The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Very small collection of articles (two songs and the group's record label). This template may well be needed in the future, but at this early stage in the group's career, it does not seem particularly useful. Gongshow Talk23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Not for anything, but that's no reason not to tag it for discussion. Get an admin to tag it for you so other editors who have a keep/delete opinion will come here. I found this discussion by accident since I came here to discuss the Cleanup tag in the next section. Really should be tagged. – PIE ( CLIMAX ) 17:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Note the next TfD below. It is also a protected template, and it has been tagged.
Question. Why can't we just remove the spaces and have it produce just an em dash? Wouldn't that be more useful than deleting? Jenks24 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete - The emdash is in the wikimarkup toolbox. Why do we need a template to display a character that is a single click away, even if you don't know ALT+0151 produces one in Windows (or can't type that for any number of reasons)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talk • contribs)
it's not really intended to be used in article text; it's intended for use in templates, tables, lists and other equivalent things, in order to include a separator between items such as in infoboxes. It's also to be consistent so that the article editor can use {{mdash}}, {{ndash}}, {{dot}} , {{bull}}or{{middot}} and not have to insert the —, –, · , • or · symbol, they can use any of these as a simple macro. The idea being that if you have a table with a list of items, you can insert a spaced long dash (or the other symbols) between items that will appear correct, in that the items always have just one separator between them, and when a list crawls to the next line, the dash hangs onto the prior item instead of rolling over to the next line. Notice on the end of this box, the mdash symbol『—』hangs on the end of the last item that will fit on the line indicating that additional items follow on the next line as part of this list, but the item only stays on the line if the item and the dash will fit. It's easier to use (or remember) than the equivalent code {{nobr| — }} or just plain — . See the column on the right. In code it's Item1{{mdash}} Item2{{mdash}} Item3{{mdash}} Item4{{mdash}} Item5{{mdash}} etc. (with some smaller items squeezed in to show that the list doesn't have to be the same number of items per line) but in the box they all fold perfectly once it runs out of space on the line to fit the next item and the dash following.
Normally, in a real box these items would be links, but this is an example.
Item1— A— B— Item2— Item3— Item4— Item5— extra item— E— 1— 2— 3— 4— 5— 6— 7— item that won't attach to prior line unless it fits in the remaining space— Q— A slightly longer item— KK— An obviously really even longer item that the dash will hang at its end— Item6— C— Item7— Item8— Item9— Item10— Item11— Item12— D— Item13— Item14— Item15— Item16— Item17— Item18
The space on the end makes sure the dash doesn't touch the edge of the box, either
Useful insight. (I chased down one example in an article, and could be forgiving given that it was used directly after a footnote superscript.) I wonder, though if this might be achieved better by some css magic and hlist? RichFarmbrough, 02:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
This seems like a convincing argument to delete the template as using em-dashes as separators in a list is improper grammar. You should use spaced en dashes for that. Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is without changes. Was going to say ditto to Rich's recommendation, but Paul's demonstration of the template being used as designed says otherwise. SO NOW... when keeping tje template as is, the arises a need to update the documentation to specify how it is to be used (i.e. not just to make a dash in an article). Corresponding changes should be made to the MOS also, but I'm sure that'll be a multi-year process to get consensus on. SENATOR2029 (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:DASH is written from ignorance by people who don't know how computers work. Professional typesetters never wrap the emdash, endash or dash/hyphen to the first column of a line, which is exactly what may happen if the latter two symbols are not offset by a non-breaking space before and space after; it's an artifact of the way most browsers render pages. If you ever see an emdash in the first column in printed matter, it's a proofreading oversight or product of a non-professional publisher. As for keeping or deleting the {{Mdash}} template, I don't care, because I don't use it: Putting this template or any other template in the text of the lead section of an article results in a baffling void when viewed with a tool tip preview, so don't do it.
Comemnt: I don't know, but can somebody direct my to the toolbox thing? I use the modern skin and I don't see any mdash related stuff (exept my userscripts which I had installed). mabdul12:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely useless template. em dashes are easy to type (or click on in the toolbar if you forget how). Using em dashes to separate items in template lists is improper grammar. You should use spaced en dashes for this, never em dashes. Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as shortcut to no line breaking behavior syntax together with similar {{dot}}, {{bull}}, etc. While I prefer WYCIWYG, syntax for these is more complex with html. At the same time, we ought to clarify not to use it where not needed. So—as an example—not in the middle of prose. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK13:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supernova Keep. Still useful, though not in normal article text. I use it all the time on my User pages. Those who are trying to delete this template apparently are not aware of its other uses besides in article text. Also, when I edit an article and need a long dash, I'll grab it from the Wikimarkup toolbox. Any other time, I toss in a quick Mdash by use of this template, which is actually quicker for me. It would be a huge mistake to delete the {{mdash}} template! – PIE ( CLIMAX ) 16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS. While I don't now, I have in the past used Mdash in my sig. There may be a lot of editors who use it in their sigs.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. This things has been up here for 2½ weeks... OK, I'll close it. I think that the outcome of all the extended tl;dr below is that while there is no consensus for deletion, there is certainly room for improvement. Drive-by tagging of articles has always been a blight. Slapping a template on the top of an article runs opposite to our core value of WP:SOFIXIT, and this template tends to stay on for so long that its use really loses meaning. This discussion should certainly result in changes, and I would urge some of those who expressed an opinion below to be WP:BOLD about it. -- Ynot?15:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said the last time I nominated this, this template is loaded with problems:
I have never seen this used correctly. It's always spammed in a drive-by tagging. There are also several cases I've seen where the cleanup was done, but the template stayed because someone was too lazy to remove it. For instance, could you tell me what kind of cleanup Platform shoe needed? I don't see anything pressing there.
The template has been amended so that a rationale can be added, and there is now an option to do so in Twinkle, but literally no one is using the rationale field. NO ONE. Nor do I ever see anyone elaborating on the talk page as to what needs cleaning up.
Some keepers have argued that it's useful for new editors — but I feel that an editor who can figure out how to find and apply the cleanup template can find something like {{sections}}, {{copyedit}}, {{wikify}}, etc. just as easily.
It's so open-ended and vague as to be useless, just like {{expand}} was. Literally 100% of the time that I've seen a cleanup tag, I have had to remove it because I had no idea what needed cleaning up, or no cleanup at all was needed. "This article may need cleanup" doesn't help me one iota. It's like saying "This article may need expansion". You're only saying that it may need something completely vague that you're not elaborating on.
The cleanup template's an artifact of simpler times, before there were as many potential problems in an article. It seems some people want to give it a grandfather clause just because it's been around for so long, but so was {{expand}}.
There are literally dozens of more specific tags. WP:TC say that this template "applies to general problems not addressed by other tags. Please consider using specific cleanup tags first, as specific tags help other editors to easily identify problems in an article." Under what possible circumstance could none of the specialized cleanup templates fit? There's a maintenance template for literally everything now.
The last TFD had several arguments that it was "useful", but as we all know, "useful" is an argument to avoid. It's clear that the template is past its prime, so I suggest that it be deprecated much like {{expand}} was — this will prevent further (mis)use but keep it around for the purpose of article histories. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)21:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have there been any improvements to the template since the last nomination? Many wanted the reason parameter to be made compulsory. AIRcorn(talk)21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It displays "(Consider using more specific cleanup instructions.)", but it's by no means enforced, as I've seen literally no one use the reason parameter. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)22:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then. It has had enough chances to address issues raised previously. AIRcorn(talk)
I'd rather a death by a thousand cuts here by enforcing the use of the reason tag (i.e. red error time). After a few months, a bot should remove existing transclusions which fail to include a reason. At that point we can officially deprecate the tag and work to more appropriately tag (ot even better, fix) the remaining transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely agreed with the nominator. This is an aggrivatingly vague template that is borderline useless. If an article has a problem significant enough to warrant a mainspace template, we should be requiring that specific concerns be outlined. This generally only confuses the editor, or is used redundantly with other, better templates. Resolute00:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The may need is a red herring. It is always possible that the tagger is wrong, or the problem is fixed. If the may was a substantive issue, it could simply be removed form the wording.
USEFUL is not an argument to keep articles, it is a great argument to keep apparatus.
The reason field is in use on hundreds of articles, contrary to the plaintiff's claim
Anyone can fix the articles, add a reason field, replace the tag with a more accurate one.
We should not repeat the heinous deletion of Expand, which threw out six years of work for no improvement in the encyclopaedia, and had rapidly to be replaced.
Regarding your points: 1.) WP:ATA applies to all deletion forums, does it not? 2.) Prove it. 3.) Anyone can fix any article, so do we really need any maintenance template? 4.) What did {{expand}} have to be "rapidly" replaced with? How was its deletion heinous? How does a template whose verbiage never changed consist of "six years of work"? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)04:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1 - it's an essay. A moments thought shows that that particular ATA does not apply. Take a moment. While you're at it notice, for example, that "It doesn't do any harm" is a critical argument at RfD.
2 165
3 No, the point is you claim this is building in breakage. It isn't.
4 a. Incomplete and Expand Section and others
4 b. it threw away an extensive work-flow which will take years to rebuild
4 c. i "verbiage" POV language, begging the argument.
4 c. ii It changed substantially from "It is requested that this article be expanded by somebody more knowledgeable about its subject. Please improve it in any way that you see fit, and remove this notice and the listing on the request page once the article is no longer a stub." to "Please help improve this article by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page."
4 c. iii The work is not just the template itself, but the careful application of the template, the associated talk page notes, the building of the workflow and apparatus.
I still think the "work" built up by "expand" is a figment. There are many alternatives to the now-defunct "expand" template that cover the same territory — after all, isn't pretty much any non-GA in need of expansion by definition? Same goes for "cleanup". The term is so broad as to be useless. 598 is barely a drop in the bucket in the cleanup queue, so use of the paramater is clearly not being enforced in any way. I fail to see how my removal is any more harmful than users who just slap on "cleanup" whenever they're too damn lazy to do anything else or they just like putting a shiny template at the top. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)04:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you needed to write "ALTEXPAND" shows that alternatives were needed: the task of identifying what expansion was needed in those 100,000 articles (or was it 20,000 - even that information seems lost) has been made immeasurably harder by the deletion of the template from the articles. Simply hiding the template would have allowed some sort of triage. But then that's in the past.
Your removal of "Cleanup" would not be harmful if that tag was just added by people who "just like putting a shiny template at the top" - rather assuming bad faith - but it isn't. Your example Platform shoe had so much wrong with it that "Cleanup" or something similarly generic was the only apposite tag. That's not to say it was a hopeless article, it is rather the point of a wiki that articles can be created that fail on style, grammar, spelling, chronology, sourcing and are still largely accurate, informative and useful, and can gradually be improved by others who may not have the niche knowledge, to read well and be properly sourced. RichFarmbrough, 05:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep make the rationale mandatory. And I fail to see how we can create cleanup templates for every single issue needing cleaning up. WP:BURO -- why are we creating such bureaucracy as to require creating cleanup messages for every single issue when some issues are rare by themselves, while rare issues collectively are not so rare. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what does making the rationale mandatory fix in regards to the eleventy zillion transclusions that DON'T have a rationale? Nothing but slap a big red warning on that no one ever takes care of. Again, I see absolutely no possible "cleanup" that would not fit under one of the more specific templates. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)06:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing stopping you or any other future fixer, from removing all instances that don't include rationales. If you delete the template, it disappears, so there's no functional difference from removing all instances missing rationales.
As for not seeing any forseeable need for some other type of cleanup, that's not very forward thinking, since Wikipedia evolves, so new types of cleanup will always appear. And thinking that we've thought of every single type of cleanup, you'd have to show me the mathematically complete argument showing that every single type of cleanup is covered by the current system if you remove this template. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not every issue is of equal magnitude, and there is no reason to have a template for every possible issue. Current template doesn't list the minor issues and no one is the wiser what the original tagger meant. When new "types of cleanup" appear, nobody is stopping anybody from proposing specific cleanup templates for them. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK13:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I must concur with the nom here. Recently, a fellow user called Katharineamy came to my eyes, who always works on the dead-end articles. She looks up the category for new entries and then systematically adds appropriate links to the articles so that readers can easily navigate to other Wikipedia articles. For her, it's important that the article are tagged with {{dead-end}} and not with {{cleanup}}, because she's not gonna find it otherwise. There are many other Wikipedians like Katharineamy with the same problems. This too generic tag shouldn't be used at all, and the best way to enforce this is to delete the template. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Flags should indicate specific problems; this one isn't helpful in providing instruction in what needs to be done to "fix" an article. It simply says: FIX THIS ARTICLE! There are instead already a myriad of appropriate flags that will actually spur specific action. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep and remove from articles where it is used without rationale - I see no reason to delete it from articles where rationale is provided Bulwersator (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are not templates for everything. And quite rightly so. There is no template for out-of-order paragraphs, for anachronism, for excessive litotes. People really do need to add some reason, though, except where it's glaringly obvious. Sometimes there is a comment on the talk page, or in the edit summary. We should bear in mind that the reason field is relatively new. RichFarmbrough, 02:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Isn't there a rearrangement template of some kind? Also, the newness of the reason field doesn't fix the fact that there are still a far larger number of transclusions not using it. Nor does it fix the fact that almost all of the applications are not corresponded to a helpful edit summary or talk page discussion — I've taken a pretty large sample and seen nothing but drive-by template bombing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)02:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note this is the fourth attempt to delete this template, at regular 6 monthly intervals. I added something to emphasise the need for a reason during a previous TfD but it was sadly reverted. Might re-look at this tomorrow. RichFarmbrough, 02:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
keep but make reason mandatory, remove from articles where used without rationale - I also see no reason to delete it from articles where rationale is provided Tom B (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this template is always inappropriately used. We have more specialized reasons, yet this template is always added along with specialized reason templates. I have yet to see a proper use of this template. If there is a major pressing issue on the article, there is something called a talk page where the issue may be brought up. All non-featured articles could all be classified as needing cleanup. We don't need a generic tag to say it. It is about as useful as Template:Expand was. Alpha_Quadrant(talk)17:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a tag for articles needing general cleanup. Among other uses it replaces the need for a dozen different more specific tags at the top of an article. It also covers situations that don't have specific cleanup tags; do we really want separate tags for punctuation, grammar, layout flow, paragraphing, needs improved clarity, etc? I've used the cleanup tag to indicate that the article needs major copyediting and for cases where there is something wrong with the article that I can't put my finger on to be more specific and for cases where I just think I need a second opinion on the article. The problem isn't the template it is the lazyness of people who see an article that has already been cleanedup but don't take the time to remove the tag instead complaining about the tag. I've sometimes left the cleanup tag after doing edits because I know that it can be better but don't know how to make it better. Deleting the template will not result in thousands of articles that have suddenly been cleanedup but rather in thousands of article needing cleanup that I can no longer find to work on. RJFJR (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Twinkle makes adding multiple, specific, actionable templates far too easy for this to have any real usage. It may have served a reasonable purpose for a while, but {{articleissues}} has superseded it. Jclemens (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't think the template has ever really helped. An article that really needs cleanup is fairly obvious and doesn't need a tag at the top, just an edit.Cloudbound (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I try to use the template correctly, and I've applied the rational, and the rational already existed in the Talk page, I just condensed it into the template. I'd be fine with having another template be used instead, one that is more specific and helpful, such as those proposed. I mean when I applied the template for the first time, I quickly Googled for what I was looking for, scanned over the instructions, and then applied it. I think those others are equally easy to use, but are very specific. Let's use them instead. Jessemv (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but make the reason parameter mandatory - I always try looking for a more specific template, but there isn't always one that fits the issue. (On that note, if there were a template for every possible issue, I might support deletion.) Also, I don't believe that {{articleissues}} has superseded this, as Jclemens has said. I do support the reason parameter being mandatory, however. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too vague, encourages drive-by template spamming, better/more specific templates available. If kept, the reason parameter should become compulsory. Miracle Pen (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exactly for the reasons given by the nom. I have tried to make people use the reason parameter back then by making the documentation more explicit, to no avail. Nageh (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The purpose of clean up templates is to encourage editors to fix specific problems that another editor has identified. This general template does not serve that purpose in theory or in practice. SFB20:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template is useless except for annoying drive-by templating. More specific templates should be used if there is actually an issue to be addressed. Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by redirect to Template:Wikify. When I have used the {Cleanup} tag, the main purpose was to request extensive reformatting, such as for several dates or tables which needed to be wikified or aligned, as very tedious formatting beyond a {Copyedit} tag which concerns grammar or phrasing. Set as #REDIRECT to Template:Wikify, and no one needs to change all the current transclusions. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The template is generic and basic, and that is definitely agreed upon by almost everyone here. But I also have to agree on the other people who said Keep, that we need this template for "basic" cleanup. It's a gentle tag, if you use a whole bunch of tags to account for the cleanup without the use of this tag, it makes Wikipedia look bad for something that requires only such generic cleanup. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though this is broad and general, I think this template does some good for suffering articles, such as Dota (genre), which seems to have issues across the board. However, I would like to emphasize that I can't live without this tag, as I could just as easily add the three applicable templates. Nonetheless, I hope to keep the option open, in order to convey a similar degree of scrutiny, without drowning lacking pages with templates. So, I'll live, regardless of what happens to this template. DarthBottotalk•cont23:22, 03 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; vague, generic and useless tag that, as said above, is almost always inappropriately used, and often reflects the the lack of an adequate rationale of the reviewer-editor. WP is plenty of "clearer" and more specific tags, and all the possible problems are covered, so we really don't need this. Cavarrone (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too vague. People can find more specific templates like "expand section" or "wikify". Just be sure to replace all the templates with something new. Agent 78787 (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep but remove it from articles if the reason is not stated, and tell users to find more specific templates whenever possible. Agent 78787 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I used it recently and included specific cleanup instructions (albeit clumsily), so I guess that makes me the first. This template is valuable because it is flexible—the reason parameter allows it to address article-specific issues that may not be covered by other templates. It saves us the trouble of creating a template for every conceivable cleanup issue. Braincricket (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But again, that does not fix the zillions of {{cleanup}} templates placed before the rationale field was in use. We've got cleanup templates dating back to 2007 that no one has done anything with. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume removing them would be an excellent job for a bot. Alternatively, if we want to keep the current cleanup tags, deprecating the template is certainly an acceptable option to me, too. Nageh (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and support mandatory reason parameter. The nom claims it is always used in driveby tagging. This is not the case. I have used it for articles with multiple issues where not all issues are immediately apparent. It is useful for intermediate editors who may recognize that an article needs some cleanup but may not be aware of all of the relevant policies. Dialectric (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose making the reason mandatory: it will not deter drive-by taggings but show undue emphasis to one person's overview
- You can still input random characters, "wp:example", or a single-word 'reason' which could be more cryptic than a generic template. It cannot be enforced after the fact without becoming another sign-your-postsorprovide-a-summary.
- The parameter is confined to a single line unless you insert <br> tags, meaning it would be one-line message at most. What do you write for a label of summary criticism on top of the entire article? A malwritten sentence would only make it worse.
- Since the templates are not signed, it appears as though wikipedia itself is scrutinizing you. That might feel rather unfriendlylike.
- If you see a note like "needs restructuring" or "poorly written", each editor is faced with either removing the tag, changing the reason-phrase, or leaving it the way it was. When do you tell when it's clean enough to untag?
- Requiring a message does not require using the talk page to elaborate further; the more specific templates still identify what should be improved. -- Skullers (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point—How do you tell when clean enough is clean enough? Maybe we could change the wording on the template to advocate its removal based the editor's own judgement. Instead of "Please help improve this article if you can," maybe something like "If you think the article has been improved, be bold and remove this template." As for drive-by tagging, I notice that {{cleanup}} is in the no. 1 position in the Twinkle "Tag" menu. It wants to be spammed indiscriminately. Burying it below the more specific cleanup tags might cut down on that (unless you don't use Twinkle). Braincricket (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Skullers, I think a bogus reason will be spotted, and either the template will be deleted or modified by another editor. And this template should be signed, like some other important ones. I like Braincricket's If you think it's clean enough ...' clause. --Lexein (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Usernames do not belong in article space. Depending on the seriousness of the subject matter some names would be inappropriate. You may not want the likes of SillyBunnnay69 tagging style issues atop certain genocidal massacres. And some names, though perfectly normal, can suggest non-neutrality when seen on specific articles. It would also signify to some degree ownership of content or overemphasize judgment of the tagger. Skullers (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the quality standards link points to the main MoS page which is an overwhelming amount of information. "Cleanup" is the removal of dirt. Notice the broom icon. Kind of seems like a negative message: "This article is a mess that needs cleaning up. This here style guide is how to meet our standards. The talk page may contain suggestions." - Skullers (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this template makes some precise comments for cleaning up. It is useful when followed by the reason for putting the template. I have got a nice example; see the article list of chemistry mnemonics. The template has been placed there and is very much needed and accurate. Also what to be cleaned up is also discussed.
It cannot be said that the template should be deleted as no one removes the template after the cleaning up has been done. Instead of deleting, it is better to encourage the community to explain what should be done to clean up. Also the proposal should be described in talk pages. If someone does a clean up then it should also be introduced to the talk page asking whether the clean up has been complete (or enough).VanischenuTM16:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Encouraging does not work, I have tried that long enough. Mandating (sensible) use of the reason parameter is a solution that I would accept. Nageh (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I still see no one trying to enforce use of the rationale parameter. And even if we use a bot to wipe out all the ones that don't use it, that leaves us with what? Six articles maybe that are using the rationale parameter? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:ITSUSEFUL only applies to articles; templates should be useful. This template is useful to avoid overtagging since a few tags can be consolidated into this tag for a particularly needy article. Of course care should be used when applying the tag and it is used on a bit more pages than it should, but that isn't to say that it doesn't have its use. ThemFromSpace17:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors are not experienced enough to express what they want to say. This is reason enough for the template to exist so that inexperienced editors can use it.Curb Chain (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a useful tool. The fact that lazy editors are misusing it is not reason enough to remove it from all editors' toolkit. The same rationale applied to articles would shrink Wikipedia to a fraction of its current size. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change the template to be rendered invisible - that is, to not display a box on the article, just place the article in the Category:Articles needing cleanup as it does now. This would preserve the well-intentioned investment made by editors over past years to flag 35,000 articles that need more attention than the average article, while removing the wiki-defacement of the in-your-face message box. We editors need to remember that 99+% of the access to Wikipedia is to read the content, not to discover things to edit. (This seems better than simply throwing away the basic article flagging that has already been done which would result from deleting the template.) -R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can't see why it should be deleted. Only because people are misusing it? Then these people should be advised of the right usage of the tag. Most of the maintenance templates could be deleted with this reasoning, since all of them in some way are fast, simple options for users who are not feeling like editing the article at that exact moment, but may be more interested later. And if anyone thinks a page has been unfairly tagged with the template, just remove it. Victão LopesI hear you...19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If people are misusing it this egregiously, then that suggests a fault at the template level. So many hundred thousand editors can't all be wrong, nor can they all be corrected if they are. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)20:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant. If the template is being used for the purpose of tagging articles that the editor know requires fixing but is not knowledgeable enough to be more specific, this template should be provided for them to use.Curb Chain (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with User:Cocoaguy. Also, some articles are just plain in need of a good cleaning up in general; posting a bunch of specific templates to such articles is kind of a waste of time. I can think of better things to do than worrying about how this template is used. Bumm13 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with the {{db}} template, this allows for specification of what needs to be cleaned up, however the difference is that everyone uses the specification field in the db template but nobody uses it in the cleanup template. Ramaksoud2000(Did I make a mistake?)21:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes there is a backlog, but that does not justify removing its use entirely. It is helpful for knowing articles that need improvement, even as most editors are not making use of it. I would support bot notifications for users that drop the tag without a specific rationale. ~AH1(discuss!)22:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As note, cleanup is rather arbitrarily used in some cases, and in others, the tag could have drawn attention to a horrific mess that definitely needed work, and wasn't. I also agree with the fact that WP has simply evolved past some of its tags - anybody can edit an article for any reason, and that's going to happen, tag or not. I just copyedited an article that wasn't on any lists, but it needed it, and probably looks at least ten times better now. It still needs work, but again, there was no "incitement by tag" needed. Multiple issues is a different tag altogether, and should not be a cleanup redirect. MI is a more urgent level of necessity, because there are documentable multiple failure points in the article in question. Lastly, the db tags (and other "reason required" tags (AFAIK)), don't work properly without reasons given.MSJapan (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. From what I found out, the template is used in articles that can be "dirty" in a way that it's not properly organized or containing unnecessary information. The Wikify template seems to provide a more general point of view in the purpose for the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards which mainly focus on the ARTICLE'S FORMAT LAYOUT, not about articles that require some improvements through citing sources or articles that has a poor baseline.--Bumblezellio (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above vote is a good example of misinterpretation of this template... This is absolutely a personal interpretation of this template, a proof of its vagueness and an excellent example of its bad use. Cavarrone (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You do know this is the 4th time this article was nominated for deletion. The last one ended with "No Consensus". So I'm pretty sure this 4th discussion will end the same way as the last one.--Bumblezellio (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A different outcome of such a discussion could be that we mandate and enforce use of the reason parameter, or, in other words, deprecate the template's use without providing a sensible reason, either inline or at the talk page. Possibly, more people could agree with that. Just saying. Nageh (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one seems more leaning towards "Delete" as it is. Most likely, if the consensus is indeed to delete, it will merely be deprecated like {{expand}} was to avoid destroying article histories. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)01:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that the use of this template raises an interesting philosophical problem: If a tool is invented for one purpose but is used for another, is it being misused? From the point of view of the tool's inventors, the answer would be a resounding "yes". However, from the point of view of the people who actually use the tool, it is being used exactly how they think it ought to be used. Whose point of view should we acknowledge, then? That of the tool's inventors, who run around after the fact, attempting to enforce a form of use against what the tool's users want? Or that of the tool's users, who use it as they find it.
It was once said that, according to fairy tales, the rightful king is the son of the previous king but, according to history, the rightful king is merely the one who sits on the throne. I think the same principle of facing reality applies here. Regardless of the intent of {{cleanup}}, it is not being used as it was intended. Instead, as others have pointed out, it is being used in the laziest form of drive-by tagging. Consequently, I think it best to reduce the availability of any tool that doesn't require the user to conduct more research into an article's requirements. ClaretAsh02:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sometimes you just don't have a better template that be as specific to what needs fixed. This is the template I use on badly written stubs that I don't know the topic that well to fill in. Make reason mandatory if you must. It's easier than deleting this template. It's also the template used by a number of tools. --ZacBowling(user|talk)04:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of an appropriate tag, we should leave a comment on the talk page. That's what they're for. Plus, they have the added advantage of being able to elaborate in detail exactly what the problem is. I think there is even a "to do" template that can be added to talk pages. ClaretAsh08:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The periodic renominations for this template to be deleted is ridiculous. This template is used because if inexperienced editors know that a specific article needs to be cleaned up, but does not know how to express that, this template is the perfect fit. The reason {{expand}} was deleted was because any article can be expanded with information and certain information may not be included presently whereas an article that needs to be cleaned up has problems that may be related to cleanup. In any case, because this template is useful for new editors, this is sufficient reason enough to keep the template.Curb Chain (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, common sense. Inexperienced editors should study policies and guidelines rather than casually put a generic tag in an article because they "feel" there's something that don't work. Cavarrone (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do they have too. If they are helping by putting a tag on an article that requires cleanup, please do so; it helps me. Maybe it does not help a majority, but Wikipedia is not a democracy.Curb Chain (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And this should have been speedily closed. The nominator's 3rd TfD and including the deletion review, is a 4th nomination. He will keep on renominating this until it get's deleted as opined above from several editors. And there are no new arguments for this TfD.Curb Chain (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1. the template and its documentation should then be rewritten, 2. add some error messages to the code, so that improperly calls to the template require anyone to delete it or fix it, 3. good reason to let it stay, but the template should be accompanied by an explanation on the talk page to explain why it is inserted, otherwise anyone can delete the call at sight, 4. if it is so vague, then it must be usable indeed, 5. yeah, but the grand prophet Xyzzy used the template, and then we should use it too (or emo statements require emo answers), 6. then the cleanup template should integrate those more specific templates. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - create a special page listing all tagged articles' reason parameter (or lack thereof), preferably in chronological order. Those that see the utility in this template can examine the 5 year backlog and identify specific issues or replace/untag as needed. You could also add stub/wikiproject templates along the way to delegate to those more interested in specific articles. A task force focused on this can do it relatively quickly. This would make it a LOT more useful and quicker to process. Skullers (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting a way to make it more manageable. If the reason parameter is used, there should be a place you can scan over them without going to every individual page. That way you can see all blank or unhelpful lines and identify specific concerns or untag as appropriate. Skullers (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove 'Consider using more specific cleanup instructions. This is one of the most handiest templates of Wikipedia, according to me. – We are legion. We never forget. (Plarem) (Usertalk)13:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support making the |reason parameter mandatory - I shall agree to this proposal because this tag does seem to vague without it. But it allows you to say anything you want to cleanup. This is especially useful when you want to post cleanup instructions when there is nothing that fits in WP:TC. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 14:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like others I'm concerned that this is the fourth time the nominator has tried to get this template deleted in only 14 months. The reasons for nomination are pretty much the same at each AfD and yet, the community doesn't want seem to want to delete this template. However, that hasn't stopped the nominator, even when DRV rejected his opinion that the template should be deleted after the last, "no censensus" result. That said I have to give him points for his conviction but, there are plenty of articles that, unfortunately, require a general cleanup and this template if perfect for those situations. Sometimes it's impossible to add specific templates that adequately identify the problems in an article without overwhelming the article with templates. Both {{multiple issues}} (which others have suggested using) and Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup say not to add too many templates. Looking at the nominator's reasons for deletion:
"There are also several cases I've seen where the cleanup was done, but the template stayed because someone was too lazy to remove it." - That's a problem with all templates, not just this one. It's a reason to remove the template from the article, but not to delete it. "could you tell me what kind of cleanup Platform shoe needed?" - The template was added on 4 February 2007.[1] It's fairly obvious from the article that it had issues with redlinks, referencing (lack of inline citations, citation needed tags, conversion of bare urls to references, conversion of inline text reference to an appropriate referencing format etc.), wikilinks (removal of unnecessary links to multiple decades), dates (e.g. "February of 2006"), removal of OR and so on. These are just the obvious problems. In order to identify them by template, you'd need a whole host of templates on the article page and you'd still need to write so much on the talk page that you may as well have cleaned the article up yourself. This was clearly a case where application of the template was valid.
