Wikipedia talk:Template index/Cleanup/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Cleanup template for excessive redlinks

I've had a look for a cleanup template when excessive redlinks are used, but couldn't find anything. I have found reference to a previous template in the archives, but this doesn't appear to exist any longer. Where I wanted to use the template is a section of this page, where most of the local body politicians will never have their own article because of lack of notability. Can somebody please point me in the right direction? Schwede66 18:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just unlink the names? SnottyWong ^confabulate 23:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair question. I'm not from Auckland, so don't know who those people are. There might well be a couple of dozen notable people in the mix. I'd rather put a template on it and leave the unlinking to somebody who has some knowledge of the who's who. Schwede66 23:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad machine translations

What template should be used on articles that are the pure result of machine-translation? See Difference between train and tram rails for an example. There is a block of text that is commented out because it is so incoherent that it needs to be rewritten. I added a copyedit tag, but I think it needs more than that. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There's {{Cleanup-translation}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

But that template implies that there is still some untranslated text that needs to be cleaned up. In this case, we don't know what it has been translated from. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I found {{rough translation}}. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

refine table / chart data

sometimes i come across charts, tables, or other use of data which could be misleading. two made up examples:

example 1) i could say that shoes cost $10 in 1900, however they cost $50 today. this would indicate that the price has gone up; but if we account for inflation, then we find that the cost has gone down. although the original text is correct, it is also misleading. example 2) if i say that in hawaii there are 1M smokers, however in texas there are 2M smokers. this would indicate that there are more smokers in texas than hawaii. however if we then account for population differences we find the per capita to be less in texas.

is it possible for us to create a template marker to ask the editors to update the numbers/chart/table to better reflect / more accurately reflect actual conditions?Yourmanstan (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I was also coming here to request something very similar. A template for possibly incorrect 'statistical data' such as those used in sports bios and other lists that use numbers that frequently change or are subject to constant 'sneaky vandalism' whereby vandals inflate statistics to be in favor of their favorite player or team and lower others that they don't like. This problem is rampant and hard to defend against because it's a pain in the ass to verify these stats that our vandal fighters rarely bother with. That's why we need to tag these kinds of articles to alert our readers that the data is likely inaccurate. -- œ^™ 10:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking for an essay debating the use of templates

It seems like a lot of templates are dropped on articles and should really go on the talk page. For instance, it's implicit in the wiki that articles may not be finished. And the talk page is the place for discussing article improvement. Also, templates seem to be used to "look more official" and can be aggressive. I haven't really thought it all out, and don't nesessarily wnat to redebate it right here, but I would think this issue has been hashed out before. Anyone direct me to a good essay or discussion/debate on this issue? TCO (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I am expounding on my thoughts, thinking out loud. What if we made templates only for use in a few situations (breaking news maybe), maybe POV. Possibly restrict the usage to admins only (especially for POV). Templates about needing to add citations should go on the talk page. Or perhaps just add a category or something like "articles needing citations" or the like. As it is now, templates are really fancy ways of putting editing notes into the article, and we're not allowed to put unoffical-looking little notes in the article (as one would if say composing something offline or in sandbox). But it seems like that's a lot what they are except fancier looking. Although perhaps that's good enough reason. I donno...TCO (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Move maintenance tags to talk pages provides a summary and links to the previous discussions. Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now read all the previous discussions. TCO (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Source need translation

I have a question for the serious Cleanup citation template writers and keepers of the page. I have found a {{Source need translation}} tag in the Translation section of the project page. My question is: would it be acceptable to add it also to the Verifiability and sources / Inline with article text section of the project page? I often use the inline verifiability/sources section and it would be helpful if that tag were listed with it's related cousins. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right. It's a source verification template. I've removed it from the translation section. Since Template:Verify source already covers this issue, I've redirected the template there, but if more specific template is needed we can discuss rewording the template and its documentation, the focus of which should be on verification, not translation, as it was. Thanks for the tip. --Bsherr (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates

Should {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates]]</includeonly>|}}, as well as <!--{{templatename}} begin--> and <!--{{templatename}} end --> be added to all the cleanup templates that aren't supposed to be substed? This puts pages onto which they are substed into the category Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates. Some templates, such as {{COI}}, already have the code, but most don't. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I would support this. I don't see a downside. --Bsherr (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, seeing as no one else has opposed, I'm going to go ahead and do it for the ones that don't have it. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 06:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Template for cleanup of icons?

