Wikipedia talk:Cleanup Taskforce

message: The list of volunteers is (hopefully) going to get quite long.  Do we want to start categorizing ourselves as, say, :Category:Cleanup Taskforce Volunteers or something like that?  Just a thought.  SteveW | Talk 23:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  What I meant (I think - my brain was about at switch-off point) was a volunteers category with subcategories by area of expertise on the basis that it would involve less faffing around than subpages, but I don't think I've really even convinced myself.  The essential idea, and the one I failed to actually mention as Mgm has pointed out, is that as we get more volunteers we're going to need volunteers listed by area of expertise rather than just by number of spaces on their desks.  SteveW | Talk 21:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a (very rough) subpage here for the sake of testing layout.  Comments? JP | Tark 01:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Depending on how many volunteers we get, I think we should keep it how it is now.  I think a complex subpage system may get some users confused and be turned away.  If we get more that 15-20 volunteers, the category subpages may be a good idea, as long as they aren't complicated and too complex for an average Wikipedian to navigate.  :-)  --Randy 01:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course.  This is all assuming we'll get enough volunteers to necessitate any sort of organization, but I think we all hope that that happens. JP | Tark 02:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a great idea. And I see no reason why we can't make such a page now, and have it linked from the list of members here. We can add to it as we get more members, which yes, I hope we do too. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category? 

message: Let's all switch to Template:Cleanup user for consistent formatting between desks. See User:R3m0t/Desk for an example of usage. r3m0t talk 06:24, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
: I think I just switched everyone over. Feel free to make changes to the template. (I made this template because everybody wrote a different message at their desk all meaning the same thing, and I thought that looked unprofessional. Also, in future we could add  to it!) r3m0t talk 06:43, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
::Okay, that's fine with me.  Thanks for changing me over.  --Randy 11:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's all switch to [[Template:Cleanup user]] 

message: A number of our open issues at the moment are things that have been sitting on other lists for a while (e.g. Template:Opentask, Wikipedia:Deadend pages, etc.).  Some of these are (more or less) done already and just need to be taken off the list.  If you've completed one of these items or you notice that an item on one of these lists is already complete (e.g. blue links on the Opentask 'requests' list), please update the lists as necessary!  This isn't really 'our job' as such, but it's certainly something worth adding to your list of "not really exciting but quite useful things to do while you work out what to do next".  Possibly it's just me who has a list like that (I'm bored with Solitaire and Minesweeper and I've turned to wikipediholism instead).  Just a thought.  SteveW | Talk 14:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up cleanup... 

message: Excellent work somebody, very well done. I await my first customers! Apwoolrich 13:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User page cleanup box 

message: Discussions relating to the procedure for closing tasks have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Cleanup Taskforce/closed.
The current simplified procedure (i.e. we're not moving pages) is listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/closed#Closed items procedure.
SteveW | Talk 20:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing tasks

message: I have moved the member list to a seperate page.  I think it improves the presentation of Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce and declutters the page a lot.  What do you guys think?  Do you think it makes it more difficult to place an item on a member's desk?  I think it actually makes it easier by having the pages not so long and confusing.  --Randy 23:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, my suggestion was to have a subpage for each umbrella topic (Arts, Science, and so on) with subsections within those pages - even that would be better than a single page with lots of subsections, which is what we have now.  However, I've abandoned that idea and now agree that categories would probably serve this function much more efficiently.  So, if we had :Category:Cleanup Taskforce Member/Biology, how would we organize individual members within that category?  Also, this discussion should probably be moved to Wikipedia talk:Cleanup_Taskforce/Members alongside the discussion of whether to use the Wikipedia:Browse hierarchy as our basis.  (If isn't obvious, I'm eager to get started but I'm afraid of screwing everything up.) Junkyard prince 18:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member List 

message: As requested, I have now merged Standardized test with Standardized testing, and ought to delete the text from the former page just leaving a note saying where it now is. If I to this, what should I do with the accompanying discussion and  edit history pages? Is there any way they can be added to the new merged one to ensure the edit and discussion histories are not lost? Apwoolrich 07:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Change the article page you have merged from to a redirect: remove the text from the page and replace it with the line #REDIRECT Article to redirect to.  If you think that the discussions on the talk page are relevant to the main article, you can just copy them and paste them on the main page's talk page with a note saying something like "The following discussions were moved here from..."  SteveW | Talk 15:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting the text of a merged page 

