Wikipedia talk:Cleanup/Archive 2

src: divinityoriginalsin2.wiki.fextralife.com

Video Wikipedia talk:Cleanup/Archive 2

saran

KEY AND VERY LONG LIST should be moved to VfD or to Wikipedia: Pages that need attention. Thank you! Kingturtle 02:44, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Cleanup/Archive 2

is the Cleanup dying?

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

I use it all the time - it depends on whether people can be bothered to copy and sort the articles - which is a bigger problem than cleaning. Secretlondon 18:29, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You (like me) mostly use it to add entries that need to be Cleaned up. But the articles placed here are NOT cleared, and the list continues to grow. A few days ago, I removed dozens of entries that have been in this metapage for centuries. This page contains almost 200 entries! What to do?

we need to check to see if they have been upgraded enough and remove them from the list. If not we can list it in VfD. I clean it up, I often put it sorted or wikified on the side of the page. Actually the page that needs attention is in worse condition. Secretlondon 18:45, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree. I recently did a dump of Cleanup, moved articles to VfD and Pages Needing Attention. I also deleted some articles from Pages Needing Attention that seemed to have received attention. But much remains to be filtered. Has Cleanup just turned into another page that needs attention? Kingturtle 18:48, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There seems to be no incentive to fix things here, whereas in VfD, there is an incentive to keep the pages from being removed. Is it worth trying #Subpages ideas? Angela

I just thought about it. It seems if you really want an article to get attention, you have to put it in VfD. What are Subpages ideas? 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 love researching if someone is famous can go to Wikipedia: Cleanup/famous ?. Angela 18:59, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

and articles with multiple errors must be listed 4 or 5 times? Secretlondon 19:01, 22 Nov 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 partitioning through subpage will only push the cleaning list further into obscurity. The categories are a good idea, so maybe we can split the main cleaning page through the section headers? I was skeptical of this cleanup page at first, but it seems to be a useful buffer between pages that are not quite removed, but will also languish for months on pages that need attention. & lt; & lt; & lt; & gt; & gt; & gt; I think one of the main problems with Cleanup now is that there is no very clear policy about cleaning the cleaning page. It would be helpful if we set something firm like "After two weeks, a list that has been upgraded to at least the stub status will be deleted, the other will be moved to WP: PNA or WP: VFD as necessary." Of course, this is still somewhat arbitrary, but it will at least make things move, and it might give people an incentive to improve the article before they move on to "the next level". --Minesweeper 20:34, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think having a date that a page is added next to each entry or at least every subhead would be helpful. Maximus Rex 20:39, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I do not like socializing. Simplicity always helps. What about just archiving the old list if we want to reduce the length of the list? I do not agree with the dying Cleanup. This is a useful place to put articles that make no sense at all but when you are not sure it should be deleted or not. VfD should not be used as a place for a list of nonsense, mostly beginner experiments, but the list should be more of an editorial reason. - Taku 21:15, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It certainly does not have to be archived. What's the point of having dozens of old junk article archives? Either they are repaired or deleted. I can not see any point in their archiving if nothing happens to them, but maybe I'm not quite as an eventualist. Angela 21:46, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is it possible for someone to crawl the list to find out what he can do on wikipedia? I think this is a matter of preference or perception. The point is that the page functions. - Taku 22:30, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Moved from User talk: MyRedDice

Hi Martin, I am wondering why you are diverting Wikipedia: Voice for wikification and Wikipedia: Voice for NPOVing. [1] [2]. I have suggested in Wikipedia the talk: Cleaning the Cleanup is divided into sub-pages like Wikification and POV, which will look very similar to what the two pages used to be, but if there is a reason they did not work before, maybe it would be better not. I noticed that a while ago, but do you remember what problems with that page are causing them to be stopped? Angela 18:20, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please do not ressurect Wikipedia: Votes for NPOVing - wikipedia: The NPOV dispute turns out to be much better than Wikipedia: Votes for NPOVing and similar things because:

• The NPOV dispute is attached to the content - when the content is fixed, the dispute is removed.
• Discussions about the bias on the talk page are not spread among the talks and random lists elsewhere.
• readers and editors are made aware of the disagreements.
• Less requires cleaning.
• Decentralized
• Reduce the impact of new people jumping into the debate without reading the backlog

As a simple practical matter, I would strongly advise not to create a competitor for wikipedia: the NPOV dispute, which does the job well. Martin 00:27, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Are you saying that everything listed on Cleanup as POV should really have a NPOV disputed notice placed on it rather than left in Cleanup? Angela 01:23, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I do not want to dictate to people who clean - that works for you, works for you. My personal opinion is that if a page has been cleaned for a week (say), and the only remaining problem is bias, and it is not "non-redeemable POV" (and hence requires removal), then the best approach might be to slap the NPOV dispute in topped it and put it off the list, supporting new instances of pages that require cleaning. It will also help avoid becoming stale, as happens on pages that require attention. Martin 18:23, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

src: darksouls3.wiki.fextralife.com

Wikipedia: Pages need attention?

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

src: i.ytimg.com

Remove items from Cleanup

How do I remove items from cleanup? I can think of some easy cases where it's obvious that the page should be revoked:

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

Some of the less obvious cases:

• When the issue has been resolved. For example, if the page requires Wikification, and someone Wikify it.
  • Issue: How do I determine if the issue has been resolved?
• If the page is added to a "more certain" list of other actions, e.g. VfD or one of its subpages.
  • How do we decide when it should happen?

And then some are troublesome:

• When the page has been here long enough without any problems resolved.

I have a suggestion to solve this problem: Create a section at the bottom of the page - call it "Proposed Removal" or something. If anyone thinks the page should be removed, they include it in this section (without deleting it from its original placement). Entries in the Proposed Removal must include a signature with date/time stamp. They should also include a short reason to delete. If, after a few days (5?) No one objected to deletion, the page was removed from this list. Anyone can "reject" simply by removing the page name from the Proposed Removals section.

Komentar

Anthropos 16:15, 9 Des 2003 (UTC)

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

I disagree, though not strong. My feeling is that the page is already very large, and having a mandatory wait section for articles keeps adding to it. Can not people just be trusted to remove things that are really fixed? Angela. 05:22, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've chosen a more aggressive approach - I've deleted many entries that seem to me to fix. For anyone who does not trust my judgment, any deletions are reproduced in an edit comment together with my reasons for deletion. I think it's all the process we really need - do not delete anything without saying why unless there is no need for further cleaning (eg article has been deleted). Onebyone 06:01, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My Butchery (or Server Glitch)

According to the history of the page, I remove and then add a large Cleanup overlay at a time when I fail repeatedly to get Save done:

(cur) (last).. 14:05, 2004 2 January.. Jerzy (re Peace Pilgrim)

(cur) (last).. 14:05, 2004 2 January.. Jerzy

(cur) (last).. 13:50, 2004 2 January.. Jerzy (re Peace Pilgrim)

(cur) (last).. 13:40, 2004 2 January.. Jerzy (re PeacePilgrim)

(The two in question are the 14:05; IIRC I use a refresh a couple of times when the message "crash server" follows My save, it looks like I retyped the summary.) Per "(kur)" compared to before, looks like no clean damage but please let me know if my help is needed to investigate the damage or peculiarities of the server that I suspect. The email link from my talk page is the best way to contact me right now. --Jerzy 04:19, 2004 3 Jan (UTC)

---

src: upload.wikimedia.org

What about custom messaging cleansing?

What about custom cleaning messages for talk page? Something like {{: cleaning}} which can be used on discussion pages only? Sounds like a neat idea! Ã, :)

Some Wikipedians use similar messages for Puerto Rican discussion pages. That way, the first thing Wikipedians know is that the article needs cleaning, helping to speed up the process.

I know this is not the right place to request the feature, but I would like to hear other Wikipedia opinions about it.

I think we as a rule DO NOT have to add a cleanup message on the page we list. Look at Aust, South Gloucestershire, for example; has a BOTH stub and a cleanup message, and in this case there really is no difference in the message of the two messages. The msg: stub is a stub-markup tool; for cleaning, our tool is a list of these centers. So, I propose, only certain cleaning case classes should be marked with msg: cleanup, ie in cases where msg: cleanup does not mean the same as msg: stub. - Sverdrup 13:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia