Categories:
Templates:
Documentation of the cleanup process:
This project page is for requests for cleanup, pages that are badly formatted, badly written or ambiguous. If the existence of the entry is in question, it should be at Wiktionary:Requests for verification. If the dictionary worthiness is in question, it should be listed at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.
To create a request for cleanup, add the template {{rfc}} or {{rfc-sense}} into the entry requiring an cleanup, and then add an item to this page by clicking "+" in the box that the {{rfc}} template has created on the page in question.
When a request is completed, the completed item can be closed by striking out the heading of the item, often with a word in bold such as done, foxed or striking.
Archiving: Since the end of 2009, cleanup debates are archived to the entry's talk page. However cleanup debates are often very short, in this case it's ok to remove the debate without archiving it; it is the archiver's job to decide if there is enough "usable content" to merit an archive.
I've completely reformatted the top-of-the-page instructions, hopefully improving their readability a bit without changing their essential meaning. - dcljr 10:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there any protocol for clearing out subheadings on this page for entries that have already been dealt with, like WT:RFC#sjit? I was wading through some of these out of curiosity's sake and found that some terms have since been deleted, and others now look just fine. Curious, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I've made an attempt at archiving. All pre-December 2006 entries that were strikethrough'd, or had been adequately cleaned up, which weren't controversial, have been move to Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive. I may not have done the archving as well as with other pages, but it's a try anyway. Maybe we should write a page Wiktionary:Archiving. --Keene 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
For cleanup, we don't generally do that, but for RfV, we do. --EncycloPetey 01:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Arabic, Hebrew ...etc. are written in abjad systems. That is, dropping vowels (short vowels in the case of Ar and He). While there are ways to write short vowels in both Ar and He, for most purposes they are done without. Therefore, Arabic and Hebrew users are not likely to search for a word using its full-form (with diacritics that show the vowels). This creates a problem because, for example, a word like ktb in Arabic can be read: katab-kutub-kutib-kitb. With each having a different meaning.
So when searching for ktb in the dictionary it should return all these different words. Up to here all is fine, because the page for arabic ktb lists all these words. But a problem arises when some page in wiktionary links to a vocalized word that already exists in unvocalized form but not in vocalized, which results in a lot of red links. I tried to create two versions for each word (the vocalized and the unvocalized) but users with less knowledge in semitic languages keep tagging them with {{rfc}}. I have also noticed that other entries have suffered the same treatment. Any suggestion on how to solve this issue?.Hakeem.gadi 09:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
{{rfc}}? If we could see them, we might be able to tell you why — and you might find that the users tagging them don't in fact have "less knowledge in semitic languages".] in the wiki markup, which then links to when but displays “When”. So in Hebrew, we've been applying the same principle for vocalized variants; for example, if we wish to linkify the word דִּיבֵּר, most of us write ] in the wiki markup, though one editor prefers to write ] for grammar reasons. Either way, the result is a link to דיבר. (Note: the Unicode pipe character | is neither right-to-left nor left-to-right, so no matter what script the forms are in, the first form in the wiki-code becomes the link target, and the second becomes the link text. In Hebrew and Arabic, that means right=target and left=text.) It's not a perfect solution, but there doesn't seem to be a better one.Why are there no archive for this page? Maro 18:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully, here is the full list of entries using {{rfc}}, {{rfc-sense}} or {{rfc-case}}. Unfortunately Microsoft Excel which I used didn't recognize some of these characters, so they've come out as #NAME? (hence useless) but the number of entries is however accurate. Seems that at least half of them aren't listed at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
{{rfdef}} or {{defn}} on them. When this is the case, and there isn't another problem, can we remove {{rfc}}? I say yes. rfdef and defn are more specific than rfc. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)A lot of the discussions that have been archived to subpages have either been struck or are deleted entries. Surely these should be archived to the entry talk page and the template removed. They were ignored and festered while they were on the main project page. Shoving them in a sub-page has pretty much guaranteed they will be ignored forever. SpinningSpark 23:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
{{rfc-archived}}, which works like this. :) - -sche (discuss) 01:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)I propose that when a term has been tagged but never listed and no particular reason for the tag can be found, either in the tag itself, in the edit summary (of the edit which added the tag), or from the editor who tagged it, the term should simply be untagged rather than listed. As an example, EncycloPetey tagged Baal-gad for cleanup in 2010 without giving any explicit instruction in the tag or in their edit summary. I have asked them about the reason for the tag (recognizing it is from decades past), and have not yet received a response. Unless they do respond and are opposed to its removal, I think it is only reasonable to untag the term. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)