Wikipedia talk:Cleanup

See also Wikipedia talk:Cleanup process.

---

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Improper redirects

Where do I complain about improper redirects, or find a proper template to put on them? Specifically I'm concerned about influence, which is an improper redirect/page move/rewrite if I ever saw one. Looking at the page history I can't even tell what the hell happened... a bit of help, please? Sam Spade 15:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're concerned that Wikipedia's article on influence has been hijacked to hype a book. But the article was always about the book. Perhaps Wikipedia should have an article about the word influence, or at least a disambiguation linking to all the kinds of influence a user might have in mind when he enters that word. But I didn't find any such article. So the word influence might as well redirect to the book until we have something to disambiguate. Art LaPella 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone care to do a piece on the influence of Wikpedia itself?

Jackiespeel 22:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Length of list

Can it be shortened somewhat please again.

Please sign your messages. Thank you! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Janitor bot proposal

Greetings, fellow cleanup team members. Appalled by the explosion of the cleanup backlog, I decided to be bold and seek some help in dealing with the mess. Eagle101 and I have been working on adapting Eagle's bot, Gnome (Bot), to ask as the Cleanup janitor. This is a different set of behaviors than Pearle's current sorting into [[Category:Cleanup by month]]. The purpose is to migrate vague {{cleanup}} tags to more specific ones, in an effort to migrate matters from the huge mass of ~2000 articles tagged in a single month into smaller, more specialized, and more accessible categories. Alba 13:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The proposed behaviors for Gnome bot look very nifty. I know that I'll appreciate some more categorization than just by months/alphebetization. Unfortunately, categorization by topic/subject seems to have to be done manually...scary. As I'm new to editing Wikis and the like, and you seem to be rather more experienced, d'you think it might be possible to make tags that will, say, only appear in articles that also have a clean-up tag? So, within the backlog, there'd be categories for Science/Technology, History, Biography, Sports...etc. It wouldn't be categories so much as themes, really, but I think it'd help.

Basically what would be nice is a table of contents at the main cleanup page with the different categories, along with the different months. I'm scared of buggering it all up though, so. I'll stop blabbering, and do some research, I suppose. But some advice might be nice (some help, too!). Tamarkot 04:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That is doable in code...(though will be buggy to start with...but that is enevitable)...Fleash out the category idea, sounds pretty good. If you want to be really helpful give me an idea of the following...Eagle (talk) (desk)

1)The number of categories

2)the keywords to put an article in a category...(science category would have the following keywords, chemistry, physics, ect.) Just make sure that the words are related only to that category. (don't use science as it is also in political science)

• • • The key words will take the most efforts. It may be that the bot will need to find 2 or 3 potential keywords before commeting an article to a category. Say the bot would need to find science and physics, or chemistry and physics, or science and chemistry, ect.Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. any one who responds, make a new topic or header below, as I would like to keep the proposal as uncluttered as possible.

Bot testing

Have a look at the link below to see the bot's test output yourself. (the bot did not make any edits, it only put to a list what it saw, and what it would do, if it were editing).

User:Gnome (Bot)/Testing/1----This is the list, read the top and mentioned links for better understanding

Proposed behaviors

Here is the current list of proposed behaviors for Gnome(bot) as a janitor bot. Please comment on whether these actions would help the project, and suggest improvements.

• If a page contains {{cleanup}} or {{cleanup-date|XX}}:

• • If the article has fewer than <X> words, change tag to {{stub}}---- PROGRAMMED INTO BOT
    • X will be = 100 through 200 words... this is something that will need to be tweaked.

