Template talk:Cleanup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Cleanup is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

Contents


Older comments have been archived by chronology: 2004, 2005.

[edit] No box

The current version only has a box if you happen to be using the default style. I'm using the old style, and I don't see the box until I log out. It has nothing to do with the cache. —Ashley Y 00:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Useless and overused

I hate this template. The point of a wiki is that editors can fix problems themselves, instantly, without having to go through any formal process to get the changes implemented. This template goes against the whole spirit of a wiki, since it commands everybody else to do the inserters bidding.

If an article is in bad shape, fix it. Don't just add a dumb cleanup template and move on. That doesn't help anything, it just clutters up the encyclopedia with lots of uselessly tagged articles. This has the side effect of undermining confidence in the articles as there is a giant banner on top proclaiming everything as substandard, while the problem might be as small as a few garbled lines or a misplaced section.

I recommend this tag be deprecated as soon as possible and hopefully eliminated entirely. I don't see that it serves any useful purpose. --Bk0 03:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Not all people know how to handle certain situations, or it might be that the person doesn't know enough about the topic or understand the jist of an article. I was about to add a cleanup tag to Polar low because someone copied and pasted an enormous block of text from another website, and I have no idea whether the information should be reworded, removed entirely, removed and linked to in External Links, or allowed to stay until someone can write an actual article based on information in the text (and I don't know what other template would be appropriate). AySz88^-^ 20:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
My first thought is that I'd ask a question on the talk page about the concerns, which you should do anyway if you add this template (the only thing more annoying than Template:Cleanup is a tagged page with no clue in talk about why it was tagged). The template itself serves no purpose as the existing article experts presumably have the page on their watchlist and will see your addition to talk. --Bk0 21:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
That assumes that there are active 'article experts' watching those articles; I'd think that most pages tagged by {{cleanup}} probably were made and then relatively left abandoned. My comment was on Talk:Polar low for well over a week; apparently, there weren't many people watching it. :p AySz88^-^ 23:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
How long would you expect the cleanup tag to last before the article is fixed? Most tags I come across are 3-6 months old (not a scientific sample, granted). --Bk0 03:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I was amused to come across this discussion, since we currently have over 11,000 articles tagged for cleanup, and a cleanup backlog of about a year. Considering we will soon have about a million articles (literally), it's actually quite useful for editors who are looking for articles to fix (for example, the Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce to have a list of identified problems. I've seen a lot of comments on talk pages about problems with articles that just get ignored. -- Beland 03:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Argument in favour of this template: If I see it on a page, I have no qualms about wading in and making wholesale changes, particularly if it's been there for a while. Without the template, I try and get people's approval before making changes, lest they revert me. So it serves a "don't hesitate, go for it" kind of role...Stevage 04:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I respect your methods, however Wikipedia policy is the opposite: Be bold unless there is compelling evidence of controversy/edit conflicts. --Bk0 (Talk) 23:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
That's wonderful. But we have to face reality. In a perfect world, everyone would BE bold and fix whatever they could as soon as they came across something that needed fixing. But this isn't a perfect world, and another thing that's central to Wikipedia is to let people edit voluntarily according to their own time. If I'm busy with something else, and I don't have the time to clean up a disaster, at the very least I can FLAG it so that OTHER editors can do something about it. Leaving a note on the talk page just doesn't attract as much attention. Not even close. And Beland is absolutely right. Given the fact there's a difference between users who aren't willing to wade hipdeep in crap (and should NOT be forced to, no matter what you think "policy" is) and users who bravely charge into it, the most efficient thing to do is give a method for the first group to pass the baton to the second.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 07:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

(unindent) Agree with the above; we should keep this tag. When brain dead and unable to do "deep editing" or engage in thoughtful discussion, I often go on "random article" patrol. Sometimes I find things I can fix right away. Sometimes I find something in need of a clean up, but don't have the time, energy, or subject knowledge to do the clean up. I think I still add value by tagging with the cleanup tag. If I should be doing something else/better, let me know. --Martinp 04:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spotlighting high-priority cleanups

I've created an additional template which should only be used for articles which need to be cleaned up which are on Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have. These are articles which should be expected to be of a decent (if not featured) quality on Wikipedia, and should be considered a high-priority cleanup, because their topics are considered essential for encyclopedias. Hopefully this will help focus some of the cleanup efforts. The template is {{cleanup-priority}} and has its own little category as well. --Fastfission 16:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too threatening?

Some new users, having written new articles are finding this template on their article and being afraid it means the page will be deleted due to low quality. Would it be overly controversial to change the wording to:

This article should be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality and style.

? jnothman talk 03:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally I find the wording "to conform to a higher standard" a bit bizarre. You conform to a standard or you don't - you don't go looking for a "higher standard" :) How about "to conform to Wikipedia's quality standards". But anyway I like your "should be" much better than "needs to be". Stevage 04:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay:
This article should be cleaned up up to reach Wikipedia quality standards.
See Help:Editing and Category:Wikipedia help for help, or this article's talk page.
An improvement? We'll see if there is any dissenting vote. I'm not able to change the template now anyway (protected page) but may be able to at the end of the week =) jnothman talk 10:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New cleanup - date link like IfD template

This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality.
Please consider adding this to today's date if you have just added this tag.
See Help:Editing and Category:Wikipedia help for help, or this article's talk page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorpe (talk • contribs) 02:03, 22 December 2005

Well, ideally include the wording change to 'should'. I also think the phrase "consider adding this to today's date" is a bit obscure. Perhaps "consider adding this to the clean-up to-do list" or something Stevage 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think Thorpe was taking into consideration the comment above. This is a separate suggestion. And I think that suggestion can be cleaned up too:
This article should be cleaned up up to reach Wikipedia quality standards.
If you just added this tag, please list this page and an explanation under today's date.
See Help:Editing and Category:Wikipedia help for help, or this article's talk page.
jnothman talk 23:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

(Note that the above table is invisible to me; perhaps there is a CSS problem. -- Beland 08:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template proposals

I would be much more comfortable with this template if:

  • It was worded with more emphasis on the article not meeting common standards of quality: "This article may not reach accepted levels of quality for Wikipedia. Please see talk for details and ways you can help."
  • It became policy to always post clear reasons and/or arguments for the tag on the respective article's talk page. If there is no explicit stated justification, the template is removed. I already treat unannotated cleanup tags this way, but it'd be nice to get community consensus. --Bk0 (Talk) 23:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I do hope you at least read the article to make sure the problem isn't obvious. Certainly if people tag an article for a non-obvious problem and don't leave a note about it, that's not very helpful - though different things are obvious to different people. One can also leave a message for the original tagger on their user talk page and ask them if they had any specific suggestions, and tell them if they do, they can re-add the tag and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining why it's there. -- Beland 09:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I changed the wording, trying to incorporate everyone's suggestions. In recent versions, perhaps due to CSS problems, I cannot see the box at all. I have reverted the code portion to a version that still works for me and hopefully everyone else. -- Beland 08:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Useless and overused (reprise)

How are we supposed to find articles in serious need of attention if people use it try and get things improved from a "C" to a "B" (talk:TLC)? Could we get some guidelines that articles with this tag have to have some serious, and specific, problems? Kappa 00:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

While I do support more vigorous guidelines on when to use the template, I fail to see how overuse makes it useless. If you come across an article that isn't that bad, it only takes a couple minutes to skim through it, look over the talk page, and move on. That's a lot better to me than not having the template at all. Let's not indulge in hyperbole.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 01:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The more it's over-used, the more I have to waste my time skimming articles that don't need cleanup, instead of cleaning up articles that do need it. If I can't quickly find something that needs actual cleanup, its useless and I'll do something else. Kappa 19:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"Overused", "misused", and "useless" are all different terms. I think this is "misuse" more than "overuse". --AySz88^-^ 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm unsure how semantics really help in this at all, but for what it's worth, I think it's "overuse." Almost any article on Wikipedia could be cleaned up a little more and, without solid guidelines on when to use the template, an article "needing" to be cleaned up is firmly in the realm of subjectivity. At the moment, people tend to be loosely interpretting when the template is needed, which leads to people like Kappa wasting their apparently precious time and threatening to take their ball and go home, so obviously some guidelines would be useful.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 03:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is more fundamental. Unlike the rest of Wikipedia, this template focuses on what contributors should do in the future, rather than describing the current state of an article or effort. This is the crux of my criticism and the reason why this template will never solve more problems than it causes. --Bk0 (Talk) 03:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how giving contributors a heads up for what needs to be done on an article makes this more of a problem than an aid. Judging from your previous posts on this page, it seems like the real crux of your criticism is that you're assuming that editors be bold which is a great policy, but isn't the case for all editors (or even the majority of them), and never will be. People have real lives to attend to and being able to differentiate between articles that are badly in need of cleaning and articles that are mediocre but passable is an asset. Granted, when that line is blurry, the effectiveness of the template is decreased, and that's why I support clear guidelines. I disagree that this template in any way discordant with the nature of the rest of Wikipedia, at least, no more so than the expansion template, or any of the other template messages for that matter. Templates alert users as to what needs to be changed, and change is a future process, whether it be five seconds from when the template is put up or five months. It may seem distressing that many articles have these templates slapped on them for very long periods of time, but that's the nature of the beast; Wikipedia is huge, and many articles just won't be gotten to in a short amount of time. I think if this template didn't exist, you'd see such articles sit in their former format for even longer, or even forever.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 04:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Your feeling that editors' time is not valuable is obviously part of the problem. You want to leave this tag on articles indefintely, attracting any number of nonspecialist editors who will waste a few minutes skimming and walking away, just hoping that eventually someone with specialist knowledge will find it. Kappa 05:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • First off, I'd appreciate it if you didn't presume to know what I "feel" or "want," especially when we both know no one feels or wants any of those things. I feel that editors' time is VERY valuable; why else would I be in favor of clearer guidelines? I don't want to leave this tag on articles "indefinitely." I want to be able to tag the article at all. Articles that aren't tagged have a much higher chance of remaining in their current state indefinitely than those that are. As for "specialists," I don't think that has much to do with this issue at all. This is a request for cleanup, NOT a request for expansion. In my mind, "cleanup" means fixing prose, grammar, and spelling as well as wikification and organization. That doesn't require any "specialist" knowledge other than a competency with the English language and an understanding of style.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 06:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • OK we can agree that this template needs stricter guidelines. If it gets them, it won't matter if it's useful or not without them. Kappa 06:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we have agreed on that since the beginning. However, if the template does not receive stricter guidelines, I still would support it as being useful, hence our difference (at least, initially). If I can make some time later, I might try my hand at drafting a sample set of guidelines that users can refer to.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 16:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is that people want to change, exactly. We can't wave a magic wand and change ten thousand editors' ideas about what "cleanup" means, but we could change the wording of the template and hope people read it. We could also draw a distinction between major and minor problems to help editors more easily find the types of problems they enjoy solving. Do we need a "cleanup-minor" tag? "cleanup-major"? I have futher strengthened the wording; it now actively recommends leaving a note on the talk page. Perhaps this will help cleanup editors zero in on problems quickly.

I would certainly recommend removing cleanup tags from articles where you do not see a problem, and leaving a note on the talk page asking for clarification if it is going to be re-added. Either the article will not be re-tagged and editors move on to other articles, or we will get more specific guidance and hopefully move things forward. -- Beland 07:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a mention about more-specific tags. --AySz88^-^ 15:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
As per my comment above, I think if someone drafted a set of guidelines to be placed at the top of the talk page and we voted on it, that would be somewhat effective. At least there would be something consistent for users to refer to.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 16:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I have a connection to 20Q and have spent time updating, correcting and cleaning up the article about 20Q on Wikipedia. I check back regularly, and have been advised to create a username, which I've done. Now that I've cleaned up the article, how can I arrange to have the clean up tag at the top removed. Believe me, my corrections are authentic. I've been married to the inventor since before he invented 20Q, and am now the owner of 20Q.net Inc., and I regularly visit Wikipedia to make sure the information is accurate. Please inform me if there is a process I can undertake to have the clean up tag removed. Thank you. my email address is tanis@20q.net.

[edit] Shirt?

Considering that the template is so well-known as to have [www.cafepress.com/wikipedia/530286 a Wikimedia shirt], it might be preferable to reword the first line and retain something close to the original wording, as long as it doesn't lose meaning. Maybe something like "This article or section needs to be cleaned up to conform to Wikipedia's standards of quality." --AySz88^-^ 06:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and changed it. Feel free to revert and discuss. --AySz88^-^ 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a remarkably weak argument for discarding the changes discussed here. I feel that emphasis on quality standards is important for this template and the wording should reflect that. They should change the shirt, or perhaps not create a shirt which can be so easily made obsolete. --Bk0 (Talk) 23:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Huh? I don't think I discarded the changes? I thought the significant change was changing "higher standard" to "Wikipedia's standards of quality". The shirt was just an example of how well-known the previous wording was. What is the difference between "This article or section needs to be cleaned up to conform to Wikipedia's standards of quality." and "To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup."? --AySz88^-^ 00:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I actually prefer the AySz88-version, as it reads better, and don't think the template needs to highlight quality control. The AySz88-version makes it clear that cleanup is requested, without condemning the content of the article. -- Ec5618 00:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping templates synchronized

I don't know much about writing MediaWiki templates, so forgive me if this is an ignorant question, but is there a way to modify the family of cleanup templates (cleanup, cleanup-date, cleanup-section, etc) so that they share the core wording/formatting? Modifications to this template, for instance, will propagate to all the others in the family. This would make maintainance easier. --Bk0 (Talk) 23:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a MediaWiki template, I think. But anyway, it is possible to use templates within templates ("meta-templates"), but they supposedly are supposed to be avoided. --AySz88^-^ 03:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attention merger

It is proposed that {{attention}} be merged with this template. Please see Category talk:Pages needing attention for rationale and discussion. "cleanup" will remain for remedial work only; suggested improvements to intact articles should be tagged {{expansion}} or {{expert}} if necessary. But all articles tagged for cleanup will hopefully soon be sorted by topic. (See Wikipedia:Cleanup process/Cleanup sorting proposal; volunteers wanted.) -- Beland 04:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite as a WikiTable

I've re-coded the template using wiki table format. I used Help:Table and its links as a reference guide. Cwolfsheep 00:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried recoding it with the right color. Still gets rejected. Cwolfsheep 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the darker indigo color makes the text more difficult to read, the narrowness of the box causes the text to take up four lines and waste space to the left and right, and the gray margin is completely unnecessary. --CharlotteWebb 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Any way to make it look better using Wikitable? Cwolfsheep 20:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subst'ing

Anyone have an opinion on whether this template should be subst'ed? It makes sense to me because it makes it more obvious if the template gets removed before time, but opinions would be nice! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 20:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No. If somebody subst the wrong version it could take a while to fix. --CharlotteWebb 15:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
huh? "removed before time"? Is this template going to be removed? I'm still a little confused by this where it says "please use cleanup-date instead", and wondering why "cleanup-date" wasn't made in this very same template just adding an optional parameter instead. Anyway, I think that advice already used about using "{subst:Cleanup-now}", should be the first thing on the description, if that's what you meant. --Caue (T | C) 13:07, Tuesday 2006-10-31 (UTC)
That advice might just confuse people. If everybody just used {{cleanup}} with no date it would be no loss, since there are bots that quickly change it to {{cleanup-date}}, usually before the month changes... unless it's like the last day of the month (like today is) which would still be no big deal. — CharlotteWebb 18:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
hehe, I think I was already so confused that I said something that looked like an advice. I was talking about changing the disposition of the advices that are already there. One way or the other, your point is stated. Things around here does confuse people, just as myself! :P --Caue (T | C) 20:14, Tuesday 2006-10-31 (UTC)
Please don't subst: this template; that will cause problems for bots like User:Pearle. -- Beland 22:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Used without talk!

I find it very annoying when I come accross this template and it says "further details are available on the talk page". In fact every time I've seen this there has been no mention on the talk page. We either need to make sure all using this tag put something on the talk page or at least remove that phrase! Flutefluteflute 12:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is now possible for the display of certain parts of the template to depend on whether the corresponding talk page exists yet, if that would help. On the other hand, due to the wide variety of specific {{cleanup-issue}} templates, actual clarification on the talk page is usually only needed in complex cases. — CharlotteWebb 18:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template is broken

See the category tag at the start of Periodic table (standard).

There is no longer a cleanup tag on this article; hopefully whatever was wrong is now fixed. -- Beland 05:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request: Arabic Template and Interwiki

For some reasons at the Arabic facilities (since some articles are in bad standards), we need the Arabic version of the template, and then the interwiki linking to it. Can anyone help out? Thanks. -- Qasamaan 6:00; November 2, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template not working

Articles that have this template now have [[Category:Cleanup from [[Category:Cleanup from {{{1}}}]]]] on them. What's wrong with it? --AW 20:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the old version better??

To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article may require cleanup.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page, and/or replace this tag with a more specific message. Editing help is available.

Does anyone apart from me think the old version was better-looking?? --SunStar Nettalk 00:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if the <small> font currently in use became font-size:90% as above... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You mean, before the broom? Yeah, I did like it better. But even better, IMO, is the proposal below, from User:Notmyhandle. He's created a new broom icon, but a small one, which fits in the upper right corner like the new sp icon. Follow his links to his sandbox and take a look. Unschool 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial templates should be placed on talk pages

I think editorial templates like this belong on the talk page of an article not on the article page. After all "A Wikipedia article is a page that has encyclopedic information on it" and the "standard talk pages are used to discuss an article" (see [[Wikipedia:What is an article?]] and Wikipedia:talk page)

If a person was to write on the an article page "This page is rubbish it should re-written" the edit that created it would probably be reversed with a comment of "rvv". But for some reason some people think that by putting such comments into grammatically correct sentences and then wrapping them up in coloured boxs justifies putting them on to the article page. Templates that warn a reader of an article that the information is not accurate like {{unreferenced}} are in my opinion useful encyclopedic information for the reader of an article and should be placed in the appropriate section(s) on the article page, but all templates like this one, which are there just to inform an editor of blemishes in the page, should only appear on the talk page because they add nothing to the encyclopedic information on the article page and are essentially the type of information that the talk pages are there to discuss.--Philip Baird Shearer 12:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki to Thai WP

I would like to add interwiki to Thai WP with th:แม่แบบ:ช่วยดูหน่อย. Thank you. --Manop - TH 04:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish IW incorrect

The swedish interwiki is incorrect, and should go to sv:Mall:Kvalitetskontroll notwist 15:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ack!! Someone please remove the photo of the "Golden Lab". There is NO SUCH THING as a Golden Lab. That's a Yellow Lab. Sheesh.

[edit] Hm

Please get rid of that image! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.180.192.49 (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Stupid image

That image is annoying the hell out of me. Please get rid of it! 124.180.66.13 03:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate "The template" headings

Could someone remove one of them?-Jeff (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 07:01 9 April 2007 (GMT).

[edit] That annoying image

Could you please get rid of that image? 124.181.203.115 09:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't have strong feelings either way, is there consensus to remove? Rich Farmbrough, 11:24 19 April 2007 (GMT).
I think it looks better with the image notwist 12:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish IW again

The "kvalitetskontroll"-template at the swedish wikipedia has been decided to be used for more severe lack of seriousness in articles, for more general "cleaning" we now use sv:Mall:Städa, so the IW link should be updated (again) :) notwist 12:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section specific templates

{{editprotected}} I'm trying to merge all of the redundant section specific templates, including Template:Cleanup-section into all the "whole article" versions. Could "this article" be changed to "this article or section"? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was about to perform the requested edit, but it appears that the two templates use slightly different (and potentially conflicting) parameter syntax. Please wait while I investigate this matter. —David Levy 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
The templates seem to be basically identical as of [1] and [2]. Could someone please change "article" to "{{{1|article}}}"? -- Lea (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Y Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small Icon Conversion

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

This is absolutely the way to go—Great work, Notmyhandle. I've liked the idea of small icons ever since I read tags, and I believe that the small sp icon has really improved the appearance of Wikipedia to casual visitors—it just makes us look more professional.Unschool 14:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll toss in my support for it as well. It's a lot tidier and leads to less cluttered pages. I'd venture that few editors who look for pages that need cleanup would miss the little icon in the corner, but someone using Wikipedia as a reference would be distracted by it. Horologium talk - contrib 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not so sure. To an extent the cleanup tags are meant to be obtrusive. It tells editors that the article needs to be fixed and it tells viewers that the article they are reading is sub par. I think there are overuse problems but readers should know there are problems with the articles they are reading. Of course it looks unprofessional but it's a reflection that the writing or something about the article is unprofessional. While this wouldn't be as detrimental as small NPOV and small Unreferenced tags, I still think when there is broad agreement that something needs cleanup the reader should know. Now, I think an 'opt out' would be nice... meaning, an account setting people who don't want to see maintenance tags... but, that's something that would have to be arranged in the software. gren グレン 02:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, great idea. Kinda of like the favourite articles start icon and that smaller semi-protection one. Much better. Maybe someone should discuss it on the manual of style talk page. Keep up the good work. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 08:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I made some icons like this before and they were ALL deleted in a TfD discussion which I will try to unearth.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[3]

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

I don't know. I do want readers to know that some articles are crap. The disadvantage of the cleanup tag is that they are overused. Not all articles with cleanup tagged are bad. Garion96 (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
If the cleanup tags are misused, we should remove them, theres no need to tag tidy articles. Regarding the template, if you look at it from the point of view from someone who comes to the site for information, they aren't going to want to see big banners that say "Hey, this article is untidy, please fix it up Wikipedia editors" (not a word-for-word citation :p), nor will they try to do something about it. It's sorta the same reason for condensing the protection template. Only Wikipedia editors can do anything about vandalism or the vandals themselves, so we didn't need the extra targets saying "Hey, this is a common place for vandals to come", throwing in some WP:BEANS. This is a little different, but the first principle would still apply. The cleanup tag, dealt with and corrected by editors, not viewers, shouldn't be obtrusive to articles, but thats just my opinion. — Moe ε 18:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Boy, I just did some checking, this template really is overused. I don't think Emil Constantinescu Chatsworth House or Casualty movement need a cleanup tag. Maybe we should tighten the criteria for using this template. Garion96 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I went in and deleted the tag from Emil, changed it to expand-section for the two empty sections of Chatsworth, and changed it to expand for Casualty. None had any reasoning for why the tags were added (either in talk or in edit summaries), which sets off alarms in my head. Horologium talk - contrib 02:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And that was just a random three. :( This template really isn't used well. If it is used for really crappy articles I prefer the big template, but the way it is used right now I guess the smaller template would work. That or educate people not to overuse this template. Garion96 (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I whole-heartedly support the use of the small icon version. As described is this essay, obtrusive maintenance tags on articles distract readers, and make the encyclopedia seem less professional. Good job, notmyhandle! Jerry 13:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
But that essay is talking about self-evident tags like current events and tags that don't help the reader at all like vandalism tags. With the vandalism protect tags it doesn't matter to the user since they can't edit it and if they tried they'd get a warning. For cleanup tags it's different. Readers should know the deficiencies of an article they are reading. When there is a big neutrality dispute readers should know. Who cares if it looks neat and tidy if the text is misleading or wrong. Cleanup tags provide the same service, they notify of unprofessional writing that could obscure the proper meaning of the article. The real problem is that cleanup tags are overused. We need to fix that problem, not get rid of useful warnings to readers. gren グレン 01:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I might agree with gren insofar as POV tags are concerned. But I still disagree about cleanup tags being necessary. The discerning reader will recognize the deficiencies in the article without the tag; the undiscerning will not change what they are doing even with it. Pretty much the only person who needs to see it at all is a Wikipedia editor who is interested in doing the appropriate cleanup, and the little icon serves that purpose as well. If a caveat is needed at all, then it should be inconspicuous. As I have said to others, every lengthy document contains caveats, but they are usually placed in small print at the bottom of the text, not in big colorful boxes at the top. Unschool 04:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I was asked to comment on this, and I must say that I don't really like it. The point of editorial tags is that (1) they point out to readers that we know there's something not right here, and (2) they encourage people to go ahead and fix it, thus attracting new editors. Both of these are hampered by hiding the template as a small icon. Semi-protection is a very different situation. >Radiant< 08:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, my conversion leaves the tag open to both, like the Pp-semiprotected; thus giving us both options available. I like the small icon, besides removing useless visible junk, because you can leave detailed messages about what needs to be edited without it adding more ugly space on the page. Users will eventually figure this feature out anyways, so it's not like we're hiding anything. Also about overlapping, I think there's a way to align them; otherwise we can just hardcode them to be in certain spots (i.e. FA on the far right, Pp icons next to that, etc.). --Notmyhandle 01:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hit and Run Tagging

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

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

I agree with your sentiment. My personal experience on this matter is as follows: the general tag should be discouraged, in favor of section-specific cleanup tags that specify what the problem is and how to fix it. There are already tags for doing this, so if you want to change how people use this tag, you have my support. —Viriditas | Talk 02:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Or just provide a mandatory comment parameter. --Notmyhandle 02:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
That still doesn't specify the section needing to be fixed. Once you start using section specific tags, one is unlikely to use general cleanup tags. Here's the thing: cleanup-related tags should only be used when they point to the section that needs the cleanup, and explain how to fix the problem. Trivia and external links tags, as an example, do a good job of this. Otherwise, any tag in section zero is going to lead me to believe that only the lead section needs cleanup. We need to focus on how to fix the article, not on slapping tags at the top, hoping someone will figure it out. —Viriditas | Talk 02:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate everyone's comments on this. And I agree, section tags are more useful. My main problem is use of the tag as essentially a criticism of the article, which is basically what it's used for. As people have pointed out plenty already, it should be used to draw attention to articles that need that attention. It seems to me like that means it should never be slapped on an article that has an active editing crew. Turnover for actually getting problems taken care of just by the complete wikipedia list of tagged articles is clearly established to be months or years, whereas an active article has people looking at every revision and a tag popping up is just a pain in the side. I kind of wish there was more I could do about this. theanphibian 04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Use your momentum. What would you like to do? You've got support. —Viriditas | Talk 04:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I have two ideas for helping this movement. First, see the talk section just above this one about switching to icons. Secondly, we should make those section templates add categories to pages so that they can be easily found. Thirdly, we should make those icons spawn a generalized cleanup icon in the upper corner so that editors can know that something on the page needs help with. Then they are able to find the section tag to help with cleanup. Additionally we could make each tag, i.e. trivia and external links, to help guide editors more specifically when using the mini icons in the corner. --Notmyhandle 06:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
To address Theanphibian's point, the best way to tackle turnover is to merge all cleanup tasks into their associated WikiProject queues, with untagged articles residing in a general queue. The most active WikiProjects already have Category:WikiProject X articles needing cleanup in place, so it's just a matter of finding the best way to implement this solution and recategorize or add new cats. I want to be able to look at cleanup statistics in the same way that the Version 1.0 Editorial Team looks at quality. Right now, I should be able to see how many Hawaii-related articles are unreferenced, how many require trivia integration, how many need help with external link sections, how many need prose cleaned up in the lead or how many need lists turned into prose. To address this problem, you have to take the broad view and start at the top with Category:Wikipedia maintenance. This is not for the faint of heart. Structurally, you can see that there is a huge problem and a lot of work needed to do this. But, if we want to actually accomplish the tasks at hand, all cleanup categories should be categorized by WikiProject. That's how you solve the problem, and that's how you improve the encyclopedia. This does not and should not include deletion or any other administrative tasks. —Viriditas | Talk 09:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I am definitely interested in this stuff and I want to learn more about the technical part of Wikipedia, but I think this is mostly over my head right now :-/ I'm aware of project pages and categories, and those are of course powerful tools to get attention from the right people directed to the right articles. But project pages typically contain many lists of requested work that are simply manually maintained, which will almost necessarily mean that they become out of date and don't encompass anywhere near the quantity of articles that this tag (for instance) currently deals with. Anyway, I'll keep reading, thanks! theanphibian 07:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In a way, this gives you an edge as a fresh, unbiased observer, which is why I was asking for your input. What does your gut say? How would you fix the problem? —Viriditas | Talk 03:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I think those are both excellent ideas -- moving all tags to the end and redesigning them to be more subdued once there. (Perhaps all articles should have a "Tags" section at the end?) I've taken to moving tags to the end of articles when I come across them, and leaving at the top a pointer, the current version of which says:
Note: For information about the content, tone or sourcing of this article, please see the tags at the bottom of this page.
Of course, I'm gotten into a bit of trouble doing this, and have had a complaint lodged against me (at WP:AN/I). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki

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

[edit] Automatic dating

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

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

[edit] See also

{{Editprotected}}

Please add

to the "See also" section, and split the template documentation off to a standard /doc unprotected subpage, (see {{fact}} for example), so that pointless editprotecteds like this won't be necessary. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Tra (Talk) 22:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

{{editprotected}} Please change: <includeonly>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Cleanup from {{{date}}}]]}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Wikipedia cleanup]]}}}}}{{{category|[[Category:All pages needing cleanup]]}}}</includeonly>

to: <includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Clarify the cleanup||{{#if:{{{date|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Cleanup from {{{date}}}]]}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Wikipedia cleanup]]}}}}}{{{category|[[Category:All pages needing cleanup]]}}}}}</includeonly>.

Or just copy the contents of User:Melsaran/test. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 15:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've rejected this template mod because it seems to be creating an exception for a specific instance, meanwhile changing a very widely used template. I will fix the issue at Wikipedia:Clarify the cleanup instead. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, that is possible as well, didn't think of it. Thanks. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 20:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] syntax error

{{editprotected}} This template should have

width=60px

changed to

width="60"

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

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

[edit] Use proper unicode quote

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

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

[edit] Fix conflicting instructions re Subst

{{editprotected}}

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

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

And under Notes:

Please do not subst: this template.

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

[edit] Extra returns in template

{{editprotected}}

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

I agree. When you use this template with others below it, there's a big space on the bottom. szyslak 10:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thirded! Please delete the blank lines around the categories. ←BenB4 11:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. Thanks, mattbr 12:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New version of template

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

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

[edit] Couple of improvements

I have

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

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

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

[edit] Stubs

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

[edit] Discussing on the talk page

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

[edit] Spacing

{{editprotected}} Greetings!

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

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

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

[edit] Template:Ugly

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

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

[edit] Merge

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

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

[edit] Category inclusion

{{editprotected}}

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

Seems to have been Y Done already. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia cleanup missing form Template

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

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

[edit] interwiki nl

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

Done, Garion96 (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Errie22 (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)