Wikipedia talk:Template index/Cleanup/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Use different style for section cleanup messages?

Template {{unreferenced}} offers quite different appearances, depending on whether it is applied to a whole article or only an article section. In the latter case it is not centred, much smaller, and with a reduced text. I don't find this an improvement, but could live with it if this is uniformly applied across all cleanup templates. However, that is currently not the case, as you can see here. The imbalance between the amboxes is typographically unappealing. Worse, it makes it look as if the essay-like issue is much more serious than the lack of sources, thus giving an impression that is totally wrong.  --Lambiam 14:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

And along comes another dissatisfied editor. Please, feel free to join the club! Fleet Command (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This page Ironicly needs fixing

As the "Clean-Up" template now requires a "reason" tag, the page is now broken.

I'd fix it myself, if it wasn't for my lack of knowledge with these tables. Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Well you might have fixed this one page, but you removed new functionality from 20,000 articles! So I have reverted your "fix" and we are currently discussing on Template talk:Cleanup how best to sort out the display on this page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Issues Typo

'Multiple Issues combined (Section of an Article)' and 'Multiple Issues combined (Top of an Article)' have the Same tag, And I don't know which is correct or what the missing one is.

So I can't fix it.Larek (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

template:Jagged 85 shortened

This is a cleanup template with a very opaque name. I've requested that it be renamed to something else, see Template talk:Jagged 85 shortened ; it also doesn't seem to be listed here. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Best practices question when cleaning up articles

When editing an article to address issues (e.g., {{blp sources}} or other cleanup), is it appropriate for the editor, after having made a good faith effort to take care of the cleanup, to remove the template message themselves? Or is there a procedure for trying to get the person who added the template message to verify that they are satisfied with the changes? I suspect it's proper for the editor to remove it, but this doesn't seem to be addressed anywhere that I can see, and I'm currently working on fixing up a {{blp sources}} article and would like to know if there's a best practice for this. Thanks. Gmporr (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, any editor can remove a cleanup tag if they feel that the problem has been dealt with. I don't think there's a guideline that spells this out specifically, but WP:BOLD is probably applicable here. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thx :) Gmporr (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User: YellowPegasus

Can someone look at YellowPegasus (talk · contribs) recent renames of image cleanup templates? Should they use the opaque Wikijargon term "Wikigraphist" (wikigraphists work at WP:Graphics lab and WP:Wikigraphist doesn't exist). Since YellowPegasus is an account that is only 1 month old, I'd think these are not widely accepted renames? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposing a "tertiary source-inline"

As of December 2012, {{primary source-inline}} turns into an article tag of "^{[non-primary source needed]}"

We have some situations in Spaceflight-related articles where we must temporarily resort to using tertiary sources from hobbyist-compiled web-encyclopedias such as Ed Kyle's "Space Launch Report". When we do this, we would like to keep the use of such tertiary sources temporary, and keep a lookout for a better WP:SECONDARY source to replace it.

Proposal: might it be possible to have a {{[[template:Tertiary source-inline|tertiary source-inline]]}} turn into an article tag of ''[[wikipedia:No original research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources|non-tertiary source preferred]]''? Or maybe even better might be: ''[[wikipedia:No original research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources|secondary source preferred]]''

Thanks for considering this. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't {{Better source}} be good enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-film?

I noticed that there's a book-specific cleanup template at {{Cleanup-book}}, but not one for movies. I created one based on Cleanup-book in my userspace: User:Atlantima/Template:Cleanup-film. How does it look?--Atlantima (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Request advice about removing "neutrality disputed" tags on articles

I notice quite a few articles in one of the fields I am interested in as an editor, history of religion, have "neutrality disputed" tags on them with the message "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." However some of the articles have just had those tags sitting on them for years, with no work being done on them, no discussion on the talk page, no one making any effort to resolve the dispute. It seems to me that this is not very satisfactory as I thought those tags were supposed to be a notice to invite further work on the article, not to sit there as a "badge of shame" proclaiming "this article is no good" forever. If I do my best to improve such articles, how do I know when "the dispute is resolved"? What should I do, leave a message on the talk page saying "I made changes in the article and now I am going to remove the 'neutrality disputed' tag unless anyone objects by tomorrow" - or should it be next week, next year, what? Or is it OK just to take the tag off?Smeat75 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If the editor who added the tag didn't bother to start a discussion, I think it's fine to just remove it if you disagree. DoctorKubla (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the "When to remove" section of the template's documentation says exactly that. DoctorKubla (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, it does, thank you, I did not see that.Smeat75 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Two points of advice:

• I usually give an edit summary of "Rm stale POV tag per "ongoing dispute" clause" so that anyone who disagrees has a bit of warning about what the issue is.
• Don't edit war over it. You can get dozens of invalid tags removed in the time that it takes to deal with just one POV pusher. If someone reverts the removal, then just move on to another article. There are thousands listed at Category:NPOV disputes, so the outcome at one article is unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

cleanup template for for mixed lists and tables

I'd like a template that indicates the article is mixing list and tables and it should be standardized on one or the other. (Mainly for articles that are lists that someone started to make into tables and didn't finish.) I don't know for sure that it doesn't already exist, but I can't find it and if it doesn't exist then it seems it would concisely state the kind of cleanup needed. RJFJR (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Something that would link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists maybe? GoingBatty (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)