See also Wikipedia talk:Cleanup process.

Archives

Archive 1 - Oct - Dec 2003 Archive 2 - Nov 2003 - Mar 2004 Archive 3 - Feb - Apr 2004 Archive 4 - Apr - Sept 2004 Archive 5 - Sept 2004 - Jan 2005 Archive 6 - Jan 2005 - Feb 2006 Archive 7 - Jan - Dec 2006 Archive 8 - Jan - Dec 2007 Archive 9 - Jan - Dec 2008 Archive 10 - Jan 2009 - Dec 2010 Archive 11 - Jan 2011 - Dec 2019 Archive 12 - Nov 2020 - present

Hello, I have seen that the published page Stefano Fantoni is marked for cleanup. I am new to Wikipedia and I was wondering if the issues of "cleanup" and "lead" have already been solved, or when they will be addressed. Rfantoni (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Source conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) A new cleanup template has appeared. It doesn't use the orange exclamation point infobox, instead it uses the regular blue notice infobox. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template should definitely not be used on actual articles in its current state. First off, it shows a misunderstanding of policy: any sizeable article will have conflicting sources - we solve that by giving each opinion due weight, it does not make the article unverifiable. It refers the reader to an essay, a page that has not been shown to have consensus. The request to "help verify each source" is unclear and does not make sense: it should be something like "discuss how to handle this conflict on the talk page". And then the language and icon, which are nothing like a cleanup template. It should probably be moved into the user space of Nononsense101, the creator. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 15:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It shouldn't be used unless the conflict of sources has actually made it unverifiable. Nononsense101 (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, clicking on "verifiable" leads to WP:V.Nononsense101 (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I request that edit protection be raised to template protection level.Nononsense101 (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is an unused template that is not documented into the template system. There's no need or reason for any sort of protection until the design, policy and procedural issues surrounding the template are resolved. Even then, it's not in widespread use nor the target of vandalism. For instance, it is coded incorrectly. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't meant to be used at the moment, anyway. I would like improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nononsense101 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC) ~[reply]

I'm giving it a spin. See how it works out, warts an all.Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to make a section parameter that does what I want. Setting it to yes replaces "article" with "section". You can use it when it comes out

to clarify that it's the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nononsense101 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC) It came out, but it doesn't work.[reply]

I am not sure how much demand will be for this template but in a controversial area, it can serve to take the heat out of potential arguments over how to phrase opposing viewpoints in prose. I would say that the contradictions need to be quite stark not just differences at the margin (here it is 180). The open link to WP contradictory is helpful. Eventually, the situation should clarify and the prose can be written, probably the opposing viewpoints need a talk page discussion aimed at that.Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{DRAFT:Template:Source conflict/sandbox}} Draft:Template:Source conflict/sandbox Draft:Template:Source conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)/Draft:Template:Source conflict/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A nominally better formatted version has been drafted. Though it is still missing several features, such as cleanup categories. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor PJyanMill decided to terminate my test and since I don't do bureaucracy, I suggest you keep working on it and do whatever it is you need to do to get it accepted. Good luck.Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, Selfstudier commented while I was writing all this) Selfstudier, I've removed it from the page you put it on. As I said, it should not be used on any article and it should be removed from the template namespace.

What you should do when sources conflict is basically this:

• in the case of a simple fact (eg. a date):
  • make the article text say According to <source A>, ..., but according to <source B>, ... or change it to a vaguer claim (eg. just the month when the sources disagree on the exact day)
  • meanwhile, start a discussion on the talk page: describe the conflict, discuss what to do - maybe one of the sources can be shown to be wrong
• in the case of different interpretations or opinions:
  • simply describe the different viewpoints, mindful of due weight - there is no problem

In both cases, there is no valid use for a template. According to the template guidelines, Templates used in articles are designed to provide information to assist readers, such as [...] warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors should not appear on article pages In both cases, there is no need to give a warning that content is sub-standard, because it isn't: the article text already indicates the conflict and does not give unverifiable information.

(Selfstudiers' use was a case of different opinions.)

So basically, Nononsense101, there is no valid use case for the template you made. The current text is wrong in multiple ways, but even if it were fixed, there is still no situation in which it should be used. For this reason, it should not exist in the template namespace and should be moved to a subpage of your userpage. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 12:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used to give assistance on solving the isues.Nononsense101 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nononsense101, as I mentioned, the template guidelines say templates in articles are there to give assistance to readers, not editors. Some issues don't need a template in the article itself, and this is one of them as far as I can see. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 22:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with @PJvanMill. The message is wrong, and the template is therefore not usable. Furthermore, while we could make changes to make it less-wrong (e.g., by removing the claim that people somehow can't check that reliable sources say these things, just because different reliable sources say different things), there is no way to change the message so that it will become both usable and not a redundant copy of {{POV}} or maybe {{Self-contradictory}}.

