![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, all newly-created project talk pages are redirected to this page. |
Hello, I have seen that the published page Stefano Fantoni is marked for cleanup. I am new to Wikipedia and I was wondering if the issues of "cleanup" and "lead" have already been solved, or when they will be addressed. Rfantoni ( talk) 08:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Template:Source conflict ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) A new cleanup template has appeared. It doesn't use the orange exclamation point infobox, instead it uses the regular blue notice infobox. -- 70.31.205.108 ( talk) 04:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
By the way, clicking on "verifiable" leads to WP:V. Nononsense101 ( talk) 23:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I request that edit protection be raised to template protection level. Nononsense101 ( talk) 16:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
to clarify that it's the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nononsense101 ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC) It came out, but it doesn't work.
{{
DRAFT:Template:Source conflict/sandbox}}
Draft:Template:Source conflict/sandbox
Draft:Template:Source conflict (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)/
Draft:Template:Source conflict/sandbox (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
A nominally better formatted version has been drafted. Though it is still missing several features, such as cleanup categories.
--
70.31.205.108 (
talk)
11:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Editor PJyanMill decided to terminate my test and since I don't do bureaucracy, I suggest you keep working on it and do whatever it is you need to do to get it accepted. Good luck. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
According to <source A>, ..., but according to <source B>, ...or change it to a vaguer claim (eg. just the month when the sources disagree on the exact day)
Templates used in articles are designed to provide information to assist readers, such as [...] warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors should not appear on article pagesIn both cases, there is no need to give a warning that
content is sub-standard, because it isn't: the article text already indicates the conflict and does not give unverifiable information.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to sort out Continential Army Article, at the top of the article it is a bit of a mess. Thanks. DukeLondon ( talk) 23:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
[[
without closing ]]
- pinging
Baddu676, who tried to deal with the issue). This has now been fixed, so I'm not placing the article on the list, under the assumption that that was the problem. Kind regards from
PJvanMill)
talk(
12:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Dropping a line on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects that a new article improvement newsletter has opened for sign-ups and is sending out its first issue in the next couple of days. Discontent Content focuses on both the improvement of substandard articles and the maintenance of quality ones, and can be subscribed to at Wikipedia:Discontent Content/mailing list. Vaticidal prophet 05:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This successful CfD from May 2019 ( WP:CFD/Log/2019 May 29#Category:MEPs 1952–58) had an addendum of 381 articles similarly failing MOS:DATERANGE ("1881–1882; 1881–1886 (not 1881–86); 1881–1992 (not 1881–92)"). 215 offending articles have since been redirected, leaving these 166 yet to move/ WP:ROUNDROBIN:
Pinging all those previously involved to help/FYI: JJMC89, Oculi, Gonnym, Philip Stevens, Lugnuts, Miraclepine, Ehlla, and Concus Cretus. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Ping to Good Olfactory, who originally moved most (all?) pages back in 2013, in case they are willing to help.
I've added italics to all #REDIRECTs, for easier automated progress-tracking. When completed, all italicized #Rs should be on the left, and all non-italicized articles should be on the right. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 12:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@ PJvanMill: I saw your revert of my addition of the hatnote for the cleanup templates. I had gotten there erroneously, didn't see a hatnote, then thought maybe it was under the "Templates" tab—it wasn't. I gave up. I don't think many accidental visitors would venture further into the WikiProject box, thinking there would be something useful there to redirect them. Hatnotes are the standard. Could possible get away with putting it in a well-named tab. It didn't seem intuitive to have to look further. Regards.— Bagumba ( talk) 14:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I chose an article to rewrite from the list of Lowest quality high-popularity articles but I'm not sure if there is anything else I need to do after publishing the rewritten article. Is there a process I should follow or tag to put on the page? I'm not even sure if I'm posting this question in the right place. The article is Lisa McVey. Any guidance is appreciated. Thanks. Wikijenitor ( talk) 04:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Possibly empty category § Hiding this template when unneeded. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
04:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Tracking category Misplaced requested edits has been cleared. Interested editors are invited to add this category to their watchlists to help keep it clean. — andrybak ( talk) 16:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
As per WP:HD#Wikipedia:Cleanup/Information sidebar: Considering Wikipedia:Cleanup/Information sidebar, how can the archive box ("See the project's archives for work editors have accomplished.") be rendered centered? Currently, it is slightly offset to the right of the main box.-- Hildeoc ( talk) 17:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
|style=width:100%;
. Does the archive box stretched to 100% of the width of the sidebar look good to you? The slightly offset to the rightis caused by CSS declarations
clear:right;float:right;
of the CSS class .mbox-small
. The "nested" box effect can be removed by adding border-width:0;
to |style=
. —
andrybak (
talk)
13:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Project information
![]() |
---|
● Category:Articles needing cleanup has lists of articles tagged for cleanup. ● If you've arrived at this page from a link on a {{ cleanup}} template in an article, the article may not meet one or more of Wikipedia's content standards. Information on the cleanup process may be found at Wikipedia:Cleanup process. Other resources are located at Wikipedia:Cleanup resources and Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. If the article requires expert attention see template:Expert. ● See Wikipedia:BACKLOG for more articles tagged as needing various improvements. |
See the project's archives for work editors have accomplished. Entries dated over one year are also archived.
Archives |
I have noticed many recent entries in Project Cleanup for articles with bare URLs. Note that there is a common edit tag for precisely this purpose: Template:Cleanup bare URLs, which then sends a notice of some sort to a team of volunteers who specialize in that issue. I used that edit tag frequently when I was with the New Pages Patrol, and many times I observed the aforementioned volunteers fixing bare URLs with their automated or semi-automated process within minutes. Therefore I don't think articles needing this fix should be listed at Project Cleanup, or if someone does so mistakenly, we can simply go to the article and add that edit tag. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 00:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you clean up the Psychology of collecting article? It is in very poor shape 67.164.13.24 ( talk) 00:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 67.164.13.24 ( talk) 00:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
So I found an article with hundreds of bare URLs. This is a nightmare waiting to happen, especially given most of these are from the same outlets. List of unsolved murders in Canada has over 300 bare URL citations. I'm going to chip away at it, but I'm putting this here in case anyone else wants to jump in. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Done I removed all the bare URLs. However, there is an editor who is working on that article who keeps adding new bare URLs.
Platonk (
talk)
05:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Conversation concerning this request:
Simple listings without context information showing encyclopedic meritare considered unsuitable for Wikipedia, noting that
for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.So - I'm not completely sure on this, but - I think that there should not be independent list articles just listing films shown at this festival (or at a particular year's instalment of said festival), but such lists can exist as sections in broader articles about one year's instalment. Kind regards from PJvanMill) talk( 17:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
There is already a standalone article for each Sundance from 2003-2022. See the navbar Template:Sundance Film Festival.
Selections are of no value except within each year's Sundance article. Winners, on the other hand, are notable enough to keep its list-article List of Sundance Film Festival award winners.
I recommend breaking up List of Sundance Film Festival selections and putting each year-table into its respective year's article. (That's easier than breaking up the table formats, but they should be de-formatted into a simple list because those fancy formats are undue weight.)
In some cases, there are two articles per year (see that navbar Template:Sundance Film Festival) with a main page for a year followed by a 'films' link for 6 of the 19 years. Those secondary pages should have their content incorporated into their year-article, and if necessary removing some of the intricately formatted tables. That sort of information should be hosted on sundance.org and is of no use to an encyclopedia.
My take on this is that someone is using Wikipedia for marketing of Sundance. They already created pages for future Sundance film festivals (future event) and was busy at work moving upcoming film articles from draft and userspace into mainspace. These films have not even been released and are not notable (another argument for another day). My point being that there is a huge marketing/advertising effort for Sundance being played out in Wikipedia.
