Wikipedia talk:Template index/Cleanup/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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)

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). [1] Hadrian89 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

---

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)

GeorgeLouis, you can use "parameter" as a replacement for "argument"... they're generally used interchangably by computer programmers. Krolco (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that most programmers use these terms interchangeably, they technically do so in error (you may or may not agree with me that W should not contain technical errors). A parameter is a name (identifier) that appears in the list of the symbolic value names in the head or prefix of a definition (such as a function, subroutine, macro, or data description), or such an identifier appearing in the body of the definition (and used as placeholder for an actual argument value). In contrast, an "argument" is an expression appearing in a call to (an invocation of) such a definition.

Since all the concepts needed for understanding the term argument (including functions and argument-passing) are nonobvious concepts specific to software engineering, there really is no substitute for the term "argument". The only solution is to use W links something like argument or function argument, which contain an in-depth explanation. Parallels to this problem of the use of common words that have an unusual and therefore confusing technical definition can be found in other specialized fields, including quantum mechanics, art, and law. David spector (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 , 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 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)

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)

Cleanup-flags?

I think there should be a cleanup template for MOSFLAGs. Lots of articles do not accompany flags with country names and they should. I'm suggesting a new {{cleanup-flags}} template, that could look something like this:

Thoughts? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not just go through and fix the names yourself? In puzzlement, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's like saying why don't people rewrite entire articles instead of using {{cleanup-rewrite}}, or similar arguments for all the other cleanup templates. The thing that made me think of this new tag was this article. It contains loads of MOS flag violations which would require recoding and take hours to fix, hours I don't have at the moment. It would be much easier to tag it and fix it when I or someone else has more time. After all isn't that the point of having any clean-up templates. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right. I see your point, but in that particular chart, ATP World Tour records, there are too many flags anyway, and if you add the country names you really have something bulky. I just deleted all the flags (fairly easy by pasting the raw text into a word processor and then using a bunch of find-and-replace commands). I am sure the authors of that page will squawk, but the Wikipedia:Mosflags#Do_not_use_too_many_icons and other strictures are pretty definitive, wouldn't you agree? Anyway, it took me less than 20 minutes to do all that work. I might suggest broadening your template to include more than just "Use country names" Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Flags are just a subsection of the general WP:ICONDECORATION problem. I'd word the template to deal with icons in general. Go ahead and create it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is {{icon-issues}}

-- 87.198.164.254 (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Restructure template, and a correction

Hi,

I'm not involved in template editing, but I'm trying to use templates in articles I'm working on.

There is an inacccuracy in the Restructure template. The reference table that includes the Restructure template says that the template produces the following wording:

This needs reorganization to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. There is good information here, but it is poorly organized; editors are encouraged to be bold and make changes to the overall structure to improve this article.

When you use the template, it actually produces:

This article needs reorganization to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. There is good information here, but it is poorly organized; editors are encouraged to be bold and make changes to the overall structure to improve this article.

My request is, it would be helpful to have a Section option for this template message.

Thanks!

Rosmoran (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's easy, you simply add a |section parameter.

As in: {{restructure|section}}.

-- œ^™ 01:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of article issues template

The lack of specific instruction on use and misuse of the article issues template is a concern when making an initial tag instead of consolidating existing ones. Contradicts specifically with the spirit of "if an article has many problems, please consider tagging only the most important problems. A very lengthy list is often less helpful than a shorter one. Remember that tags are not intended as a badge of shame." Please create clearer guidelines for the sake of productivity and civility. Use of this template with the auto-tagging "Friendly!" application is decidedly un-friendly and unhelpful when combined with a lack of specific comments on talk. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Friendly could do more to try to identify when there are already tags on a page, but the potential for misuse is not that great a deal if it's not actually happening. It's hardly less difficult to simply copy-paste tags onto a page. There isn't currently very much in the way of consensus as to the exact threshold of badness required to warrant tagging an article, but generally the rule of thumb I use is that if an issue will take me significantly longer to correct than my current attention span with regard to the article in question then I'll tag it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE REMOVE THIS ARTICLE FROM THESE CATEGORIES

please remove this article from the categories such as category needed, stubs needing category and so on. otherwise the counter for the progress will include this article while it shouldn't. Mephiston999 (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at that too, it appears that it is a function of each template. Many don't appear to support category suppression that is needed to list them, without adding the including page to the relavant category. May take a while to work through them all.Cander0000 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made a pass and addressed 4 or 5 of them, starting with the ones with non-hidden categories. I ran into a bunch that were admin-protected, and a few that I couldn't trace down (i.e. where is that Category:Split maintenance templates coming from?)Cander0000 (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

references with bare url

Is there a tag for inline sitations that only link to the url? {{cleanup-link-rot}} appears to be more for when someone just uses brackets to insert a url.陣内_Jinnai 21:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is. {{Citation style}} would be the closest one. -- œ^™ 16:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, in some cases that would work, but the wording of "consistant style" wouldn't see appropriate if that was the style. Maybe the wording there just could be clarified.陣内_Jinnai 02:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

table?

