple act of putting a generic cleanup tag on an article become needlessly bureaucratic and complicated. Not everything needs a 15 step notarized process to work and be effective.  If you see an article that has no obvious problems remove the tag, if you see problems fix them then remove the tag.  I'm extremely confused as to why this very very simple and elementary system is not understood by people who want to make it more complicated. Ridernyc (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess the problem is that what is "obvious problems" to you might not be obvious to me or another editor trying to fix articles. For example, earlier I posted these five randomly selected articles that had the tag. While I saw no "obvious problems" in any of them, another editor was able to find several problems. So if we follow the "just remove the tag if no obvious issues" advice, there's going to be a lot of tags removed when they really shouldn't be: I would have removed all five of those tags, without the original problems being fixed. This proposal isn't calling for a huge bureaucratic process, it's just asking that when to put the tag on an article you at least give us a few words worth of insight into your brain so we can tell the difference between an annoying drive-by tagger and a helpful editor who saw a problem we missed at first glance. -- LWG talk 17:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again if you don't see an obvious problem remove the tag. People are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Ridernyc (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support (subject to graceful implementation, meaning avoiding things like red error messages that would be conspicuous to readers as opposed to editors). Placing a tag like this on an article is saying you'd like someone else to do some work. It seems to me only fair to whoeve eventually does that work that you tell then what you wanted, rather than expect them to second-guess you. --Stfg (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I never liked this template in the first place and voted for it to be deleted, but if it's going to stick around then a reason must be mandatory. Much more useful than "something's wrong here". QueenCake (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – (USE NDASHES) To clarify stuff. -- J <span style="color:green; border-bottom:1px dotted; cursor: help;" title="This is my talk page link. Click on it!">(t)  19:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; Many times I've run across articles where editors have placed cleanup templates yet have left no indication of what must be improved. A reason, whether specific or general, should be supplied in the best interest of the article's improvement. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: A short reason would help enormously. I tire of finding this tag and then wondering why it is there. Drive by tagging needs to be discouraged. HairyWombat 03:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Almost always the article this tag is used on needs obvious, cleanup. If there's no obvious problem, just go ahead and remove the tag. By necessitating a mandatory parameter, it's making another tiny step towards editing harder for inexperienced users. Plus, as others have discussed, sometimes ambiguity is a plus and it can be with this tag. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Support. If someone can bring up the effort to find pages that need to be cleaned up, they can also put in a little bit of extra effort to actually type down why they think the page should be tagged with the template. 84.198.56.170 (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mildly Oppose I oppose it for a few reasons. Obviously, the extra barrier to tagging will deter cleanup tags from being created.  While that's sometimes a good thing, I've rarely encountered a cleanup tag on an article that I didn't feel was a good candidate for for the tag.  Thus, the barrier feels like a bad thing.  Additionally, I'm not sure that editors want to clean-up articles if they can't spot what's unclean about them.  If you need to have the problem explained to you, you're probably the wrong editor for that article and should fix something that bothers you.  Thirdly, I've just never had luck with forms that mandated responses to open-ended questions like the reason field.  If people don't want to leave a reason, you're going to get responses like "because it's unclear" or "because it's disorganized.  Furthermore, you're generally going to get that response not because the tagger is being difficult or lazy, but because they don't really understand what's wrong; they just recognize that something is wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.231.52 (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons stated toward top of response section. ask123 (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? Nageh (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support should also add a  parameter (see ), to give a specific link to the talk page.  I think if the discussion parameter is given, then the reason may be omitted.  Zodon (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I won't tell you why I support this, it's not mandatory that I explain, you can read my mind like everybody else. Penyulap  ☏  06:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then unfortunately, your Support !vote cannot be "counted" neither for nor against this proposal. What really "counts" in these community discussions is the power of the reasoning.  Those who either Support or Oppose without rendering the power of their reasoning are missing out on what makes Wikipedia a one-of-a-kind reference work. – <b style="font-variant:small-caps; color:darkblue; font-family:Arial;">p i e</b> (<b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial;"> Climax !</b>)  04:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I might be wrong, but I think vagueness was the whole point of this support. AIR corn (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was how I understood it: Paine Ellsworth's reply is a pretty good argument in favor of the proposal. -- LWG talk 13:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? I would have thought that the allusion was pretty obvious. And it's a nice one. ;) Nageh (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm detector is broken Bulwersator (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad!>) – <b style="font-variant:small-caps; color:darkblue; font-family:Arial;">p i e</b> (<b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial;"> Climax !</b>) 07:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

note: the following response was moved from the "close" section as it appears to be a reply to the RFC as a whole.
 * Mildly Oppose. I rarely use this template as I'm well acquainted with most of the different cleanup templates, and I use them discerningly. However, yesterday I did use it, and I used because the article just "looked bad" and I wasn't in the mood to investigate the issues any further. So I slapped this template on the article. That was easy to do, and something obviously had to be done about that article. I could of course have added as a reason: "something needs to be done to this article," but I think this template probably works ok without the necessity for making a  field mandatory. __meco (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I think some interesting points have been made by the opposition camp, but a generic Cleanup tag with no reason has long been a major annoyance to me. I hate trying to figure out why an article has been tagged with this infuriatingly vague template.  I'm pessimistic that this will actually accomplish anything positive, but seeing "reason: asdfg" is no worse than seeing a blank reason.  If this extra, bureaucratic step drives off a few contributors, then I'll be sad to see them leave, but, honestly, I'll also be a little bit less annoyed by Wikipedia.  As a concession, I would support some mechanism to tag articles as being generally worthless, like some sort of panic button, to indicate that the article is so screwed up, the editor doesn't even know where to begin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I have read some arguments here which I have never before considered in the opposition, but I have had too many problems with vague templates. This is not just about the cleanup template - all talk templates need to have a rationale, except for the "panic button" proposed by User:NinjaRobotPirate above. I frequently want more information from other editors about why they use problem templates and if there was an explanation on the talk page then I could work to fix things.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   22:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It is confusing for those of us that have occasional time to help out. You find one of these tags, go to the talk page nothing is there, back to the article.  You read through it and try  to make it read like an encyclopedia, then you come back in 5-6 weeks the tag is still there and several have helped out. You again read through it and add references or spend more time trying to help the original writer of the article.  You come back 4 months later and the same tag is still there and by that time you have no idea if it has been fixed or not.  Look how much time has been spent on this discussion.  So if there is no reason, say in 3-4 months with several corrections having been made, then who wants to be the one to remove it for fear of a "comment" being left on your talk page about "leave my tag alone", or something else that makes us new editors embarrassed when we really are trying to help. These tags can last forever and you lose sight of it all and you don't come back to read the page because it becomes so frustrating. Like I said I support putting a reason, even if it says rewrite the whole article JoeyD2010 (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - make the default provided reason something like "This article has many issues that require fixing" and remove the "more information at talk page", so that people adding the tag for a different, specific reason will be forced to override the default or select a more specific tag. Some editors above have mention that this would be enough of an improvement, and others have said that listing all reasons in that situation would be impractical. So I think this !vote is a Support, but... in an intelligent way. Diego (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

MichaelProcton (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Question to all those with an Oppose position: if the problem to solve is so obvious that it doesn't require an explanation, then why do you think it needs a tag at all? Diego (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I think a reason would do nothing but help. Yes, it may be at times pretty obvious what needs fixing, but how would it hurt to have that impression reinforced by something concrete?


 * Support -- I'll explain the obvious and non-obvious cases separately.
 * If the reason is obvious, then it doesn't need the tag for people to see the problem(s). Also, if the reason is obvious and it's not simple enough for the editor adding the tag to fix the problem, it's probably going to take several edits by several contributors over several days/weeks/whatever to do the cleanup. In this case, when does the tag get removed? Without a reason, there's no way of knowing when the problem is fixed. Even "complete mess" would help; if the article doesn't look like a complete mess at a glance, then it's time to remove the tag.
 * If the reason is not obvious, then it should be given. As others have explained, most cases without reasons are non-obvious, so the problem is real and significant. Someone earlier in the discussion listed five random tagged articles with no reason given and they challenged people to find the issue, but no one could. Thus, I conclude that the vast majority of uses of the tag are non-obvious, even if they were obvious when tagged.
 * As an alternative/complementary solution, I also support having a bot automatically remove reasonless uses after 3 months or however long seems reasonable. Speaking of bots, I thought about disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point and making a bot that indiscriminately tags random articles for cleanup, but I don't think anyone would notice the disruption amidst the 23,896 current examples. MarkGyver (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - I won't attempt to reiterate all the good support points made above. The sheer number of unexplained tags lurking for years, and the obvious fact that the tagger is the only one who can explain why he is tagging - if he can't, he shouldn't be, are enough. Another point occurs to me. I cannot place any ubsubstantiated assertions in an article, or they are subject to removal. Without a mandatory "reason" field, I may, though, place a big warning template which at worst makes the reader think the article might be unreliable (quality standards), and at best makes him wonder what's wrong, with no explanation whatsoever - and, according to some who oppose this, nobody can remove it until they spend time working out why I did it. That seems odd, doesn't it? Begoon &thinsp; talk  13:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - even supplying a token reason is an improvement over supplying no reason. For backwards compatibility, if the reason isn't listed, reduce the tag to a smaller one, one that says something to the effect of an editor tagged this article for cleanup, but didn't indicate why. If you see the reason, please edit it in., and link the last sentence to the edit action. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - It is very useful to know what is wrong with an article instead of having to manually figure the issue out. Then again, I'm a novice. pjrule (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Comment - As I see it this is a question of balancing the need for identifying problems against the need for solving them. It's hard to say which is the more pressing need. One option that I don't see explored above is just to get a bot to write a note to every editor who has put up a cleanup template without a "reason" field urging them to fill in a reason to help future editors improve the article. This is similar to the bots that go around reminding people to sign their posts. This would allow busy editors to tag articles for generic cleanup but would provide a slight annoyance that would encourage editors to avoid drive-by taggings lacking rationales. Note that hardly anybody comments without signing these days despite the fact that it makes commenting a tiny bit more difficult. I've noticed that there is a dab-bot running around reminding people not to link to dabs as well but that this bot has an opt-out feature. I'm not sure if that would be a good idea here. -Thibbs (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - Cleanup doesn't really define anything really. You need to specify what you found wrong with the article. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 16:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Making the reason required would greatly improve the usefulness of this tag, and overall would save time. –meiskam (talk•contrib) 00:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support - Without a notice of what's wrong (at least on the talk page if not in the tag), it's useless. I've removed dozens of (often years-old) such tags because either a) the article was improved in the interim or b) I couldn't see anything wrong with the article in the first place. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weirded out, thus neutral, "but..." &mdash; wtf? If you find one of those, there's no reason given on talk, just remove the damn thing. Problem solved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But the reason could be stated in the edit summary. --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Enforcing a reason is not a suitable alternative to a better wording of the text in the template. Consider including a link (or a "click to expand" hidden div) to the most commonly made mistakes such as Tips.  Captain n00dle \ Talk 10:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (If I get time I will consider making an example template,  Captain n00dle \ Talk 10:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC))
 * Support. I really hate it when I have to guess what someone meant by adding this template to a particular article. And if I just fixed two things with this article, can I just remove the template - or maybe someone thought there were three issues to be fixed? That's probably why I've seen dozens upon dozens of reasonably good articles that had two- or three-year old cleanup tags - apparently no one was sure if it was OK to just remove them at some point. And if the article is a total mess, just say reason=The article is a total mess, at least that is not a problem and is better than nothing. GregorB (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per and . -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: Having a catch-all cleanup tag isn't necessarily a bad thing, since it's understandable that it may not be easy to determine (let alone find) the "correct" cleanup tag to use based on whatever is wrong with the article. Myself and I believe others are very suspicious that a tag which is as indiscriminate as this one is being used in a responsible manner. Even if the only reason given in the reason parameter is "crappy article" (there are a lot of opposes votes above citing that as a reason, which again is understandable), that is at least something for other editors to come along and evaluate without having to guess about the rational which the tag was added with. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 02:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Obviously. Having no reason for cleanup is useless and tells the editor nothing about what needs to be done. A reason helps out here because everyone is great at different types of cleanup, so said editor can take the article or leave it.  The Master of Mayhem    (t    c)  13:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: The person invoking the cleanup tag would be privy to the rationale, but not other editors that could benefit from basic direction. 108.72.62.226 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Yes, please. As a wiki-gnome that often tries to fix problems with articles tagged with a variety of maintenance templates, this one is by far the hardest to deal with. Taggers often don't put anything on the talk page, and just slap this on top of the article.  Back when it was at TfD, I didn't think it should be deleted, but I fully support this proposal as making the template 1000% more useful.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 15:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, because sometimes editors tag a perfectly fine article due to some reasoning that exists only in the mind of that editor (e.g., "I personally dislike this band, and wish the article said more bad things about them"), and other editors hesitate to remove the tag because they do not know if its presence was intended to indicate a serious issue. I would at least say: if a cleanup tag has been placed on the article without a reason being provided, then any editor may remove the tag, and no explanation of the removal is required. Cheers! bd2412  T 17:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Why write any kind of banner for a page without providing a reason? I don't just mean this for the type of page banner being discussed, but for any kind of page banner. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I often have no idea what the editor thinks needs to be fixed when they add this template. BOZ (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per all above and common sense. Blank Map of Maine.svgBlankMap-World.svg  Liam987  14:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: It's been said numerous times already, but the two seconds it takes to type in a reason is a small inconvenience compared to the effort it takes for other editors to try to figure it out when one isn't specified. 786b6364 (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support if it were up to me, many more article tags would have mandatory specific reasons. 71.212.241.67 (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - You have to give other editors the information needed to improve the article. That being said, the nitty-gritty of the improvment suggestions belong on the talk page. But having either a general statement "remove excess linking" and/or a link to a talk page section should be required. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 16:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning towards weak oppose - Everything in maintenance tags (any tag, not just cleanup) should be verified through a discussion on the talk page of the article. If it hasn't been discussed on the talk page, then it's a simple matter of bringing it there.  Presumably (whether the "reason" field is mandatory or not), the burden of responsibility is on the one who tagged the article to explain why he added the tag.  If he can't, and if the tag is removed, he can simply take it to the talk page (treat edit wars as they'd be treated with any other issue).  Sleddog116 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Of course editors should give reasons and discusses ways of cleaning up in the process of doing so if necessary. But it should not be mandatory. Encouragement to explaining the problem, is what is required. Mootros (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that imply making it mandatory? How can you encourage someone who doesn't read the tag's documentation and just drive-by ads it, to explain the problem? --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - When I see cleanup tags with a reason for the clean up I can immediately start working on the issues and I will be more assured that the user who added it was bothered enough to include a reason for the template. Cleanup tags with no rationale are pretty much useless, one of the reasons there is such a backlog of articles that need attention. Jack (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, just having "Clean this mess up" on an article tends not to help the problem. --Nathan2055talk-review 17:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Just saying an article needs cleanup is too broad. I have seen alot of articles where editors just throw the templates on them and they sit there for years, as more people edit the article the areas needing clenup become buried in more mess. Yes make the reasoning needed so there can be less laziness. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Sometimes its obvious what the problem is, but that's not always the case. Drive-by taggers often leave the generic cleanup tag and fail to specify a reason; then they walk away and never come back, making any follow-up impossible (I'm saying that because I've been a drive-by tagger too). Whilst the generic tag is useful for those articles whose state of disorder it patently obvious, editors should be encouraged (more than they are now) to use more specific cleanup tags when they can. One solution is to make the reason mandatory, another possible solution is to deprecate the generic tag. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Unless someone specifies a reason, how is anyone else supposed to know what to fix? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not clear what mandatory means. As it is, either the template is removed, if it makes no sense to the next editor or the article is fixed (and that's without drastic mandatoriness.) Are we going to ban editors for not filling out all the forms we like? I think not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is discussed in the "Technical implementation" subsection below. --Stfg (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I've certainly used this template without filling in the reason parameter, mainly because I was rushing, and I, as well as others, I'm sure, would certainly be more encouraged to fill the parameter in if it was made mandatory, thus solving the issue of an unclear cleanup template. I would like to add, however, that there should be a 30 day grace period, to allow developers of tools such as Twinkle to add code making that parameter necessary. I would also like to ask a question. Will the requirement for the reason parameter be coded into the template, or will a Wikipedia policy be made? I think modifying the template would be difficult, if not impossible, because we'd have to make sure that previous transclusions of Cleanup aren't messed up.--Yutsi  Talk/  Contributions  22:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "I think modifying the template would be difficult" - it is quite easy, template may check parameter date Bulwersator (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support because whoever is expert enough to add the template should be expert enough to add one reason. --Chris Howard (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Requiring editors to give a reason is a sensible alternative to deletion. From my experience, clean-up could mean many things and adding the template without giving a reason isn't helpful to other editors. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per BD2412 SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 23:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, although if this were a professional organization like the ones I used to work in before I became too ill 12 years ago, I would Support. TL:DR? Jump to the paragraph where I italicized that I'd found my point.
 * I don't know if I should be voting here, much less saying anything. That's what some of the well intentioned attitudes on this page drive me to say. There are tons of people throwing "shoulds" at each other (from what I could read--my eye muscles are weakened when my illnesses act up). You should edit, you should give a reason, you should know or at least know how to look up all the possible templates and yadayada. (Yadayada being a plural noun, there's no need to tack on an S.)
 * See? I'm even justifying my silliness. Running into these hammer-like attitudes, along with severe illness that admittedly leaves me frayed to begin with, is why I never follow up on anything at Wikipedia. I haven't even read my talk page in ages. I edit to keep my hand in, do the best I can, and move on.
 * I've worked in small companies and huge corporations in technical editing and writing. Some of my best friends still do. Why are we trying to do what they do? Aren't we different? Besides, one reason to Assume Good Faith is that you don't know what the editor, contributor, or whatever you want to call the person at the other end of the wire or wireless is going through! You don't know how much it's costing that person to type something up. Maybe nothing. Maybe the cost of coffee in an internet cafe that they should be spending on something else. Maybe they'll end up in bed for a week--oh, wait that's me. Or they could just be late for work or class and can't edit much at that time!
 * I just grieve over this kind of thing in Wikipedia. (Oops: antecedent unclear.) ...over the...dammit, I'm losing my words already. You've got a... We've got a flexible system for a reason. Plus, (oo, I think I just found my points!) 1) if you want new people to join and work, the more complicated & dogmatic the system or antagonistic the "discussions", the more you are working against your desired goals. And 2) unless the reason is something not easily observed by other people (in which case I write up a query on the talk page anyway & usually don't leave a template), anything other than "needs more work" can be seen easily and can't be point-by-point summarized usefully.
 * And see? You didn't know that it took me at least 10 minutes to write that last sentence. Skimming the page plus 4 paragraphs & now I'm slow and worse. In this state, I'm not going to try to figure things out. But my work history gives *me* the confidence to do things more simply than what I see others doing. Not everyone has that confidence plus the desire to help out or just to edit or research and write.
 * Ps. Keep Wikipedia accessible for editors with all kinds of disabilities, please. And thanks, truly, for giving me a place I can edit when symptoms allow, because I do miss it so.
 * Pps. Like someone probably French said, "I'm sorry this letter is so long; I could not take the time to make it shorter." I can't spare the metaphorical spoons from youdontlooksick.
 * Sincerely, --Geekdiva (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I indented your comment for you, Geekdiva. With no desire whatsoever to sound harsh, this still seems like an argument to oppose change and to support laziness.  There have been many times when I have not been able to do a complete job in an article, or I am unable leave behind something that would be clear to other editors.  In a case where I might use this tag, I would not just add it to the article.  I would make a note to myself, usually on a pad I keep near, to return at some point, add the tag, and include a reason.  This ensures that I won't just add the tag and forget about it.  The concern here is to make things clear to your fellow editors, to include a reason why you think an article needs to be cleaned.  I am old and disabled.  So I have a difficult time with the idea of using a disability to support keeping other editors in the dark about what you were thinking.  For me, there is no earthly reason to do that.  And since there are people who slap this tag on an article with "no reason nor rhyme", and who do that often, it follows that they just need a little guidance in the form of requiring them to let other editors know what is wrong while it is still fresh in their mind.  I wish you the best, Geekdiva, sincerely. – <b style="font-variant:small-caps; color:darkblue; font-family:Arial;">p i e</b> (<b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial;"> Climax !</b>)  18:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - "cleanup" without a reason is just noise on the page. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It seems obvious that if you're saying something needs fixing you should say what. It shouldn't have to be some sort of guessing game. First Light (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Anyone can write in his own words what he thinks is wrong in an article, it's not tedious, and it doesn't take more than 5 seconds. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support On a more general issue, the approach to Cleanup needs to have two features: a) yes, I've cleaned it up - and the Cleanup message is now deleted and b) the tone of the message in Cleanup is terrible. We are a lot of people trying to help each other- so more like 'help us out here' rather than 'this page has problems' please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkseatonpaul (talk • contribs)
 * Support Cleanup isn't a very helpful instruction. As others have pointed out, even FAs sometimes need cleanup (I've cleaned a couple myself, ref stuff usually). A tag which could theoretically apply to a FA definitely needs to include a reason. Otherwise it's just a pointless redundant tag telling editors to do what they already do: edit articles. CMD (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: If you are going to take the time to tag an article instead of fixing it, at least explain what's wrong with it. If you cannot fill out a reason because you can't explain what's wrong with the article or don't know what's wrong with it, then you shouldn't be using the cleanup tag. — Bility (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose though perhaps rather late in the game. I do not use the tag myself, but I am always glad to see it. I would rather see a more specific indication, but when I do see one, it's usually not the only or even the major problem: most articles here are of fairly low quality in many respects,and fixing them is usually a matter of successive passes by multiple people.  A general tag is an indication that the article might need some work, and that someone has noticed. It's a first step. I find it hard to believe that there is a serious proposal here to make it harder for people to indicate problems. It's good that they at least look. We need to do everything possible to involve editors.    In general I, and I think many editors like myself,  examine in the course of a day many dozens or even hundreds of articles, though not generally for the specific purpose of doing cleanup--in my case, usually when I'm checking a problematic editor's contributions. I might like to fix every problem I saw that is within my capabilities, but I tend to specialize in other matters: I will sometimes rewrite one article a day from promotional gobble-gook,but generally I can fix only what can be quickly fixed, and move on, because I'm really looking for people not article problems. If I see something that hasn't been noticed but I notice, I generally mark it, not fix it, or I couldn't do my primary work. Even if my primary work were, for example, adding references--which I thought it would be when I came here--I would have to be selective, and I would It is better to have some indication but my experience is that the indications that are see a great many more problems than I could deal with.   DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: When adding that tag, you should specify what you want 'cleaned up' - people normally don't know what an editor doesn't find good about an article. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 08:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: It's sometimes unclear to an experienced user why the template was used, let alone new editors. The problem has to be clearly specified. --Eleassar my talk 13:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - either the reason or the talk parameter should be passed, otherwise the tag would be too vague for other editors or readers. --Waldir talk 13:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional Oppose, as long as transclusions without a reason field get included in Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field. Editors who now exclude the optional field will likely just start filling it with something unhelpful like "miscellaneous".--Theodore Kloba (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A specific, actionable item is required for the template to have any value. Warden (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I know I'm late to this discussion, but I just saw the notice about the proposal. I've been editing here for a couple of years and I've long thought these "cleanup" tags placed without any reason were a problem.  In fact, I've found with most tags (not just "cleanup" tags) the "editors" are too lazy to take 2 minutes to explain on the talk page what their perceived problems are.  Yes, with "stubs" or "start" articles it's usually pretty obvious to any 10-year-old what the problems/deficiencies are (even without a tag), but I've seen these tags also get slapped onto relatively decent articles (rated "C-class" and higher, with sufficient sources, etc) and I've sometimes read an article two or three times and still not seen any problem.  This means that I then have to dig through the edit history to find the "tagging" editor, then contact the "tagger" on their talk page, wait for however long it takes for a reply, etc, etc, just to try and get them to explain what the perceived problems were before I can even begin to try and resolve the "issues" (which I've found, more often than not, exist only in their own minds).  I guess maybe I'm in the minority, but I spend my time here writing articles - if I see a page I believe has obvious problems, I try and fix them, rather than slap a tag on the page and leave (I've never tagged a single article here - not once), so I firmly believe if someone is too busy (or lazy) to take the extra couple of minutes to explain their rationale, then they shouldn't be tagging articles in the first place.  I'm sure others have probably mentioned it before, but there is also the problem of tags giving the casual reader the impression that there is something specious about the entire article as a whole, when that is not necessarily the case (often times, when I've tracked down the tagging editor, the big problem they had was a previous editor's use of the term "teen idol" instead of "teen actor" or some other ridiculously petty little thing that they could have easily just fixed instead of tagging the page).  As far as I'm concerned tagging a page without providing a good reason is just as much "vandalism" as the potential for editors to "vandalize" if we do require that they provide a reason (which I believe would be relatively easy to spot, compared to reading the "tea leaves" of why an article was tagged in the first place).  I could go on and on about why I believe a reason should absolutely be required, but I'm sure others have already covered most of this ground already (I don't have the time or inclination to read this entire thread). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I think this case is very simple. Tagging is a means to an end; we don't need more tags (hello, backlog!), we need fixable issues, and this tag is not one that should be used to warn readers about POV issues etc., there are other tags for that. Cleanup is not intended to inform readers (although forcing readers to gain merit by fixing issues before being allowed to access articles would be an interesting proposal). Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I think people are supporting forcing a reason because this helps themselves improve an article but forget that there are editors who are not experienced enough to use a more specific template, or ignorant of the right template to use.Curb Chain (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an unconvincing argument that editors may be aware of this cleanup template but not of others, or are not "experienced" enough to use another template. Even if so we can expect them provide a reason for why they think cleanup is necessary. Nageh (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * as an experienced editor, i have spent 20 minutes or more trying to find a specific tag that I knew existed and still wasnt able to locate it.-- The Red Pen of Doom  21:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not about using other templates, but making this one more useful. An editor might not know about Over-quotation, but they can use this template and then as a reason say "there are too many long quotations in this article". AIR corn (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then they can use Over-quotation instead of having to use cleanup and being required to type "there are too many long quotations in this article".Curb Chain (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to follow your logic. At the top you said that these new editors might not know about the other templates and now you are saying that they should use them instead. AIR corn (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not only my logic you should consider. It's rather the logic of all editors you should consider and not just how this template should be useful to a certain segment of editors.Curb Chain (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't follow you, either. Aircorn says, ". . . An editor might not know about Template:Over-quotation, . . .", and then you propose that, ". . . they can use Template:Over-quotation instead of having to use Template:Cleanup . . .".  Please explain to me like I'm a six-year-old, how can editors who don't know about a template be expected to use it? –  PIE  (  C LIMAX   )  03:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the reason parameter should remain optional; if an editor feels a page needs cleanup, some other editor can go to the page and at least improve it, regardless of weather or not the improvement solved the issued issue that concerned the tagger.Curb Chain (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Curb Chain, I understand that you are among the editors who do not support the need for editors to give reasons for their article tag, or at least, that they should not be made to do so. That does not address my question, though. –  PIE  (  C LIMAX   )  04:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "(Consider using more specific cleanup instructions.)" points to the page listing more specific templates, apparently over-quotation was missing from the list. Skullers (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the tag was added to an article, and the editor adding it provided a reason of "unreferenced" for example (assume a newish editor who is simply unaware of unreferenced, which is admittedly somewhat contrived but I believe it to be an illustrative example), then when I see that I would simply say something like "oh, ok, I can just replace this with the unreferenced tag then." I think that would be a good thing, rather than something which we would want to avoid. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 02:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I would not think this discussion would be necessary if people would use these tags in a reasonable way. The FBI article mentioned above is a prime example for what is wrong with the tag. Of course, something needs to be cleaned up in the article, and as an experienced editor you will always find things for improvement. Heck, after all this is true for every article not at a featured-article state. But what exactly did the tagger want to point out needing my attention that he put a tag on top of the article, screaming aloud that the article is in need of cleanup? Curiously, the talk page doesn't elucidate that at all, saying that the article "needs cleanup because it is so important". I do find many articles important, should I start plastering them all with generic cleanup templates without specifying a real reason? Nageh (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I clean up featured articles everyday; fixing things they passed with. It's a low, uneven bar. Alarbus (talk) 11:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So let's tag every single article for cleanup, or what is your argument? Nageh (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be WP:POINTY. I already made my 'argument' above; you are making yours everywhere. Kindly stop badgering everyone. Alarbus (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have rarely met a person assuming so much bad faith like you do. I am attempting to discuss constructively, you accuse me of "badgering everyone", "personally attacking people", and "battelgrounding". Please apologize! Nageh (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Add to this that you accuse me of "making my argument everywhere" when I honestly try to understand what are the problems at core and to find a reasonable solution. I assume this should be obvious from my postings. If others feel the same I invite you to speak out. If efforts to constructively participate are met with only hostility then it is time for me to leave Wikipedia editing as well. Nageh (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't hold your breath. And go work on FBI rather than edit war over the cleanup tag; someone might think you've a point to make. Alarbus (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I count your ID 19 times on this page; badger much? Before you go, read GoodBye. Alarbus (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Participating constructively in a discussion is badgering??? Nageh (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See how to find things needing cleanup in FBI??? Alarbus (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, Alarbus! You have changed lots of "Cite" template names to "cite"! Now go ahead and tag each and every single article on Wikipedia with a cleanup tag because it is so easy to find something to complain about rather than trying to be constructive in a discussion like this. Thank you! Nageh (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * More in there than that, and you saw it. Go badger someone else; better yet, go edit an article instead of trolling a template talk page. Alarbus (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not for anything, Alarbus, but as I look at this discussion, I see that editor Nageh initiated this part, and then you responded. Then Nageh responded, essentially asking you to elaborate.  And all of a sudden, Nageh is badgering you?  I don't see that.  I do see two editors who might want to step out of the discussion for a time to perhaps gain a better perspective of the actual problem with this template?  Just a suggestion.  Good, solid improvements seldom take place while two good editors gnaw away at each other. –  PIE  (  C LIMAX   )  03:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if an (optional) user preference that would warn users if they did not provide a reason would work, similar to that user preference that would warn about blank edit summaries. But it could just annoy the heck out of people, people would probably not use it, and there could be problems with implementation through code. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more I think WP:RESPTAG should be upgraded to a guideline in order to avoid such discussions. I have only dealt with one persistent drive-by-tagger in my early wiki carrier (a lasting experience, it seems) but I have since learned that most editors practicing themselves in excessive tagging are simply newbies who do not yet have a feeling for when tagging is appropriate and who never get educated in this regard by more experienced editors. Nageh (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to not use the term 'drive-by' that way; it is a sweeping personal attack and indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach you're taking. And that essay seems a 35kb rant. Alarbus (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel that WP:RESPTAG should be a guideline, I encourage you to to proposal so although determining weather someone has tagged vandalistically is in my opinion one of the hardest things to determine.Curb Chain (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is not vandalistic tagging, it's unconstructive tagging. If an article has legitimate problems, tagging it with "general cleanup" does nothing to aid editors who are trying to fix the article, does nothing to bring specialist editors to the article, and is hard for backlog workers to determine whether to remove. With a reason, editors working on the article are pointed in the right direction, editors who specialize in specific areas can see at a glance whether they are needed, and it is easy to determine when the issue is resolved. -- LWG talk 21:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

just because some people are annoyed by a reason-less tag is no cause to forcibly alter everyone else's behavior. that is petty bureaucracy and rulemaking. if a tag has no reason it will hopefully cause a much more thorough review by those who really care about the appearance of the tag on said article, i.e. its readers, editors, or contributors. anybody else could be considered a tourist. i realize that stating "hopefully" is a projection, but so are most of the arguments here. people want to translate personal wikipedia experiences into universal guidelines, and at some point this has to stop. i would be annoyed by a reason-less tag in any article i am interested in. however i would deal with the issue at hand immediately and specifically and keep dealing with it until the issue was resolved one way or the other. because i'm interested in the article, not in editing guidelines or proposals. imo, the general use of the tag without reason is as valid as my specific opposition to it. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not asking for much. The tag should not be applied without a reason in the first place so it should not be hard to leave one. AIR corn (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * you are asking for a whole lot. you are trying to mandate the actions of every editor who uses the template. your proposal is restrictive and final. its utility is dubious, at best. i haven't seen a compelling reason for such restriction without recourse. the whole thing looks like legalistic micromanagement. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As User:Aircorn points below, when a third of participants in a generally large and open discussion think there's something wrong with a template, and another third wants it deleted, then I think it's way above beaurocratic nonsense or cabals influencing the voting. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how many responding here are familiar with the recent deletion discussion, but about one third of the respondents there made this suggestion. If we can't improve the template there will most likely be a fifth nomination and this time the Keep but make mandatory !votes will carry less weight. AIR corn (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * i think there should definitely be more attention paid to resubmissions. i think that any resubmission of a tfd should carry a weight, unless new reasoning is provided. for example, an added weight of 10% per non-original resubmission. so if the submission needs 50%+1 votes, the 1st resubmission without new rationale should need 55%+1 vote, the 2nd resub 60.5%+1 vote etc. since the merits of the template have been discussed and decided one way or another in the original submission, this would help expand the discussion towards the proper area: the merits of the resubmission. this can be applied retroactively. in this instance a tfd for the generic cleanup template would need about 74%+1 vote if it was determined that the resubmissions did not provide new reasons. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This whole proposal is an end run around TfD where it was quite clear that there was no consensus for a mandatory reasoning.... this is an attempt to convert the deletes at the TfD (who had a completely untennable position) into "pro mandatory" votes now. This is cynical even by xfD standards. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The question at the tfd was not to make the reason mandatory but to delete the template, the person who nominated it was quite clear about that in his responses. Even so a lot of comments included that in their keep reasoning. Now that this specific question has been asked we can see what the consesus is. It is not a run around, it is a transparent attempt to improve a template whose existence has no consensus. AIR corn (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And closure was "I think that the outcome of all the extended tl;dr below is that while there is no consensus for deletion, there is certainly room for improvement. Drive-by tagging of articles has always been a blight. Slapping a template on the top of an article runs opposite to our core value of WP:SOFIXIT, and this template tends to stay on for so long that its use really loses meaning. This discussion should certainly result in changes, and I would urge some of those who expressed an opinion below to be WP:BOLD about it. " Bulwersator (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 65.88.88.127, are you aware that this discussion is not about the deletion of the tag (since the result of that discussion was No Consensus), but about a particular change to the template which had strong support among the editors at the TFD? I think what Aircorn is saying is that, given that a large percentage of those who voted "Keep" did so under the condition that this change be made, if there is no consensus for this change to be made then the next TFD will have to take that into account. -- LWG talk 17:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * correct. imo this RFC has nothing to do with a hypothetical "next tfd". this proposal will be decided here. whether it is passed or defeated, i don't see how it figures in any future discussion of the template as a whole. as for my comment, it was addressing tfd resubmissions in general. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy and we reach consensus through reason, not by counting votes to any arbitrary percentage. Skullers (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * please don't say these things. all consensus decisions involve polling. all of them. decisions may not arrive with formal voting but with informal procedures: "it seems that most people [support/oppose]" "it is clear that..." "the most common argument..." etc etc. all these statements, to be true, involve polling of some sort, implicit or explicit. voting is just a practical, short-hand expression of opinion. it is also easier to tabulate than scanning all opinions and saying things like "i think consensus has been reached...." consensus does not happen by osmosis. it always, always involves polling by this or any other name. the text in the pages you linked includes some of the most insulting english in wikipedia. by twisting rudimentary logic about the actualities of consensus, they insult everyone's intelligence. please stop referring to them.
 * as for my comment regarding resubmissions, it was just an example. imo, resubmitting a tfd without new reasoning is profiteering, and damaging wikipedia. editors' time is a limited resource. some resubmissions waste this time on issues that have been exhausted. their resubmitters take valuable editor resources (time) without providing any benefit as "payment"; i think a tax, in the form of a weighted vote, can redress the profiteering, and potentially free editor time towards more pressing wikipedia needs. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright then, point taken.
 * The first TfD closed as Snow Keep.
 * The second as Keep: 42 Keep, 23 Keep and make the reason mandatory, 20 Delete
 * The third as No consensus: 14 Keep, 7 Delete, 6 Deprecate
 * The fourth as No consensus: 74 Delete, 69 Keep, 27 Keep and make the reason mandatory
 * (the threads are rather long so the numbers may be off by some amount)
 * During the first TfD, the template looked like this. Since then, the wording has been revised several times, and as of the latest it's almost twice longer. Depending on your screen resolution and browser setup it may take between 1 and 4 lines, assuming no reason is specified. Now people suggest adding yet more verbiage to it, so it ends up as some words of judgment of the content and the rest as instructions for usage of the tag.
 * While a TfD is different because it's about outright deletion, any change implemented as a result of this might be difficult to revert without more or less negating this entire process. Would we hold another rfc over it? A resubmission it would surely not be! Skullers (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 65.88.88.127, I think it's wrong of you to nonchalantly say "well, of the hundreds that commented on tfd, everyone who didn't like the template had an agenda to delete it". Dissing 2-3 delete votes is one thing, dissing tens or hundreds of votes is close to myopia. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What's this? A proposal that would require that (eyesore) tags placed at the top of articles be REFERENCED? (I say that humorously, but I really hope the point has been made.) 71.214.250.90 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeated absurd statement
Supporters of this proposal repeatedly made comments alone the lines of "it takes only seconds to add a reason but it can take hours to figure out why the tag was used". These statements are disingenuous and rely on a faulty comparison. To make sense of these comments, the "hours" here must stem from the time editors have spent removing tags in general, not discerning the motive of individual tags. (If you are spending "hours" trying to figure out why a particular cleanup tag was placed on an article, you are doing it wrong.) So basically all these comments are faulty comparisons. You must compare the time to add a mandatory reason to the time it takes to discern the reason (or lack thereof) for a single tag. Adding a mandatory reason to a cleanup tag would probably typically take between 30 seconds and a couple minutes (not the biased "few seconds" language used by supporters). Figuring out the reason (or lack of one) for a drive-by cleanup tag probably takes, lets say, a few minutes on average. So, a fair guesstimate is that it takes 2 or 3 times as long on average to "figure out" a cleanup tag than it does for the tagger to supply a reason. Let's even be generous and say it takes 10 times as long. Now, compare that to the estimate of 1000 times as long implicit in the "hours to a few seconds"-thinking. That's wrong by roughly two orders of magnitude! If you are going to participate in RfC's, at least bring credible statements to the table. Don't pollute the discussion with bad reasoning. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I fear you may have missed the point - or at least the logic - behind that assertion. If an editor reads an article and decides that, say, the wording is clumsy, it would take him or her about two seconds to add that reason to the cleanup template. That template my show for months or even years. And every time an editor sees the template and decides to have a look at the problem they are going to have to go through the article checking for all the possible things that may be wrong with it. That can take a couple of minutes each. So, say this happens once a week for a year; that's 100 minutes compared to two seconds. That's a 3000:1 ratio. Obviously, in some cases, the examining editor will see the problem earlier and in others later, or not at all. It will be quicker for short articles and slower for long ones, but however you look at it, someone lazily failing to make their objection explicit will potentially involve a lot of people in a lot of unnecessary work. And the ratio will be substantial. PRL42 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PRL42 brings up another problem with generalized templates like this one (and refimprove and others for that matter). It is difficult for some editors (me included) to remove a tag unless the problem has been addressed in full. In the case of a copyedit tagged article, it would be completely inappropriate for an editor to repair only the grammar and leave faulty spelling or to only copyedit the lede and leave the body of the article in shambles and then to remove the copyedit tag. With a generalized template like "cleanup" or "refimprove" it is very difficult to recognize when you've gone far enough to remove the tag. There are many aspects of article improvement that fit under "cleanup" so if I try to improve an article tagged for cleanup by repairing spelling, punctuation, and grammar then I still haven't addressed MoS issues. And If I remember to address those as well then perhaps I've neglected tone problems or reffing format or under/overlinking, etc., etc. Speaking for myself, I rarely feel qualified to make the determination that the article is now 100% cleaned up although I would be willing to go as far in any of the specific areas such as copyediting, MoS compliance, or tone. The end result is that the article becomes a perpetual cleanup site. -Thibbs (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @PRL42 You make a good point that the total time of all editors should be considered. This doesn't appear to be the argument people are using. People just seem to be exaggerating numbers to help make their case. For the record, I don't find your interpretation sound. It relies on the assumption that 52 editors (one a week for a year) concerned enough to peruse the article to investigate the template would not take the "two seconds" to add a reason parameter or just fix the article itself. I find that doubtful. An editor that would take the time to understand a cleanup template is looking to remove that template. It would probably only take a few editors focusing on it before something would change. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wasn't suggesting that those figures were typical, just an example of how you could quite easily get a very high 'gearing'. The point remains, however, that it shouldn't take more than two seconds to type: 'spelling' or some-such but it is certain to take longer than this to evaluate the article and it is thus lazy and inconsiderate for people to save themselves a couple of seconds work in a way that means that everyone else who wants to improve the article is going to have to spend considerably longer as a result of their laziness. PRL42 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of "exaggerating numbers to make a case", ctrl-f "hour" turns up exactly three editors who used it in their supporting arguments. Two of these, myself and Quasihuman, were using it in the context of the total savings of editor-hours to come from this proposal. The only person your comment might apply to is Sparkie52, who has indeed made the argument you describe. I agree with you that it's a somewhat bad comparison, but the point stands that unspecified tags waste valuable man-hours, something that we cannot afford to waste if we are ever going to defeat the backlog of needed tasks on this wiki. -- LWG talk 21:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Time is still money, and a penny saved is still a penny earned. – <b style="font-variant:small-caps; color:darkblue; font-family:Arial;">p i e</b> (<b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial;"> Climax !</b>) 07:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Technical implementation
How is this supposed to be carried out technically? A grace period asking editors to supply a reason=, and then remove tags without a reason? By a bot, or by skimming through all the pages? How have changes like this been implemented previously? --hydrox (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I started asking that question above. Two options I see are to either simply remove any ones without the reason or to put some sort of default reason on those old ones. There are over 25 000 transclusions of this template with no reason so it will be a bot task either way. Then we need to apply some code here to only let the template work if a reason is given. AIR corn (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is precisely what would happen if we can reach a consensus. The code will include the encoded option of generating an Editnotice in accordance with WP:Editnotice.  This will inform taggers of the need to include a reason(s), or else the template will not be visible in the article.  If I'm not mistaken, there are also ways to encode this template to stay invisible until and unless the reason parameter is engaged.  When this is done, those several thousand tags that are sans reason(s) will automatically disappear until a reason is added. –  PIE  (  C LIMAX   )  04:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE any bot based removal of tags based on the fact that are missing a reason tag without a specific RfC on that process. Just because there is no reason listed in a tag DOES NOT MEAN there is no issue within the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  04:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bots are sometimes good, sometimes not. That may depend on the type of bot and upon the job it's asked to do.  I did not suggest doing the job with a bot, though.  I think it can be done entirely by coding this template.  As for your issue that "just because there is no reason listed in a tag does not mean there is no issue within the article", again, if an editor takes the time to read an article and decides that it needs to be cleaned up, then there is no good reason why that editor shouldn't take a little more time (since he or she obviously doesn't intend to do the cleanup themselves) to give a brief description via the reason= parameter as to what they feel needs to be cleaned up.  And I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT that a reason should be given or the cleanup template should be rendered invisible until and unless a reason is given. –  PIE  (  C LIMAX   )  10:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "absolute oppose" seconded i'd like to add that there's already some very dubious bot activity on wikipedia. my experience with bots has been uniformly negative, mostly countered with "well it works most of the time" or "in 99% of the cases," which i think are particularly specious arguments. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Absolute support" for invisible templates (without reason) per PIE Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Currently there is no fixed decision on how to implement this this change. If it is successful then that will be the next discussion. AIR corn (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The way to do this would be to set a cut-off date for new tags. Any added, for example after March 2012 would need a reason field. The action if no reason were given could be one or some of the following:
 * List in a (possibly dated) category
 * Make invisible
 * Remove by bot
 * Notify the tagger on their talk page
 * Remove by bot if the bot can't identify clean up reasons.
 * Use an edit filter to prevent saving.
 * The default reason is already "no reason given" or something similar, so there's no need for a bot to retrofit that, if a different wording were chosen. Rich Farmbrough, 11:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC).


 * That is roughly what I was thinking. I wouldn't mind adding "If no reason for this tag can be found it may be removed" (or something similar) to the default wording. I like the edit filter idea. We will see what comes of the discussion, it could go either way at the moment. AIR corn (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also if a bot were to remove the template I believe the bot should run every 2-3 days removing any clean-up templates with no reason supported. If that were the case I would Support  Jay Jay Talk to me 03:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for existing tags that came before the cut-off date, the bot could delete them if a more specific clean up tag was found within the same section of the article? To remove redundancies. Zangar (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Alternate solution If a tagger doesn't give a reason, we could put a big red error message on the page saying "Error, no reason provided for cleanup tag. To specify a reason instructions go here. If you fail to provide a reason, this tag will be removed.". This would be similar to the broken citation errors or the missing reflist errors. A bot could delete such error message tags after a couple of days. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  14:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * irrelevant why doesn't everybody wait until the issue has been decided? it is one thing to find out whether this can be technically implemented. it is a whole other thing to drill down into the (uncertain) implementation. pls rm this section from the discussion, it is jumping the gun. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're talking about technical solutions, then all needs to be done is have a (normal message, none of that big red "ERROR" crap, saying no specific reason were given, but that the talk page might contain hints, and that if people can't figure out why the tag is there, it's fine to remove it). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A new idea – I think that we should have a bot similar to the DPL bot (which informs users when they add a link to a disambig page) that posts a message on a user's talk page telling them that they've posted a cleanup tag without a reason and that they are strongly encouraged to do so (or add a link to talk page entry explaining what needs cleaning up). It should also say, "Better yet, take a few moments to clean up the article yourself!" or something similar.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 22:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah hah! I see now that my "new idea" above isn't quite as new as all that. I think this is a very good suggestion. It still allows people who are short of time or experience to perform drive-by cleanup taggings (which I believe is helpful to a degree) but it also encourages best practices through the power of annoyance. As I suggested above, it's pretty uncommon to see an established Wikipedian forget to sign his posts these days thanks to the various signbots. I reckon DPL bot will soon render dab-links a rarity as well. -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – Grandfathering the mandatory reason parameter to the template, if consensus is to create a mandatory reason parameter, seems to be reasonable. In this manner, it wouldn't be necessary to have a script/bot go through the entire encyclopedia and make current cleanup templates invisible or remove them. Rather, if made mandatory per consensus, the reason parameter would be required from this point forward. Many articles that truly require clean-up are tagged as such, and it may be a detriment to the encyclopedia to remove them all en masse with a script, which can't differentiate subtleties within articles regarding clean-up matters. Also, WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject that's been around since September 2003, uses category pages based upon the template's placement in articles as a type of article clean-up list. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Related issue
Participants in this discussion may be interested in reviewing the following threads:, ,. There are probably several other templates to which this might apply. 86.176.208.137 (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Close?
I think we've stopped covering new ground here. Joja lozzo  21:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no rush to close this rfc. Wait until the 30 days please.Curb Chain (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there ought to be some rush. The template for deletion tag is ugly and confusing to readers. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a template for deletion tag, but I agree this tag should be removed. The template doesn't need to be modified just to advertise this request. --Chealer (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There was consensus to do so, which was reinforced when an admin decided to remove it without discussion. While I have no opinion on how long this discussion should run, in my opinion removing the notification and closing the discussion should go hand-in-hand. —WFC— 23:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with User:WaitingForConnection. If you look at the number of page views in the link located on the histories of this talk page and corresponding template page, you will see a significant drop coninciding with the removal of the template.  As User:WaitingForConnection explained, the sign is up to advertise this rfc.Curb Chain (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Yet I strongly agree in principle that the notice is very distracting to readers. But then, I also think that maintenance tags themselves are very distracting to readers and should go somewhere else, perhaps the Talk page or even a special page.  That's a separate issue, though, and the notice is needed to help us garner !votes and a decision on this proposal.  It is a "necessary evil" that has to stay until we reach a decision.  As far as the covering of new ground is concerned, that might be true; however, the main issue is to ensure that all ground, whether new or old, is adequately covered by the editors who are entitled to have a say in the matter, isn't it? – <b style="font-variant:small-caps; color:darkblue; font-family:Arial;">p i e</b> (<b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial;"> Climax !</b>)  07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is. On the other topic, I think warnings should be on articles so readers know the issues of an article.Curb Chain (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. So we include a less intrusive "issue pointer" in a hatnote (article and/or section(s)) that links to either a section on the Talk page or a special page where the gaudy, intrusive maintenance tags can be placed and discussed if necessary.  The tags themselves in an article look very unprofessional, in my opinion.  (Now, don't get me started! ) – <b style="font-variant:small-caps; color:darkblue; font-family:Arial;">p i e</b> (<b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial;"> Climax !</b>)  07:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, warnings should be on the article so readers can be better informed.Curb Chain (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And far more distracted! – <b style="font-variant:small-caps; color:darkblue; font-family:Arial;">p i e</b> (<b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial;"> Climax !</b>) 21:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would any reader know or care what "|reason=" means? I think most readers don't even care if someone thinks a section needs cleanup. The notice uses jargon which is clearly aimed at editors, and it looks like all the editors who care have already commented here. -- Tim Starling (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is reasonable to believe that a reader would like to know that there is bias in a specific article if the "|reason=" was filled as: "There is bias in this article.".Curb Chain (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

While the default time for a RFC is 30 days, if there is consensus it could be closed earlier (currently it has been open for 20 days). About 115 people have commented already and there are already many ideas that can be further discussed no matter how this is closed. There is still a steady stream of comments coming in and ten days is not long on Wikipedia, but I don't think anything new is likely to be added and the notice is definitely disruptive so would not complain if this is closed early. It could also take a while to find someone willing to review the discussion and to elucidate the consensus, so I would definitely support being preemptive in finding a closer. AIR corn (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are good reasons for the thirty days. As long as there's "still a steady stream of comments", especially from new contributors, we shouldn't close.  In my opinion, about four days should be added to account for the time the notice was stripped from the template. – <b style="font-variant:small-caps; color:darkblue; font-family:Arial;">p i e</b> (<b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial;"> Climax !</b>)  07:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What are the reasons for 30 days? The only good reason I can see for keeping this going is to smooth any concerns about due process (which is a good one and probably worth a further ten days). Still I would like to put a notice up at requests for closure a week before the 30 days are up informing an administrator that this will be ready to be closed in a week. I have seen these long RFCs take weeks or months to close and the sooner we get the answer to this question sorted the sooner we can remove the notification and move on in whatever direction we need to. AIR corn (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't necessary. I don't agree with closing this anytime soon.  Consider that people are still commenting, until the ebb is done then I can consider it.  And we don't need an administrator to close this.  The consensus here is clear that a mandatory reason is required, currently.Curb Chain (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We have waited a long time for this consensus, and supporters are still arriving. Please have patience. – <b style="font-variant:small-caps; color:darkblue; font-family:Arial;">p i e</b> (<b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial;"> Climax !</b>)  21:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be officially (or our whatever our equivalent is) closed by someone unrelated to this discussion, if only to allow us to move forward without suggestions that the discussion was not closed properly. It doesn't have to be an admin, although they are needed to remove the advert, but there is a specific board to request closures so we may as well use it. I see no reason to let this run over the 30 days. If a conclusion can not be drawn from what we have now, more time won't change that. AIR corn (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, the consensus currently is pretty clear that a mandatory reason is supported. We don't need someone else to tell us that.Curb Chain (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary
Despite the enormous number of responses it seems to me there are very few distinct arguments on either side. This is a first attempt at a summary. Please add any significant arguments to either side. Support: Oppose: PRL42 (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It saves time for everyone who reads the tag and might want to help.
 * 2) It makes it clear what the tag adder thinks is wrong.
 * 3) It makes it safer to remove the tag when the required work has been completed.
 * 4) It lessens the chance that the tag will be removed before the required work is completed.
 * 5) It makes it harder for drive-by taggers to add the tag because they have some vague idea that the article is not as good as it could be.
 * 6) As a result of 3 and 4 above there is less likelihood of random instances of this tag cluttering up articles for years.
 * 7) It will make clear to a user searching for information what, if any, parts of the article may be inaccurate.
 * 1) Forcing people to do anything detracts from the 'freely editable' nature of Wikipedia.
 * 2) It will take taggers more time to add tags and this will reduce the number of necessary tags added.
 * 3) Makes it harder for inexperienced users to add the tag.
 * 4) Possible back door for POV and vandalism.
 * 5) Unfair to users with disabilities which make it hard to type.


 * I think we are safe to assume that there is sufficient support to make the reason mandatory. If anyone disagrees I am more than happy to find someone to close it. Nevermind It has already been requested for closure twice   . 13:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Some of the opposes make good points though and they should be taken into account when this is implemented. To my mind the more compelling opposes were that it would make it difficult for inexperienced editors to add the tag and the reason could be used to sneak in vandalistic or POV edits (would clue bot pick up vandalism in a reason field?). AIR corn  (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Doesn't Oppose reason #3 overlap with the #1? --Waldir talk 13:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, to all intents and purposes. I've re-jigged the oppose list to reflect that and added the two further points mentioned by AIR corn . PRL42 (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * #4 seems highly implausible, IMO. I'd guess that any such vandalism would be caught by the bots if obvious enough to be caught otherwise, and even in subtle cases, I don't see how this practice would be facilitated by making cleanup's reason parameter mandatory. I suggest the removal of #4 unless a more compelling/detailed reasoning is presented. --Waldir talk 12:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it best to leave all identified reasons in the summary as it's simply a list of all reasons mooted rather than a list of 'good' reasons. As I am in the 'support' camp I feel it is particularly important to ensure that all the 'oppose' reasons get a fair listing. PRL42 (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)