Template talk:Cleanup/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Remove the notification

It has been a month and the RFC is pretty conclusive. It is time to remove the notification from the template and start discussing how to implement a mandatory reason parameter. AIRcorn (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There has been no consensus to end the rfc. In the relevant section we have indicated that the notification should stay on if people are still commenting.Curb Chain (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What more is to be gained from keeping this open? There are enough other editors suggesting closing this under the "close" section. As the default is 30 days then that should be the length of time if there is no consensus on when to close. AIRcorn (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think it's time to close this discussion. It is very clear that at least 90% of the people commenting on here agree with making the reason mandatory. I don't think that we'd be gaining anything new by keeping this discussion open.

On a separate note this talk page really needs to be archived; it is one of the longest talk pages I've ever seen. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and be bold and set up archiving.... —Compdude¹²³ 04:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done  Sandstein  15:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Question about Multiple issues template

One of the {{Multiple issues}} parameters is |cleanup=, which places the article in the same categories as {{Cleanup}} would. If a reason parameter becomes mandatory for {{Cleanup}}, then what should be done (if anything) with {{Multiple issues}}? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note about this section over at Template talk:Multiple issues. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Because you could have unrelated reasons for different bits, I think you'd need a |cleanup-reason= parameter, not just a |reason= parameter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

|cleanup-reason= sounds like a good idea to me. Whatever is decided, please let me know ahead of time so I can make sure AnomieBOT won't try to interpret the reason field as a date. Anomie⚔ 19:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Implementing mandatory reason field

I've taken a first crack at implementing the "mandatory" reason field. The code is loaded into the Template:Cleanup/sandbox as of this edit, and there's a Template:Cleanup/testcases page already make. Everyone's input is welcome. Feel free to edit the sandbox and/or the test cases directly, but I'm willing to help out those who want something changed but aren't sure how to code it up. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a code expert, and as far as I can tell, your sandbox code emphasizes the text when the reason= parameter is left blank and then categorizes the page into Category:Cleanup templates lacking a reason parameter. The emphasized text is good, but why make a new category when Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field already exists and is already used by the {{Cleanup}} template? Also, can you be specific as to how the code in the sandbox actually requires the reason= to be filled in, and what happens when it's not filled in? Will a bot monitor the category and remove the {{Cleanup}} template? Wouldn't it be better for the bot to use the existing category, Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field, which would clear out all the tags presently on pages (tags that don't have a reason= filled in)? – p i e (Climax!)  15:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

PS. Please note that both the sandbox and testcases page have been placed into Category:Cleanup templates lacking a reason parameter. It appears that the nocat=true parameter subdues only the cats listed in the cat handler template.

The thing is, this tag is already set up via the Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field to clear all tagged articles that do not have filled in reason= parameters. A bot just needs to be put to work on that category to clear it. What we need to do is to make it easier for editors by making it so they don't have to type "| reason=" when they add the tag to an article. Is there a way to make the reason= parameter also the unnamed parameter, so that editors can just type the pipe symbol and their reason, as in

{{cleanup|(their reason for adding the template)}}

...when they add the tag? In other words, can we make it so editors have the choice of typing reason= or not typing reason=? – p i e (Climax!)  16:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
PS. This may be resolved by the slight change I made to the sandbox. It results in the third box on the Template:Cleanup/testcases page in the Testing {{Cleanup/sandbox}} subsection. I swapped the "{{{1}}}"s and the "{{{2}}}"s, however an experienced coder should look at it and confirm its viability.
PPS. I also focused the text, but I did not yet remove Category:Cleanup templates lacking a reason parameter and won't until V = IR responds above.