Imagine that I write:

1. Alice Expert says the Hot chocolate is the best hot drink.
2. Bob says the Coffee is the best hot drink.

Imagine that both of these sentences are fully sourced, and that there is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that these are true, accurate statements of Alice and Bob's positions. But "the sources are in conflict or dispute with each other"! Alice and Bob disagree!

To which the experienced editor is going to say: So what? Reliable sources disagree All. The. Time. You cannot possibly expect to arrive at one single truth about the relative merits of any ongoing geopolitical situation. Reliable sources are probably going to be "in conflict or dispute with each other" about how to draw the maps around the Kashmir Valley until everyone editing this page is dead. It does not therefore follow that there is a problem with verifying the statements.

It also does not follow that these statements are self-contradictory. It can be simultaneously true that Alice believes X while Bob believes Y. (The article would only become self-contradictory if the editors wrote something like "coffee is better than hot chocolate, which in turn is better than coffee".)

I think this should be deleted or redirected to one of the other existing templates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion, I've listed this template at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 21 with a recommendation to delete it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to sort out Continential Army Article, at the top of the article it is a bit of a mess. Thanks. DukeLondon (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Cleanup. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aseleste, WP:cleanup has a list of articles that need cleanup work, and DukeLondon was asking to put the article on that list. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 12:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PJvanMill: For some reason I thought this is {{Cleanup}}... Anyway, this looks like it has been fixed from the comment below. Hopefully the editor is not confused. (edit conflict × 1) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DukeLondon, I think you saw this; this was due to broken link syntax (specifically, an opening [[ without closing ]] - pinging Baddu676, who tried to deal with the issue). This has now been fixed, so I'm not placing the article on the list, under the assumption that that was the problem. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 12:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, brilliant! Thank you for your involvement and resolving this. @Aseleste, PJvanMill, and Baddu676:.

Dropping a line on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects that a new article improvement newsletter has opened for sign-ups and is sending out its first issue in the next couple of days. Discontent Content focuses on both the improvement of substandard articles and the maintenance of quality ones, and can be subscribed to at Wikipedia:Discontent Content/mailing list. Vaticidalprophet 05:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This successful CfD from May 2019 (WP:CFD/Log/2019 May 29#Category:MEPs 1952–58) had an addendum of 381 articles similarly failing MOS:DATERANGE ("1881–1882;  1881–1886 (not 1881–86);  1881–1992 (not 1881–92)"). 215 offending articles have since been redirected, leaving these 166 yet to move/WP:ROUNDROBIN:

Pinging all those previously involved to help/FYI: JJMC89, Oculi, Gonnym, Philip Stevens, Lugnuts, Miraclepine, Ehlla, and Concus Cretus.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to Good Olfactory, who originally moved most (all?) pages back in 2013, in case they are willing to help.

I've added italics to all #REDIRECTs, for easier automated progress-tracking. When completed, all italicized #Rs should be on the left, and all non-italicized articles should be on the right.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom.Reding, these are done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Wikitext is now also updated/fixed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PJvanMill: I saw your revert of my addition of the hatnote for the cleanup templates. I had gotten there erroneously, didn't see a hatnote, then thought maybe it was under the "Templates" tab—it wasn't. I gave up. I don't think many accidental visitors would venture further into the WikiProject box, thinking there would be something useful there to redirect them. Hatnotes are the standard. Could possible get away with putting it in a well-named tab. It didn't seem intuitive to have to look further. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba, I've moved them out of the header; do you think it's okay like this? Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 15:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I chose an article to rewrite from the list of Lowest quality high-popularity articles but I'm not sure if there is anything else I need to do after publishing the rewritten article. Is there a process I should follow or tag to put on the page? I'm not even sure if I'm posting this question in the right place. The article is Lisa McVey. Any guidance is appreciated. Thanks. Wikijenitor (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikijenitor. Basically no. Rather than a tag being added, any tags indicating problems that have now been fixed would be removed. Anyway, I would characterise your work there more as 'expansion' than as 'cleanup' - but also for expansion, there is not a process to follow afterwards (unless, I suppose, you expanded the prose size by a factor of 5 and would like to get the article into Did you know). Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 10:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Possibly empty category § Hiding this template when unneeded. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking category Misplaced requested edits has been cleared. Interested editors are invited to add this category to their watchlists to help keep it clean. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace and all of its subcategories have been cleared.

