Template talk:Cleanup/doc

Article example

the example for article shows template instead. -- Abc82 (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. Thank you for pointing that out. --Bsherr (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. -- Abc82 (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad categorical alphabetisation

For some reason, this (and only this) template is sorted under "capital T" in Category:Article message boxes. Technically, this is achieved by setting its defaultsort to Τ, a symbol which up to confusion looks like a capital T. This only affects this single category, since the other two categories, in which the template is included, have explicit re-sortings.

Is there any reason for this? Does it affect includeonly categorisation of pages employing the template in some positive way? Is there a reason for wishing the user not to find the cleanup template sorted under C, but instead only at the end of the category (seemingly under a T)? If not, I think that the defaultsort should be removed or revised! JoergenB (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes the reason is to sort templates away from content when people insist on having them in mixed categories. I will fix it. Rich Farmbrough, 19:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

The defaultsort now is changed from "Τ" to "T Cleanup" (where still "Τ" is not the same as "T"). Thus, the category remains in splendid isolation, last in the Category:Article message boxes. This seems not to be a very "mixed" categorey; it contains 594 items, and, as far as I can see from a glance, all of them are templates. Of the items, 592 are sorted alphabetically; one comes before all the others,; and one (namely, Template:Cleanup) comes after all the others.

Thus, the fix essentially changed nothing. JoergenB (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fix fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 16:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Reverted

I will have to concede the reversion of my recent edit, because editor Exok is correct in the application of British English, and there are other examples of British English on the /doc page. My error was to apply (in this case, nonstandard) American English, which usually capitalizes/capitalises the first word following a colon, as shown in this article. Mybad. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  21:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that and for your explanation. Despite reading a lot of American literature I wasn't aware of this. Although I notice that even in American English following a colon with a capital is not universal and that those who adopt this usage only do so at the beginning of an independent clause or quotation. Exok (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

All that is true. Us (ahem) We Americans seem to admire being different, even from each other. You opened my eyes to the rendering in British English. Back in school, we were taught to capitalize after a colon and two spaces:  No exceptions!>) – PIE ( CLIMAX )  22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In Britain you would be lucky to get any guidance on colons outside of a university setting, so full credit to the American educational system. Exok (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We too were taught to capitalize the first word after a colon. I assumed that was standard American style. Whenever I revert from standard English back to American English, I always follow this rule.141.70.11.8 (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In English one should not capitalize after a colon, in America it is done, but it is no rule, so let's no change the standard suddenly. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see MOS:COLON, which also does not make this a rule. Debresser (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Must" or "should" give a reason

I changed the documentation to say a reason for cleanup must be given but I asked to be corrected if I was wrong.[1] This has been reverted so it again says a reason should be given.[2] What do other people think? Is there an example of good practice where a reason has not been given? Thincat (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It's OK to omit the |reason= parameter, provided that you explain in some other way - perhaps in your edit summary, or by posting on the talk page. Of the three, a talk page post is the best choice if your reasoning is lengthy - say, more than a sentence. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a talk page post could sometimes be the best option though even then a reason of "see talk page" would be helpful. I was going to suggest building this sort of thought into the documentation but I've decided to abandon the idea before I have started. People who add cleanup tags without any stated reasoning (anywhere) will continue to do this whatever the documentation says. Thank you for your comment, however. Thincat (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandal

So, I went to apply this template to a new article that was in need of serious cleanup, only to find that this, a template fundamental to wikipedia, had no documentation. So, I went to create some, and I looked at the talk page to see if there was any description of this templates intermediate functions, so I could write a decent documentation. Shockingly, there was debate that implied that yes, this template is documented. So I looked at the history, and, funnily enough, someone recently deleted the entire page. So I reverted it.

This is only significant because it is the first time I have reverted vandalism, and I just wanted to share. Carry on. Calumapplepie (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

When to use - When not to use

Under the doc-section When to use it is explained, when to use the template: ″This tag is intended to identify pages that need [..] non-content-focused changes.″ So I think for help searchers it would be nice to know, what template should be used when there are content-focused changes? Thank You! --W like wiki ^{good to know} 19:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A proposal could be: For content-focused changes for example you could use Template:Missing information. --W like wiki ^{good to know} 20:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)