![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
I see the point of having semi-sorted lists of entries for action (history, geography etc) but when I click on any one entry it comes up with an article and a list of entries. Is this a temporary glich? (I think it is a useful idea to sort requests - and possibly to come up with "random articles from the given list") Jackiespeel 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a hiccup with the top pages - view and edit modes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.73.174.49 ( talk) 12:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
What is the general consensus of what to do if someone sticks a "cleanup" tag (with no reason) on an article which you don't believe needs a cleanup? It was done by an IP poster so I can't really use a talk page to ask about it. Thanks. -- Myke Cuthbert 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Was someone being overenthusiastic in setting up the entries for April? Jackiespeel 13:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
when some-one goes onto wikipedia.org they shouldn't have to scroll down. you should have a list of subjucts and then when you click on one you get a list of articles.nice and neat! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.166.77 ( talk) 09:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to see which pages were actually cleaned up in the past? -- LtWinters 18:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The project page was an alarming 137KB, so I moved 2006 to its own page. It would be helpful if people could go through Wikipedia:Cleanup/September (2005)to remove listings that no longer need cleanup. (I've done several blocks so far, but it's a big job.) -- Beland 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This page is starting to get way too big. The listings go back to 2005, and few editors are that active in cleaning things up it seems. Maybe we need a cleanup drive for a week or so among the regular posters here to try and make a push to clean out a lot of entries. Another thing that probably needs to be discussed is what type of entry is most applicable to this page. There are a lot of entries that are very specialized and technical, chemistry, philosophy, maths, etc. While basic edits and research can be done by the average user, some of these things like philosophy need expert attention and are not really all that appropriate for listing here. What should be done in those cases? I know that I sometimes have sought out the wikiproject it might be applicable to and posted it there, though that's a hit or miss solution. I know several articles I've done that to that haven't been touched in months. Thoughts, advice, etc. are welcome. Incidentally, I think maybe this talk page needs to be archived again.-- Lendorien 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Some points: - Wikipedia is in need of a massive, massive, massive amount of cleanup. From typos to wikification to bad prose to poor articles, the list goes on. Not to mention backlogs.
- People who perform cleanup tasks are known as WikiGnomes.
- There was a "Spring Cleaning" day proposed awhile back, but the page has been deleted (it was in userspace, and I believe the user left. I wish I could remember who it was so they could get credit for the idea.)
- June 21st is International Gnome Day.
You do the math. Basically, the day would be set aside for a massive cleanup effort by any and all editors who wish to participate. If there's enough interest I or someone else could set up a Wikipedia/WikiProject page for it with sign up list. There could probably be some sort of 'running total' of work done. (The original idea suggested shutting down new article creation and anonymous editing, but that will never happen.) This gives more than enough time to "rally the troops", as it were, a worthy cause, and an exciting moniker to make cleanup fun!
Thoughts? Crystallina 04:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I looked at Tosca earlier today and noticed that the first category is a cleanup related tag. I think that few users are interested in what cleanup categories an article belongs to and having a cleanup category automatically placed ahead of categories that are more meaningful to an ordinary reader reduces the useability of wikipedia as a whole.
Project tags and ratings appear on the talk page and cleanup tags about trivia sections or writing style etc. should appear in the same sort of place. In this way, the comments are visible to editors but invisible to readers. This is particularly important when robots are tagging thousands of articles at a time.
Tags raising serious issues of unreliability in an article or indicating it may be about to be deleted are reasonably placed on the main page, but general editorial advice should be on the talk page. -- Peter cohen 18:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Some of the instructions in this page seems to become vague. As with the cleanup policy, this is a place to report article mess, it does not mean you can mess around regardless of what the title says (this includes this page). — N96 22:33, 20 June 2007 ( UTC)
Hello everyone,
I just arrived at Cleanup as I transition into more of a Metapedian and copyeditor, and I noticed from the page itself and discussions that it seems to be in utter chaos, in addition to the enormous backlog of entries and lack of editors contributing. As a system, this seems both unproductive and harmful to Wikipedia as a whole, as articles are seemingly sumped here in the expectation that "someone else will deal with it", leading to a sea of mediocrity and confusion.
