Wikipedia talk:Cleanup Taskforce

This page was nominated for deletion on 2008-08-23. The result of the discussion was keep and mark as historical.

After thinking about different ways to pick a time to go live and start soliciting issues to work on from the community, I think we should do so after a week without any suggestions for big changes. This should also hopefully be enough time for a good handful of people to join. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? - RedWordSmith 22:09, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

One major change I suggest is that requests should be MUCH EASIER to make. Asking someone who may be a newbie to learn how to do transclusions is unreasonable. Let's instead just ask people to state their needs, and (if they have a preference) the person to deal with them, on a section in a talk page. We take it in turns to turn that section into a transclusion and assign it to the appropriate member. There are four of us now so we could each take a 7-day-on-21-day-off rota. at the end of your rota you just

• (a) check to find the next person on the rota who is still actively editing Wikipedia

and

• (b) leave a message on his talk page saying "you have WexCUp duty now".

We should also make it plain that it's perfectly okay for a person needing WExCUp services to contact a member directly. We can all do transclusions in less time than it takes most people to learn the meaning of the word.

Secondly WExCUp is a poor name for an excellent idea. Two problems: Random capitalization and weird name.

Let's be Wikipedia:Experts instead. No capitalization problems and it conveys our purpose immediately. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. Wikipedia:Experts is fine with me, although it may seem a bit elite. If we do stick with WExCUp (and I also am not a capitalization), I would prefer it not be expanded to "extreme" cleanup, as I don't really like how extreme is being applied to all manner of activities these days. Also, I don't understand what it means to deal with problems in a logarthmic manner. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with a name change, but "Experts" strikes me as very elitist and seems to conjure up various proposals that have been kicked around to make Wikipedia more "expert-reviewed." The logarithmic thing refers to how I originally came up with idea, but it's nothing important for understanding the concept, so I've gone ahead and removed it. I also like the idea of making it clear to people that they can leave a message somewhere and someone else will put it into the network properly. - RedWordSmith 23:41, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Experts too elite-sounding? Well why on earth would anybody otherwise want our services? We should be the best. What are you afraid of? Wikipedia: Team B? No way! --Tony Sidaway|Talk

No, we want to be the fastest. The problem with Wikipedia:Cleanup is that requests stay there for too long without being handled. By assigning a task to a particular person, that is speeded up. r3m0t ^talk 12:13, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

True, naming this association WExCUp is probably not a good idea, as it's unlikely to be remembered. We could ask the community for name suggestions. What about "Expert Mediated Cleanup"? That sounds at least a bit less elitist to me. Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Too much of a mouthful. If you want to avoid elitist connotations, something like Wiki monkeys. The idea is to have a pithy phrase that will spread easily. My objection to WExCup is that I can't even remember how to spell it from one minute to the next--and I'm a member. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• How about "Specialized cleanup"? We could have the shortcut WP:SCU. It still shows what the organization is about and it isn't elitist. We would have to make sure to include both "specialized and specialised" to make sure using a certain spelling offends anyone, though. Mgm|^(talk) 13:30, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• What about "Cleanup taskforce" or even just "Wikipedia taskforce" (WP:TASK / WP:TF / WP:CTF)? Its not elitest, and seems (to me at least) to imply a group with the resources, skills and impetus (sp?) to get the job done. WExCUp is horrible imho!

The intro needs rewriting because I read it three times and still I'm not sure I quite understand what the point of it is. Is it designed to be a sort of portal to cleanup activities so that people who aren't sure quite where there request needs to go can put it here and you'll sort it? Thryduulf 15:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This diff may aid you. I think it's meant to be "efficient" - maybe in terms of the amount of work needed to list/delist an article, or maybe in terms of how long it takes for an article listed to get attention. (I assumed the second, so I suggested "Express".) r3m0t ^talk 16:21, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely in terms of how long it takes for an article listed to get attention. Tony's right in that if we have an expert on a subject, an open issue on it will almost certainly go to go to that person. While I was thinking a lot about structure, this is just as important an aspect of how things should work. I can live with a name like Wikipedia:Taskforce or some varient pretty easily. - RedWordSmith 17:37, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

