Wikipedia talk:Cleanup

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fantoni 

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

message: 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 (";  (not );  (not )"). 215 offending articles have since been redirected, leaving these 166 yet to move/WP:ROUNDROBIN:
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
#  → 
Pinging all those previously involved to help/FYI: .   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , these are done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Wikitext is now also updated/fixed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leftover MOS:DATERANGE page moves 

message: 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)
replies: text: Bagumba, I've moved them out of the header; do you think it's okay like this? Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 15:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote II 

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

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Possibly empty category § Hiding this template when unneeded.   talk 04:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Template talk:Possibly empty category#Hiding this template when unneeded|Template talk:Possibly empty category §&nbsp;Hiding this template when unneeded]]

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

text: Hildeoc, please take a look at Special:Diff/1044861641 which adds . Does the archive box stretched to 100% of the width of the sidebar look good to you? The  is caused by CSS declarations clear:right;float:right; of the CSS class .mbox-small. The "nested" box effect can be removed by adding border-width:0; to . —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @192.76.8.74, ⁠andrybak: Many, many thanks! Indeed, you solved the problem I was referring to, and both versions look perfectly fine to me. So you get to choose. All the best--Hildeoc (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidebar formatting 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: This request should be on the article talk page, not here.   - FlightTime (open channel) 00:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  FlightTime, the WP:cleanup project page has a list with articles that need cleaning up. The editor was asking for this article to be added to the list. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 07:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

text: 67.164.13.24: added it to the list. PJvanMill)talk( 07:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you67.164.13.24 (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2021 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry to jump into the middle of your edits, but I just ran Wikipedia:reFill on it and fixed 235 of them. Good tool, though not perfect, it will solve the bulk of bare URL problems. Then you only need spend your time cleaning up the few it was unable to decipher (or fixing the occasional one it messes up). Platonk (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Another useful tool is Citer. Unfortunately it only formats refs one at a time but it usually formats those CBC references. Knowing my luck saying that will jinx things but you can give it a try. MarnetteD|Talk 18:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   ! Thanks for that tool! It has its shortcomings, too, but it was able to fix another 20+ citations for me. And it is super fast (lightning speed faster than refill). I'm adding Citer to my tool chest. Platonk (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

text:   . I got it down to just 14 bare URLs. I'll let you work on those. Platonk (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad it was of help. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 22:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bare URLs II: Electric Boogaloo 

message: Conversation concerning this request:
* List of Sundance Film Festival selections - Formatting and wikilinking issues. Wikilinks in section headers that aren't  particularly pertinent. Last decade is basically links to other articles, but prior to that are huge tables. Probably duplicate information (films listed in both another article plus listed here). Platonk (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , , , ,  tagging all of you here for you opinion. There's this article with selections till 2011, then there are lists from 2007 till 2015 (like this and lists incorporated in festival articles from 2015 till 2022 (ike this. I suggest creating standalone lists for each year with a selection section there instead of this insanely long article. Tell me what you think, i'm willing to engage in this)) Less Unless (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Less Unless This reminds me somewhat of this AfD - there, what was listed was pieces which had been performed by a particular ballet group; here what's listed is films which have been shown at a particular film festival. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY,  are considered unsuitable for Wikipedia, noting that  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)
replies: text:   I'm totally with you. What about creating the missing articles for the festival as stubs with the lists for future expansion? And afd the lists after merging them with the main articles? My idea is to achieve something like 2021 Cannes Film Festival. Less Unless (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Less Unless Yes, this sounds like the right procedure to me. I think there is a clear AfD rationale here, once the content is relocated to yearly articles on the festival. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

text:  , if the list really needs to be shorten (I'll wait for others to weigh in), yes a separate standalone list for each year sounds like a good option. I would also convert the TOC into a template, which in turn can be placed at the bottom of each new article to allow easy navigation between each of them.  An example of this can be found here.  — WILDSTARTALK 17:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  ,  looks like I've drawn myself into something I can drown)) Kidding. Now it looks pretty structured to me - will work on it. Thank you for your perspectives! Less Unless (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sundance Film Festival articles 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relevant discussion at VP 

message: 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)
replies: text: Note: You can do that yourself by placing  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)

text: I've just added this request to the February section. Best, Bridget (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: It could be because the present system works just fine. Users post an entry, sign it, and it's there. Users don't have to figure out templates, learn about transclusions or use a script to make posts, which keeps the process simple and streamlined. North America1000 14:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Figures I guess: that and the backlog is not on the same order of magnitude as AfD. The cleanup crew clearly run a tight ship in terms of the listed content Iskandar323 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of cleanup feed automation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nasal chondrocytes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Idea for a new process 

message: please allow me to reply to this message Mahakdeep Sran (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022 

message: 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)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Talk:LeAnn Rimes (album)#Album name same as artist's name|Talk:LeAnn Rimes (album) §&nbsp;Album name same as artist's name]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2023 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  ReferenceExpander troubles 

message: 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)
thread_title: Input requested

message: 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)
replies: text: If I am right, bare URLs are just URLs that are added in the article instead of using cite feature or the <ref> tags. Just plain URLs/ hyperlinks to sources. Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You may find this helpful, WP:BAREURLS. Cheers <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that was helpful. Thank you.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  08:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question re bareurl tags 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article has multiple issues 

message: Hi all - I've just created a new inline template: , 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)
thread_title:  New cleanup template