Hope I didn't get my steamship ass ahead of my rowboat brain by changing 'not discouraged' to suggested....maybe should be 'somewhat suggested'????? My brain has trouble with double negatives..... Zardiw 01:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Our cleanup process has changed and expanded dramatically (apparently mostly since late 2004) and large chunks of these instructions are no longer applicable and confusing to newer editors. Therfore, I am being bold and moving great chunks of the process instructions to the above page, where it can be kept for historical interest. Soundguy99 07:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page needs to actually tell you the steps for listing a page for cleanup! Do you add a tag and then manually add an entry on the cleanup page? Bobbis 30 June 2005 15:15 (UTC)
Hello. I am presently migrating a *great* many aticles (already have migrated thousands) from the old system to the new. The new system has changed quite drammatically from the old catch-all {{cleanup}} tag to the new {{CleanupDate|Full-text-month YEAR}} (e.g. {{CleanupDate|August 2005}}). The people who started this started migrating July 2005 articles that needed to be cleaned up, but unfortunately, people are creatures of habit and many went so far as to claim the new process was "vandalism", consistently reverting all pages that had notices/instructiosn of the new tagging method, except for my modification of Beland's instructiosn on the main article of this page (which had been reverted numerous times over the last month).
I am migrating a month about every 2 days currently. The old August - December 2004 cleanup pages had at one point well over 3,000 listed articles that used the old system. I have whittled this down to about 800–1200; once November is completed it will take me just a few more hours to migrate the rest.
The old cleanup process was definately falling apart at the seams. It seemed to *require* comment pages because it covered every thing from wikification, NPOV, copyvio, copyediting, and formatting of the page. Under the new system these all have their own unique categories and methods of report. In the current system as I comprehend it, pages that do not conform to the typical professional wikipedia layout require cleanup. E.g., if it doesn't have wiki-formatted headings, has no headings and is quite large, has no pictures where appropriate, etc, it is probably a designation for cleanup. Cleanup has more to do with LAYOUT of the page than ANYTHING. Any other major flaws simply need to be labeled with their own categories.
In short, now comment pages are generally superfluous and should only be required in weird situations where you think a page needs "cleanup" but don't know how to state it...But I would be inclined to think most of those would be NPOV or factual disputes. You should be able to open up a page and go, O! No layout! It definately needs cleanup!
For now, *I* am not going to worry about convincing people to use the new system. I think it is best for me to migrate as many (e.g. all, heh) of the old articles as possible and then people will have to be fighting against hours and hours of work in order to have a competitive argument that the Old System should be continued. This is always the best way to accomplish change in memes in any setting.
Hope it helps, sorry for the long post,
HopeSeekr of xMule (
Talk)
13:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem with leaving comments on the central talk page is that already-
Having read this and other articles, I'm still confused on one point: do I, or do I not, need to remove an article from a given listing page somewhere after having cleaned it up by manually editing that listing page? Some text seems to imply that simply removing the cleanup tag will automatically remove the article from listing pages. The instructions for listing articles seem to be clear, but those for finishing the cleanup are not (to me). Any help? Eaglizard 02:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Given that it goes without saying that all items are subject to clean-up, this tag should be reserved for items of poorer quality that are not having any activity. The little niggle I have is that I have just done a first pass changing a stub into an article Dorridge. It is of limited merit, but provides the core of something that can be honed. Given that the content has been in place a mere 24 hours or less, is it appropriate to tag it before the natural wikifying process has had a chance to happen?
My point is that, though it is clear that there are problems with the page, my tortuous grammar, a certain repetitiousness, and so on, to immediately tag something as of poor quality does not encourage the process of bold creation. (I think what rubbed me up the wrong way if I am honest is that our neighbouring town of Knowle has an article with POV, gratuitous plugging of an insurance company, a lack of capitalisation, and my first effort is lumped in with that). I've been around the net for enough years to have a thick skin, but I know if something has rankled with me, then it will annoy others too. Some of this could be cured with a different template which acknowledged the prior contributions.
I'd like to suggest a less publicly critical process - tag the article for cleanup in the talk page, and if there is no activity after a period of time, then tag for clean up. That way, articles that are live and evolving do not need to get in the proper cleanup queue and this can be reserved for articles that do need active management. I think this might link in with the clean up category.
So to summarise:
Spenny 08:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC) (not as pissed off as that might sound!).
See Wikipedia talk:Cleanup#Janitor bot proposal.
Hi, I have just placed the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thank you. IZAK 09:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I've identified this project as a candidate for material to be analyzed by Wikipedia Integration methodology. Please feel welcome to offer suggestions and feedback. WP:ʃ Cwolfsheep 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see User:Brad101/redundancy for things that have been on my mind lately. Use the talk page there for comments about changes etc. Thanks -- Brad101 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, I'm about to trial it on the October 2005 articles and will await the results. If an article requiring cleanup requires expert attention, and you're not an expert, try not to simply leave it. Instead, if the article belongs to a wikiproject (for instance, Westerdale belongs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire), place the article on that wikiproject's to do list example.
If the article requires cleanup, doesn't belong to a wikiproject and you can't perform it yourself, consider whether a wikigroup is likely to exist that may have expertise in the area, and if successful follow the same process.
