Template talk:Prose/Archive 1

Article or section
On some of the templates you are able to distinguish between an article or a section. For example using the nofootnotes template you can put either |article| or |section| inbetween nofootnotes and the date you added the template. The template then reads "This article includes a list of references or external links...." or "This section includes a list of references or external links...." instead of "This article or section includes a list of references or external links...." which is how the template is when you don't put either article or section in between. Well as for this Prose template, it seems you are unable to distinguish between an article or a section. I tired putting |article| or |section| inbetween Prose and the date but it didn't change anything. Can someone add this ability to this template? --Tocino 21:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The template already reads "this article or section". Is that not enough - you wish there to be a parameter to make it say specifically "article" or "section", is that right? --kingboyk (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I'm asking. It would be more user freindly if we could distinguish between an article or a section. --Tocino 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now it doesn't say that anymore. Why? 78.69.84.78 (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It defaults to just "article" because that's the most common use. Putting in a parameter called "section" still works. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Image broken
Why is this image showing up as a broken link? -207.172.212.147 (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you mean the cleanup brush icon, it was a temporary glitch today with all cleanup templates. Should be fixed now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No need for the first line
"To meet Wikipedia's quality standards" is excessive. Other templates don't include this. just wikilink "cleanup" to the appropriate place and start the template with the words "this article may". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, thanks. J.delanoy gabs adds  00:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Style edits
I've started a new sandbox which contains an updated version of the template with various tweaks and improvements. Nothing should be controversial. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. /me mutters about protection templates.... Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Style

 * I think only "list format" and "prose" should be in bold text in the template. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole problem cause is in bold for consistency with the contemporary cleanup box style. Bolding individual words is messy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit for consistancy
Please change "section" in the second sentence to " " as per the first sentence. It makes no sense for the template to first say "article" and then "section" as it does now, and both should be changeable via the parameter. PC78 (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 07:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove
editprotected Could the syntax be removed? This is causing all pages tagged with this template to show up on category:articles needing cleanup. This should not happen because the category is reserved for cleanup.Bernolákovčina (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is not the correct category, can you find a more appropriate one? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Articles needing cleanup is not reserved solely for pages containing cleanup. Templates like Lead too short, Intro missing, Cleanup-laundry, in-universe, and Plot are also placed in Category:Articles needing cleanup.Goodvac (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we not make their own categories? Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_4 exposed how this template is used in a very unspecific manner and editors use this is a catch all for problems that are unspecific.  Should we not tag articles as specifically as we can, as in the January deletion discussion?  I am one of those editors that do tag articles for cleanup, and I do is specifically.  This template has a specific message of converting data/info into prose.  It would help editors wikignomes to categorize articles according to categories but don't use cleanup as one of them.  This tag can have its own category.  Isn't this intuitive?Bernolákovčina (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How is in-universe placed in Category:Articles needing cleanup?Bernolákovčina (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2011
 * If it is using an in-universe style, then that needs to be cleaned up. See also Template_talk:Lead_rewrite. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The verb clean up, for sure, but i am only asking for the categories to be removed. This is so that pages tagged with this template dos not show up on a cleanup category.  It is more helpful to have a specific category if whatever is tagged with this.Bernolákovčina (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand how in universe is a template that needs to be put under a cleanup category. Do we have a section in universe template?  This one needs to be made.Bernolákovčina (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are in universe templates. Too many. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Oh.. just use Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC).


 * @MSGJ - there is Category:Articles with sections that need to be turned into prose already in the template. I have no objection to reducing the category count. Rich Farmbrough, 21:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Yes Martin, Rich is right. Sorry; I missed your question in the above, but as Rich said (he beat me to it), this article template already puts pages in it's devoted category.  Also, this should be done in the name of organization.Bernolákovčina (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Inverse of this template
I am curious as to why there is not an inverse of this template (i.e., "a prose format that could be better presented using a list"). Does anyone know? Listroiderbobtalk'tribs▆ 03:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)