theres the template:

But is there one for the reverse? Prose that may be better represented in a table/list? The closest i can find is a list to table, But i want prose to table/list. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

{{create-list}}? -- œ^™ 05:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why on Earth would you want this? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

On inverted sentence structure

I don't suppose we have a template for articles which egregiously over-use the passive voice… ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 00:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about tags for POV-forking

I look and don't see anything for POV-forking. Best i can see is {{POV}}, but i'm not sure that's the best fit.陣内_Jinnai 22:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What about {{coatrack}}? -- œ^™ 07:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

{{coatrack}} doesn't necessarily apply though. A fork like hypocrisy of George Bush or whatever would cover what it implied that it was covering, but it would definitely be a POV fork. A new dispute template might be handy here, although I'm inclined to think that obvious POV forks should be nipped in the bud with a speedy tag instead. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Obvious ones, yes. However this came up because of Computer role-playing game, Console role-playing game and as well Cultural differences in role-playing video games of which the latter is more of an east vs. west issue.陣内_Jinnai 02:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO that's more than just a POV fork; were there to be a tag for this I'd prefer for it to only be used for pretty obvious ones. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well none of the tags currently really fit that situation which have had subpages splitting based primarly on one outdated source seen from a western-perspective (Japanese RPGs tend to be console-based in west vs. non-J RPGs being on PCs).陣内_Jinnai 03:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Inline tag for lead statements

I propose the addition of a new inline template to tag statements in the lead that are not backed up by the rest of the article. All statements in the lead should be a summary of article content, and it's frequent to find statements that are not.--Sum (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

{{fact}} does well enough for these IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Says who

The template {{Says who}} doesn't give a correct maintenance string, f.ex. marking a POVvy unsourced statement (in intro of Ceto):

She should not be confused{{Says who}} with the minor Oceanid also named Ceto, or with various mythological beings referred to as ketos (plural ketea);...

should give:

She should not be confused^{[says who?]} with the minor Oceanid also named Ceto, or with various mythological beings referred to as ketos (plural ketea);...

but does give:

She should not be confused^{[by whom?]} with the minor Oceanid also named Ceto, or with various mythological beings referred to as ketos (plural ketea);...

which is nonsense and not what I intend. Now, I would have added a parameter {{Says who|says}} or some such to get the correct result, but the d*rnd template is write protected for me (I know the reason, don't tell me!). Could anyone please add such an argument?! ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 10:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

merging some templates

Looking at some i think we can merge a few more (though I still think we some more (see POV forking issue above). In particular {{morefootnotes}} and {{no footnotes}}. They are both nearly identical and meant to essentially say the same thing: There's a list of external links that appear to be references and those links should be changed to actual references. That one has some references already and one doesn't I don't think here matters. It's not like {{unreferenced}} vs. {{refimprove}} where the lack of any references brings into question verifiability issues.

That latter example does bring up another example though. {{unreferenced}} and {{unreferenced section}}. Since many other templates use the fields |section= and |article= and there doesn't seem to be any major difference that warrants a separate template.陣内_Jinnai 22:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sound file request template

I would like to request a template for requesting a sound file, for example, to hear a particular musical instrument, etc... in the same way as the request photo template {{reqphoto}} --Francisco Valverde (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

{{Audio requested}} -- œ^™ 12:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Proseline cleanup template requested

Hi, the section 10cc#Recent work, 1999-2009 has developed as proseline and is just one example of a writing style that tends to evolve in some articles over time. I'd like to see a cleanup message built to request a cleanup of that specific issue. Thanks. Grimhim (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

split up notes and references

Is there a cleanup message to split notes from references?

ie. to request that notes be put into their own group (ie. <ref group=note> xxx </ref> instead of <ref> xxx </ref> ), so that notes and references are separated, which would also tell readers that the little number in the corner isn't a reference they might not want to read, but a note they might want to read?

76.66.197.17 (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing really like that, afaik. {{Citation style}} would seem to come the closest. -- œ^™ 20:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A Template Idea...

I think that we should make a template for articles that needs to be watched for a lack of neutrality, Is that a good idea?

Am I being clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.183.96 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there's already {{POV-check}}. And if an editor wishes to put an article on their watchlist it's really up to them. -- œ^™ 20:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Suggested Template

How many? 41.6.159.44 (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

42. -- œ^™ 03:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oooh wait.. I get it! You're not asking a mysterious question... you're proposing the inline template: ^{[How many?]} to go with and etc. aren't you? Well there exists already which uses the redirect Template:How many. -- œ^™ 04:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Section Lists

Right now there are 2 possibilites for tags when dealing with section lists that just list links - either {{listtable}} or {{Prose}} or both. In some cases its not clear which is appropriate because there is so little there, but it is clear that the status quo isn't appropriate. It would be nice to have, for sections only, one that basically said "This section is in a list format and should either be coverted into prose or into table format depending upon the type of information intended." Using 2 templates will only confuse some people.陣内_Jinnai 22:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Could we have a banner shell for overtagged articles?

Look at Church of Satan. I believe it would be appropriate to encapsulate all the cleanup banners in a shell à la {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. Could we try out an implementation of this, limiting its use to, say, articles with 4 or more header banners? __meco (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There should only be two banners on that page anyway: {{articleissues}} and {{mergeto}}. And the articleissues template should only mention the three or four most important issues anyway.--Father Goose (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Template needed: Original synthesis

Currently only the inline tag {{Syn}} exists to mark cases of original synthesis. There should be also be a banner for to cover entire sections/articles. __meco (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Really what is needed is a rewrite of {{original research}} to cover both in a way which doesn't require an in-depth understanding of WP's jargon and content guidelines. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

New template: Contradict-other-multiple

Upon request by another user, I created a template {{contradict-other-multiple}}. Same as {{contradict-other}} but is appropriate for use when there are multiple contradicting articles. It also works if there is only one contradicting article.

I have added it to this page. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How about a paragraph-specific or section-specific notability is-this-worth-the-space tag?

I have seen tags that suggest that the following paragraph may be biased or have some other problem, many inline queries, and we do have a way of questioning the notability of an entire page. I do not want to be disrespectful to someone who put work into a page just because I question the need for some content--seem more reasonable to solicit queries on whether the material is needed. E.g. Climate Change Science Program#Reviews and Criticisms. Thank you Bsansvsage (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

but notability only applies to the eligibility for a WP article. individual parts of an article do not have to be notable. The situation you are talking about is best described as NPOV-section. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. If there is a question about the section being relevant that woould be for other policies/guidelines. In addition we don't have paragraph specific cleanup tags.陣内_Jinnai 22:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of tags such as the following tags which I saw in Effects of Global Warming. These tags seem to be addressed at passages rather than entire articles, but I was hoping there might be a tag on whether the material in the section is important enough to be covered in such detail (if at all). Regards, Bsansvsage (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC) and

There is template {{Relevence}} . And {{Trivia}}... Rich Farmbrough, 04:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

And really talk pages are the place for that. Rich Farmbrough, 04:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

Inline with article text

Is there a reason why there are three separate section titled "Inline with article text"? Its confusing to me. MacDaid (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

They are sub-sections, look at the page contents. Rich Farmbrough, 04:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

Transclusion delay

This page always takes a very long time (and presumably consumes a lot of resources) to load. I assume this is because there are several hundred templates that need to be transcluded every time the page loads. Does anyone else think it would make sense to do something about this? Here's what I'm thinking: The cleanup templates are fairly stable at this point, they're not changing much. I say we subst all of the templates onto this page, and then perhaps create a bot which re-subst's the page once a week or something. Or, protect all of the templates that are subst'ed on this page (if they're not already), and ensure that all admins know that making changes to any of these templates requires the template to be re-subst'ed here. SnottyWong ^babble 17:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Served by srv208 in 12.008 secs. I guess you are right, however all the actual clean-up templates based on Ambox have anti-subst code... Nonetheless :
• Served by srv286 in 0.065 secs. Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup/sandbox - and a lot of the complexity there is because tlrow tries to do clever stuff with categorisation that we just don't want.

Rich Farmbrough, 04:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

Fiction template for "no OR in plot summaries"?

I think there should be a template for plot summaries that says something like "anything more than purely factual descriptions must be sourced to a reliable third-party source", because this is a widespread problem - debatable claims and "colourful" descriptions in movie plot summaries often go uncited. Actually, I thought I saw such a template recently, but now I can't find it - maybe I imagined it.--greenrd (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

How about Template:Original research with this parameter: {{Original research|plot summary}}? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You could also use the same parameter for Template:Inappropriate tone. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)