Wikipedia talk:Cleanup/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

suggestion

ANCIENT LISTINGS and VERY OLD should be moved either to VfD or to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. thanks! Kingturtle 02:44, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

is Cleanup dying?

Articles are placed on Cleanup, but I don't see them being cleaned up. Is Cleanup dying? Kingturtle 18:25, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I use it all the time - it depends whether people can be bothered to copyedit and sort articles - which is a greater problem than cleanup. Secretlondon 18:29, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
You (as I do) use it mostly to add entries that need Cleanup. But articles placed here are NOT being cleaned up, and the list keeps growing. A few days ago, I removed dozens of entries that had been sitting on this metapage for ages. This page contains nearly 200 entries! What is to be done?
we need to check to see if they've been improved enough and remove them from the list. If not we could list on VfD. I do clean up, I often put +sorted or +wikified next to pages. Actually pages needing attention is in a worse state. Secretlondon 18:45, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
I agree. I recently did a dump from Cleanup, moving articles into VfD and Pages Needing Attention. I also removed some articles from Pages Needing Attention that seemed to have received attention. But there's a lot to still sift through. Has Cleanup just turned into another Pages Needing Attention? Kingturtle 18:48, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any incentive to fix things here, whereas on VfD, there is an incentive of saving a page from being deleted. Is it worth trying the #Subpages idea? Angela
I was just thinking about that. Seems like if you really want an article to get attention, you have to put it on VfD. What is the Subpages idea? Kingturtle 18:55, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
See above. Basically, to split cleanup into categories, according to what needs to be done, so people who like npoving can go to Wikipedia:Cleanup/pov and people who like researching whether or not someone is famous can go to Wikipedia:Cleanup/famous?. Angela 18:59, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
and an article that has lots wrong with has to be listed 4 or 5 times? Secretlondon 19:01, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
Ooo, I like that idea. Secretlondon has a point. Maybe the last category could be "God Help Us!" or "Take Your Shots" or something like that. Kingturtle 19:04, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I think further partitions via subpages will just drive cleanup listings further into obscurity. The categories are a good idea though, so maybe we could just split the main cleanup page via section headers? I was skeptical of this cleanup page at first, but it seems to be a useful buffer between pages that aren't quite deletion-worthy, but would also languish for months at pages needing attention. <<<>>> I think one of the main problems with Cleanup right now is that there isn't a very clear policy on cleaning up the cleanup page. It would be helpful if we set something firm like "After two weeks, listings that have been sufficiently improved to at least stub status will be removed. All others will be moved to WP:PNA or WP:VFD as necessary." Of course, this would still be somewhat arbitrary, but it would at least keep things moving, and perhaps give people some incentive to improve articles before they move on to "the next level". --Minesweeper 20:34, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
I think that having the date that a page was added next to each entry or at least each subheading would be helpful. Maximus Rex 20:39, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't like categolizing. The simplicity always helps. How about simply archiving old listing if we want to reduce the length of the list? I disagree with that Cleanup is dying. It is useful place to put an article that does not make sense at all but when you are not sure it should be deleted or not. VfD should not be used as a place to list crap, mostly newbie experiments, but the listing should be more of editorial reasons. -- Taku 21:15, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

It definitely should not be archived. What would be the point of having dozens of archives of old rubbish articles? Either they are fixed or deleted. I can't see any point in archiving them if nothing is going to happen to them, but perhaps I'm just not enough of an eventualist. Angela 21:46, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that someone might crawl the list to find out what he can do in wikipedia? I guess it is a matter of preference or perception. The bottom line is that the page functions. -- Taku 22:30, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:MyRedDice

Hi Martin, I was wondering why you redirected Wikipedia:Votes for wikification and Wikipedia:Votes for NPOVing. [1] [2]. I've suggested at Wikipedia talk:Cleanup that Cleanup be split into subpages like Wikification and POV, which would seem very similar to what those two pages used to be, but if there was a reason they didn't work before, perhaps it would be best not to. I realise it was a while ago, but do you you remember what the problems with the pages were that led them to be discontinued? Angela 18:20, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please don't ressurect Wikipedia:Votes for NPOVing - wikipedia:NPOV dispute turned out to be much better than Wikipedia:Votes for NPOVing and similar things because:

  • NPOV dispute is attached to content - when content is fixed, dispute is removed.
  • Discussion on bias on the talk page, not scattered between talk page and random list elsewhere.
  • readers and editors are made aware of the dispute.
  • Much less housekeeping required.
  • Decentralised
  • Reduces impact from new folks leaping into debate without reading backlog
As a simple practical matter, I would strongly advocate against creating a competitor to wikipedia:NPOV dispute, which does a good job. Martin 00:27, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Are you saying that everything listed at Cleanup as being POV should actually have an NPOV dispute notice put on it rather than being left at Cleanup? Angela 01:23, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't want to dictate to the cleanup folks - what works for you, works for you. My personal opinion would be that if a page has been on cleanup for a week (say), and the only remaining problem is bias, and it isn't "irredeemably POV" (and hence in need of deletion), then the best approach might be to slap an NPOV dispute on it and drop it off the list, in favour of fresh instances of pages needing a cleanup. This will also help avoid becoming stale, as happened to pages needing attention. Martin 18:23, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pages needing attention?

What's the difference between these two pages? -Smack 17:45, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Removing items from Cleanup

How do items get removed from cleanup? I can think of several easy cases where it seems clear that a page should be remmoved:

  • If the page in question is deleted
  • If the page in question is redirected

Some less clear cases:

  • When the issue has been resolved. For example, if a page is in need of Wikification, and someone Wikifies it.
    • Issue: How is it determined that the issue is resolved?
  • If the page is added to another, more "definitive" action list, e.g. VfD or one of its subpages.
    • How do we decide when that should happen?

And, then there's the troublesome:

  • When the page has languished here long enough without the issue being resolved.


I have a suggestion for resolving this issue: Create a section at the bottom of the page -- call it "Proposed Removals" or some such. If anyone thinks that a page should be removed, they list it in this section (without removing it from its original placement). The entry in Proposed Removals should include a signature with a date/time stamp. They should also include a brief reason for removal. If, after several days (5?) no one objects to the removal, the page is removed from this list. Anyone can "object" by simply removing the page name from the Proposed Removals section.

Comments?

Anthropos 16:15, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Bmills 16:17, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I disagree, though not strongly. My feeling is that the page is already very large, and having a compulsory waiting section for fixed articles adds to that. Can't people just be trusted to remove things that really are fixed? Angela. 05:22, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've gone for a rather more aggressive approach - I've removed a load of entries that appear to me to be fixed. For anyone who distrusts my judgement, each removal is reproduced in the edit comment together with my reason for removal. I think that's all the process we really need - don't remove anything without saying why unless it unquestionably needs no further cleanup (e.g. article has been deleted). Onebyone 06:01, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My Butchery (or a Server Glitch)

According to the page history, i deleted and then added an enormous stretch of Cleanup at a time when i thot i was failing repeatedly to get my Save done:

(cur) (last) . . 14:05, 2004 Jan 2 . . Jerzy (+ re Peace Pilgrim)
(cur) (last) . . 14:05, 2004 Jan 2 . . Jerzy
(cur) (last) . . 13:50, 2004 Jan 2 . . Jerzy (+ re Peace Pilgrim)
(cur) (last) . . 13:40, 2004 Jan 2 . . Jerzy (+ re PeacePilgrim)

(The two in question are the 14:05 ones; IIRC i used refresh several times when "server on strike" msgs followed my Save; sure looks like i retyped the summaries.) Per "(cur)" compare from just before, looks like there was no net damage but let me know if my help is needed in investigating either damage or the server weirdness that i suspect. Email link from my talk page is best way to contact me right now. --Jerzy 04:19, 2004 Jan 3 (UTC)

How about a cleanup custom message?

How about a cleanup custom message for talk pages? Something like {{msg:cleanup}} that can be used on discussion pages only? Sounds like a neat idea! :)

A few Wikipedians are using a similar message for the Puerto Rico discussion page. That way, the first thing that Wikipedians notice is that the article needs a clean up, helping accelerating the process.

