From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

This is the 2004 archive. Do not post new comments on this page; see the article talk page for more recent comments.

Contents 1 March 1.1 Old 2 June 2.1 Blanking 3 August 3.1 Linking directly into the cleanup list 4 October 4.1 This template is too bold, and too vague

March

Old

The message that he was here before I removed it was really ugly (green and dotted red?!) and adds nothing to the article... why does saying this article is listed on cleanup help the article? All articles are liable for improvement, whether they are on cleanup or not. Cleanup is a place is a place to go for people looking for articles to improve, not to tag bad articles. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:18, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you find it so useful to blank the cleanup page, can't you also find all the articles currently having the <cleanup> tag printout and remove the msg? You've been bold, but I'm tempted to revert. — Sverdrup 20:44, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realise blank messages were displayed like that. I've removed the message from all pages in the article namespace that include the message, according to WhatLinksHere. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 21:09, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm rash at times. You've been bold, and that's good. You are probably right that WP:cleanup works much better than msg:cleanup. — Sverdrup 21:10, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't really agree to your reasoning. Yes, most articles are open to improvement, but I think the ugly red/green thing provides extra incentive for people to improve the article so they can get rid of it. — Timwi 17:32, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I found it useful, and had to spend about 10 minutes looking around trying to find this when I wanted to insert it just now. I personally would like it restored. -- Seth Ilys 04:49, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your reasoning shows that you are only thinking about the needs of editors, not of readers. The article namespace should be for readers. Editors have the luxury of the talk namespace. If such a message is restored, it should be used only on the talk page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:57, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. The "Cleanup" notice has a use for readers as well as editors. It is a prominent flag that it is a problem article, not up to Wikipedia's standards, and that people here are aware of the problem and wish to fix it. -- Infrogmation 15:46, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If we did a survey of all 230,000 articles on Wikipedia, I would guess maybe three-quarters of them would be of a standard that need the cleanup or stub flags. That a few of them have been selected for the cleanup page is neither here nor there. Meta-data like msg:cleanup should be on the talk page only. It's ugly, distracting and adds no value to the article page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess we just have different opinions as to the usefullness. Yes, it is ugly and distracting, and only gets put on particularly ugly and distracting articles. While most articles can use improvement, most are not such an embarasment as to need the cleanup tag. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:36, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We don't need prominent flags on every problem article. A lot of the time it is perfectly obvious that an article is problematic. I've seen this box added to articles that just needed wikification. I can see that an article is not wikified. I do not need a huge green box telling me so. The main purpose is to draw the attention of editors to it, but this is done by the page being listed on cleanup, not by tagging the article itself. I really don't see how this adds anything. How does this benefit someone reading the page? Readers don't need to be told an article is below standard. It's perfectly obvious, and that is the case in many more articles than just those which happen to have this tag on them at the time. It also falsely implies that pages without it do meet some sort of standard, which, unless they happen to be featured articles, is not the case. This makes the tag misleading to readers, not helpful. Angela. 17:02, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the cleanup tag is extraneous in that it is usually perfectly obvious that an article is lacking. But I still had the feeling that I liked it, though I couldn't say why, until now :). I like it because marking substandard articles as lacking ensures that people don't get the (perhaps subconcious) idea that low quality articles are ok, and then go on to input more low quality content. For the same reason I want the tag to be featured prominently in the article itself, and not on the talk page. See also [1] for reasoning. Thue 13:06, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June

Blanking

The comment for blanking this template refers to a discussion. Where is the discussion? Thue 20:39, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know where this so-called discussion took place, but I've restored the comment. RickK 07:22, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Presumably, the discussion would be on Wikipedia Talk:cleanup or somerthing. I looked there, but unless it has been archived, I didn't see anything. Wherever it is, Timwi is the one apparently that started the changes. --ssd 12:19, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Cleanup was not moved together with the template. ✏ Sverdrup 12:26, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The reason I blanked it is because I don't feel it is appropriate to have information about the template appearing on articles. Timwi's version of the page stated "there is consensus that adding this tag to articles is not of any use, so please do not add this tag to any more articles. It should be removed from all articles and then be deleted". I've now copied the previous discussion over from MediaWiki talk:Cleanup. Angela. 12:45, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I still think there should be some notification on the page that it has been listed for cleanup, so that the page's authors, or anyone watching it will know. Maybe the cleanup message should go on the talk page? I also want to push for the widespread use of a cleanup category. As discussed on the cleanup talk page, I think it would provide a cleaner cleanup page and items would be automatically removed when people removed the page from the category. --Caliper 16:32, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Putting it on the talk page would be a reasonable compromise. Pcb21| Pete 18:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Where is this so-called consensus documented? RickK 19:08, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like they did it over IRC... does anyone object to a new "consensus" to put the cleanup comment on the talk page of the page needing cleanup and to use the cleanup category? --Caliper 19:17, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I 'm not aware of any consensus on the previous point as I don't think IRC discussions should be taken into account. Putting the message on the talk page makes most sense. I'm not yet convinced about the category idea but what should be avoided is partial-duplication where some pages are in the category, and some are listed on the cleanup page. Unless it's clear which of these should be done, or whether both are needed, I'd go with the current system of listing it on cleanup and not adding a category but it's not something I feel strongly about. Angela. 01:39, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Timwi claims that there is consensus to blank this template. I will not accept ANY discusion on IRC as valid. It has to take place here, and there might need to be a vote on the subject. He claims he's blanking the template because there is consensus. I see no consensus, and therefore I will continue to revert his blanking until there is such a consensus, and even then, I might -- the blanking of this is ridiculous. Should we blank the templates for stub, vfd, cleanup, copyvios, etc.? RickK 20:23, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Let's forget about IRC and build the argument here. We have three options - a) use this template on article pages, b) use it on talk pages or c) blank it/move towards deletion. I support b) and c). I don't like a) but I won't revert if the consensus emerges that that is the correct thing to do. That you are even threatening to do so, Rick, is not on.

The reason many people don't like this template is that it adds nothing but metadata clutter to the article. That a page needs cleaning-up pretty much hits you in the face as soon as you see it. Adding boilerplate achieves so little and uglifies the article so much, it would be much better on the talk page where it still has the same utility in terms of "what links here" and categories.

Responding to "Should we blank the templates for stub, vfd, cleanup, copyvios, etc." Well ignoring "cleanup" which I guess was a typo on your part, the boilerplates for vfd and copyvios are very different beasts to this one. VfDs and copyvios require time-critical actions on another page. The originial editors should now about this as soon as possible. Thus, although I dislike metadata clutter in general, I am happy that they are used in this case.

Finally my opinion on the "stub" template is similar to this template... it is perfectly obvious that a particular article is short... its right there in front of you. If I ruled the wiki, we would put into a special metadata section of the page that Eloquence proposed some time ago. It would be great help in aiding re-use of our material to separate out metadata/inter-language links from article prose. Assuming that software innovation is not coming any time soon, I would again prefer to use the talk page. Pcb21| Pete 23:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

August

Linking directly into the cleanup list

The url http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Cleanup&action=edit&section=3 always links into today's section on the cleanup list. It does this because of the way the cleanup list and the url works. The link will always edit the third section on the page, which is always todays. When a new day is started, it is started on the third section, so yesterday is moved to the fourth section, the day before that to the fifth, etc. This also allows the cleanup procedure to be linked to, which is perhaps more appropriate than just the listing because it describes what to do. Try it:

Category:CleanupDunc_Harris|☺ 08:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This isn't useful. The instructions will be applicable at most exactly once: just after the {{cleanup}} template is added, before the person who put it there adds the page to Wikipedia:Cleanup themselves. If that editor lists the page on cleanup first and then adds {{cleanup}}, the edit link is never meaningful. --Eequor 15:30, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's the idea.

1. Find a new page from special:newpages
2. Add the {{cleanup tag}}
3. edit directly the cleanup list with the link.

IMHO works better than

1. Find a new page from special:newpages
2. go to cleanup, scroll down and add to list (taking quite a bit of time)
3. go back to the page and add the tag.

Anyway, it shuold be enabled, I suspect people will use it, and I was just trying to explain how it works since both User:Neutrality and someone else reverted it and I thought it was jolly clever. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

People will do both ways, and there's no sensible way to prevent that. The template shouldn't be based either one, it just marks the article as needing cleanup. --Michael Snow 00:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Cleanup page keeps getting reorganized (it seems like daily), so if we're going to keep an edit link on this Template, whoever reorgs the Cleanup page needs to make sure that the edit link here matches the most recent reorg. RickK 22:22, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

With the way the Cleanup page is currently organized, the URL would have to be changed each month in order for the "add new" link to work. As such, I have removed the "add new" link. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:45, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

October

This template is too bold, and too vague

I have two thoughts about this template:

1. it draws far too much attention to itself; not all the times it will be used require such a limelight-grabbing message, and indeed for minor issues it can make things worse than the problems themselves
2. it doesn't give the reader the right information: What exactly is wrong with the page? How does one go about finding the right part of Wikipedia:Cleanup and its various subpages? Why didn't the person in question just add a note to the article's talk page?

The one thing I do like is the creation of a Category:Cleanup to automatically list things; it's like having a huge manual list, only the listings update themselves! So, anyway, I've put my thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Cleanup#Yet Another Proposed Replacement. - IMSoP 17:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you about the (Doesn't give the reader the right infomation) part and actually changed it to something like 'This article needs improving and/or rewording'...but some guy named Siroxo thought it was too arkward to keep it that way...like if! I might get into trouble but I'm going to revert his revert because the cleanup message is not specific enough and it does need at least SOME intruction to go by. Louisisthebest_007 21:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey there, Louis, I certainly agree that the cleanup process isn't very efficient, and is not extremely helpful to editors who don't frequent the cleanup page itself. However, the reason I reverted the edits you made is because they were very awkwardly phrased. The sentence "This article needs improving and/or rewording to a better quality" is redudnant with itself, and doesn't add all that much. Saying something needs improvement or rewording barely says anything more than that it needs cleanup. Also, when it comes to giving the right information, I don't think that a single sentence added to the top of the template that all cleanup articles get is an improvement. It doesn't answer the questions IMSoP posed. Secondly, the template had three occurences of "This article" after your edits, which isn't the best writing. Perhaps I should have tried to improve your phrasing instead of simply reverting it, but I couldn't think of anything at the time, and didn't want that version left at the top of several pages for too long. Anyways, I can live with vacuum's rephrasing of your edits, although it still doesn't give the casual reader very much information, unless they check the entry on the cleanup page. Also, I've compacted the template into one paragraph (plus heading), reducing the excess whitespace, and also linked "Higher quality" to give it some meaning . Sorry if I jumped too fast on your edits. —siroχo 04:18, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Are there more specific cleanup templates? It would seem a template saying, "This article needs to be shortened" or "This article needs to have its format cleaned up" would be much more useful (not vague). Hyacinth 21:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, see cleanup. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)