• there is one important question - what happens with Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field? Bot based removal of tag without provided reason - now or after X months. Or maybe keep it as grandfathered? Bulwersator (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• The category will be kept, because some editors might still add the tag without a reason. If they do, then the bot will sense this in the category and remove the tag. – p i e (Climax!)  18:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Ops, I wanted to ask "what will happen with articles from Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field tagged before this RFC"? Bulwersator (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• While I lean toward a well-programmed bot to remove all of them, sort of a "clean up all the cleanups" and start all over again, I have noted the desire of some editors to try to work on the older ones individually to see if they still need to be be cleaned up or if they have been edited to the point of no longer needing cleanup. My gut feeling is that the longer a cleanup tag has been on an article, the more likely it is that the tag is no longer needed, because editors have probably worked on those articles and have most likely improved them to the point of no longer needing cleanup. How say you? – p i e (Climax!)  02:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• It may be a good idea to replace "(Consider using more specific cleanup instructions.)" with "Please, use specific cleanup instructions or remove this tag" Bulwersator (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC) - Template:Cleanup/sandbox is OK Bulwersator (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, more emphasis and focused terms have been added to the sandbox version. See also the testcases page. And I think the newly added Category:Cleanup templates lacking a reason parameter should probably be removed. – p i e (Climax!)  18:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Notify developers of tools like twinkle (Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Cleanup_-_reason_parameter_is_now_mandatory) Bulwersator (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• What prevents me from giving reason=blah or reason=woegfwaeo;tybwlo4t? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely nothing can ensure that some readers won't take undesirable shortcuts, even vandalize—except, of course, you, and I, and all the other editors of this encyclopedia who will remedy the situation if and when they are confronted by it. – p i e (Climax!)  02:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• oops, I missed the existence of Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field. Sorry about that. I've gone ahead and simply removed the categorization bit that I put in the sandbox. Feel free to hack away at the sandbox and/or get it transferred into the actual template (I don't feel the slightest bit of ownership over this, I just wanted to see some progress made is all). @Choy, people putting nonsense into the reason field tells everyone else just as much about the reason for adding the tag as them putting a good reason in there, so I don't see that as an issue.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• PS: I added "Error:" to the beginning of the message, in the current sandbox version. We may or may not want to keep it, but my thinking is that... well, we should probably specify that it's actually an error, no?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that "Error" and big red text is overkill. For me "Error:" looks like technical problem, red text should be enough Bulwersator (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• It may be a good idea to request edit filter to inform editor/tag edits where parameter is added without explanation Bulwersator (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Fair point on including "Error", feel free to remove it. Someone could suggest an edit filter too, but I think getting that done should be a separate process from this. Let's finish one thing at a time here, you know? I wanted to note that I just now reverted Paine Ellsworth's edit to the sandbox, though. The edit in question changed from using a CSS class to using specialized formatting. Generally, formatting should be handled though CSS, and I think that using the "error" class here seems a rather obvious choice. If there's agreement that we should use a different class then I'd be OK with that, but it would be nice to see an argument expressed to actually do that. Also, note that it's possible to adjust the CSS class. There's a page to talk about that around here somewhere (look at Wikipedia:CSS to start).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the "error" text is fine. Broken reference tags result in similar behavior, and while it can be easily argued that broken references are a more serious error, they're both errors. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It's definitely okay with me to stick with CSS. I was just trying out Bulwersator's idea that the big red text is overkill, and I agree with that. For the most part, I'm unfamiliar with CSS. So can the large red font be subdued a bit? Also, does anyone have an opinion about what I did to make the reason= parameter easier for editors by changing it to the unnamed parameter and changing the previous unnamed parameter to the #2 parameter? – p i e (Climax!)  23:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  The class can be changed (or we could use a different class), but that seems like a slightly different discussion to me (not least of all because it will affect far more than this one template). Opinion wise, I have to admit that I don't find the "big red text is overkill" thought to be very convincing, if only because the intent is that nobody is really supposed to see it. Part of the point behind it is to grab your attention and make you (as the user) think "man, I gotta fix that!"

  If there's general agreement that changing the unnamed parameters would be good then I don't have a problem with that. Doing so is no small decision though, as that is likely to break a large percentage of the current uses of the template. Cobbling together a bot to run through the list and switch templates as needed is a possibility of course, but it seems like a lot of work unless there's a compelling reason to make the change.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm back to neutral about the text size, and I see what you mean about switching the unnamed parameter. It does mess things up when "section", "disambiguation page", or whatever has already been added. I'll change that back. – p i e (Climax!)  01:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• So, anyway, it's been a few days here and I'm not seeing anything new. Anyone want to throw up an {{Edit request}}?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone in layman terms explain exactly what will happen when a template is added without a reason with the new coding? AIRcorn (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• "(Consider using more specific cleanup instructions.)" is replaced with "" Bulwersator (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • So a bot will be programmed to remove tags without a reason after a set time. We still have to decide what to do with the old tags which have no reason given? AIRcorn (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the longer a Cleanup tag has been on an article, the more the liklihood that there has been much cleanup performed. So I think it would be good to have a bot get busy and remove all the tags that don't have a reason, and begin with the oldest. That way we will start fresh, and the bot will then only be expected to auto-remove any new tags without a reason. – p i e (Climax!)  23:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to propose a slightly modified version of that message with different links and such. It would say "" How does that sound? —Compdude¹²³ 17:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever link is used, it should give easy instructions how to add the reason with the reason= parameter for readers who are unfamiliar with editing. That is why it was linked to the template doc page. The instructions there are fairly straightforward and can be made even clearer when this is all finished and ready to go. And I'm not sure how wise it is to link to an essay that calls it a "useless" template, which it definitely is not. – p i e (Climax!)  22:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would probably be better to link to the template's documentation instead of the essay "Clarify the cleanup". —Compdude¹²³ 04:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• A bit better than sandbox, I think that we may go with this one Bulwersator (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Happy with this. However, I think a reason should be added to all the current tags before changing the wording. Otherwise we are going to have the error text and threat of removal on articles where this won't really occur. Something like "No reason has been supplied for this tag. If clean-up is no longer required please remove the tag. If it still needs clean-up consider improving it yourself, using a more specific tag or providing a reason. The talk page may contain suggestions." This is pretty close to the current wording, but emphasizes removal of the tag more. AIRcorn (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
    • It may be better to check date parameter Bulwersator (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
      • That would be better. AIRcorn (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying to put the red message text which I suggested on all cleanup templates dated April 2012 or later, and to put the other one which you suggested on older cleanup templates? —Compdude¹²³ 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Hopefully there is a way to put a conditional in the template using the date parameter so that we only have to make a single change here. Doing that is beyond my technical skills however. FWIW I would consider pushing the changeover date back to May 2012 as we are already halfway through April and still need to get a bot sorted. AIRcorn (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the longer a Cleanup tag has been on an article, the more likely that editors have worked to clean up the article, the bot should probably remove all Cleanup tags with no reason. We get a fresh start from there. – p i e (Climax!)  23:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So does someone know how to put code into the template that checks the |date= and gives alternative wording depending on what that date is? AIRcorn (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Bot (to remove cleanup templates without reason from april 2012 and later)