"there is now an option to do so in Twinkle, but literally no one is using the rationale field". - That's a pretty bold claim to make. According to Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field, there are 25,828 articles in this category, while the template is transcluded while there are 26,903. Those figures indicate that there are 1,000 articles that do include a reason. It's far less than ideal but the rational field has only been in this eight year old template for 7 months.
"I feel that an editor who can figure out how to find and apply the cleanup template can find something like {{sections}}, {{copyedit}}, {{wikify}}, etc. just as easily" - Sometimes the problems require too many templates, which is when {{Cleanup|reason=}} becomes a better option.
"It's so open-ended and vague as to be useless" - Well no, its use on Platform shoe was valid. Any editor who saw the template on that article in 2007, looked at the article and couldn't work out what was wrong could be regarded as useless, but the template wasn't. With the "|reason=" parameter, use of which I feel should be mandatory, it's very useful.
"The cleanup template's an artifact of simpler times, before there were as many potential problems in an article" - There really hasn't been an increase in the number of problems an article could have, that's a furphy. If the template is an artifact, it's an artifact of a time when editors didn't have to be spoon fed as much as they seem to today. If there are problems in an article, they aren't always easy to spot but they often are. Regardless, some editors have no idea what to fix without a template stuck on the top of a page that tells them exactly what's needed, which is why this template doesn't appeal to them.
"There are literally dozens of more specific tags." - There are, but the last thing we want is dozens of templates on a page when one will suffice.
I agree with others who have said that use of "|reason=" should be mandatory. There's really no reason why a reason can't be added, so why not make it mandatory. With 1,000 articles apparently including a reason, the parameter is clearly gaining acceptance and, it can't hurt to include even the briefest of reasons. If an editor can't think of a reason, then the tag probably isn't warranted. I note that, in response to Rich Farmbrough, the nominator has suggested use of {{Cleanup-reorganize}}. Perhaps what we really need, rather than deleting this template, is to expand it to cater for the other "Template:Cleanup-" templates listed at Category:Cleanup templates, replacing a lot of little templates with just one. However, in the first instance we should insist on making use of "|reason=" mandatory. I also support the suggestion that we do a bot run to delete all instances where the template is used without the parameter. That should address the nominator's concern about cases where the article has not been removed when it should have, as was the case with Platform shoe. If the template is really needed on an article from which it was removed, it can easily be restored, with a reason. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that it is often used inappropriately means that it should be fixed, not deleted. Deleting it would be throwing the baby with the water. I personally use it to describe a variety of cleanup problems, which I would have little way to describe without it (mostly policies and guidelines which don't have a specific tag). --Muhandes (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could think of several ways to fix it, but since they were all already mention in this same thread I don't have what to add. If a previois attempt was made, it was not violent enough, try again. --Muhandes (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with modification. Most of the complaints above seem to involve not using the reason parameter. Wrapping code along the lines of {{#if:{{{2|{{{reason|}}}}}}|Show the box|Don't show the box}} around the template would make the parameter mandatory. HausTalk20:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again. Making the reason parameter mandatory DOES NOT FIX the existing problem of a bazillion articles having drive-by tags dating back from forever. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then: Keep, with reason mandatory. Yes, the template is used far too much, but it can be useful in the right context and with the right reason. Perhaps if the reason were to be made mandatory but to a few specific values. Tools such as Twinkle could easily be updated to work with that, and the template itself could be altered to recognise only those the values. A bot could remove tags dated over, say, 6 months when the article has more than, say, 50 edits. If these changes aren't likely to be implemented or be benefitial to anything in the log run then Delete the template, there's clearly a problem with it in it's current form. Osarius Talk23:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, force Twinklers to use rationale: Whilst the nominator is quite right to point to abuses of this template, a random sample of articles tagged reveals that many still have significant defects. Whilst more specific templates are much more useful, a general template still serves as a good and proper warning to readers and metric to editors IMHO. - Jarry1250[Deliberationneeded]00:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: get a bot to remove all transclusions that doesn't come with a rationale or other comments. The template itself is not the problem. Deryck C.01:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or deprecate. This template is unhelpfully vague and redundant to the more specific cleanup templates. It invites lazy tagging, whereas requiring a more specific tag invites the editor who places the template to take a closer look at the article. Editors who come across a generic cleanup template may wish to improve the article but not recognize the issues identified by the original tagger. Cleanup templates have the potential to reinforce our policies and guidelines, but that effect is diluted by a catch-all template such as this. The mandatory rationale field solution is problematic in that it invites novel rationales unsupported by guideline/policy. The field already gives our templates an inconsistent voice and has too much potential for editorializing, ad hominem attacks and libel. gobonoboTC02:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason parameter would ostensibly be for people to clarify what needs cleaning up. But as pointed out, very few people are doing that even with the parameter in place. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)03:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) People can choose not to use it 2) As pointed out by other editors, there are now more than a 1000 articles with this parameter. Seems more than effective to me.Curb Chain (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire. Unspecific and non-helpful. There are a multitude of very specific cleanup templates that should be used in place of this one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not specific, and there are better templates that can explain the article's needs. I've always seen it slapped onto an article with no helpful explanation given. --ddima (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep iff adding a reason is made mandatory and existing transclusions with no reason are removed I think a general cleanup template for which you can supply a reason is useful. Specific templates such as {{buzzwords}} are better than general ones like {{advert}}, but we have so many cleanup templates nobody is gonna know all of them. With a mandatory reason you can provide highly specific rationales without having to track down the right template. If people go around leaving nonsense reasons that is a problem with that users conduct, not with this template. I agree however that drive-by tagging of this template without providing a reason is useless, so I suggest we use a bot to revert new additions of this template without a reason, leaving a message on the users talkpage explaining the issue. Existing transclusions without a reason should be removed after a certain grace period (say, 2 months). Yoenit (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. Yeah, we have 200 more specific templates that can be used instead, but not every valuable contributor makes a point of keeping an encyclopedia of cleanup template names in their head. People who object to this unspecific template can always spend their time hunting them down and replacing them with something more specific. This doesn't mean that it is redundant. If the template is added without appararent reason, why, just remove it (sheesh). If it is added to a clearly broken or sub-standard article, it is being used correctly, regardless of whether a rationale has been provided. You can either help by providing a rationale, picking a more specific template or (gasp) actually helping fix article content. --dab(𒁳)10:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make the reason parameter mandatory. This template is certainly useful, not all people want to spend several minutes searching for a right template when all what is needed is few words explaining the issues. 1exec1 (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It serves to inform editors that work needs to be done on the article. It indicates that the article had defects enough to merit the effort of tagging. AshLin (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said it before and I'll say it again. Delete. This by far is the most generic and thus useless template we have; I'm surprised it has survived this long.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2012; 17:32 (UTC)
Delete or deprecate etc. It's really amusing to me to see this nomination as I had questioned the template myself in August 2006. The "cleanup" template is as vague as can possibly be. It's a very rare occasion when I see the template placed with thought and care rather than spammed by out of control twinkle users. There are simply too many other templates with a more specific mission than "cleanup". The oldest category for CU tags is February 2007 and look at a few articles like Space Cat that have no obvious problems that aren't already marked by another template anyway. The cleanup template is old and useless. Brad (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Space Cat? Seriously? When the tag was applied back in 2007 it was missing references, categories, included redlinks etc. It did need a good cleanup then. That {{Cleanup}} does not apply now is a fault of the editors who haven't removed the tag, not of the tag itself. Space Cat is as poor an example as Platform shoe. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been in the position of having fixed issues in an article but unsure if I have cleaned it up enough. The Copyedit template is a good replacement for tagging a badly written article, and the specific structure improvement templates will cover the rest. Speciate (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any maintenance tag that suggests you should see the talk page for suggestions. I've followed this suggestion literally hundreds of times to find no suggestions. The tag itself is hopeless without someone taking the time to explain what needs to be "cleaned up". It rarely happens in my experience. The tag should be specific or shouldn't exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Delete; in my opinion the purpose for a visible maintenance tag in mainspace is a caveat to a Wikipedia reader (as opposed to editor). If the neutrality of an article is in question or if it is poorly sourced it is important for an average reader to know this, but if it is poorly written or if sections are missing this is evident to anyone looking at it. Having countless tags throughout articles takes away from the aesthetics of the page and are rarely productive. If this was changed to an invisible category or even moved to the talk page I would have no problem keeping it but otherwise it should not be used visibly in articles. J04n(talk page)21:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful template to document an article in need of cleanup. Yes, it's nice if an editor tagging it would instead use a more specific tag (assuming one exists; it doesn't always). But it's noting an article in need of cleanup is the first step in getting that article cleaned up. Making that more difficult by requiring an edito to go do template research is a Bad Thing; and not all editors are Twinkle users. Besides, sometimes even without a reason being listed, the issues with an article are evident from just looking at it; and that's especially the case where there are a lot of issues, and no one's interest is served by forcing an editor to catalog them in order to bring a messed-up article to the attention of those who want to do cleanup. TJRC (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid template unless those who add it actually say what is wrong with an article, otherwise it's a drive-by magnet for edit-countititis. Force it to be useful otherwise get rid. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No not really. All you need is to use your eyes and your brain and you can quickly figure out what is wrong with an article tagged for cleanup. If there's no obvious reason then it's more than likely that it was already cleaned up by someone else who neglected to remove the tag, so just remove it yourself. This is why we have a date parameter. If the tag has been sitting there since 2006 then it's stale and most likely isn't applicable anymore. Just remove it. Simple. There's no need to delete the tag, the tag isn't the problem, people are. -- Ϫ02:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
most certainly DO NOT use a bot to delete. As many have noted, there are perhaps thousands of articles that have been flagged with this template to indicate to editors and readers that we know the article does not meet our standards. A simple removal of the flag might make the article "look" prettier, but does absolutely nothing to address the fact that content of the article was not up to standards. -- The Red Pen of Doom22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trying to decipher what caused a vague tag to be placed on an article is a huge waste of valuable man-hours. If a tag includes no concrete information that would point an editor seeking to improve the article in the right direction, it should be removed. Since virtually all uses of this template are exactly that kind of vague and useless tag, deleting it will save a huge amount of backlog shoveling. -- LWGtalk22:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A cleanup tag is a little silly, when you get right down to it. Everything on WP requires cleanup, with the probable exception of good articles and featured articles, and then only at the time of them gaining that status. 99% of articles require that tag in the same way that 100% require a tag saying {{editor required}}. ClaretAsh00:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find them useful. Has anybody from the delete side actually done a trawl through random articles to see some of the worst articles out there? Sometimes this tag is the only thing that fits the bill, unfortunately. --John (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as a small clickable note on the left: To me such templates are not problematic in themselves, but the sheer size of it is what is outrageous. Such templates are mostly notes (mostly subjective) from some editors to other prospective editors of the page. the general reader need not be over-concerned with such matters between editors. It's the "visibility to the general reader that is so bothersome". The solution for this and all other sorts of "edit templates" is to create a section on the left column. I suggest naming it "Editing templates" where the objection of this or that editor appears as a brief notation (clickable for expansion for further details). So for example this template clean-up remains, but not splashed all over the top of articles, but a single word "Clean-up" on the left. We already have sections for "Interaction", "Toolbox", "Languages" etc... so we can have one more for section for "edit notes".... listed in one or two words (clickable for expansion). E.g. "Expand", "Bare URLs", "Wikify", "More citations", "Notability", "Tone", "Longer intro", "Advertising", "Related party" etc. This way we will get rid of an annoying "Multiple issues template" as well. Each issue of these "multiple issues" will get its brief clickable one or two word note ON THE LEFT in this "in-between editors" section. All established editors could be trained to keep an eye on these notes to improve. Meanwhile the general non-Wikipedian reader can continue to read without seeing these "eyesores"... And one final friendly suggestion to all editor colleagues. If there is a problem on a certain page, how about trying to fix it yourself since you did recognize it needed cleaning up, instead of putting a template and moving on.... I say one article you clean-up is better than 10 articles where you splash a "clean-up" template on and move on... werldwayd (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On an additional note on this proposed solution, how about making these notes visible ONLY when you are signed in. The general anonymous reader does not see these notes at all. werldwayd (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these templates need to be easily visible to the average reader in order to alert them to problems with the article that could affect its reliability. For example, {{Original research}} alerts readers to a major issue and makes them aware that they shouldn't rely on it. Other maintenance tags are important in the same way. And don't throw the general disclaimer at me as a reply; how many people actually read that? I'd wager that the answer is "not enough". Thus, we need to give them in-your-face alerts when an article has major problems and they shouldn't rely on it. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is useful for articles that have more than one issue to be resolved - it neatly replaces a stack of other templates and the time needed to find out how they're called (if they exist at all). --Eleassarmy talk08:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last nomination resulted in a "no consensus" result, which you then tried, and failed, to have turned into "keep but deprecate" at DRV, which is effectively a delete. The result of the first TfD was keep, but you still nominated it again and the result of that was also keep, so the claim that you "only" nominated it this time was because last time was "no consensus" doesn't ring true. It does seem that you're going to keep nominating the template every 6 months until you get the result you desire, ie until you win and the template is deleted. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, the tag is never (not that I've seen, anyway) paired with any useful information. Like someone said above, anyone who can find and use this template can find more specific templates. These general use templates are useless in nearly every case. Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Helps newish editors who might not know about other maintenance tags help the community identify articles that have issues that need to be sorted out. Zangar (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. More specific tags available. Though I disagree with "[artefact of] simpler times, before there were as many potential problems in an article". No, actually, there were a lot more problems at the beginning (um... lack of content? little to no verifiability?), now there are a lot less and are a lot more underlined and nitpicked until the article goes to hell at the desire of some group of editors or another. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There needs to be a general cleanup template because:
It's not possible to create a template for every potential issue an article could have, and
Even if there were a template for every issue, no one would be able to find the exact template they needed.
