Wikipedia talk:Template index/Cleanup/Archive 2

COI
I just created (okay, copied and modified another template to make) a "conflict of interest" clean-up template. Feedback is not only desired, but begged for. --Calton | Talk 02:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a bit...big and talky. Looks more like a subst'able user talk message than a proper cleanup template. Also, it seems to be struggling in its focus/message. On the one hand, it's trying to article centric, as it should be. On the other, it's addressing a sole editor rather than calling for general help. I'd recommend changing it to a user message and addressing that "creator" user more directly. As is, it's kind of like those intercom messages. You know, "will the owner of the..." et cetera. Cleanup is less about one person fixing their mistakes and more another person or a group fixing something in a state of disrepair. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Template errors
It seems that a lot of the cleanup templates now are showing this code on the articles  ]]  on them. What's wrong with the templates? --AW 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup-tone
I don't see cleanup-tone in the list. Deprecated? Replaced? `'mikkanarxi 22:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag size issues
I know this might sound a bit trivial, but it has been bugging me for quite a while. Often when a cleanup tag is placed at the top of an article or section it runs into/over an image or infobox to its right/left. This happens quite freqently from what I can see, and it looks very sloppy and unprofessional. An example of this can be seen on the Dune movie page.

Is there a way to avoid this? And if not, would it be possible to make a shortened/smaller version of these kind of templates? Thanks for any input. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not a template issue but a result of improper placement. Check it now. Next time, just move the cleanup template to the top. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, thanks. I see that now. -- Grandpafootsoldier 18:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization Tag
I think we need a tag for poor capitalization. This is a major problem in many articles about Japanese (and perhaps other countries') popular culture where names have unconventional capitalization. The problem arises because contributors think that the 'official' capitalization of an album/band/single name etc. should run through the whole document in opposition to Wikipedia's guidelines on style. It's particular annoying to read whole articles filled with all-caps etc. I think in this case it makes more sense just to target the capitalization rather than the punctuation/style in general because that is usually the major problem and I can see a more general approach resulting in a comma or two being fixed and the message being deleted.

L'Arc~en~Ciel is a good example.

Macgruder 17:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed template: technical jargon
I'd like to see a simple template to use when an author has used a technical term without defining it. See Romic alphabet and its use of the term "glossic transcription". implies that the article is loaded with lots of buzzwords, which may not always be the case. We need something for the isolated term.

Suggested format: Suggested text, using a purple box and the 40pxInformation icon:
 * This article uses the technical term "term" without defining it. Please rewrite this article to make it more accessible to a general audience and comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. See Explain_jargon.

--Cbdorsett 09:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All that over a little bit of text seems a bit specialized and unnecessary. How often does that happen, anyway? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead
Is there a template to suggest that a page should revise its introduction or add one in accordance with WP:LEAD. Please respond to my talk page. TonyTheTiger 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Using the talkpage of the article is an option instead of using templates. --Van helsing 20:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously, Van. The templates themselves often advise or require talk page comments. Still, your commentr is a general denouncement, not an answer. I'd say there probably aren't any templates like that. I've never seen one. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You’re right there Ace. But, in general I think we should avoid creating templates for every little issue and litter an article with it. People tend to avoid talking about their concerns when there’s a convenient template available, even when a template refers to the talkpage. Still, I agree it probably wasn’t the response TonyTheTiger was looking for. --Van helsing 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As I replied at his talkpage, See the first 4 template links in Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. I've added them to the list already. --Quiddity 21:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, none of that actually applies to creating an intro. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization Tag
I think we need a tag for poor capitalization. This is a major problem in many articles about Japanese (and perhaps other countries') popular culture where names have unconventional capitalization. The problem arises because contributors think that the 'official' capitalization of an album/band/single name etc. should run through the whole document in opposition to Wikipedia's guidelines on style. It's particular annoying to read whole articles filled with all-caps etc. I think in this case it makes more sense just to target the capitalization rather than the punctuation/style in general because that is usually the major problem and I can see a more general approach resulting in a comma or two being fixed and the message being deleted.

L'Arc~en~Ciel is a good example.

Macgruder 17:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you can feel free to be bold and create one, perhaps also specific to the particular kinds of (Japanese-related?) capitalization problems you are encountering. -- Lea (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A capitalization tag exists, as seen below --Ipatrol (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed template: technical jargon
I'd like to see a simple template to use when an author has used a technical term without defining it. See Romic alphabet and its use of the term "glossic transcription". implies that the article is loaded with lots of buzzwords, which may not always be the case. We need something for the isolated term.

Suggested format: Suggested text, using a purple box and the 40pxInformation icon:
 * This article uses the technical term "term" without defining it. Please rewrite this article to make it more accessible to a general audience and comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. See Explain_jargon.

