Wikipedia talk:Template index/Cleanup

Capitalization Tag

I think we need a tag for poor capitalization. This is a major problem in many articles about Japanese (and perhaps other countries') popular culture where names have unconventional capitalization. The problem arises because contributors think that the 'official' capitalization of an album/band/single name etc. should run through the whole document in opposition to Wikipedia's guidelines on style. It's particular annoying to read whole articles filled with all-caps etc. I think in this case it makes more sense just to target the capitalization rather than the punctuation/style in general because that is usually the major problem and I can see a more general approach resulting in a comma or two being fixed and the message being deleted.

L'Arc~en~Ciel is a good example.

Macgruder 17:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed template: technical jargon

I'd like to see a simple template to use when an author has used a technical term without defining it. See Romic alphabet and its use of the term "glossic transcription". {{buzzword}} implies that the article is loaded with lots of buzzwords, which may not always be the case. We need something for the isolated term.

Suggested format: {{Techterm|term}} Suggested text, using a purple box and the 40pxInformation icon:

This article uses the technical term "term" without defining it. Please rewrite this article to make it more accessible to a general audience and comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. See Wikipedia:Explain_jargon.

--Cbdorsett 09:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

All that over a little bit of text seems a bit specialized and unnecessary. How often does that happen, anyway? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Is there a template to suggest that a page should revise its introduction or add one in accordance with WP:LEAD. Please respond to my talk page. TonyTheTiger 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Using the talkpage of the article is an option instead of using templates. --Van helsing 20:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously, Van. The templates themselves often advise or require talk page comments. Still, your commentr is a general denouncement, not an answer. I'd say there probably aren't any templates like that. I've never seen one. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You’re right there Ace. But, in general I think we should avoid creating templates for every little issue and litter an article with it. People tend to avoid talking about their concerns when there’s a convenient template available, even when a template refers to the talkpage. Still, I agree it probably wasn’t the response TonyTheTiger was looking for. --Van helsing 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As I replied at his talkpage, See the first 4 template links in Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. I've added them to the list already. --Quiddity 21:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Still, none of that actually applies to creating an intro. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul

I've just finished re-structuring this page, so that the various cleanup templates are divided into sections based on their purpose/topic/etc. That will hopefully make it much easier to find the specific template one is looking for. I've also added some intro text (with links) to many of the sections, in an attempt to provide some context for the new user. Can we remove the {{cleanup-restructure}} template from this project page now? Comments, commendations, and condemnations are all welcome. —DragonHawk (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, much thanks :) --Quiddity 09:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no disagreement, and as the page appears to be in good shape, I'm going to remove the {{cleanup-restructure}} template. NickdelaG

List

I created this list iof templates and their category for a WP:LGBT automated to-do list, but thought other people may wish to use it:

Cleanup

{{cleanup}}

{{cleanup-remainder}}

{{cleanup-confusing}}

{{cleanup-list}}

{{create-list}}

{{cleanup-disambig}}

{{cleanup-afd}}

{{abbreviations}}

{{buzzword}}

{{cleanup-combine}}

{{cleanup-laundry}}

{{cleanup-laundryrack}}

{{cleanup-rewrite}}

{{cleanup-spam}}

{{in-universe}}

{{contradict}}

{{Essay-entry}}

{{fiction}}

{{list to prose (section)}}

{{External links}}

{{toomuchtrivia}}

{{uncategorized}}

{{spelling}}

Expert Attention

{{Expert}}

{{Expert-verify}}

{{in-universe}}

Wikification

{{cleanup-restructure}}

{{proseline}}

{{in-universe}}

{{wikify}}

NPOV

{{advert}}

{{review}}

{{fansite}}

{{review}}

{{POV}}

{{POV-section}}

{{totally-disputed}}

{{totally-disputed-section}}

{{sections}}

{{globalize}}

{{story}}

{{weasel}}

Verification

{{copypaste}}

{{Disputed}}

{{Disputed-section}}

{{citations missing}}

{{citecheck}}

{{unreferenced}}

{{Unreferencedsect}}

{{originalresearch}}

Expand

{{context}}

{{Expand}}

{{Expand-section}}

{{local}}

{{Expand}}

Translation

{{Notenglish}}

{{TranslatePassage}}

{{cleanup-translation}}

{{RoughTranslation}}

Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Template proposal: Math

What about a template noting that there are mathematic formulas or calculations that need to be formatted properly? --LakeHMM 05:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of the templates

What's with the total lack of standardisation?! The variety of images, colours and wording across the templates is very confusing, which is especially bad since these are supposed to be placed in the article namespace. Can we suggest a few standards? Jack · talk · 14:07, Sunday, 25 February 2007

Template proposal: Redundancy

There really should be a template message for articles where a lot of the text is repetitive or redundant. An example of this problem is the current article on Goliathus (Goliath beetle) where virtually the same litany of facts is stated in the first part of the article and repeated in a different order in the second part. I have no experience making templates (does it require administrative approval?), but if it is possible I would be glad to design such a template myself. InnocuousPseudonym 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Template for obscure time references?

Is there a template for relative time references such as "yesterday", "last year", "X years ago," "recently," etc. that seem as if "today" was the current date used as a reference? Squids'and'Chips 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Template proposal

I would like to propose the following template:

This idea came out of a discussion about Proprioception on that articles talk page. I think that it would be a useful alternative to {{Disputed}}, where the facts aren't wrong per se, but the theme of the article seems to miss the point. Also, it could be useful when the wording of an article is such that the statements in the article may be true, but they might lead the casual reader to interpret them in a way that is not. --Selket ^Talk 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of specific subjects

Are these really necessary? Would it be impossible to use the more generic cleanup templates instead of these?