On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 18:16:23 +0100, Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The advantage of also listing the article on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup is that it allows you
to see which are most recent, and also gives a brief summary of the
problem, so if you're only interested in finding articles with POV
issues you can focus just on those. Dividing the cleanup category into
different types, in a similar way to the division of stub tags might
lessen the need for the separate Cleanup page.
Please see my proposal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Cleanup#Yet_Another_Proposed_Re…
Basically, I think dividing into sub-categories by type/degree of
cleanup needed makes *more* sense than dividing by time listed.
One of the biggest problems with a time-based list is how to find a
particular entry on it if you're following the link from the article
to Cleanup, not vice versa. When an article on a tag tells you to look
up, and remove, its entry on a page which is split into time-based
archives, where do you begin?
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 13:53:18 -0700, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I also think it's a poor idea to list an article
for cleanup - via any
method - without explaining what you think is wrong with it. In fact,
my biggest issue with the cleanup concept is that it encourages the
'someone else's problem' mentality, though it does help for when you
feel like a little Wiki-tidying and need some pointers for problem
areas.
That's why I think we should primarily encourage people to put a
message on the talk: page saying "this needs X doing, but I don't have
time/skills/confidence to do it", with an accompanying category tag
which brings it to the attention of people looking for something to
fix.
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:16:06 -0400, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
I think they ought to go on articles, but with a
higher threshold of
"suckiness".
I'd agree to that: really bad articles don't lose anything by having a
big "please edit me" begging label. Ones that just need more attention
than they seem to be getting just need labelling more subtly and/or on
the talk page - possibly subtly to the point of adding them to a
category but otherwise not drawing attention to the fact.
Every article needs work, and if you want to look what other people
think needs doing on the article you're looking at, you should click
"discussion" and should be able thereby to read people's thoughts.
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]