Template talk:Cleanup/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

One of these things is doing it's own thing...

... one of these things just doesn't belong. :)

Is there any reason why this template isn't standardized with all the other templates? لennavecia 22:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, you are not very clear, but let me guess: You perhaps have noticed that this template {{cleanup}} has the "other pages message box" style here on its template page and when listed over at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. While most of the other clean-up boxes have the "article message box" style on their template pages and when listed over at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Right?

But don't worry, that is correct. See, most of the clean-up templates are designed to only be used on articles, thus they only have the article style. While {{cleanup}} can be placed either on an article or its talk page. And on talk pages the message boxes should be brown. So this template internally uses the namespace detecting {{mbox}}, which changes appearance depending on what kind of page it is placed on. So when {{cleanup}} is placed on an article it automatically gets the article style, and when placed on a talk page it automatically gets the brown talk page style. As a side effect when this template is seen on its template page and demonstrated over at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup it gets the "other pages" style.

I probably should add an explanation about this to the documentation of {{cleanup}}.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Hah, no, I'm kidding. I figured it out. Uhm, I copied a deleted article's contents to a subpage in the creator's user space. I added the appropriate tags and this one was the only one that did not have the bar along the left side. I was pretty sure that I had previously added this template to articles and seen the gold bar on the left, but on that page it was a thin gold border, as seen on the template page. Upon reading your message, I went over to a random article and previewed use of the template. I see that it is standardized in the article space. It had no occurred to me it would be coded to look different depending on what project space it was used in. Thanks for the speedy reply! :) لennavecia 02:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha yeah, I can see that you went "wtf?" when you saw it change appearance. As you can see I have now added some explanation and two examples about this in the template's documentation.

And by the way, if you want to see the standard styles for the different namespaces then take a look at {{ambox}}, {{tmbox}}, {{imbox}}, {{cmbox}} and {{ombox}}. Together they cover all the namespaces. (And some day when I get the time I will write up a page that shows it all at once and explains it, so we just can link people to that one page.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hah, yea. Thanks! Let me know if I can help. لennavecia 13:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

interwiki he

Can someone please create an interwiki to the Hebrew Wikipedia which would direct to "he:תבנית:לשכתב" ? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done — JamesR ≈ 09:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Style tweaks

{{editprotected}}

I've made some tweaks to the sandbox layout to bring the template more into line with contemporary ambox styling. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not done for now: Sorry, I'm not that familiar with mbox. Why is the demospace parameter removed in the new version?--Aervanath (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That was accidental. Fixed. Any further objections? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the new style that you Chris want to add to message boxes. I prefer the current style with a bold header sentence, followed by a line break and an explanation below, perhaps in a slightly smaller text size. Have your new style been properly discussed somewhere and a new consensus been reached? Can you point us to that discussion?

And a technical matter: I see that Rich Farmbrough meanwhile added category suppression to the template, which is a good thing. But he used "category=no" which is non standard. See for instance {{tlrow}} which is used to for instance demonstrate message boxes at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Tlrow needs templates to use either "category=" or "categories=no". So I tweaked {{cleanup}} to use the standard "category=" suppression. And I added the same to the /sandbox. And tested both on the /testcases page.

As far as I can see and test the current code both in the template itself and in the /sandbox are technically correct. But I don't like Chris' text style in the /sandbox.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup#Standardisation of template styling. I've laid out my rationale there, and have gradually been bringing templates into line with it over the last few months (although this seems to have coincided with your wikibreak). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no consensus on that page. I see you saying how you want it, and one user (Quiddity) agreeing with parts of it but being "not sure" about parts of it. No other users have commented. And now I say I partially disagree. Although I don't feel that strongly about it, so you can consider my "vote" a weak oppose.

But I think more users should have a say, since this is a change to a fairly long standing design praxis. Of course, one way to get more users to react is to change some boxes to your new design and wait for reactions. And for instance link to that discussion in your edit comments.

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to link to the discussion in any future edits I make to this format. For what it's worth, it's attracted very little debate over what must be 20+ high-use ambox templates over the last few months, and I did try to start the discussion in the most appropriate central forum. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done - Okay, since this is only a matter of personal taste, and you are strongly for your text layout, and I am only weakly opposed, and we haven't really gotten any points of view from others, then I feel you outvote me on this. Thus I have now deployed your version of the text layout.

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Usage of this template on main articles

Sometimes I find this template being posted on the articles proper, without any explanation what is wrong with the articles. I would suggest adding to the instructions here that always an explantion should be posted on the talk-page stating what should be improved. Just posting a template is in my opinion a very ineffective (and lazy) way of trying to improve Wikipedia (or in fact just a way to make things worse by uglyfying articles that are already substandard). KKoolstra (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagging is a quick and easy way of adding pages to the appropriate cleanup categories, which is an essential part of some editors' workflows. "Drive-by tagging", as it is sometimes known, is controversial to some but it isn't prohibited. I do quite a lot of this myself and I think the results speak for themselves when looking at my edit history. Mandatory discussion just slows that down when an article's flaws may be obvious. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This template is probably one of the most mis-used ones. But it should indicate a style issue. If you can't see an obvious style problem the template could be old and the person who fixed the article didn't remove it. Or the tagger could have made a mistake, some people will put clean-up on anything they think needs work of any sort not only style issues. In either case, if you don't see a style problem remove the template with an edit summary stating that the article has no style issues to cleanup. Putting templates on talk pages just means it even less likely to be removed when the problem is fixed.--BirgitteSB 18:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A possible solution could be to add a link to Wikipedia:Clarify the cleanup somewhere in the text of the template. -- œ^™ 21:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please generate a template designated to

the wikip-article section cleanup--222.64.218.7 (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

{{cleanup|section}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

or {{cleanup-section}}. -- œ^™ 21:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment

I propose adding a suggestion to add a more specific cleanup template, linking to WP:TC. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

TC redirects to Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Why would we want to link there? Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

Sorry, me being dense. Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Adding an optional parameter that will descrease template size similar to the expand template

Just as in {{Expand section}}, why not add something like a small=yes parameter to vague and frequently misplaced tags such as cleanup that will make them smaller in size to give the person placing the tag the option of not visually detracting from an otherwise well-formatted and laid out page while still informing of possible maintenance issues. phew, how's that for a run-on sentence :P -- œ^™ 21:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See below - easy to do. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul needed

"This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." Really? Either it meets our standards or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, the tagger is obligated to explain why. This template in it's current form should be deleted. It's infuriating to encounter an article with it and have no clue why it was posted. We have plenty of good detailed cleanup templates. Why on earth should we have such a useless template that doesn't even support a reason field? The lazy taggers that resort to this template hardly ever bother to leave anything on the talk page either. So let's stop them by adding a mandatory reason for the tag. Any instance without a detailed reason should be subject to immediate removal. I know that the driveby taggers will object to this, but they shouldn't get a vote. I request that only the editors who actually work on fixing articles comment on this proposal. --UncleDouggie (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have commented on this in 2 months, which seems odd. I do think this template is too generic - but deleting it would be a step too far IMO. At least it flags up that there is something wrong with the page. Ideally, the template should be rewritten to include a mandatory parameter for the sort of cleanup required. Cleanup could then automatically replace itself with a more appropriate template(s) from Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup based on key words in the reason parameter. If no reason is entered, it could fail the template addition, and if the reason couldn't be understood then it would have to stick with Cleanup or perhaps Multiple Issues. What do people make of that?--Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 18:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

{{Cleanup-table}}

I'd like to propose to include {{Cleanup-table}} in the See also section, as there are already several links to similar templates, but not to this one.
While at it, it might be nice to capitalize the c of {{cleanup-section}}, as that's the only one without a capitalized c. --JorisvS (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

{{combrefs}}

Could someone create the above template. It should advise editors that the article needs its references combined. Or, if there is such a template, tell me what it is? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)    (Please reply on my talk page.)

