Template talk:Cleanup

From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Jump to: navigation, search

What was the bug?[new][edit source][reply]

Curious what the outstanding bug was since I don't have a record of it. I remember a series of awkward bugs on this but thought the last had been resolved so I'm curious. The categorizing by year was deliberate. Not a big issue to remove though. notjusttired (talk) 20:26, August 22, 2019 (EDT)

The bug was that, on every page with a "Cleanup" message, there was printed [[Category:from 2019]] underneath the infobox. This was not wikitext, but HTML visible to the reader. You probably noticed this one. Fixing this bug does not affect the categorizing by year. None of the categories have changed as a result of fixing this bug. There's still another bug left in the Cleanup template, but that can wait for another day. Hope this clarifies.
Pyrrhus (talk) 00:07, August 23, 2019 (EDT)
That bug was a nightmare. I thought I might have fixed it but wasn't sure. Thanks notjusttired (talk) 06:10, August 23, 2019 (EDT)

Remove categories based on cleanup date? -- Pyrrhus (talk) 18:51, July 12, 2019 (EDT)[new][edit source][reply]

Does anyone have an objection if I update this template to only add cleanup articles to one category: Category:All articles needing cleanup? It’s annoying to maintain separate categories based on date, such as Category:All articles needing cleanup from November 2015 and Category:Cleanup tagged articles with a reason field from November 2015.
Pyrrhus (talk) 18:51, July 12, 2019 (EDT)

So no objections on removing the categories based on date?
Pyrrhus (talk) 22:12, July 14, 2019 (EDT)
No objections from me. Kmdenmark (talk) 15:12, July 24, 2019 (EDT)
I would like to move to having them by year ago - less to maintain but also we can quickly spot important pages that have been marked for cleanup since 2015. I don't understand the difference between and - but the last one has more pages in it. notjusttired (talk) 18:56, July 24, 2019 (EDT)

Add subcategories to cleanup category based on reason[new][edit source][reply]

I'm wondering about using subcategories for different reasons, with all still in the original category. I'm going to create a series of subtemplates anyway that can be picked to automatically fill out a particular reason (which people can add to). Suggested reasons listed below. notjusttired (talk) 19:49, July 13, 2019 (EDT)

Sounds interesting. What is the benefit of doing this?
Pyrrhus (talk) 23:33, July 19, 2019 (EDT)
Benefits would be that you could choose just to type of cleanup rather than facing hundreds of pages to choose from (although that list would be there too). So if you don't feel like doing references, you could do a bias/neutrality edit and just rephrase things. Or you could just sort out the images. Or just spelling. Also if using the visual editor you can make for cleanup by picking the Cleanup/spelling, Cleanup/bias etc from the menu instead of going your reason.

With categories, I think the categories for cleanup reason should not include a date, which would avoid the extra work of creating / deleting categories every year. I might try out creating one first, to get the coding right. notjusttired (talk) 18:58, July 24, 2019 (EDT)notjusttired (talk) 17:53, July 24, 2019 (EDT)

Sounds good. Thanks for doing it. Kmdenmark (talk) 14:05, August 1, 2019 (EDT)
  • accuracy - disputed
  • bias - promotional content, misleading or lacks neutrality disputed
  • citations needed
  • editorial - editorial guidelines not met
  • image copyright - no copyright information on image, or image may not be licensed for reuse
  • image essential
  • layout - poor or cluttered
  • multiple issues
  • spelling or grammar
  • rewrite (see Template:Cleanup-rewrite)
  • sources unreliable - may not meet science guidelines
  • tidy citations
  • too long
  • too technical

The ReplaceText feature can be used to move existing articles into a new subcategory

Clean up message change[new][edit source][reply]

Instead of just linking to the quality standards (MOS) I would like to link to both the editorial and science guidelines in the message as well. The are new and some existing editors won't have seen them. It will also make them much easier to find. notjusttired (talk) 19:49, July 13, 2019 (EDT)

Sounds good. We could as well just link to Category:MEpedia guidelines.
Pyrrhus (talk) 23:33, July 19, 2019 (EDT)

Translation work: System messages[new][edit source][reply]