Template talk:Cleanup

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

Enforcing the reason parameter[edit]

While it may be nice to require a reason parameter, the way in which it has been done has effectively borked the template. The template does not behave intuitively with a possible reason=-parameter — and neither is there any information on what should be specified. Since the changed to the template were made following 2 users discussion, with nigh on any other input I have pushed up the date until Dec 31 2016. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 22:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 

This was thoroughly discussed (see archive 6) and has stood since 2012. It should not be removed on the whim of one editor. arrow Reverted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
But it is utterly WP:POINTY and against policy. It makes the entire template unused. There are plenty better ways to solve the issue, for example to get rid of this entirely like {{expand}}, only leaving the more adequate types. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 22:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
That may be your opinion, but the status quo is the result of intense discussion in past years, so any change will need consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 June 2016: Modernization[edit]

This is a modernization request.

1. Add this parameter to the Template:Cleanup's {{ambox}}:

|removalnotice = yes

2. Remove this:

Please help improve this template if you can.

The #1 makes up for the absence of the #2. Fleet Command (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. This edit would replace a clear call to action (improve this article) with a less clear statement about removing the template. Ahecht (TALK
) 13:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ahecht: I was partially responsible for the rollout of the removal notice recently. I'm inclined to add the param actually, per Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 131#Implementing Help:Maintenance template removal Did you have further thoughts or suggestions on this? — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 14:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I actually think that adding |removalnotice = yes is a good idea, and should be fairly uncontroversial given the consensus at the RfC. I'm just wasn't sure that removing the existing call to action was uncontroversial enough to be done unilaterally. --Ahecht (TALK
) 19:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, people. You might want to take a look at this: User talk:Codename Lisa § Template:Cleanup -- full stop. As the addition of the removal notice is so far uncontested, I am going to add it to the template. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
yellow tickY Partly done by Andy M. Wang. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 October 2016[edit]

{{Cleanup}} (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 01:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup section mis-formats[edit]

Is "Cleanup section|reason=…}}" allowed? It seems to work, but makes a strange narrow little box. Or did I mess up somehow? See Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_by_country. Layzeeboi (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 March 2017[edit]

Whatever the content inside the "reason" parameter should always be bold, as this content is the focus of the template. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Done GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

What is the difference between {{cleanup}} and {{MOS}}?[edit]

What is the difference between {{cleanup}} and {{MOS}}? I assume that the difference is that {{cleanup}} has to have a specified reason, but {{MOS}} doesn’t?
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

{{MOS}} points to a very specific problem: Lack of compliance with the words of WP:MOS. {{Cleanup}} is a very generic template you'd use when you see a problem not covered by any other tag and need to explain the problem in your own words. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.
By the way, regarding your change to the templates and the HTML tag in my post, you aren’t allowed to edit others’ talk page posts and comments, per WP:TPO.
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 06:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Side discussion about WP:TPO
@PapiDimmi: Actually, per WP:TPO, she is perfectly allowed to. (Did you read TPO at all?) "Fixing format errors" and "Fixing layout errors" are given as exceptions.
Also, Codename Lisa is a template editor, meaning that if she is in process of deprecating a template, she is at liberty to replace it even in the messages of sysops and crats!
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
There are no format or syntax errors with the HTML tags and templates that I used. One is allowed to replace templates if they are, somehow, broken, but {{tlg}} works perfectly fine, and replacing it with {{tlf}} is highly unnecessary.
Also, I have posted on hundreds of talk pages and always use <br> and have never had any issues with it, nor has anyone told me to end the br tags using slashes. Per WP:TPO, you are allowed to fix tags which break the formatting of a page, but the <br> does not do that.
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 09:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@PapiDimmi: Just because you have done something many times does not mean you are right. On the contrary, it means you are being harmful. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Did you do that on purpose?
Anyway, show me the policy that says that says that you can change <br> to <br/> in others’ talk page comments or posts, and then you can change it.
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@PapiDimmi: You show me a policy that says I am not allowed to. WP:TPO is not a policy, by the way. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Guideline, then. Same thing.

By the way, you do not need to ping me, as this page is on my watchlist, and I get e-mail notifications over new revisions. Pinging me gives me two e-mail messages per new comment.

Anyway, if you are so persistent on changing <br> to <br/>, why not do that on all the hundreds of talk pages that I’ve commented on too?
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

First things first: You touched my message! And that wasn't just a source code change; it changed functionality. Looks like someone here thinks laws are just for the other people! (That someone is you.)
Second, I am not your cleanup guy. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
You touched my message! Haha, I knew you’d say that, hence “Did you do that on purpose?”
I actually followed WP:TPO, unlike some of us. Disambiguating or fixing links, if the linked-to page has moved, a talk page section has been archived, the link is simply broken by a typographical error, etc. I simply fixed a red link.
Second, I am not your cleanup guy. Then don’t edit my comments.
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Listen, people, if you want to edit my comments, please give me a policy or guideline which says that you can do what you’re doing, because so far, you’re outright violating WP:TPO.
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)