Subst:

I noted on one article that has this template that the "Up for deletion" note was there. So I went to the discussion and found it closed and decision to KEEP. I wondered why the Deletion note was still there, since I didn't see it in the source code. Then I saw that this template is coded for automatic substitution. Why is that? Anyway, I deleted the template from the article, then added it back in, and the Deletion note disappeared. Will this have to be done on all the articles with this template? Or would it be better to get rid of the auto-subst:, at least temporarily?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  20:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} The following code, right at the beginning of the source, makes no sense to me. It seems to force substitution of this template, and then adds a cat to the NAMESPACE putting the article into the "Pages with incorrectly substituted templates" cat.

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly>

[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>|}}

Moreover, this template was recently up for deletion. A note was added to the source code to this effect, which has since been removed. But since the subtitution is auto-forced, that note remains on all the pages where this template is used. Apparently, editors are going to have to remove each subbed version and replace it to get rid of the "Up for deletion" notice. There is no good reason that I can see to keep this code in the template. Please remove it. There is a copy of the corrected source code in the sandbox that can be pasted into the main source page. Thank you very much!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  16:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of that code is exactly to detect where people incorrectly added the template to an article, for instance by subst. it. That is an incorrect usage, as normally these templates are NEVER substituted. When this does happen, instead of making it impossible to detect that someone made this error, such pages are placed in Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates. So it works as it should. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, TDJ. Learn something new every day. And yet it still doesn't explain why I had to rm the template from an article, Clausius–Mossotti relation, then put it back into the article, before the "up for deletion" note would disappear. What's up with that?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of examples of what I mean:

• Obfuscated code
• Paleozoic#climate

Rm the template and then reinstall it and the Up for Delete msg. disappears. Not all of the "Link tos" still have the msg., but obviously some still do. Is it "bot" time, yet? <g>
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• My bad. I just did a purge on one of the above links and the msg. disappeared. As Emily used to say, "Never mind".

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Reason parameter not documented

This template has a reason parameter which is not documented. Is there any reason its use should not be encouraged? I would think using it would help make it clear what the why the tag was added to an article and eliminate having to search through article histories and talk pages.--RDBury (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have added some mention of the reason parameter and included it in the two examples on the document page. -84user (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been going through articles with the tag and in many cases it's difficult to tell why it was initially added or whether the problem has been resolved. I see the need for a generic tag; one should never underestimate people's creativity when in comes to adding material that needs to be fixed. The reason parameter should help alleviate the mysterious tag syndrome though.--RDBury (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes reason is cool. SmackBot is reason-aware too, so it is better than people making up their own parameter names. Rich Farmbrough, 23:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Correcting to apply to all namespaces

{{edit protected}} Please replace the code beginning with the message box transclusion and ending with the last includeonly with the code in the sandbox. This causes the template to correctly name the namespace in which it is placed, and expands the categorization for other namespaces. Please also remove the protection template, as it is redundant with the documentation transclusion. --Bsherr (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest using {{cat handler}} as this is what is was designed for. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Template:Cat handler uses just one parameter for all talk pages, meaning that separate categories cannot be named for when the template is used on, for example, an article talk page versus a category talk page. Is that not right? --Bsherr (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I should add that the reason this matters is because this template is allowed to be applied to talk pages to refer to the subject page. But the categorization should be according to the subject page, and cat handler doesn't permit that. --Bsherr (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Disabling editprotected as there seems to be a dispute as to the best way to proceed with this. I agree that the rationale for the change is sound, but we want to make sure that the fix itself is correct before deploying. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, it appears that this template could use some cleanup of it's own. Regarding it's use at Talk:Andy Dick (and indeed, all other talk pages) I assume that it is the article that requires cleanup, and not the talk page. Also, templates and files should not be categorised as "Articles needing cleanup"; in fact, files tagged with this template aren't being categorised at all, presumably because {{NAMESPACE}} does not recognise "Image" as a valid namespace. PC78 (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My edit protected request resolves all of these issues. --Bsherr (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll go and take a gander then. PC78 (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, now if only I could get the darn thing implemented. Martin? Martin! --Bsherr (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

PC78, the purpose of the transclusion of "Wikipedia other" is to make the namespace lowercase for all namespaces ("template" not "Template", help not "Help") except Wikipedia ("Wikipedia" not "wikipedia"). --Bsherr (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that template does what you think it does. As you've got it coded now, it's saying "page" in article & talk space where it should be saying "article". PC78 (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Grumble grumble. I've been debating whether to make a template to do this function. I'm gonna do it now. --Bsherr (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at {{cat handler}}, we may have similar issues there. Since it was Martin's idea it would be great if he (or someone else) could offer further guidance, but ultimately I don't think it's necessary for the changes being discussed here. The current template doesn't use it. PC78 (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've implemented the new namespace manipulation template. Looks like it's working now. --Bsherr (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A few other crits about the sandboxed template:

1. Is the change from Category:All pages needing cleanup to Category:All articles needing cleanup intentional? It makes sense I guess, but it means some restructuring to the existing category scheme.
2. You haven't added a category for files; again, is this intentional? Though to be honest I'm not entirely sure how this template applies to files, or even templates for that matter. Still, perhaps this template is non-specific enough for it to be applied anywhere?
3. The category currently used by {{Cleancat}} is Category:Wikipedia categories in need of attention.
4. I don't think that dated categories are necessary for anything other than articles. I could only list 25,000 transclusions with AWB, but once the article and talk space were filtered out it only left 292 uses.

Also, I've just found {{cleanup-article}}, which appears to be completely redundant to this template. PC78 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The move from all pages to all articles is intentional. I thought it might be suitable to subcategorize in this way, and I don't think a second cateogry for all pages is particularly useful. As for files, I can't imagine how a file would need cleanup; the template works on all pages, but I leave it to the judgment of others as to whether a category is needed. Same with dated categories. And I'll redirect cleanup-article. Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case, it might be an idea to repurpose Category:All pages needing cleanup as a catch-all for the other namespaces, with articles, categories and whatnot subcategorised as appropriate. PC78 (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. --Bsherr (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, and I've removed the dated cats for nonarticles too. --Bsherr (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Ok, per PC78's proposal above, we'll now implement, and if Martin wants to return to advise us on additional changes to the template, we'll consider them subsequently. --Bsherr (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response.  Done. You're right, it would have been a pain to get cat handler to work properly here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just curious but was the intention of the last edit to this template intended to leave articles with redlinked and un-hidden categories? See Noorduyn Norseman for example. Or was the idea to fix the categories, like Category:All articles needing cleanup and Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup from June 2008, later? Cheers. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 12:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the idea was to fix them later. You can help! There's much to do. --Bsherr (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I missed it earlier, but I'm not sure it was a good idea to rename the dated categories. I've made some tweaks in the sandbox to switch back to the existing categories. PC78 (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll hold off setting up the categories until it's decided what to do. So there wouldn't be a separate category for templates? Why is that? --Bsherr (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to rename all these categories then be my guest, but I don't see any need to prepend them all with "Wikipedia"; I thought the idea was just to change the main category from "pages" to "articles"? Feel free to put the template category back, but I was thinking that there propably wouldn't be all that many. PC78 (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no I don't have any problem leaving off Wikipedia. I thought it was best practice, but I'm not pushing it. By the way, apparently there is such thing as image cleanup. There's a whole category structure for it using other templates. --Bsherr (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "Wikipedia", as the category structure is used by other templates and this was creating a fork. Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

{{editprotected}} The current sandbox contains the necessary fixes for categorisation. PC78 (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Femto Bot and Salix Alba and Bsherr and I have created the required article categories. Empty monthly categories will nominate themselves for speedy deletion, and, if they regain members, Femto Bot will re-create them, so there is no rush. I will review the sandbox and the template changes thus far to understand what is happening. Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

OK some comments, more or less at random:

1. People don't use this on talk pages in the same way for example [1].
2. The current template is broken for template space: See the doc page.
3. The template DMCA can be used to provide dated cats fro articles only, DMCAT for articles and article talk pages, DMCFACT for files, articles, categories and templates.
4. I see that the sandbox has lost what might be seen as cruft (I haven't checked the template proper). Every day someone "subst"s a cleanup template, sometimes many. With DMC this is less harmful than it used to be, but it still leads to problems, the tag, for example, can't be dated. By having beginning and end comments SmackBot and other agents (and humans) have a good chance of "de-substing" the template. Otherwise it is a manual task I pick up at the end of each run, if I am keeping up. The "Pages using incorrectly substituted templates" category means that others can fix these problems too.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Two more comments:

1. The code to display a Mbox on the template's own page and Ambox on use is clever, but not a good idea. The template should appear on its own page as it does used in anger.
2. Dated categories. A comment above suggests that dated categories are not suitable for small clean up categories. Not so, however small there may be stale members two, three or even more years old.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

I'm happy to leave the categorisation to you guys, but a few points:

1. Regarding use of the template on talk pages, people do use this on talk pages in the same way (incorrectly?); see Talk:A Requiem for Homo Sapiens, Talk:Andersons Creek, Talk:Andy Dick for example.
2. If the changes I sandboxed are no longer required, can the fullurl at least be changed from FULLPAGENAME to SUBJECTPAGENAME? The edit link should always go to the article, not the talk page.
3. A question for elsewhere perhaps, but should {{ambox}} not support the |demospace= parameter? This would be ideal for the talk page example you linked, since that page should clearly not be categorised as an article needing attention.

PC78 (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Please change ambox to mbox. --Bsherr (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur. The whole point of these edits was to expand usage of the template to all namespaces. PC78 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Rich, just to explain, the code Martin put in was to display ambox on the template's page and mbox in the wild. The reason Martin did that is because, most frequently, it's used on articles. I agree with you that the template's page should show its use in the wild, but you had it reversed. It's mbox we want, not ambox. --Bsherr (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Changed back. Amalthea 15:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Substitution

Since it was mentioned above, we can make template substitute to a transclusion of the template, like with this change. E.g., {{subst:cleanup/sandbox|date=October 2010}} → {{Cleanup|date=October 2010}}.
Amalthea 15:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's very clever. Looks good to me. --Bsherr (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cleancat

Template:Cleancat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Small parameter

There have been periodic debates over whether the cleanup template should be used on the article page or the talk page. A third option would be to let editors, at their discretion, specify a "small" parameter, e.g. {{Cleanup|small=yes}} I have made a test version of the template, illustrated to the right, which is a copy of the production template with one line added:

"|small={{{small|}}}".

Putting this into production would have no impact on existing usage, but would give editors a bit more control over appearance. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Although this template does facilitate placement on talk pages, maintenance tags should go on article pages. Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Move maintenance tags to talk pages. Without any criterion on when the small parameter should be used, enabling it only facilitates inconsistency. If consensus is that the template is too big, we should be talking about making it small in all instances. I don't think it helps to make it the arbitrary choice of whoever's placing it. But I do respect the effort. --Bsherr (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

We could encourage consistent use in the template documentation. E.g. You may use the optional small parameter, by typing {{Cleanup|small=yes}}. Use this if you feel that the defects are relatively minor. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a subjective distinction, and I don't see the logic in using a smaller version of the template in such a case; no matter what, the notice should stand out. As Bsherr noted, we can discuss what size is optimal, but I disagree that it makes sense to vary the size according to issues' severity.

If someone believes that a defect is relatively minor, he/she should be encouraged to simply correct it instead of inserting a tag. —David Levy 19:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Subjectivity is unavoidable: placing the warning on the page in the first place is a subjective decision. The documentation encourages editors to be bold and fix problems rather than just point them out, but some editors are not confident about doing so. The enhancement to the template was extremely easy to do, because it uses template:mbox, a "meta-template" used for most warnings, which supports the parameter. Many warning templates pass the parameter to template:mbox, but for some reason this one does not. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Indeed, determining whether the tag is needed is inherently subjective. I see no reason to introduce additional subjectivity to the process, given my belief that the distinction in question (major defect vs. minor defect) doesn't justify the proposed deviation.

2. There are valid reasons for some cleanup/maintenance templates to vary in size, but I see none in this instance. —David Levy 20:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If the smaller template were for minor cleanup, the message of that template should say that its for minor cleanup. But I'm not sure that the extra complexity is worth it. As David said, if it's minor, better to encourage users to just fix it. The bigger the template, the more the incentive to get rid of it, or the more it encourages readers to become editors. --Bsherr (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, {{ambox}} only supports left-floating small boxes, so without further changes it would actually look like this:

Amalthea 21:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I mostly spend my time adding content, so may look at it from a different viewpoint. See Cincinnati Riots of 1884 for a sample article started a few days ago. Not great, and perhaps it should be tagged for cleanup. But I put a bit of thought into the visual layout, which as a result has non-default image sizes and positions. Editors should have some discretion over the appearance of their edits, within limits. They should be able to add a gentle warning, and should not be forced to choose between no warning at all or an aggressive "in your face" type of warning. Given the choice between saying "This article is junk" or saying nothing, I would say nothing.

{{Current MLB season|Arizona Diamondbacks}}

The mbox template or this template would need tweaking, but I am sure it can be done fairly easily. I am not nearly technical enough to know which would be easiest. See right an example from an article page (Arizona Diamondbacks). I would be reluctant to introduce a new template for a quieter warning. A parameter on the current template seems better. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Cleanup}} isn't the only cleanup tag. Perhaps a different one would be more appropriate for the type of situation that you have in mind.

As noted above, I disagree with the premise that a less severe defect warrants a less noticeable tag. —David Levy 00:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Holy macaroni! I had no idea there were so many ways of criticizing an article. I don't want to think about how many could be applied to Cincinnati Riots of 1884. Multiple issues, clean up, reorganization, copy editing, capital letters, essay-like, inappropriate tone, cleanup-images (obviously), story, condense or sections (your choice), spacing, manual of style, criticism or controversy, insufficient context, off-topic, missing information, verification by an expert, confusing or unclear, misleading, POV, weasel words, unbalanced, emphasis, page references ranges, too many pictures, not enough categories, wikify. I think all the above apply to this article, but do not have the heart to add all the warnings to it. I actually didn't think it was that bad, until I saw the list of cleanup tags.

What is the best process to make these warnings less aggressive? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned {{multiple issues}}. When an article has, well, multiple issues, this template can be used instead of stacking numerous others. Just be sure to note the specific problems within the tag and/or on the article's talk page. —David Levy 00:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You can also propose changes on the talk pages of the individual templates, or, if it's a matter for all the cleanup templates, on WT:TC. --Bsherr (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No maintenance template is intended to be agressive and "in your face". If any of them are, let's talk about how we can fix that. Rather than design a gentler version, let's discuss how we can make the only version a gentle version. --Bsherr (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. —David Levy 00:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am backing out of this discussion. Tags can be annoying or can be useful. Occasionally it seems that the editor tagging the article is just saying "I don't like it", but usually not. It is hard to feel strongly about the subject. Unwatching. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request involving this template

This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert reason=null text

{{edit protected}} Please delete the contents of the conditional result if the parameter "reason" is null. These were undiscussed at this talk page. The template documentation provides that the "reason" parameter should be avoided, and it identifies good reasons. Furthermore, stating that the reason is unspecified is false when those placing the template may have very well specified the reason on the talk page, which the dicumentation for the template identifies as the preferable place so to do. --Bsherr (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 Reverted. It is probably best to wait for the TfD to be closed as new suggestions are coming up all the time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I support the reversion. My edit served only to repair/improve the change's implementation (the coding of which accidentally broke the template's layout) and should not be viewed as an endorsement thereof. —David Levy 17:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've copied the changes over into the sandbox. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Quality standards"

At "quality standards" in this template, the text links to WP:MOS. I think that one of the persistent complaints about this template is people using it to mean "some kinda problem here", rather than for MOS violations (its apparent purpose).

What do you think about changing the text to say "This template may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's Manual of Style" instead? I think the change would more clearly indicate to people when they should use this template, and thereby reduce its inappropriate uses (e.g., use of sources that don't meet "quality standards"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason from not doing that is that is specifically references the infrastructure of the project and a such is an even greater breach of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (self-references to avoid) than the current wording. What we should be doing is discussing moving the template usage to the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad categorical alphabetisation

See Template talk:Cleanup/doc. Best, JoergenB (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit

Template nominated for TFD. Please add TFD tag. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Deprecate

In light of the latest TFD, I propose that we add a (small, if people would prefer) note to this template telling people that it is "deprecated" and that they should replace it with something more specific (and hopefully those that are adding it will start using something else). Regardless of the outcome of the latest TFD, we should really start doing something about reducing the use of this template.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

At the TFD, there was an underlying consensus (from editors whose initial thoughts ranged anywhere from "Strong keep" to "Delete and salt") that some form of depreciation was the way to go. I think the best way forward now is to discuss how we should go about that. If the status quo remains, it's surely only a matter of time before we end up at TFD round 4 (or so). —WFC— 21:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that more specific is good. However there are articles where the alternative would be

{{Multiple issues|grammar|tone|spelling|capitals|person|tense|cruft|bullet the lists|fix the headings|...}} . Lets see what we can do. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

There is of course the {{{reason}}} parametr, but I have added a short hint. Would be nice if it was right justified. (Could be even shorter, of course More specific clean up messages for example.)Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

I left some potentially useful code in the sandbox too. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus to deprecate.Curb Chain (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Cleaning up?"

The phrase "may require cleaning up" looks really clunky. "May require cleanup" was better. Cleanup is a noun, you know. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If "cleanup" were some sort of wiki-neologism then fair enough, but it's perfectly well-understood in the vernacular. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 6 September 2011

{{edit protected}}

There is a version in the sandbox that fixes two minor grammatical things. Also, does anyone know how to add "nocat" to this template? Because if you ck the testcases pg, the hidden categories still show up at the bottom of template /doc pgs. I don't know how to fix this yet. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 09 Sep 11

There is a fix in the sandbox that will add the "nocat" parameter, so that the auto-categorization can be turned off on /doc pgs, etc. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Would it be better to use Template:Category handler for this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason the request is for the "nocat" parameter is for the reasons stated above in the #Correcting to apply to all namespaces section. Apparently, cat handler will not work for this template, although I do not know if cat handler has been updated since last yr to be more flexible. --Funandtrvl (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, now I remember. I've got cat handler to work now. Please could you check the sandbox again? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't that just replicate the existing functionality but go through a longer process to get there? I think part of the goal was to get rid of the Wikipedia templates needing cleanup from September 2011 category on Template:Cleanup/doc, which would still need a nocat parameter added in order to do that. Or can {{Cat handler}} be made to exclude just [[Template talk:*]] articles automatically? Come to think of it, even if it can, would we want to? After all, sometimes templates need cleaning up too. – RobinHood70 ^talk 17:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the code in the sandbox will now work with the nocat option, so those examples in the /doc page can be adjusted to stop the categorisation. This functionality can be achieved without {{cat handler}} but there is some extra functionality there such as a /blacklist of pages which should never be categorised. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay, that makes sense then. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I cked the /sandbox and the /testcases and the sandbox code looks like it is working and good to go. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, deployed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit protected thingy

Please put a TFD template on the template, as I've nominated at TFD again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Date parameter

Apparently, with this edit the date was rendered invisible in the box. It still renders the correct date in the category, but no date renders in the box. So it appears that the edit needs to be reverted, or at least rethought and get the date back in the box. The doc page and the initial template at the top still show the date in small font at the bottom of the boxes. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears only {{ambox}} knows how to display the date, the boxes for the other namespaces don't.
I'll ask MSGJ for input, he added the code here and the date display code in ambox.
Amalthea 21:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I should have asked Martin, but I didn't think about it until after I opened this. Thank you, AMALTHEA! – PIE ( CLIMAX )  22:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSGJ hasn't been active for the last few days so I've reverted the edit for now. Tra (Talk) 07:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Tra! Maybe MSGJ has ideas for a new and better way to express this template following the TfD that closed with "No consensus". The one about making the "reason" parameter mandatory is still controversial, but there may be other ways to deal with the complaints. We'll see. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  20:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Needed improvements from deletion discussion

See deletion discussion for other ideas and add numbered ideas to list as appropriate.

1. "may require cleanup" should be changed to "needs cleanup" —Telpardec  TALK  03:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
2. display a default "Needs general cleanup" reason if none specified —Telpardec  TALK  03:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose all If the page needs cleanup, then the tag will be applied. If a reason is specified, that only makes what needs cleaning more specific.Curb Chain (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

From that discussion, and the ones that precede it, the best thing to do would be to make the reason parameter mandatory. What to do with the ones already in article space with no reason specified is the major problem. I can only think of deleting and forgeting or to put in a some generic wording (e.g. "no reason specified"). AIRcorn (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Some people feel that. But there are some people who feel that this is not necessary, including me.Curb Chain (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is that we have had a discussion involving (by my count at this point) 159 people that have expressed an opinion on this template. While it will take a brave person to close it anything but "no consensus", 73 want it deleted. It is a good opportunity to look at ways to alleviate their concerns. 26 (one third) of the keeps specifically stated that the reason parameter should be made mandatory. A further five have said to fix it in some similar way (from making it invisible without the reason to bot notification if no reason is given). Only three mentioned not making the reason mandatory, one simply saying a reason was not necessary. It has been nominated four times already and there is a good chance it will be again. Many of those "keep but make reason mandatory" !votes are going to move over to the delete side if nothing is done. AIRcorn (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

They can speak for themselves. As yet, I see them explaining their position at that discussion. If they feel something needs to be done, I am sure they will opine here.Curb Chain (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

They have spoken for themselves, just because it is at a deletion discussion doesn't make it any less valid. AIRcorn (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think the reason field needs to be made mandatory, it has been tried and reverted. You can check in the history.Curb Chain (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry: A user changed the wording of the template to emphasize the reason parameter, but was reverted.Curb Chain (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Irony

It's ironic that the "Cleanup" template needs cleanup. :) Alphius (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Irony makes the bull go 'round!>) – PIE ( CLIMAX )  10:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup the cleanup :-)

Please noinclude the TfD template. It's patently obvious that there will be no consensus to delete, and a clear consensus to make the |reason= parameter mandatory to stop pointless unexplained drive-by tagging. The TfD might as well be closed right now. That said, if it remains open, there is no longer any point at all in bugging all our readers with TfD notices on thousands of pages. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Drive by tagging has not been proven. Get consensus before this template is changed.Curb Chain (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems not everyone's in agreement about this so I'll deactivate the {{editprotected}} for now. Feel free to put it back once a consensus has been reached. Tra (Talk) 07:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• comment i am not convinced either way about the mandatory reason, but if "mandatory reason" is endorsed, when the template is displayed in the article, can the reason be hidden behind a "click here for more" so that if vandalistic reasons are used they wont be generally seen in the article? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As has been said previously, the reason is the most important part of this template and should be made available so it is obvious to everyone what is wrong with the article. Vandalistic reasons should be treated like any other vandilism edits here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the default view of the template on the page would consist of

• "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Click for more details".

The reason, if supplied, would be right there one click away. Thus those who are complaining about unsightliness of a templated article are not faced with what might be a huge and unsightly (and potentially vandalistic) free form content. The banner stays small and uniform for anyone who isnt interested in attempting clean up that that time. The people who want to clean up the article have only to click the banner to see what reason had been supplied. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

reason parameter

I suggest to change: "Consider using more specific cleanup instructions" to "Please, use more specific cleanup instructions or remove this template" to make it clear that slapping article Cleanup without explanation is completely useless Bulwersator (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I can live with this.Curb Chain (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this request is a bit premature since it would mean asking for all cleanup tags without a reason to be removed. There's still ongoing discussion about whether this should apply to articles that don't yet have the tag, or after a certain time period etc. Tra (Talk) 13:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Script

This useful script offers a quick way to remove {{cleanup}} tags that lack a reason= parameter. Bulwersator (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that there is no consensus that that is useful. If you can't be bothered to check the article and (at the very least) add a reason it seems ridiculous to remove the tag. One might even say "lazy" as the removers have categorised the adders. "Just remove the tags and all our problems disappear in a cloud if magic pixie dust." Rich Farmbrough, 17:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC).

What about articles that have their cleanup notes on the talk page?!! How will this script parse that? RJFJR (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously script is removing tag and human must check article and talkpage before an edit (and it is the reason why idea of removing this tag using bot is rather poor) Bulwersator (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Massively shrinking this template

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_1#Template:Cleanup was closed as "no consensus" but with an encouragement to "be bold" about fixes, since this template has issues. My bold solution personally would be to delete this template, but not what the closer went with. It's also a (rightly) protected template, so no bold adjustments. That said, here's my suggestion: shrink this template. Something along the lines of Template:Expand section would be on point here, I believe. "This section has been marked as needing cleanup," or "Someone has requested this section be [[EDIT_THIS_PAGE_LINK|improved]]." It's still vague and kind of unhelpful as to WHAT to improve, but it doesn't dominate the page.

Quick subst'd example:

{{#ifeq:{{{subst}}}|SUBST
 |{{#if:
  |{{Error|Template {{Tlx|{{{name}}}}} has been incorrectly substituted.}}
 }}[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates]]
}}{{#ifeq:{{{small|left}}}|left
 |{{Ambox/core
  |small      = left
  |type       = content
  |image      = {{#if:
   |{{{smallimage}}}
   |[[Image:Wiki letter w cropped.svg|20px|alt=[icon]]]
  }}
  |imageright = {{#if:
   |{{{smallimageright}}}
   |
  }}
  |class      = 
  |style      = 
  |textstyle  = 
  |text       = {{#if:
   |{{{smalltext}}} 
   |This section has been marked as needing [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} cleanup] 
  }}
 }}
 |{{Ambox/core
  |type       = content
  |image      = [[Image:Wiki letter w cropped.svg|20px|alt=[icon]]]
  |imageright = 
  |class      = 
  |style      = 
  |textstyle  = 
  |text       = This section has been marked as needing [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} cleanup]
  |date       = {{#ifeq:{{FULLROOTPAGENAME}}|Template:{{PAGENAME:{{{name}}}}}
   |{{#ifeq:¬|¬||{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
   |
  }}
 }}
}}{{Category handler
 |main={{Ambox/category
  |cat= 
  |all=
  |cat2= 
  |all2=
  |cat3= 
  |all3=
  |date=
 }}
 |template={{#ifeq:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|<!--We are on a rootpage, not a /doc or /sandbox page-->{{#ifeq:|true
    | <!--Don't categorise-->
    | [[Category:Article message boxes|{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]
    }}
  }}
}}{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template:{{PAGENAME:{{{name}}}}}
 |{{#ifeq:{{{doc}}}|no|
  |{{Documentation}}<!-- Transclude documentation on template page -->
 }}
}}

Thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the closer meant to be bold with proposals.Curb Chain (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

for those who are concerned about the cosmetic appearance of flags in articles, are multiple small "section" notices better than a single "article" banner? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the concern of some editors about the cosmetics of maintenance tags. Their usage, however, just makes Wikipedia appear as it intends itself to be: An editable encyclopedia that is always in a state of improvement. In my small opinion, two or three section notices should be followed up with a TOP-positioned article banner that has a reason of something like "See section notices below", with additional follow-up on the discussion page. The "reason" parameter should be made mandatory, and the banner should be rendered invisible or removed entirely if the reason(s) for cleanup are not given. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  20:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There are also the editors who do not know the right template to use so but know that something needs to be fixed with the article so they use this template as a tool to indicate that. Forcing someone to use a reason parameter will exclude this population from notifying more experienced editors of problematic articles.Curb Chain (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

But even an inexperienced editor should have a reason for adding the template. If they have not found anything wrong with it they should not be using it. Being inexperienced they might even have a reason that doesn't fall under our style guidelines, thus allowing us to easily remove the template easily. AIRcorn (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There could be a million reasons why inexperienced editors add this template, one of them being so that they give an poorly explained reason could make them feel like an idiot, or that giving a reason may not be specific enough for what they have in mind, or maybe they want to put the tag on the article so a more experienced editor can give a 2nd opinion.Curb Chain (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Any reason, even a poor or slightly ambiguous one, is better than no reason. AIRcorn (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. You seem to forget that there are editors who do not need a reason and a {{cleanup}} tag is easy enough to suffice for improvement purposes.Curb Chain (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors, any editors, should have a reason before using any tag. AIRcorn (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes they should have a reason to use the tag. It needs to be cleaned up. If they their English is piss poor, I don't expect them to give a reason. The reason could be piss poor. All that is needed is them to tag the article. I can finish and clean up the article. It tells me it needs clean up, and I will read it to see what is alarming and fix it.Curb Chain (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If their English is good enough to read the English wikipedia and recognise something needs cleanup it is good enough to be able to leave a reason. How will having a reason make your job any harder? AIRcorn (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You are alone on this. You mustn't have seen such a case nor do you care to.Curb Chain (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

1. This section is about shrinking the template "massively". The tag is the right size as it is, in my opinion.
2. Aircorn is far from being "alone". The RfC more than shows this to be true. If a reason is not given, then the tag should be rendered invisible. A notice can be given to the editor in the edit preview that this will be the case. It is my belief that this will help any new editor who places the tag to both articulate a reason(s) and be bold by performing some or all of the cleanup needed. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  02:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Transclusons that don't have the reason specified

The one improvement that was brought up consistently at the deletion discussion recent discussion is to make the reason mandatory. This has been brought up in separate threads here as well by different editors. However if this occurs something needs to be done with the articles currently tagged with this template that don't have the reason specified. That is not so clear to me from any of the discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field: "Please help by adding a reason, (check the talk page and edit history for hints), or fixing the article. If no problem can be seen, please remove the tag." Bulwersator (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • We have 25,476 articles in this category at the moment. Why not just get a bot to add "No reason for cleanup has been given. Check the talk page and edit history for hints or if no problem can be seen remove this tag." to the reason field. Then the parameter can be made mandatory without adding errors to a lot of articles and nothing is lost. AIRcorn (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • See #reason parameter Bulwersator (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
      • What I am suggesting is slightly different. A bot would add the wording to each template currently without a specified reason. Then we can change the template to only allow it to be used if someone enters a reason. Because the ones that previously did not have a reason now do it won't cause errors. AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We should just have it expire after a year or so from now. Have a bot check the date parameter and remove stale tags, with or without a reason parameter (in the future, thus keeping existing stale transclusions). -- œ^™ 02:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that every cleanup template (reason or not) should be removed after a year or just ones added from now on? AIRcorn (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

From now on, and then on from the date of placement. -- œ^™ 03:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Granted it's holding off any real action until a YEAR from now, but still, it's making a bold change which is what many people want done. -- œ^™ 03:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If we are saying a year is enough time to cleanup an article why not just remove it from every article that has been tagged with this for a year. AIRcorn (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd think many would consider that disruptive to remove all existing tags older than a year. I was only proposing establishing an expiry date from this point on that does not affect anything currently existing, in the way the 10-day BLPPROD expiry was established. I'm saying a year is enough time for a tag to stay on an article, not necessarily that it's enough time for it to be cleaned up. If the tag expires after a year and the article still hasn't been cleaned a user can replace the tag and it'll sit until it expires again. -- œ^™ 05:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea, there are giant backlogs with articles tagged in 2007 (Category:Wikipedia backlog). But renoving cleanup templates without reason parameter is a good idea (using bot or without bot) Bulwersator (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I oppose all of these proposals because the tag can be used for editors who are not experienced enough to describe what needs to be cleaned up, but know that something needs to be done.Curb Chain (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

completely oppose any bot based removal there is zero actual evidence that all or most or even some significant proportion of these tags have been improperly placed. those making the anecdotal have also seem to be the ones making the equally unsubstantiated claim that the tag is only used editors attempting to increase their edit count. its a huge assumption of bad faith.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the objections against bot-based removal. In many cases, it's blatantly obvious to a human what is wrong with an article (many new articles have horrible formatting) and a bot shouldn't remove the tag because it's useful to produce automated "needs attention" lists for WikiProjects, etc. I do think it would be useful to make the template show something like "NO REASON SPECIFIED" or "PLEASE ADD reason=" to encourage taggers to be more specific. It might also be useful to have a helper program that could find the username of the tagger, remove the tag, and put a note on their talk page and the article talk page saying "the reason the cleanup tag is still needed is unclear, please re-add with reason= if you have any specific suggestions". Oftentimes what happens is that the tag gets the article some attention, but no one removes the tag after the cleanup is complete. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that increasing the emphasis of highlighting a reason is a great idea, but adding a username and then removing the tag if no reason is specified AND mentioning a note on the user's talk page because he/she did not specify a reason is excessive.Curb Chain (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:David Levy added a slight rewording of the template which indicated more emphasis for a reason to be included. I am just bringing this to light so you editors can reflect if you wish on the change of wording of the template if you so decide to change the wording of the template. Note that User:David Levy did this while the 3rd TfD was in discussion so it was reverted.Curb Chain (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess we should take a step back first. Is there consensus to make the reason mandatory? It seemed obvious to me from the deletion discussion, but there is some opposition to it here. Should we initiate a RFC asking that specific question? AIRcorn (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No. There was no consensus to add a mandatory reason. In the deletion debates, keeping wasn't even a majority.Curb Chain (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have asked the TfD closer to clarify this point. If User:Y's judgement is that there wasn't consensus, the options are either to leave the template in its current worse than useless form, hold an RfC, or have a fifth Template for Discussion debate which is explicitly about manditory vs optional reason, and explicitly not about keep vs delete. My preference would be the latter option in the interests of transparency: RfCs on talk pages never attract significant attention. —WFC— 08:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping there would be enough agreement here so it wouldn't come to another discussion. I have never seen a TFD that did not involve deletion or merging and there is a RFC category specifically for templates so I would think that that would be the best forum. It would be prudent to notify everyone who commented at the deletion discussion no matter where it is held. AIRcorn (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. The discussion is perfectly normal here. Don't use another forum to try to get an outcome you want.Curb Chain (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You have made a statement about the previous discussion which I believe to be inaccurate. I have therefore requested that this be clarified by the person responsible for judging the outcome of that discussion. Thank you for assuming good faith. —WFC— 11:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you forum shopping? The decision was clear: no consensus. The closer clearly stated that. What you are telling me you are trying to get the closer to give an additional binding action?Curb Chain (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you to learn to read. —WFC— 17:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What you are doing is asking the parent again. WP:FORUMSHOPPING states: "Asking "the other parent" does not work well in real life, nor does it work well on Wikipedia.". In you situation, you are not asking another parent, but asking the same parent again. What precisely is your motive for doing this other than change the outcome of the TfD?Curb Chain (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The above characterisation of my behavior as forum shopping is a complete, unmitigated lie. As this user's behavior is having a direct, detrimental impact on this discussion, I will take the matter to ANI if it is not retracted. —WFC— 09:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously my expiry proposal was completely misunderstood. Nevermind then. -- œ^™ 04:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

They should be expired - by being cleaned up. If the people who were in the template debate all cleaned one a day, we would be catching up with the backlog. Rich Farmbrough, 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC).

I just noticed now that the deletion discussion has been closed. Let me state that I see a clear majority that has voted either for deletion of the template or for making the reason parameter mandatory. I assume that (almost) everyone who has favored deletion of the template would accept the latter suggestion as a working compromise. In that sense, I encourage people to implement this compromise. Regarding the issue which is being discussed in this section, I can understand the sentiment that simply removing every instance of the template that doesn't use the reason parameter may not be the best solution. Maybe it would help if we specifically encourage editors to remove the tag if no reason is provided and the need for cleanup is not obvious? Also, I would propose that the note saying that "The talk page may contain suggestions." be changed to "The talk page contains suggestions.", with the "suggestions" linking to a relevant section on the talk page, and this note only be shown when a talk parameter specifying the section name is defined. Nageh (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, a majority is not consensus so there is no consensus to make the reason parameter mandatory. But your suggestion of allowing clicking of a link in the template to the section on the talk page where the concern of cleaning is discussed is a good idea.Curb Chain (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

When, in your opinion, do we have consensus? When 100% of the voters agree for the same thing? Obviously, you disagree with the proposed change. But while we had a poll before it was also a discussion, and many people argued that mandating the reason parameter was reasonable. Do we need to run through this whole thing again? What new arguments do you want to see? Or are you saying that we will never have consensus because a minority does not agree with the proposed change? This is not a workable basis for any consensus. Anyway, where are the other many folks who have commented on the template deletion discussion? Nageh (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that an equal number of people !kept the template without commenting on deficiencies of this template tells me that there was nothing wrong with the template. I will state again that the discussion provided a variety of opinions. All the previous debates had the same outcome, where a variety of opinions were discussed. There is no consensus for this template or to have changes made to this template.Curb Chain (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the idea of "'suggestions' linking to a relevant section on the talk page, and this note only be shown when a talk parameter specifying the section name is defined." The parameter could also be named discuss, per this proposal. I also support making parameters mandatory, but the tagger should be required to add either reason= or talk/discuss= at the tagger's discretion. Superm401 - Talk 03:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we are going to have to go down the RFC path. Lets work on some wording here first and then make the request:

• RFC: "Should the reason parameter for the {{cleanup}} template be made mandatory. A recent template for discussion was closed as no consensus, with the closer recommending improving the template. A suggestion expressed during the discussion was that the |reason= parameter should be made mandatory. This RFC is to determine whether there is consensus to enact such a change."
• TFD participants: You recently commented on a template for discussion involving the {{cleanup}} template. The discussion was closed as no consensus, with the closer recommending improving the template. Following from this discussion a request for comment [Link to RFC] has been started regarding whether the |reason= parameter should be made mandatory.

I am thinking the heading for both should simply be "Template: Cleanup", it should just be listed under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates and have separate "Responses" and "Discussion" sections. All the participants in the recent TFD should be notified. Thoughts? Anything missing? AIRcorn (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Should we also ask for a vote on a talk parameter as I suggested above, or would this be a less/non-controversial change? Nageh (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am wary about bundling too much into a request. The more questions asked the harder it can be to get a consensus. Your suggestion seems uncontroversial and probably doesn't need wider comment. What to do with the old transclusions and how to implement the change might be worth including, but it is probably easier to take it step-by-step. AIRcorn (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The closer did not recommend improving the template. The RfC is not written in neutral language. In fact, many suggestions were proposed in the most recent TfD. Using this language is heavily skewing your desired outcome into your favor.

Do not notify the participates of the last TfD. The decision to include a mandatory reason is very specific and once again not everyone agreed with this.

If you really want a RfC question it should be phrased "Should the reason parameter for the {{cleanup}} template be made mandatory? This RFC is to determine whether there is consensus to enact such a change.".

Question: Why not initiate a deletion review? Seeing as you and another editor spin-doctored the closing admin, what is to stop you from doing that?Curb Chain (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"...there is certainly room for improvement" and "this discussion should certainly result in changes" sounds like a recommendation to me. Anyway that is why I put the wording up here first so others can weigh in as to the best way to present it. This whole discussion is a direct result of the tfd so I feel it should be mentioned somewhere.

The whole reason we have to have a RFC is because you don't think any conclusions can be drawn out of the previous discussion. This is the best way to find out. If they don't think the reason should be mandatory then they can say so at the RFC.

I did not go to DRV because I would rather improve the template than delete it. AIRcorn (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't spin his/her words. It was not a recommendation; it was an observation.Curb Chain (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Curb Chain, what are you trying to achieve here? One minute you attack someone for asking a closer if they would be willing to go into more detail, stating that only keep/delete arguments were valid and falsely accusing them of forum shopping. The next you attack someone for suggesting that we start a discussion that specifically looks at the issue the TfD did not cover. Now you are demanding a DRV for no obvious reason. I respect your opinion on the template, your right to express it, and your right to do so in unambiguous terms, but please at least be clear. —WFC— 13:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the proposed wording. I would suggest to go ahead with the RFC. Curb Chain, you can vote on the RFC but please stop pushing your own agenda. Nageh (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the wording of the rfc. I suggest you word it neutrally so as not to slant and misrepresent.Curb Chain (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Could change "recommending" to "mentioning"? AIRcorn (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the easiest solution is to ask the closer what he meant, if this is the issue. Nageh (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, this is unnecessary. And the closer did not mention improving the template. His/her comment was broadly construed, and this could mean improving the ISSUE by actually working on the articles and removing the tags, or could mean researching and adding a reason a parameter to the pages without one. Please stop twisting the administrator's words. He/she was very clear with the closing comment.Curb Chain (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to be constructive, and you respond in accusing me of twisting the administrator's words? Where did I do such a thing in my last post?? Anyway, I'm not gonna fight about the wording, so let's try to make it simple – would everyone consent with rephrasing to "...though the closer concluded that the discussion should certainly result in changes. A frequent suggestion expressed during the discussion..."? Nageh (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That would work best as it directly quotes the close. Maybe just say "A suggestion expressed ...." for the second sentence so we can't be accused of interpreting the prevalence of the suggestion. AIRcorn (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about this but in all sense this was the most frequent suggestion and it was a significant one. Not saying so may create the illusion that we are just cherry-picking any suggestion. I think it should stay in, and hope that Curb Chain can live with it. Thanks everyone! Nageh (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Any rfc will be posing a question, a cherry-picked question to be answered as desired by the queriers. Not to include this would be pov.Curb Chain (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, Curb Chain is attempting to stonewall progress by demanding that all editors jump through every hoop that he unilaterally sets, in his one-man crusade to prevent this useless crock of shite from being converted into something somewhat helpful. I propose we ignore him and launch the RfC. If the question is invalid, let the community say so. I would also suggest that we either inform contributors to the previous TfD or invoke IAR to include the RfC discussion in the template (similar to how a TfD displays). It is important that a large, representative section of the community participates in what would potentially be a major change to the template. —WFC— 19:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with:

"Should the reason parameter for the {{cleanup}} template be made mandatory. A recent template for discussion was closed as no consensus, though the closer concluded that the discussion should certainly result in changes. A frequent suggestion expressed during the discussion was that the |reason= parameter should be made mandatory. This RFC is to determine whether there is consensus to enact such a change."

or

"Should the reason parameter for the {{cleanup}} template be made mandatory. A recent template for discussion was closed as no consensus, wthough the closer concluded that the discussion should certainly result in changes. A suggestion expressed during the discussion was that the |reason= parameter should be made mandatory. This RFC is to determine whether there is consensus to enact such a change."

Curb Chain (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. So can we anyone of you guys (WFC? Aircorn?) initiate the RFC? I'm afraid it would take me quite some time to figure it out. Thanks! Nageh (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with the second suggestion (minus the typo in the second sentence) in the interests of keeping the question as neutral as possible. The only sticking point on my end is the question of how to publicise it. The more attention it attracts among those that work with and around this template, the more legitimate the consensus. For those reasons I would suggest adding something along the lines of {{Tfd-inline}}, with text along the lines of "Significant changes to this template are being discussed" and 'being discussed' linking to the RfC. That strikes me as a less controversial measure than notifying the pariticipants at the last TfD. —WFC— 07:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think that we should notify TfD participants and add temporary link in the template Bulwersator (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would just notify the participants of the last discussion along with leaving a note at Wikipedia:Cleanup. The tfd tag was up for 16 days and most people interested in the tag would have comented on that discussion. The RFC will last for at least 30 days which is a long time to have a tfd type tag on the template. It will add an ugly note to 25 000 articles (although theoretically they should already be a bit messy). There is a {{Please see}} that could be used to keep the message completely neutral. AIRcorn (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the participates of the previous TfD should be notified. This is an editorial decision for this template. The TfD posed a different question. As I stated, do not notify the previous participants of the TfD as this would not be neutral to do so and unnecessary. This is an editorial decision and interested participates will opine here.Curb Chain (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Noted. However as far as I am concerned that is the least that should happen. This whole discussion is directly related to that one. AIRcorn (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am repeating myself again. Yes the view that a mandatory reason had been expressed, it was not universally expressed by the deleters and keepers. Doing so is not a neutral reflection of the outcome of the the TfD. This is going into canvassing territory. It was clear that a mandatory reason was not mandated. This is why you have posed a RfC. The closer was clear and I am repeating myself again. Note you already asked the closing admin on "clarification" on his decision regarding the TfD.Curb Chain (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The important thing is that we make users of this template aware of this potentially major change in a neutral way. In my opinion the usual methods of publicising an RfC are not appropriate: as the change would have a significant effect on the way in which the template is used, we need to be confident that the users of the template will be aware of it. Under the current wording of WP:Canvassing, informing all previous participants in discussion would probably be considered excessive cross posting. That's a pity, but that's Wikipedia. Notifying all previous RfC TfD participants is still an option if a strong case is made for it, but as I've explained above, I think a better way would be an inline notification in the template. —WFC— 12:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree and am fine with User:WaitingForConnection's suggestion. On another note, I am not aware of any rfc's regarding this template.Curb Chain (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good spot. Too many small f's on this site. —WFC— 15:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it falls under excessive cross-posting. The number of people involved in a discussion should not affect our decision on whether to inform them of a related one. Cross-posting is more when you post in multiple forums likely to be seen by the same people (i.e. a Wikiproject's talk page and then each individual member's talk page). If we are invoking the tfd as the reason for calling the rfc it seems prudent to tell the people taking part in the tfd. AIRcorn (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If we were invoking the tfd as the reason for calling the rfc, it would be prudent to tell the people taking part in the tfd, but the were not related. You are campaigning for a specific outcome. It does not matter anyway because you have no consensus to do this.Curb Chain (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Give it time. I accept that you are not going to change your mind no matter what, but WFC seems more reasonable. In fact his only opposition to contacting the tfd participants was that he thought it would be excessive cross posting. I don't think it is and have left my argument; it is up to him whether he agrees with it or not. The tfd is the reason for the rfc. The idea that forms the basis of this RFC was brought up independently by various editors there. The closer even says that "the discussion should certainly result in changes". This is a possibly change resulting from that discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In principle I'm happy with either an inline notification or a notification to all TfD participants, as I think both will be equally effective. However, informing all TfD posters would be more laborious than posting an inline notification in the template, and more controversial because it is at the very least a technical breach of WP:Canvass. The main disadvantage of an inline notification was that it required a clearer consensus, as an uninvolved admin would have to perform the act. But with Curb Chain on board we're not far from that position. —WFC— 07:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How would the inline notification be done? The {{Tfd-inline}} template is depreciated and it's replacement {{tfd}} links to the TFD page and I don't see a way to make a custom redirect or notice. Is there another template that could be used? AIRcorn (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We may create link without using specialised template Bulwersator (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The markup would be relatively trivial. Something along the lines of <center><small>Whatever it is that we want to say [[link|text of link]].</small></center><hr>, which would produce something like:

Whatever it is that we want to say (text of link).

---

—WFC— 16:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sweet, so we just need to agree on the wording for this and then we can kick this thing off.

"Whether to make the |reason= mandatory for the {{cleanup}} template is being discussed. See the request for comment to help reach a consensus."

AIRcorn (talk) 02:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)