I know this is not the correct place for requesting a feature, but I would like to hear other Wikipedians opinions about it.

-- Maio 09:15, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing myself. I'd be in favour. Bmills 11:26, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
To be honest, I think this is creating unnecessary work for ourselves, adding and removing these notices as articles are listed and unlisted on Cleanup. If the article contains serious problems like severe bias or factual errors, then it should have a dispute marker on the page itself so that readers are warned. If the article just needs formatting, then this will be obvious from the article. If it's a stub, then that's also obvious from the article. Stuff like "needs a section on blah" should probably also be mentioned on the talk page, but for the most common cases the purpose of cleanup is to centralise information, and these headers are a distribution of "stuff" back out to each page. Btw, you should probably describe on the process page how to tell when the header should be removed - is it simply when the page is removed from cleanup? Onebyone 11:32, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Onebyone. A separate notice for articles listed in unnecessary, and there are already factual accuracy and NPOV dispute notices that can be added if a page needs these. Angela. 11:40, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't Talk pages have a cleanup explanation anyways? and shouldn't Talk pages be checked also after the page is removed from Cleanup? (These are just questions, please don't beleive that I'm taking a combative stance or that I desrespect you or your opinions -- after all, Wikipedians fight for the same causes.)
I totally disgress with you in regards of creating more work load. The main purpose for the custom message is to provide a way to automatically track Cleanup articles, by having a link on the article's Talk page that links to Cleanup. By using the "What links here" utility, work load on Cleanup is reduced as it eliminates the list/unlist process; consecutively, the possibility of removing the Cleanup page itself arises.
If someone notices a Talk page listed on the "What links here" utility, he would go directly to that page, instead of reading the long page that Cleanup is. This would eliminate the current issue created by Cleanup; that is, having and extremely summarized information of why the article has been marked as needing cleanup. Wikipedians wouldn't be editing Cleanup constantly, instead they would be editing the article's Talk page. It is a reverse engineering of what Cleanup is currently: Talk pages will point to Cleanup, instead of Cleanup pointing to articles.
I'm pretty sure that most people will know, by simple logic, that when all the 'reasons for cleanup' are handled, they should remove the header (NPOV disputes work the same way). Have in mind that the message will have a line that says, "Read this discussion page for more information" -- in other words, the reasons for cleanup will be listed in-detail on the discussion page. If he/she notices that all issues have been resolved, he/she will remove the header. There could also be a notice on the header that says, "After all issues have been resolved, please remove this message blah blah blah", similarly to the instructions given in Cleanup.
Thanks for your response and concenrs on this matter. Again, I'm expressing my POVs, don't think that I'm replying in a combative stance -- I appreciate your replies, and your own POV regarding this. They all help constructively. :)
Nothing but <3,
--Maio 08:44, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
I like the fact this page is quick to use, anonymous and centralised. Your proposal would take away all these advantages. I also think Cleanup would be used even less if this were done as there would be no incentive to fixing an item in order to delist it if it weren't actually listed on this page. Angela. 11:40, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
How about this - what you describe is a different process from what we currently have on cleanup. I think there are enough people who like cleanup that cleanup is worth keeping. So what might be better is to implement your thing under a new name for a while and see how it goes. I think one of the main advantages of cleanup as it stands is that there's pressure to keep the size of the page down, which means that I personally fix a lot of articles that I wouldn't bother with if it was just a "what links here" list of unlimited size.
By the way, I agree that you aren't being combative, and I hope I'm not either... Onebyone 14:50, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Just adding my vote for a custom "This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup." message. jengod 01:07, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

I think we as a rule should NOT add a cleanup msg on the pages we list. Look at Aust, South Gloucestershire, for example; it has BOTH the stub and the cleanup msg, and in this case there is really no difference in the message of the two msgs. The msg:stub is the tool of stub-markup; for cleanup, our tool is this central list. Thus, I propose, only certain classes of cleanup cases should be marked with msg:cleanup, i.e. in the cases where msg:cleanup does not mean the same as msg:stub. — Sverdrup 13:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Archive 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.