• I think that we should ask for bot that will keep Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field from April 2012 and later empty - any opinions? Bulwersator (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not have a bot remove the tags from the page on which it was tagged. Instead, I think it would be better to have a bot post a message on the talk page of the user who added the tag, encouraging them to provide a reason. What I'm thinking of is a bot like DPL bot which notifies users when they add a link to a disambiguation page. —Compdude¹²³ 17:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a good idea, but what should happen with tags that still are without any reason? Manual removal? But in this case nothing changed, we need a way to enforce this RFC Bulwersator (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Can it do both. Have a bot that runs once a week. If a tag has been applied without a reason since the last time it ran it just notifies the tagger. If the tag still has no reason the next time the bot runs it removes the tag. AIRcorn (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a need to "enforce" anything here. The error message and the category are plenty. A bot to notify users who've added the cleanup template without specifying a reason is a very good idea, though. I may code one up myself in about a month or so, but if anyone else wants to do they should feel free to file a request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. I don't think that this talk page is really the best place to discuss bots though, especially since we still need to get the error message part added to the actual template. (ps: Don't forget about Template:Cleanup/testcases, which has a number of examples for how the proposed new template will look.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is to make the reason mandatory. Just changing the message does not do this. We either need to remove incorrectly tagged articles or prevent them from being tagged without the reason in the first place. I think this is the perfect place to discuss the scope of any bots to be used on this tag. AIRcorn (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in order to enforce the mandatory cleanup reason we have got to do both things. I think what Aircorn is suggesting is perfect, and I second his motion. —Compdude¹²³ 04:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

To make it clear - I think that bot suggested by Aircorn is a good idea Bulwersator (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue, but we're not going to get bot approval here on this talk page. We still need to convince an administrator to copy the sandbox to the live template as well, which isn't likely to happen at all now that this discussion has opened up.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It will happen when we are ready to make it happen. This is the discussion to implement the previous RfC, which decided to make the reason= parameter mandatory. So here we must decide the logistics of implementing that decision. Part of that will require editing this template, and part of it will require a decision about the use of a bot to remove the tag when a reason is not included. Anomie is an admin who operates the AnomieBOT. We can ask Anomie for guidance about the bot. When we have come to agreement on the template change(s), Anomie can help us there as well, without the need of a formal {{Editrequested}} template. – p i e (Climax!)  22:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, well, I guess that you guys have this in hand then. Good luck!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Presently, there are only 116 instances of this template without a reason from April forward. We don't need a bot for that. The bot is needed to remove all instances without a reason back to the oldest instance. That's 23,484 instances. Now that's when a bot is needed. The older the instance, the more likely the tag is no longer needed on the page. Maybe we should just start fresh and put a bot to work on all the instances of the Cleanup tag that don't have a reason? – p i e (Climax!)  23:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can infer that the decision above means we can remove the older templates. It may come to that, but at the moment we at least have consensus to make adding the reason to any new tag mandatory. A bot is needed because about 50 a week are currently being added, which is a lot to keep up with manually for any length of time. AIRcorn (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No to having a bot immediately remove a cleanup tag without a reason. There should be an amount of time for a human editor to look at the article and enter a valid reason. (This would also allow the talk page to be checked for reason, which it is doubtful a bot would do.) RJFJR (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• so "Can it do both. Have a bot that runs once a week. If a tag has been applied without a reason since the last time it ran it just notifies the tagger. If the tag still has no reason the next time the bot runs it removes the tag. " is OK? Bulwersator (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Implementing mandatory reason field (take two)

Okay I sought some advice from Thumperward‎ (talk · contribs) regarding implementing the above suggestion and it does not appear possible. So my proposal here is to leave the wording as it is and just request a Bot that does what was suggested in the previous thread. It will leave a warning on the taggers talk page so I don't think a big error message is necessary in any case. If the reason has not been applied within a week from the warning then it will simply remove the tag. AIRcorn (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What you're proposing seems fine to me. But maybe we should still modify the text that displays on the template itself when no reason is added. I'd suggest something simple and short like "No cleanup reason specified. Please add a |reason= parameter to this template." It could just be formatted like that, no bold or italic or anything.(Changed my mind; it probably should be bold, but no need for the red text. 15:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC))

And of course, we will also have to come to a consensus on the message we would want the bot to say. And finally to get rid of all the non-reason cleanup tags which are several years old, that might take a significant backlog reduction effort by us all. —Compdude¹²³ 04:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that nobody posted any comments, I just want to ask: Would a message like the following be fine to put on the template? "No cleanup reason specified. Please add a |reason= parameter to this template." It's short and simple; what do others think about it? If we get more agreements, then maybe one of us could put up an edit request. —Compdude¹²³ 15:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. If the bot is notifying and removing as necessary, there's no need for a big red error message, and the reason would normally be bolded anyway. —WFC— 04:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Good. As for the wording of the notification. How about

"You recently added a cleanup tag to Article name without specifying a reason. Please add a reason to the tag using the |reason= parameter or replace it with a more specific tag. Cleanup tags without reasons will be automatically removed after a week."

That looks good but I think the message should explicitly state that having the reason parameter is important in helping other editors identify what needs cleanup. Perhaps, it could even close with something like "Better yet, why not clean up the article yourself?" —Compdude¹²³ 04:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Should it work through the {{nobots}} template? AIRcorn (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"You recently added a cleanup tag to Article name without specifying a reason. To help other editors identify the problems please add a reason to the tag using the |reason= parameter or replace it with a more specific tag. Cleanup tags without reasons will be automatically removed after a week."

Added "To help other editors identify the problems". Not sure about the last sentence, it could come across a bit strong. Everyone should be able to add a reason for cleanup, but not everyone may be able to fix the problem. Unless there is further support to include it I suggest leaving it out for now (it could always be added in later and it would be good to finally get this rolling). AIRcorn (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's probably about time to put in a bot request. —Compdude¹²³ 15:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Done Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 48#Bot for Template:Cleanup AIRcorn (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request -- change text when there's no cleanup reason

I would like to ask that the text which appears when no |reason= parameter be changed from "(Consider using more specific cleanup instructions.)" to "No cleanup reason specified. Please add a |reason= parameter to this template." Now that the reason parameter has been made mandatory per the RfC, it needs to be made more clear that that is so. Note that there will also be a bot alerting users on their talk pages when they add a cleanup tag w/o a reason. —Compdude¹²³ 04:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well? Is this going to get changed? How did my edit request go unnoticed? Please change the text. Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 16:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There is just a backlog (see Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests). It is nearing the top now. AIRcorn (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Hopefully this will get changed soon. —Compdude¹²³ 03:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think there is consensus to have this changed, just my 2 cents.Curb Chain (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. There is consensus to have the reason parameter be mandatory, and we have to implement that. So this needs to be changed to make it more clear that the reason parameter is mandatory. Simply saying "Consider using more specific cleanup instructions" does not make it clear that you have to add a reason. —Compdude¹²³ 04:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What had consensus was the reason being made mandatory, not the method of implemnatation. The edit should not be done.Curb Chain (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay then, let's get consensus. Who all agrees with this change? I do, now who else agrees? —Compdude¹²³ 18:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (not necessary)Curb Chain (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

How is this "not necessary?" Please explain why you think this. —Compdude¹²³ 00:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've opposed mandating the reason. Implementing would be the opposite.Curb Chain (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"I've opposed mandating the reason" is not valid, as there is a consensus (RfC) that it should be done Bulwersator (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? Because this implementation is not necessary and the template should not be changed because it is useful the way it is.Curb Chain (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That ship has well and truly sailed. Do you have a reason to oppose apart from disagreeing that the template should be mandatory? AIRcorn (talk)

Yes, Aircorn is right. The "mandate reason parameter" ship has sailed. Please don't disrupt this implementation process down just because you don't like the outcome of the RfC. Most supporters, like me, don't understand the logic of the opposers of this RfC. —Compdude¹²³ 02:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I can see how frustrating mandating "reason" is. For the cleanup, removing this template from 14,000 articles sure can be frustrating. However, if this template were nominated again for deletion this winter or next year, "No consensus" again would be resulted if.... even different or same arguments are not strong enough to delete, regardless of amounts. However, chances of "deleting" this template is becoming very high if there is nothing else to do to keep this template alive. Simple templates, such as old "{{expand}}" and "{{spoiler}}", are long gone out of same reasons for this template. This template is very simple to transclude and to find, yet very vague. --George Ho (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - it is obvious result of RfC Bulwersator (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not an obvious result at all. The determination of the mandatory reason was queried in the rfc you indicate below, but not the implementation. The edit request should be declined. There is no consensus for this method of implementation.Curb Chain (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason has been made mandatory per consensus of LOTS of users. There's no changing that. You are the first of the people who, to be honest, I don't really understand why they could possibly oppose making the reason parameter mandatory. Now that you didn't get your way and the consensus was against you, there's no use in slowing this whole implementation process down. —Compdude¹²³ 01:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

3 editors agreeing to the method of implementation on such a wide and deeply changing template is not consensus at all. Get a community consensus before you change such a widely used template.Curb Chain (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

So you're basically saying start another RfC. Are you serious?! If you're willing to do that, go ahead, I don't care. But I am not willing to poke and prod for consensus on how to implement a previous RfC. Do that yourself if you think it's that important. —Compdude¹²³ 02:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, read the section preceding this one. You will notice that 2 other users, Aircorn and WFC supported this. So that's five people. —Compdude¹²³ 02:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

But there are other people who oppose this, such as User:Ohms law and me.Curb Chain (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really, that user actually supported the RfC. —Compdude¹²³ 03:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

He opposed the enforcement. Stop mixing up the RfC with this current request.Curb Chain (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's not argue about who said what, but I'm going to say it again: the only way to get a wide community consensus for this change is to do another RfC, which is not really that sensible. If you want to start another RfC, feel free to do so but don't make me do it. —Compdude¹²³ 14:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You can implement a clear consensus the way you feel is necessary. An RfC is one way to do so. I am not making you go through an rfc. I am making you to get a consensus which is more sensible than to have your edit push through without strong consensus on such a wide community template.Curb Chain (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you making me get the consensus from others? You're the one who originally complained about lack of consensus, so why can't you get consensus? As for me, I think this has been discussed long enough and it's time to implement and enforce the mandatory reason parameter. If you want consensus, you should be the one to get consensus. Don't make me do it! —Compdude¹²³ 22:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You have to do it because you propose to change the page. It's pretty simple to get consensus; seeing as your request has been up for over a week without having the template changed, I think the admins do not feel there is consensus for the way the rfc should be enforced.Curb Chain (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to do it? Are you serious? I refuse to do so; there is consensus for the change whether you like it or not. Consensus is NOT determined by the quantity of the people agreeing/ disagreeing but by the quality of their comments and opinions. When I made the edit request, the change I proposed was not new. It had been discussed, several users agreed, so I went ahead and put up an edit request. Again if you want consensus, you get it. —Compdude¹²³ 01:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - consensus is here #Should_the_reason_parameter_be_made_mandatory Bulwersator (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(Admins: please see the beginning of this section for the edit request. —Compdude¹²³ 01:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC))

• As Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests is ignored, I requested edit on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requested_edit_to_protected_template_to_implement_RFC Bulwersator (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Change made I've made the change per the RFC on making it mandatory. @ Curb Chain: You're being unnecessarily tedious because you didn't get your way in the RFC. Your behavior here is disruptive, unhelpful, and rather childish pouting. Get over it.--v/r - TP 20:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making this change and also for providing a third opinion in this dispute. Again, thanks! —Compdude¹²³ 22:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

So, I should be seeing the new message if I incorrectly add a {{cleanup}} to an article? Like, say, here? --joe decker^{talk to me} 01:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a problem Bulwersator (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I find it slightly confusing. I propose to show the newly added text in a red (and bigger, perhaps?) font, a fairly standard practice for error messages.--M4gnum0n (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This was originally proposed, but later declined in the discussion above. I've only seen the red error text used to point out errors in syntax (for example with refs), and failing to put a reason isn't really a syntax error. Note that we will also have a bot that notifies users on their talk page when they add a cleanup tag without a reason. (similar to DPL bot (talk · contribs) which notifies users when they add a link to a disambiguation page) —Compdude¹²³ 21:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The big problem with the big red error message was that all the templates without a reason would display it. There is no easy way to make it just appear on newly added templates. BTW, the bot request has so far been ignored (it has already gone through the archives once), so we might have to start thinking of another way to enforce this. AIRcorn (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

add "or remove this template" to "No cleanup reason specified. Please add a |reason= parameter to this template."

Resulting in "No cleanup reason specified. Please add a |reason= parameter to this template or remove this template." Bulwersator (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this change as well. —Compdude¹²³ 15:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirects to this template nominated for deletion

Strange and unused

• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_18#Template:Celan-up
• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_18#Template:Attn

Bulwersator (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion - remove bold from "may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards"

Because it is ugly and there is no good reason for this. Bulwersator (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with removing the bold from that first phrase. It takes the emphasis away from the "No reason parameter specified..." text when the reason parameter isn't present. —Compdude¹²³ 20:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Before I implement this, I'll just make the comment that bolding for the issue that needs fixing is common to all maintenance templates. By removing this, you would be making this template inconsistent with all the other templates - is this intentional? If you are worried about the "no cleanup reason" being less visible, I would suggest putting this in red so that it looks like an error rather than part of the message. Struck last part - I see this has been discussed already. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware about this problem but I see no value in keeping this template bolded in the same way as everything else (IMHO it is less important than general template style). But it may be quite important for the MOS people. BTW, why this part is bolded? Bulwersator (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too sure, but it's the actual issue with the article that is emboldened. There was some discussion about it in the past but I don't know if there was a conclusion. User:Thumperward is probably the person to ask if you are interested. If there is a consensus here that bolding is not needed then we can make the change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Red warning for new instances

Just catching up on the last couple of months discussion. I understand that large red warning is not desirable because of all the historical uses of the template out there. Have you considered altering the behaviour of the template automatically based on the date it is tagged. For example:

• After April 2012 - large red warning if no reason supplied (instead of the cleanup tag)
• Before April 2012 - standard tag with previous less forceful suggestion to include a reason.