I am of the opinion that Cleanup needs a radical overhaul, and I do have some ideas. I notice from above that some measures are being proposed. Perhaps it is time to focus more on cleaning up the structure of cleanup before actually cleaning up.
I have seen the comments at [1], and do believe that a concerted effort should initially be made to restructure cleanup before actually tackling the workload.
Any comments? I'm interested to know what those who have been here for longer think. -- The Rhymesmith 03:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Could someone create a barnstar for cleaning up articles, or is there one already, only i don't know about it? this barnster could motivate people to clean pages. Just a thought... Danielspencer91 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Do we have a list available for articles that require clean up? One thing, is vandalism considered something that people can report need to clean up?
Is there any way to find a list of articles needing cleanup organised by subject matter? Of the reams and reams of articles tagged for cleanup, I really know very little about probably 99% of them. If there was a quick way to find the 1% that I could help with, I'd probably be more inclined to do so. Matt 20:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
The problem is - trying to find all these other lists (more links?): and some topics do not fit into any of the categories.
Another possibility - articles get put on the cleanup/expansion/other general list so that anything obvious can be dealt with: after a set period list monitors assign the remainder to more specific lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.0.10 ( talk) 13:28, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Based on the comments above under "Radical Overhaul of Cleanup", I propose adding the following note to the introductory text on this page.
Comments? Matt 19:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note. I feel that Articles with POV issues ARE appropriate for Cleanup, depending on the scope of the POV. A lot of times the POV issues are simply issues where the language needs to be made more nuetral. More complex cases that need expert attention should be directed to the associated project for that subject. -- Lendorien 13:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Once I've done some cleanup, do I just remove the {{cleanup}} tag, or is there some procedure to follow? And I guess the same question applies to {{unreferenced|...}} as well. Astronaut 15:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I was playing with placing the cleanup resource template on this page -- might be helpful as a way to direct people to other task forces, etc. If it's annoying feel free to remove. -- phoebe/( talk) 07:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Some links to the various themed pages could be useful - slightly quicker than having to hunt around. Jackiespeel 00:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Can something be done about it - a number of the entries seem to have been dealt with, and it takes rather a long time to download on dial-up (for those of us using several computers and wishing to see what can be done in passing). Jackiespeel 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Repeating the above. Jackiespeel 13:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in restructuring and neatening up some of the messier articles on Wikipedia. I find it frustrating that seemingly 86.9% (arbitrary guesstimate) of the articles in the cleanup category are there because of sourcing issues. Now that there's already a project for reference fascists, could we restrict what gets dumped into that category to neatness/organization/readability issues? Bacchiad 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Why are there stubs being tagged with this template? Does anyone believe that it is useful to do this? I would think this should only be used on substantial articles.-- BirgitteSB 18:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be a "barcode" of vertical lines (|) at the top of the page - can whoever's fingers in a twist be untangled. Jackiespeel 15:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, I can't figure it out. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This page is hugely backlogged, and lots of the pages listed on it only have one or two issues, which could be labelled with a tag and then removed from the list? Tagging them will bring them to more people's attention (as I suspect there are only a few people who patrol this page, I'm a newcomer to it...) and get them off this list!
My impression of the {{cleanup}} tag is that it's to indicate a problem, and that it is to be replaced with more specific tags. Surely this idea applies to Cleanup in general?