Pages with templates in the wrong namespace AfC topic used in wrong namespace Articles using draft categories Misplaced COI declarations in draftspace Misplaced transclusions of Template:Connected contributor (paid) Draft topics used in wrong namespace Non-talk pages with an edit request template INDEX used in wrong namespace Misplaced workpages Non-userspace pages using User sandbox Paid disclosures in the wrong location Misplaced requested edits Misplaced userspace drafts Misplaced userspace notes

Interested editors are invited to add all these categories to their watchlists to help keep it clean. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:HD#Wikipedia:Cleanup/Information sidebar: Considering Wikipedia:Cleanup/Information sidebar, how can the archive box ("See the project's archives for work editors have accomplished.") be rendered centered? Currently, it is slightly offset to the right of the main box.--Hildeoc (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hildeoc: I don't think it's possible to do what you want because the right alignment is set in the css for the archive box, I'm not sure how to override it. Rather than using nested boxes how about using {{archive list}} in combination with a custom search box? I've mocked something up below. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hildeoc, please take a look at Special:Diff/1044861641 which adds |style=width:100%;. Does the archive box stretched to 100% of the width of the sidebar look good to you? The slightly offset to the right is caused by CSS declarations clear:right;float:right; of the CSS class .mbox-small. The "nested" box effect can be removed by adding border-width:0; to |style=. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Project information
● Category:Articles needing cleanup has lists of articles tagged for cleanup. ● If you've arrived at this page from a link on a {{cleanup}} template in an article, the article may not meet one or more of Wikipedia's content standards. Information on the cleanup process may be found at Wikipedia:Cleanup process. Other resources are located at Wikipedia:Cleanup resources and Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. If the article requires expert attention see template:Expert. ● See Wikipedia:BACKLOG for more articles tagged as needing various improvements.
See the project's archives for work editors have accomplished. Entries dated over one year are also archived. Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

@192.76.8.74, ⁠andrybak: Many, many thanks! Indeed, you solved the problem I was referring to, and both versions look perfectly fine to me. So you get to choose. All the best--Hildeoc (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed many recent entries in Project Cleanup for articles with bare URLs. Note that there is a common edit tag for precisely this purpose: Template:Cleanup bare URLs, which then sends a notice of some sort to a team of volunteers who specialize in that issue. I used that edit tag frequently when I was with the New Pages Patrol, and many times I observed the aforementioned volunteers fixing bare URLs with their automated or semi-automated process within minutes. Therefore I don't think articles needing this fix should be listed at Project Cleanup, or if someone does so mistakenly, we can simply go to the article and add that edit tag. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are presently 17,172 articles tagged for having bare urls. The cleanup project is the last hope for articles with bare urls to receive priority status to have the bare urls cleaned up in a timely manner. With a backlog of over 17,000, it will likely take a very, very long time before they're all cleaned-up, and of course, more articles are likely to be tagged in the meantime, leading to a never ending backlog. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clean up the Psychology of collecting article? It is in very poor shape 67.164.13.24 (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 67.164.13.24 (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This request should be on the article talk page, not here. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime, the WP:cleanup project page has a list with articles that need cleaning up. The editor was asking for this article to be added to the list. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 07:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

67.164.13.24: added it to the list. PJvanMill)talk( 07:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you67.164.13.24 (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I found an article with hundreds of bare URLs. This is a nightmare waiting to happen, especially given most of these are from the same outlets. List of unsolved murders in Canada has over 300 bare URL citations. I'm going to chip away at it, but I'm putting this here in case anyone else wants to jump in. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27: Sorry to jump into the middle of your edits, but I just ran Wikipedia:reFill on it and fixed 235 of them. Good tool, though not perfect, it will solve the bulk of bare URL problems. Then you only need spend your time cleaning up the few it was unable to decipher (or fixing the occasional one it messes up). Platonk (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another useful tool is Citer. Unfortunately it only formats refs one at a time but it usually formats those CBC references. Knowing my luck saying that will jinx things but you can give it a try. MarnetteD|Talk 18:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: Like! Thanks for that tool! It has its shortcomings, too, but it was able to fix another 20+ citations for me. And it is super fast (lightning speed faster than refill). I'm adding Citer to my tool chest. Platonk (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27: Helped. I got it down to just 14 bare URLs. I'll let you work on those. Platonk (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it was of help. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 22:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I removed all the bare URLs. However, there is an editor who is working on that article who keeps adding new bare URLs. Platonk (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation concerning this request:

• List of Sundance Film Festival selections - Formatting and wikilinking issues. Wikilinks in section headers that aren't particularly pertinent. Last decade is basically links to other articles, but prior to that are huge tables. Probably duplicate information (films listed in both another article plus listed here). Platonk (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Platonk, Tinton5, Bbarmadillo, PJvanMill, WildStar tagging all of you here for you opinion. There's this article with selections till 2011, then there are lists from 2007 till 2015 (like this and lists incorporated in festival articles from 2015 till 2022 (ike this. I suggest creating standalone lists for each year with a selection section there instead of this insanely long article. Tell me what you think, i'm willing to engage in this)) Less Unless (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Less Unless This reminds me somewhat of this AfD - there, what was listed was pieces which had been performed by a particular ballet group; here what's listed is films which have been shown at a particular film festival. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Simple listings without context information showing encyclopedic merit are considered unsuitable for Wikipedia, noting that for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth. So - I'm not completely sure on this, but - I think that there should not be independent list articles just listing films shown at this festival (or at a particular year's instalment of said festival), but such lists can exist as sections in broader articles about one year's instalment. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PJvanMill I'm totally with you. What about creating the missing articles for the festival as stubs with the lists for future expansion? And afd the lists after merging them with the main articles? My idea is to achieve something like 2021 Cannes Film Festival. Less Unless (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Less Unless Yes, this sounds like the right procedure to me. I think there is a clear AfD rationale here, once the content is relocated to yearly articles on the festival. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Less Unless, if the list really needs to be shorten (I'll wait for others to weigh in), yes a separate standalone list for each year sounds like a good option. I would also convert the TOC into a template, which in turn can be placed at the bottom of each new article to allow easy navigation between each of them. An example of this can be found here. — WILDSTAR^TALK 17:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a standalone article for each Sundance from 2003-2022. See the navbar Template:Sundance Film Festival.

Selections are of no value except within each year's Sundance article. Winners, on the other hand, are notable enough to keep its list-article List of Sundance Film Festival award winners.

I recommend breaking up List of Sundance Film Festival selections and putting each year-table into its respective year's article. (That's easier than breaking up the table formats, but they should be de-formatted into a simple list because those fancy formats are undue weight.)

In some cases, there are two articles per year (see that navbar Template:Sundance Film Festival) with a main page for a year followed by a 'films' link for 6 of the 19 years. Those secondary pages should have their content incorporated into their year-article, and if necessary removing some of the intricately formatted tables. That sort of information should be hosted on sundance.org and is of no use to an encyclopedia.

My take on this is that someone is using Wikipedia for marketing of Sundance. They already created pages for future Sundance film festivals (future event) and was busy at work moving upcoming film articles from draft and userspace into mainspace. These films have not even been released and are not notable (another argument for another day). My point being that there is a huge marketing/advertising effort for Sundance being played out in Wikipedia.

In the end, I think there should be a main Sundance article, one for each year, one winners list article, one template, a category for all the organization articles, and a category for all the films that won awards. And that's it! Platonk (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WildStar, Platonk looks like I've drawn myself into something I can drown)) Kidding. Now it looks pretty structured to me - will work on it. Thank you for your perspectives! Less Unless (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(pinging Northamerica1000 & WildStar, who seem most likely to be interested in this, as it's organisatorial / project maintenance stuff) Currently, the cleanup requests are organised first into years and then into months. As a consequence, the first section and last section of entries always have the same name. This interferes with linking: the link WP:cleanup#December will take you to the top one, while the bottom one is unlinkable. It can also be a bit confusing: I think once or twice I've seen someone make a new post in the section for the month exactly one year earlier.

So, I would propose that we change the structure as follows: one level-1 section for all the posts instead of two, and change the headings of the level-2 sections from "<month>" to "<month> <year>", so "December 2020". I would like to know if others agree with this change, and if so, what the level-1 section should be called - "Current posts" or something? Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 22:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded a bit and wanted to add: the current situation also creates confusion in edit summaries: if you use the section edit button on the December 2020 section right now, the link in the edit summary will be WP:cleanup#December which takes people to the wrong section. It will also not be possible to tell from looking at the edit summary which section you were editing in. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 23:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be easily reversible, so I will just go ahead and do it after a few months of no response. I could try pinging more people, but honestly this is a pretty boring and insignificant wikiproject organisation thing, I'd likely only annoy people with that. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 13:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) regarding split proposal backlog drive idea. The thread is Split backlog drive?. Thank you. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Drug-Free_Workplace_Act_of_1988 to cleanup requests for February to draw more attention to its need for a cleanup. Article has already been tagged. EDIT: Reasoning for the cleanup request is that the article has poor grammar and style, much of the information in the article isn't clearly in its sources, some links are dead, and the article doesn't adequately describe the law and its impacts.97.121.187.67 (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: You can do that yourself by placing {{cleanup}} near the top of page. Below any hatnotes, and above the infobox. Now, that the requested has already been done. Closing this request as answered. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 16:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added this request to the February section. Best, Bridget (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a very obvious reason why the cleanup feed has never been automated by means of a function akin to the feed system used for listing and sorting AfDs? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It could be because the present system works just fine. Users post an entry, sign it, and it's there. Users don't have to figure out templates, learn about transclusions or use a script to make posts, which keeps the process simple and streamlined. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Figures I guess: that and the backlog is not on the same order of magnitude as AfD. The cleanup crew clearly run a tight ship in terms of the listed content Iskandar323 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys!

I am a brand new user, and i am not a member of this wikiproject.

I did the requested cleanup on the citations on this article, but i cannot mark it as "Done" on this page yet, because i am not yet extended-confirmed. Can someone mark it for me? It is located under tha "March 2022" section.

Many thanks in advance, Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by several recent discussions, including the current arbcom case on conduct in deletion discussions, I have an idea that I'm workshopping at User:ONUnicorn/Articles for cleanup. I invite comment on the idea. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please allow me to reply to this message Mahakdeep Sran (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:LeAnn Rimes (album) § Album name same as artist's name. Sundayclose (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

123.253.95.25 (talk) 9:9, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Add on section preserved locomotives: 346 was wrecked by c&s on kenosha pass when used as a helper and engineer was drunk as hell going way too fast and rolled off curve. fireman jumped off he got so scared.engineer died of burns in hospital. also rumor has it that if the rgs wrecked her they would halve ballasted over her and re-laid the track but since the c&s wrecked it they had to fix her. also she is stamped 401 in spots. that is right she was 401 first. - this is why smells like kenosha exists. That railroad guy (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Careless use of the ReferenceExpander bot has led to references being contracted instead. For example, the bot sometimes follows a link that now redirects to a new, uninformative place, but since the link technically "works" the auto-generated citation omits the archive-URL and creates a footnote that is nicely templated but completely useless. It also removes all sorts of ancillary information included in manually-formatted citations, like quotations. If multiple citations were gathered into the same footnote, it creates a replacement based on only the first of them. It can see a citation to a chapter in an edited collection and replace the authors' names with the editors of the volume. It can see a URL for a news story and create a {{cite web}} footnote that omits the byline which had been manually included. We ran a database query and sorted the results by change in article size, to find instances where the bot likely had the wrong effect. It's a... rather long list. Some of the entries on it may be fine; some of those that were problematic may have already been fixed by routine work. But help turning those Ns to Ys would be greatly appreciated. Due to the possibility of intervening edits on the affected, there's no push-button way to revert all the changes. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about the first sentence at Talk:Oxford English Dictionary#First sentence needs changing. If you can provide input that would be great. Regards,--Thinker78 (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged a few articles for bareurls in the past, such as Foodscaping. Someone comes along and runs reFill and nothing is changed, but it removes the tag. Am I misunderstanding what is a bareurl? I see 8 of them in the references section.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I am right, bare URLs are just URLs that are added in the article instead of using cite feature or the <ref> tags. Just plain URLs/ hyperlinks to sources. Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this helpful, WP:BAREURLS. Cheers <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was helpful. Thank you.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the grammar for this request. When I looked over the page I didn't see much else wrong except for some small grammar stuff. If I did something wrong please let me know, this was my first attempt at contributing.

Campaign Cartographer - tagged for cleanup since August 2022. BOZ (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

OrangeJellyBean (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey OrangeJellyBean, thanks for editing! One small thing: the convention is to put references after punctuation; I've changed that on the page and made some other copyedits. I've just marked it as done on the project page.

(The edit request system doesn't work so well here - it is centrally organised, so the person coming in to answer the request has no idea how this wikiproject works and what you mean). Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Broken English from machine translation. Qazaqme (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all - I've just created a new inline template: {{Key needed}}, for articles with graphs, diagrams, and maps lacking a key. I was surprised to find that there wasn't already one which seemed to cover this. I've made it as an inline template which, in retrospect, may not have been the best type of template to use, but at least a template now exists. If some other cleanup template already covered this, or if there is a better type of template for the job, please feel free to delete or amend this one. Also, please let me know whether there are specific WikiProjects which I should inform of this new template. Cheers, Grutness...wha? 02:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]