Wikipedia talk:Template index/Cleanup

Capitalization Tag

I think we need a tag for poor capitalization. This is a major problem in many articles about Japanese (and perhaps other countries') popular culture where names have unconventional capitalization. The problem arises because contributors think that the 'official' capitalization of an album/band/single name etc. should run through the whole document in opposition to Wikipedia's guidelines on style. It's particular annoying to read whole articles filled with all-caps etc. I think in this case it makes more sense just to target the capitalization rather than the punctuation/style in general because that is usually the major problem and I can see a more general approach resulting in a comma or two being fixed and the message being deleted.

L'Arc~en~Ciel is a good example.

Macgruder 17:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed template: technical jargon

I'd like to see a simple template to use when an author has used a technical term without defining it. See Romic alphabet and its use of the term "glossic transcription". {{buzzword}} implies that the article is loaded with lots of buzzwords, which may not always be the case. We need something for the isolated term.

Suggested format: {{Techterm|term}} Suggested text, using a purple box and the 40pxInformation icon:

This article uses the technical term "term" without defining it. Please rewrite this article to make it more accessible to a general audience and comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. See Wikipedia:Explain_jargon.

--Cbdorsett 09:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

All that over a little bit of text seems a bit specialized and unnecessary. How often does that happen, anyway? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Is there a template to suggest that a page should revise its introduction or add one in accordance with WP:LEAD. Please respond to my talk page. TonyTheTiger 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Using the talkpage of the article is an option instead of using templates. --Van helsing 20:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously, Van. The templates themselves often advise or require talk page comments. Still, your commentr is a general denouncement, not an answer. I'd say there probably aren't any templates like that. I've never seen one. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You’re right there Ace. But, in general I think we should avoid creating templates for every little issue and litter an article with it. People tend to avoid talking about their concerns when there’s a convenient template available, even when a template refers to the talkpage. Still, I agree it probably wasn’t the response TonyTheTiger was looking for. --Van helsing 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As I replied at his talkpage, See the first 4 template links in Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. I've added them to the list already. --Quiddity 21:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Still, none of that actually applies to creating an intro. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul

I've just finished re-structuring this page, so that the various cleanup templates are divided into sections based on their purpose/topic/etc. That will hopefully make it much easier to find the specific template one is looking for. I've also added some intro text (with links) to many of the sections, in an attempt to provide some context for the new user. Can we remove the {{cleanup-restructure}} template from this project page now? Comments, commendations, and condemnations are all welcome. —DragonHawk (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, much thanks :) --Quiddity 09:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no disagreement, and as the page appears to be in good shape, I'm going to remove the {{cleanup-restructure}} template. NickdelaG

List

I created this list iof templates and their category for a WP:LGBT automated to-do list, but thought other people may wish to use it:

Cleanup

{{cleanup}}

{{cleanup-remainder}}

{{cleanup-confusing}}

{{cleanup-list}}

{{create-list}}

{{cleanup-disambig}}

{{cleanup-afd}}

{{abbreviations}}

{{buzzword}}

{{cleanup-combine}}

{{cleanup-laundry}}

{{cleanup-laundryrack}}

{{cleanup-rewrite}}

{{cleanup-spam}}

{{in-universe}}

{{contradict}}

{{Essay-entry}}

{{fiction}}

{{list to prose (section)}}

{{External links}}

{{toomuchtrivia}}

{{uncategorized}}

{{spelling}}

Expert Attention

{{Expert}}

{{Expert-verify}}

{{in-universe}}

Wikification

{{cleanup-restructure}}

{{proseline}}

{{in-universe}}

{{wikify}}

NPOV

{{advert}}

{{review}}

{{fansite}}

{{review}}

{{POV}}

{{POV-section}}

{{totally-disputed}}

{{totally-disputed-section}}

{{sections}}

{{globalize}}

{{story}}

{{weasel}}

Verification

{{copypaste}}

{{Disputed}}

{{Disputed-section}}

{{citations missing}}

{{citecheck}}

{{unreferenced}}

{{Unreferencedsect}}

{{originalresearch}}

Expand

{{context}}

{{Expand}}

{{Expand-section}}

{{local}}

{{Expand}}

Translation

{{Notenglish}}

{{TranslatePassage}}

{{cleanup-translation}}

{{RoughTranslation}}

Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Template proposal: Math

What about a template noting that there are mathematic formulas or calculations that need to be formatted properly? --LakeHMM 05:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of the templates

What's with the total lack of standardisation?! The variety of images, colours and wording across the templates is very confusing, which is especially bad since these are supposed to be placed in the article namespace. Can we suggest a few standards? Jack · talk · 14:07, Sunday, 25 February 2007

Template proposal: Redundancy

There really should be a template message for articles where a lot of the text is repetitive or redundant. An example of this problem is the current article on Goliathus (Goliath beetle) where virtually the same litany of facts is stated in the first part of the article and repeated in a different order in the second part. I have no experience making templates (does it require administrative approval?), but if it is possible I would be glad to design such a template myself. InnocuousPseudonym 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Template for obscure time references?

Is there a template for relative time references such as "yesterday", "last year", "X years ago," "recently," etc. that seem as if "today" was the current date used as a reference? Squids'and'Chips 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Template proposal

I would like to propose the following template:

This idea came out of a discussion about Proprioception on that articles talk page. I think that it would be a useful alternative to {{Disputed}}, where the facts aren't wrong per se, but the theme of the article seems to miss the point. Also, it could be useful when the wording of an article is such that the statements in the article may be true, but they might lead the casual reader to interpret them in a way that is not. --Selket ^Talk 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm going to go ahead and add this one. --Selket ^Talk 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of specific subjects

Are these really necessary? Would it be impossible to use the more generic cleanup templates instead of these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.115.227 (talk • contribs)

How is this supposed to work? The cleanup-section template (for example) prints "and/or replace this tag with a more specific message", but the link to Cleanup#Cleanup_.E2.80.94_specific_issues doesn't go anywhere. Does "more specific message" mean using a more specific tag (cleanup-section instead of cleanup), or is there a parameter like date that lets an editor say specifically how the page / section / whatever needs to be cleaned up? (Obviously this can go in the talk page.) Lumpish Scholar 13:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems the problem lies in the redirect page. Checking the history it used to redirect to Wikipedia:Cleanup but was changed to cleanliness and back and forth to Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. Currently it points to cleanliness which as you said is pretty useless. The templates probably need to be changed to point directly to Wikipedia:Cleanup resources instead. I think the general idea of the message itself is to get people to mark what kinds of cleanup need to be done (wikify, rewrite, whatever) rather than the general tag. Hope that answers your question, maybe someone more familiar with the templates in question will fix them, or we could just change the redirect, again. Stardust8212 13:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor glitch

The "citations missing" template shows up on most pages as this:

"This article or section is missing citations and/or footnotes." (and so on)

However, here on this page, it shows up as this:

"This is missing citations and/or footnotes." (etc.)

Any clues why? Maybe it's linked to an older version, somehow... I checked the Wiki code there and can't think of anything else. Kennard2 01:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"list templates" category

This article is appropriate for categorization in category:list templates because this article has list cleanup templates. Duh. There should be a way to have a master (template?) list cleanup template list that only has those templates on it, so the entire wikipedia:template messages/cleanup article doesn't have to be included in the "list templates' category. -Eep² 10:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't, because the category itself says it isn't allowed, as I quoted to you. If you want to change that, first edit the category to remove that text. Otherwise we are contradicting ourselves. As for the other issue, this page should probably be split up anyway.—greenrd 11:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

subpages

These template message lists are getting too long. They should be split up into even more subpages. See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages#subpages for main discussion -Eep² 16:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed policy: Keep cleanup tags on talk pages

I'm proposing a policy [1] saying that "cleanup" messages should be on talk pages, not in the article itself. Your thoughts are welcome. --PeR 07:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be left on the page itself. First off it lets the reader now that there are issues with the article. Secondly, it means that the shortcomings of the article are more likely to be dealt with as the main contributers know that the 'weaknesses' of the article are in a very visible place. Put that stuff on the talk page and people are less likely to deal with it in my opinion. Macgruder 09:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for information, there's currently a backlog of over 24 000 pages marked for "cleanup". I don't think it's possible for people to be any less likely to deal with it. --PeR 05:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

24,000 out of 1,775,000 . About 1.35%. That seems a good number. Macgruder 08:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

orphaned category

I created an orphaned category template. -Eep² 22:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)