After some time, if there is consensus, all tags dated before April 2012 without reasons could be made invisible (no bot needed for this). Just some thoughts, sorry if they have already been covered. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong support --M4gnum0n (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested code is on the sandbox, examples in Template:Cleanup/testcases. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Support It looks way better than my idea of 20 nested ifs. Thanks! I think that it may be a good idea, as nobody is interested in running bot asking to fill reason parameter Bulwersator (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to make error message more friendly. BTW, we should avoid changing normal template in article to giant error message (I will try to kill Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field from May 2012 using User:This, that and the other/cleanupCleanup.js) before deploying this change Bulwersator (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I emptied this category Bulwersator (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked Thumperward (talk · contribs) if something similar was possible as I had seen him around template discussions (see User talk:Thumperward#Template:Cleanup). I got the impression that this was not practical, but you seem to have a working solution under development. So support. Now we just need someone to make a bot. AIRcorn (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please replace Template:Cleanup with Template:Cleanup/sandbox. Thanks Bulwersator (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• It is implementation of this RfC Bulwersator (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Made a couple of small changes, and  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest a minor modification of the red error text. It currently has some code to put into the edit window which is the proper syntax, including the date field which has the exact date including the day. The portion of the text that I'm talking about is this: "...replace it with {{Cleanup|date= 21 May 2012|reason=<Fill reason here>}}..." It really shouldn't be advising people to put in the exact date; all you need is just the month and year. Could someone please modify the template and fix this? Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 17:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ouch, {{date}} is not the same thing as {{{date}}}. Fixed, please replace Template:Cleanup with Template:Cleanup/sandbox Bulwersator (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed the number to 1335830400 which corresponds to 1 May, just in case the day of the month is specified (unlikely). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing cleanup without specified reason (articles without useful talk page)

Is it OK to remove this template from articles where reason is not provided and talk page is without comments? Is it OK to do this using a bot? Bulwersator (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing new instances of this template without specified reason

Is it OK to remove them using a bot? Bulwersator (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't help feeling it would be better to inform the editor who added the tag and ask them to give a reason. If they do not do so within a reasonable period of time, then I guess it is okay to remove them. But there will be lots of editors who are unaware of the recent changes to this template, and they may be unhappy if the tag is summarily removed without being informed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

They are informed after placing tag (template looks like this) Bulwersator (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

OKay, sure. If it's the red warning displayed then they should have noticed this, so go ahead :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think with that message it's fine so long as it's limited to instances that were placed after that template was modified. (I haven't made up my mind what I think about the older ones.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 14:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Broken error message

Hydraulic_fracturing#Fracturing_fluids Bulwersator (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

What? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's because it has a {{Cleanup section}} tag instead of {{Cleanup|section}} tag. Please implement these changes to the {{Cleanup section}} tag. If it's a {{Cleanup|section}} tag, then the red text will show up. Nevertheless this needs to be fixed. —Compdude¹²³ 16:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Cleanup section}} is not fully protected like this one, so I went ahead and copied the code from this template (making minor changes as needed) to that one in order to have these two templates be consistent. Hopefully that solves your problem. —Compdude¹²³ 16:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the logic of the reason parameter is understandable. However, it does not take account the possibility that the issues are intensively discussed at the talk page as in this case. It was also strange that the tag was just removed without referring to this discussion or to the policy in general. Beagel (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

edit request—wording

Template:Cleanup contains a series of sentences, except for No cleanup reason specified., which is not one. Please change it to No cleanup reason has been specified. (This request should not be construed as an endorsement of template-cruft.) Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I support this change, and further propose that it should be merged with the following sentence via the use of a dash or semi-colon, e.g. No cleanup reason has been specified; please add a |reason= parameter to this template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I was also going to propose merging the last two short sentences (Please help improve this template if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions.) via an em-dash or semi-colon... Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the second sentence needs to be bold? Tentatively removed on Template:Cleanup/sandbox. Awaiting comments from others ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No, probably no reason for it to be bold. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Support this version: No cleanup reason has been specified.. I would also remove the sentence about the |reason= parameter, as it is too technical and thus should not be shown to the readers. --M4gnum0n (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, remove it. The only people that are going to add it are ones, generally, who should have added it... it doesn't mean anything to general readers (but same applies for a considerable portion of these banners-as-reader-disclaimers). So what we now have is

This ___ may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this ___ if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Support with a full stop in place of the semicolon. --M4gnum0n (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Which semicolon? Currently we have the following version in the sandbox:

is this okay to deploy? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

OK for me.--M4gnum0n (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This is fine. I agree that on most pages regular readers do not need to see that you have to have a |reason= parameter. —Compdude¹²³ 14:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It should still have a sentence saying The talk page may contain suggestions. —Compdude¹²³ 14:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It does, but that doesn't display on talk pages so I can't show you a demonstration here. Try Hydraulic fracturing#Fracturing fluids. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes now I see that that last sentence does not show up when the template is placed on the talk page. —Compdude¹²³ 15:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest reverts

I reverted a number of recent edits to the template because the edits broke the formatting at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. If anyone wants to make those edits again, please be careful not to break the template. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Rather than reverting and mucking up the new system which has gained consensus, just to fix one page it would probably be better just to leave a note here and give us a chance to fix that page. I'll reimplement now and look at fixing up that page shortly. It sounds like we need an opt-out method. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please revert your edits as there are against consesus Bulwersator (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Problem is caused by inflexible Template:tlrow. It may be necessary to format this table in a different way Bulwersator (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Or tlrow may use parameter "template_instaced_in_tlrow" what may be better or worse Bulwersator (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes tlrow was causing problems because the vertical | in the table formatting was interpreted as a template parameter. I have fixed this by converting to HTML table code instead. We still need an opt-out for the error though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is some code on the sandbox which will suppress the error message if |nocat=true. This would solve the problem on Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup I think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This one will break Template:Cleanup/testcases Bulwersator (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

True, but again this is just one page (and less visible than Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup). I suppose we could add some code to prevent categories on testcases and then remove all the nocat from that page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: date parameter

The date parameter for this template doesn't appear properly on Mar Sabor and Mar Proth. Is the fix for this issue to change

  | dat       = {{{date|}}}

to

  | date      = {{{date|}}}

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ummm yeah, that would be quite a problem. It should be fixed, but unfortunately I'm not an admin. Anyway, nice catch! —Compdude¹²³ 04:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Done Anomie⚔ 05:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, and thanks for picking this up. (Surprised that no one noticed this earlier because we've had no dates since 12 June!) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Multiple issues

We are planning to change {{multiple issues}} so that when |cleanup=July 2012 it calls this template instead of producing its own text. At the same time we can make the reason parameter compulsory over there. But in order to do this, I'd like to change the date that reasons become mandatory from May 2012 to July 2012, to prevent breakage of existing uses. Everyone okay with this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've implemented this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-remainder

Now that the reason is required for {{Cleanup}}, should a reason also be required for {{Cleanup-remainder}}? (e.g. Aquarian Age) GoingBatty (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've converted it into a wrapper template (similar to {{cleanup section}}. But could you keep an eye on Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field from July 2012 because any tags added after July 2012 will now have an error message on them? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Martin! There are only four articles in the category, and each tag was added by an IP. Therefore, I posted a message on each article's talk page in the hopes that someone will update or remove the tags. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

All cleaned up - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for sad template

Should Template talk:Cleanup/sad have a link to the monthly Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field to make it easier to find and fix these tags? I've added the template to Template talk:Cleanup-remainder. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The link is in the number at the start of the sentence! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So it is - wouldn't have noticed it if you hadn't pointed it out. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible topic-specific parameters?

This template is, as it currently stands, used in a lot of pages? I realize that it would almost certainly be an incredible amount of work to make changes like I propose to it, but would there be any way to maybe add parameters to the template such that the articles get categorized by one or more broad subject areas? I have a feeling MILHIST would probably do an incredible job addressing any cleanups in their field, and it might be possible that some other groups or WikiProjects might be able to more clearly address the problematic articles in their scope if there were categorizations to that effect. Yes, I know there is almost certainly some sort of bot which can do intersections, but if nothing else maybe adding parameters for the ten basic categories of WP:1.0 might make it a bit more likely that interested editors could find articles in their fields which have serious cleanup concerns. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I recently used BattyBot to change {{Cleanup}} to {{Cleanup-university}} or {{Cleanup-school}} or {{Video game cleanup}} based on infoboxes, in the hopes that interested editors would cleanup their articles. Until parameters could be added, I would be willing to make more changes if anyone has suggestions. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"templates needing cleanup" categories

There are around 25000 links to categories of the form "Wikipedia_templates_needing_cleanup_from_month_year" arising from the use of this template on namespace 0. See Pages that link to "Category:Wikipedia templates needing cleanup from March 2009" for examples.

The behaviour is consistent whether the template is transcluded or substituted. I suspect there's a test for the existence of a category of the above form that needs to be wrapped up in a check for the namespace on which the template has been placed somewhere. Alas, I can't see where - can anyone assist? - TB (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are getting 25000 from AWB then it is probably topping out. The category link is generated by {Category handler} parameter category, passed to that template and not returned. It is a good example of (admittedly very clever) people trying to be clever, the DMC family of templates restricted in functionality but tiny. Category handler,which can be invoked many times on one page is about 3.5k (it is used on over 3 million pages). Rich Farmbrough, 19:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

The 25K figure is from a bespoke set of Toolserver tools. I could not myself begin to unravel anything within {{Category handler}} :( - TB (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Cataloguing only mainspace articles?

Shouldn't this template only place articles into Category:Wikipedia pages needing cleanup that are in the mainspace, i.e, not have user talk pages? A good example is this Category:Wikipedia pages needing cleanup from November 2006. Thanks, --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Replace {{DMC|Wikipedia pages needing cleanup|from|{{{date|}}}}} with {{DMCA|Wikipedia pages needing cleanup|from|{{{date|}}}}}

Rich Farmbrough, 23:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Change

All cleanup templates that say "It should not contain unverifiable information nor should it have excessive details." have been deleted. Will you please change...

...to...

Kuhnstyle Pro (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Punctuation of "reason" parameter

The "reason" parameter isn't automatically followed by a full stop, but the examples in the documentation don't account for this (i.e. a number are also missing full stops). Was the full stop removed to allow other punctuation, or does it need adding back to the template? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Enforcing the reason parameter

While it may be nice to require a reason parameter, the way in which it has been done has effectively borked the template. The template does not behave intuitively with a possible reason=-parameter — and neither is there any information on what should be specified. Since the changed to the template were made following 2 users discussion, with nigh on any other input I have pushed up the date until Dec 31 2016. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 22:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 

This was thoroughly discussed (see archive 6) and has stood since 2012. It should not be removed on the whim of one editor.  Reverted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

But it is utterly WP:POINTY and against policy. It makes the entire template unused. There are plenty better ways to solve the issue, for example to get rid of this entirely like {{expand}}, only leaving the more adequate types. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 22:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but the status quo is the result of intense discussion in past years, so any change will need consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 June 2016: Modernization

This is a modernization request.

1. Add this parameter to the Template:Cleanup's {{ambox}}:

|removalnotice = yes

2. Remove this:

Please help improve this template if you can.

The #1 makes up for the absence of the #2. Fleet Command (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. This edit would replace a clear call to action (improve this article) with a less clear statement about removing the template. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ahecht: I was partially responsible for the rollout of the removal notice recently. I'm inclined to add the param actually, per Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 131#Implementing Help:Maintenance template removal Did you have further thoughts or suggestions on this? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I actually think that adding |removalnotice = yes is a good idea, and should be fairly uncontroversial given the consensus at the RfC. I'm just wasn't sure that removing the existing call to action was uncontroversial enough to be done unilaterally. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, people. You might want to take a look at this: User talk:Codename Lisa § Template:Cleanup -- full stop. As the addition of the removal notice is so far uncontested, I am going to add it to the template. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

 Partly done by Andy M. Wang. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 October 2016

{{Cleanup}} 203.45.112.3 (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup section mis-formats

Is "Cleanup section|reason=…}}" allowed? It seems to work, but makes a strange narrow little box. Or did I mess up somehow? See Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_by_country. Layzeeboi (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 March 2017

Whatever the content inside the "reason" parameter should always be bold, as this content is the focus of the template. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Done GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

What is the difference between {{cleanup}} and {{MOS}}?

What is the difference between {{cleanup}} and {{MOS}}? I assume that the difference is that {{cleanup}} has to have a specified reason, but {{MOS}} doesn’t?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

{{MOS}} points to a very specific problem: Lack of compliance with the words of WP:MOS. {{Cleanup}} is a very generic template you'd use when you see a problem not covered by any other tag and need to explain the problem in your own words. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.

By the way, regarding your change to the templates and the HTML tag in my post, you aren’t allowed to edit others’ talk page posts and comments, per WP:TPO.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 06:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Side discussion about WP:TPO

@PapiDimmi: Actually, per WP:TPO, she is perfectly allowed to. (Did you read TPO at all?) "Fixing format errors" and "Fixing layout errors" are given as exceptions. Also, Codename Lisa is a template editor, meaning that if she is in process of deprecating a template, she is at liberty to replace it even in the messages of sysops and crats! FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC) There are no format or syntax errors with the HTML tags and templates that I used. One is allowed to replace templates if they are, somehow, broken, but {{tlg}} works perfectly fine, and replacing it with {{tlf}} is highly unnecessary. Also, I have posted on hundreds of talk pages and always use <br> and have never had any issues with it, nor has anyone told me to end the br tags using slashes. Per WP:TPO, you are allowed to fix tags which break the formatting of a page, but the <br> does not do that. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 09:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC) @PapiDimmi: Just because you have done something many times does not mean you are right. On the contrary, it means you are being harmful. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Did you do that on purpose? Anyway, show me the policy that says that says that you can change <br> to <br/> in others’ talk page comments or posts, and then you can change it. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC) @PapiDimmi: You show me a policy that says I am not allowed to. WP:TPO is not a policy, by the way. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Guideline, then. Same thing. By the way, you do not need to ping me, as this page is on my watchlist, and I get e-mail notifications over new revisions. Pinging me gives me two e-mail messages per new comment. Anyway, if you are so persistent on changing <br> to <br/>, why not do that on all the hundreds of talk pages that I’ve commented on too? ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC) First things first: You touched my message! And that wasn't just a source code change; it changed functionality. Looks like someone here thinks laws are just for the other people! (That someone is you.) Second, I am not your cleanup guy. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC) You touched my message! Haha, I knew you’d say that, hence “Did you do that on purpose?” I actually followed WP:TPO, unlike some of us. Disambiguating or fixing links, if the linked-to page has moved, a talk page section has been archived, the link is simply broken by a typographical error, etc. I simply fixed a red link. Second, I am not your cleanup guy. Then don’t edit my comments. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Listen, people, if you want to edit my comments, please give me a policy or guideline which says that you can do what you’re doing, because so far, you’re outright violating WP:TPO. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)