Template talk:Cleanup section

This template was considered for deletion on 2 November 2010. The result of the discussion was "keep as a wrapper".

Test current version

Template:Cleanup section(edit talk links history)

The below is a validation test of the code:
{{Cleanup section|{{subst:DATE}}}}

[template removed as it was creating an otherwise redundant monthly cleanup category]

The above will keep a fixed date, hereafter // FrankB 01:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

There is a picture on Template:Cleanup. Why isn't it on this template also?

Maybe this template should be protected also.

-- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 01:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move period

Move the period by replacing:

can{{#if:{{{date|}}}|'' ({{{date}}})''|}}.</small>

With:

can. {{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''|}}</small>

Gary King (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to {{cleanup}}

{{editprotected}}

There's no need for this to be maintained separately from {{cleanup}}. Requesting sync with the new sandbox to unify this with the parent template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox does not work. You can't use optional parameters like that. --- RockMFR 17:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Test cases. Re-requesting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Why aren't you an admin yet.... Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New ambox style

A new ambox-small-left style has been finalized for section notices and I believe this template would be a good candidate for it. I took the liberty of updating the sandbox with the new style. --Blooper (Talk) 02:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we are about to add a "small=left" parameter that will make {{ambox}} show as a small left-aligned box, like this:

See Template talk:Expand-section#More subtle style for the style discussion. And see Template talk:Mbox#Left-aligned small box for the technical discussion.

Blooper: As I wrote over at the other discussions: I think we should deploy your sandbox version to {{cleanup section}} right away. Thus more people will see this new design and have a chance to react, before we deploy it to {{ambox}} itself.

I just noticed that this template is protected and that you Blooper are not an admin. So I deployed your /sandbox code to the template for you.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update request

Please update this template with the new code at the sandbox that makes use of the ambox's small parameter instead of a hardcoded style. Thanks. --Blooper (Talk) 01:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done --CapitalR (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wha?

What consensus was there for moving this to a new style? I strongly contest this change. On one hand we were on our way to template standardization and whap, here you come with this odd mini-template. I strongly request an admin revert the change until further discussion.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Expand-section#More subtle style. --Blooper (Talk) 21:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section name as parameter

What about adding section name as a parameter, so that Edit link opens only the specified section? I know that you can simply use the usual Edit section link in the section header, but if the Edit button is already here in the template, why not enhance it? --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 18:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection template

{{edit protected}} Remove redundant protection template, please. --Bsherr (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but not really a necessary edit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reduces the size of the template by 20%, doesn't it? --Bsherr (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Template problems

Current some, not sure how many, articles tagged with this template have a problem. Look at Noorduyn Norseman, Politics of Armenia and Albert Camus. All of them are in the non-hidden, redlinked category Category:All articles needing cleanup and Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup from June 2008, Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup from December 2009 and Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup from March 2008. I checked a few other articles and they also have the same problem. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 11:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind it was this that caused it. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 12:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category problem

For some reason articles tagged with {{cleanup section}} end up in Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field from May 2012 even if they have a reason specified. See Majhail, Chennai Super Kings and Hydraulic fracturing for examples. Could someone more familiar with template function be able to fix this. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've fixed this for you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also converted this template to a wrapper for {{cleanup}}, so any changes/improvements to that template will be reflected here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests: expand width and standardize section templates! Add Category:Wikipedia section templates. And it's not showing on mobile Wikipedia.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The template looks ridiculously bad on any monitor that's larger than 300px and needs to be changed ASAP!
It looks crammed, like frightened from taking too much space and really, really bad and archaic. And it looks even worse when there's a normal, widespan template like {{Unreferenced section}} before or after it.

The same applies to {{Expand section}}, {{Empty section}}, {{Very long section}}. I also created edit requests on the talk pages of these pages. For a centralized general discussion please do not reply here but here instead.

They should all get standardized to one template-style - a reasonably good looking one.

→ They should be made to look like {{Unreferenced section}}, {{Refimprove section}}, {{Original research section}} and {{Summarize section}}.

Furthermore the new Category:Wikipedia section templates should be added to the template.

And lastly I just checked it on my mobile device and I can see the note neither on the mobile version of Wikipedia nor the mobile app. I'm not sure if this is an issue of the template or a technical issue? Because article hatnotes seemed to always show fine - for them it says "Page issues" (which can be shown/expanded by a click on it) - hence for sections it should say "Section issues". If this is a template-level issue I'll create a separate thread on that later so that this edit request can be resolved in its entirety right now.

--Fixuture (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Also, {{edit template-protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing old history

This template is missing its pre-2011 history. This is probably because of a botched deletion. Could somebody please restore the old revisions? Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 18:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]