In the end, I think there should be a main Sundance article, one for each year, one winners list article, one template, a category for all the organization articles, and a category for all the films that won awards. And that's it! Platonk ( talk) 20:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
(pinging Northamerica1000 & WildStar, who seem most likely to be interested in this, as it's organisatorial / project maintenance stuff) Currently, the cleanup requests are organised first into years and then into months. As a consequence, the first section and last section of entries always have the same name. This interferes with linking: the link WP:cleanup#December will take you to the top one, while the bottom one is unlinkable. It can also be a bit confusing: I think once or twice I've seen someone make a new post in the section for the month exactly one year earlier.
So, I would propose that we change the structure as follows: one level-1 section for all the posts instead of two, and change the headings of the level-2 sections from "<month>" to "<month> <year>", so "December 2020". I would like to know if others agree with this change, and if so, what the level-1 section should be called - "Current posts" or something? Kind regards from PJvanMill) talk( 22:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Reworded a bit and wanted to add: the current situation also creates confusion in edit summaries: if you use the section edit button on the December 2020 section right now, the link in the edit summary will be WP:cleanup#December which takes people to the wrong section. It will also not be possible to tell from looking at the edit summary which section you were editing in. Kind regards from PJvanMill) talk( 23:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) regarding split proposal backlog drive idea. The thread is
Split backlog drive?. Thank you.
Santacruz ⁂
Please ping me!
18:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Drug-Free_Workplace_Act_of_1988 to cleanup requests for February to draw more attention to its need for a cleanup. Article has already been tagged. EDIT: Reasoning for the cleanup request is that the article has poor grammar and style, much of the information in the article isn't clearly in its sources, some links are dead, and the article doesn't adequately describe the law and its impacts. 97.121.187.67 ( talk) 05:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
{{cleanup}}
near the top of page. Below any hatnotes, and above the infobox. Now, that the requested has already been done. Closing this request as answered. ---
CX Zoom(he/him) (
let's talk|
contribs)
16:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Is there a very obvious reason why the cleanup feed has never been automated by means of a function akin to the feed system used for listing and sorting AfDs? Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey guys!
I am a brand new user, and i am not a member of this wikiproject.
I did the requested cleanup on the citations on this article, but i cannot mark it as "Done" on this page yet, because i am not yet extended-confirmed. Can someone mark it for me? It is located under tha "March 2022" section.
Many thanks in advance, Handmeanotherbagofthemchips ( talk) 13:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Inspired by several recent discussions, including the current arbcom case on conduct in deletion discussions, I have an idea that I'm workshopping at User:ONUnicorn/Articles for cleanup. I invite comment on the idea. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 19:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please allow me to reply to this message Mahakdeep Sran ( talk) 07:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:LeAnn Rimes (album) § Album name same as artist's name.
Sundayclose (
talk)
19:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
123.253.95.25 ( talk) 9:9, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add on section preserved locomotives: 346 was wrecked by c&s on kenosha pass when used as a helper and engineer was drunk as hell going way too fast and rolled off curve. fireman jumped off he got so scared.engineer died of burns in hospital. also rumor has it that if the rgs wrecked her they would halve ballasted over her and re-laid the track but since the c&s wrecked it they had to fix her. also she is stamped 401 in spots. that is right she was 401 first. - this is why smells like kenosha exists. That railroad guy ( talk) 02:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Careless use of the ReferenceExpander bot has led to references being contracted instead. For example, the bot sometimes follows a link that now redirects to a new, uninformative place, but since the link technically "works" the auto-generated citation omits the archive-URL and creates a footnote that is nicely templated but completely useless. It also removes all sorts of ancillary information included in manually-formatted citations, like quotations. If multiple citations were gathered into the same footnote, it creates a replacement based on only the first of them. It can see a citation to a chapter in an edited collection and replace the authors' names with the editors of the volume. It can see a URL for a news story and create a {{
cite web}} footnote that omits the byline which had been manually included. We ran a database query and sorted the results by change in article size, to find instances where the bot likely had the wrong effect. It's a...
rather long list. Some of the entries on it may be fine; some of those that were problematic may have already been fixed by routine work. But help turning those s to
s would be greatly appreciated. Due to the possibility of intervening edits on the affected, there's no push-button way to revert all the changes.
XOR'easter (
talk)
15:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the first sentence at Talk:Oxford English Dictionary#First sentence needs changing. If you can provide input that would be great. Regards,-- Thinker78 (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I have tagged a few articles for bareurls in the past, such as Foodscaping. Someone comes along and runs reFill and nothing is changed, but it removes the tag. Am I misunderstanding what is a bareurl? I see 8 of them in the references section. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I cleaned up the grammar for this request. When I looked over the page I didn't see much else wrong except for some small grammar stuff. If I did something wrong please let me know, this was my first attempt at contributing.
Campaign Cartographer - tagged for cleanup since August 2022. BOZ (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
OrangeJellyBean ( talk) 00:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Broken English from machine translation. Qazaqme ( talk) 19:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi all - I've just created a new inline template: {{ Key needed}}, for articles with graphs, diagrams, and maps lacking a key. I was surprised to find that there wasn't already one which seemed to cover this. I've made it as an inline template which, in retrospect, may not have been the best type of template to use, but at least a template now exists. If some other cleanup template already covered this, or if there is a better type of template for the job, please feel free to delete or amend this one. Also, please let me know whether there are specific WikiProjects which I should inform of this new template. Cheers, Grutness... wha? 02:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
See Template_talk:Interlanguage_link#Cleanup_template_recommending_the_use_of_this_needed
@ Grutness - ping in case you'd like to create another one (I just read your post above) Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 04:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I cannot add a request here as it is locked. Please cleanup the page Vizhinjam International Seaport Thiruvananthapuram. It contains lots of original research with promotional tone. If you check the lead itself, the references does not even cite the said statements. Thanks. 117.230.88.192 ( talk) 10:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, all newly-created project talk pages are redirected to this page. |
Hello, I have seen that the published page Stefano Fantoni is marked for cleanup. I am new to Wikipedia and I was wondering if the issues of "cleanup" and "lead" have already been solved, or when they will be addressed. Rfantoni ( talk) 08:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Template:Source conflict ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) A new cleanup template has appeared. It doesn't use the orange exclamation point infobox, instead it uses the regular blue notice infobox. -- 70.31.205.108 ( talk) 04:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
By the way, clicking on "verifiable" leads to WP:V. Nononsense101 ( talk) 23:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I request that edit protection be raised to template protection level. Nononsense101 ( talk) 16:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
to clarify that it's the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nononsense101 ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC) It came out, but it doesn't work.
{{
DRAFT:Template:Source conflict/sandbox}}
Draft:Template:Source conflict/sandbox
Draft:Template:Source conflict (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)/
Draft:Template:Source conflict/sandbox (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
A nominally better formatted version has been drafted. Though it is still missing several features, such as cleanup categories.
--
70.31.205.108 (
talk)
11:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Editor PJyanMill decided to terminate my test and since I don't do bureaucracy, I suggest you keep working on it and do whatever it is you need to do to get it accepted. Good luck. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
According to <source A>, ..., but according to <source B>, ...or change it to a vaguer claim (eg. just the month when the sources disagree on the exact day)
Templates used in articles are designed to provide information to assist readers, such as [...] warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors should not appear on article pagesIn both cases, there is no need to give a warning that
content is sub-standard, because it isn't: the article text already indicates the conflict and does not give unverifiable information.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to sort out Continential Army Article, at the top of the article it is a bit of a mess. Thanks. DukeLondon ( talk) 23:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
[[
without closing ]]
- pinging
Baddu676, who tried to deal with the issue). This has now been fixed, so I'm not placing the article on the list, under the assumption that that was the problem. Kind regards from
PJvanMill)
talk(
12:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Dropping a line on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects that a new article improvement newsletter has opened for sign-ups and is sending out its first issue in the next couple of days. Discontent Content focuses on both the improvement of substandard articles and the maintenance of quality ones, and can be subscribed to at Wikipedia:Discontent Content/mailing list. Vaticidal prophet 05:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This successful CfD from May 2019 ( WP:CFD/Log/2019 May 29#Category:MEPs 1952–58) had an addendum of 381 articles similarly failing MOS:DATERANGE ("1881–1882; 1881–1886 (not 1881–86); 1881–1992 (not 1881–92)"). 215 offending articles have since been redirected, leaving these 166 yet to move/ WP:ROUNDROBIN:
Pinging all those previously involved to help/FYI: JJMC89, Oculi, Gonnym, Philip Stevens, Lugnuts, Miraclepine, Ehlla, and Concus Cretus. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Ping to Good Olfactory, who originally moved most (all?) pages back in 2013, in case they are willing to help.
I've added italics to all #REDIRECTs, for easier automated progress-tracking. When completed, all italicized #Rs should be on the left, and all non-italicized articles should be on the right. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 12:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@ PJvanMill: I saw your revert of my addition of the hatnote for the cleanup templates. I had gotten there erroneously, didn't see a hatnote, then thought maybe it was under the "Templates" tab—it wasn't. I gave up. I don't think many accidental visitors would venture further into the WikiProject box, thinking there would be something useful there to redirect them. Hatnotes are the standard. Could possible get away with putting it in a well-named tab. It didn't seem intuitive to have to look further. Regards.— Bagumba ( talk) 14:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I chose an article to rewrite from the list of Lowest quality high-popularity articles but I'm not sure if there is anything else I need to do after publishing the rewritten article. Is there a process I should follow or tag to put on the page? I'm not even sure if I'm posting this question in the right place. The article is Lisa McVey. Any guidance is appreciated. Thanks. Wikijenitor ( talk) 04:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Possibly empty category § Hiding this template when unneeded. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
04:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Tracking category Misplaced requested edits has been cleared. Interested editors are invited to add this category to their watchlists to help keep it clean. — andrybak ( talk) 16:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
As per WP:HD#Wikipedia:Cleanup/Information sidebar: Considering Wikipedia:Cleanup/Information sidebar, how can the archive box ("See the project's archives for work editors have accomplished.") be rendered centered? Currently, it is slightly offset to the right of the main box.-- Hildeoc ( talk) 17:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
|style=width:100%;
. Does the archive box stretched to 100% of the width of the sidebar look good to you? The slightly offset to the rightis caused by CSS declarations
clear:right;float:right;
of the CSS class .mbox-small
. The "nested" box effect can be removed by adding border-width:0;
to |style=
. —
andrybak (
talk)
13:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Project information
![]() |
---|
● Category:Articles needing cleanup has lists of articles tagged for cleanup. ● If you've arrived at this page from a link on a {{ cleanup}} template in an article, the article may not meet one or more of Wikipedia's content standards. Information on the cleanup process may be found at Wikipedia:Cleanup process. Other resources are located at Wikipedia:Cleanup resources and Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. If the article requires expert attention see template:Expert. ● See Wikipedia:BACKLOG for more articles tagged as needing various improvements. |
See the project's archives for work editors have accomplished. Entries dated over one year are also archived.
Archives |
I have noticed many recent entries in Project Cleanup for articles with bare URLs. Note that there is a common edit tag for precisely this purpose: Template:Cleanup bare URLs, which then sends a notice of some sort to a team of volunteers who specialize in that issue. I used that edit tag frequently when I was with the New Pages Patrol, and many times I observed the aforementioned volunteers fixing bare URLs with their automated or semi-automated process within minutes. Therefore I don't think articles needing this fix should be listed at Project Cleanup, or if someone does so mistakenly, we can simply go to the article and add that edit tag. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 00:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you clean up the Psychology of collecting article? It is in very poor shape 67.164.13.24 ( talk) 00:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 67.164.13.24 ( talk) 00:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
So I found an article with hundreds of bare URLs. This is a nightmare waiting to happen, especially given most of these are from the same outlets. List of unsolved murders in Canada has over 300 bare URL citations. I'm going to chip away at it, but I'm putting this here in case anyone else wants to jump in. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Done I removed all the bare URLs. However, there is an editor who is working on that article who keeps adding new bare URLs.
Platonk (
talk)
05:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Conversation concerning this request:
Simple listings without context information showing encyclopedic meritare considered unsuitable for Wikipedia, noting that
for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.So - I'm not completely sure on this, but - I think that there should not be independent list articles just listing films shown at this festival (or at a particular year's instalment of said festival), but such lists can exist as sections in broader articles about one year's instalment. Kind regards from PJvanMill) talk( 17:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
There is already a standalone article for each Sundance from 2003-2022. See the navbar Template:Sundance Film Festival.
Selections are of no value except within each year's Sundance article. Winners, on the other hand, are notable enough to keep its list-article List of Sundance Film Festival award winners.
I recommend breaking up List of Sundance Film Festival selections and putting each year-table into its respective year's article. (That's easier than breaking up the table formats, but they should be de-formatted into a simple list because those fancy formats are undue weight.)
In some cases, there are two articles per year (see that navbar Template:Sundance Film Festival) with a main page for a year followed by a 'films' link for 6 of the 19 years. Those secondary pages should have their content incorporated into their year-article, and if necessary removing some of the intricately formatted tables. That sort of information should be hosted on sundance.org and is of no use to an encyclopedia.
My take on this is that someone is using Wikipedia for marketing of Sundance. They already created pages for future Sundance film festivals (future event) and was busy at work moving upcoming film articles from draft and userspace into mainspace. These films have not even been released and are not notable (another argument for another day). My point being that there is a huge marketing/advertising effort for Sundance being played out in Wikipedia.
In the end, I think there should be a main Sundance article, one for each year, one winners list article, one template, a category for all the organization articles, and a category for all the films that won awards. And that's it! Platonk ( talk) 20:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
(pinging Northamerica1000 & WildStar, who seem most likely to be interested in this, as it's organisatorial / project maintenance stuff) Currently, the cleanup requests are organised first into years and then into months. As a consequence, the first section and last section of entries always have the same name. This interferes with linking: the link WP:cleanup#December will take you to the top one, while the bottom one is unlinkable. It can also be a bit confusing: I think once or twice I've seen someone make a new post in the section for the month exactly one year earlier.
So, I would propose that we change the structure as follows: one level-1 section for all the posts instead of two, and change the headings of the level-2 sections from "<month>" to "<month> <year>", so "December 2020". I would like to know if others agree with this change, and if so, what the level-1 section should be called - "Current posts" or something? Kind regards from PJvanMill) talk( 22:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Reworded a bit and wanted to add: the current situation also creates confusion in edit summaries: if you use the section edit button on the December 2020 section right now, the link in the edit summary will be WP:cleanup#December which takes people to the wrong section. It will also not be possible to tell from looking at the edit summary which section you were editing in. Kind regards from PJvanMill) talk( 23:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) regarding split proposal backlog drive idea. The thread is
Split backlog drive?. Thank you.
Santacruz ⁂
Please ping me!
18:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Drug-Free_Workplace_Act_of_1988 to cleanup requests for February to draw more attention to its need for a cleanup. Article has already been tagged. EDIT: Reasoning for the cleanup request is that the article has poor grammar and style, much of the information in the article isn't clearly in its sources, some links are dead, and the article doesn't adequately describe the law and its impacts. 97.121.187.67 ( talk) 05:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
{{cleanup}}
near the top of page. Below any hatnotes, and above the infobox. Now, that the requested has already been done. Closing this request as answered. ---
CX Zoom(he/him) (
let's talk|
contribs)
16:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Is there a very obvious reason why the cleanup feed has never been automated by means of a function akin to the feed system used for listing and sorting AfDs? Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey guys!
