Wikipedia talk:Template index/Cleanup

excessive paraphrasing of one source

I couldn't find a template for this common problem. It's not plagiarism if the source is indicated, and it's not copypaste if it's paraphrased, but we need a template indicating articles that are essentially nothing but a copy of the content of only one source, even if this is not a non-free copyrighted source and therefore not even a thinly disguised copyright violation.

The "close paraphrasing" template is no help, on the contrary. It's part of the problem because it only applies to paraphrasing of non-free copyrighted sources and therefore indirectly implies it's OK to write an entire encyclopedia article based on only one free-use source and to even do that by paraphrasing that single source closely. --Espoo (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're talking about articles copypasted from public-domain encyclopedias, like the Dictionary of National Biography or the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, this isn't considered to be a problem – see WP:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources. Of course, most of them do need to be cleaned up, a job usually neglected by the article creators, but that's true of basically every article. If you're interested in doing cleanup work on these articles, you can find them through Category:Wikipedia sources. -- DoctorKubla (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No, i'm not talking about using an encyclopedic source to write an encyclopedia article, on the contrary. I'm also not talking about copypasting, on the contrary.

I'm talking about the many articles that are based on a single "normal" (non-encyclopedic) text -- which is bad enough and for which we apparently also don't have a template -- and that often but not always also consist of excessive paraphrasing of this (non-encyclopedic) source.

People do this often, especially when writing their first Wikipedia article. They find an interesting online or printed article or an interesting book and write an entire article using that as their only source. Many of them in addition aren't even smart enough to realize they should summarize the source and instead simply paraphrase it, thinking it's not plagiarism if it's not copypaste and if they indicate the source. People are doing this all the time, and we don't even have templates to warn readers and editors.

A case of extreme naiveness is Development finance institution, where the same source is even referenced after every single sentence. --Espoo (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean with regards to the paraphrasing issue – closely paraphrased text from a non-free copyrighted source can be tagged with {{close paraphrasing}}, and closely paraphrased text from a free-use or public domain source isn't a problem. As for the single source issue, we do have a {{one source}} template for articles reliant on a single source. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing from free-use or pd sources may be a problem if it isn't attributed per WP:Plagiarism. If it is, community consensus is that it is not really a problem. The {{Close paraphrasing}} can be used for those sources, too. :) As the documentation notes, all you have to do is add "|free=yes" --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say what Espoo describes is more of a notability problem than a problem with the sources given: A single source usually won't establish notability. Huon (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, a single source doesn't prove notability but it doesn't disprove it either. (And even such articles are usually better than most "normal" Wikipedia articles since most of those have no sources for most of their content.)

Thanks for clearing up all my questions by pointing out {{one source}} (don't know how i overlooked that one) and free=yes. Interestingly free=yes changes the text to the neutral and therefore more applicable and helpful "one or more external sources", not "one or more free-use or PD sources" as one would expect. So this needs the third choice yes/no/both.

In the case of articles whose content is based on a single or only a few sources: If the sources are not encyclopedia articles, a lack of sources is a problem even if the sources used are not excessively paraphrased. Non-encyclopedic sources represent the opinion of only one person or only a few people, so a WP article that uses only a few non-encyclopedic sources is an essay, not an encyclopedic article. (And most articles based mostly on free-use or PD encyclopedic sources are a serious problem because these sources are usually outdated -- BTW is there a template for that?)

If there is in addition close paraphrasing, it looks like we have to make do with the combination of the "close paraphrasing" and "one source" templates unless we can get a "not enough sources" template. The {{refimprove}} template's wording is not clear or strong enough for most situations. In fact, it approaches the problems from the wrong side. Most articles have unattributed material that is simply incorrect or made up, and most of the few articles with only sourced information are based on only a small number of sources. So instead of "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." we need something like this, for example: "This article needs more information from reliable sources. Please help improve this article by adding such information and the citations to such sources and by removing all unsourced material contradicted by these sources. Please also challenge any unsourced material you feel may be incorrect." --Espoo (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggest page reorganization

As written, imho there is entirely too much emphasis on the undesirable cleanup templates -- those asserting the much hated and despicable (mbox template) banner messages (Boo, Hiss!) all you seem content to trash up the articles with, and far too often.

(No, rebuttals please, I'm entitled to think you all are a bit balmy for STILL putting up with these assaults on the credibility and hard work of those using a professional expertise (Whatever happened to WP:AGF in this 'alledged system'—there is no balancing force removing them that I can see.) in a subject and who have actually edited so as to add content to the project. They are overused far too often by some ill-educated high school wanna-be editor asking for citations on introductory topics, things considered 'Crystallized Knowledge' that texts have taught for decades or centuries.)

It's been at least eight years now since they first appeared, and there ought be a project that just reviews the judgement of the judgmental asses that hang each and every one of them. It's like no one ever thinks to clear them, when these days, at least half have long overstayed their welcome.
I'm trying to be a bit funny in a serious way. It is high time we reconsidered how often these things are overused. How often they are hung on an short history article citing 3,4,7, even ten literary references and contain a scattering of cite footnotes, and the {{refimprove}} nazis think the article insufficient! This a particular problem imho in the under forties crowd who apparently never heard of research outside the internet, books by published authorities are beyond their comprehension.
Further, any such technical article which has sufficient footnotes (enough to decorate every other prepositional phrase, apparently is the standard they want) for that crowd quickly becomes difficult to edit because the cites outweigh the volume of prose in the edit window. This is a real problem for those of us visually impaired that have to use much larger fonts to just edit... not so much for young eyes who can pick out ant-footprint sized fonts. (I am gratified by the thought: "We all turn 40 and then 50, eventually-mother nature will make those insensitive to that point pay! Someday! <BSEG>)

Call to arms!

I just wanted to remind you all the over use of these banner messages ought be STRONGLY 'discouraged' when an inline message or template will suffice. This page needs be amended accordingly to accomplish at least a nudge in that direction.

• My point, philosophy and problems perceived aside, is this Wikipedia how-to page needs to bring in-line templates into far more prominence.
  • Just simply looking for an inline template to tag a questionable and unclear cite I couldn't validate as being germane was mostly unsuccessful,
  • the best I can find QUICKLY AND EASILY... (an key factor, imho... we are all volunteers with limited amounts of time to donate after all)... is one asking for a quote from the disorganized rambling blog-style article cited.

• My suggestion is to 'copy up' these templates into an early preferably top section, organized as a table ... leaving the page have redundancy in keeping it's current flow, but inserting the more desirable template class into a newly created prominence above. I reason having experienced this issue over and over, that the threaded by-topic-group coverage now extant interleaved by those IN YOUR FACE box templates creates a hostile environment to finding the small inline templates. The page succession makes them far too easy to overlook, for they are almost buried amongst a table designed to showcase and catalog the mbox tags.

• Thus, if appointed Emperor of Wikipedia, I'd want to put up a special table in the page top... as the first table, where all are listed with a short purpose statement, recapping when and where it is used.
  • Grouped together like this, they will hopefully (in time) gradually receive more use, and those detrimental to the projects credibility, less. (Yeah, yeah. A forlorn hope, but sometimes prayers work.)
  • I do not recommend a separate page as some of you may be thinking—IMHO, 'THAT' would be counter-productive and even more confusing. It is also high time we consolidated and began cutting down on the shear numbers of reference pages and guidelines in existence on this project. The count passed the 'merely ridiculous' to exceed the 'unbelievably overcomplicated' at least four years back.

Warm regards, // FrankB 16:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Article can only be understood by people familiarized with the subject

Please can anyone help me with the appropriate template? Thank you. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

{{Context}}, maybe? DoctorKubla (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines for removal of tags

I came to look at this page for guidance about whether or not a tag should be removed, but there appears to be none.

After making edits specifically to address the issues raised by a notability tag for example, should I remove the tag myself, wait for the editor who added the tag to re-review it, should I contact them directly and ask for a review, should I make a note in the talk page requesting a review, etc... ?

Phil the (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've just found on the Template:Notability page that this is mentioned. It might still be useful to have something in gen4eral on this page though. Phil the (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Tag Consolidation and/or How to find that one in a million templates?

I am quite overwhelmed by this entire help article.

I have run across an article, Sovereignty, that has multiple issues. I have looked for some of the specific tags needed, but after reading for fifteen minutes, I gave up. I guess they must be in this page somewhere. I then saw the multiple issues template, and thought, ok thats perfect, I can slap that one on, and list them in talk. However, it included the following point:

>Include only those maintenance templates directly relevant to the issues of the particular article or section. Also, do not use this template without any templates.

Do not use this template without any templates? Is someone kidding? Does it mean, "Do not use this template if no cleanup(?) templates listing the article's specific problems have been applied yet?" I'm guessing that means that I have to have other templates below this one for the specifics? However, the whole purpose of this tag seems to be to avoid that problem.

Relatedly, is there a list of the most commonly used templates somewhere that doesn't require one to check and see if their article concerns books, or schools or the CIA? Is there a reason for this proliferation of templates? Does it help Wikipedia in some way aside from letting each person write their own preferred template? Can someone point me to the right place to discuss this?

I want to contribute, but Wikipedia does not make it easy; I regularly spend five times as much time figuring out how to do something than actually doing it. Perhaps I will make a new "I can't find the right template" template. Or, I will just wimp out with the cleanup general template.

Thank you for reading the rant.

Peacedance (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Peacedance: - "do not use this template without any templates" is a poor way to indicate that putting {{multiple issues}} at the top of the page isinsufficient. You need to specify the issues with maintenance templates within {{multiple issues}}, such as:

{{multiple issues|

{{orphan|date=December 2013}}

{{dead end|date=December 2013}}

{{notability|bio|date=December 2013}}

}}

Maybe you could suggest a better way to word the documentation? GoingBatty (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

New template

Hello! I've discovered that some articles have excessive disambig link problems. I believe the article I noticed this on is So You Think You Can Dance (U.S. season 10). I have developed this makeshift template. I need people who know what they're doing to make this an actual template if there isn't consensus to nix it. Thanks all!—Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 19:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

{{dmbox|type=setindex|nocat=true|image=[[File:Disambig gray.svg|40px]]|text=This page requires disambiguation link cleanup.}}