--Cbdorsett 09:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All that over a little bit of text seems a bit specialized and unnecessary. How often does that happen, anyway? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I endorse this proposal. This sort of problem occurs frequently in technical articles (such as those concerning sound editing and production).  It's extremely hard to read, much less edit, an article when you don't know what it's saying and therefore don't know what it should say.


 * One of the fundamental tenets of a good dictionary is that every word used within the dictionary is also defined within the dictionary. While Wikipedia is obviously not a dictionary, it does purport to be an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is by definition a generalist reference work, targeted to a generalist audience.  Terms that are not otherwise accessible should be defined either within the body of the article or with a link to a relevant article.  I'm definitely not in favor of "dumbing down" the Wikipedia, but it's pointless to include a technical article targeted to a technical audience if it's not understandable to the public at large. -- Nonstopdrivel 21:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In respose I have created and posted the following: --Ipatrol (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead
Is there a template to suggest that a page should revise its introduction or add one in accordance with WP:LEAD. Please respond to my talk page. TonyTheTiger 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Using the talkpage of the article is an option instead of using templates. --Van helsing 20:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously, Van. The templates themselves often advise or require talk page comments. Still, your commentr is a general denouncement, not an answer. I'd say there probably aren't any templates like that. I've never seen one. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You’re right there Ace. But, in general I think we should avoid creating templates for every little issue and litter an article with it. People tend to avoid talking about their concerns when there’s a convenient template available, even when a template refers to the talkpage. Still, I agree it probably wasn’t the response TonyTheTiger was looking for. --Van helsing 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would posit that tags unsupported by discussion in the Talk page should be summarily dismissed. There's too much temptation for vandalism.  --Nonstopdrivel 21:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As I replied at his talkpage, See the first 4 template links in Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. I've added them to the list already. --Quiddity 21:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, none of that actually applies to creating an intro. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul
I've just finished re-structuring this page, so that the various cleanup templates are divided into sections based on their purpose/topic/etc. That will hopefully make it much easier to find the specific template one is looking for. I've also added some intro text (with links) to many of the sections, in an attempt to provide some context for the new user. Can we remove the cleanup-restructure template from this project page now? Comments, commendations, and condemnations are all welcome. —DragonHawk (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great, much thanks :) --Quiddity 09:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing no disagreement, and as the page appears to be in good shape, I'm going to remove the cleanup-restructure template. NickdelaG

List
I created this list iof templates and their category for a WP:LGBT automated to-do list, but thought other people may wish to use it:


 * Cleanup
 * cleanup
 * cleanup-remainder
 * cleanup-confusing
 * cleanup-list
 * create-list
 * cleanup-disambig
 * cleanup-afd
 * abbreviations
 * buzzword
 * cleanup-combine
 * cleanup-laundry
 * cleanup-laundryrack
 * cleanup-rewrite
 * cleanup-spam
 * in-universe
 * contradict
 * Essay-entry
 * fiction
 * Prose
 * External links
 * toomuchtrivia
 * uncategorized
 * spelling


 * Expert Attention
 * Expert
 * Expert-verify
 * in-universe


 * Wikification
 * cleanup-restructure
 * proseline
 * in-universe
 * wikify


 * NPOV
 * advert
 * review
 * fansite
 * review
 * POV
 * POV-section
 * totally-disputed
 * totally-disputed-section
 * sections
 * globalize
 * story
 * weasel


 * Verification
 * copypaste
 * Disputed
 * Disputed-section
 * citations missing
 * citecheck
 * unreferenced
 * Unreferencedsect
 * originalresearch


 * Expand
 * context
 * Expand
 * Expand-section
 * local
 * Expand


 * Translation
 * Notenglish
 * TranslatePassage
 * cleanup-translation
 * RoughTranslation

Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Template proposal: Math
What about a template noting that there are mathematic formulas or calculations that need to be formatted properly? --LakeHMM 05:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's an awnser to your prayers: Mathematics --Ipatrol (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of the templates
What's with the total lack of standardisation?! The variety of images, colours and wording across the templates is very confusing, which is especially bad since these are supposed to be placed in the article namespace. Can we suggest a few standards? Jack · talk · 14:07, Sunday, 25 February 2007

Template proposal: Redundancy
There really should be a template message for articles where a lot of the text is repetitive or redundant. An example of this problem is the current article on Goliathus (Goliath beetle) where virtually the same litany of facts is stated in the first part of the article and repeated in a different order in the second part. I have no experience making templates (does it require administrative approval?), but if it is possible I would be glad to design such a template myself. InnocuousPseudonym 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's what you have been asking for: --Ipatrol (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Template for obscure time references?
Is there a template for relative time references such as "yesterday", "last year", "X years ago," "recently," etc. that seem as if "today" was the current date used as a reference?  Squids 'and' Chips  00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes: Vague Time