By means of an introduction: I don't know any of you personally and I may, for all I know, be the only normal user here, but participating in cleanups in an organized fashion (as opposed to my current hit-and-run editing style) is very attractive to me. I think Wikipedia taskforce would be an excellent name, because calling it "Experts" makes it sound like you can only edit articles whose subject matter was the topic of your doctoral dissertation. Taskforce just implies motivation and devotion to improving WP, in my (not particularly weighty) opinion. Junkyardprince | Tark 05:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have a question about if you can't handle a task and moving it to someone else's desk. What happens if you are the only one listing expertise in that area? I'm planning to add myself but I'm a bit wary of listing areas I have strong interest in but wouldn't be able to help with advanced topics. After thinking about it, I am not opposed to having "experts" in the title, but Wikipedia:Taskforce sounds good to me too. Incidentally, RedWordSmith, if you have time I'd appreciate hearing about the origins of the logarithmic idea, just because those kinds of things interest me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem of when to move an issue to someone else's desk, and who to give it to has occurred to me; I'm not sure there are any obvious answers, it might be something we'll need to make up as we go along. That said, we're a volunteer sub-project of an arm of a volunteer project; any contribution is appreciated, and doing as much as possible and then moving the issue along if you don't have enough knowledge or resources to close it is much better than nothing.

Regarding the logarithmic thing, it basically occurred to me that a lot of the "to do" lists on Wikipedia grow linearly – as Wikipedia becomes larger, so do they, and finding the right type of issue requires looking at all of them. By splitting up to do items into a number of lists that should grow along with Wikipedia, this should be avoided. Even if things don't pan out quite this way, there are plenty of other advantages to the idea that make it worth trying. - RedWordSmith 16:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• I prefer Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce just so the title shows what the taskforce is doing exactly. :) Mgm|^(talk) 08:45, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

My general feeling is that everyone's cool with Tony Sidaway's idea for a general "in-queue" for people to use if they don't want to do transclusion themselves, and with a move to Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce (should this be a lowercase 'T'?). Barring any objection, I'll implement both tomorrow. - RedWordSmith 00:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Whether the T is upper or lower case depends on whether you want "Taskforce" to be a proper noun. I have a slight preference for an uppercase T, but nothing particularly strong. Thryduulf 07:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about whether the T was upper or lower case. Just make sure you get a redirect for the other name :) I also agree with implementing a general queue. Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Could we put <!--comments--> or some other type of separator between volunteer listings? It looks kind of jumbled together. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The page is looking great now. When are we going live?

I guess now as good a time as any—we'll figure out problems along the way. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We seem fairly well settled, so I suppose any time really is fine. A related question - where is it best to announce our "Grand Opening" and establish links to this page so people can find it? - RedWordSmith 02:32, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I just joined and got settled in. My desk is up and everything looks great so far. I think the Cleanup Taskforce is ready to announce its Grand Opening. I recommend a link on the Community Portal somewhere. Under the "Get Involved" box on the Community Portal might be a good place to announce the Taskforce's opening. --Randy 23:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So can we start using this? I have something I want to put on someone's desk :) — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess we can. It doesn't make much sense to have everything working and going good and not use it. --Randy 19:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All right, Randy, prepare yourself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, now that we've begun processing articles, are we live yet? Is it time to start advertising ourselves? JP | Tark 01:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think so. I'm quite pleased with the improvements to Phosphorus cycle. As a sort of "test case" I think it went well, and R3m0t's idea of including on the subpage the desk on which you've placed the item is probably a good idea too. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

• I think we'd better make subpages listing people by name and subpages listing volunteers by interests. That makes the list of taskforce members easier searchable for everyone involved. Do you see yourself wrestling through a cateogry with 100+ entries somewhere in the future trying to find someone interested in Early 20th century film without a clue who to look for? Mgm|^(talk) 21:00, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

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)

I made a (very rough) subpage here for the sake of testing layout. Comments? JP | Tark 01:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Let's just make a subpage listing users by interest and get this project live so we attract more users. We can always refine the listings later. Mgm|^(talk) 20:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

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 [[Category:Cleanup users|{{PAGENAME}}]] 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)

Hey there, I just happened across a random mention on the Village Pump and thought I'd slide over to check it out. Looks great! Love the idea. I'm signed up. Think we can put a link to this on the Community Portal somewhere? I think a TON of people are going to be interested, if only they knew about it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:51, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully that was my mention :) I am going to change the notice on the top to say that we are live, OK? I dropped by RedWordSmith to ask him, but it looks like he's been away for a few days (yes, I know, lives outside of Wikipedia and all that). I really don't know where to formally announce it—could others publicize it wherever appropriate? Thanks! And welcome, Katefan0. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I will zealously announce it wherever I can, including during random VfD votes :) I don't know enough about what the policies are for changing information on Wikipedia pages themselves, but it seems to me to be a natural to include it somewhere on pages like Wikipedia:Nooks and corners of Wikipedia that should be frequented and Wikipedia:Cleanup... · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:42, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks Knowledge Seeker; I meant to do that, but "real life" issues that I thought would be minor have been taking up huge chucks of my time, as you guessed. Nonetheless, I'm still keeping an eye on things. Oh, and ditto the welcome for Katefan0. - RedWordSmith 05:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• You're welcome—I just didn't want to overstep my bounds. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have publicized the Wikipedia Cleanup Taskforce on the Community Portal. hopefully that will get the attention of many members that would like to join and help out. --Randy 20:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• How does eveybody anticipate this will work, in terms of "to do" lists? Do you anticipate that this will mostly be a passive, sort of "This article needs help, so I'm listing it here" from random folks and we'll dole them out among ourselves, or something more active on our parts? Would like to hear everyone's thoughts. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• I think the plan is that we'll be more passive—users can either place items on the page, for us to assign to a desk, or they can place it on someone's desk themselves. What do you mean by more active? I'm currently working on a couple of medicine-related article; I supposed I could formally list them on my desk. Thanks for publicizing this! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added a link off Wikipedia:Cleanup, in the box to the right of the page. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

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)

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

• I agree... looks great. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:30, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

That was me. :P r3m0t ^talk July 3, 2005 19:54 (UTC)

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)

Should we have a Wikiproject notice to put on Talk pages for articles we're working on? Something vaguely like this:

This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce - see its Item page for more details. You can help! Why not join the Cleanup Taskforce and help us clean up articles like this? See our Project page for more details.

The basic idea is just to use this as an advert to recruit more members. Your thoughts? SteveW | Talk 21:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The idea is a great way to recruit more activity to the project. However, I think the template shouldn't have the image and should be fairly simple. I'll try to do something and we can vote on which template we'd like to use. --Randy 22:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've created a very simple one. I tend to think simpler is better, in most cases. And it doesn't clutter up the page that we're trying to clean or look annoying. {{cleanup taskforce notice}} is the template.

Let me know what you think. If anyone has better ideas or objects to putting the notice at the top of our pages, let us know. Also, I put in the PAGENAME tag, so that there is no manual editting that has to be done aside from copying and pasting the template into the page we're working on. Also, I wouldn't mind making sure that all open issues have the template and that all closed issues have the template removed. --Randy 22:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we use the PAGENAME tag to create links to the item pages, then the item pages need to have the page name as the title and can't be "ArticleName needs copyediting" or similar as the instructions suggest on the main taskforce page. Either we change that (N.B. some have e.g. "copyedit" in their titles, but most item pages are just "ArticleName") or we need the manual editing of the link.

Oh, and the vacuum cleaner image is just there because it vaguely amuses me. Sad, aren't I? SteveW | Talk 23:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I will update the instructions to just include the subpage under the Cleanup Taskforce as teh PAGENAME. That will make sure that there are no errors in linking to the Taskforce page. Most of the current open issues are already like that, but a few aren't. --Randy 23:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tried to make the tag stand out a little better. I gave it a white background, grey border, center aligned, and italicized the text. What do you think? --Dmcdevit 03:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, it looks better.  :) --Randy 11:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I personally think you ought to use the Dyson image in the template, but that's just my opinion. :) --Kitch 13:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)

• Like it. Now, I'm just hoping we'll need to do something else because of swarms of new people joing the project. :) I can hope, can't I? Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • • I have been pulling subject-specific things from Cleanup and placing them here, then making a note that I'd referred it to the Cleanup Taskforce underneath the reference. Hopefully folks will start noticing. · Katefan0^(scribble) 12:56, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's getting long enough where I wouldn't mind if JP's categorization scheme were implemented. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The categorization scheme I was thinking about before would work something like this:

      Category:Cleanup Taskforce Member - containing all members who include wikifying and copyediting (or similar) on their list of areas of expertise

      Sub-categories, e.g. Category:Cleanup Taskforce Member/Biology, etc.

    • So people could find users on the main category page or just click on the link to the sub cat to find someone with expertise in that area. We do already have the category Category:Wikipedian in the Cleanup Taskforce but that's a bit long for the scheme I'm suggesting with the categories as sub-pages of the main category so it's all in the same place (I'm assuming that categories can have sub-pages, but I don't see why not - just haven't seen any).
      
      This idea was simply born out of the realization that I hadn't created any categories yet (I am a Wikipediholic and there is no hope for me) but also because a single page with lots of subsections as suggested by JP above would (again we say hopefully) get very long with each user being listed numerous times on the same page under different headings. I'm not sure, however, that a system of categories would be less unwieldy for us, but for the average user would it not be simpler to have a list of sub-categories?
      
      Feel free to say "Shut up! That's a stupid idea!" (although a reason why you think it's stupid and an alternative idea might be more useful...) but we do need to have a system of categorizing taskforce members other than by desk size before we get many more members, and we seem to be gaining members at a rate of about one a day at the minute (hurrah!). SteveW | Talk 14:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

I have just cleaned up the 'Second Industrial Revolution' and posted a note about it on the article's talk page, requesting feed back. How long should leave it before moving it to the closed list, and deleting it from the work in progress on my desk? A day or two, a week? There seem to be no rules about this. Does any one have any thoughts, please? Apwoolrich 20:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you have completely cleaned an article and are satisfied with the improvement, then you may move it to the /closed subpage. If you're not satisfied and would like somebody else to look at it, then copy it onto somebody else's desk. If you finish something, you can either choose to delete it completely from your desk (what most of us are doing) or move it to a closed section. Just make sure that there is a record of it by moving the page link to /closed under Cleanup Taskforce. --Randy 20:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This does bring up an interesting point. Perhaps we should have a second taskforce member agree to close a task. I'm not suggesting that I don't have faith in others, but I think it would be great to just get another perspective from someone who hasn't been looking at it, to be sure all is done. It could be something like: one member announces a motion to close on the open task's page. Then, they add an asterisk to the open issue on the main page (or some other way to get the word out), and then another member seeing that, looks at the page and either seconds the motion to close, or fixes more and seconds, or makes relevant comments on the task's page. Is this making sense? Is it a stupid idea? What do you all think? --Dmcdevit 00:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I see what you're saying, and of course more eyes are always better.. but if the main purpose of having an organized group (beyond the obvious, which is cleaning up Wikipedia) is to keep items moving expeditiously, I don't see that it would be very helpful to add some sort of extra step like this... at least nothing codified in our sort of informal "rules." I'd say, if someone wants to look over closed tasks, it's a great thing... but to make it a formal step in the process I think would just be adding red tape. Just my opinion. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:48, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hadn't thought of that... Maybe what we should do is make it common practice to put items on multiple desks at the same time and/or have members put items on other members' desks midway through a task just for variation. Or something. Just a thought. --Dmcdevit 00:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• IMHO, I think it's important to get at least one more person to have a look at the article before declaring the task closed. Dmcdevit's suggestion would be a very sensible way to handle this. -Rune Welsh 23:52, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Dmcdevit's suggestion seems a little too complicated for my tastes. I agree that getting other feedback is important, though. In the case where it's an article that's already had some discussion on the cleanup, or you are unsure about how well you've cleaned it up, talk it over with those who have already been discussing the clean up and see what they think. On the other hand, if the article has no discussion page, or the discussion page has nothing about cleaning up, then if you're fairly confident that your job is done I think it's safe to close the task without consulting another.

It also depends on the task involved. For simple wikification or copyediting, I don't think that it would require a lot of discussion. When it comes to expanding articles, or heavily disputed articles, that's when I think that multiple members might want to look it over. Ben Babcock 00:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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)

...we need a cape or a Superman logo on our vacuum cleaner. Besides the herculean job we've been doing so far, every time I think Cleanup Taskforce, I think in a booming voice full of great import.  :) · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

...

 In particular, on the discussion of educational reform in the United States illustrates the problem with such vast generalizations. URL for page: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_reform).  This page asserts that the United States has the best "tertiary" educational system in the world.  Impressive-sounding, but in reality, this claim belies itself.  Tertiary can refer to a certain period in geologic development.  It can refer to the "fourth" element of something as well as a few other meanings.  If one replaces tertiary with these definitions, the author could be saying that the United States educational system is the best way to make ROCKS (an unintentionally astute remark) or that it is the best system with four parts or that the fourth part of the system is the best in the world. 

Making such a claim in a manner that illustrates the deficits that currently exist such as vocabularly, grammar and writing does little to support the conclusion. Naturally, I'd be glad to clean this up, but I would need more time on WIKI. This is my first time posting here.

(copied from Template talk:Cleanup taskforce notice)

Usage of this template has changed - please enter the following on the Talk page of articles that the Cleanup Taskforce is working on: {{cleanup taskforce notice|Taskforce subpage title}}

i.e. add the title of the relevant sub-page on Cleanup Taskforce (not the title of the page you are working on) e.g. the subpage Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Doctor Alexander Manette refers to the article Alexander Manette so the message on Talk:Alexander Manette is: {{cleanup taskforce notice|Doctor Alexander Manette}}

This means more to type, but links are no longer broken when the subpage has a different title to the article itself, for example in the following cases:

• The subpage title is "Chocoholic needs copyedit" or similar
• The subpage refers to multiple articles
• The article referred to on the subpage has been:
  • moved as part of the cleanup
  • merged as part of the cleanup

SteveW | Talk 00:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this... I have changed the color to make it stand ou a bit more but making it still non-intrusive. Maybe we should consider leaving the notice on infedinitely even though it was closed to get our project more exposure. Randy Johnston 03:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, although leaving the same notice on gives the impression it is still under cleanup. So I've created a different template that changes the "being improved" to "has been improved". Use it like so: {{cleanup taskforce closed|Doctor Alexander Manette}}

Alternatively to keep it down to only one template, we could change the text on the template to something else. ("This page has the attention of the . . ." Ben Babcock 04:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the version you've created. I think it is not the easiest, but the best way to do it. I'll go ahead and start putting the closed notices on the closed items. Randy Johnston 04:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just opened up all of the talk pages in tabs and edited the notices one-by-one assembly line style, as you can tell from my contributions from 22:18, 30 Apr 2005 to 22:25, 30 Apr 2005. I was wondering if somebody could create and run a bot that would place the notice on the talk page when it is listed, then replace it with the closed notice when it is closed. I'm not familiar with bot creation so I am not sure if this is possible or difficult to do, so if somebody with background knowledge can help me out, I'd be glad. Thanks. Randy Johnston 04:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, have you been looking at Wikipedia:Template standardisation? I think a template saying something like "This article was a previous Cleanup Taskforce project, see its subpage for more" would be great, like the previous peer review or previous FAC templates. What do you think? --Dmcdevit 05:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it says right now:

This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article!

Then specific details could be placed on the article's discussion page and/or its taskforce page. You can make the text more specific if you want. As for standardisation . . . I'm indifferent as to what it looks like (as long as it is noticeable) so I have no problem if it is changed sometime to fit in with the rest of the templates. Ben Babcock 05:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking (for standardisation) of a new, separate template to be placed on closed tasks and remain for posterity. Something like what the Template:Facfailed and Template:oldpeerreview do. --Dmcdevit 05:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that sounds good, as long as we can think of enough additional information to include. Ben Babcock 05:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with Template standardisation, should we alter the templates to something like this:

This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

I like the colour and layout, it's similar to what we have now. Ben Babcock 23:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy with it. And there need to be identical ones for closed tasks. --Dmcdevit 23:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Fine, but I would like to see it have the addition of a note that it is liable to frequent modification as versions get saved as follows:

This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is liable to frequently change until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

And a special one for use where the article is mainly based on EB11 as follows:

This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is liable to frequent change until completed. The original article incorporates material from the public domain Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition which is an online version of Encyclopaedia Britannica, so needs a comprehensive updating. Can you help with this? Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

Apwoolrich 06:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Ben Babcock 12:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To complete the set, I suggest we have one to show the job has been done:

This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

Is there are message or messages we have overlooked here? If not can somebody please code these up with the curly brackets to make Template: links so we can use them without cutting and pasting the entire block of text each time. I also suggest that as these are only for the use of Task Force members, these template links go on our individual desk pages for convenience. Maybe the decscriptions should be 1) General notice that the Task Force is on the job 2) EB11 notice and 3) Job done notice (i.e. the bottom 3 from the above.) Finally, does anyone have a view on how long the third one should stay on the finished page? Is it possible to code it so it self-destructs after a month or two:) Apwoolrich 07:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the templates and listed them on the main page. As for how long the closed issue template should stay—I don't know. Ben Babcock 12:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what was wrong with my original version with the vacuum cleaner?! Lol, just kidding. Good work. I think the Britannica template is overkill, though - any Britannica 1911 article should have one of the templates described [[[#1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica articles|below]] already (if not, add the relevant template...)

As for removing the 'closed' template, I don't think Wikipedia has any automatic deletion or self-destruct functions - I would be surprised if it did. The /closed page is going to want archiving occasionally, so part of that job would include removing the closed template message from the articles as they are moved to the archive. (Does this mean that I'm volunteering myself for another long and boring job? Probably.) SteveW | Talk 16:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to all. It looks excellent on the main page. Apwoolrich 17:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A question -- if we're going to have a template that invites expansion of an article with EB11 information we're currently improving, should we then have a separate closed template for EB11 articles that were cleaned? It seems like we should continue to invite expansion even after we've cleaned EB11 information up (while not necessarily expanding the article itself). This may be too granular but it occurred to me while I was looking through the excellent templates y'all have made. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:57, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this, everybody. I think that the EB 1911 template is overkill, and is just taking up space on the main page. We also might want to consider removing the vacuum cleaner from the notice to avoid having it be too annoying. I improved the grammar on one of the templates and hope we can continue to work to finalize them. I volunteer to do any work needed - just let me know. -Randy Johnston 21:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the Britannica template is overkill. As for the vacuum cleaner, my idea was to add that in to go with the image that accompanies these new standardised templates. Perhaps an alternate cleanup image, even more like the icon-type images on the other templates, could be found for our template? Ben Babcock 22:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's no need for a "self-destruct", or whatever you want to call it. The "survived vfd" and "fac failed" and "archived peer review" are designed to stay indefinitely. Each of those three has a subpage with the discussion so that it can always be reached. As ours also has a discussion subpage pertinent to the article, it should remain on the talk page indefinitely as well, so that it can always be accessed by those who are looking at the talk page. --Dmcdevit 22:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A thread has just started on Wikien-l Digest, vol 21, no 2 about the removal of templates. As to EB11 overkill, the usual notice about it being a source for an article goes at the very bottom where it can be overlooked. My reason for putting it in this template is that it brings home to the reader that the information can be out-dated and needs work to modernise it. Once the update has been done then the third template is substituted, of course. Apwoolrich 07:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to merge 2 articles about Aegean civilisation (see my desk for details. In fact, there is a third which ought to be included. The texts are pretty well a direct copy from EB11, and are thus wholly out of date. Indeed there is a note on the discussion page from 2003 saying this.

Having read what is there now and from what I know of recent developments (little real knowledge but I do read the press, I feel this has the makings of a very informative article indeed, especially if it can be well illustrated.