If there's no reply in a few days, I'll go ahead and be bold and start depopulating this page a bit! Cricketgirl ( talk) 11:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
If an article is already generally cleaned up, may I remove it from the list? -- Zachary crimsonwolf 13:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure that when people are cleaning up articles, they know the proper situation in which to use a capital letter. Half of my mainspace edits appear to be decapitalising non-proper nouns and it feels like I'm the only one and often I get so fed up of it that I don't bother. Maybe it's Germans. -- Seans Potato Business 20:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
I see the point of having semi-sorted lists of entries for action (history, geography etc) but when I click on any one entry it comes up with an article and a list of entries. Is this a temporary glich? (I think it is a useful idea to sort requests - and possibly to come up with "random articles from the given list") Jackiespeel 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a hiccup with the top pages - view and edit modes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.73.174.49 ( talk) 12:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
What is the general consensus of what to do if someone sticks a "cleanup" tag (with no reason) on an article which you don't believe needs a cleanup? It was done by an IP poster so I can't really use a talk page to ask about it. Thanks. -- Myke Cuthbert 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Was someone being overenthusiastic in setting up the entries for April? Jackiespeel 13:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
when some-one goes onto wikipedia.org they shouldn't have to scroll down. you should have a list of subjucts and then when you click on one you get a list of articles.nice and neat! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.166.77 ( talk) 09:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to see which pages were actually cleaned up in the past? -- LtWinters 18:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The project page was an alarming 137KB, so I moved 2006 to its own page. It would be helpful if people could go through Wikipedia:Cleanup/September (2005)to remove listings that no longer need cleanup. (I've done several blocks so far, but it's a big job.) -- Beland 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This page is starting to get way too big. The listings go back to 2005, and few editors are that active in cleaning things up it seems. Maybe we need a cleanup drive for a week or so among the regular posters here to try and make a push to clean out a lot of entries. Another thing that probably needs to be discussed is what type of entry is most applicable to this page. There are a lot of entries that are very specialized and technical, chemistry, philosophy, maths, etc. While basic edits and research can be done by the average user, some of these things like philosophy need expert attention and are not really all that appropriate for listing here. What should be done in those cases? I know that I sometimes have sought out the wikiproject it might be applicable to and posted it there, though that's a hit or miss solution. I know several articles I've done that to that haven't been touched in months. Thoughts, advice, etc. are welcome. Incidentally, I think maybe this talk page needs to be archived again.-- Lendorien 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Some points: - Wikipedia is in need of a massive, massive, massive amount of cleanup. From typos to wikification to bad prose to poor articles, the list goes on. Not to mention backlogs.
- People who perform cleanup tasks are known as WikiGnomes.
- There was a "Spring Cleaning" day proposed awhile back, but the page has been deleted (it was in userspace, and I believe the user left. I wish I could remember who it was so they could get credit for the idea.)
- June 21st is International Gnome Day.
You do the math. Basically, the day would be set aside for a massive cleanup effort by any and all editors who wish to participate. If there's enough interest I or someone else could set up a Wikipedia/WikiProject page for it with sign up list. There could probably be some sort of 'running total' of work done. (The original idea suggested shutting down new article creation and anonymous editing, but that will never happen.) This gives more than enough time to "rally the troops", as it were, a worthy cause, and an exciting moniker to make cleanup fun!
Thoughts? Crystallina 04:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I looked at Tosca earlier today and noticed that the first category is a cleanup related tag. I think that few users are interested in what cleanup categories an article belongs to and having a cleanup category automatically placed ahead of categories that are more meaningful to an ordinary reader reduces the useability of wikipedia as a whole.
Project tags and ratings appear on the talk page and cleanup tags about trivia sections or writing style etc. should appear in the same sort of place. In this way, the comments are visible to editors but invisible to readers. This is particularly important when robots are tagging thousands of articles at a time.
Tags raising serious issues of unreliability in an article or indicating it may be about to be deleted are reasonably placed on the main page, but general editorial advice should be on the talk page. -- Peter cohen 18:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Some of the instructions in this page seems to become vague. As with the cleanup policy, this is a place to report article mess, it does not mean you can mess around regardless of what the title says (this includes this page). — N96 22:33, 20 June 2007 ( UTC)
Hello everyone,
I just arrived at Cleanup as I transition into more of a Metapedian and copyeditor, and I noticed from the page itself and discussions that it seems to be in utter chaos, in addition to the enormous backlog of entries and lack of editors contributing. As a system, this seems both unproductive and harmful to Wikipedia as a whole, as articles are seemingly sumped here in the expectation that "someone else will deal with it", leading to a sea of mediocrity and confusion.
