Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

... one of these things just doesn't belong. :)

Is there any reason why this template isn't standardized with all the other templates? لennavecia 22:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, you are not very clear, but let me guess: You perhaps have noticed that this template {{cleanup}} has the "other pages message box" style here on its template page and when listed over at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. While most of the other clean-up boxes have the "article message box" style on their template pages and when listed over at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Right?

But don't worry, that is correct. See, most of the clean-up templates are designed to only be used on articles, thus they only have the article style. While {{cleanup}} can be placed either on an article or its talk page. And on talk pages the message boxes should be brown. So this template internally uses the namespace detecting {{mbox}}, which changes appearance depending on what kind of page it is placed on. So when {{cleanup}} is placed on an article it automatically gets the article style, and when placed on a talk page it automatically gets the brown talk page style. As a side effect when this template is seen on its template page and demonstrated over at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup it gets the "other pages" style.

I probably should add an explanation about this to the documentation of {{cleanup}}.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Hah, no, I'm kidding. I figured it out. Uhm, I copied a deleted article's contents to a subpage in the creator's user space. I added the appropriate tags and this one was the only one that did not have the bar along the left side. I was pretty sure that I had previously added this template to articles and seen the gold bar on the left, but on that page it was a thin gold border, as seen on the template page. Upon reading your message, I went over to a random article and previewed use of the template. I see that it is standardized in the article space. It had no occurred to me it would be coded to look different depending on what project space it was used in. Thanks for the speedy reply! :) لennavecia 02:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha yeah, I can see that you went "wtf?" when you saw it change appearance. As you can see I have now added some explanation and two examples about this in the template's documentation.

And by the way, if you want to see the standard styles for the different namespaces then take a look at {{ambox}}, {{tmbox}}, {{imbox}}, {{cmbox}} and {{ombox}}. Together they cover all the namespaces. (And some day when I get the time I will write up a page that shows it all at once and explains it, so we just can link people to that one page.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, yea. Thanks! Let me know if I can help. لennavecia 13:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please create an interwiki to the Hebrew Wikipedia which would direct to "he:תבנית:לשכתב" ? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — JamesR ≈ 09:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

I've made some tweaks to the sandbox layout to bring the template more into line with contemporary ambox styling. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Sorry, I'm not that familiar with mbox. Why is the demospace parameter removed in the new version?--Aervanath (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was accidental. Fixed. Any further objections? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the new style that you Chris want to add to message boxes. I prefer the current style with a bold header sentence, followed by a line break and an explanation below, perhaps in a slightly smaller text size. Have your new style been properly discussed somewhere and a new consensus been reached? Can you point us to that discussion?

And a technical matter: I see that Rich Farmbrough meanwhile added category suppression to the template, which is a good thing. But he used "category=no" which is non standard. See for instance {{tlrow}} which is used to for instance demonstrate message boxes at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Tlrow needs templates to use either "category=" or "categories=no". So I tweaked {{cleanup}} to use the standard "category=" suppression. And I added the same to the /sandbox. And tested both on the /testcases page.

As far as I can see and test the current code both in the template itself and in the /sandbox are technically correct. But I don't like Chris' text style in the /sandbox.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup#Standardisation of template styling. I've laid out my rationale there, and have gradually been bringing templates into line with it over the last few months (although this seems to have coincided with your wikibreak). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no consensus on that page. I see you saying how you want it, and one user (Quiddity) agreeing with parts of it but being "not sure" about parts of it. No other users have commented. And now I say I partially disagree. Although I don't feel that strongly about it, so you can consider my "vote" a weak oppose.

But I think more users should have a say, since this is a change to a fairly long standing design praxis. Of course, one way to get more users to react is to change some boxes to your new design and wait for reactions. And for instance link to that discussion in your edit comments.

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to link to the discussion in any future edits I make to this format. For what it's worth, it's attracted very little debate over what must be 20+ high-use ambox templates over the last few months, and I did try to start the discussion in the most appropriate central forum. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done - Okay, since this is only a matter of personal taste, and you are strongly for your text layout, and I am only weakly opposed, and we haven't really gotten any points of view from others, then I feel you outvote me on this. Thus I have now deployed your version of the text layout.

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I find this template being posted on the articles proper, without any explanation what is wrong with the articles. I would suggest adding to the instructions here that always an explantion should be posted on the talk-page stating what should be improved. Just posting a template is in my opinion a very ineffective (and lazy) way of trying to improve Wikipedia (or in fact just a way to make things worse by uglyfying articles that are already substandard). KKoolstra (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging is a quick and easy way of adding pages to the appropriate cleanup categories, which is an essential part of some editors' workflows. "Drive-by tagging", as it is sometimes known, is controversial to some but it isn't prohibited. I do quite a lot of this myself and I think the results speak for themselves when looking at my edit history. Mandatory discussion just slows that down when an article's flaws may be obvious. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template is probably one of the most mis-used ones. But it should indicate a style issue. If you can't see an obvious style problem the template could be old and the person who fixed the article didn't remove it. Or the tagger could have made a mistake, some people will put clean-up on anything they think needs work of any sort not only style issues. In either case, if you don't see a style problem remove the template with an edit summary stating that the article has no style issues to cleanup. Putting templates on talk pages just means it even less likely to be removed when the problem is fixed.--BirgitteSB 18:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A possible solution could be to add a link to Wikipedia:Clarify the cleanup somewhere in the text of the template. -- œ^™ 21:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the wikip-article section cleanup--222.64.218.7 (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{cleanup|section}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose adding a suggestion to add a more specific cleanup template, linking to WP:TC. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TC redirects to Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Why would we want to link there? Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]