message: Articles from the public domain 1911 edition of Britannica are marked with the  template which produces:
This also adds the article to :Category:1911 Britannica so you can easily find these articles if you want to work on them.
1911 EB articles which need updating can also be added to :Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates, but this category doesn't seem to be used as much, presumably because this would effectively be a duplicate of the basic 1911 Britannica category, but could be useful if the article has been wikified, cleaned-up (i.e. un-wordiness-ified or something), etc. but just needs some more up to date information.
Hope that helps.  SteveW | Talk 14:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica articles

message: I've just discovered this and wanted to make sure I joined correctly. Could someone check the list of members and make sure I did everything correctly? I put my name in the table and also added myself to the categories I am interested in. Also, now do I just wait for someone to drop something on my desk? Thanks in advance! Flcelloguy   Give me a  note!    Desk 00:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Flcelloguy:  Yes, you did everything correctly.  And yes, you can either wait for something to be dropped on your desk or put somehing on your desk yourself.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask.  -Randy Johnston 22:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Member 2

message: <Wipes sweat from brow>  Well, I cleaned and encyclopedia-fied it as best I could with limited resources.  Anybody else want to look it over?  I already closed it, but more eyes can never hurt. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Yay!  I hereby name Kate the official Wikipedia Cleanup Taskforce Azerbaijani Ambassador!  8) -- Beland 03:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Azerbaijani literature]] 

message: I have some concern about User:Beland's new procedure for adding articles to the taskforce's list of things to do and the level of disscussion about the change. I don't think the talk pages are going to be a good place for our log of what needs doing on the page and what we have done but an experiment in that direction may be worthwhile. I am more concerned about point one: "Make sure the article is tagged for cleanup". The  tag should be reserved for pages listed on wikipedia:cleanup and not all pages the taskforce deals with should be listed there. For example we may take a page that has been cleaned up and further improve it, we may have a page refered to us from a vfd (I don't think this has happend yet), and we may find an article that needs improvment but is not so bad that it belongs on wikipedia:cleanup. My biggest problem is that the changes have not been discussed, I know we should "be bold", but writing this enclopedia is supposed to be a colaborative effort - we should reach a consensus - so discuss below... Andreww 08:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess we should clarify what sort of things are appropriate to refer here.  Currently, I'm dumping a bunch of articles that were previously listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup that have not been fixed.  They are all tagged, not necessarily with , but maybe  or one of the others on Wikipedia:Cleanup resources.  The primary method I use to determine whether or not an article has been sufficiently fixed is whether or not someone has seen fit to remove the tag.  (Especially for things listed on Template:Opentasks.)  If it's not been tagged in the first place, that's rather odd.  If it's not actually defective enough to warrant a tag, then I had assumed that it's not necessary to keep it listed here.  There are plenty of articles that are tagged  that never make it to Wikipedia:Cleanup, by the way, but will eventually end up here.  The tag is not just for listings on that page, but a general statement about the state of an article.  I'm sure people here could continue to expand a lot of articles that are already clean, but that doesn't seem to be the point of a cleanup group. -- Beland 01:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I find it annoying to have to create a new page every time something is added to the Taskforce, and the more you have to do to open an issue, the fewer assignments get made.  (I notice the Taskforce currently has a problem with some people having empty desks due to a lack of assignments.) I'm logging on the article's talk page the same information that would be logged on the special new page. The biggest difference, I think, is that you don't transclude the page directly on to someone's desk, which means they actually have to click on the link to the talk page and go there to see what's up.  But what if someone has randomly come along and said something about the cleanup process on the talk page, ignoring the special Taskforce page?  Shouldn't editors be checking both anyway?  Wouldn't it be easier to check one place and not two? -- Beland 02:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Streamlined" procedure 