This procedure has several benefits, including:
If this is merely a repetition of advice which already exists then firstly I apologise, and secondly I'd be interested to see the existing guideline. BeL1EveR 21:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hope I didn't get my steamship ass ahead of my rowboat brain by changing 'not discouraged' to suggested....maybe should be 'somewhat suggested'????? My brain has trouble with double negatives..... Zardiw 01:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Our cleanup process has changed and expanded dramatically (apparently mostly since late 2004) and large chunks of these instructions are no longer applicable and confusing to newer editors. Therfore, I am being bold and moving great chunks of the process instructions to the above page, where it can be kept for historical interest. Soundguy99 07:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page needs to actually tell you the steps for listing a page for cleanup! Do you add a tag and then manually add an entry on the cleanup page? Bobbis 30 June 2005 15:15 (UTC)
Hello. I am presently migrating a *great* many aticles (already have migrated thousands) from the old system to the new. The new system has changed quite drammatically from the old catch-all {{cleanup}} tag to the new {{CleanupDate|Full-text-month YEAR}} (e.g. {{CleanupDate|August 2005}}). The people who started this started migrating July 2005 articles that needed to be cleaned up, but unfortunately, people are creatures of habit and many went so far as to claim the new process was "vandalism", consistently reverting all pages that had notices/instructiosn of the new tagging method, except for my modification of Beland's instructiosn on the main article of this page (which had been reverted numerous times over the last month).
I am migrating a month about every 2 days currently. The old August - December 2004 cleanup pages had at one point well over 3,000 listed articles that used the old system. I have whittled this down to about 800–1200; once November is completed it will take me just a few more hours to migrate the rest.
The old cleanup process was definately falling apart at the seams. It seemed to *require* comment pages because it covered every thing from wikification, NPOV, copyvio, copyediting, and formatting of the page. Under the new system these all have their own unique categories and methods of report. In the current system as I comprehend it, pages that do not conform to the typical professional wikipedia layout require cleanup. E.g., if it doesn't have wiki-formatted headings, has no headings and is quite large, has no pictures where appropriate, etc, it is probably a designation for cleanup. Cleanup has more to do with LAYOUT of the page than ANYTHING. Any other major flaws simply need to be labeled with their own categories.
In short, now comment pages are generally superfluous and should only be required in weird situations where you think a page needs "cleanup" but don't know how to state it...But I would be inclined to think most of those would be NPOV or factual disputes. You should be able to open up a page and go, O! No layout! It definately needs cleanup!
For now, *I* am not going to worry about convincing people to use the new system. I think it is best for me to migrate as many (e.g. all, heh) of the old articles as possible and then people will have to be fighting against hours and hours of work in order to have a competitive argument that the Old System should be continued. This is always the best way to accomplish change in memes in any setting.
Hope it helps, sorry for the long post,
HopeSeekr of xMule (
Talk)
13:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem with leaving comments on the central talk page is that already-
Having read this and other articles, I'm still confused on one point: do I, or do I not, need to remove an article from a given listing page somewhere after having cleaned it up by manually editing that listing page? Some text seems to imply that simply removing the cleanup tag will automatically remove the article from listing pages. The instructions for listing articles seem to be clear, but those for finishing the cleanup are not (to me). Any help? Eaglizard 02:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Given that it goes without saying that all items are subject to clean-up, this tag should be reserved for items of poorer quality that are not having any activity. The little niggle I have is that I have just done a first pass changing a stub into an article Dorridge. It is of limited merit, but provides the core of something that can be honed. Given that the content has been in place a mere 24 hours or less, is it appropriate to tag it before the natural wikifying process has had a chance to happen?
My point is that, though it is clear that there are problems with the page, my tortuous grammar, a certain repetitiousness, and so on, to immediately tag something as of poor quality does not encourage the process of bold creation. (I think what rubbed me up the wrong way if I am honest is that our neighbouring town of Knowle has an article with POV, gratuitous plugging of an insurance company, a lack of capitalisation, and my first effort is lumped in with that). I've been around the net for enough years to have a thick skin, but I know if something has rankled with me, then it will annoy others too. Some of this could be cured with a different template which acknowledged the prior contributions.
I'd like to suggest a less publicly critical process - tag the article for cleanup in the talk page, and if there is no activity after a period of time, then tag for clean up. That way, articles that are live and evolving do not need to get in the proper cleanup queue and this can be reserved for articles that do need active management. I think this might link in with the clean up category.
So to summarise:
Spenny 08:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC) (not as pissed off as that might sound!).
See Wikipedia talk:Cleanup#Janitor bot proposal.
Hi, I have just placed the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thank you. IZAK 09:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I've identified this project as a candidate for material to be analyzed by Wikipedia Integration methodology. Please feel welcome to offer suggestions and feedback. WP:ʃ Cwolfsheep 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see User:Brad101/redundancy for things that have been on my mind lately. Use the talk page there for comments about changes etc. Thanks -- Brad101 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, I'm about to trial it on the October 2005 articles and will await the results. If an article requiring cleanup requires expert attention, and you're not an expert, try not to simply leave it. Instead, if the article belongs to a wikiproject (for instance, Westerdale belongs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire), place the article on that wikiproject's to do list example.
If the article requires cleanup, doesn't belong to a wikiproject and you can't perform it yourself, consider whether a wikigroup is likely to exist that may have expertise in the area, and if successful follow the same process.
This procedure has several benefits, including:
If this is merely a repetition of advice which already exists then firstly I apologise, and secondly I'd be interested to see the existing guideline. BeL1EveR 21:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)