I am a brand new user, and i am not a member of this wikiproject.
I did the requested cleanup on the citations on this article, but i cannot mark it as "Done" on this page yet, because i am not yet extended-confirmed. Can someone mark it for me? It is located under tha "March 2022" section.
Many thanks in advance, Handmeanotherbagofthemchips ( talk) 13:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Inspired by several recent discussions, including the current arbcom case on conduct in deletion discussions, I have an idea that I'm workshopping at User:ONUnicorn/Articles for cleanup. I invite comment on the idea. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 19:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please allow me to reply to this message Mahakdeep Sran ( talk) 07:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:LeAnn Rimes (album) § Album name same as artist's name.
Sundayclose (
talk)
19:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
123.253.95.25 ( talk) 9:9, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add on section preserved locomotives: 346 was wrecked by c&s on kenosha pass when used as a helper and engineer was drunk as hell going way too fast and rolled off curve. fireman jumped off he got so scared.engineer died of burns in hospital. also rumor has it that if the rgs wrecked her they would halve ballasted over her and re-laid the track but since the c&s wrecked it they had to fix her. also she is stamped 401 in spots. that is right she was 401 first. - this is why smells like kenosha exists. That railroad guy ( talk) 02:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Careless use of the ReferenceExpander bot has led to references being contracted instead. For example, the bot sometimes follows a link that now redirects to a new, uninformative place, but since the link technically "works" the auto-generated citation omits the archive-URL and creates a footnote that is nicely templated but completely useless. It also removes all sorts of ancillary information included in manually-formatted citations, like quotations. If multiple citations were gathered into the same footnote, it creates a replacement based on only the first of them. It can see a citation to a chapter in an edited collection and replace the authors' names with the editors of the volume. It can see a URL for a news story and create a {{
cite web}} footnote that omits the byline which had been manually included. We ran a database query and sorted the results by change in article size, to find instances where the bot likely had the wrong effect. It's a...
rather long list. Some of the entries on it may be fine; some of those that were problematic may have already been fixed by routine work. But help turning those s to
s would be greatly appreciated. Due to the possibility of intervening edits on the affected, there's no push-button way to revert all the changes.
XOR'easter (
talk)
15:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the first sentence at Talk:Oxford English Dictionary#First sentence needs changing. If you can provide input that would be great. Regards,-- Thinker78 (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I have tagged a few articles for bareurls in the past, such as Foodscaping. Someone comes along and runs reFill and nothing is changed, but it removes the tag. Am I misunderstanding what is a bareurl? I see 8 of them in the references section. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I cleaned up the grammar for this request. When I looked over the page I didn't see much else wrong except for some small grammar stuff. If I did something wrong please let me know, this was my first attempt at contributing.
Campaign Cartographer - tagged for cleanup since August 2022. BOZ (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
OrangeJellyBean ( talk) 00:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Broken English from machine translation. Qazaqme ( talk) 19:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi all - I've just created a new inline template: {{ Key needed}}, for articles with graphs, diagrams, and maps lacking a key. I was surprised to find that there wasn't already one which seemed to cover this. I've made it as an inline template which, in retrospect, may not have been the best type of template to use, but at least a template now exists. If some other cleanup template already covered this, or if there is a better type of template for the job, please feel free to delete or amend this one. Also, please let me know whether there are specific WikiProjects which I should inform of this new template. Cheers, Grutness... wha? 02:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
See Template_talk:Interlanguage_link#Cleanup_template_recommending_the_use_of_this_needed
@ Grutness - ping in case you'd like to create another one (I just read your post above) Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 04:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I cannot add a request here as it is locked. Please cleanup the page Vizhinjam International Seaport Thiruvananthapuram. It contains lots of original research with promotional tone. If you check the lead itself, the references does not even cite the said statements. Thanks. 117.230.88.192 ( talk) 10:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)