At the very least, this template alerts potential editors that there is something wrong with the article that requires a more careful look. An alternative would be to replace this template with a very small number of general cleanup templates at a slightly more specific level, e.g. "cleanup-form", "cleanup-content", and "cleanup-citations". 138.16.32.85 (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, albeit in good faith, you're probably wrong. Wikipedia is already overspecialised in finding problems at the end of every sentence that looks at least vaguely suspicious, and the fixing of the article can be started from there. The specialised tags are intuitively named and not hard to find even for general readers with little knowledge of Wikipedia. Alternately, if it's kept, it should be strongly discouraged and restricted, and a warning should be applied to the template like on copyright tags that if the editor doesn't put a reason next to the tag, it should be removed immediately from the article. (People take more notice to those kinds of warnings that is believed.) --Anime Addict AA (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful template. Can't be easily replaced in all situations. Fix articles where used improperly - don't delete a tag because you are annoyed how it is used.ZayZayEM (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely agree it's too vague, especially given the considerable variety of specific templates at our disposal. This one basically says "there maybe is perhaps a slight possibility that this article could be improved somewhat". Shall we apply it to all non-FAs? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only because it's polite. For some articles it should say "This article, if one can call it that, resembles a pile of foetid dingoes kidneys, but there may just be something salvageable by an editor with more time, dedication, skill and a stronger stomach than me." RichFarmbrough, 00:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete; the nomination is persuasive although I don't agree with every word of it. Wikipedia has developed over time (and emphasis is shifting from quantity to quality) and the need for a general cleanup label has been eroded by the proliferation of labels for much more specific quality problems (translation cleanup? Cleanup after vandalism? Copyediting? Specific style issues? There are a hundred types of cleanup). As for drive-by tagging, well, we can hardly expect every editor to resolve every issue they find, because the chances are there's somebody else who relishes a particular kind of cleanup - but that's a reason to move usage away from a general cleanup tag and towards our more specific tags. As it stands, this template isn't helping readers and it isn't helping editors. bobrayner (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteordeprecate and redirecttoTemplate:Multiple issues, which is a far more useful tool, as it gives new editors specific guidance to tagging specific issues within the article. We should make it as easy as possible for new editors by transitioning from vague complaints to specific guidelines. Wilhelm Meis(Quatsch!)02:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - However, if someone who comes to Wikipedia for research and sees a bank of maintenance tags at the article under Template:Multiple issues, it makes Wikipedia look bad. If new editors are unsure, they can use the cleanup tag. Which may prompt them to use templates from WP:TC. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 03:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow the logic of how a maintenance tag that identifies specific issues within an article "makes WP look bad" any more than a non-specific maintenance tag that casts vague doubt over the whole article. That's like saying having two or three inline [citation needed] tags "makes the encyclopedia look [worse]" than an {{unreferenced}} tag. Besides, it still sounds like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument to me. Wilhelm Meis(Quatsch!)08:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to make it easy for new editors, pointing them to {{multiple issues}} is not the way to do it. I use {{multiple issues}} a lot and even I find it confusing sometimes. The desired output is not always what you'd expect. Using {{cleanup}} is a lot easier than having to work out which of {{multiple issues}}' many options is more appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I need an info on an obscure topic for my work, I look up Wikipedia in a hurry. Sometimes I notice the article is all broken up, but I don't have time to fix it because I am at work. If there is no easy way to say "please someone check this article", then I will just skip and forget, and so will do most users of this template. This would be a huge loss. If it is a visual problem for viewers, then let's just make it invisible. Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but keep {{cleanup section}}-- This is a very vague template and I have rarely seen articles with specific cleanup instructions. This is often used for "drive-by tagging" which is just as bad as drive by shooting. But I think we should keep the {{cleanup section}} tag as that describes a specific section needing cleanup and not like a whole article. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 05:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until something at least until a suitable replacement is created and both usage and consensus indicates that it is time to end-of-life the less-than-ideal Cleanup template with the new one. Throwing out a serviceable, albeit less than ideal, template before there is an adequate replacement is foolish and does not help to improve the encyclopedia at all. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 08:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not everyone is a specialist - some people do like to do general cleanup on articles with a mixture of minor problems, some of which are not covered by other cleanup tags. Some articles have exceptional issues that are particular to that article that don't deserve their own cleanup tag, like say (just to invent a couple examples) having all the section headers at the wrong level, or giving dates in the medieval style. Not all people tagging articles can be expected to know all the cleanup tags. Rather than force them to learn everything all at once at the beginning, which is not the wiki way, we should give them feedback on other tags they should have used instead, in-context at the moment they misuse the {{cleanup}} tag. In fact, I can imagine some Wikipedians will specialize in the very task of replacing cleanup tags with more specific tags. Dcoetzee09:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—if there's a problem with drive-by tagging, it needs to be fixed, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Cleanup tags are valuable because not all cleanup tasks are covered by specific templates, because it's often better for both editors and readers when there are multiple related issues than tagging with "multiple issues", and because it's much easier for editors to use than learning the nuances for each specific template. I support the idea of making the rationale parameter mandatory. —Ynhockey(Talk)09:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again. The problem is so rampant that there IS no "fix". What cleanup task is not covered by a template? And MAKING THE RATIONALE PARAMETER MANDATORY DOES NOT FIX THE BILLIONS OF CLEANUP TEMPLATES THAT DO NOT HAVE IT. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)19:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Those advocating delete - do they have a consensus on what are they suggesting should replace it on all the articles currently tagged? (Answer probably is already here, but TLDR hit me hard after a while) --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and reply to question above - IMO if the article isn't at least GA the need to "Cleanup" the article is inherent in the status. Especially for stub related articles. I think there are a lot of good, useful tags but this one, like Expand that was recently deleted also, are simply to Vague and general to be of any real use. They only serve to detract the reader from the article and take up space. I think that many of them can be replaced by a more specific (possible multiple issues) detailing better what the problems are.--Kumioko (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is clearly no consensus for deletion, it must serve a useful purpose for all those who wish it kept. For me as a reader, it indicates the article is below par; and for me as an editor, it indicates the article may need some serious thought to divine the problems and put right.
Would I use it? Yes, but only with a reason, or longer rationale on the talk page, even if only to say that I can't put my finger on it - analysis sometimes fails.
And BTW, I'm appalled at the number of specific edit templates whose explanations are opaque; e.g. what the heck does the phrase 'in-universe' mean anyway? Somebody wrote that not every editor keeps a list of all possible edit templates in their head; well, even the ones that I've learned don't always make sense, and the needless proliferation of tags only makes editing seem too complex or too hard: it's a good way to drive potential new editors away.
"In universe" means an article describes a work of fiction (a character, setting, etc.) as if it were a real thing, and it doesn't have enough real-world treatment of the fictional thing in question. For example, the article The Tipton Hotel treats a fictional hotel as if it were a real thing and contains almost no real-world treatment. In the template that points out this problem, the word "in-universe" links to the manual of style for fictional works. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another rampant problem I see with {{cleanup}} is that often, people will put it along with a more specific template. Isn't that kind of redundant? That's nothing but template creep, plain and simple. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there isn't a specific, pressing problem that can be easily summarised, and which readers need to be aware of, then discussion of an article's problems should be confined to the talk page. So POV, inadequately sourced, etc. warnings should have a great ugly orange banner on the article page to warn readers, but for general unspecified cleanup? No. Raise concerns on the talk page for people who are interested in editing the article. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)20:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the nom was wrong about the reason parameter, then what else is different? Also, what happened to another template, no matter how long-lived it was, should have no bearing at all on a new discussion about a different template. It's as if the implication is that by deleting one long-lived template, we have precedence to delete many more long-lived templates. I strongly disagree with that line of thought. There are precedents, to be sure, and they are useful, but whether or not a template is long-lived connected with another long-lived template that was deleted, one should have no weight on the other. The reason parameter should be used, and the template should be active only when that parameter is filled in. Without a reason, the template should not be visible. – PIE ( CLIMAX ) 21:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I could potentially see the point of a "catch-all" type of template, to me it is far better to state each issue using multiple issues. That way I know exactly what is wrong, rather than just be told to "make this article better", which frankly applies to pretty much the majority of articles. QueenCake (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ideally, use of such a template should be explained on the talk page lest it be removed by someone who doesn't see the problem(s). Could be useful for serious problems that don't have a specific template, not abusing multiple issues on articles when 10 cleanup templates could reasonably be used, or for users who haven't found all the other cleanup templates. Kilopi (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as an editorial-minded person it's a handy trigger to bring to mind cleanup to-do's and I do them. Don't need overly detailed instructions about what the article needs or not on the whole. If it looks bad, I try to fix it. Too much information about tasks is a form of nannying & in this country there's enough of that going on. Manytexts (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If what is messed up is so obvious that you don't need to specify, then it should be obvious without the tag. It's much easier than what has to be done now, which is deleting every tag where the people don't follow procedure and explain what is wrong, whether on the talk page or in some sort of rationale. "There's a problem with this article, but I'm not going to tell you what it is" is not only not useful, but actually hampers the editing process by creating unnecessary work for the person who actually tries to fix it. The annoyance is secondary. — trlkly03:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:If you can't delete it, then make it invisible if there's no rationale. If some goodhearted soul wants to go through some sort of category called "Articles that need cleanup without rationales" and fix the rationales, more power to them. But it's still useless to any person who actually is trying to use the article. — trlkly03:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or require rationale: I'd say 95% of clean-up signs I've seen lacked rationale. As someone who's here and there spent time on clean-up duty, here's how it works for the rest of them: 30% of the rest, it's painfully obvious what needs cleaning up. 20% of the rest, it's not entirely clear if the original tagger's problem had been resolved, but there still seems to be some obvious work that could be done under the header of 'cleanup' - maybe this work might not merit a cleanup tag itself but it fits the bill. If these were the only pages tagged clean-up, then cleanup would be a relatively fast process. It's the other 50% of no-rationale clean-ups that gums the system up and slows the whole process down. For these, even after reading the page, its ambiguous as to which parts, or any parts, need clean-up and why they might.
For those pages, the tag was either applied too liberally or the problem has been fixed then, or there's a subtle but important problem that you can't find with your own pair of eyes. To even try to find out which it is, you have to dig through the history and find when the clean-up tag was applied and do gradual diffs since then. And so most of the "clean-up" work is time spent scratching your head reading the article which has no obvious problems, reading the diff, and trying to "psych-out" the original tagger to figure out if they just saw a problem you're not seeing or wrote it in response to something small, or if its been fixed. The majority of worktime spent because of the "convenient" categorizing of the template is just spent dealing with the problems caused by the template itself. Clean-up has its advantages, but for every 2 times its apt and helpful, there are another 2 where its a headache to editors (and often an unnecessary annoyance to readers) and those latter two have costly drawbacks that overshadow the advantages. Templates are supposed to save labor-hours. --Monk of the highest order(t)03:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's basically one good argument for keeping, and that's that "cleanup" is a nice simple template name for newcomers who want to place a maintenance template but don't know or care which one. That doesn't outweigh the general uselessness of this template. Everything on Wikipedia needs cleanup; if you have a specific complaint, stick it on the talk page. If the template is kept, I would strongly recommend massively shrinking the size to a tiny warning in some way. SnowFire (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep modify the template to make the rationale mandatory, create a bot task to remove all non-rationaled cleanup templates. The template could be useful if used correctly; that it isn't by some people doesn't seem like a good reason to delete to me. If a useful tool is getting misused, modify the tool to make it harder to misuse. Don't throw out the tool. --Jayron3205:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keepused on 26799 pages and IMO it's not worth the workload, on contributors, bots and the database. It's a general cleanup tag, and it's perfect for people to add to those articles you know are just not written right, but can't figure out why. Matthew Thompsontalk to me bro!10:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When new page patrolling, it's useful to be able to tag something as requiring simple cleanup in addition to other issues. Basically stuff which anyone who knows how to write a Wikipedia article does, but newbies don't. We could replace it with a template that says something like "article needs a mixture of copyediting, wikification, better choice of templates, insertion of relevant nav or infoboxes, working out whether it adheres to MOS, but the article meets the low bar of NPP" etc. Or we could just say "cleanup". As for the concern around 'drive-by' tagging? Yeah, it's not a big deal. Malicious tagging, I can see a problem with. But say I'm reading an article on the train on an iPad. I spot a bunch of concerns, so I tag it with a cleanup template using Twinkle. I haven't fixed the problem, but I've helped someone who is interested in fixing similar problems find those problems and fix them. What we need isn't to go through and delete cleanup templates, but to find better ways of encouraging people to use them more wisely. When WP:AFT5 comes out, prepare for the onslaught of feedback... and like cleanup templates, that feedback cannot be rebutted with "stop tagging and edit". —Tom Morris (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Anyone who knows how to clean up, knows an article in need of cleanup when he sees it. It's that simple.
Comment - I think its pretty obvious at this point that there isn't enuogh to support a deletion of this template and there are some valid points on both sides. Personally I recommend we close this as no consensus to delete. I just don't see that keeping it open is going to change that. --Kumioko (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there's only 1 relevant, objective, metric related to this discussion and this is the fact that the template is extensively utilized. this is a priori proof that the template is needed. this template; not another related to it, or any other that according to your pov may or may not be better at conveying the pertinent info. deletion should not enter into this; it is needed, that is why it's used. if you think that the template needs improvement, edit it.
the other objective metrics (1. the backlog and 2. the unutilized parameters esp. "reason") are either irrelevant or the result of the way wikipedia functions. the whole wikipedia is a drive-by project; it is incumbent on those who are uncomfortable with this fundamental, structural aspect of wikipedia to keep applying, ad nauseum and ad infinitum, the flimsy bandaid of temporary article fixes in their respective areas of interest. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification, my comment was simply based on my perception of the Keep/Delete counts and the obvious lack of consensus to delete it and had nothing to do with nor making statements about whether this TFD had merits or not or what my vote was in it. Although I do admit if we do keep it we should add some parameters or something to allow the wording to be a little more infomative. --Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
my comment was general, and by no means solely directed at yours, although imo it applies there too. this is another tempest in a teapot; people's behavior will reflect in their editing whether it is in the application of this template or any other area of wikipedia. one could make a point that much of the above discussion is plain lazy, drive-by commentary; and easily nominate this discussion for speedy deletion, per the original poster's rationale. as i was implying in the comment above, wikipedia may be "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", but 30 minutes spent in it may well lead you to think that perhaps not everyone should.65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This template is vague to the point of uselessness, and clutters up the article without providing any real benefit. It has been inappropriately and unhelpfully applied in the majority of cases, and even where a rationale has been appended to a talk page (exceedingly rare) this most often highlights the fact that a better, more specific tag would have been appropriate. All this tag seems to be is a favourite for lazy editors and those wishing to up their edit counts without putting in much effort. Pyrope19:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This template is very useful when a page just has so many obvious issues that cleanup tagging for each problem is just ridiculous. Of course this template should be removed from pages that have no obvious reason for it being there, but this template helps a lot for tagging pages that have multiple issues. Liam987(talk)contributions21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find it odd that people voting "keep" cite how many articles the template appears in, as though that fact testified to its usefulness, rather than highlighting exactly why it needs to be deleted: Because it is highly prone to abuse and highly resistant to removal. Any editor who has an irrational dislike for an article but can't find any problems with it under WP policy takes solace in this tag. And the template is so vague that there's no way to determine whether or not the problem it alludes to has been fixed, or even if it existed in the first place. Hence why the tag has proliferated so much: even when completely misplaced, its impossible to provide a decent rationale for removing it. The suggested "fix" of requiring editors to place rationale would just turn the template into a sloppier version of {{multiple issues}}.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion for this and other cleanup templates
Partially based on the comments I have seen on this and other cleanup related template TFD's lately I have started a discussion about making the Multiple issues template the new cleanup template here. I believe this will allow us to have a robust, modularized and descriptive cleanup template that will be informative enough to be useful to anyone reading the article. --Kumioko (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's quite useful for general cleanup. As many specific templates as we have, not all of them adequately summarize the general need for review. "Drive by" tagging is seen as pejorative but in many cases those articles are just as bad as the cleanup tag suggests. If you're coming across a lot of mistagged articles... remove the tag! But this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This is useful, and I am baffled by the sudden nomination of longstanding-necessary templates. So long as we have very loose (almost non existent) quality control for new articles, this template is absolutely necessary. Shadowjams (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is too general. I'd rather see a multiple issues tag detailing what exactly needs to be fixed. This doesn't specify anything and ultimately isn't helpful. Cadiomals (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not often the most appropriate template, but it is better that it be available for those who want to mark an article as needing attention, but not knowing how or what to say more specifically, or being casual users and not wanting to learn all the possibilities. Any way of marking articles for improvement is better than not marking them. Amd perhaps we do need something to say that "this is just generally awful overall" DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People like that rarely know of this template's existence, comment on the talk page and are ignored for years. Something should be done about that, if anything. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to clarify. My message was to use the Multiple issues template instead of cleanup. I'm not sure all the comments here are related to the comment I left or for the Cleanup template deletion. It appears to be the latter. --Kumioko (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is the latter, probably because the heading level you used was the size of regular text. I know I didn't realize you'd made a new section until I'd looked at it a couple times. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a deprecated artifact of Wikipedia's earlier days. It was useful when we had less articles and some talented editors were more likely to come across a so-tagged article, see what needed to be done and do some of it. But now ... we have so many more issue-specific cleanup templates, plus {{multiple issues}} which by its very name forces the tagger to identify specific areas of concern. For really comprehensive issues for which a responsible editor might want to go into at length on the talk page, I think, {{cleanup-rewrite}} covers the same ground.
