Wikipedia talk:Template index/Cleanup/Archive 5

Templates linking to pages which should not be read
Is it advisable to have templates link to historical pages? These pages contain policies, guidelines, and practices which have been rejected by the community, so I find it quite imprudent to actually suggest to editors to read them. Links to such pages should therefore be avoided at all times, in my opinion. I have just located two specific examples: cleanup-reorganize and cleanup-restructure link to How to structure the content, which is a historical page.

I suggest that the links in question should be re-directed to Layout, an excellent page outlining the basics of article structuring. If there is no objection, I shall do this tomorrow. Waltham, The Duke of 20:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking about the same issue. I agree that links to historical pages can be misleading. In addition to what you suggest, perhaps a subsection of the standard See Also section called Historical Documents or some such, for those editors who really want to see the whole history of a topic. For those of us who use categories a lot for browsing the project namespace, I'm thinking that a new category "Wikipedia inactive documents" to segregate all these. Libcub (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't Category:Inactive project pages cover you? All historical pages are tagged with the X-bearing template at the top, and that template also serves to categorise them. What did you think, that the Wikipedia community wouldn't have a cemetery where to bury its miscarriages? :-D
 * On another note, I admit that I didn't understand the part about the See also section. I suppose you are talking about project pages, because it would make no sense otherwise; however, I was talking about the mainspace, which is where these templates appear. In any case, relevant pages are often mentioned in, and linked from, project pages, and if they are mentioned in the text they need not be in the See also section. It is a greater problem when there are links not acknowledging that the pages on the other side are historical... Hell, even the department directory listed one not long ago. Waltham, The Duke of 01:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: Seeing that there is no opposition, I have just done the re-directs, as described in my first message. Waltham, The Duke of 18:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Memorial
I've created memorial to deal with WP:MEMORIAL. Feel free to add it to the relevant lists. Skomorokh 14:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight?
No template for tagging a source as possibly undue weight?[undue weight?] --Nate (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Overlinked
We could use something like this. I've just added such a tag to an article but didn't want to create a new template in case there was one that I hadn't found. J Ѧ ρ 03:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh heck, now there's a template I'll use. Thank you. TONY  (talk)  12:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay I see that such a template already existed (with the same name), let's add it to this page. J IM ptalk·cont 23:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This article or section
We don't seem to know whether we're Arthur or Martha. You add a tag to an article & you know it's an article. You add a tag to a section and you know it's a section. Why not at least give editors the option to look like we know what we're talking about. It'd be as simple as. It reminds me of those userboxes with "him/her", "he/she", "his/hers", etc. ... I know whether I'm a boy or a girl ... but at least the userboxes don't get onto the mainspace. J Ѧ ρ 03:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia bug?
Please look at this: Template_messages/Cleanup and see the text This may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction.. There is something MISSING in-between! Now check Template:Fiction, and you see that the text is correct this time: This article or section may fail.... Why is this so? -andy 85.179.58.60 (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at, the text "article or section" is default message that can be changed by the editor— this is not documented. If you used , then it would say "This section may fail . . ."  The list of templates uses tlrow to show each template.  For some reason, it suppresses the default message of .  I added the text back in manually.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  10:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This empire has grown like topsy
I've never looked through this complete list of clean-up templates. I'm shocked to find so many that are very similar. Why? Every one that is added, with a finely different shade of meaning, means that people have to be aware of its existence to be able to use it. The list is huge.

Much more practical and user-friendly would be a rationalised list (probably half the size), with the fluff removed. One template should do for both article and section, for example, not TWO.

In addition, the bright yellow in the ones at the top is just a glare; the "A" can hardly be seen. When did this happen? The old one was so much better. TONY  (talk)  12:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My monitor doesn't show any bright yellow. Which ones are you talking about. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Template for lists that need ordering?
I can't find one of these, does one exist? If not i think one would be useful. if anyone can help it would be appreciated as i'm not that familiar with creating a template. -- neon white user page talk 14:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Something like :-

created the template as -- neon white  user page talk 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One nitpick: the word "criteria" is plural. I suggest the text be changed to: Please improve this list by sorting it according to a single criterion. Note though that many lists are coded so that they can be sorted by more than one criterion. – ukexpat (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You might lexically order by one criterion within another: 1a, 1b, ..., 2a ... Peter jackson (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * True. Not sure how to word that bearing in mind that the linked info at LISTS does explain it too. -- neon white talk 16:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What template to use for see also that's too long?
Per my question above, I'd like to tag long see also's sections that need pruning, like this one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty to create an appropriate template, the toomanyseealsos.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What template to denote edit warring?
What template should one insert into an article which is so crippled by disputes, edit warring and interminable Talk page discussions that progress is rarely made (I'm thinking of some political articles here, specifically former Australian prime minister John Howard and the voting system Instant-runoff voting)? The Template:POV isn't quite right - the edit warring results in a reasonable balance, it's just that the articles are still a dog's breakfast. Any other suggestions? Peter Ballard (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if there was one, I doubt it would survive long on an article that was the subject of an edit war. – ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * whoa try some of these:

Need consensus

i found them on this page: Template_messages/Disputes OsamaBinLogin (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion of Topic
hey guys I think we need a cleanup tag that reads: "This article contains major factual errors which confuse the subject matter with another".

I'm making it right now and placing it at the Victoria Peak page, which is a good example as to why it is needed.

I'll eaborate: Victoria Peak is a mountain located in Hong Kong; as oppose to what its name suggests; which is rightly-so confusing to all!.

Thus, most people confuse the luxury "Peak district" atop Victoria Peak to be "Victoria Peak". (I mean people in real life, not just Wiki; particularly english-speaking foreigners as they do not know the Chinese & Cantonese name of it. which specifies it as a mountain.)

As a result, the Victoria Peak article contains information that suggests Victoria Peak being "an actual peak" which is COMEPLTETELY ERRONEOUS!! On top of that there are exclusive information conveying the residence and entertainment that is available on the peak; which; although are actually on the mountain; further confuse the subject matter.

I'll clean the article up myself if time allows, meanwhile I think this tag might be of use since nothing like it exists here; or is close enough.

P.S. kudos to User:Adam_kevin for putting up this tag: which was made by me to deal with another specific article problem. He probably saw it and liked it lol :) :P

HERE, DONE THE TAG!:

Example- I posted this on Wing Tsun (See Talk: Wing Tsun for dispute/issue details).

--WiKID Daryl (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)la


 * The template distinguish might be useful. When using it for non-wikilinked items, subst: the template first, then edit out the double-square-brackets to turn the redlink black. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

 * Plagarised?


 * I edited a usable customisable template and added it to a page i thought needed it here- Wing Tsun (see the latest;or my; entry in Talk:Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup.
 * However, I found not long ago that my edit was "erased" mysteriously- no record whatsoever, and then I saw this template added by User: Adam Kevin.
 * At first I thought he added it on behalf of my creation, but the disappearence makes me wonder if my edit was deliberately vandalised so he can take credit of it...
 * Can someone please help me with this one?
 * --WiKID Daryl (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [Retrieved from "[]"]

Citation cleanup in tables
It might prove helpful to have a template that would suggest that citations within a table could be improved by properly locating the citation in another part of the table. For example, the table in this article has a pile of citations at the bottom of the table ("[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]" but no information as to which source might support which of the myriad claims within the table. In this case, moving some or all of the citations to a specific column, or to a specific table cell, would make a lot more sense, and it would be easier to determine which data in the table may be poorly sourced, outdated or even original research.  Does anyone else run into this problem in Wikipedia tables? If so, would it be worth considering a cleanup template for it? N2e (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Making template making easier
I see several people making their own templates here. I think wikipidia should improve their help page on the subject or create a new one about making template tags. It would be a wonderful idea to allow more templates to be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.118.68.193 (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

New templates
Ipatrol added a bunch of templates, some of these have already been replaced with redirects. Anyone go time to remove them?

Layout problem – do we have a tag for this?
Ofot Line has a problem with overlapping images and other page elements. Do we have a cleanup tag suitable for this sort of problem? (I'm no looking for a solution to the problem on that page, just a template for such situations). __meco (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Potential new cleanup template
Hi all - I've just created this: cleanup-weighted - it's similar to gen-section, but for use where a whole article requires work. I was prompted to make this while trying to tag an article on Caux, Switzerland which had two lines on the village itself then three large sections on a hotel in the village. I'd be grateful if someone more involved with cleanup could have a look at this template and either yay or nay it - feel free to either tidy it up to required standard if it looks useful or delete it if it doesn't. Cheers, Grutness...wha?  01:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if that graphic were a balance with one side drooping down. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility issues template needed
This is a request for a template that a page needs accessibility cleaning, to be listed in the Wiki Tech section of the current page.

I am seeing tables that are coded in a fashion that are not likely to be accessible to voice browsers.

For instance, List of current United States governors had only images in the first column. Unless the image has an alt attribute, this cannot be read by voice browsers (although some will read the file name). By swapping the picture column with the name column, so that the name was in the first column, I made the table accessible.

On the page List of Governors of California there was an even bigger problem. The first column contained only the party color in each row (presumably because the California Governor and the California Lieutenant Governor can be of different parties. I switched the term number column and the party color column.

Worse, the Lieutenant Governor's party was indicated solely by color, which is not readable by a voice browser, so I added a Lieutenant Governor's Party column. Unfortunately, this makes the table quite wide.

Ideally, the terms would not be represented by merged cells in the first column.

In addition, the list of other high offices held joined the columns of House and Senate with a colspan containing "U.S. Congress", meaning that voice browsers which read the contents of the first row of a column would not distinguish between the House column and the Senate column. I gave each of the two columns one unique title.

It was fairly time-consuming to make these fixes, so it would be nice to have a template for "Table needs cleanup to make table accessible" or "Page needs cleanup to make tables, images, and other content more accessible" or something like that, together with a Wiki page that lists pages needing accessibility cleanup.

Even better, if Wikipedia could detect colspans/rowspans in the header row/column, or non-text content in the first row or column and automatically add the template, that would quickly identify tables with these problems.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup templates: Is it time for a fundamental change?
I have raised the following point for discussion at Village pump (policy): I am a great supporter of the current array of templates available at Template messages/Cleanup, as I feel that they invite editors to address issues such as notability by improving the articles in question. I use them often, and despite the fact their use brings me into conflict with other editors, I feel their benefit far outways their disadvantages.

However, there is an issue about their relevance to general reader. On the one hand, they act as a warning that there may be problems with the article subject, the content or viewpoint of the article itself, or that there are other quality issues that the reader should take account when forming their own views about a particular topic. On the other, cleanup issues such as notability really are not a major issue for most readers, and frankly notability is a rather esoteric subject in any case.

My proposal is that cleanup templates would be better placed on article talk pages, rather than added to the mainspace articles themselves on the grounds that they detract from the reader's experience of Wikipedia. In articles such as A Terrible Vengeance, the templates tend to disfigure the articles when looked from a purely presentational view, and the issues they are designed to address are probably better addressed through the talk pages in any case. Does anyone share this view, or should they remain on article page as is current practise?

Your comments here or at the village pump would be welcome. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * well, if they're in the article itself, they're more likely to be noticed by someone like me who's willing to roll up his sleeves. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Osama. Unregistered readers could be intrigued by the possibility of doing some editing, and they normally would not go to the Talk Page. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, your proposal is spot on, and it's significant that multiple editors have independently arrived at the same conclusion. I couldn't find your Village Pump thread (I even checked the archives), but I think it's clear we need to re-evaluate and clarify the proper use of template tags, and which ones are proper to the article space and which ones are proper to the talk space. It seems plain to me that any template tag that merely expresses an editor opinion about the current state of an article constitutes talk content and belongs in the talk space, where it can be properly and fully addressed. Even better, such templates should be accompanied by the requirement for fuller elaboration, similar to how the fair use rationale templates used on images must be fully filled out with rationales. Robert K S (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I'm not too concerned about the presence or absence of "warning labels" on Article Pages. It seems to me that users should be warned at every opportunity that Wikipedia articles are not Gospel. that they are in cyberspace only because fallible human beings put them there (usually — they are sometimes placed there by equally fallible robots). Messages at the tops of pages give notice also that somebody is keeping an eye on articles and that a poorly written or poorly-thought-out article has drawn the attention of a real person out there in cyberspace. No, I don't believe there is any problem here to be solved. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia without further investigation" is sort of the 21st century version of "Don't cross the street without looking both ways" or "Don't take candy from strangers". Valuable to know, but do you really need such warning messages to be plastered all over the city in order to remind you about the hazards of minute-to-minute living?  Any politician who would propose such a thing would be run out of town on a rail.  If there is a systemic problem of people accepting bad information without giving it a critical eye, then, as User:Kildor offered in a previous discussion, "The fundamental concept of Wikipedia is that anyone can write and improve articles. And if that message is not clear enough, that is a concern for the overall design of this website."  Template messages that merely complain that an article ought to be improved in some aspect may indicate that someone has noticed an obvious problem, but that is not necessarily a step toward fixing the problem and in most cases it makes the problem worse.  Imagine your lawn gets overgrown because you didn't have time to mow it, and this draws the ire of your neighbors.  Do you really think it would be appropriate of your neighbors to spray paint "Mow your lawn" on the front of your house?  Does that improve the lawn situation?  Two wrongs don't make a right, and compounding a content problem with a blight problem is just taking things one step further from the solution. Robert K S (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Robert makes a very strong case. I am on the verge of agreeing with him. It would be easier to do so if it had been decided in the beginning that Improvement tags should go on the Talk Pages. We tend to maintain what we are used to. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This wouldn't work well without a whole bevy of new otheruses style in-line templates to replace all the |section cleanup templates. Given that and the preservation of the mainspace style Multipleissues template (but renamed), I wouldn't object. Still, I would also say that this would be a moot point if someone just brought a bot to bear to do a mass consolidation with Multipleissues. It'd still be ugly, but it'd be far less ugly than something you need to bury in Talk: space. Combine that bot with a new approach to section tagging as described two sentences back, and we'd be markedly cleaner looking but retain plenty of the editing tips and productivity tools we currently have. MrZaius talk  04:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)