• • If less than (MINWIKI) of its content is a wikilink PROGRAMMED INTO BOT
    • change the tag to {{wikify}} (probable text dump)
    • MINWIKI's value will need to be tweaked; we'll try 0.1% for starters
  • Else if no sections are found and page is > 2000 words PROGRAMMED INTO BOT
    • add {{Sections}}

• • If page appears to be a list, change tag to {{cleanup-list}}
    • Page will be judged a list if:
      • The title contains "List" PROGRAMMED INTO BOT
      • There is only one section, whose name contains "List" PROGRAMMED INTO BOT
      • The article contains more than MAXBULLET bullet points PROGRAMMED INTO BOT
        • MAXBULLET will need to be tweaked; we'll try 20 for starters

• • If page is in the Category: namespace, change tag to {{cleanup-list}}

• • If page is in the Image: namespace, change tag to {{cleanup-image}}

• • If page contains both {{cleanup}} or {{cleanup-date|XX}} and {{disambig}} PROGRAMMED INTO BOT
    • replace both tags with {{disambig-cleanup}} PROGRAMMED INTO BOT

Just a thought

I din't really understand much about what your robot will do so this may already be covered. Frow looking at the lists; the process appears to be working in that after being nominated many articles receve quite a lot of attention, gradually improve and yet remain on the list. What would happen if, after five or ten or twnty edits, whatever, the robot automatically removed an article from the list? This need not be permanent since an article always could be renominated and go through the process again. Cheers ping 08:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Right now what you are mentioning is feasable to code...Can you fleash the idea out and post it on this page???(As clarified as possible...So I don't do the wrong thing)

Nice Idea...With a bit more thought I can do that.

• Even so, what is on the list above is #1 priority.Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will think about it a bit. ping 08:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A problem

There appear to be a great many articles listed for clean up that have been tidied up, had their tags removed but they have not been taken off the list. This is one reason why the list of articles is so dauntingly long. I have just done a quick survey or articles listed for two or more months. The articles with the cleanup tag removed or those which, in my subjective judgement, had nothing wrong with them had received an average of 14.2 edits (n=20 so it is not a big sample). Those articles which apparantly still needed attention had received an average of 6.5 edits, (n=23). So I am suggesting that the proposed robot should look at articles when they have been listed for two months and remove from the list all those that have received 12 or more edits. This is not a perfect tool but it will make the lists more manageable. There will be some articles that even after 12 edits do not merit removal however they will presumably find their way back onto the the lists. Others that merit removal will fall under the threshhold; but then they are part of the problem we already have.

Eagle tells me that this can be done as part of the bot he is designing. Comments please. ping 08:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice thinking, and update to Gnome bots operational status

Nice thinking, that can be done after Gnome bot does what is in the list. Based on a sample of 101 articles, what I am programming now will remove 48% of the articles from the cleanup back log.

That will make the backlog one-half the size it is now

Have a look at the link below to see the bot's test output yourself. (the bot did not make any edits, it only put to a list what it saw, and what it would do, if it were editing).

User:Gnome (Bot)/Testing/1----This is the list, read the top and mentioned links for better understanding

Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Bot is up for approval now

Gnome Bot is approved for one week trial run!!!

click here to see approval Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#User:Gnome (Bot) requesting trial run and evential bot flag

As the title says. The bot still and always will be open to new functions and changes in existing functions

The bots current criteria is in this link

All above posted by Eagle (talk) (desk) 19:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Bot thoughts

I'm not sure having a bot replace {{cleanup}} with {{wikify}} and {{sections}} and {{stub}} and {{catneeded}} is a good idea. Cleanup often indicates that there are other problems in addition to the ones identified by the more specific tag. This is useful information, which would be destroyed by the change. -- Beland 00:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In view of your comments on Wikipedia:Cleanup process/Cleanup sorting proposal, perhaps {{cleanup}} or {{cleanup-date}} should be kept as a general "basket" category/tag, while specific tags are added? The idea overall was to break up the massive Cleanup backlog into chunks small enough that casual editors would tackle them. Alba 21:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the specific-cleanup tag should be added (not replace) the cleanup-date tag is moving in the right direction, but maybe is not quite there yet. The main problem I see with it is that with multiple cleanup-related tags, an editor would often remove only one of the tags after cleanup, e.g. a wikifier might remove the {wikify} tag but leave the {cleanup-date}, regardless of whether the article warrants more cleanup or not.

The essence of what is wanted is a way to track multiple cleanup needs of an article. The 3 types of needs I think are:

• date listed - so that we can prevent the need persisting forever
• topic area - to allow people to persue cleanup of articles in areas of personal interest
• action needed - to find pages to wikify, to fix English grammar, etc, etc.

So, can we provide solutions for combinations of those needs while also having only one tag (so that editors will remove it when cleanup done)? It seems to me that we could, by having a suite of alternative tags, any one of which would generate all the needed category entries for the 3 types of access. The most comprehensive form of tag would allow spec of all areas, e.g. {cleanup-4|April 2006|operating systems|wikify|grammar}. That would generate a single box, but put in multiple categories, e.g. Category:Cleanup from April 2006, Category:Cleanup_of_operating_systems, Category:cleanup_wikify, Category:cleanup_grammar. We'd want a suite of tags so that a human editor could choose an easy-to-use one, and to change the number of categories, e.g. after wikifying, the above tag would probably be changed to {cleanup-3|April 2006|operating systems|grammar}.

It'd be nice if one could use boolean search expressions so that there wouldn't be a parallel category system between regular topic and cleanup-topic, but we'd best not count on that as it doesn't seem likely to happen. The tag suite doesn't seem like it would need developer assistance. -R. S. Shaw 04:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention will soon feature all articles tagged for "cleanup", sorted by topic. They are already sorted by date, by a bot, using {{cleanup-date}}. I think wikification is the only other "type" which is backlogged badly enough to need to be sorted by date, and Pearle has just started doing that. I see a lot of small, esoteric categories that are created and abandoned, and the best thing to do with these it to just clean up all the articles in them and then delete the category. I could create an "miscellaneous cleanup" catchall for the PNA listings (for medium-sized cleanup categories otherwise in danger of being negelected), though PNA is already going to have a lot of listings. (The changeover is being discussed at Wikipedia:Cleanup process/Cleanup sorting proposal.) -- Beland 05:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and with regard to the bot...adding tags is fine by me. Though I generally consider "cleanup" to include wikification, I can see why some people would want to find articles that need wikification plus, so they can wikify and then leave further cleanup to others. I don't really have multiple tag pile anxiety syndrome, so.... Anyway, it's certainly very useful for bots to find unwikified (etc.) articles that are not tagged. -- Beland 05:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Help the Newbie So He Will Help You

Howdy! I've dony copy-editing and stuff for a while on Wikipedia but am only getting iinto the system now. I'm going to go through the cleanup and merge archives, though for now I'm not going to mess around with anything that has pictures because I odn't get that yet. If comeone can please answer the following questions, I'd greatly appreciate it and it would make me much more helpful:

• When an article is tagged for cleanup or merge, does it automatically go to that list or does it need to be added?
• When it is de-tagged, does it automatically go away or does it need to be removed?
• Do all cleanups (e.g. copy-edit, add picture, NPOV, Wikify) go to the Cleanup page or is that only for general cleanup?

Thanks a lot! Avraham 06:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• When tagging and de-tagging articles, yes, the wiki software automatically adds or removes it from the associated category for us.
• Different tags do put articles into different categories, though there are several flavors of cleanup tag that dump articles into the general cleanup pool. Category:Wikipedia maintenance collects the perplexing array of maintenance categories; Wikipedia:Cleanup resources has a more user-friendly chart that shows the tag types and links to the specific category that each one uses (through the "(category)" link in the lower left corner of each description).
• Thanks for your help!