Since the creation of MOS:ICONS, after stumbling upon List of country subdivisions by GDP (nominal) as one of the many articles with inappropriate flag use (country flags with no country name next to subdivision name), it'd be nice to have a specific template for cleaning up abuses of flags and other icons in articles. Does anyone here have the expertise to make one?--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:Requested templates. -- œ^™ 13:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Streamlining the outlook of cleanup tags

User:MuZemike/Cleanup proposal → Basically, what I'm trying to do is make cleanup tags easier to comprehend and more aesthetically pleasing comparatively to the current states of the cleanup tags on articles. Any thoughts/suggestions are welcome. –MuZemike 22:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

They look good, but I think the approach to implementation will be proposing each on the talk page of the given template. To confirm, it's just the message that you're changing, and what's large and small, right? --Bsherr (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The "There's something wrong with this page." one is just a bit too vague, don't you think? :) -- œ^™ 09:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Haha, that's the best one. I'm waiting for the "There's something wrong with this user." version! --Bsherr (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's just put "There's something wrong with Wikipedia" as one big tag somewhere on the main page and be done with it. ;P -- œ^™ 19:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What is posted in this section is indirectly why I was coming to this page in the first place. Great work on the new look. Unfortunately it does not appear to me this is receiving any exposure to start the ball rolling. These templates are great at identifying issues with the articles, but they are also physically obstructive. I visit an article first and foremost to read it. I don't want to first see half of a dozen templates that I must scroll past telling me all that needs improving in the article. (Yes, there is the {{Multiple issues}} template, but that's not the point.) The size of the templates desperately needs to be minimized, possibly even more so than demonstrated on the user page (i.e. such as is done with {{Expand section}}) lining them side by side as a single line instead of one on top of the next. I also see it as cluttered to display the date when the template was added. Having it show as a note visible while editing (for easier categorization by month) is fine, but to see this while viewing the article is pointless. It does not matter if the template has been there since 2006 or since only last week, the reason for adding the template hasn't changed just because time has passed. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 02:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The template size really bothers you that much? In my opinion the template size also grabs editors attention and encourages work be made on the article. Why canjt wikipedia make it so that the templates are collapsed into their own box at the top of the page, that way the template size can be kept and editors can view the article's issues at their own will. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure most of these proposals have been brought up in the past. You can likely find many discussions about this in this pages talk archives, Template talk:Ambox archives and the Village Pump proposals archives. One of the proposals I recall I used to be opposed to, but have since relaxed my views on, is having the option of hiding maintenance template messages for registered users, in their preferences settings. But only the low-priority ones, major ones like NPOV and BLP issues would be 'sticky' tags and cannot be hidden via a preferences setting. Most proposals having to do with hiding/moving cleanup tags have historically not been able to achieve wide consensus. -- œ^™ 04:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes they bother me "that much". They always have, but more so as time passes just like not being able to skip past the piracy warning and sometimes other things at the start of a DVD. It is only a little bit of information taking a few seconds, but when you watch enough movies particularly in rapid succession, it begins to grow on you in a negative way. You make mention that the templates "grab the editor's attention". I agree that it does do that, but what about non-editors? The number of new editors is declining according to Wikipedia:Wiki Guides yet the traffic remains steady. So unless the current editors have picked it up a notch and are visiting even more often, then more and more of the traffic is from people who just want to read. For those who have been around for a while, a large set of the "standard" templates aren't needed. Anyone familiar with something notice it even when it becomes smaller. This leaves the percentage of new members; whether large or small templates are better for them is unknown. For me, having at least one of those templates at the start of what seems like every article (because there is always something that needs improving) is no better than having an advertisement banner at the top of every page... and at least those you can block because they are hosted on a different site.

The idea you are describing OE is something else I pondered before reading this topic, but I assumed that idea would be rejected outright for one reason or another. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 06:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah.. historically these ideas have always been rejected. -- œ^™ 07:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Registration/Subscription Required templates -- where are they?

