Category talk:Pages needing attention

message: Is it fair to say that there should be no talk: pages listed here? Certainly pages like Talk:Anti-Catholicism have some case to argue, but as this isn't a chat medium I don't see why any of the talk pages deserve this kind of distinction. Freshgavin 09:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be confusing, but people are allowed to put the attention tag on the talk page for an article, but they mean it to refer to the article itself, not the talk page.  The person who placed that tag felt that the article needed attention, but probably didn't want to clutter the main article page with it. -- Reinyday, 19:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, in the pages I checked that certainly seemed to happen at least half the time, but quite a few of these attention tags are placed on Talk pages that are active and thus cluttered. There are requests along with the attention notice for someome to clean-up the Talk page itself. Then there's a bunch of talk pages with attention notices for no reason at all, they just 'want attention'. But of course, I'm sure there's many non-talk pages with that same problem. Freshgavin 03:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Listed talk pages

message: I went through the list and edited any user pages listed for attention. Let's face it, who knows anything about the user other than the user themself! I left a note in each user's talk page saying "The pages needing attention tag is best reserved for articles that others may know about. In other words, the tag is best used on articles. As for your user page, take a look around wikipedia and see what's what when it comes to user pages. Take inspiration from other pages and change yours as necessary. I hope you enjoy Wikipedia!" with my signature. Hopefully that's a few things off the to-do list! KC. 18:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Pages 

message: I'm not sure it makes sense to have the  tag on this article, since there's no way to sort the contents by date.  I would be happy to start working on articles that have been needing attention the longest, but there doesn't appear to be any easy way to do so.  Under the circumstances, wouldn't it make sense to remove ?
Tim Pierce 05:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the idea is that there are way too many articles in this category, so people are encouraged to fix a bunch (regardless of the age of the articles that are fixed, really). But see my next post... -- Beland 04:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why {{[[Template:backlog|backlog]]}}? 

message: Wikipedia:Pages needing attention is being re-organized.  (See Wikipedia:Cleanup process/Cleanup sorting proposal.)  The cleanup queue which is headquartered at Wikipedia:Cleanup will be merged with the PNA queue.  A bot will sort all articles tagged for cleanup by topic, and link to them from WP:PNA subpages.
This change means that there is no longer a distinction between needing "attention" and "cleanup".  Though it seems that many people didn't see any distinction in the first place, or disagreed over what it was.
The plan is to redirect  to .  Pearle, a bot, automatically re-tags articles in :Category:Wikipedia cleanup with , so articles formerly tagged "attention" will end up being automatically sorted by date (into :Category:Cleanup by month) and by topic (on WP:PNA).
Please speak up now if you have any concerns. -- Beland 04:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a great idea. Moe ε 01:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably a good idea, since most people don't distinguish between them, although I liked having the option of using the attention template in the rare cases when an article needed something besides, or before, cleanup.
* Redirect and leftover cleanup complete; conversion to cleanup-date is proceeding by bot. -- Beland 03:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger