Wikipedia talk:Cleanup process

message: Hope I didn't get my steamship ass ahead of my rowboat brain by changing 'not discouraged' to suggested....maybe should be 'somewhat suggested'????? My brain has trouble with double negatives.....Zardiw 01:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double negative 

message: Our cleanup process has changed and expanded dramatically (apparently mostly since late 2004) and large chunks of these instructions are no longer applicable and confusing to newer editors.  Therfore, I am being bold and moving great chunks of the process instructions to the above page, where it can be kept for historical interest.  Soundguy99 07:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Cleanup process/Old instructions]] 

message: Having read this and other articles, I'm still confused on one point: do I, or do I not, need to remove an article from a given listing page somewhere after having cleaned it up by manually editing that listing page? Some text seems to imply that simply removing the cleanup tag will automatically remove the article from listing pages.
The instructions for listing articles seem to be clear, but those for finishing the cleanup are not (to me). Any help?
Eaglizard 02:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a lot of people are afraid to remove the cleanup tag even after making changes.  When it was tagged, specific things to do should have been mentioned either in the talk page or the history.  If those have been addressed, I am going to remove the tags and leave a note on the talk page of the tagger. --ssd 02:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It appears that removing the tag from the article causes the article to drop off the cleanup listing page.  So that's all you need to do.  Tstockma 10:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-listing cleaned-up articles 

message: Given that it goes without saying that all items are subject to clean-up, this tag should be reserved for items of poorer quality that are not having any activity. The little niggle I have is that I have just done a first pass changing a stub into an article Dorridge. It is of limited merit, but provides the core of something that can be honed. Given that the content has been in place a mere 24 hours or less, is it appropriate to tag it before the natural wikifying process has had a chance to happen?
My point is that, though it is clear that there are problems with the page, my tortuous grammar, a certain repetitiousness, and so on, to immediately tag something as of poor quality does not encourage the process of bold creation. (I think what rubbed me up the wrong way if I am honest is that our neighbouring town of Knowle has an article with POV, gratuitous plugging of an insurance company, a lack of capitalisation, and my first effort is lumped in with that). I've been around the net for enough years to have a thick skin, but I know if something has rankled with me, then it will annoy others too. Some of this could be cured with a different template which acknowledged the prior contributions.
I'd like to suggest a less publicly critical process - tag the article for cleanup in the talk page, and if there is no activity after a period of time, then tag for clean up. That way, articles that are live and evolving do not need to get in the proper cleanup queue and this can be reserved for articles that do need active management. I think this might link in with the clean up category.
So to summarise:
* be aware that the Cleanup tag placed immediately after a large contribution will appear to be a critisism of the edit,
* automatically tagging new content before a period of time has determined whether a natural process of correction will occur will clog the Cleanup queue,
* We should have a positive template which goes on the discussion page,
* Cleanup queue should be reserved for pages where the contributors do not appear to be active. Trust the natural process.
Spenny 08:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Care with Cleanup tagging

message: I've identified this project as a candidate for material to be analyzed by Wikipedia Integration methodology. Please feel welcome to offer suggestions and feedback. WP:ʃ Cwolfsheep 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to Wikipedia Integration 

message: Please see User:Brad101/redundancy for things that have been on my mind lately. Use the talk page there for comments about changes etc. Thanks --Brad101 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project redundancy 

message: Just a suggestion, I'm about to trial it on the October 2005 articles and will await the results. If an article requiring cleanup requires expert attention, and you're not an expert, try not to simply leave it. Instead, if the article belongs to a wikiproject (for instance, Westerdale belongs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire), place the article on that wikiproject's to do list example.
If the article requires cleanup, doesn't belong to a wikiproject and you can't perform it yourself, consider whether a wikigroup is likely to exist that may have expertise in the area, and if successful follow the same process.
This procedure has several benefits, including:
* The editors involved in these wikiprojects will be relative experts.
* We will be getting more people involved in the cleanup process, and potentially increasing the number of people involved here.
* We can process more articles more quickly, on the assumption that many of the articles will be finished in the near future. 
* Editors will then be able to focus on articles they feel they personally can contribute significantly to.
If this is merely a repetition of advice which already exists then firstly I apologise, and secondly I'd be interested to see the existing guideline. BeL1EveR 21:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enlist help