-- Beland 03:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also note the difference between a category which is automatically maintained when a tag like {{wikify}} is inserted or deleted, and a list (like Wikipedia:Cleanup), which is only manually updated by editors. As stated above: :When a tag like {{cleanup-date|November 2005}} is put into an article, the article automatically becomes a member of the corresponding Category:Cleanup from November 2005. Similarly, when you remove that tag, the article is automatically removed from the category without further editing. However, there sometimes is also a manually-made note about the article on Wikipedia:Cleanup; that note can be removed by a normal edit of Wikipedia:Cleanup. -R. S. Shaw 02:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Cleanup page

At a glance, there appears to be a large number of struck-out entries on the main cleanup page. Is there some protocol for removing these presumably fixed articles? I don't want to go in there and wipe them out if they're being kept for some reason. But on the other hand, it seems that it would make the page more user-friendly, and also highlight the articles that still need fixing. -- Woden325 17:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Striking-out instead of deleting is a fad that started about February. As it says at Wikipedia:Cleanup process#How can I help maintain the page?, "Remove listings reported as fixed". So go ahead and cleanup after the cleanuppers. -R. S. Shaw 19:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorted cleanup

Cleanup sorted by topic has been requested before. We are in the process of implementing it now on WP:PNA. -- Beland 05:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't there be a category system? That page is quite confusing and there are still articles on the lists that haven't been tagged for cleanup in years. What about tagging things {{geography-cleanup}} or ((popculture-cleanup}}, for example, so that people can easily find a category and clean up the areas they're interested in? --The Famous Movie Director 01:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There could be a tag-based category system, but it looks like that would require all editors to change their behavior to use the new tags. The new cleanup sorting mechanism is mostly working now, with no change in general editing behavior. A robot is doing the heavy lifting. For an example, you could have a look at the new Chemistry subpage of Pages needing attention to see what the new format is like. -R. S. Shaw 23:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

The stub sorting pages have a standard edit summary they use to help recruit personnel. I was thinking we could do something similar and hoepfully get some people to clear out the backlog. I'm already using ''Cleanup. [[Category:Cleanup_by_month|Grab a broom!]]''. --Kerowyn 09:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

I'm trying to remove some tagged articles from the archives, and I've found that a lot of stubs also have cleanup tags, even though they're decently written if short. If the stub has no grammatical errors, and is only in need of expansion, can I remove the cleanup tag? Or is there something else I could do? (Perhaps an {{expert}} tag?) Thanks! Tamarkot 01:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to just remove the cleanup tag if the stub itself seems reasonable. You can use {{expansion}} but I think some variety of stub template is more useful. --Cherry blossom tree 18:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

There are a number of pages on the cleanup list that link to articles without a cleanup tag, but whose problems have clearly not been fixed. Does the cleanup tag automatically disappear after a while or does this mean someone has removed it? If so, can I stick it back on or does the page have to be resubmitted? For example, see Attachment disorder - no cleanup tag but original criticism still valid of not being encyclopaedic, (I note there seems to be a bit of an edit war going on)... but in situations like this should the tag be replaced? Berry 19:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The tag is not automatically added when it is listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup; it may be that the articles you have found were never tagged in the first place. They do not disappear automatically, either; sometimes people do remove them inappropriately. Feel free to tag or re-tag as you see fit. A note on the talk page about exactly what needs to be fixed might be helpful. Sometimes the cleanup tag is removed by someone who doesn't notice a certain problem that someone else does. -- Beland 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletionism vs cleanup facing (Judaism) articles

Hi, I have just placed the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thank you. IZAK 09:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Shalom to everyone: There is presently a very serious phenomenon on Wikipedia that effects all articles. Let's call it "The New Deletionism". There are editors on Wikipedia who want to cut back the number of "low quality" articles EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT NOTABLE TOPICS AND SUBJECTS by skipping the normal procedures of placing {{cleanup}} or {{cite}} tags on the articles' pages and instead wish to skip that process altogether and nominate the articles for a vote for deletion (VfD). This can be done by any editor, even one not familiar with the subject. The implication/s for all articles related to Jews, Judaism, and Israel are very serious because many of these articles are of a specilaized nature that may or may not be poorly written yet have important connections to the general subjects of Jews, Judaism, and Israel, as any expert in that subject would know.