I saw them, I'm sure, I'm certain! I saw two template messages for news sources (like the NY Times) that now require registration or subscription in order to access the story. The looked like " { { Registration required } }" or "{ {Subscription required} }" (spaces added so they don't show up here as error messages.) But I can't find them! Can anyone locate them and add them to the template messages we have in this guidance? Thank you so much! --S. Rich (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

IIRC they go inside the <ref> tags, where they are placed at the end of a reference, after the citation template if used. –MuZemike 06:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not asking where are they to be placed. Where can we find the templates themselves described in WP guidance articles? When I tried using them they did not give a "normal" look like when we tag "cn" etc. Sorry, I can't be more clear on what I am looking for. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You already mentioned them above.. {{Registration required}} and {{Subscription required}}. They are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Inline Templates but I will add them to this page as well. -- œ^™ 09:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent -- Thank You! Having them on this page will be very helpful I'm sure.--S. Rich (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Inline "what" tag

Don't know who did it, but this useful tag now substitutes the inline message "clarification needed", which is not the same question. Could someone put the "what" inline tag back to the way it was, showing the actual question "what?" in inline?

71.181.211.88 (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

inline for questionable quote needed

There is nothing here I can find to signify that the quote seems to be improper, ie phrasing, attribution, etc. I this case a quote from Lolicon I supsect, given the way some sources are used, to be improper, but none of the inlines deal with this. Given how much importance Wikipedia places on quotes being correct, I think such is warranted.陣内_Jinnai 19:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There's {{failed verification}}. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor guidance for sparing use

I keep running across cases where an editor inserts an inline cleanup template, and the time required to do that was almost more than to fix the problem. I think that edtiors would benefit from guidance to try to fix the problem indicated by an inline cleanup tag if possible in lieu of inserting the tag. If such guidance is provided then I vote that it be made more prominent because I looked around and couldn't find it. Cheers!--Jarhed (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Style tweaks to referencing templates

A good while ago (December 2008 to be precise) I collected together a set of good practices for the appearance of cleanup templates and proposed it at WT:TC (now archived here. This was eventually broadly rolled out across pretty much the entirety of our cleanup templates, except for four ({{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{no footnotes}} and {{more footnotes}} where Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) unilaterally edited the (fully protected) templates to restore the old formatting. See the original edit requests here:

• {{unreferenced}} (9 December 2008): reverted by PBS based on a sixth-month-stale discussion, 9 November 2009
• {{refimprove}} (5 December 2008): reverted, no discussion, by PBS, 2 May 2009
• {{no footnotes}} (7 December 2008): reverted, no discussion, by PBS, 8 July 2010
• {{more footnotes}} (12 February 2009): reverted, no discussion, by PBS, 2 September 2010

There are only two occasions of dissent, and neither are particularly compelling. At Template talk:Refimprove#Style tweaks, PBS comments six months after unilaterally reverting, and his was the only voice of dissent. At Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 10#Conclusions? there were a couple of other editors supporting, but that makes three disagreements against a system which is broadly deployed across practically every other cleanup template at this point. Nevertheless, the reverts themselves were highly inappropriate given that PBS was the strongest voice of opposition and that, as per his recent RFC/U, there is consensus that he has repeatedly used his admin bit to his advantage in disputes.

As such, unless there's significant reason to believe that consensus has changed, I'm going to roll out new revisions of the above four templates which fit the style used elsewhere. The change here is minimal: it simply makes the template slightly more compact by omitting a pointless line break, and improves the readability of the cleanup text. The requisite sandboxes have been updated with the new code (which also contain minor code cleanup).

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Constancy is good. Use the same formats across Wikipedia templates, I am not aware of any reason unique to these four templates for them to format differently then the standard. I am active in discussions for these templates. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now rolled out the changes in question. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The new "Lacking overview" template

I have just created the new template Lacking overview for pages that consist only of (a) list(s) and could be decisively improved by the addition of a summary on the general aspects of their subject. Now that I have tried to add this new template to the section "Expand and add" of this page, I see that this overcharges me due to my insufficient knowledge of the Wiki syntax. I would like to invite others to add the template to this page and possibly to correct it or the documentation that I have made for it, should there be any mistakes. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

 Added Thanks for your contribution. -- œ^™ 02:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank You, as well, and don`t hesitate to change the formulation in case it should sound all-too awkward for native English speakers. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding HTML IDs to article maintenance tags

I am proposing to add a unique HTML ID to all article maintenance tags. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Add HTML IDs to article maintenance tags for discussion. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed translation

Per Wikipedia_talk:Translation#What_if_a_translation_is_controversial.3F, I think we can use a template stating that "this translation is disputed", or something along those ways. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Can an editor revert a dispute tag?

