Template talk:Copy edit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Copyvio?[edit]

Shouldn't almost any article that meets this description be {{copyvio}}ed? So how about getting rid of this template and having it redirect to {{cleanup-copyedit}} instead? (After all, any article for which this tag is appropriate can have that one instead.)msh210 16:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe this is supposed to mean that it has been copied from public domain sources. For instance, if text is taken verbatim from NASA, or Britannica (1911), or any other public domain, then it should be properly formatted and the like to conform to WP's standards.--Dmcdevit 17:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I have wondered why there was any point to this template. Since whenever I put it on the talk page of a article with copied text it 'automatically' turns into a copyright violation notice. If this article really does mention about free domain material then it should be properly stated on the template. - Louisisthebest_007 09:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikify / cleanup[edit]

Requested move[edit]

Template:Copyedit is the documented (and preferable) name, but it currently redirects to Template:Cleanup-copyedit (which has a brief history that prevents non-admins from performing the move). Lifeisunfair 17:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional brief explanation, then sign your vote with: ~~~~
  • Support. This is an uncontroversial move that a technical limitation has prevented me from carrying out. —Lifeisunfair 17:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Additional comments[edit]

Decision[edit]

Moved per request. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spellingminor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)[edit]

The template is up for deletion. Since the user has spend effort into his template, maybe at least the graphic Abc-cleanup-template.png can be integrated into the existing copyedit template? Would be a pity otherwise I think... Gryffindor 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Adding invitation[edit]

I am adding an invitation to readers to help, as many other cleanup type templates have. Also, I am changing the wording to copy editing from copyediting as few dictionaries seem to accept the single-word form, and this is about copyediting (er, copy editing) after all. Also removed the word English from the parenthesis as non-English articles will not be tagged with this template, and it shortens the long line which already wraps awkwardly. I debated adding a BR tag before the paren, but we'll see what comes of this before I do that. cmh 18:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template format[edit]

I've run across (and fixed) a number of pages with this template included incorrectly. The problem is for the vast majority of these cleanup-type templates, the first parameter is meant for date (in fact, I haven't seen any others that have a different parameter as the first). This results in tags such as "This February 2007 needs copy editing...". I didn't want to change anything, because I don't want to break any other pages, but I thought that this would be a good thing to think of/discuss. –Dvandersluis 16:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've edited the template's documentation to document its current operation, which substitutes a first parameter of arbitrary text for the words article or section. That is useful for replacing those with the word section, for example (see my edit to Qutbism#Term Qutbism) but can lead to errors such as the one you describe. Requiring the parameter to actually be the word "section" would be one solution. Wdfarmer (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

suggested cosmetic change[edit]

Perhaps the template should be made horizontally wider in appearance. What do you think? 69.140.164.142 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists[edit]

I've suggested most of the maintenance categories be eliminated in favor of a technique based on using whatlinkshere. Articles needing copyedit is an example I've used. Please comment on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Maintenance#Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists. If no one speaks up, I'll be bold and change the template. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a test version at Template:Copyedit/test, and have changed two articles to use this version. It looks no different on an article, but instead of adding the article to two maintenance categories creates invisible references to two non-existent articles (the template links to the page that explains how to find other articles needing copy editing). See, for example, this version of Jose L Torero (using the current template) vs. this version (using the test version of the template). Again, if anyone has any problems with this change, please speak up. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on the broader issue at Wikipedia talk:Maintenance#Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit Tag needs copy editing[edit]

Would it be possible to get the text of the copyedit tag changed? "This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling."

'and/or' isn't really valid so it's kind of funny to see it in a statement regarding copy editing. Simply using "or" sufficiently indicates that any combination of grammar, style, cohesion, tone, and spelling need to be addressed. Either that or it should be changed to "and/exclusive or" but even that is implied by a simple "or" while avoiding the awkwardness of reading "and/exclusive or".

Wikipedia even has an entry about "and/or" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And/or

This page also provides a quick synopsis regarding why and/or shouldn't be written http://www.geocities.com/thorin.geo/and_or_invalid.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.96.11 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made the change you suggested. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!

Contrast it with programming[edit]

I respectfully disagree, as it is my understanding that "or" as used in English, rather programming languages, is ambiguous as to whether it is in reference to the exclusive disjunction ("xor") xor the logical disjunction ("or"). The truth tables are significantly different:

p T F T F
q T T F F
or T T T F
xor F T T F
and T F F F

Observe that both "or" and "and" return true when both p and q are true, however "xor" does not. Thus, as I see it, the use of "and/or" is equivalent to "((and) xor (or))", meaning it might be "and", or it might be "or", but not both at the same time, depending on whether all the statements are true ("and") or at least one is true ("or"). So "and/or" is used to emphasize simply that "xor" is not being used. Saying "and/or" would be equivalent to saying "not xor", but that's a rather cryptic usage in English, methinks. In fact, I would go so far as to assert that "and/or" is the only way in English to say "or" (logical disjunction), because "or" in English is meant to function only as the exclusive disjunction ("xor", in many programming languages). The ambiguity arises simply from the equivalence of spelling in English versus logic. —AltiusBimm (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Should this template be protected?[edit]

Yesterday, this template was vandalised with a picture of a penis, affecting hundreds if not thousands of pages. The vandalism was reverted within minutes, but nonetheless had an immediate and dramatic effect on Wikipedia. In order to avoid this happening again, and in accordance with the guidelines at Wikipedia:High-risk templates, I suggest this template be (at least) semi-protected. (Many similar templates, such as {{Cleanup}}, already are.) Does anyone else agree? Terraxos 01:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes; try semiprotect. Tony (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to a request on WP:RFPP, this template has now been indefinitely semiprotected. Terraxos (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Terra. Tony (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

much better icon[edit]

Thanks for getting rid of that squinty, garish yellow thing. TONY (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And why is it now back again? Even at the larger size, it's hard to make out. The colour is just not suitable for such a thin-lined icon inside. Why can't we go back to the grey one? TONY (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding information on the copy editing wikiproject[edit]

Would it be appropriate to add information on the template regarding WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit? Perhaps something like "articles with this tag are under the care of..." -Samuel Tan 12:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Just a minor thing. Please put this part on the same line.

[[Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template]]}}|}}}}
</includeonly><!--{{Copyedit}} end--><noinclude>{{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}

to

[[Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template]]}}|}}}}</includeonly><!--{{Copyedit}} end--><noinclude>{{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}

I'm trying to get rid of a patch of whitespace showing up in Fullmetal Alchemist and this seems to be the culprit. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 02:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Double link[edit]

This template links to Wikipedia:How to copy-edit in two places. Is that really necessary? Seegoon (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Documentation needs copyediting[edit]

The line about the date parameter refers to a synopsis "after a second pipetrick." Looking at the template source, I think this is incorrectly referring to the for parameter, which is described above it. Or am I completely missing something? --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

How is this template helpful?[edit]

I can't see the point of this template, and have therefore proposed its deletion (or asked for an explanation and perhaps revision). See here. Tama1988 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Style tweaks[edit]

{{editprotected}}

I've updated the sandbox with some tweaks to match the styling of other cleanup templates. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk

Yes check.svg Done. Cirt (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected request[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Hi! I was wondering if we could add a notice regarding the Guild of Copy Editors to this template in case a copy edit is needed quickly (such as if the article is a GAN or FAC), since the project takes requests. To add this, just add <small>(if it it important that the article be edited soon, you can request a copyedit at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors]])</small> after A how-to [[Wikipedia:How to copy-edit|guide]] is available. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is uncontroversial, so I've disabled the editprotected. I rather think that this isn't important enough (an emergency copyedit?) to warrant inclusion in the template, especially when the length of the note warrants the re-inclusion of small text (which is hard to read and clutters the notice). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough; I just thought I'd mention it after seeing that Template:ShouldBeSVG had a similar notice for the Graphics Lab. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
That template is for imagespace, where large and instruction-heavy templates are pretty much the norm. That approach is generally avoided on articlespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Full stop not required anymore.[edit]

Am I right in saying a final full stop (or period if you prefer) is no longer required in the for section? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The current text is "This article may require copy-editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. You can assist by editing it now. A how-to guide is available.". Are you suggesting that the full stop after the word "spelling" is unneeded? I don't think that's true. D'oh, you meant in the documentation. I'll tidy it up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

redundant link[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the last sentence, "A how-to guide is available." The link provided in the sentence is the exact same as the link earlier in the message, making the sentence redundant and unnecessary. --Blooper (Talk) 00:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg I agree. I was tempted to take out the next to last one as well, but I know some people like these links to edit the page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Serial comma![edit]

PLEASE put a serial comma before the word "or" in the template! Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that the lack of a serial comma is causing any confusion here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. It needs to be fixed.... "now". I hate it when people foolishly leave out the last comma. Wikipedia is not a newspaper that is short on column space. This is just a cheat technique, to leave it out. A flagrant corruption of the English language. Confusion or not, it's just wrong as hell. - usucdik 23:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose adding the comma, along with removing the word "now" (see next post). Debresser (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to the IP's assertion, there is nothing illiterate in omitting the serial comma. Losing the "now" would be fine though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no way you can possibly defend that. Listen, dude, it's just how English works. Rules, you know. - usucdik 11:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Mos#Serial_commas, where it says clearly "Both styles are acceptable in Wikipedia". And calling a fellow editor "dude" is not what we call civil on Wikipedia. So perhaps you go read the links for beginners in Template:Welcome, and then come back. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You just proved that it is not acceptable, dude. How can there be consistency among articles with this goes to all of them? Even if you just consider this thing by itself, there is no reason to not change it, while plenty of reason to change it. It is patently obvious that one way is more correct (actually "more" being 100% more). I find it quite unbelievable that people can defend such an abomination created upon our language. By accepting this lurid behavior, it fosters inconsistency completely. - usucdik 23:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You have just proved yourself an impolite fellow. Your posts are agressive and devoid of logic. May I suggest you go searching for another ground of battle than Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Considering how no reasonable arguments have been made against making this worthwhile change, I suggest it happen immediately. - usucdik 02:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a travesty that this hasn't taken effect yet. - usucdik 07:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Uncivil discussion aside, I went ahead and inserted a serial comma. Since both forms are acceptable, we might as well use it this way for a while! — Deckiller 00:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

...editing it NOW[edit]

Resolved: Template wording changed as requested.

The template text currently reads

This article may require copy-editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or
spelling. You can assist by editing it now.

Speaking strictly for myself: When I see the word "now" used in situations like this ("edit now", "buy now", "register now", ...), I have a very strong automatic, semi-unconscious reaction of "The hell I will!". It would surprise me, if I am unique in this regard; and I suggest that the template by altered to remove the logically unnecessary (even, arguably, too restrictive) "now". The same recommendation applies to any other template which uses a similar formulation.

I would speculate that the original author copied this use from advertizing language, where it may or may not originally have been effective. However, I strongly suspect that people are so used to seeing this in intrusive and presumptions "Buy NOW!"-statements that it has lost its effectiveness by now. (Cf. e.g. "banner blindness".) OTOH, it can still be seen as as rude, joining the ranks of phrases never to use (with e.g. "Thank you for your cooperation!"). Beware that the relative mildness of the template's use is not really relevant, because it hits a spot "pre-sensitized" by the common abuse in advertizing. 88.77.179.22 (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think that you've read into it a little too deeply, but I agree that the omission of the word "now" wouldn't actually lose anything from the template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} This isn't controversial, obviously. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
In belated support, I don't think the complainant was reading to much into it at all. It is really annoying to be ordered to do something "now", and 88.77.179.22 is not the only one to have immediate negative reactions to it. Also, it didn't make any sense anyway. One should really read the talk page first before going on a major editing spree, as certain things may be phrased certain ways for particular reasons in some cases. And one person's "correct" grammar is another's "sloppy writing" in some cases, given the surprisingly low number of points that all English-language style guides unanimously agree upon. Disputes may have already taken place and been resolved about some of the text in question. For a real-world example, cf. the use of subjunctive in the article Godwin's law several years ago. (It led to a slow-moving edit war, because a large number of younger readers do not recognize subjunctive and think that its use is an error; while it was technically correct, it was eventually removed to stop the "fixing" of the "typo" every week, and the subsequent reversions of the "fixes"). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 19:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit the template itself, sheesh[edit]

{{Editprotected}} This is embarrassing. Let's actually copy edit the template.

  1. Change the wording "copy-editing" in the template's prose to "copy editing". It is "copy editing", the editing of copy. "Copy-editing" is the compound adjective form, as in "I have a copy-editing headache." Hyphenating it when it is used as a noun is ungrammatical. Compare "I love drag racing" (noun, no hyphen), and "I have a drag-racing wife" (adjective, hyphenated).
  2. Move template to Template:Copy edit over redirect, and move associated talk and /doc pages.

SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 19:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Happy to oblige. Would you mind fixing all the double redirects? Or make sure that the bot does it. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it MUST be hyphenated. This has been snuck through without consensus, and should be reinstated. Tony (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Why MUST it be hyphenated, Tony? Debresser (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Dictionary. Tony (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Template:copyedit-section[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I added {{editprotected}} to need help proposing a merge with {{copyedit-section}}. --Gh87 (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

My dictionaries say it should be hyphenated. Tony (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Further discussion is in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 2#Template:Copyedit-section. --Gh87 (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Closed as keep. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Edit request[edit]

{{Editprotected}} Punctuation should also be added on the list where grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling is located. WAYNESLAM 23:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And while we're at it, can we have back the hyphen that was removed without consensus about nine months ago? My dictionaries say the hyphen is required. Tony (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC) And why is "editing it" in blue? Tony (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It must be because of the tlx. WAYNESLAM 02:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Update link[edit]

{{Edit protected}}

Could you replace "Wikipedia:How to copy-edit" with "Wikipedia:Basic copyediting". The page was moved a long while ago and the template should be updated accordingly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done GFOLEY FOUR!— 17:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

How and how long for a sandbox?[edit]

Is the following the right template to put on a sandbox article, not yet published, that needs a grammar check? {{Copy edit/sandbox |for=grammar | date=December 2011 }} From your experience how long can it take to have somebody to review it for grammar issues? Thanks --★ Pikks ★ MsG 23:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Daryl's Dragons Football Club U9[edit]

Daryl's Dragons Football Club was formed in 2009. They have an U9 team who train in Primrose Hill Park.

They have recently joined The Camden and Islington league at Regents Park, playing games on a regular basis.

Recent result for Daryl's Dragons was 3-0. Players Nicola, Tarquin and Jamie all scored. The next game is against The Heath F.C on Saturday 17th December. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootballAllTheWay (talkcontribs) 12:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Something's missing[edit]

On the page, there is this: This template will auto-categorise tagged articles into Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, or a dated subcategory thereof. However, if the optional parameter

The last part seems to be missing the last part of the sentence. I'm not familiar with this template, so I don't know what all the optional parameters do, or how they effect placement into the category. Can someone fill in the missing piece? RudolfRed (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This was the result of a careless edit of mine. I have now restored the missing part of the sentence. Thank you for noticing this and posting about it here. Debresser (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Compatibility tweak[edit]

Please change:

{{{for|grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling}}}

to:

{{{for|{{{reason|grammar, style, cohesion, tone, and/or spelling}}}}}}

This will allow one to change {{cleanup}} (and any of a large number of other templates) to {{copy edit}} with less muss and fuss. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Anomie 18:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh please! We're already beginning to see {{cleanup}} being changed to {{copy edit}} for reasons unrelated to copy editing. One example was for alphabetization of a list. This way, {{copy edit}} is going to become the new catch-all tag for drive-by taggers. Anomie, please could you undo this and discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors#cleanup template first? --Stfg (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The deletion discussion about the Clean-up template closed yesterday as a Keep. Just a reminder to users of this template: it is intended for placement on articles having problems with the prose. It is better to tag articles with other problems with more specific templates. Please do not assume that "clean up" and "copy edit" are equivalent in meaning. Thank you. --Dianna (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know that making it slightly harder to replace {{cleanup}} with {{copy edit}} would really do anything more than just slow down the mass-change slightly. But since {{cleanup}} was kept, is there any reason at all to revert now? Anomie 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing {{editprotected}}. The request for a revert is not uncontroversial so there would need to be a consensus before any edit is made. I don't know how many articles are using that new parameter but they would need to be fixed before a revert takes place. Since the tfd has now closed, hopefully there wouldn't be so many people changing the tags on the article to the wrong one. For now, I'll add a note to the documentation saying not to use this parameter as it's still being discussed. If any other admin wants to perform the revert, feel free. Tra (Talk) 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Tra, for the note in the documentation, which certainly should help. Is the requested revert any more controversial than the original request? What I fear is that people will learn the habit of simply changing "cleanup" to "copy edit" as routine. Then it would speed up. I doubt if there are many occurrences yet -- how many people watch this page? GOCE has a record of the number of the number of pages in the monthly categories for copyedit tags as of 1 February; the numbers have reduced a little since then, for every month except this one, so I doubt if the dreaded phenomenon has taken hold yet. The longer we leave it, though, the harder it's going to be to tidy up, isn't it? --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
They're both controversial - there's valid arguements both ways, and people have expressed different opinions here. Now that the parameter has been introduced, there's the additional problems of either breaking any pages that use it if it's reverted, or having the number of pages using it slowly increase if it's kept.
43 people watch this page. I think another thing to bear in mind is that although {{cleanup}} isn't going to get deleted, people are considering making the reason parameter mandatory. This would mean that if |reason= is already filled in, there would be no need to change over to {{copy edit}}. But if |reason= is not filled in then people would need to either fill in a reason, or they might change to a more specific template such as this one. But then it wouldn't matter about if |reason= is supported here because there wasn't a reason given in the first place. Tra (Talk) 21:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

() Thanks. Do you think |reason= in {{cleanup}} actually will be made mandatory? If it is, what will happen to the articles where it's missing? Another thought: for those cases of {{cleanup}} where |reason= is not used, what would be gained by the change requested here? --Stfg (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Various suggestions were made at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_1#Template:Cleanup then at Template_talk:Cleanup. Join in the discussion over there if you like. If |reason= was not used on a cleanup template, and someone wanted to convert it to {{copy edit}}, then either they would convert it straight over (in which case the requested change would make no difference) or they might choose to add a more specific reason as they convert it. In that case, the change being requested would decide whether or not they can do this with |reason= instead of |for=. Tra (Talk) 23:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, people, this is completely bassackwards. You don't disable functionality in a template in an attempt to piss off and slow down people whose templating ideas you don't agree with. WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. The idea of adding "reason" as an alternative to "for" is because the vast majority of templates that have a feature like this call it "reason", and it's really, really, really annoying to have to keep coming back to this template to try to figure out WTH it calls this parameter when |reason=blah blah blah fails. I'm sorry I ever mentioned {{cleanup}}; I certainly didn't mean that all uses of that template should be converted to this one, only that uses of it to flag copy-editing problems should be converted to this one. So, the histrionics may cease. Have some gummi bears and a cup of tea or something. Whether or not the other template was kept doesn't have a thing to do with why we should not revert something that increases this template's editor-friendliness. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 02:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Inline version[edit]

An inline version of this template that could be added on individual sentence(s) would be a good idea. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 12:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{editprotected}} How about importing changes from the template sandbox to the main template, random admin who finds the {{editprotected}} template? Anna|talk 23:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the editprotected template. It is inappropriate to ask for such a major edit before establishing consensus that the edit is desirable. I for one, am against: much too much text. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I replaced the editprotected with a tl to editprotected. 96.50.22.205 (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Good call. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)