message: Over the years, I have uploaded many images to wikipedia and linked them to articles.  However, some people edited the articles and replaced or removed the link to the images without reestablishing another link.  As a result, the images become orphans. Wikipedia does not keep a history of where the images was linked from before, so all the information is lost.  These orphaned images can either be deleted or relinked to the original article. if the replacement was not as good as the original.  I feel that when an image is unlinked from an article, it should be moved into the talk page so that it wouldn't be orphaned. What is the current procedure to handle this situation? Kowloonese 01:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
:There is no organized procedure, but it's not hard to come up with a list of orphaned images.  Anyone could write a script to scan a database dump to see if any orphaned images were previously linked from any articles, to find old caption information.  If you ask me, the best thing to do is to move the caption information to the image description page, when de-linking from an article.  Most images could use better information on their description pages anyway.  When I'm the photographer, I put everything I know *there*, and don't rely on article captions for anything. -- Beland 03:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned images 

message: Hello!
I posted this here yesterday, but it seemed to have been accidentally deleted 9 hours later.  If this is the wrong place of the wrong format for my invitation, please let me know, and I'll post again.
User:Danny has just challenged us at wikibooks:Wikijunior Solar System to have this book ready to go in 3 weeks!  That's a big task.  I have made a stab at a process for proofreading this WikiBook, but then I discovered this WikiProject at Wikipedia, and a group of people who have already been working on this kind of problem.  The issues at wikibooks are similar to those at wikipedia.  
The big difference here is we are preparing a book for printing and distribution to children.  "CopyEditing and Style" means bringing this thing to a reading level appropriate for 8-11 year olds, which can be tough.  Please, read about WikiJunior and consider helping out.  You can see I have made a start at organizing some tasks for the first module of our book -- Wikijunior Solar System/Solar System has a cleanup request and proofreading notice that points to Wikijunior Solar System/Solar System/Proofreading, where tasks are listed.
Any assistance with the proofreading tasks and/or guidance on better organizing the proofreading process will be much appreciated.
If you are interested, please sign up for a task! Thanks!
--SV Resolution(Talk) 16:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikijunior needs your help 

message: I, um, cleaned it up. 
Well, mostly, anyhow. More accurately, I reorganized it; the Members by size table is now on a subpage (as is Members by interest, and I still haven't gone through it to transfer all the user interests over yet, but hopefully the current changes are something of an improvement in terms of user-friendliness.
— Your server has been MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 14:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Taskforce [[/Members]] page 

message: I've attempted to clarify the procedure for adding a task, as simply as possible, for the benefit of new editors or those initially unfamiliar with the nature of the project. If you can make further improvements or feel I've missed anything important, please feel free to correct my edits. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 12:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing a request 

message: Here's a question: given that our goal is efficient and expeditious clean-up of troubled Wikipedia articles, would the Taskforce be well served by a number of dedicated members who take ongoing responsibility for regularly assigning tasks to otherwise idle members? The system is fairly voluntary as it functions right now, although I noticed that the Meta refresh task from July  attempted to recruit some participants to see that tasks were being distributed, and Are you active? is attempting to discern who's awaiting a job. Any thoughts? — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 13:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another assigning tasks question 

message: The currently written request procedure doesn't mentionadding the Template:Cleanup taskforce notice template to the talk page.  Should it be written out? RJFJR 17:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  templates in procedure 

message: Trying to be bold I created a subpage for listing evaluations of articles being worked on, including requests for opinion on whether an article is done.
Taskforce members willing to evaluate can add  to their desks to have this subpage displayed there.  I listed a link to it under 'taskforce tasks'.
We may want to refactor the subpage for better appearance but I've started out by listing both the taskforce subpage link and a link directly to the article.  I propose people comment either on the subpage or just on the eval page (and I'll go through and move those to the subpages to keep evals clean).
I listed a page I was cleaning up and two I had seen and thought might be almost done.  I also listed two articles that are under assigned that I happened to find previously via category of articles needing cleanup.
If entries have a comment saying proposed for closure please comment either with what else is needed or by saying ready to close.
Please pardon me if I've been over bold. RJFJR 09:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaluations subpage

message: Just a heads-up: I tweaked the wording of Template:Cleanup taskforce closed slightly to try and make it clear that, although the CT has improved the article to a higher standard of quality, there is always still remove for improvement. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 09:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed template 

message: Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Are you active? was blanked for a while, apparently by accident.  I have restored it.
Unfortunately, while it was blank I tried to assign an article and I may have assigned it to an inactive member.  At some point we need to go through the list of member interests and mark which members are active participants and which aren't.
What would be the preferred method indicating this?  Write active after the names of people who added themselves to the active message?  Write inactive next to those who didn't?  Move inactive people's data elsewhere?  Suggestions? RJFJR 11:11, October 20, 2005
:I've been bold and gone through and marked people not on the /are you active page as  (inact).  I will gladly corect any mistakes I made.  I've done this using a paper list of the sorted members on the are you active page so there are probably manual errors involved.  All the tags are exactly the same (I used paste) so they are distinguishable. RJFJR 13:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'are you active?' page 

message: I vote to remove Wikipedia:Cleanup_Taskforce/Members/Members_by_size.  Reasons: sync problems, maintenance, duplicate information.  What do you guys think? -- Perfecto  03:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Provided we make sure everybody who was on Members by size is on [[Members by interest, I would concur; the latter is definitely the more informative of the two lists. As an alternate idea, we could ditch both lists, and have all members transclude the contents of their desks (which would therefore provide information about both queue size and interests, as well as what they're currently working on) to one central location. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 08:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A page with transcluded desks would be a good thing(tm). I found the most difficult thing about assigning articles finding people who (i) were active, (ii) had expressed an interest in the subject or something close to it and (iii) had space on there desk. You can open a lot of desks in multiple tasks but once you have 20 or so open they become too narrow (in firefox) and I can not keep up. I would suggest a few (4-6) pages with transcluded desks sorted by category. Desks could of course appear on more than one page. Andreww 08:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD Members by size 

message: Just thought I'd let you know that Contact Consequences has been deleted as per it's AFD here. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  one of your articles, 

message: I brought this up on the Village Pump, but I figured I'd see what you guys think about this, as well. I'm thinking of starting a new cleanup initiative to get some of the oldest of the old pages listed for cleanup moving. I'd call it something along the lines of 'Recommendation Taskforce', and here's how I see it as working: It would be to help get users experienced with cleanup (such as yourselves) to some of these pages (especially the older and the bigger jobs), not to clean them up, but to leave a laundry list of what (and perhaps a little how) needs to be done to make the page sparkle. I think this would help spread the work out (so it's not so much of a problem for individuals) and, by making the process easier to understand, could get more users involved. Any thoughts? --InShaneee 03:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New cleanup initiative

message: What about Project:Core, The first project in a new namespace to take the place of WikiProject spaces that deal with editing from a project management perspective. It will become the new home of this List of WikiProjects and will track Portal:Core religiously to maintain a sense of order in what have been deemed Core topics by the WP:1.0 team. At any rate, I think it's a good idea to focus on this group of articles. Just a thought. • CQ 03:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project namespace 

message: Hi, I just created two new cleanup templates called  and  for articles that list references but don't provide page numbers. This is my first attempt at this kind of thing so I hope others can improve them. The Singing Badger 13:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Pagenumbers

message: When editors assign unassigned articles to CT members, then what to do? Do we move the article subpage from the Unassigned section into the Assigned section or what, in the proper order of course? Perhaps the instructions on submitting a request need to be updated to include this information. Ekantik talk 03:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move after assignment?

message: I posted a request on the cleanup taskforce. We had some excellent comments, however, the comments were signed by an otherwise anonymous IP address. The editors have worked towards implementing many of the suggestion and would like further comment. The page is . We have editors eagerly awaiting your valued feedback :) --Comaze 10:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress on cleanup... please comment 

message: So, the Existentialism page is in dire need of a cleanup, as it is a very important page on a fundamental element of modern philosophy.
Of course, I would like to be bold and cleanup the article on my own, however, I do not think I am capable of the task alone.  Also, I am not sure who would be a good canidate to assign this article to.
Basically, I would like to see this article vastly improved, but I cannot do it on my own, please contact me if you have a suggestion, or at least know where I can get the help I need.
Also, I am also contacting the WikiProject Philosophy for help.
Gronkmeister 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help! 

message: The League of Copy-Editors seems to have very similar objectives as the Cleanup Taskforce.  It also seems to be much more active.  If you agree that the objectives are very similar, I would suggest that we find a way to coordinate and communicate efficiently together in the two projects.  It would make the work more maneagable and reduce confusion.  One way to do this may be to separate the goals of the projects.  Of course people can still participate in both projects.  What do you think?  -Pgan002 03:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  League of Copy-Editors 

message: Please see Template_talk:Cleanup_taskforce_notice#TOC.  GameKeeper 20:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template includes TOC

message: I have a serious concern: a recent article I consulted had a bright blue box "An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines...".
OK, fine.  Someone with the label "editor" thinks that this article "doesn't matter".  He (or she) is entitled to his (or her) opinion.  But why do I have any reason to think the "editor" has any interest in this area?  If I didn't care about math or physics, maybe I'd mark the article on the Lorentz transformation as "doesnt satisfy MY notability guidelines".
Back to my point: the "editor" is entitled to his/her opinion, but I question two facets of Wikipedia:
*Why should someone with the term "editor" get to establish this bright blue box?
*Why should the editor's name be withheld?  If this editor has a passion for squelching articles on a particular topic, then his/her bias might show through, and such nominations for "doesn't matter" should be discarded summarily, or at least peer-reviewed.
Proposals:
*Nomination for such markings should be reviewed by an editorial panel.  If 5 editors on a random panel of 10 agree that an article is questionable, perhaps only then should the article be nominated for talk
*When used, the legend of the box should be changed to "editor [EditorsName] has expressed...".
Thanks for your consideration.... Harasty 13:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to peer-review nominations for editorial review 

message: “List of Linux distributions” is one example, it has been tagged with  since November 2005 and has been on the list of the cleanup taskforce (assigned) since October 2006, it is now June 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.213.20 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am now located at Tcrow777. 76.183.213.20 19:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long wait 

message: This project appears to be inactive, if I don't get evidence of the opposite soon I will list this project for deletion.  Tcrow777  talk  01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not have this project deleted, but if this project does not become active again soon I will add .  Tcrow777  talk  23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive project 

message: In principle, the Cleanup Taskforce should be indespensible. Wikipedia is pervaded with "articles" hardly deserving the name.  They range from school term papers to fan fluff pieces to rank polemics.  They are riddled with POV/weasel words, unsourced opinion or, worse, opinion sourced to other opinion, i.e. bogus sources (see Reliable sources).  Unfortunately, in my experience, there have been factors that have discouraged cleanup.  Too often a cleanup results in someone, whose self-esteem has been damaged, reverting the cleanup.  I've neither the time nor the inclination to engage in revert wars.  But this has happened, including nasty personal attacks by the "offended" party.  Given that this happens with ad hoc editing, the thought of tackling an entire article for cleanup is extraordinarily daunting.
This would be all right if this Taskforce received a measure of support from the powers-that-be.  But I think that one reason for the inactivity of the Taskforce is that it is a thankless job which has received NO support (at least that I have noticed) in its mission.
Another factor discouraging cleanup is the facile policy regarding weasel words.  The Weasel Word tag says, "You can help Wikipedia by removing weasel words."  Fine, then what do we do?  Remove "some have argued," and leave the unsourced assertion?  No, unsourced assertions should be removed completely.  Weasel words are sneaky POV, and if weasel-worded assertions are removed, it often means that half an article has to go.  I assume we are not obliged to find sources for the assertions ourselves, i.e. do the author's work for him.  Are we even obliged to track down the author?  No, we post a comment in on the Talk page.  But then, we get stuck in a debate about the merits of the content.  And that is supposed to be forbidden on the Talk page. "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues."  What a laugh!  Same about the enjoinder in the Help pages, to edit aggressively.  Yeah, right.  Try that on the Brittany Spears page which, mercifully, is not quite as long as the Leibniz page.  (Actually, I love Brittany, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the venue for an 'omage.)
One of the beauties of Mr. Wales's concept—for Mr. Wales—is that it is based on the inaction of the Creator.  With no one in charge, except to manage the software and referee food fights, Wales relies on "the magic of the marketplace of ideas," i.e. truth by consensus, to determine the quality of content.  He's played a deist's god, who creates a universe with a few basic rules (Game of life?), sets it in motion and then walks away.  But this presents a dichotomy:  Editing is not passive.  It's invasive and can be destructive, especially in its role of promoting conciseness.  Speaking of which, conciseness, the hallmark of an article as oppose to an essay or tome, seems at Wikipedia to be honored more in the breach than the observance.  Mr. Wales and his friends are good at the talk of standards but have shown themselves less willing to walk the walk to enforce them.  Yes, there's the "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly..." disclaimer, but this is an invitation to endless parenthesis, and of course edits are subject to those blasted reverts.  Wikipedia consist mainly of guidelines—suggestions—and even policy is poorly enforced.  This may be a nice exercise in that cheapest of virtues, tolerance, but it's a poor excuse for scholarhip. 
The idea of Wikipedia is basically populist.  Alas, another term for populist is demagogue.  The slogan that "everybody" can be an editor is seductive and powerful, for it appeals to our vanity.  It's about self-esteem, about making everybody happy.  The Cleanup Taskforce is by nature antithetical to this therapeutic mission.  A crucial element of research is the almost ritual offering up of a thesis so that it can be shot down.  If, at the end of the day, it is left standing, then it is regarded as sound.  This is hard on egos, and I think scientists, especially, pride themselves on their ability to take it.  But not at Wikipedia.  And that is what makes the Cleanup Taskforce, as important as it is in making a better Wikipedia, a subversive element in Mr. Wales's feel-good universe.
Suggestion:  If the Cleanup Taskforce cannot be furnished with some kind of editing prerogatives—for example, expedited arbitration of multiple reverts, something less cumbersome than the current mess—then at least a Cleanup Taskforce tag would help give the Taskforce's work a quasi-official sanction.  I guess what sums up all this verbiage is, "The work is important. We need support!" — J M Rice 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the inactivity . . . 

message: Hello, ! You are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between October 21 and October 28, 2007.</center>
            	This week, backlogs will be cleared.  Articles will be polished.  Typos will be fixed.  Bad prose will be edited.  Unreferenced articles will be sourced.  No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Wikipedia will become as a result.
            	I would love it if you would participate! - Tcrow777 Talk
Edit message	
 01:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gnome week 

message: The tasks which are currently listed need to be re-examined, because I suspect a lot of them have improved substantially since the CUTF was called in on their case. I'm happy to help with pruning/re-evaluating. Cricketgirl 08:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inactivity

message: Last post here was in 2007. It looks like this project is dead or at least inactive. Is this true? If so I will tag the page :Template:Historical. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I am still interested, I fear this project is dead. These days, there are enough wikiproject areas of coverage that the clean-up tasks are easily and better directed to them. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As sad as it is, since this project did so much good, I would classify this as dead. There are some small ongoing discussions of getting it up and running again but most of the articles are being cleaned up by specific wikiprojects.  You may want to wait a day or two and possibly contact User:RJFJR since he most recently assigned articles and seemed to run most of the overhead.--~ Joe Jklin (T C) 03:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Now are you dead?

message: I have created a new sub project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles called Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica to give editors working in that area somewhere to focus comments etc.
The reason it touched on this project is that there are a series of templates used on pages that incorporate text from EB1911 articles (see :Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica) there are nearly 10,000 articles (most of them about a decade old) which incorporated text from the Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition and include the them template  or its older version (now a redirect)  without an article title. This means that a reader of the Wikipedia article is informed  that somewhere in the 40,0000 articles spread over 29 volumes there is an EB1911 article that supports the content of the Wikiepdia article but Wikpiedia is not going to say were it is (see :Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with no article parameter‎).
Advise on how to fill in the template fully is given in the documentation in the template  and , and discussion and advise on  how best to do this can be directed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica. -- PBS (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica]]