Template proposal
I would like to propose the following template:

This idea came out of a discussion about Proprioception on that articles talk page. I think that it would be a useful alternative to Disputed, where the facts aren't wrong per se, but the theme of the article seems to miss the point. Also, it could be useful when the wording of an article is such that the statements in the article may be true, but they might lead the casual reader to interpret them in a way that is not. --Selket Talk 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hearing no objection, I'm going to go ahead and add this one. --Selket Talk 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of specific subjects
Are these really necessary? Would it be impossible to use the more generic cleanup templates instead of these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.115.227 (talk • contribs)


 * How is this supposed to work? The cleanup-section template (for example) prints "and/or replace this tag with a more specific message", but the link to Cleanup#Cleanup_.E2.80.94_specific_issues doesn't go anywhere. Does "more specific message" mean using a more specific tag (cleanup-section instead of cleanup), or is there a parameter like date that lets an editor say specifically how the page / section / whatever needs to be cleaned up? (Obviously this can go in the talk page.) Lumpish Scholar 13:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems the problem lies in the redirect page. Checking the history it used to redirect to Cleanup but was changed to cleanliness and back and forth to Cleanup resources. Currently it points to cleanliness which as you said is pretty useless. The templates probably need to be changed to point directly to Cleanup resources instead. I think the general idea of the message itself is to get people to mark what kinds of cleanup need to be done (wikify, rewrite, whatever) rather than the general tag. Hope that answers your question, maybe someone more familiar with the templates in question will fix them, or we could just change the redirect, again. Stardust8212 13:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor glitch
The "citations missing" template shows up on most pages as this:

"This article or section is missing citations and/or footnotes." (and so on)

However, here on this page, it shows up as this:

"This is missing citations and/or footnotes." (etc.)

Any clues why? Maybe it's linked to an older version, somehow... I checked the Wiki code there and can't think of anything else. Kennard2 01:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"list templates" category
This article is appropriate for categorization in category:list templates because this article has list cleanup templates. Duh. There should be a way to have a master (template?) list cleanup template list that only has those templates on it, so the entire template messages/cleanup article doesn't have to be included in the "list templates' category. -Eep² 10:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, because the category itself says it isn't allowed, as I quoted to you. If you want to change that, first edit the category to remove that text. Otherwise we are contradicting ourselves. As for the other issue, this page should probably be split up anyway.—greenrd 11:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

subpages
These template message lists are getting too long. They should be split up into even more subpages. See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages for main discussion -Eep² 16:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed policy: Keep cleanup tags on talk pages
I'm proposing a policy saying that "cleanup" messages should be on talk pages, not in the article itself. Your thoughts are welcome. --PeR 07:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC


 * What can I do to lend support for your proposal? An even better approach, in my view, would be to include a special section at the bottom of *every* page for cleanup metadata.  The current templates would be keywords here.  This could even be done through the Categories system perhaps, but would probably best be a new system.  But in the meantime I can certainly support the present proposal. beefman (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think they should be left on the page itself. First off it lets the reader now that there are issues with the article. Secondly, it means that the shortcomings of the article are more likely to be dealt with as the main contributers know that the 'weaknesses' of the article are in a very visible place. Put that stuff on the talk page and people are less likely to deal with it in my opinion. Macgruder 09:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for information, there's currently a backlog of over 24 000 pages marked for "cleanup". I don't think it's possible for people to be any less likely to deal with it. --PeR 05:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 24,000 out of 1,775,000 . About 1.35%. That seems a good number. Macgruder 08:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This was discussed recently on WP:VP, but I didn't see the end result. Did anyone else see it? They archive and move that stuff too quickly. Timneu22 15:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting: Where should cleanup tags be placed?
I have been influenced by an essay I read about eight or nine months ago, and would like anyone responding to my comments here to read it before responding to me. I believe, as does the writer (who makes his case better than I can) of this essay, that those of us who edit Wikipedia are so wrapped up in our role as editors that we sometimes forget about the fact that most people who visit our pages are readers, not editors. They come here to be informed, and they are, by and large, not interested in our editing policies and practices. But we are so vain that we continue to plant tags and templates on the top of articles that are of no use to our readers, and may actually distract them—or worse, turn them off—from reading Wikipedia. Now some tags may be unavoidably necessary. A warning, if it is genuine, on severe POV problems may be necessary to warn a reader before he begins reading. But a semi-protection warning is irrelevant to the reader of our articles. That's why someone got smart and created the little padlock icon to use instead. It was a recognition that the SP tag was not something that readers needed to see. Along the same lines, one editor, User:Notmyhandle, made a small cleanup icon, which I think is a great idea. But as much as I like it, I suspect most people who hang out on this page will say that we need something bigger.

So what I'm asking for, is that we consider whether or not cleanup templates at the top really serve the interest of our readers. I do not think so. I think the argument that it is more likely that they will get cleaned up is disproved by the geometric growth of such templates. We have gone tag-template crazy, and some decent articles will still have three large tags at the top, "warning" readers who would be nuts to continue reading past these signs. Okay, okay, maybe they are needed (though the cleanup tags are, in my opinion, overused). But why can't we put them on the talk page, or maybe at the bottom of the article? In this way, editors who cruise the cleanup pages will still be able to easily identify them, but readers will not have to endure them. I think to do otherwise is to place our own Wiki-world above the real-world needs of readers.

I think that this is worth discussing. I don't believe (as I did a few months ago) that there should be one rule for every tag and every situation. But I think, at the very least, that an editor ought to be able to know that our policy will at least allow him or her to use his or her judgement to place such tags at the bottom of the article, if they think that the reader will not suffer for it. I've already seen that many editors are doing this (perhaps influenced by the above-mentioned essay, though that speculation is groundless). Can't we at least make the tag location optional? Unschool 03:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. In fact I have deeper philosophical objections to cleanup tags as they exist today than just their scornful visual appearance.  Editors of this encyclopedia fall into two groups: those who you call simply "editors", and those infrequent or even anonymous editors who chip in with little bits of information here and there.  According to at least one independent study of wikipedia edits, this latter group contributes tremendous value to the project.  It's information aggregation at its finest.  But the in-crowding of "editors", and the arcane practices that result, discourage this latter group to an extent that is hard to overstate.  If the cool kids continue to turn editorship into a clique, it will destroy wikipedia.  In fact, edits are down sharply this year, and the feeling in the air is most ominous indeed.  There's simply no time to waste.  beefman (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the tags can serve a useful purpose but I feel they are far to prominent at present. Moving them to the discussion page is probably too drastic but I think they should be moved to the bottom of the article and minimised by default to one line or less with a button to expand it if the reader is interested. Only serious warnings to the readers should be at the top. Serious means warnings about bias, not notes that the article doesn't follow our house style. Filceolaire 21:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I too think that the "article message boxes" are far to visible and disturbing. I would prefer that most of them go on the talk page. But since I bet that will never happen I like what Filceolaire suggested, putting them on the bottom of the page just like the stub notices. And making them thinner (just one row of text) or have a hide/show button on them. And with a link to further explanation. The hide/show button technology is already readily available and currently used in navboxes. Those buttons have the nifty feature that if only one box is there it shows, but if there are several they collapse. I know how to code/use that stuff so if you are interested I can code up a demo.
 * --David Göthberg 13:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that they should go on the talk page, or even at the bottom of an article rather than just below the title. If people want to edit articles on Wikipedia then it should be established that the Talk pages should be visited to see what changes are requested. I did a simple Google search for a word (whos article in wikipedia i knew had a cleanup tag) and the preview of the article that Google provides was not the article but was the text from the tag! this is defintely discouraging for any users who consider wikipedia as knowledge source. I know I was quite disturbed to see that! Wiki Roxor (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Req Photo Tag
I'd like to know what to do about the req photo tag. I've delt with admins on this. On the tags talk page itself the issue is there but unsettled. I have had admins agree with me and others not. I have some removing the tags with it and without it (? those really confuse me) on the articles talk page. I do not see a policy/rule anywhere saying the request photo tag can be on the article page or one saying only for the talk page. I like what Macgruder said above for reasons why it should be on the article page. Nothing to get in a huff over but to make edits on Friday and come back on monday and find all your dozen or so req photo tags deleted for no stated reason is really annoying (all by the same admin no reason listed.)--Xiahou 22:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

orphaned category
I created an orphaned category template. -Eep² 22:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

cleanup of cleanup templates
This article is particularly badly sectioned. The "Plain old editing" and "General cleanup" sections could be merged. The "Lists" section conflicts with Template messages/Lists; the way the templates are sorted now isn't consistent since there are list templates in this article as well as a separate page just for lists (which doesn't include list cleanup templates)--it's just badly organized. There are a few different ways to sort all of these template messages: page type (article, category), namespace type (user, article, category, template, image, etc), page element (intro, main article, specific section, lists, external links, etc), and then kind of the way it is now but with better sorting--it's like in The Sims where objects can be sorted by room (kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, etc) or type (appliances, electronics, etc); location (form) vs. function. Wiki templates should be sorted similiarly, with the same template on different lists, relative to the location/function, I believe. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 07:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree.... I found the sections, as accessed from the TOC, to be pretty intuitive and clear. YMMV. David Spalding ( ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 16:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea, well, I don't. Not everyone thinks/classifies the same way, and I'm just trying to appease multiple classification schemes. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 14:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)