I am of the opinion that Cleanup needs a radical overhaul, and I do have some ideas. I notice from above that some measures are being proposed. Perhaps it is time to focus more on cleaning up the structure of cleanup before actually cleaning up.
I have seen the comments at [1], and do believe that a concerted effort should initially be made to restructure cleanup before actually tackling the workload.
Any comments? I'm interested to know what those who have been here for longer think. -- The Rhymesmith 03:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Could someone create a barnstar for cleaning up articles, or is there one already, only i don't know about it? this barnster could motivate people to clean pages. Just a thought... Danielspencer91 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Do we have a list available for articles that require clean up? One thing, is vandalism considered something that people can report need to clean up?
Is there any way to find a list of articles needing cleanup organised by subject matter? Of the reams and reams of articles tagged for cleanup, I really know very little about probably 99% of them. If there was a quick way to find the 1% that I could help with, I'd probably be more inclined to do so. Matt 20:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
The problem is - trying to find all these other lists (more links?): and some topics do not fit into any of the categories.
Another possibility - articles get put on the cleanup/expansion/other general list so that anything obvious can be dealt with: after a set period list monitors assign the remainder to more specific lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.0.10 ( talk) 13:28, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Based on the comments above under "Radical Overhaul of Cleanup", I propose adding the following note to the introductory text on this page.
Comments? Matt 19:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note. I feel that Articles with POV issues ARE appropriate for Cleanup, depending on the scope of the POV. A lot of times the POV issues are simply issues where the language needs to be made more nuetral. More complex cases that need expert attention should be directed to the associated project for that subject. -- Lendorien 13:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Once I've done some cleanup, do I just remove the {{cleanup}} tag, or is there some procedure to follow? And I guess the same question applies to {{unreferenced|...}} as well. Astronaut 15:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I was playing with placing the cleanup resource template on this page -- might be helpful as a way to direct people to other task forces, etc. If it's annoying feel free to remove. -- phoebe/( talk) 07:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Some links to the various themed pages could be useful - slightly quicker than having to hunt around. Jackiespeel 00:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Can something be done about it - a number of the entries seem to have been dealt with, and it takes rather a long time to download on dial-up (for those of us using several computers and wishing to see what can be done in passing). Jackiespeel 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Repeating the above. Jackiespeel 13:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in restructuring and neatening up some of the messier articles on Wikipedia. I find it frustrating that seemingly 86.9% (arbitrary guesstimate) of the articles in the cleanup category are there because of sourcing issues. Now that there's already a project for reference fascists, could we restrict what gets dumped into that category to neatness/organization/readability issues? Bacchiad 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Why are there stubs being tagged with this template? Does anyone believe that it is useful to do this? I would think this should only be used on substantial articles.-- BirgitteSB 18:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be a "barcode" of vertical lines (|) at the top of the page - can whoever's fingers in a twist be untangled. Jackiespeel 15:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, I can't figure it out. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This page is hugely backlogged, and lots of the pages listed on it only have one or two issues, which could be labelled with a tag and then removed from the list? Tagging them will bring them to more people's attention (as I suspect there are only a few people who patrol this page, I'm a newcomer to it...) and get them off this list!
My impression of the {{cleanup}} tag is that it's to indicate a problem, and that it is to be replaced with more specific tags. Surely this idea applies to Cleanup in general?
If there's no reply in a few days, I'll go ahead and be bold and start depopulating this page a bit! Cricketgirl ( talk) 11:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
If an article is already generally cleaned up, may I remove it from the list? -- Zachary crimsonwolf 13:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure that when people are cleaning up articles, they know the proper situation in which to use a capital letter. Half of my mainspace edits appear to be decapitalising non-proper nouns and it feels like I'm the only one and often I get so fed up of it that I don't bother. Maybe it's Germans. -- Seans Potato Business 20:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)