Template talk:Cleanup rewrite


"This template needs a complete rewrite." Indeed, isn't "complete" redundant, and doesn't it also carry a slightly dismissive tone? I'm going to change the template to "This article or section needs to be rewritten" unless someone objects. –Outriggr § 04:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ambox rewrite orange.svg[edit]

Please do not use this image. It's dreadful. I cannot shake off associations with tampax that spring to my mind every time I see it. Even at full resolution I cannot figure out what that icon is supposed to represent. I beg you not to use it. Renata (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Should this link to MOS? It is plainly being used, as at Wedding, for objections which are not MOS concerns. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

responsible use of tags...[edit]

How often has it been appropriate for this tag to be used, without supplying a reason?

There are other similar tags, that tell interested readers to look on the talk page for a discussion of what triggered the tag. In my opinion it is essential that the contributor who applies this tag offer an explanation as to why they are applying it.

I am not a mind-reader. And I don't believe any other contributors are either. If the tag applier doesn't explain why they place the tag, other good-faith contributors have to guess at why it was applied. Other good-faith contributors will have to guess at whether they think subsequent changes have sufficiently addressed the tagger's concern to the point the tag can be removed.

I suggest that this is one of the tags that it is appropriate for good-faith contributors to remove, if the tagger failed to supply an explanation as to why they placed it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideally a reason should always be provided. What about making the parameter mandatory, defaulting to something like "but no reason has been provided for this"? That would give a clearer indication to following editors if it had been a drive-by addition. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Making the tagger's explanation mandatory would be my first choice. My second choice would be to make this the tag emit a sentence telling readers to look to the talk page for the explanation -- leaving contributors free to remove those where the tagger didn't provide an explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


It would be great if this template could specify where on the article's talk page suggestions may be found. Hyacinth (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this template intended to encourage the deletion of reliably-referenced material?[edit]

Is this template intended to encourage the deletion of all content (including reliably sourced content) from articles of substandard quality? I think it would be ill-advised to hastily delete an article's content in almost any situation. Entire articles shouldn't be remove due to the presence of one or two dubious statements. Jarble (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this template should provide a clear explanation of when articles ought to be completely re-written, so that this template won't be misinterpreted as a justification for the deletion of entire articles with reliably-sourced content. Jarble (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Icon change[edit]

Per {{Cleanup-reorganize}}, Template talk:Update#Icon update and above comments, please change icon to File:Ambox rewrite orange.svg. --Rezonansowy (talkcontribs) 21:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. If you're talking about this comment, I think it shows that at least some amount of discussion is necessary before making this change. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, we can wait, but I though we have this already, Renata and Martin appear to agree with this change (see above). --Rezonansowy (talkcontribs) 15:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
No, Renata3 doesn't agree with this change - I think you might have misread her comment. (She says that she doesn't like File:Ambox rewrite orange.svg because it reminds her of tampax.) Also, which Martin do you mean? I don't see any comments by anyone called Martin on this page. If you want to enact this, you will need to get outside editors involved to give their opinion; given Renata's opposition to this change, it isn't possible to get a consensus for this just by waiting. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting "all" category parameter[edit]

Please add "| all = All articles needing rewrite" as I have done in Template:Cleanup rewrite/sandbox. This will categorize all articles with this template into a new category Category:All articles needing rewrite, alongside the dated categories they are already categorized into. This new category will allow "Articles needing rewrite" to display properly at Template:Category tracker/Cleanup. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 21:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There was some recent discussion on using "All" categories that got heated, but ended in support of such categories. I think in any case, can probably leave this open for a day before any sync happens. — Andy W. (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: I think the arguments there stem from having having two templates {{BLP sources}} and {{BLP unsourced}}. The proposer wanted a combination "all" category. The individual "all" categories were already established before the discussion started. At least that's what Template talk:BLP sources#Statement of the request says. I'm only proposing making the individual "all" category for {{Cleanup rewrite}} here, which I believe to be uncontroversial. See Category:All Wikipedia articles in need of updating and Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating for an example. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 21:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done  Paine  u/c 07:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request — 9 June 2018[edit]

Add |link= to the image so that it can’t be clicked. Interqwark talk contribs 19:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It must be clickable to show the file's licensing. — JJMC89(T·C) 22:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Why are the images of files in some other templates (such as {{Edit template-protected}}) not clickable, then? Is it because those files have different licensings? Interqwark talk contribs 22:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Basically yes; if the file is in the public domain, there is no need for the image to be clickable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 January 2019[edit]

Change the |name= to {{}}. See Template:Ambox/doc#name, which says the template title should match the name parameter. SD0001 (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Apparently an oversight when the template was renamed 3 years ago. I've updated the wikidata item too - d:Q6473982. Cabayi (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 June 2019[edit]

Remove the redundant word "entirely". —Hugh (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hl: I think that is to make it clear that this tag is not only referring to the lede, or a section. Would "This entire article may need to be rewritten" be OK? — xaosflux Talk 18:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: But it *can* refer to a section... the word is redundant and should be excised. I would go further, re-wording the template to state the problem up front, like so:
This article or section may not comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, and may need to be rewritten (due to Reason for rewrite). The discussion page may contain suggestions.
In this example I have also removed the phrase "You can help", which is implied across the whole of WP at all times. —Hugh (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 Done @Hl: I removed the 'entirely'. — xaosflux Talk 22:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Icon change[edit]

I suggest that the icon should be replaced with this one Accessories-text-editor.svg. It doesn’t actually differ much from the current one, but certainly looks more solid and fits much better to general ambox styling and Wikipedia style as such. -- Gzhegozh talk 11:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)