Template talk:Cleanup rewrite

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SD0001 (talk | contribs) at 12:04, 8 January 2019 (→‎Template-protected edit request on 8 January 2019: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

wording

"This template needs a complete rewrite." Indeed, isn't "complete" redundant, and doesn't it also carry a slightly dismissive tone? I'm going to change the template to "This article or section needs to be rewritten" unless someone objects. –Outriggr § 04:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ambox rewrite orange.svg

Please do not use this image. It's dreadful. I cannot shake off associations with tampax that spring to my mind every time I see it. Even at full resolution I cannot figure out what that icon is supposed to represent. I beg you not to use it. Renata (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Should this link to MOS? It is plainly being used, as at Wedding, for objections which are not MOS concerns. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

responsible use of tags...

How often has it been appropriate for this tag to be used, without supplying a reason?

There are other similar tags, that tell interested readers to look on the talk page for a discussion of what triggered the tag. In my opinion it is essential that the contributor who applies this tag offer an explanation as to why they are applying it.

I am not a mind-reader. And I don't believe any other contributors are either. If the tag applier doesn't explain why they place the tag, other good-faith contributors have to guess at why it was applied. Other good-faith contributors will have to guess at whether they think subsequent changes have sufficiently addressed the tagger's concern to the point the tag can be removed.

I suggest that this is one of the tags that it is appropriate for good-faith contributors to remove, if the tagger failed to supply an explanation as to why they placed it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally a reason should always be provided. What about making the parameter mandatory, defaulting to something like "but no reason has been provided for this"? That would give a clearer indication to following editors if it had been a drive-by addition. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Making the tagger's explanation mandatory would be my first choice. My second choice would be to make this the tag emit a sentence telling readers to look to the talk page for the explanation -- leaving contributors free to remove those where the tagger didn't provide an explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

It would be great if this template could specify where on the article's talk page suggestions may be found. Hyacinth (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this template intended to encourage the deletion of reliably-referenced material?

Is this template intended to encourage the deletion of all content (including reliably sourced content) from articles of substandard quality? I think it would be ill-advised to hastily delete an article's content in almost any situation. Entire articles shouldn't be remove due to the presence of one or two dubious statements. Jarble (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template should provide a clear explanation of when articles ought to be completely re-written, so that this template won't be misinterpreted as a justification for the deletion of entire articles with reliably-sourced content. Jarble (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Icon change

Per {{Cleanup-reorganize}}, Template talk:Update#Icon update and above comments, please change icon to File:Ambox rewrite orange.svg. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. If you're talking about this comment, I think it shows that at least some amount of discussion is necessary before making this change. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can wait, but I though we have this already, Renata and Martin appear to agree with this change (see above). --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 15:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Renata3 doesn't agree with this change - I think you might have misread her comment. (She says that she doesn't like File:Ambox rewrite orange.svg because it reminds her of tampax.) Also, which Martin do you mean? I don't see any comments by anyone called Martin on this page. If you want to enact this, you will need to get outside editors involved to give their opinion; given Renata's opposition to this change, it isn't possible to get a consensus for this just by waiting. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting "all" category parameter

Please add "| all = All articles needing rewrite" as I have done in Template:Cleanup rewrite/sandbox. This will categorize all articles with this template into a new category Category:All articles needing rewrite, alongside the dated categories they are already categorized into. This new category will allow "Articles needing rewrite" to display properly at Template:Category tracker/Cleanup. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 21:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was some recent discussion on using "All" categories that got heated, but ended in support of such categories. I think in any case, can probably leave this open for a day before any sync happens. — Andy W. (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy M. Wang: I think the arguments there stem from having having two templates {{BLP sources}} and {{BLP unsourced}}. The proposer wanted a combination "all" category. The individual "all" categories were already established before the discussion started. At least that's what Template talk:BLP sources#Statement of the request says. I'm only proposing making the individual "all" category for {{Cleanup rewrite}} here, which I believe to be uncontroversial. See Category:All Wikipedia articles in need of updating and Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating for an example. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 21:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done  Paine  u/c 07:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request — 9 June 2018

Add |link= to the image so that it can’t be clicked. Interqwark talk contribs 19:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It must be clickable to show the file's licensing. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the images of files in some other templates (such as {{Edit template-protected}}) not clickable, then? Is it because those files have different licensings? Interqwark talk contribs 22:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basically yes; if the file is in the public domain, there is no need for the image to be clickable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 8 January 2019

Change the |name= to {{{name|Cleanup rewrite}}}. See Template:Ambox/doc#name, which says the template title should match the name parameter. SD0001 (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Cleanup_rewrite&oldid=877399874"