Wikipedia talk:Cleanup/Archive 4

message: Why don't we make a cleanup category.  Pages needing cleanup would be put in the cleanup category.  They would automatically show up on the cleanup page, and once they were cleaned up, they would be removed from the cleanup category, automatically removing them from the cleanup page.  Pages would no longer be sorted by the date they were added to cleanup, but how important is that really?  --Caliper 04:51, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty important if one reads Cleanup regularly. Without sorting by date, one needs to consult the history or muddle through a (mostly) aplhabetized list to try to figure out what's been added since one last checked Cleanup. Plus, Category listings don't add context for what needs to be done; listings on Cleanup do (well, usually). -Sean Curtin 05:00, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, but we could simply write what needs to be done on the talk page so people would could look there. That's no more difficult. --Caliper 05:15, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It does divide things betwen two pages, though: the category and the talk page. If you've got a Category on your watchlist, you aren't informed if anything is added to or removed from the category. If the information about the pages needing cleanup is on the talk page, nobody's going to check the Category page first, which removes the whole point of creating a cateory. -Sean Curtin 07:10, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think enough pages are added to Cleanup that you can assume if you havn't checked Wikipedia for an entire hour (God forbid) there will be something new.  As for splitting it up into two pages, I don't think that's a problem; it would simply make the cleanup page neater.  But if nobody weighs in on my side soon, I'll drop the issue.  --Caliper 18:05, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Someone explained to me at the bottom of my talk page that it has been decided that the  tag is no longer going to be used.  I'm not sure who decided this, where it was decided, or why the decision was made, but... yea. --Caliper 06:35, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: It's at Template:Cleanup. If you see a message like , it will be editable at either MediaWiki:whatever or Template:whatever (usually MediaWiki: for the interface and Template: for user-created messages). Angela. 01:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup Category

message: When I attempted a save just now, I received a message that "the spam filter" will not let me save. When someone has sorted this out, will you please move the following to the page itself? Thanks. -- Jmabel 18:29, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
*Grow (game) - Was on Vfd, no consensus was reached on deletion, but consensus was reached that if it is to be kept it needs work. See its talk page for details. -- Jmabel 18:29, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
:I've copied this to the page and replied to the spam filter problem at Wikipedia talk:Village pump. Angela. 05:23, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam Filter?

message: but it's still a stub.
--BKHal2007 03:15, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Cleaned Up the Too Short Article 

message: How about moving articles over a month old to a subpage? This page is huge and frequently accessed - a bad combo. ··gracefool |☺ 08:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved your comment to the bottom of the page, because otherwise it'd get buried amidst a pile of old comments (hope you don't mind!). I think it'd be wise to keep it as it is for the moment, unless we start to get strange things happening, as with VFD (and to a lesser extent, FAC). The process seems to work pretty well, with most things placed here getting cleaned up eventually. My main problem with archiving things after a month is that it'd overwhelm the Leftovers page (which, at the moment, is able to be kept relatively under control) - and thus lead to less articles being cleaned up. Ambi 09:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a page which is hard to edit in most browsers (and slow to edit in all browsers) also leads to less articles being cleaned up. ··gracefool |☺ 23:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reducing the size of the page

message: The Cleanup category addition was a good idea, IMO, but has caused a division of articles that need cleanup into those listed in this page /vs/ those listed on the Cleanup category page.  As an ordinary editor interested in cleaning up, it's not clear to me whether I should be reading this page, or the Cleanup category page; and as an ordinary editor who wants to add the Cleanup tag to an article, it's not clear whether just adding the tag (and some notes on that article's Discussion page) is sufficient, or whether I also have to come here and add it to the list.  Tempshill 23:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the Cleanup category

message: Just so everyone knows, I have archived this page again, up to April 12th.  It can all be found on Wikipedia talk:Cleanup/archive3.   — Braaropolis | Talk 03:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived