Wikipedia talk:Template index/Cleanup/Archive 1

Major reorganization of Template messages table
I've done a major reorganization of the entries in the article-related template messages table. This makes the redundancies between this list and Issues & Disputes and Maintenance more obvious. Please see my remarks on Wikipedia talk:Template messages and comment there if you wish. - dcljr 16:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Significance and Importance
I was wondering if someone could clarify for me the difference between and.


 * explain significance says:
 * Another editor has suggested that this article might be improved by more material on its significance. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand the article, or discuss its significance on the talk page. Please remove this notice if you feel this has been done or is not necessary. If no expansion or explanation is provided, this page may be nominated for deletion.


 * cleanup-importance says:
 * This article does not give much verifiable information about the subject. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand the article, citing sources. If no expansion or explanation is provided, someone may nominate this article for deletion.

I like both of these tags, but it isn't certain to me when to use which. If nothing else, I'd like to suggest that "cleanup-importance" be renamed to "cleanup-verifiable", since that is what the text primarily talks about. Thanks. func (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This has also been debated at the template talk pages, and as a result, I moved the verifiability part to cleanup-verify and merged the above two. See Template talk:Cleanup-importance. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Storytelling template?
I've come across some articles that need, for lack of a better word, better storytelling. Collaborative editing is great for getting lots of good information into an article, but the end result often has that cut-and-paste writing style. Sometimes, it just takes the hand of a skilled storyteller or creative writer to pull all the sentences together into a cohesive narrative.

I'd like to propose a new cleanup template, something like :

This article would benefit by improved storytelling. Most of the facts are there, but the narrative does not flow well.

Editors might also benefit from a help page showing samples of how to improve storytelling, and maybe even some links to article diffs showing good examples of such improvements. -- Wapcaplet 17:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe a better term than storytelling would be, explanatory flow? Perhaps :

This article is in need of better explanatory flow. You can help by weaving these facts together into a tapestry of information.

Or I dunno, something less corny-sounding.--Atlantima 21:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I like it, Atlantima! :) And boy howdy do we need a tag like that... Runa27 06:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed template: Out of date information
There are cases where the information in an article is clearly out of date. For example, in A Current Affair (US) there is a section that refers to the potential for bringing the show back after its cancellation with a proposed re-launch date in March 2005, 4 months ago. This needs to be updated or removed and I've put cleanup-date and a word in the article's talk-space on this.

It seems that (unless one already exists) there would be sufficient use to justify the creation of a template entitled cleanup-outofdate (or similar name) that would handle this specific situation, not where information is potentially out of date but where there is clear evidence that the article has not been updated and needs it, as in the example case.

Thoughts? Please feel free to make it if you feel this would be useful; I myself will wait for a few days, likely a week, to see what the feedback is here. Also, if this note should be put elsewhere, please let me know that as well.

Regards, Courtland 19:54, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Use the fine Update template. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   00:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

CleanupDate vs cleanup-date
CleanupDate looks clearer to me. I've seen it the very first and I have proceeded to mark a significant number of articles as such. If I am the most prolific user of the cleanup date mechanisms perhaps teh wording should be explicitly set to CleanupDate which avoids the ambiguity in that it doesn't mean the article needs a *specific* form of updating as all the other dashed ones do, and is also extendible, as such, to the dashed ones as well. HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a markup, used e.g. on the page Noncommutative geometry. Why is this markup not explained here? Moreover, the markup generates text starting with "This article needs technical editing". The link technical is completely wrong in this context. Also, instead of editing, perhaps a link to a more wiki-related page should be used. --Tillmo 04:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

(by the way: Technical edit has been renamed and redirected to technical )

So, should this page recommend that technical and makesense be replaced with confusing? Is there a better tag for the idea of "This article uses jargon, passive sentence structure, and assumes lots of specialized knowledge. This topic could be accessible to a much wider audience with a bit of work, perhaps a analogy drawing from everyday life." ? --DavidCary 06:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro creep
I think a cleanup template is needed for when the pre-TOC introduction starts to grow, and grow, and grow.... I've noticed in a lot of articles that people start throwing their pet factoids into the intros, and you get to the point where the intro goes for screenfuls. Maybe " ", something like: The introduction to this article is too long. Please help Wikipedia by improving the introduction according to the guidelines laid out at Guide to layout, moving some material into from the introduction into the body of the article.

What do folks think? --TreyHarris 23:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not experienced wikiuser, but I have noticed the same thing. I like the intro text to be short, to give me a rough idea of the article, and if I am interested in the rest, I will read on. Just my 2 cents. --Jens Schriver 20:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've created the template, and added it to the page. --TreyHarris 07:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced
It said it was misplaced, so I'm moving it here:

technical

''Um ... thanks for trying to help. I'm not sure this is really the right thing to do with all the tags that are intended for "talk" pages. I'll move it back to the article if there are no objections soon. --DavidCary 06:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)''
 * I think the anon was just following directions. ;-) I've often found it humorous to see what, to the untrained eye, must look like "this is misplaced! move it to the talk page now or horrible consequences shall befall you!" on the policy page. :-)  Maybe we can do some kind of  sneaky template-fu so that the message will show up in article space but not in other spaces? --TreyHarris 00:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic
The template off-topic would seem to belong here, but it's a warning box rather than a cleanup box. Would anyone object if I modified it to be a cleanup box and added it here? --TreyHarris 07:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hearing no objection, this is now done. --TreyHarris 01:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do object. The template is aimed at sections which stray from the topic of the section (as per section or article header) and hence would merit a complete (or almost complete) deletion, but where that deletion is not feasible at the moment, e.g. due to edit disputes. Furthermore, I don't see consensus for a change. See the deletion talk's last version . Str1977 10:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you objected, and reverted me, after I made the change, when I waited over a week for objections before creating the category and reformatting the template. Positive consensus is not necessary before updating Wikipedia; the lack of objection served pretty well as consensus, as far as i can tell.  I would invite anyone interested in seeing this template conform with other cleanup tags, or who agree that it should not conform, to lodge your comments on the template's talk page. --TreyHarris 09:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"not useful for subst" still needed?
I notice that quite a few of these templates say that they are "not useful for subst". The bug that made subst include text inside of has been fixed, so is this text still needed? --TreyHarris 02:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Redlinks
I have add this templates for articles which have excessive amounts of redlinks in them. -- HamedogTalk 10:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Category merge templates?
the merge notice templates don't seem work for category proposing category mergers. am I doing it wrong? or is there another template that i should be using? (I want to merge Category:Conflicts in Canada into Category:Wars of Canada)...Mike McGregor (Can) 23:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC) maybe drop a line on my talk page incase i forget about this here?


 * Check out WP:CFD and its template - a few days ago there still was a "mergefromcat" or similar template, apparently it's gone (?). Omniplex 01:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica
Could someone please make a specific cleanup tag for dealing with articles which contain large amounts of very out-of-date and often POV material pasted in from this and other copyright-expired sources? I've found a few cases of this in bad need of cleanup but don't have the resources to update all of it - MPF 01:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Won't some combination of Update, POV, and 1911 tags work? --Tifego 00:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

contradict
It's both here and at the dispute templates page. Which place does it belong at? And if it belongs here, there's a contradict-other to move over here as well. --Tifego 00:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'd forgotten that these sections are allowed to overlap. Maybe it makes sense that contradict-other is more dispute-related whereas contradict can refer to disputes as well as cleanup. Never mind this, then. --Tifego 00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Friendlier Cleanup tags
It seems to me that the cleanup tag, which is stuck on many new articles, may be a bit harsh sounding and thus drive off good contributors. In many cases, I think, articles which are tagged for relatively minor cleanup are created by new users (who are unfamiliar with Wiki, or the tone of encyclopedic writing). The tag, I think, makes it sound as if we think their writing is bad, which leads to (a) them removing the tag prematurely, and/or (b) not editing again and leaving with a bad taste in their mouths. Perhaps a new tag, specifically for minor edits on new articles or those which have recently undergone major rewrites. Text could be something like
 * This article is new or has recently been substantially revised. Additional review may be needed to ensure consistency with Wikipedia style and markup.  Please see the talk page for more details. This tag was placed *******; if it is more than two weeks old, please replace it with a more specific tag.

I think it could either categorize in a new category or possibly into Category:Cleanup by month. The closest we have right now is cleanup or RRevised, both of which tend to give new editors the impression people did not like their writing (when in fact it may be a few word changes, links, bolding, etc.). Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 23:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It might help to have cleanup tags that apply at a more specific level. needs proofreading or something. But I'm not sure; a possible argument against it is "If you're marking a specific sentence as needing cleanup, why not just make the change yourself?" Besides that... RRevised looks pretty friendly as it is to me - wouldn't some minor variation of that tag work? The text you proposed has the problem of being really long in comparison, which can make it seem unfriendly simply because of it being more obtrusive. --Tifego 00:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Could somebody please comment on this? I don't know if silence should be taken to mean "sure somebody should those templates" or "it's a terrible idea". There's no "Templates for creation" AFAICT. --Tifego 23:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

would a plagiarism-cleanup tag be useful
I got to thinking about this in the last few days when I came across USS Saratoga (1814) which mostly comes from [|this page] and Lake Chicago taken from [|this incredibly poorly written page]. I was pointed towards WP:CSD A8, but that seems to apply to pages using a commercial source. These 2 articles are copied from government sources. Is there Is there policy that's ment to be applied to plagiarism as opposed to copyright infringment? Would a new Cleanup tag saying something like:  "To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. This page appeares to be plagerised in part or in whole, from this source.  blah blah blah...," be uesful in situations like this? I don't want to start seeing these kindes of pages deleated, just improved. Thanks, Mike McGregor (Can) 09:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See copypaste -- PatrickFisher 04:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Press Kit-ese tag
When editing music-related sites I have found things that sound like they're pulled from a musician's press kit. The Adv template isn't quite right for this -- I would like one like it which says that the language is too much like a press kit, too promotional, has too many superlatives, etc. Such articles also generally are lacking in sources, citations, and have plenty of unsupported comments.--Larrybob 01:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * advert is what you're looking for. Circeus 02:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's ok for now but I think "advertisement" is pretty harsh. It seems like a fan who's initially posted something too fannish might be more into changing it if they're told it's like PR than that it's like an advertisement. In some of these cases, the pages have had cleanup templates on them before and people have not understood what the problem is and removed the templates. I think it's good to be specific. --Larrybob 02:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Metrication
We need a template for articles that have got to be metricated (e.g. Lockheed Tristar)--Arado 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have created a template and included it in the list. --B.d.mills 06:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested rephrasing
It seems to me that right now, almost every one of these templates begins with the phrase "To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and make it easier to understand, this article or section may require cleanup", written in bold. This, at first glance, says absolutely nothing about the nature of the problem. Perhaps it would be more obvious to the reader if the actual reason for using the template was placed at the top, in bold (as it used to be), so that it stands out more, with the aforementioned phrase below.

Without wanting to seem too pedantic, I'd like to suggest that the templates be standardised, as, looking at the list right now, the layout of each appears to have been chosen arbitrarily, something which is especially obvious with the merge templates. I also think that a few pictures would be quite effective, as already seen in some templates.


 * I agree, and have begun revising some templates. -- PatrickFisher 04:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Translate passage
Some articles give passages, titles of works, or even words in foreign languages without translation. Should we have a template asking for a translation of such mysterious passages? Here's a draft of a template (perhaps it should include an option field for the source language; e.g., "from Arabic"). A passage in this article needs to be translated into English. Could a knowledgeable editor please help. --SteveMcCluskey 14:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a second try: A passage in this article needs to be translated from into English. If you are confident enough in your fluency of English and, please feel free to add a translation. --SteveMcCluskey 15:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just leave a request at the proper Regional notice boards, it's usually quicker. Circeus 15:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've created for articles that really don't link to anything except perhaps. Any comments or objections to the template? I don't really like my wording, but I couldn't think of anything any better. I've also created a category for it too.-- The  i  kiro  id  (talk) (Help Me Improve) 14:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It must an exceptionalcase when these articles aren't covered by wikify... Circeus 15:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually this seems to target Orphaned pages, of which there are a zillion. So it seems useful! --W.marsh 01:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have created wikilink-date for articles that are wikified but need more wikilinks to related information. Template structure comes from wikify-date. Any objections to adding it to the list? --DavidHOzAu 04:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A new tag needed? Article format rather than a Wiki Entry
I know of several entries that are essentially essays written for graduate research and courses which have been posted in-full as wikipedia entries. These entries contain good information but they need to be re-written or formatted into an entry that reads like an encyclopedia entry rather than the introduction-body-conclusion format of a essay. Is there a good tag for this sort of thing that I am missing? Seems like one should be created. Here's my shot at it: "This article appears to have been imported in full directly from an article or essay in the public domain, and needs to be rewritten or reformated as an encyclopedia entry. You can help, click here!" (Atfyfe 07:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

Convert section to prose
I'd like a template which asks editors to convert a list section to prose.

I don't think such a template exists and would be willing to create it if not (or use one created by somebody else). My inability to be sure if it exists or not illustatrates another point: I think it would be helpful if cleanup templates related to sections rather than articles had a subcategory and also a seperate section on this page. --kingboyk 07:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

tag for long article ?
Some article are getting too long, and should use WP:Summary style. There is already a tag for a long intro. Why not a tag for long articles ? Pcarbonn 15:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is Template:Long. It takes a parameter with the page's size in kilobytes, e.g. produces the message "This article is 260 kilobytes or more in size." Ardric47 03:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed
I've added the Disputed tag/template to this article. I never knew it existed until I stumbled upon it today, I think placing it here would allow more editors to know about it and use it when needed. I have ended up using the fiction tag instead in the past, as it was the closest I could find to what I wanted. --Xyzzyplugh 20:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

image-oof and image-blownout
I noticed these templates have been added to the article. They were created by the person who added them, and only have been used on one image each, so I question whether they are worthy of being included in this article yet. I'm not really sure, though, perhaps any cleanup templates can go here. --Xyzzyplugh 12:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Time to start finding the bad images and marking them! Reub2000 18:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Proposed rollback" template proposal
What do others think of the idea of a "proposed rollback" (i.e. revert to specific version from history) template message? Not for vandalism, but for pages that may have deteriorated for one reason or another since a possibly much older version. The need for something like this is coming up at WP:FAR with old featured article whose current version is far inferior to the version orignally featured, and I wondered if it might be useful in other cases as well. --jwandersTalk 16:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm wondering whether this is really necessary. While other tags' suggestions require more complex work to carry out, rolling back to a specific version takes just a few seconds to do.  It takes no more time to do the rollback than it does to put up the tag, so why bother with the tag? --Xyzzyplugh 16:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * More to give other editors a chance to discuss it and a clear notice that a discussion is happening. I'm envisioning something analogus to the "proposed merge" tags. Rolling-back six months or something, though technically easy, is quite a big event in the lifetime of an article. --jwandersTalk 17:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to bring the issue up on the talk page, and revert shortly afterward if no-one objects there. Not sure whether we need a template for this purpose.  JYolkowski // talk 17:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The proposed merge tag is useful because merging can theoretically take a bunch of effort. Combining two articles may mean an entire rewrite of whatever article remains.  As JYolkowski said, just discuss it on the talk page and then do it.  Or do it and then announce you've done it on the talk page.  --Xyzzyplugh 17:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Link farm" template
I have noticed that a lot of articles seem to consist of a short introduction, and then dozens or hundreds of links to other articles or pages, most of which usually don't work (ex, List of Stylidium species). Therefore, I propose a new cleanup template for "articles" that are primarily lists of links to other pages. 72.224.97.185 01:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, we have Template:Redlinks, although this only covers broken links inside wikipedia. --Xyzzyplugh 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are also articles which have far too many links and apparnetly ignore WP:EL. Is a template available for flagging these to be cleaned-up? -- Mikeblas 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * External links has been created because of that. However, it hasn't been inserted in the table yet. -- ReyBrujo 20:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

TBD template
Being bold, I added for articles containing "fixme", "TBD", "xxx" in place of numeric quantities, and other indications of incompleteness in the clear article text. Also added an appropriate category. I'll let others add it to the list of cleanup messages, if the community likes this. --EngineerScotty 22:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Review Template?
Is there a proper cleanup template for articles on games, books, movies, music, or other media that read like reviews? There are some releated templates, such as a cleanup template for advertisments, but numerous articles look at media in a highly opinionated "critique" fashion, as opposed to an NPOV. These kinds of articles probably deserve their own unique type of editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schmancy47 (talk • contribs).
 * You could tag them with the POV template. -- ReyBrujo 02:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The description for this tag is identical to. This seems to me to be a mistake particularly as there seems little point in an article being nominated for deletion simply because a passage remains un-translated.--Lucifer 16:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Prophet Muhammad topic
While a lot of the information I've read up to this point seems to be accurate, I would like to clarify that when the Prophet Muhammad "attacked" Mecca after many years of being attacked in Medina, they did not shed a single drop of blood. It is one out of a handful of the only times in history an entire city/town was taken over with no violence involved. I think this fact should be recorded instead of just saying he attacked the city, for no attacking actually took place. He simply assumed command of the city, but noone was harmed or killed in the process. This is one of the things that makes Islam so great and refutes much of how people say "Islam is spread by the sword through history." This as well as the takeover by Salahadin of Jerusalem which was also done peacefully and other occasions like it are the true marks in history that Islam should be recognized for, so I believe it is important for these facts to be noted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.98.250 (talk • contribs).

Template for jargon
Can we not have a template for excessive jargon in an article? I feel that and  are not specific enough, and  often does not always accurately describe this problem.

Question: How do you make the template refer to the article in question? Rintrah 14:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ford is not a Republican
I have not checked on all the other Senators listed here, but State Senator John Ford is most definitely NOT a Republican. He is and always has been a Democrat. I suspect this error was intentionally placed because of Ford's nephew's campaign for Senate in Tennessee.

-Thom Gray fromorderchaos@yahoo.com


 * Okay...what's your point?Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

req:Foreign Wiki Link Cleanup
Need a foreign wiki link cleanup tag. I found a lot of wiki links are messed after page moves and such. --Voidvector 06:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of "reads like" templates
How is it helpful to declare that it reads like an essay or a story or a review? If it really does then the reader should be able to see that anyway. If it's in the wrong tone then a single "should be made consistent with accepted Wikipedia style" tag should suffice. How about a single readslike template with an variable for a single disparaging comparison, so that all these comparisons come under the same template. If nothing else, it would significantly reduce the length of the list of templates and make it easier to find a useful one. --ToobMug 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)