Two recent examples will illustrate this problem:

1) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zichron Kedoshim, Congregation where a notable Orthodox synagogue was deleted from Wikipedia. The nominator gave as his reason: "Scarce material available on Google, nor any evidence in those results of notability nor any notable size." Very few people voted and only one person objected correctly that: "I've visited this synagogue, know members, and know that it is a well established institution" which was ignored and the article was deleted. (I was unaware of the vote).

2) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein where the nominator sought to delete the article about Rabbi Berel Wein because: "It looks like a vanity project to me. While he does come up with many Google hits, they are all commercial in nature. The article is poorly written and reads like a commercial to me." In the course of a strong debate the nominator defended his METHOD: "... what better way to do that than put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} template on and waiting for someone to perhaps come across it." But what if no-one noticed it in time and it would have gone the same way as "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim"? Fortunately, people noticed it, no-one agreed with the nominator and the article was kept.

As we all know Googling for/about a subject can determine its fate as an article, but this too is not always a clear-cut solution. Thus for example, in the first case, the nominator saw almost nothing about "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim" on Google (and assumed it was unimportant) whereas in the second case the nominator admitted that Berel Wein "does come up with many Google hits" but dismissed them as "all commercial in nature". So in one case too few Google hits was the rationale for wanting to delete it and in the other it was too many hits (which were dismissed as "too commercial" and interpreted as insignificant), all depending on the nominators' POV of course.

This problem is compounded because when nominators don't know Hebrew or know nothing about Judaism and its rituals then they are at a loss, they don't know variant transliterated spellings, and compounding the problem even more Google may not have any good material or sources on many subjects important to Jewish, Judaic, and Israeli subjects. Often Judaica stores may be cluttering up the search with their tactics to sell products or non-Jewish sites decide to link up to Biblical topics that appear "Jewish" but are actually missionary sites luring people into misinformation about the Torah and the Tanakh, so while Googling may yield lots of hits they may mostly be Christian-oriented and even be hostile to the Judaic perspective.

Therefore, all editors and contributors are requested to be aware of any such attempts to delete articles that have a genuine connection to any aspect of Jews, Judaism and Israel, and to notify other editors.

Please, most importantly, place alerts here in particular so that other editors can be notified.

Thank you for all your help and awareness. IZAK 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Links to various pages

There seem to be problems at the moment (1630 BST and after) in accessing a number of pages - eg Expand, the main Community talk page etc - or I would have posted this comment there. Can someone check that this is not a temporary glitch please. Jackiespeel 16:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Itaqui

Please, I'm not a frequent editor of the en.wiki and I'd like to get some help to clean this article: Itaqui. It's totally out standarts, with text in Portuguesa at the end. Please, any help is welcome. --Dantadd 19:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Trojan in Terracotta Warriors "Official Site" link

The first External Link (bottom of the article) for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terracotta_Army goes to a page in China with a Trojan which triggered a McAfee removal. Those without virus protection are at risk at this link. The link is labelled "Official Site."

• Link removed by Daduzi at 15:52, 19 June. -R. S. Shaw 20:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• But that site is indeed official site of the museum. Yao Ziyuan 23:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comics clean up tag

At WikiProject comics we are thinking of creating a cleanup tag for comics articles so as to categorise them. I appreciate that most cleanup tags are written for reasons to cleanup rather than article content, so I thought I'd check if it was okay or if anyone had a better suggestion? Steve block Talk 08:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My thinking is that it would sort of be like the specific stub tags, which we have been able to use to focus and expand upon. These would allow our WikiProject to likewise work with these articles that many have problems specific to the content, which WikiProject Comics editors may be more apt to handle, for instance, citation of comic book issues. --Chris Griswold 13:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a project to automatically list by subject pages needing cleanup, wikification, etc. It's only partly complete (Comics not yet covered.) See Wikipedia:Pages needing attention and Wikipedia:Cleanup process/Cleanup sorting proposal. -R. S. Shaw 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Music clean up tag

I've proposed a music-specific cleanup-like tag at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD. Tuf-Kat 21:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Small question

What is the difference between wikify and cleanup? Can someone provide examples of when to slap wikify on a article versus cleanup and the other way around? Whispering 19:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Glossary#Wikify and Wikipedia:Glossary#Cleanup. -R. S. Shaw 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see says the blind man so if I see a new article that needs Wikifying and grammar help I should add them both then? Whispering^(talk/c) 00:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cleanup vs. Template:Cleanup

How is this page related to the Cleanup tag template? Do articles tagged with the Cleanup template or the Cleanup:Date template get added here automatically, or are these projects somewhat in parallel? cluth 18:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Tagged articles get added to Category:Wikipedia cleanup, or one of the monthly subcategories of Category:Cleanup by month. Items here are added and removed manually, unfortunately. Personally, I encourage people to use tags instead, and put comments on talk pages. There are many older listings piling up on this page which have either been fixed already or won't be fixed any time soon; those can just be tagged and comments moved to talk pages. -- Beland 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Redundance tag?

After seeing a comment by another not-logged-in user on the Pokémon Center article discussion page, I think we should have a tag exclusively for articles which repeat themselves, since quite a few of the articles I fall into and coincidentially turn out to have the "cleanup" tag aren't messy, just repetitive. What do you people think? 200.44.7.235 22:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

cleaning...

Once I get an article should I remove it from the page or just note and stike it out? · XP · 00:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove it. (Strikeout just leaves it to someone else to remove it.) -R. S. Shaw 03:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

ok. · XP · 06:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Project redundancy

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 14:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Category

I have categorized this page finally. If anyone has any objections to which category this page belongs to, please inform me about this. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Page length

Would a running three months do (and/or reassigning to other Wiki requests for help pages if possible - some of us are time limited)

• I've just removed close to 20 pages from May's listing, which had already been cleaned-up, but were still listed here. Of those pages that still need clean-up, many require specialist knowledge of the subject and so I'd also suggest they be re-assigned to more specific Wiki-request pages where possible. 82.36.124.145 02:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Oldest listings"

Surely this should link to things older than six months - so some of us with "nothing better to do" can see if we can resolve anything.

Well, this goes back to August 2005 now, so... -- Beland 03:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some can be moved to "other categories" or even "VfD" - Cleanup and Expand are probably used in part to park articles that people don't presently have the time to find better homes for (and assume other people don't have the time to search through variously)

Guideline for use of cleanup tag needed

Well meaning editors just add the cleanup tag to pages without explaining its addition. There should be a guideline on this page, Wikipedia:Cleanup process, and any other related pages stating that when you add the cleanup tag (esp. generic {{cleanup}}), you should post your reason for its addition on the talk page. Imagine if an editor with ridiculously high standards came along and started tagging every page that needs cleanup (which if you want to be technical is everything that's not a featured article). – flamurai (t) 03:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Added. -- Beland 03:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles can come to be in need of cleanup at any time. Cloachland 03:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

{{cleanup-now}}

This is a template that is supposed to insert {{cleanup-date}} with the current date. Cool idea. However, the wikicode doesn't work right, as can be seen on any page that uses it. Is there anyone here who knows how to fix this? Do you have opinions on whether this template should exist? --Alynna 01:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Top entry Dec 13

Silly vandalism or valid question? (Anyone wish to set up WikiVandalopedia to banish such people to?) Jackiespeel 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

New layout

I see the point of having semi-sorted lists of entries for action (history, geography etc) but when I click on any one entry it comes up with an article and a list of entries. Is this a temporary glich? (I think it is a useful idea to sort requests - and possibly to come up with "random articles from the given list") Jackiespeel 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dating

There seems to be a hiccup with the top pages - view and edit modes.