There is a dispute on a page and two editors have placed a {{disputed}}tag but is repeatedly being reverted by another editor on the grounds that there is no dispute. Can an editor revert a disputed tag? The strange thing is that there are not only disputes on the talk page about contents but also a dispute about whether dispute tag should be placed. I'd be glad to know the rule position on this one. AshLin (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Usually, the rules for template usage are documented on the template's own page. {{POV}}, for example, permits anyone to remove old tags, and {{Globalize}} permits people to remove unexplained tags.

WP:Edit warring over tag placement is prohibited, exactly like any other type of edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply so far, WhatamIdoing. So if there is a dispute about an issue and a disputed tag is sought to be placed but is reverted by the other editor, in the meantime a full-blown edit war rages on the talk page, is there a case for taking the dispute tag reverter to ANI or other appropriate forum? AshLin (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You can request temporary full page protection at WP:RFPP. (sorry if this is kinda late and now moot btw). -- œ^™ 08:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, its perfectly okay. The issue gets more developed even by late comments. AshLin (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Split footnotes and references

Some articles, like Isaac_Newton#Footnotes_and_references, mix footnotes and references. We could use a template indicating those should be separated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it is trying to use a sort of hybrid of regular Footnotes and Shortened footnotes. I think {{citation style}} will do for this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

While this is a generic template for the problem, it does not explain clearly what is needed (footnotes and references split). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule that says that short citations and full citations "should" be split, so you should not be tagging it at all. If you don't like the existing presentation, then you need to go to the talk page and convince other people to voluntarily agree with you about changing the existing (and WP:CITEVAR-protected) citation style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You are missing my point. CITEVAR is all well and fine, but whatever citation style is used in the article, it should be a consistent one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Too many quotations

It seems we don't have a cleanup template for marking articles with too many quotations? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

{{quotefarm}}? Skomorokh 00:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, for some reason I couldn't find it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

clarify entry position in the list

I feel strange that {{clarify}} is in the "Neutrality and factual accuracy" section.

I looked for in in the "Contradiction and confusion", where there are related template, and I was been not able to find it, until I looked to the others section.

({{confusing}} is one of the related template. It and {{clarify}} both categorize in Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification. So it's strange that there listed in distint and separate sections. --79.21.209.166 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

US English too blatant

The tag "This biographical article is written like a résumé" is confusing to non-US English speakers, since a "résumé" in non-US English is a summary (i.e. exactly what what one would expect in an encyclopaedia). Presumably it refers to what elsewhere would be called a curriculum vitæ or c.v. Could it be worded more clearly? Deipnosophista (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice self-reference

The contradict-other-multiple template gives as example text:

This article appears to contradict the articles example and illustration.

and as comment:

Use this for specific sentences which contradict themselves or a nearby sentence.

When you go to the Template:Contradict-other-multiple in question, you read:

This template will categorise tagged articles into Category:Articles contradicting other articles.

This template is a self-reference.

It is indeed. 84.197.178.75 (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Two templates I was unable to find

Does anyone know if there are templates for the following? (If not, I will create them):

1. For articles that have too much temporary information. I guess it might be covered by the recentism template, but the distinction is that the recentism template deals with events, but there isn't a template for temporary facts. For example, an article about a learning institution that includes the current curriculum—for one, it might no longer be "recent" (if the article was created in 2005 and so was the institution, but the curriculum has changed since), and a curriculum is not an event.
2. For unencyclopedic facts—I was actually very surprised not to find this. For example if there's an article that lists all the students in a learning institution—that's not really covered by the notability template, nor is it covered by the unencyclopedic tone template (has nothing to do with tone/style). Maybe undue weight but that's too general.

Any opinions are welcome. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have created Template:Nonnotable_content. If anyone is following this page, please share your thoughts. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)