Template talk:Cleanup/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Cleanup. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Small Icon Conversion

I made an example of a working cleanup template that would work for using a small icon like Template:Pp-semi-protected; you can see the small icon in action at User:Notmyhandle/Sandbox and the source at Template:Notmyhandle/Sandbox. I think we should convert to this layout so that we can reduce the number of messy boxes on pages; normal viewers don't need to pay attention to them anyways. --Notmyhandle 18:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely the way to go—Great work, Notmyhandle. I've liked the idea of small icons ever since I read tags, and I believe that the small sp icon has really improved the appearance of Wikipedia to casual visitors—it just makes us look more professional.Unschool 14:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll toss in my support for it as well. It's a lot tidier and leads to less cluttered pages. I'd venture that few editors who look for pages that need cleanup would miss the little icon in the corner, but someone using Wikipedia as a reference would be distracted by it. Horologium talk - contrib 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not so sure. To an extent the cleanup tags are meant to be obtrusive. It tells editors that the article needs to be fixed and it tells viewers that the article they are reading is sub par. I think there are overuse problems but readers should know there are problems with the articles they are reading. Of course it looks unprofessional but it's a reflection that the writing or something about the article is unprofessional. While this wouldn't be as detrimental as small NPOV and small Unreferenced tags, I still think when there is broad agreement that something needs cleanup the reader should know. Now, I think an 'opt out' would be nice... meaning, an account setting people who don't want to see maintenance tags... but, that's something that would have to be arranged in the software. gren グレン 02:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, great idea. Kinda of like the favourite articles start icon and that smaller semi-protection one. Much better. Maybe someone should discuss it on the manual of style talk page. Keep up the good work. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 08:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some icons like this before and they were ALL deleted in a TfD discussion which I will try to unearth.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[1]

I like the idea of a cleanup tag that works to function in the small icon. Not only does it make us more professional, but no visitor of this site will want to know that articles do not meet our tidyness standards, the only people who need to know that is editors of this site. The only tags I would suggest not making into a small icon is reference tags and NPOV tags, because it will tell a visitor to the site that the information on the article is unsourced, could be false or not present a NPOV. A couple of things I should mention is that because we have (s)protected and FA small icons, I would suggest aligning it so if all three were to appear on the same page that none of them would overlap. The overlap incident once happened on the Canada article when it was a FA and sprotected at the same time, the sprotect tag overshadowed the FA tag and you couldn't see it. I would also suggest renaming it to something more along the lines of something wiki-related instead of using your username in the template, but I guess it's alright as long as it's still a prototype and not the finished product. Also, I would add the categories that the other cleanup tags are in so when articles are tagged, they are categorized. — Moe ε 16:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I do want readers to know that some articles are crap. The disadvantage of the cleanup tag is that they are overused. Not all articles with cleanup tagged are bad. Garion96 (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If the cleanup tags are misused, we should remove them, theres no need to tag tidy articles. Regarding the template, if you look at it from the point of view from someone who comes to the site for information, they aren't going to want to see big banners that say "Hey, this article is untidy, please fix it up Wikipedia editors" (not a word-for-word citation :p), nor will they try to do something about it. It's sorta the same reason for condensing the protection template. Only Wikipedia editors can do anything about vandalism or the vandals themselves, so we didn't need the extra targets saying "Hey, this is a common place for vandals to come", throwing in some WP:BEANS. This is a little different, but the first principle would still apply. The cleanup tag, dealt with and corrected by editors, not viewers, shouldn't be obtrusive to articles, but thats just my opinion. — Moe ε 18:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Boy, I just did some checking, this template really is overused. I don't think Emil Constantinescu Chatsworth House or Casualty movement need a cleanup tag. Maybe we should tighten the criteria for using this template. Garion96 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I went in and deleted the tag from Emil, changed it to expand-section for the two empty sections of Chatsworth, and changed it to expand for Casualty. None had any reasoning for why the tags were added (either in talk or in edit summaries), which sets off alarms in my head. Horologium talk - contrib 02:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And that was just a random three. :( This template really isn't used well. If it is used for really crappy articles I prefer the big template, but the way it is used right now I guess the smaller template would work. That or educate people not to overuse this template. Garion96 (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly support the use of the small icon version. As described is this essay, obtrusive maintenance tags on articles distract readers, and make the encyclopedia seem less professional. Good job, notmyhandle! Jerry 13:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

But that essay is talking about self-evident tags like current events and tags that don't help the reader at all like vandalism tags. With the vandalism protect tags it doesn't matter to the user since they can't edit it and if they tried they'd get a warning. For cleanup tags it's different. Readers should know the deficiencies of an article they are reading. When there is a big neutrality dispute readers should know. Who cares if it looks neat and tidy if the text is misleading or wrong. Cleanup tags provide the same service, they notify of unprofessional writing that could obscure the proper meaning of the article. The real problem is that cleanup tags are overused. We need to fix that problem, not get rid of useful warnings to readers. gren グレン 01:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I might agree with gren insofar as POV tags are concerned. But I still disagree about cleanup tags being necessary. The discerning reader will recognize the deficiencies in the article without the tag; the undiscerning will not change what they are doing even with it. Pretty much the only person who needs to see it at all is a Wikipedia editor who is interested in doing the appropriate cleanup, and the little icon serves that purpose as well. If a caveat is needed at all, then it should be inconspicuous. As I have said to others, every lengthy document contains caveats, but they are usually placed in small print at the bottom of the text, not in big colorful boxes at the top. Unschool 04:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this, and I must say that I don't really like it. The point of editorial tags is that (1) they point out to readers that we know there's something not right here, and (2) they encourage people to go ahead and fix it, thus attracting new editors. Both of these are hampered by hiding the template as a small icon. Semi-protection is a very different situation. >Radiant< 08:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, my conversion leaves the tag open to both, like the Pp-semiprotected; thus giving us both options available. I like the small icon, besides removing useless visible junk, because you can leave detailed messages about what needs to be edited without it adding more ugly space on the page. Users will eventually figure this feature out anyways, so it's not like we're hiding anything. Also about overlapping, I think there's a way to align them; otherwise we can just hardcode them to be in certain spots (i.e. FA on the far right, Pp icons next to that, etc.). --Notmyhandle 01:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hit and Run Tagging

I think I've seen on one, and only one, of the these nature of infoboxes a statement about hit-and-run tagging. There are huge ARMIES of users out there who are doing >50% of their edits just slapping this tag and others on articles, no comment on the talk page, no specification of what they think needs to be done. This, IMO, is the greatest contributor to the template becoming useless and overused.

Enough of my opinion, I want to ask if there is a more appropriate place in Wikipedia to have this discussion. I've looked everywhere for material regarding policy on hit-and-run tagging and can't find anything, and honestly, I want to start a discussion with the users I see doing it. Please advise, for I am still somewhat new, and by all means overwhelmed and confused. theanphibian 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment. My personal experience on this matter is as follows: the general tag should be discouraged, in favor of section-specific cleanup tags that specify what the problem is and how to fix it. There are already tags for doing this, so if you want to change how people use this tag, you have my support. —Viriditas | Talk 02:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Or just provide a mandatory comment parameter. --Notmyhandle 02:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't specify the section needing to be fixed. Once you start using section specific tags, one is unlikely to use general cleanup tags. Here's the thing: cleanup-related tags should only be used when they point to the section that needs the cleanup, and explain how to fix the problem. Trivia and external links tags, as an example, do a good job of this. Otherwise, any tag in section zero is going to lead me to believe that only the lead section needs cleanup. We need to focus on how to fix the article, not on slapping tags at the top, hoping someone will figure it out. —Viriditas | Talk 02:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's comments on this. And I agree, section tags are more useful. My main problem is use of the tag as essentially a criticism of the article, which is basically what it's used for. As people have pointed out plenty already, it should be used to draw attention to articles that need that attention. It seems to me like that means it should never be slapped on an article that has an active editing crew. Turnover for actually getting problems taken care of just by the complete wikipedia list of tagged articles is clearly established to be months or years, whereas an active article has people looking at every revision and a tag popping up is just a pain in the side. I kind of wish there was more I could do about this. theanphibian 04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Use your momentum. What would you like to do? You've got support. —Viriditas | Talk 04:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have two ideas for helping this movement. First, see the talk section just above this one about switching to icons. Secondly, we should make those section templates add categories to pages so that they can be easily found. Thirdly, we should make those icons spawn a generalized cleanup icon in the upper corner so that editors can know that something on the page needs help with. Then they are able to find the section tag to help with cleanup. Additionally we could make each tag, i.e. trivia and external links, to help guide editors more specifically when using the mini icons in the corner. --Notmyhandle 06:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To address Theanphibian's point, the best way to tackle turnover is to merge all cleanup tasks into their associated WikiProject queues, with untagged articles residing in a general queue. The most active WikiProjects already have Category:WikiProject X articles needing cleanup in place, so it's just a matter of finding the best way to implement this solution and recategorize or add new cats. I want to be able to look at cleanup statistics in the same way that the Version 1.0 Editorial Team looks at quality. Right now, I should be able to see how many Hawaii-related articles are unreferenced, how many require trivia integration, how many need help with external link sections, how many need prose cleaned up in the lead or how many need lists turned into prose. To address this problem, you have to take the broad view and start at the top with Category:Wikipedia maintenance. This is not for the faint of heart. Structurally, you can see that there is a huge problem and a lot of work needed to do this. But, if we want to actually accomplish the tasks at hand, all cleanup categories should be categorized by WikiProject. That's how you solve the problem, and that's how you improve the encyclopedia. This does not and should not include deletion or any other administrative tasks. —Viriditas | Talk 09:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am definitely interested in this stuff and I want to learn more about the technical part of Wikipedia, but I think this is mostly over my head right now :-/ I'm aware of project pages and categories, and those are of course powerful tools to get attention from the right people directed to the right articles. But project pages typically contain many lists of requested work that are simply manually maintained, which will almost necessarily mean that they become out of date and don't encompass anywhere near the quantity of articles that this tag (for instance) currently deals with. Anyway, I'll keep reading, thanks! theanphibian 07:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In a way, this gives you an edge as a fresh, unbiased observer, which is why I was asking for your input. What does your gut say? How would you fix the problem? —Viriditas | Talk 03:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just another thought - many of us support sending all/most of the cleanup-tags to the end of the page. They could also be mad more subtle once there. Rich Farmbrough, 10:18 5 June 2007 (GMT).

I think those are both excellent ideas -- moving all tags to the end and redesigning them to be more subdued once there. (Perhaps all articles should have a "Tags" section at the end?) I've taken to moving tags to the end of articles when I come across them, and leaving at the top a pointer, the current version of which says:

Note: For information about the content, tone or sourcing of this article, please see the tags at the bottom of this page.

Of course, I'm gotten into a bit of trouble doing this, and have had a complaint lodged against me (at WP:AN/I). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

interwiki

sk:Šablóna:Na úpravu ~~helix84 16:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Automatic dating

{{editprotected}} Couldn't "{{{date}}}" be replaced with "{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}} " for automatic inclusion of the date? CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't work since the subst: function would only work properly when {{cleanup}} is substed into a page, and it's usually transcluded. To get the current month to appear automatically, you can use {{subst:Cleanup-now}} Tra (Talk) 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

syntax error

{{editprotected}} This template should have

width=60px

changed to

width="60"

— "px" is for css, not html, attributes. --Jack Merridew 12:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Use proper unicode quote

Can we please use the proper Unicode quote ’ in there, instead of the ', which is really only meant to mean ‘feet‘. H. (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So you think it means "Wikipediafeets"? Almost all of the Web uses straight quotes, no confusion is created, and it makes things easier in browsers that don't handle Unicode correctly if we don't use extended Unicode characters when they are unnecessary. Also, if you insist on pedantry, that's an apostrophe, not a quote. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fix conflicting instructions re Subst

The instructions say both to use subst, and not to use subst:

The simplest way to add this template to an article is to copy and paste {{Cleanup|date=August 2007}} at the top of the article or talk page, or use {{subst:Cleanup-now}}.

And under Notes:

Please do not subst: this template.

That is correct. {{Cleanup}} should not be substed but {{Cleanup-now}} should be substed. Although, if it's a bit confusing, there might be a better way to word the instructions. Tra (Talk) 18:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Extra returns in template

There are some extra returns in the template where the categories are given. Just delete all the extra blank lines, and it will be fine. – Basar (talk · contribs) 06:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. When you use this template with others below it, there's a big space on the bottom. szyslak 10:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thirded! Please delete the blank lines around the categories. ←Ben^B4 11:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, matt br 12:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

New version of template

The new version of the template (which was undiscussed here) looks bad, particularly the distracting gold bar at the left. Please change it back. Badagnani 07:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Template standardisation? – Basar (talk · contribs) 07:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Couple of improvements

I have

Removed the plea for additional tags. Such things belong on WikiProject pages, not atop every article that needs cleanup. Tags should encourage editing first and foremost, and not draw people into Wikipedic arcana any further than absolutely necessary.
Ditched the "Tagged since the year dot" thing. There's a dated category at the bottom of every such article, and that's enough. There is no value to the reader in knowing since when and what few editors have the slightest utility for the information are already going to have to use the category anyway. There is no use for the clutter at the top of articles therefore.

Splash - tk 16:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the change. The "if you can" sounds a bit terse. I think the previous wording also encouraged users to discuss why they think the article needs clean up, or otherwise replace the tag with a more specific one with an explanation. Also, I think it is good to encourage users to know at least a little about the editing practices here on Wikipedia - so we have quality edits, rather than misguided ones by people who think they're improving the article. I also think the month and date were useful for editors to quickly see how long an article has been tagged without having to scroll to the bottom and find it there. I'm more likely to clean up an article that I see has been tagged for a while than one that has been tagged in the last month. Anyway, thanks for posting your rationale on the talk page - I wish more users would do that when changing templates. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Stubs

I don't understand the reason we should be tagging stubs with this template and would like to add a note to the usage instructions on the matter. Does anyone object?--BirgitteSB 20:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussing on the talk page

Why was this line removed? This only encourages drive by taggings without actually mentioning what the problems are. T Rex | talk 04:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Spacing

{{editprotected}} Greetings!

On the dated version, there's no space between the "if you can." and the date. You end up with something like: if you can.(September 2007). This is a little claustrophobic.

Best place to add this is right after the . in "if you can.", or right before the beginning of the if. I tried on another template to put the space inside the if, but it didn't work. Bummer. RTucker 00:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC) (the space cadet)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Ugly

Can this (Template:Ugly) also be added on the page as a redirect since I can't edit it. Thanks Pafcool2 14:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

DoneRich Farmbrough, 20:08 5 December 2007 (GMT).

Merge

{{Cleanup-reason}} here. If anyone can manage it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:08 5 December 2007 (GMT).

We should probably have {{{1}}} as article/section/template as most of these templates do and {{{2}}} as the reason. Rich Farmbrough, 20:10 5 December 2007 (GMT).

Category inclusion

Can someone change the category inclusion in the template a la http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Category#Excluding_templates_and_selected_pages_from_categories so that we can use it as an example, etc., without adding the the categories that the template normally assigns? Thanks! Libcub (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been

Done already. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia cleanup missing form Template

Im not really sure what happened to this template, but it no longer attaches the category Category:Wikipedia cleanup to the page when the template is added. Please see this page as a reference: Babbu Mann. I could manually add the category, but the template should have done it. Thanks ✬Dillard421✬ ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See Category:Hidden categories. GregorB (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

interwiki nl

The interwiki to the Dutch Wikipedia directs to Sjablon:Wiu, but it has to be Sjabloon:Wiu. Can someone please add the extra 'o'? Errie22 (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, Garion96 (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Errie22 (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)