This reminds me of {{unencyclopedic}}, which made more sense in the halcyon days of yore for the same reasons. Four times in one year we considered deleting it, and didn't, but it grew less and less necessary and less and less used until someone finally made it a redirectto{{NOT}} over two years ago. I don't see any real difference here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query: Is it possible to create a bot that searches out articles with this template, marks them with templates for redlinks or any other obvious-to-a-bot issues, and then removes this template? If this is possible, Keep. If not, Keep but require rationale, and create a bot to remove all instances without a rationale. Jorgath (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I completely understand your question but yes a bot could be created to find articles with this template and could populate most of the parameter types available in the Multiple issues template. --Kumioko (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Although I have done significant wiki-editing (mostly elsewhere than wikipedia) I have no experience with bot-creation or the limits of bots. But anyways, I therefore support the creation of a bot that will search out and replace the cleanup template with more specific problem tags, and I support keeping the cleanup template so that casual editors can use it and let the bot try to figure it out. Jorgath (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just encourages drive-by tagging; nom covers my delete reasons quite well. Mfko 18:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfko (talk • contribs)
You do realise that I addressed a number of flaws in the nomination in this edit don't you? The issue of "literally no one is using the rationale field" has been rebutted by a number of editors. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange to say that "no one is using the rationale field" has been rebutted when your own comment that you are linking to establishes that around 5% of cleanup tags have a rationale. I'd say that, with a little hyperbole admitted, that's around "no one using it" or at least "very few people" using it. The rationale field has been around for seven months out of the eight years this template has been alive, but even assuming the number of edits/day were constant and that somehow the distribution of cleanup tags today was even across all the eight years, that should leave around 1/16 tags with the rationale if people were mostly using a rationale (vs. 1/26). As it is , most clean-up tags are probably from the last few years, meaning that if only 20,000 comments are from the past three years (and again, spread out evenly), then still more than 75% of taggers in the last seven months decided it wasn't worth using a rationale (even when that field was available). That the backlog of clean-ups is relevantly recent doesn't say as much about the burden the clean-up tag puts on wikipedias as it does to the round-the-clock work of editors. Work which would, I think, be made easier by requiring tagging to be more communicative. --Monk of the highest order(t)00:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not strange at all to say that it has been rebutted. Roughly approximating the number of edits as you've done doesn't provide any useful information because there are numerous unknowns that skew the results wildly; cleanups being done, variations in the number of editors etc. We can't simply assume an equal number of edits each day. Even recent stats don't help. They show the number of articles using {{Cleanup}} has decreased in the past five days. If we were to approximate the number of edits per day as constant as you suggest, and assume all 1,000 articles tagged with a reason were tagged in the last 7 months then that means that 5 of the 9.2 people adding the template to an article each are including a reason, which is completely different to what you've approximated. What we can say for sure is that 1,000 articles have been tagged using a reason and that shows editors are using it, which clearly rebuts the nominator's claim that "literally no one is using the rationale field. NO ONE.". --AussieLegend (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, as should be obvious in my comment, I didn't "suggest" the idea of a relatively equally distributed number of clean-ups as being realistic only as being the scenario which most plausibly supported your claim that there were enough people using it. I implied that a much more realistic scenario is that a much greater proportion of the clean-up articles were tagged in the last few years. The numbers support my claim that very few people are likely using the rationale. There are 15,000 cleanup articles from the beginning of August until now, but little more than 1,000 with the reason field used. The reason field has been available since at least July. If at the time of your posting that link to cleanup articles with a reason provided, there were 1,000 (right now there's about 500), then that's still arund 6% of all cleanup tags applied in the last 6 or months. You can't stand that we go that extra mile and say that "no one" is using the reason field? Fine, we'll do it that way: Less than 10% of people who apply a cleanup tag and could use a rationale, actually take the time to do so. The remaining 90-ish % don't use the reason field and just do drive-by tagging. --Monk of the highest order(t)17:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that only a small proportion of the people adding {{Cleanup}} add a reason field but even a small proportion demontrates that the nominator's claim that "literally no one is using the rationale field" is invalid. That furphy has clearly been rebutted. I do not accept that『The remaining 90-ish % don't use the reason field and just do drive-by tagging.』Sometimes there is no need to add a reason at all. The Platform shoe example demonstrated that. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And even if they were ALL "driveby tagging" THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Wikipedia is a volunteer project. Outside of the pillars, you cannot force nor demand that people to do more than they are willing/able to do. If an editor only has time, ability, knowledge to add a flag that says "I think theres something wrong here" that is a perfectly acceptable and valid contribution to the encyclopedia. Not everyone lives on Wikipedia. Some people have real lives.-- The Red Pen of Doom21:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Use of this template without a rationale is akin to the "acceptable and valid" contribution to political debate made by reactionaries who throw up their hands and squeal "something must be done!", without specifying what and why. As with all critique, for it to be helpful it must be constructive. This template isn't constructive. People can make whatever contribution to Wikipedia they like, but nonconstructive contributions are usually reverted; why should we have a template that simply invites nonconstructive use? Pyrope03:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
since you are making an irrelevant philosophical/political comparison to validate your notions of criticism in general ("all critique, for it to be helpful it must be constructive"), i think it only fair to introduce another philosophical notion, that of free expression – to wit, the freedom to express any opinion without having to do anything about it, and without caring for the consequences of such expression. after all, it's only an opinion – just like yours is. so, imo an article needs cleanup, and that's it. i don't have the time, or the inclination, or the care to expound further. do you? then you do something about it (including reverting the tag). or maybe i do provide reasoning (which could be also non-sensical) but i don't fix the article/section out of deference to its major contributors; since they have done most of the work on it they probably know the subject best and probably be the best suited to effect the action once it is pointed, and if it is relevant. secondly, templates cannot be "constructive" or "non-constructive", what does that mean when applied to a tool? is a screwdriver or hammer "constructive"? also: i do not at all believe that non-constructive contributions to wikipedia are "usually" reverted. that's dreamland. i think it's better to stop trying to fix peoples' behavior and start fixing articles needing cleanup, assuming you have that interest. or in general, make contribution, markup, and administration guidelines for wikipedia more or less automatic by making them definitive, rigid, and obligatory. i move to have this whole pointless discussion closed. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intrigued as to where you think politics fits into all this? Most odd. Philosophy, yes, and I agree, what I wrote is my personal opinion; are you saying that opinion isn't welcome on a discussion page? Again, most odd. A screwdriver made of jello is most certainly nonconstructive, in that you can't construct anything using it. This is, to maintain the analogy, a jello template. I'm perfectly happy to fix articles needing cleanup. I do, and I have spent quite a bit of time patrolling new articles in the past. I certainly revert nonconstructive additions to Wikipedia as, like this template, they clutter up articles and reduce readability while adding nothing. People are certainly free to express their opinion on Wikipedia articles, but there is no reason why Wikipedia must provide them with the tools to make ineffective observations. In my experience, a note on the talk page is a far more collegial and productive way of drawing attention to an article's failings, and is the more intuitive and straightforward way for inexperienced editors to do so. In addition, if you feel you must slap a banner across the top of an article then there are others, such as {{multiple issues}}, that are far better ones to use. I still don't see what role this particular template fulfills that isn't either counter-productive, or better handled by another method. Pyrope20:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to devil's advocate at you, your argument concerning the deletion scope is good for not deleting it entirely, but it's ALSO a strong argument for in some way discontinuing any future use of the template. Jorgath (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - "drive-by tagging" barely conveys the use of most tags, and this one is the worst. It just sits there for years making the page look ugly, casting doubt on what may be good content. Why don't folks just fix it instead of tagging - does tagging without fixing solve anything? My suggestion is remove all tags that have been on a page for over two months, or put all tags on the talk page. Smallbones (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if the reason is made mandatory; it's rare that editors using this tag explain their rationale on the talk page. Otherwise, delete; as the tag is used now, it's too vague to be useful. Miniapolis (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, still used and is useful. I remember around 7 years ago there were various debates about whether this tag and similar tags should be put on the article page or on the talk page. I advocated for the former, but I never imagined that this would result in the mess that now appears on many articles. I would much rather see this tag on an article page than a whole laundry list of specific tags. I would be willing to change my opinion if the nominator or anyone else were to undertake a project to re-tag everything tagged with {{cleanup}} with more appropriate tags. I also want to emphasise that I think it is a particularly bad idea for this tag to just be mass-removed from articles as a few commentors have suggested. JYolkowski // talk01:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep We could use more specific template, but deleting this template is not worthy because in general you need to have this. --Extra999 (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IF the reason parameter is made compulsory. Otherwise, delete. Most of my contributions to Wikipedia over the years have been in cleaning up articles with the cleanup tag, starting with the oldest. From the perspective of an editor, the lack of reasons as to why cleanup was requested can make a potential cleanup very arduous, requiring much more effort than should be needed (and than the article is possibly worth). "Drive-by" tagging for general cleanup should not be allowed - reasons should be required, without which the tag cannot be published. - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 09:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – deleting this will cause an explosion in new specific cleanup tags, and makes tagging harder for everyone. Cleanup is a concise, useful template. – Acdx (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost every article out there needs cleanup by someone's standards, and is fine by the standards of others. If you have a complaint then use a specific tag saying that complaint is, there many to choose from. Simply saying "I don't like it, please someone eventually get around to fixing it" is rather rude and pointless. DreamFocus17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. If there are no clear problems with the article, and no further explanation, then remove the tag. Tags are added, articles are incrementally improved, people don't bother to remove the tag. It happens. I have removed lots of cleanup tags, usually after carrying out some "final" copyediting. 86.160.210.161 (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close as Keep – It has been more than 7 days, why hasn't the discussion been closed? There are no new substantial arguments from the previous 3 attempts to delete, and there are plenty of fresh reasons to keep with improvements. (See improvements discussions at Template talk:Cleanup#improve.) —Telpardec TALK 03:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I don't think anyone above has noted is that this template is redundant to both {{wikify}} and {{copyedit}}. The wikify tag directs editors to tidy an article in accordance with "quality standards", usefully linking that phrase to the MOS. It may be argued that {{wikify}} only refers to stylistic issues. However, {{copyedit}} covers other issues not covered by the wikify tag. To quote the copyedit tag itself, it deals with issues of "grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling". In other words, it covers everything that {{cleanup}} could possibly cover! {{copyedit}} is just as open-ended as {{cleanup}} but without being so vague. The cleanup tag doesn't even directly define the term "cleanup", merely linking to the relevant WikiProject. ClaretAsh07:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reasons given above are unconvincing. Any template at all can be used as a drive by tagging, and I think people fear templates that say something needs to be fixed in an article and would prefer that we just pretend everything is hunky dory even when it's not. Some of the editors above would vote to delete any template that suggests something needs to be improved. I think it's better to let our readers know that a bad article or section is noted as bad, as it's less embarrassing to have a cleanup tag than it is for someone reading it to think we think it's perfectly fine. Hell, even a drive by tagging is better than no tagging. DreamGuy (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There're almost 30000 articles using this template, and you should think about the consequences. Derek LeungLM 22:16, 12 February 2012
Strong Keep Deleting this template would requiring removing the cleanup template tag from every single article it is on and replacing it with a more specific tag; that would take incredible amounts of manpower. Also, I think this tag is also helpful; I enjoy using itCssiitcic (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with mandatory reason (shows red error text if reason not given), and automatic signature. It's a good basic template which needs to be slightly expanded. I recommend including Braincricket's "If you think it is clean enough, remove this template" clause. Requiring the reason will help reduce drivebys, though I do not think "driveby" issues are any worse than any other templates. --Lexein (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good suggestion. Contributors will notice the red text and do something to fix it, whether adding a reason to a new tag, adding a reason to a tag that's been there forever, or removing it from an article that doesn't appear to need it. I think a signature is a good thing, too, so that if there's any confusion, you can just ask the person who placed the template without searching through history to find out who placed it. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does what it says on the tin. It flags an article for a general cleanup. Some articles have too many issues to handle with multiple tags! Anyone seeing it can assist with the cleaning. It also signifies to a casual reader that the article is not up to our quality standards. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This particular tag is so vague as to be utterly useless, both to editors (for whom it is so vague that they have no idea what somebody thinks is wrong with the article), and to readers, who are confronted with a banner that tells them something is wrong with the article but doesn't tell them what. There are dozens of tags that can be used to indicate specific issues, which can be grouped together into {{tl|multiple issues} if necessary. Any argument that it does anything to help newbies is plainly ridiculous in my opinion—the newbie has no idea what is wrong with their article, and many of them, in my experience, think it's an official warning that their article is sub-standard but don't know what to do about it. I've personally seen and dealt with OTRS tickets from brand new editors who think they have to improve the page or it will be deleted or there will be some other consequence, so the arguemtn that they are helped by such a vague empalte holds no water with me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe many doesn't use it correct or forget to explain as it is supposed to. But is that a reason to trash this template. I just used it on Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. I am not a experiencesd editor that have been around since the start. But I couldn't find any template other than this for my use in this specific case. So if it had beeen removed before today I would have been a template short. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate like {{expand}}, per nom. I think the template itself is unhelpful (and therefore is not "useful", as has been argued ad nauseam). It's inherently vague, and in and of itself means nothing more than "The person who added this tag doesn't like something about this article". While "requiring" a reason has been frequently suggested to address this issue, (a) people still won't follow through, (b) it's bureaucratic rules-making, and (c) it would duplicate the functions of more specific templates and {{multiple issues}} while requiring more work. This tag was useful in the early days of Wikipedia. Until early 2005, we didn't have more specific templates, like {{refimprove}}or{{wikify}}. You would add the cleanup tag, go to the page Wikipedia:Cleanup, and write a blurb about what was wrong with the article (in fact, I used to do this often when I first joined WP). This tag is a relic from the early days that has long outlived its usefulness. We should add a note to the tag that says "This template has been deprecated. Please use a more specific template", which would discourage future use and encourage its replacement on articles where it's already used. szyslak (t) 22:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've used it when looking for work, particularly when prompted by SuggestBot. I like the suggestion of forcing new additions to give a rationale. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose to close discussion as no consensus - This suggestion has been up for more than 7 days, and there does not appear to be consensus on what we should do. - Jorgath (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The number of new votes is almost not growing anymore, and the case have been up for almost the double time. Time to close as no consensus. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently some keepers have no confidence in their rationales. I'm not surprised: the delete rationales in this and the previous threads are considerably stronger than the keeps, and form a larger proportion of !votes than previous discussions. We need a closer who has a real feel for the direction of travel. Someone savvy enough to close in a way other than "keep", "keep" or "delete". The only way this is going to get solved is through a closer getting a feel for the common ground, closing in a way that states that this should happen, and having the confidence that as long as is a reasonable interpretation, DRV will back you. —WFC— 19:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion should be closed as no consensus or keep, because it is obvious that there are people in the community that use this template for their purposes. It is used as a tool to improve the project for a sector of the community so to take this tool away would not be an improvement to the project.Curb Chain (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm on the side of "improve or delete," and I proposed a no-consensus... Anyways, I agree that we should close it more decisively. How does this sound? No consensus established on whether to keep or delete but Consensus established to improve if not deleted, that improvement being making the tag impossible to use without including a rationale. - Jorgath (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This process is deliberately not called "templates for deletion", because the optimum outcome of a discussion is often not as black and white as "keep" or "delete".
