I agree with this; I added a comment on your proposal. ant
Rowan Collins a écrit:
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 18:16:23 +0100, Angela beesley@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_Rep... 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@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@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.