Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template messages/Cleanup page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Shortcuts: WT:TC WT:TMC

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

[edit] Templates linking to pages which should not be read

Is it advisable to have templates link to historical pages? These pages contain policies, guidelines, and practices which have been rejected by the community, so I find it quite imprudent to actually suggest to editors to read them. Links to such pages should therefore be avoided at all times, in my opinion. I have just located two specific examples: {{cleanup-reorganize}} and {{cleanup-restructure}} link to Wikipedia:How to structure the content, which is a historical page.

I suggest that the links in question should be re-directed to Wikipedia:Layout, an excellent page outlining the basics of article structuring. If there is no objection, I shall do this tomorrow. Waltham, The Duke of 20:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking about the same issue. I agree that links to historical pages can be misleading. In addition to what you suggest, perhaps a subsection of the standard See Also section called Historical Documents or some such, for those editors who really want to see the whole history of a topic. For those of us who use categories a lot for browsing the project namespace, I'm thinking that a new category "Wikipedia inactive documents" to segregate all these. Libcub (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Category:Inactive project pages cover you? All historical pages are tagged with the X-bearing template at the top, and that template also serves to categorise them. What did you think, that the Wikipedia community wouldn't have a cemetery where to bury its miscarriages? :-D

On another note, I admit that I didn't understand the part about the See also section. I suppose you are talking about project pages, because it would make no sense otherwise; however, I was talking about the mainspace, which is where these templates appear. In any case, relevant pages are often mentioned in, and linked from, project pages, and if they are mentioned in the text they need not be in the See also section. It is a greater problem when there are links not acknowledging that the pages on the other side are historical... Hell, even the department directory listed one not long ago. Waltham, The Duke of 01:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: Seeing that there is no opposition, I have just done the re-directs, as described in my first message. Waltham, The Duke of 18:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Memorial

I've created {{memorial}} to deal with WP:MEMORIAL. Feel free to add it to the relevant lists. Skomorokh 14:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight?

No template for tagging a source as possibly undue weight?^{[undue weight?]} --Nate (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overlinked

We could use something like this. I've just added such a tag to an article but didn't want to create a new template in case there was one that I hadn't found. JЇѦρ 03:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh heck, now there's a template I'll use. Thank you. TONY (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay I see that such a template already existed (with the same name), let's add it to this page. JIMp_talk·cont 23:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article or section

We don't seem to know whether we're Arthur or Martha. You add a tag to an article & you know it's an article. You add a tag to a section and you know it's a section. Why not at least give editors the option to look like we know what we're talking about. It'd be as simple as {{{art/sec|article or section}}}. It reminds me of those userboxes with "him/her", "he/she", "his/hers", etc. ... I know whether I'm a boy or a girl ... but at least the userboxes don't get onto the mainspace. JЇѦρ 03:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia bug?

Please look at this: Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Fiction and see the text This may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction.. There is something MISSING in-between! Now check Template:Fiction, and you see that the text is correct this time: This article or section may fail.... Why is this so? -andy 85.179.58.60 (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at {{fiction}}, the text "article or section" is default message that can be changed by the editor— this is not documented. If you used {{fiction|section}}, then it would say "This section may fail . . ." The list of templates uses {{tlrow}} to show each template. For some reason, it suppresses the default message of {{fiction}}. I added the text back in manually. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This empire has grown like topsy

I've never looked through this complete list of clean-up templates. I'm shocked to find so many that are very similar. Why? Every one that is added, with a finely different shade of meaning, means that people have to be aware of its existence to be able to use it. The list is huge.

Much more practical and user-friendly would be a rationalised list (probably half the size), with the fluff removed. One template should do for both article and section, for example, not TWO.

In addition, the bright yellow in the ones at the top is just a glare; the "A" can hardly be seen. When did this happen? The old one was so much better. TONY (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My monitor doesn't show any bright yellow. Which ones are you talking about. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template for lists that need ordering?

I can't find one of these, does one exist? If not i think one would be useful. if anyone can help it would be appreciated as i'm not that familiar with creating a template. --neonwhite user page talk 14:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Something like :-

created the template as {{Unsorted}} --neonwhite user page talk 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

One nitpick: the word "criteria" is plural. I suggest the text be changed to: Please improve this list by sorting it according to a single criterion. Note though that many lists are coded so that they can be sorted by more than one criterion. – ukexpat (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You might lexically order by one criterion within another: 1a, 1b, ..., 2a ... Peter jackson (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

True. Not sure how to word that bearing in mind that the linked info at Wikipedia:LISTS#Organization does explain it too. --neon white talk 16:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What template to use for see also that's too long?

Per my question above, I'd like to tag long see also's sections that need pruning, like this one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to create an appropriate template, the {{toomanyseealsos}}.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What template to denote edit warring?

What template should one insert into an article which is so crippled by disputes, edit warring and interminable Talk page discussions that progress is rarely made (I'm thinking of some political articles here, specifically former Australian prime minister John Howard and the voting system Instant-runoff voting)? The Template:POV isn't quite right - the edit warring results in a reasonable balance, it's just that the articles are still a dog's breakfast. Any other suggestions? Peter Ballard (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if there was one, I doubt it would survive long on an article that was the subject of an edit war. – ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

whoa try some of these:

An editor has requested a third opinion regarding a dispute about this article. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, please see the discussion below.

i found them on this page: Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes OsamaBinLogin (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion of Topic

hey guys I think we need a cleanup tag that reads: "This article contains major factual errors which confuse the subject matter with another".
I'm making it right now and placing it at the Victoria Peak page, which is a good example as to why it is needed.

I'll eaborate: Victoria Peak is a mountain located in Hong Kong; as oppose to what its name suggests; which is rightly-so confusing to all!.

Thus, most people confuse the luxury "Peak district" atop Victoria Peak to be "Victoria Peak". (I mean people in real life, not just Wiki; particularly english-speaking foreigners as they do not know the Chinese & Cantonese name of it. which specifies it as a mountain.)

As a result, the Victoria Peak article contains information that suggests Victoria Peak being "an actual peak" which is COMEPLTETELY ERRONEOUS!! On top of that there are exclusive information conveying the residence and entertainment that is available on the peak; which; although are actually on the mountain; further confuse the subject matter.

I'll clean the article up myself if time allows, meanwhile I think this tag might be of use since nothing like it exists here; or is close enough.

P.S. kudos to User:Adam_kevin for putting up this tag:

which was made by me to deal with another specific article problem. He probably saw it and liked it lol :) :P

HERE, DONE THE TAG!:

Example- I posted this on Wing Tsun (See Talk: Wing Tsun for dispute/issue details).

--WiKID Daryl (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)la

The template {{distinguish}} might be useful. When using it for non-wikilinked items, subst: the template first, then edit out the double-square-brackets to turn the redlink black. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] arbitrary section break

Plagarised?

I edited a usable customisable template and added it to a page i thought needed it here- Wing Tsun (see the latest;or my; entry in Talk:Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup.

However, I found not long ago that my edit was "erased" mysteriously- no record whatsoever, and then I saw this template added by User: Adam Kevin.

At first I thought he added it on behalf of my creation, but the disappearence makes me wonder if my edit was deliberately vandalised so he can take credit of it...

Can someone please help me with this one?

--WiKID Daryl (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[Retrieved from "[[1]]"]

[edit] Citation cleanup in tables

It might prove helpful to have a template that would suggest that citations within a table could be improved by properly locating the citation in another part of the table. For example, the table in this article has a pile of citations at the bottom of the table ("^{[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]}" but no information as to which source might support which of the myriad claims within the table. In this case, moving some or all of the citations to a specific column, or to a specific table cell, would make a lot more sense, and it would be easier to determine which data in the table may be poorly sourced, outdated or even original research. Does anyone else run into this problem in Wikipedia tables? If so, would it be worth considering a cleanup template for it? N2e (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Making template making easier

I see several people making their own templates here. I think wikipidia should improve their help page on the subject or create a new one about making template tags. It would be a wonderful idea to allow more templates to be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.118.68.193 (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New templates

Ipatrol added a bunch of templates, some of these have already been replaced with redirects. Anyone go time to remove them? ~~

[edit] Layout problem – do we have a tag for this?

Ofot Line has a problem with overlapping images and other page elements. Do we have a cleanup tag suitable for this sort of problem? (I'm no looking for a solution to the problem on that page, just a template for such situations). __meco (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Potential new cleanup template

Hi all - I've just created this: {{cleanup-weighted}} - it's similar to {{gen-section}}, but for use where a whole article requires work. I was prompted to make this while trying to tag an article on Caux, Switzerland which had two lines on the village itself then three large sections on a hotel in the village. I'd be grateful if someone more involved with cleanup could have a look at this template and either yay or nay it - feel free to either tidy it up to required standard if it looks useful or delete it if it doesn't. Cheers, Grutness...wha? 01:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if that graphic were a balance with one side drooping down. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Accessibility issues template needed

This is a request for a template that a page needs accessibility cleaning, to be listed in the Wiki Tech section of the current page.

I am seeing tables that are coded in a fashion that are not likely to be accessible to voice browsers.

For instance, List of current United States governors had only images in the first column. Unless the image has an alt attribute, this cannot be read by voice browsers (although some will read the file name). By swapping the picture column with the name column, so that the name was in the first column, I made the table accessible.

On the page List of Governors of California there was an even bigger problem. The first column contained only the party color in each row (presumably because the California Governor and the California Lieutenant Governor can be of different parties. I switched the term number column and the party color column.

Worse, the Lieutenant Governor's party was indicated solely by color, which is not readable by a voice browser, so I added a Lieutenant Governor's Party column. Unfortunately, this makes the table quite wide.

Ideally, the terms would not be represented by merged cells in the first column.

In addition, the list of other high offices held joined the columns of House and Senate with a colspan containing "U.S. Congress", meaning that voice browsers which read the contents of the first row of a column would not distinguish between the House column and the Senate column. I gave each of the two columns one unique title.

It was fairly time-consuming to make these fixes, so it would be nice to have a template for "Table needs cleanup to make table accessible" or "Page needs cleanup to make tables, images, and other content more accessible" or something like that, together with a Wiki page that lists pages needing accessibility cleanup.

Even better, if Wikipedia could detect colspans/rowspans in the header row/column, or non-text content in the first row or column and automatically add the template, that would quickly identify tables with these problems.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup templates: Is it time for a fundamental change?

I have raised the following point for discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Cleanup templates: Is it time for a fundamental change?:

I am a great supporter of the current array of templates available at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, as I feel that they invite editors to address issues such as {{notability}} by improving the articles in question. I use them often, and despite the fact their use brings me into conflict with other editors, I feel their benefit far outways their disadvantages.
However, there is an issue about their relevance to general reader. On the one hand, they act as a warning that there may be problems with the article subject, the content or viewpoint of the article itself, or that there are other quality issues that the reader should take account when forming their own views about a particular topic. On the other, cleanup issues such as notability really are not a major issue for most readers, and frankly notability is a rather esoteric subject in any case.
My proposal is that cleanup templates would be better placed on article talk pages, rather than added to the mainspace articles themselves on the grounds that they detract from the reader's experience of Wikipedia. In articles such as A Terrible Vengeance, the templates tend to disfigure the articles when looked from a purely presentational view, and the issues they are designed to address are probably better addressed through the talk pages in any case. Does anyone share this view, or should they remain on article page as is current practise?

Your comments here or at the village pump would be welcome. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

well, if they're in the article itself, they're more likely to be noticed by someone like me who's willing to roll up his sleeves. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Osama. Unregistered readers could be intrigued by the possibility of doing some editing, and they normally would not go to the Talk Page. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, your proposal is spot on, and it's significant that multiple editors have independently arrived at the same conclusion. I couldn't find your Village Pump thread (I even checked the archives), but I think it's clear we need to re-evaluate and clarify the proper use of template tags, and which ones are proper to the article space and which ones are proper to the talk space. It seems plain to me that any template tag that merely expresses an editor opinion about the current state of an article constitutes talk content and belongs in the talk space, where it can be properly and fully addressed. Even better, such templates should be accompanied by the requirement for fuller elaboration, similar to how the fair use rationale templates used on images must be fully filled out with rationales. Robert K S (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm not too concerned about the presence or absence of "warning labels" on Article Pages. It seems to me that users should be warned at every opportunity that Wikipedia articles are not Gospel. that they are in cyberspace only because fallible human beings put them there (usually — they are sometimes placed there by equally fallible robots). Messages at the tops of pages give notice also that somebody is keeping an eye on articles and that a poorly written or poorly-thought-out article has drawn the attention of a real person out there in cyberspace. No, I don't believe there is any problem here to be solved. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia without further investigation" is sort of the 21st century version of "Don't cross the street without looking both ways" or "Don't take candy from strangers". Valuable to know, but do you really need such warning messages to be plastered all over the city in order to remind you about the hazards of minute-to-minute living? Any politician who would propose such a thing would be run out of town on a rail. If there is a systemic problem of people accepting bad information without giving it a critical eye, then, as User:Kildor offered in a previous discussion, "The fundamental concept of Wikipedia is that anyone can write and improve articles. And if that message is not clear enough, that is a concern for the overall design of this website." Template messages that merely complain that an article ought to be improved in some aspect may indicate that someone has noticed an obvious problem, but that is not necessarily a step toward fixing the problem and in most cases it makes the problem worse. Imagine your lawn gets overgrown because you didn't have time to mow it, and this draws the ire of your neighbors. Do you really think it would be appropriate of your neighbors to spray paint "Mow your lawn" on the front of your house? Does that improve the lawn situation? Two wrongs don't make a right, and compounding a content problem with a blight problem is just taking things one step further from the solution. Robert K S (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert makes a very strong case. I am on the verge of agreeing with him. It would be easier to do so if it had been decided in the beginning that Improvement tags should go on the Talk Pages. We tend to maintain what we are used to. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This wouldn't work well without a whole bevy of new {{otheruses}} style in-line templates to replace all the |section cleanup templates. Given that and the preservation of the mainspace style {{Multipleissues}} template (but renamed), I wouldn't object. Still, I would also say that this would be a moot point if someone just brought a bot to bear to do a mass consolidation with Multipleissues. It'd still be ugly, but it'd be far less ugly than something you need to bury in Talk: space. Combine that bot with a new approach to section tagging as described two sentences back, and we'd be markedly cleaner looking but retain plenty of the editing tips and productivity tools we currently have. MrZaius^talk 04:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Standardisation of template styling

So {{ambox}} is now mature and used everywhere, and most templates have a pretty similar style. However, it's come to my attention that there's no actual guideline on how they should be styled, other than using the ambox class.

I'd like to propose that we standardise on the following layout:

The main areas to note:

The image is standardised at 40px height. For most readers, this results in an image which neatly fits with two rows of text without distorting the box.
The template starts with "this article", although "article" can be replaced by adding an attribute.
Only the policy / style guideline violation is bolded, not the whole first line. This helps to show exactly what is wrong.
A link is provided to editing the article, in order to encourage participation. No link to the talk page is provided unless the issue demands discussion, such as an NPOV dispute.
Line breaks and small text are not used to separate the problem and the resolution. Bolding the problem is sufficient to highlight it; using small text for the resolution makes it harder to read, makes it harder to click any links in it and generally doesn't improve the layout. It really seems like more of a hack to prevent the template from wrapping over into three lines; removing manual line breaks obviates this problem.
The date, which is fairly trivial, can be left small.

I've been working on rolling this out over templates recently, such as {{unreferenced}}, {{self-published}} and {{advert}}. I think that this should be adopted by other templates, and that we should have a documented guideline on layout. Suggestions? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally agree. I wish more of these templates did resist growth, and fit on two lines (at 1024x768). Good simplifications/clarifications. Large icons are a particular atrocity. I'm not sure about point 5, will have to take a longer look around first... -- Quiddity (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

With the possible exception of size, I do not see how this isn't process creep. I believe that some templates need a slighlty different style to get the message across. I see no real benifit to non-size standardization, if the consensus on a template talk page is for this idea, go ahead with that template.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems Thumperward/Chris Cunningham isn't talking about templates in general, but about "message boxes", and probably "article message boxes", or perhaps even "cleanup message boxes" specifically. So which are you talking about?

Note that we have a style guideline for Wikipedia:Article message boxes.

I disagree with Thumperward's/Chris Cunningham's suggested new styles for several reasons:

1: No, all icons should not be 40px high. Yes, quadratic images should be about 40x40px. But there are a number of cases when other values are better. Some images have some built-in padding, then we need to set them to slightly more than 40x40px to make them look the same size as the other icons. So they look okay when several different boxes are stacked. For instance compare the visible size of these icons:

[[File:Ambox content.png|40px]]
[[File:Gnome globe current event.svg|40px]]
[[File:Ambox notice.png|40px]]
[[File:Gnome globe current event.svg|42px]]

As can be seen if File:Gnome globe current event.svg is set to 40px size it looks smaller than the standard ambox icons.

And images that have different width and height should not be 40px high. The human brain judges size of two dimensional objects not based on height or width, but on surface area. Compare these icons:

[[File:Merge-arrows.svg|40x16px]]
[[File:Ambox notice.png|40px]]
[[File:Merge-arrows.svg|50x20px]]
[[File:Ambox notice.png|40px]]
[[File:Merge-arrows.svg|63x25px]]
[[File:Ambox notice.png|40px]]
[[File:Merge-arrows.svg|100x40px]]

The largest of those arrow images are 40px high. But it looks more than twice as big as the standard ambox icon, since it then becomes 100px wide. The arrows with the 63x25px size has about the same area as the standard ambox notice icon. But since {{ambox}} can only take images up to 52px width we usually set that icon to 50x20px. (Actually, those arrows have been 50x20px since long before we made {{ambox}}.)

3 and 5: I disagree. I think the first line is kind of a heading. So it should be a separate line (followed by a line break) and be all bold. That is the style the article message boxes have been using for a long time. But I think I agree that we should avoid using small text, in the big boxes. (We also have small left-aligned section message boxes now, and they of course use a smaller text size.)

4: No, the link to edit the article is confusing. A new user probably don't understand what it links to. And it links to editing the whole article, which is not especially useful. And an experienced user like me expects such a link to go to some help page about how to edit articles. And having too many links in the box makes it harder to read.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there can be exceptions here; I do think, however, that we should endeavour to have some guideline in place for them, such that we can at least point to something as agreed upon should someone create a template with a 60x60px icon or whatever.
Am I correct in saying that you don't disagree with the general subject-verb order here?
But is isn't a header: it's just the first part of the message. The resolution text is equally important to the current problem with regard to the ultimate goal of de-tagging the article. Line breaks do little except waste space in the box where there could be text - they mean that in many more cases boxes have to stretch to three lines on average displays, whereas presently we have a situation where it's only really highly important mboxes like the deletion ones and {{BLP unsourced}} which overstep that. It also leads to the shorter templates (particularly {{cleanup}} itself) looking odd on wider displays - there was a huge debate about that prior to this proposal which was one of the big factors in the idea in the first place.
So let's discuss that! Should we remove edit links? Should we add help links? Or should we have no guideline at all, leaving editors to do what they like (and lead to annoying experienced editors / confusing new ones, as you assert)?

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

0: I still wonder what scope you are referring to in your suggestions. Is it message boxes in general (all namespaces), or article message boxes, or only cleanup message boxes? If it is article message boxes then this discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes. If it is some other scope, then I have to think a bit more which is the proper talk page for it.

To be able to say anything about this I assume you are meaning article message boxes. Not boxes for other namespaces, and not only cleanup boxes.

1: The {{ambox}} meta-template has a hard limit of max 52px width, and its documentation explains that. And that hard limit was set long ago as a result of discussion and consensus on the talk page of the article message box guideline page Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes. That hard limit for ambox has also been discussed and confirmed several times on the talk pages of the other mboxes. While the other mboxes don't have such a hard limit, since they occasionally need larger images. Most users agreed on about 40x40px as the normal size back then. But some wanted up to 50x50px. For me anything from 40-50px is okay, but I prefer if all boxes use similar sizes so they look good together. And since most boxes now use 40px then I want them all to use that size.

Note that there has never been a demand for quadratic/round icons. (Except for one single user who want all icons to be round, but his additions of round icons are usually reverted by many other users.) Other size to height ratios are not even exceptions, they are normal. They are very much allowed.

If a more specific recommendation for the icon size should be written, then I think the right place for it would be as a section in the guideline Wikipedia:Article message boxes. So you could write up a suggestion and show it at its talk page, to get consensus for the wording. There already is consensus for the size, but how to specify that in words and how hard to specify that will probably take some discussion. As you can see I think just saying "40px width or height" is too simplistic. But we should probably also give some freedom, since I think the exact size really isn't that important.

2: I currently don't have a point of view on point 2.

3 and 5: The first sentence is the most important one, or rather, the one that should bring attention. The rest doesn't need to be bold since its enough that one sentence brings in the attention. But I find your way of just bolding parts of the first sentence to be pretty ugly, and also confusing and hard to read. And I think having a line break between the first sentence and the second sentence makes it easier to read, and makes it better looking in most screen resolutions. This is of course mostly a matter of taste. But as you can see on this page, several users disagree with your taste, and as far as I can see no one has expressed that they prefer your style.

4: Yes, definitely don't use edit links. And help links should only be added on a case by case basis. In your suggestion there already is a link to the Manual of Style. But if there is a good Help/Wikipedia page about the subject that the message is about, then there might be use of a second link. I think there should not bee too many links in a message box. But I am not sure we need any guidelines on this, it might amount to instruction creep. If any guideline about this is added then it should be kept simple.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

0: Scope here is strictly limited to {{ambox}}es, specifically cleanup / warning templates. Other message boxes have their own styling quirks, and unifying them all probably isn't prudent (although it would be good if all the policy/guideline headers looked consistent with each other, for example).

1. That's fine: I have no problem with exceptions, and if you're okay with a general move to 40px then I can take that and take it for further discussion. We're not actually in disagreement here.

2. Nobody else has disagreed with this either (other than ipatrol's general disinclination for a guideline in the first place), so I think we can take this as settled.

3. What about the awkwardness of {{POV}} (which was the original inspiration for the loss of line break) and {{cleanup}} on wider displays? The line break can mean over 50% of the width of the template is unused in these cases. As for the bolding, the MOS says that we should use markup sparingly, and MOS:BOLD doesn't even allow for its use here - we don't bold whole sentences in articles where we can be more specific, so why do it here? And I only see one editor disagreeing with #5 - Quiddity only said he'd look at it further (four months ago, since which time the style has been rolled out over most high-profile cleanup templates) and ipatrol disagreed with the idea of a standard but didn't voice any disagreement with the particular points in question. I'd very much like to see further participation in the discussion, but having posted a notice on as many relevant fora as I could there's been little response.

4. Very well - in general this isn't something I've been pushing for when rolling the template out anyway. I've mostly kept the wording and just updated the styling.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] On a related note

User:Mikco recently attempted to get the default ambox warning image updated, and having failed to do so has started applying it (at 50px height) to a number of articles (list). Not only are the new images of questionable quality relative to the current ones but are also mis-sized, and other changes made to those templates (most notably the line breaks) force them onto three lines on regular displays. These changes aren't productive, and aren't compatible with the guidelines I suggest above, so I think we should revert them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Stylisticly the new image is an improvement. I find no problem with the resolution. The change was declined for the default Ambox image, not for all Ambox templates. I added the image to a few templates where it would improve the look of the template and the articles they are posted on. And what do you mean by the three-line push? The image doesn't push the text put any further. I only broke an additional line on one template, where the line was breaking anyways (on all pages where the date was applied). You actually removed a few breaks from the images unintentionally making the template messier. So the templates pretty much remain the same besides the image. Mikco (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The new image is not objectively superior to the old one; that can be discussed, but what should not be done is for it to be replaced manually on a whole bunch of different articles when the request to overwrite the old one is turned down. It is disingenuous to argue that the image is now an alternative rather than a replacement, because it's basically a redrawn version of the same thing. For the issues regarding the image sizing and the line breaks, see the parent section. You added a manual line break on two pages: here and here. In the case of {{biased}}, you made several changes to the formatting. "Messier" is a subjective call, and I don't think it applies here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've started to remove these again, as there has been no further discussion of why the new image is better. We shouldn't override it based on one user's opinion that the default image styling is inferior. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ahh

When it comes to templates like {{expand}}, {{trivia}}, and such, why are we violating this? Is there even consensus for this guideline other than wide adoption? ViperSnake151 15:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I advertised the thread where I could, and waited for two months before moving for it to be rolled out on high-use templates. It makes sense to bring those template in line with the guidelines over time, especially since the wording on both has long been suboptimal. Both {{fictionrefs}} and {{in popular culture}} (the most commonly used subsets of {{trivia}}) use the new styling already. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Need a template for "Amerocentric"

Y see {{globalize}}

While there is a template for "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject (see

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

) there is a need for a more specific template, perhaps with an image based on the US flag instead of the globe, that more specifically says "The examples and perspective in this article may improperly represent an American rather than encyclopaedic view of the subject".

Because Wikipedia came out of America, its articles are laden with American assumptions of reality. A familiar example is calling the ultimate contest in an American game, baseball, the World Series. In looking for articles as reference, I find I become frustrated when instead of giving a good encyclopaedia article, I get what passes for reality in America... American companies, American news, American computer games or TV shows.

Simply flagging an Amerocentric as not representing a worldwide view is inadequate.

I feel that I lack the authority to create such a template, thus I ask that someone higher up on the Wikipedia food chain create it. Akonga (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what you want is already available, see {{Globalize}} and the listed sub-pages for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What's the difference between these two templates?

-- OlEnglish (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The former can be used when

The links that are there are not relevant
There are more than "a few" links but the article is long, and there are not enough for an article of its size.

These templates can probably be merged with some good wordsmithing. However, ~~I think~~ they have categories as well, which is why ~~I'm subst'ing~~ I subst'ed the templates and stripping out the categories in your message above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC) update davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Both already make mention of "relevant"/"related" links. They really have no substantive differences other than tone and the quality of their own internal link usage. Combined them below. Might remove the word "relevant" and move the link down to the word "related" if people think it's a bit too up in your face, but I personally like it as is. The link should, however, definitely be retained if were also linking to We Can Link It.

MrZaius^talk 06:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice, I like that one, so will it be "nuevointernallinks" then? OlEnglish (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can't get the new text put in place of the other two and the one redirecting to the other, yeah. We might as well. Is this controversial enough to warrant further discussion on the Template talk: pages, or should I skip straight to an editrequest? Seems like it shouldn't be too big a deal to push this out. MrZaius^talk 14:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sure it'll pass, but maybe we should bring it up in the appropriate talk page just in case. Whether that be in Wikipedia:Requested templates, Wikipedia:Template standardisation, Wikipedia:Template namespace, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates I'm not sure. The sheer size and thorough comprehensiveness of Wikipedia amazes and sometimes confuses me :) OlEnglish (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I did go ahead and drop the proposed text at Template:Nuevointernallinks and started a little discussion thread at its talk page. Dropped links to it on both affected templates & the WP above and WP:DEP. The other links are largely irrelevant, targeted as they are at some slightly different topics. MrZaius^talk 02:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There don't seem to be a whole lot of people watching these templates, but the only feedback so far has been positive (seen both here and at Template talk:Nuevointernallinks). Submitted {{editprotected}} requests at both affected templates. MrZaius^talk 13:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Need a template for "Unreliable Sources being used as references"

Right now the closest I can find to meet this is {{primarysources}}, but that doesn't really fit a lot of the situations I am coming across when doing backlog assessments for Category:Unknown-priority video game articles which often use blogs by unknown individuals or forums as basis for notability and/or verifiability. The number is enough that I think a cleanup template is appropriate. I know i can use {{notability}} or the like, but it seems that something more appropriate as to explaining why it wouldn't meet it would be better considering the number.じんない 00:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Verify credibility}} is probably what you want. Also look at {{dubious}}, {{self-published}}, {{citecheck}}, {{refimprove}}, and {{or}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Well I have yet another suggestion for improvement.. re: of {{nofootnotes}} and {{morefootnotes}}

In {{nofootnotes}} the template text mentions "Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate" but it doesn't mention how to do this. I think it would help the editor to include a link within the template text to "Wikilinks to full references" (or WP:CITEX) which shows the editor a quick and easy way how to create inline citations from the existing list of full references. Maybe something along the lines of.. "For help on how to do this, see WP:CITEX" or something like that. OlEnglish (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Too many sections

Looking for a template other than general cleanup that deals with articles that have too many small sections, usually for game articles that have many sections for different elements of gameplay and plot items.じんない 21:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean.. {{cleanup-reorganize}} isn't specific enough? -- OlEnglish (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why settle for cotton when you can have silk? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I added it to the main list. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 16:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.じんない 22:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] More info?

At present, the tags simply read "This article is..." Would it be preferable to include a category, so that the tags read "This religious article..." or "This physics article..." etc? The reason I suggest this is that lists of articles in need of attention could then be automatically listed by topic. This would make it easier for an editor willing to help to narrow down the list to his/her area of speciality. I would imagine that a bot could readily add the relevent category to existing pages with tags.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It would actually be pretty hard to do right, given the number of categories and the length of category names on most pages. I'd say the status quo works best, but that if you really need to include these special terms you could add a second argument to it, say "topic=physics" - Still, though, it seems largely redundant and unnecessary. MrZaius^talk 11:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason I suggested it is my own experiences. I have on occasion had a bit of time spare and thought I would use it to help clean up some articles. Trouble is, the list is currently so long that I keep getting fed up of trying to wade through it before reaching an article I feel capable of editing. It just seems that as things stand the backlog is just going to keep on growing.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to cross-reference categories when searching. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it? I haven't got a clue how and I have just searched the backlog. Maybe it would be a good idea to actually include the information as to how somewhere where editors can readily find it.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, User:Drilnoth is currently experimenting with adding topic-specific support exactly as you described. might be worth pinging him. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep! I have a sample idea of how this could be implemented in User:Drilnoth/Sandbox 5 (permalink). I think that this would allow better categorization so that separate WikiProjects could work on cleaning up their problem articles more easily. -–Drilnoth (T • C) 13:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] when to Remove one of these?

ok so I dutifully made some article intros more lay-public understandable. Can I remove the "intro is too technical" template? Or is the original person who put it there supposed to judge?

on a broader note, does anybody REMOVE these notices, or do they just snowball forever? :-)

Yes you can go ahead and remove it yourself. I always make an attempt to fix and remove tags from articles that can be fixed quickly and others that just don't deserve the tag in the first place. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 23:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Error in template?

Please see this section where the first entry {{citation style}} is listed. Read the message in the box..."This 's citation style may be unclear."

The "'s" is the error but the actual template does not appear to have this problem. Any way to correct this?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's an issue with {{tlrow}}, the template which is being used to show these tags without filling this page with cleanup categories. Ideally, we shouldn't have to use {{tlrow}} - cleanup templates should be able to tell that they aren't being used on articlespace, and thus no include the page they're transcluded on in categories. But few templates support this right now. The best solution for now would probably be to hack {{tlrow}} itself so that it doesn't call templates with empty parameters. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removing tags

A frequent question on the Wikipedia:Help desk is: who can remove cleanup tags and how? It would be very helpful to have a short and simple statement in each tag to answer the question. Perhaps:

(How to remove this tag)

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. But I hope it won't encourage vandals. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 23:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] No!

Anyone know why a random "no" is after the Abbreviations tag in the Style of Writing section? I looked for the "no" and its not in that section. After that I copied and pasted the section into the sandbox mode and it appears there too. It seems like its part of the template. --Rent A Troop (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A typo in {{Abbreviations}} caused the category suppression in {{tlrow}} (which I added) to blow up. Fixed. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nor . . .

Moved from Talk:Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_Lack_Of_Grammar_In_Labels

The common label which begins with "This article does not cite any references or sources. ..." , should instead, state: "This article does not cite any references nor sources. ...."

I'd need to see a source for this statement. I believe nor is used only with neither; for example, This article cites neither references nor sources. Please correct me if I am wrong, and point me to a good grammar source that shows it. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, "nor" is used to indicate 'an additional negative', and the popular teaching rhyme "either or, neither nor" is used to show this, but does not mean that the word 'nor' should only be used with 'neither'. I will search for a good (and authoritative) source online to show this. Thanks for your input. Callmeace2001 (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who started this topic, but this is not the place to do it (we are not discussing an improvement to the article in question). But, seeing as it has been started... 'or' is acceptable when linking a pair of words, be they adjectives, nouns or (I think) verbs (this article: is not accurate or reliable/does not cite references or sources/does not cite or provide). [2] Hadrian89 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Getting rid of the computer idiom "argument"

Any way we can rewrite this page to omit the computer idiom argument? It's a perfectly good word for programers, but not for editors. I did a search on the archives of this page and found that all the editors who used the word argument used it to mean either (1) quarrel or (2) a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true. None of them used it in the computer meaning of a reference or value that is passed to a function, procedure, subroutine, command, or program. I submit that non-programers are awfully confused by the term, and I propose we find some other way of giving instructions here without using that term. Sincerely, one of the confused editors, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As an example, I have not the slightest idea what this means: "First argument is added to description "{{{1}} " appears: {{Missing information|foo, bar, baz and quux.}} ." In puzzlement, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] spliting and merging 1 article into 2 others

I'm wondering if there is a template for taking 1 article and merging it with 2 seperate ones, taking part from both. Mostly I'm talking about compilations which may not be adequately notable in and of themselves.陣内 _Jinnai 22:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected typo?

Do we have yet a template for something one suspects to be a typo, but is not sure enuff to directly change it? That is, a typo that changes the meaning, not just a mispelling. To make up an example, XYZ is an Iranian oolator plant, governed by Iraq's Ministry of Oolation, where you would assume that "Iraq" is a typo for "Iran" (but, still, it perhaps might not be.)

If uncited, I could just hit anything like that with ^{[citation needed]}, but that seems needlessly robust (and potentially, sarcastic and/or impolite). Even more so, if the statement in question is cited, and I were to put ^{[Need quotation on talk to verify]} or something on it.

So basically, something to the extent of ^{[typo, right?]} would be good.--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 19:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought of another class of examples - statements of the type the former is X, while the former is Y, where one "former" should obviously be "latter", but which? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] too many redundant internal links

Hi, I am looking at Battlestar_Galactica and wondering, how many links to Edward James Olmos does a single page need? Is there a bot that I can allert to this or a cleanup template to place? It would be one thing if it was just this one actor, but it looks like every instance of every actor is linked. What to do? PDBailey (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I've had to go through and unlink plenty of references in my time, but an automated system would certainly help. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)