I stand corrected. In any case, if you feel you want to change the template as you propose, I suggest you raise your proposal at the talk page, but I don't think that there is consensus to change the template.Curb Chain (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to disagree on that one, but at least we agree that if there were a consensus here, it should be heeded. While there is not consensus for outright deletion, in my opinion there is a strong underlying consensus that the template would be better if the reason parameter were manditory. The closure should therefore reflect this. —WFC— 02:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see consensus to change the template. I see a wide range/purality of opinions and requiring a reason parameter is one of the minorities.Curb Chain (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A delete rationale is an argument to do whatever it takes to get rid of this template: mandating a reason parameter wouldn't go as far as those people would like, but would irrefutably be more paletable to these people than the status quo. A depreciation rationale is an argument to make usage of this template less common: mandating a reason parameter would very clearly be a form of depreciation. A keep but require reason rationale does exactly what it says on the tin. These three groups make up ~70% of contributors to this discussion. It saddens me that you cannot see this. —WFC— 05:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since this template may not be used deliberately, why keep it around? Unless the reason parameter is provided, I personally don't see the rationale to keep it. Every single article in Wikipedia needs cleanup. But every single article ought not to be tagged. Unless the template further specifies what needs to be done. Other templates do that. Racelaser (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if an article needs to be copyedited, wikified, divided into sections, etc., etc. it gets to be overkill to add lots of individual tags. That this tag includes all of that cleanup in one is useful (and as others have pointed out, usefulness is an argument to be avoided for articles - it is the point of templates though). LadyofShalott05:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you do add multiple tags a bot will come along and merge your templates into a single {{multiple issues}} tag. If you think pointing out multiple issues is bothersome, think about the caveats of using the generic cleanup template. Users that look up articles in desperate need of cleanup on maintenance lists that sort articles according to the number of issues they are tagged with simply won't know about the many issues of an article simply tagged with "cleanup" (among the zillion other "cleanup" articles). Worse, suppose there are users that are looking for specific problems to fix (e.g., wikifying) then the generic cleanup template won't help either. I would thus argue that separately pointing out the multiple issues is definitely a better solution. Nageh (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or mandate reason parameter. I thought I had given a bolded opinion above, but evidently not. If this template must remain, a manditory reason parameter will make it more useful. While it might slow down the dozen or so people responsible for the majority of implementations of this tag, the trade-off is that it will save significant time for those that go on to edit these thousands of articles. As I outline above, consensus is clearly in favour of some sort of action on this template, but that consensus probably falls short of deletion. Given the complete failure of the community to salvage something from the previous TfD, the closer of this one has a responsibility to get off the fence and determine what that course of action should be. As long as that decision is not an unreasonable, the community will back you should a forum shopper decide to take it to DRV. —WFC— 06:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know plenty of editors have used this template for perfectly valid reasons, but I seem to be seeing a lot of other editors use it for drive by tagging in order to boost their edit count. There are better tags to use, if they must be used at all. --Andrew(User:90)(talk)21:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
so you think that someone who is improperly using this tag because they only want to boost their edit count is going to be deterred because this particular template is gone????? and those that you admit exist that use this template properly should not have it to use. Interesting.-- The Red Pen of Doom00:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hurry up and close. I don't particularly care about the result but you're making the entire wiki untidy. Preferably keep just to avoid a bunch of bot jerks going round removing the templates and cluttering the edit history to boost their edit count. Don't stick one of those dopey welcome templates on my talk page either. Thanks. 109.255.180.243 (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Matthew Thompson. As for my own thoughts: Nothing is wrong with general templates--what if there are a wide variety of problems? Requiring rationale is a better alternative to deletion/deprecation. Dayshade (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and add mandatory "hidden" reason - bot to remove all existing no-reason tags (if there is still a problem, someone will add it back). I think one cause of people not putting a reason is there is no way to sound official/elegant when bitching about a page. I suggest there be a 2nd reason field added which does NOT effect the visible page output, only the source, so later editors can see what it is for, and know when they have fixed it. Without a reason, it is impossible to remove the tag, because you don't know if you fixed THE problem that caused it to be added, just that you fixed SOME problem. But I think it is important to have the category there. As for the "drive-by" - I think if someone sees problems with an article, but doesn't have time/skills to fix it themselves and hasn't memorized the bajillion different cleanup templates, then the alternative is just to comment on the talk page, where nobody will notice / no category will be added. And people who aren't prepared to fix it themselves aren't likely to add the tag AND comment on talk. the hidden reason makes it a 1-step process. Kaldosh (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not a big fan of this template, or most taggings in general, for that matter. However, as John said, sometimes this is the only tag that fits the article's need. And I'd certainly rather see someone use a single "cleanup" tag rather than putting 6 or more "more specific" tags on an article. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be redundant if all articles need clean-up or if all other articles indicated that they didn't need cleanup. F ind this template useful and I don't expect this template to be deleted without a well-formed solution that address the keep concerns. —Ost (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amend The template seems to do two things. One is to place a vague cleanup message on the article; the other is to place the article in a category to assist the cleanup project. It seems to be the first feature which annoys people and which is redundant. Perhaps the visual appearance of the template could be minimised so that it is not so intrusive. The classification function would then continue in a more inoffensive way. Warden (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have no problem with general templates that alert readers and editors to issues, nor do I have a problem with casual readers adding clean-up templates because it's the only template with which they are familiar. Additionally, this template categorizes articles so that users can check the cleanup categories. There's nothing stopping editors from changing the template to a more specific one if they don't like how its used in an article or removing it completely if they don't believe it is applicable to the article any more. I would encourage the use of the reason parameter and perhaps consider if this template could somehow be merged with {{multiple issues}}, but I do not support outright deletion. —Ost (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge with {{multiple issues}}. Ideally I'd delete this one and redirect to the multiple issues one, but I think merging and redesigning the two is better. That way, we get a more comprehensive list of articles if someone wants to check "list of articles requiring..." Too nebulous as is. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think one of the best parts about cleanup templates is the categories it usually creates that allow users to work on fixing things which they feel best at working on. Unfortunately, a general cleanup tag is way too generic to understand what a problem is without first clicking on the article. This should be historically deprecated so past article revisions don't look off, but otherwise, this should be scaled out of use and deleted for current articles. Nomader (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if this template is deleted, though, you will need to remove it from Twinkle's Article Maintenance Tagging. However, I find it quite helpful (for pages that need to be fixed). --JCTalk to meMy contributions03:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, to fix, why can't you just merge all of those into this template, since most templates relate to this (add it in a [show] format to tell what areas of cleaning the page needs. It's quite simple. --JCTalk to meMy contributions03:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Starbox. Once that rational window pops up, users can not leave it blank, plus, there should be a detection machine or something to see if the user is using random characters (i.e. "rgfdghrs"). --JCTalk to meMy contributions03:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editors have been replacing the Clean-up template with a copy-edit template. Clean-up and copy edit are actually not the same thing. Clean-up usually relates to sloppy formatting or wikification needs, whereas true copy editing involves only the prose. If an article needs work on the prose, it's certainly ok to add a copy edit tag, but if you could add a currently-dated one, that would be much more appropriate than changing the old clean-up tag to a copy edit tag. It is playing havoc with our monthly maintenance categories, with formerly deleted categories being recreated. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure somebody has probably already suggested this somewhere, but why not have the template show an error message when there is no reason parameter? For example:
Error: Please add a reason by adding reason= your reason to the tag
Keep, and modify to make rationale mandatory. On new taggings, if no reason has been specified after, say, a week, a bot should remove the tag. All the existing instances should be given license to exist as-is, given how many of them that there are, but perhaps have a bot deliver a message to the tagger requesting clarification. The simplicity of this tag is a good thing. There are plenty of reasons why people might want to use this, the most obvious one being that we have many, many specific cleanup templates and finding the right one can be a time-consuming job of trawling through their category. There's always someone else with more experience than you who can improve the specificity of the tagging; I've done it plenty of times myself. As Ynhockey comments above, this would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and as Rich Farmbrough notes, it would destroy a large amount of valuable workflow. I also reiterate Rich's point that "It doesn't do any harm" is a critical argument at RfD. — Hex(❝?!❞)13:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments. The nominator suggests that this template be deprecated, like {{expand}}. This template is not the same as that. Quote from Sjakkalle's closure of that TFD:
A specific concern over the template is its misuse by drive-by taggers who cannot determine a specific shortcoming with the article. It has been legitimately pointed out the abuse of a tag does not justify a template's deletion per se, but the concern remains valid if it is a template which lends itself to this kind of abuse. To determine an answer to that question, I now turn to whether there is a policy or guideline based concern justifying the tag. Responding to a point made by Jclemens that there are several other cleanup tags which could be deleted on this basis, it needs to be pointed out that most maintenance tags point to a specific policy or guideline concern, for example a concern that the article contains original research, lacks citations, or that the article is written in an overly promotional tone. However, a request that an article contain more information is not one founded in any policy.
Where {{cleanup}} differs is that it is founded in policy. Namely that articles be well-formed, written in good English, contain an appropriate number of links, use appropriate wording and tone, and so on and so forth. "Cleanup" is shorthand; it means this article needs to be cleaned in order to conform with policy. That is not the same as {{expand}}'s inchoate request for content and no such equivalence should be made in community assessment of the utility of this template. — Hex(❝?!❞)13:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This template is an absurd example of Wikipedia annoying its readers. What on earth do our readers care if the lead of an article does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines? Our readers do have an interest in issues such as NPOV, OR and improper sources, but to place an ugly tag on the top of an article for an issue as minor as the length of a lead is essentially vandalism. Issues with the length of a lead can be raised on an article's talk page, where they can be discussed by editors without annoying our readers. Mkativerata (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Please do not presume to speak for all readers. This reader finds single-sentence introductions quite annoying, rather, and prefers a broader introduction rather than dumping elements that belong in the intro into sections where they do not belong. | 71.173.2.51 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps to the 1% of people who read articles and edit them. To the other 99%, who we should care most about, it's ugly, intrusive and annoying. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And here you demonstrate exactly what is wrong with the template. Damaging, through bone idle laziness, a perfectly fine article about a lead that it would have taken less than a minute for a competent editor to fix themselves. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either fix the overly-short lead you wrote or put the template on it. Otherwise you're a hypocrite for putting the template on other people's work. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invites improvements. That it is annoying to some readers is not a good argument, as the other tags are just as annoying to different subsects. "to place an ugly tag on the top of an article for an issue as minor as the length of a lead is essentially vandalism" - absurd and doesn't meet the definition of vandalism in any way, shape, or form. Falcon8765(TALK)21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: actually this one is precise and very often necessary. Rewriting the lead is not something that's as easy to do as some of the posters above suggest. I see few instances of this template being used in a malicious way. It signposts, and precise, gives an imperative of what to do. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is essential to improve the lead of an article. I had seen many articles where the lead says - ## is the defending champion whereas the tournament is over and the new winner has already claimed his trophy. At least, let the lead's get monitored properly. Template:Lead too short is a must. - Ninney (talk • contribs) 22:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, {{update}} is a good one and will provide current information but wont make the lead attractive if kept short. Here the main concern is making the lead attractive and well-equipped with current information. For Example,
For the first time of his career, Novak Djokovic will enter the season as reigning World No. 1. Novak Djokovic was the defending champion and retain the Australian Open title by winning in the final against Rafael Nadal. It was the longest match in the history of the Australian Open, and in fact, the longest ever final in Grand Slam history; clocked at 5 hours and 53 minutes. It marked the 5th Grand Slam of his career and his 3rd Australian Open. It also marked the first time that he had defended a Grand Slam title. After winning the 2012 Australian Open, Djokovic is on the edge of history, as is having an opportunity to become the first man since Rod Laver in 1969 to hold all four Grand Slams at the same time (chances of completing a Golden Slam this year), after winning the previous two in 2011.
Of course the second version is better, but that was not what you were saying originally. Is a tag really necessary to say that the first version is too short? AIRcorn(talk)22:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an appropriate cleanup template: the issue is well-documented and has consensus, and the tag helps to point inexpert readers to the MoS for further information. The most appropriate outcome here is that the nominator be admonished for an egregious attack on those placing this tag in good faith, and monitored for future ignorance in the use of the term "vandalism" with an appropriate administrative response levied. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Large visible tags should only be present for important issues. Although having a lead that summarises an article is nice it is not a major problem. A short lead stands out in any case, so a template is not really necessary. At the very least have it as a hidden category, so the copy-editors interested in fixing this type of thing can find the article without it providing an eyesore to the general reader. AIRcorn(talk)22:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only way that casual readers and editors ever become aware of our content and style guidelines is through tags. Dreadful leads are one of the most common problems with our articles. It's depressing how many of our regular editors are completely unaware of our lead guidelines. The correct solution is not to hide the problem beneath a carpet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are common problems and if someone wanted to they could probably tag half the articles on here. But they are not the most pressing issue we face and I would rather tags like {{unreferenced}}, {{original research}} and {{notability}} were given prominence rather than a minor style guideline. AIRcorn(talk)23:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a minor point. The lack of a proper lead is a significant failing in an article, and one which needs addressed. Too few people even seem to be aware of the guidelines on lead sections. Deleting this template due to a retaliatory nomination from an editor who thinks tags are "vandalism" would be to the significant detriment of future improvement in this area. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a minor point when compared to issues that question the reliability of the information in the article. I think moving to the talk page, as mentioned below, would be a good solution (it is a perennial proposal, but some of the presented arguments against are unconvincing). Even shifting the maintenance tags to a less prominent position within the article or reducing their size would help. AIRcorn(talk)00:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but reduce prominence. Good articles require a decent lead and a reasonable number are nominated with one that is too short. Due to their nature sometimes the best way to leave suggestions without actually doing a review is to tag the articles problems. I still don't think it needs to be so large, but (typically after I commented here) I have recently found it quite useful for this purpose. AIRcorn(talk)00:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the argument for deletion "what do our readers care" negates the whole concept of this project. Actually, I think somebody should go have a talk with the nominator about this. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/depricate - This is basically {{expand}} in another form, and is just as pointless. Encourages drive by tagging that is of no benefit to either reader or editor. For example, I just looked at ten articles at random. 7 had leads of two sentences or less, two were three sentences, and one had the entire article (three paragraphs) in one section. I'd bet that 75% of Wikipedia's articles could merit this tag, which leads one to wonder, what's the point? Resolute00:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mkativerata and, particularly, Alpha Quadrant. If kept it belongs in talk space, for editors' information, rather than in article space where it will distract readers.—S MarshallT/C01:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if there really is a need for all of those "lead" templates. Maybe it's best to think about merging all of those templates into template:lead, with field #2 having the options of "short", "long", "missing", "POV", "inadequate", "citation", etc. Any thoughts? VanIsaacWScontribs01:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The problem with that is that it doesn't help. People still need to remember the "field 2" (parameter 1?) options. I suppose it could be free-form with a catch-all category. We would still need to maintain these templates as wrappers. But if you think it's worthwhile, go to the template talk page and propose it, or code it up in the sandbox. RichFarmbrough, 03:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Few articles have a well-constructed lead in my opinion. It's pretty common to have articles in Good or Featured article reviews with lead issues. So I don't think this tag is really a good idea. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think we should take all the maintenance tags and kill them with fire. This tag, however, should be hanged, drawn, and quartered. There's no need to have a big template at the top of the page for a relatively minor manual of style issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template was the reason I expanded the lead in the Rabbits in Australia article. Leads should be well written and need to summarize the information in the article. That many articles do not is a reason for why we should focus more on improving leads. The arguments against this template can be used against can be used against any of the other templates out there. I do agree that all of them are a little ugly, though I'm not sure how to solve that. But these are issues that involve more than just this particular template.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The lead section is the base of the offline release version(s) of Wikipedia, so this template is "essential", and could push both editors and readers to contribute to Wikipedia. {{update}} is for old or out-of-date information, and this has nothing to do with the expansion of the lead section. And, yes very few articles have a well-constructed lead, so we really need this template. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment S Marshall above sensibly notes this template belongs on talk pages. So why not have a bot move them all? That would seem to address the nominator's concerns, while leaving Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup intact for anyone who wanted it. Would deleting this template have any advantage at all over moving it to the Talk: namespace? Shouldn't we be debating Keep in articles versus Move to talk pages?Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)11:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs on talk pages. It's not about cleanup, it's a MOS issue. There's no reason why templates should always have to go in article space. And wikipedians don't need to work around Twinkle, that's the tail wagging the dog. Twinkle needs to be updated to support Wikipedians.—S MarshallT/C12:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(e/c with above - couldn't agree more) Templates at the top of articles should be restricted to those needed to alert the reader to potential problems with the content - COI, Bias, lack of Reliable Sources etc. Housekeeping templates, such as this, are dropped like litter by some editors who seem to think they are doing something useful. Expanding the lead, to overcome the problem, can only take a few seconds longer than adding the template. If allowing editors to search for such articles and expand the lead, is felt to be useful, a template could be added to the talk page (as with the old "Photo wanted") or as a category - allowing a search without cluttering the place up. _ Arjayay (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding a lead to properly summarise an article is often a hard task. That's one reason that so many articles have inadequate leads. As for the general sentiment regarding tags at the top of articles, there is no established consensus at all to the effect that only specific high-severity templates belong there even if people assert this every time a cleanup tag comes to TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chris - I'm saying "Templates at the top of articles should be restricted to those needed to alert the reader to potential problems". You are saying "people assert this every time a cleanup tag comes to TfD". Although, as you state, "there is no established consensus", this rather suggests that such a consensus should be sought. Where can I propose this? - Arjayay (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WT:TC or the Village Pump would be the best central locations I reckon. The point about people bringing up up all the time is that every time there has been discussion of the matter in the past it's ended with no consensus to change what we're doing; however, obviously people commenting at a TfD on a cleanup tag are likely to be of one persuasion or the other and thus more likely to forcefully repeat their position. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template is very necessary to help the improvement of articles. To say it is "annoying" to readers is a bit of a generalisation, and even if it is to some, perhaps it will galvanise them into improving the lead/article and becoming useful editors - summarising is an easy first step to make. Leads are certainly not minor problem, as the lead is usually the first thing a reader reads and if it can summarise the subject well enough they may not have to delve further into the article for basic information. Also this template is very useful to WikiProjects in identifying which articles need to be cleaned up and how. Zangar (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The template is useful for the Copyeditors, and your argument applies to the majority of maintenance templates. It's better to annoy the reader with a template than to deter editors from doing their job, thus significantly decreasing the quality of Wikipedia.--YutsiTalk/Contributions16:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a rarely seen flag, fortunately. Leads SHOULD be very short and deal with the essentials of a topic, not tl;dr mini-essays that summarize even longer pieces in multiple paragraphs. A user on a quick fly-by doing a fast look up should be able to get to the kernel of a topic and read it in 15 seconds, Manual of Style be damned. That said, there are occasionally cases where this flag is appropriate — I just bumped into one at AfD a few minutes ago, actually. See: Sexual abuse scandal in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. Used appropriately, I have no problems with this flag, because it describes a specific problem and may well motivate fixes. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no objective measure of when a lead is too short - I have seen several articles tagged with this when I felt the introduction was more than adequate. Its use is just POV and therefore I see no need for the template. Number5719:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then remove the template from those articles. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; all the maintenance templates have the same potential to be tagged on articles that don't meet their criteria. Falcon8765(TALK)20:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point - because there is no criteria for what is too short, it is solely an opinion as to introductions being too short. One editor could consider a three sentence lead sufficient, whilst another may expect three paragraphs. If what you suggest was allowed, the first editor could remove the tag from every article, so what is the point of having it? Number5721:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to talk page or Delete This is purely an editorial maintenance tag, and serves no purpose to the non-editing reader. The NPOV, Unreferenced, or Advert tags serve a valid purpose in notifying the reader that an article has significant problems that make its reliability questionable. This tag serves no such purpose and should not be on the article page. Jim MillerSee me | Touch me20:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not all as minor interest for both the reader and editor and the content of the article as this. If you want extremes, this is like putting two lines of text for a [citation needed] tag at one minor issue. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems useful, especially if you're interested in finding a lot of pages to improve the lead on. Moving to the talk page might be a good idea too. --He to Hecuba (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's important because the articles are grouped well in the category introduced by the format and maybe encourages other editors to summarize the article.Ionutzmovie (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the tag or move it to talk pages. I particularly like Resolute's argument that it encourages drive-by tagging. Although having a decent lead is important, it's not a fundamental issue that readers need to be warned about. We should save the tags for serious problems like neutrality, sourcing etc. If the categories it populates are useful, I've no objection to keeping them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HJ Mitchell. Too-short leads are not imperative, must-fix problems like poor sourcing or bias. Lengthening the lead just isn't that big an issue unless the article is being primed for GA or FA. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)23:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I use this often for new articles. It is very useful. It helps to inform new editors what a 'lead' section is and encourages them to expand it. Pol430talk to me00:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see why readers and editors should be regarded as, and treated as, two different groups. Readers may easily become editors by acting on these high-visibility notices; whilst new editors may discover policies they otherwise would not have known about by seeing notices such as these which spell out policy clearly. GRAPPLEX00:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many readers don't even think about the possibility of becoming editors. If this template can spur even a few of them into editing an article, then I am in favour of it. — Mr. Stradivarius♫01:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how or why this template is different from all the others. If you want to discuss moving all cleanup tags to article talk space, or splitting cleanup tags between article and article talk pages, then propose that. Doing it one by one is pointless, and you haven't explained why this one is sufficiently different so as to require special handling. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽04:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such tags should only be for issues that the reader needs to be alerted to. The more we pollute articles with editing and MoS tags, the more people are just going to ignore them. Kaldari (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The lead is the most important part of the article, often the only part that is read. This maintenance template, used to shine a light on an insufficient lead, is useful. Hekerui (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The purpose of the lead is to provide a complete, concise summary of the article, and many, probably most articles don't do it. And I see nothing wrong with drawing the attention of readers who don't normally edit WP to the fact. --Quintucket (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I use it a lot (actually I just used it again[2]). Also, the supposed reason for nomination ("an ugly tag on the top of an article for an issue as minor as the length of a lead is essentially vandalism") was "essentially" just stupid (and "ugly", too). --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename The template says "lead section may not adequately summarize its contents", which is not the same thing as "lead is too short". Perhaps "Template:Lead needs refocusing" or the longer "Template:Lead not representative of the article" would be better, and encourage more appropriate use. Sven ManguardWha?17:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another one of these templates that increase bureaucracy and encourage editors to spray tag articles rather than contributing to the content of an article. And no, such tags do not result in other editors noticing them and improving an article, they just linger forever. Nageh (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I first started editing seriously by clicking on various maintenance tags on articles, which led me to non-mainspace policy pages. So yes, they do result in new editors being encouraged to improve articles. I wouldn't have started editing otherwise. Falcon8765(TALK)19:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing all maintenance templates, just a few ones including this one. This template could be helpful if used only for issues that need urgent attention, but the problem is that most templates are way overused, in a completely inflationary way. To clarify, almost all articles that are not at least B class do not adequately summarize its contents. So either the tag's usage should be restricted to more urgent cases or it should be deleted, IMO. Nageh (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is symptomatic that the majority of those voting keep argue with WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. And it is those people that expect others to clean up the mess since they have done oh-so many edits (taggings) already in a semi-automatic way. How about fixing one issue that another one has tag-complained about for each new tag that is added to an article? Nageh (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I recently rewrote a pretty incomplete article. The original (before my rewrite) hadn't had a lead at all. I stink at writing leads, but I still attempted to write a lead for the rewrite. I did not believe that the lead I wrote adequately summarized the article, so I added this template. I think this template has reason to stay. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC) However, I have changed my mind about how it should be kept, but I added my new vote to the end. - Purplewowies (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep because there is no actual reason for deletion... the nominator says it's because it's an "ugly tag" that "annoys Wikipedia's users"... shouldn't this mean all tags should be deleted? There is no reason for this template to go, it may even encourage new users to edit the website constructively. The lead is one of the most important parts of an article, as it's the general part visitors read first (obviously), and so a strong, ideal-length lead is essential for a good article. If an article has a bad lead then this tag is placed and a more experienced editor can come along and fix the issue, removing the tag. I don't see the reason for deletion in that. Visitors who don't like the tags can just scroll past them. --andy4789 ★ · (talk?contribs?)21:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by redirect or suppress: The issue of "lede too short" is effectively a silent, endless concern such as {dmy dates}, applicable to a million articles. The evidence is clear for removal; just look at all the major articles listed under: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Lead_too_short. For 3 years, the tag has marred article "Digital_television" (tagged August 2009), where no one has imagined a way to summarize all the digital-TV technical formats into a lede summary. It is plain WRONG to scar numerous major articles with "lede-too-short" for years. As noted above, this is another useless {Expand} template, akin to tagging most articles as "{Hear ye, article not perfect}". Delete by #REDIRECT or suppress the banner. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That the last two delete comments suggest that the commenters aren't aware of the guideline (seeing it as "vague" or "subjective" when we have a clear guideline ion the subject) only indicates how necessary this template is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lead is often the only bit I read and it should summarize the important points. We should direct attention at articles that haven't summarized their contents properly. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK13:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion (duplicated from above so it doesn't get lost in between). My major gripe is that this template gives rise to indiscriminate tagging of just about any article that is not at least B class on the quality scale. If its application can be narrowed down, I'd be happy to support it. An example wording that I consider more useful: This article's lead section contains little or no information about its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points. This restricts the template to more urgent cases of lead section deficiencies, avoiding overly usage. Nageh (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that applies to any other style-type cleanup tag as well. There's consensus for the use of tags in this manner. If an article is not at least B-class then cleanup tags are a good way of drawing in editors to get them there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus in what? Users do mass-tag articles without taking responsibility. And that is the problem with this tag, {{cleanup}} and {{refimprove}}. And as I have said often enough, these tags in the vast majority of cases do not draw in editors improving the article. I have been doing WikiProjects work long enough that I learned the usual response to just about everything is exactly zero. Nageh (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lead is extremely important to an article, and it is often the only part that is read. This template being there isn't going to bother anyone. Most people don't bother reading them, or even noticing them, anyway. ~FeedintmParley15:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template is an invitation to edit and it is useful to identify articles with bad leads. The lead is probably the most important part of an article and many people only read leads. PaoloNapolitano15:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The lead section is almost always read by readers and bad/defective leads are the quickest way to turn off a reader. Fixing these problems promptly should be a priority and without this tag, I'm not sure how we'd ever index those pages. This is a solution in search of a problem; if the article lead's bad enough to require this tag then the yellow box at the top is the least of the reader's problems. Shadowjams (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that those who cry the loudest for these tags are those who do the least to remove the tags by doing actual content work. Nageh (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simply wow. Let me ask, how much research did you do into my editing history to determine if I in fact "do the least" to remove such tags? How many of my over 69,000 edits did you review? Maybe this is a throwaway line you can throw out and the odds are you'll be right, but you really missed the jackpot when you picked me. A substantial portion of my editing has focused on exactly these kinds of issues. Your crass statement is a joke to anybody who's familiar with the gnomish work I do, including cleaning up lead sections. Not to mention, the substance of your snarky remark is pretty unconvincing in itself. Shadowjams (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was expressing my experience, and not specifically directing this accusation at you. If you do participate in actual cleanup work, I salute you, and apologize for my unqualified general statement. Nageh (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
90,000 edits and counting here. Probably the most prolific {{tooshort}} tagger on the project. Hopefully one of the most prolific improvers of leads on the project. I see User:Nageh has managed 5% of my total edits so far; I am somewhat sceptical that this user is in a position to declare who is and who is not doing the work around here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not appreciated. You specifically denigrated the work of others under the usual specious "drive-by tagging" meme. If you are going to accuse other editors of tagging without doing work, you'd damned well better be able to back that up with evidence. I am tagging, and I am fixing. If you want to mess with my workflow then you ought not to make false implications. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not not accuse anyone personally, and I did not accuse you. That my general statement in response to Shadowjam's statement implied bad faith on that editor was unqualified, and I apologized for that. Nageh (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Mainanance templates such as this should be kept to facilitate article improvement. This template organizes articles into Category:Wikipedia_introduction_cleanup. Hopefully someday we will have cleanup-focused editors who will go through these articles and write ledes for them. Deleting this would delete the category and any hope we have for organizing an intro-cleanup sometime in the future. ThemFromSpace17:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you must ask such accusing questions, back when I was more active on the project I'd go through Category:Wikipedia_external_links_cleanupevery day and remove 5-10 articles from the category. I did hardly anything except cleanup work. I've cleaned up hundreds of articles with linkfarms and I was lead to them because of cleanup tags. These tags are an enormous benefit to the project, provided we have dedicated editors willing to tackle the backlog. ThemFromSpace17:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not accusing, but your statement that "hopefully someday we will have cleanup-focused editors" implied to me that currently we have none. I truly appreciate your efforts of reducing the cleanup backlog. As I said, my gripe with those general templates is that they are way overused, put even on article that do not need immediate attention. The kind of tagging that results in an ever-increasing backlog that we can impossibly reduce at any time. Reduce the applicability of the template, as I suggested above, and I'm fine with it. Cheers, Nageh (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like all other maintenance tags, it originates from a desire to improve the quality of every article. Lead sections should summarise articles, not be a single-sentence intro that says nothing more than "A is a B". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very appropriate and often used cleanup template. I cannot believe the nom would resort to calling its placement "vandalism". -- Ϫ22:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Intro length is not just a matter of "satisfying some Wikipedia guidelines", it is one of important aspects of an article. As important as any cleanup tag. GregorB (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the need to keep the template, because it's an important aspect of the article. I do agree that lead length is of lesser importance, however. Perhaps the template could be transformed into a more aesthetically pleasing format? --Son (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template gives excellent guidance on how to fairly easily improve an article. I have found it useful in many cases. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I want to keep the tag the way it is. Turning it into an inline tag would make it already more vague than it already seems look dumb. For example, "Billy Bob is a restaurant[more lead needed]". It makes no sense. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 00:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it look more dumb than "Billy Bob is a restaurant[citation needed], "Billy Bob is a restaurant[ref 1] [dubious - discuss] or "Billy Bob is a restaurant[who the hell said that?] [which?] [what where who?]? They all looks dumb to me, but at least they don't need two lines to explain how dumb they are. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close I think a consensus has been reached. I count 57 keeps versus 22 deletes. The editors who move to keep the template all seem to think that it is useful. However, in closing, you (I'm trying to stay mostly uninvolved in this, apart from occasionally chiming in) should weigh the ideas posed by the keeping editors and change the template to make it the best it can possibly be. --ZeroTalkContribs21:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "trying to stay mostly uninvolved" includes advising the closer what to do, especially advising the closer to consider the ideas proposed by just one side. - Arjayay (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's face it, all maintenance tags are ugly, but the great majority of them (this one included) are there to help build the encyclopedia. This particular tag seems to be a bugbear of the nominator, a fact I first discovered when he removed it from the Steve Kean article. He would do well to divert his attentions elsewhere - for example, by lengthening the lead sections of articles that need it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still, there are alternatives to make it less ugly or less prominent, especially since it involves a minor issue in otherwise probably decent articles. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles need to have an adequate lead to read with. If the lead does not summarize the contents adequately, or is absent, then it will be more difficult for the reader of the article to understand it. This template is for notifying (as all tags are) these style errors. It helps someone who passes by want to contribute positively to this encyclopedia. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 00:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as less-than-useful clutter that serves neither our editors nor our readers. Editors can easily assess whether the lead is too short at a glance. For readers, this template does not impart information about the article that furthers their comprehension. The backlog at Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup is not a priority (as compared to, say, Category:Articles lacking reliable references) and these tags sometimes languish for years, contributing to the appearance of Wikipedia as a vast and endless construction zone. gobonoboTC01:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This template is an absurd example of wikipedia annoying its readers. What on earth do our readers care if the lead of an article does not conform to wikipedia guidelines? Our readers do have an interest in issues such as NPOV, OR and improper sources, but to place an ugly tag on the top of an article for an issue as minor as the length of a lead" - that there are a lot of reasons before strawing it. --14:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete – I'm also going to go against the grain here in saying that one should easily be able to see whether or not a lead is too short in that a template is not necessary. There are many more important article tags than this, and we shouldn't be wasting editors' or readers' time with a relatively minor issue. --MuZemike05:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I don't use this one very often, if an article is long and the lead is too short, it needs to be expanded. It is no different than any other improvement request template we use. It is not necessarily useful for most of the readers, but then again, I'm pretty sure most of our templates mean nothing to casual readers. If we don't have this, the lead is almost guaranteed never to be improved. --Muhandes (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not different from the other templates specifying problems with the article. The argument that it clutters the page is much too weak - we can apply it to every such template. 1exec1 (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But if you had a two-line "dead link" tag, a two-line citation needed tag and a two-line at anything that had the minimum of problem, you'd be going nuts. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; pretty much for the same reason I gave for the discussion above on the 'clean up' template. The average reader does not need to see this. J04n(talk page)21:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to talk pages but don't delete. I think it makes sense to tag articles for this kind of cleanup, but I don't think this particular template provides information that a non-editing reader of Wikipedia needs to know. By contrast, templates such as Template:Advert and Template:POV provide useful warnings for readers even if they don't edit, so it makes sense for them to appear in articles rather than talk pages. --Josh Triplett (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I think the lead is a very important part of the article and it need to be as good in quality as the rest of the article. Oftentimes people don't even go into the body, they just read the lead to get a quick summary of what they're looking for. That is why it is essential for the lead to be in good shape and a template for that IS helpful. Cadiomals (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe the "very important part of an article" is its information. A too short lead is as a minor thing as a line not being cited - it can be fixed in the long run without two lines of text shoved in every reader's face that it should. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This tag is important, as other have said. A good or bad introduction often makes an article meaningful or useless. Not only that, development of a lead is important to promote GA or FA status. Cocoaguyここがいい02:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as a small clickable note on the left: To me such templates are not problematic in themselves, but the sheer size of it is what is outrageous. Such templates are mostly notes (mostly subjective) from some editors to other prospective editors of the page. the general reader need not be over-concerned with such matters between editors. It's the "visibility to the general reader that is so bothersome". The solution for this and all other sorts of "edit templates" is to create a section on the left column. I suggest naming it "Edit notes" where the objection of this or that editor appears as a brief notation (clickable for expansion for further details). So for example this template clean-up remains, but not splashed all over the top of articles, but a single word "Clean-up" on the left. We already have sections for "Interaction", "Toolbox", "Languages" etc... so we can have one more for section for "edit notes".... listed in one or two words (clickable for expansion). E.g. "Expand", "Bare URLs", "Wikify", "More citations", "Notability", "Tone", "Longer intro", "Advertising", "Related party" etc. This way we will get rid of an annoying "Multiple issues template" as well. Each issue of these "multiple issues" will get its brief clickable one or two word note ON THE LEFT in this "in-between editors" section. All established editors could be trained to keep an eye on these notes to improve. Meanwhile the general non-Wikipedian reader can continue to read without seeing these "eyesores"... And one final friendly suggestion to all editor colleagues. If there is a problem on a certain page, how about trying to fix it yourself since you did recognize it needed a longer intro, instead of putting a template and moving on.... I say one article whose lead you improve to make it more comprehensive is better than 10 articles where you splash a "lead too short" template on and move on... werldwayd (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On an additional note on this proposed solution, how about making these notes visible ONLY when you are signed in. The general anonymous reader does not see these notes at all. werldwayd (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but make it smaller. Unless we decide to do away with cleanup templates altogether, this has no problem that isn't an inherent problem of all the cleanup templates. It's rather more precise than many of the cleanup templates. Aditya(talk • contribs)13:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it more precise than other tags? It just covers a more minor issue of an article, nothing related to its reliability. It just says an article should have 5 lines instead of 3 at the beginning, or 10 instead of 5, depending on what a (possible) tag-and-runner considers "appropriately long or short" in his/her opinion. If anything, it's also highly subjective. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is just too easy to slap a template on, rather than fix the article, and the actual length needed is quite subjective. (And yes, I have read the style guide on lead, and often use "Lead expanded to summarise article" as an edit summary for what I have done.) Bob1960evens (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It indicates that something ought to be done, and links to the guidance on what needs to be done and how. A good way of indicating that something (IMHO fairly important for the average reader) needs to be done to the article. If people are concerned that the tag is over-dramatic compared to its importance relative to (eg) NPOV then reformat the appearance of the tag. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the annoyance resulting from this visual clutter outweighs IMO its potential usefulness. Furthermore the presumption that it encourages improvement is not demonstrated, and probably that at least equally it discourages readers from even starting reading the article. Most importantly "too short" shouldn't be a criteria for the encyclopedia: the shorter a summary the better, as long it reflects all important aspects of the topic, and the advice to simply expand the lead does not necessarily leads to improvement. Instead {{inadequate lead}} should be used where appropriate. --ELEKHHT00:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split, hide, and narrow scope. There are potential benefits to this template. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia theoretical use + lack of agreement on how to realise it = maintaining a bad status quo (proof).
It should be split into sub-templates, along the lines of {{inc-sport}}, so that editors can more easily identify required leads within their comfort zones. This should be hidden because any competent editor with eyes can see whether a lead is long enough or not, the benefit lies in categorisation. And this tag should be preserved exclusively for reasonably well developed articles or lists where the lead does not follow the body's thoroughness. Routinely slapping this on stubs is counterproductive: to get maximum use out of this we want relative novices to come to otherwise developed articles and be able to summarise the existing content. —WFC— 02:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Most readers on Wikipedia would love to have longer leads so that they can get an adequate summary of the article's subject, especially for longer articles but with stubs or start-class articles I must agree that slapping this tag on those articles is pointless. On the other hand, Wikipedia articles that actually cover the subject in full tend to be very long and most readers would rather not read the whole article or waste their time searching thru it just to find out what the particular subject is. I have seen this on lots of articles, so it should NOT be deleted. And its very specific on what needs to be changed unlike the relatively vague {{cleanup}} tag, which ought to be deleted due to lack of specificness. To sum it all up I strongly support keeping this template. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 05:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but tag talk pages, not articles. Article tags should be reserved for things that the reader should know, such as POV disputes. Article talk page tags should be used for things that are glaringly obvious such as how long the lead is. It should be assumed that before anyone edits a page they first visited the talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leads are, at least in my mind, often unnecessary for shorter articles, and chances are that this template is applied to such articles more often than to lengthy ones. It's bad enough that there isn't much text in the article, and then you add this tag, which makes the situation even more annoying for the readers. A short lead is an issue that is low on my importance scale, and I would like to see a template that points it out be removed. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 08:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is useful in alerting regular editors of an article which has attained a certain length, that its key points need to summarised into a lead section. There are many article incorrectly assessed as B class that do not have a good lead section. This template lets regular editors of an article know a lead section should be a priority. It is not ugly, nor is that a valid reason to delete it. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In two minds: I'm with Willscrit on this one. Don't hold much with ipso facto arguments either. And it smacks of fly-by tagging. However I'd like to see a template prompting intro expansion when an article is due for it. Can it go on the talk page otherwise. Oops I just saw many better suggestions such as tick note & inadequate lead tag etc. Manytexts (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- This is a useful tag when used properly. For one it's saying what is wrong and is not ambiguous like some tags. If there's disagreement whether the lead actually is too short, the tag can always be removed and the discussion taken to the talk page. This tag is the type that help remind our readers learn that they can contribute to the article. As editors, I think we should start to learn to be more conservative about trying to delete such venerable items. If they weren't useful, they probably would have been deleted long ago. The mere fact that this has been around... oh since the beginning almost, suggest it's played a useful role. This particular vote has a decent number of votes, but in general, I think fly-by-night discussions which may cause deletion just because of low-number statistics anyway, are disruptive and counter-progressive. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Yes, the templates are still listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell where it states "{{Infobox AFL player 2}} and {{Infobox AFL player}} should be merged into {{Infobox AFL biography}}, preserving the format of {{Infobox AFL biography}}." I don't mean to be a pain, but the AFL project members who participated at the last TfD were assured that the infoboxes could be merged fairly easily. While it's nice to see that AFL player has been orphaned, I'm fairly sure that was done manually by Thefourdotelipsis (talk·contribs). Anyway, it's now 10 months down the track and I don't feel a lot of progress has been made (AFL player only ever had 157 transclusions, it's AFL player 2 that's the big one). So, is there anything that I (or the AFL project) can do to help? Has this fallen through the cracks a bit, or is this a reasonable/understandable speed for things to be progressing? Is there someone or somewhere that we need to leave a request? Can this be done automatically (i.e. with a bot) at all, or do we need to do at least some bits manually? Again, sorry to be a pain, but any help/advice would be appreciated. Jenks24 (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - although I created the template, it was designed for multiple artists and releases. But things didn't develop as one partner left and Rebecca Black's work was battered with opposition. Now I am also favourable for its deletion. werldwayd (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep It is an old license that predates creative commons, so I does not fall under license proliferation. I have used it for uploads on commons and it is used by severalgoodfileson commons. All of the above !votes are nothing more than IDONTLIKEIT. The license is useful. --Guerillero | My Talk16:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that as a legal document, which all licenses are, this holds up. Just because something is used does not mean that it should be used. Licenses are written in legalese for a reason. Sven ManguardWha?18:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the WTFPL a valid license?
Although the validity of the WTFPL has not been tested in courts, it is widely accepted as a valid license. Every major Linux distribution (Debian, Red Hat, Gentoo, SuSE, Mandrake, etc.) ships software licensed under the WTFPL, version 1 or 2. Bradley Kuhn (executive director of the Free Software Foundation) was quoted saying that the FSF’s folks agree the WTFPL is a valid free software license.
Note The licence is frequently used on Commons: commons:Template:WTFPL. If there still are images using the licence, they could be moved to Commons before the licence is deleted. Or do you want it deleted there too? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I didn't check commons trasnculsions. I still maintain that it's a stupid stunt, and that it'd get laughed to death if it got brought to court, but if it's being used, and is accepted by some segment of the community, we might as well keep it around. Sven ManguardWha?17:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Withdrawn I didn't check commons trasnculsions. I still maintain that it's a stupid stunt, and that it'd get laughed to death if it got brought to court, but if it's being used, and is accepted by some segment of the community, we might as well keep it around. Sven ManguardWha?17:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Contribs 16:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Derek LeungLM 22:16, 12 February 2012
