the example for article shows template instead. -- Abc82 (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
For some reason, this (and only this) template is sorted under "capital T" in Category:Article message boxes. Technically, this is achieved by setting its defaultsort to Τ, a symbol which up to confusion looks like a capital T. This only affects this single category, since the other two categories, in which the template is included, have explicit re-sortings.
Is there any reason for this? Does it affect includeonly categorisation of pages employing the template in some positive way? Is there a reason for wishing the user not to find the cleanup template sorted under C, but instead only at the end of the category (seemingly under a T)? If not, I think that the defaultsort should be removed or revised! JoergenB (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I will have to concede the reversion of my recent edit, because editor Exok is correct in the application of British English, and there are other examples of British English on the /doc page. My error was to apply (in this case, nonstandard) American English, which usually capitalizes/capitalises the first word following a colon, as shown in this article. Mybad. – PIE ( CLIMAX ) 21:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I changed the documentation to say a reason for cleanup must be given but I asked to be corrected if I was wrong.[1] This has been reverted so it again says a reason should be given.[2] What do other people think? Is there an example of good practice where a reason has not been given? Thincat (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
|reason=
parameter, provided that you explain in some other way - perhaps in your edit summary, or by posting on the talk page. Of the three, a talk page post is the best choice if your reasoning is lengthy - say, more than a sentence. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
So, I went to apply this template to a new article that was in need of serious cleanup, only to find that this, a template fundamental to wikipedia, had no documentation. So, I went to create some, and I looked at the talk page to see if there was any description of this templates intermediate functions, so I could write a decent documentation. Shockingly, there was debate that implied that yes, this template is documented. So I looked at the history, and, funnily enough, someone recently deleted the entire page. So I reverted it.
This is only significant because it is the first time I have reverted vandalism, and I just wanted to share. Carry on. Calumapplepie (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Under the doc-section When to use it is explained, when to use the template: ″This tag is intended to identify pages that need [..] non-content-focused changes.″ So I think for help searchers it would be nice to know, what template should be used when there are content-focused changes? Thank You! --W like wiki good to know 19:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
A proposal could be: For content-focused changes for example you could use Template:Missing information. --W like wiki good to know 20:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)