I am happy to do the job but have 3 queries:

First, can we please have a template that cleanuptaseforceisation is in progress. We have them for saying it has been requested and for saying it has been done, but nothing to put up while it is in progress, telling readers the article is in a mess and liable to very frequent change.

Secondly, is there a strongly worded template saying the information is in very urgent need of an update?.

Thirdly, how do I go about contacting editors with the right experitse, other than by posting something on the Pump. Apwoolrich 17:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure about the first two. There is an {{attention}} template, which goes along with posting it on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. The problem is, it seems to me, that articles on that page rarely end up getting the attention they need. As a start, maybe it would just be best to merge the information together and cleanup and wikify the EB11 information as best you can. At least then it'll just be cleaner, if still out of date. It's a start anyway. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:10, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

The "cleanuptaskforceisation" in progress would be the Cleanup taskforce notice template. It goes on the talk page, although perhaps it would be a good idea to place it on the article's main page if there isn't already some sort of maintenance template. Ben Babcock 17:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's: {{Update}},

but that's not really strongly worded or conspicuous... --Dmcdevit 17:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, I think there may also be a tag that has to do with EB11 information. Or maybe a cleanup category for it. I can't find it now as I'm looking, but I could swear I've seen it elsewhere. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the very prompt response, its good to know you are all awake! According to all the history pages of these articles, they once formed part of a longer article, and were split up in 2002, the reason being that it was too long!! We don't seem to have the means of making a word count of articles while editing, but many we have today are longer than the original, here, I am sure.

Re templates, maybe we might have a bank of suitable ones of this page, where we can find them!Apwoolrich 17:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they need to be merged because they have crappy names anyway ("General features..."?). If it's too long, you could create a proper subarticle, as in "Culture of", "History of", etc. --Dmcdevit 17:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't worry too much about the length.. in general I've found that EB11 articles are WAY too wordy anyway. I bet you can precis a lot of fat out of them. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:44, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Articles from the public domain 1911 edition of Britannica are marked with the {{1911}} template which produces:

{{1911}}

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)[reply]

1. What's the status?
2. How fast are issues resolved?

   In this month, from Miksa Fenyo to Trent University: ~21:00, ~31:00, ~84:00, 72:00+, (excluding Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Giuseppe Peano copyedit), ~12:00, 00:45, ~31:00, ~02:00, ~07:00. Mine, r3m0t ^talk 09:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

3. Do problems get put on the right desks?

   None of the previously mentioned ones were moved around. Mine, r3m0t ^talk 09:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

4. Do they get moved around if not?

   None of the previously mentioned ones were moved around. Mine, r3m0t ^talk 09:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

5. Are most of our members participating?

Answer each question seperately, if you can. r3m0t ^talk 08:55, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hey gang. I'd like to propose a taskforce subproject for when we as individuals are idle with no assigned tasks. After spending an hour disambiguating Tsingtao, which had mostly links to US Navy ships from the WWII era, I have discovered that as a whole, these articles need a lot of work. They have many dates and other items that need wikification, use phraseology that is heavily military (and therefore not very accessible to layman readers -- like "The ship was laid down on (date)..." (what does this mean??)), have typos, grammar mistakes and generally confusing writing, and many that go into exhaustive and unnecessary detail that could be trimmed. Also many of them write using the familiar "she" as a pronoun for the ship... and therefore the article is written as if about a person. "She then put in to Norfolk, where she took a long vacation." I glanced through Wikipedia's manual of style and didn't see either way how to treat this, but my instinct is that an encyclopedia entry in general wouldn't use this style. So I say we should be bold and fix it.

What I propose is that we create a project subpage for List of ships of the United States Navy. When people find themselves with their plates clean, they can take one of the ships that hasn't been done yet, transclude a page on the main page and assign it to themselves just like a normal task. Let me know what you think. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

A lot of those Tsingtao's were probably mine (hic!). Sorry about that. "The ship['s keel] was laid down" means construction began. Since it usually gets mentioned once per article, immediately followed by 'the ship was launched and commissioned', that doesn't seem like too much of a problem. Ships are conventionally of the feminine gender, though sometimes enemy ships are reduced to the neuter. For most of these articles, the text was taken from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships; you may find Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/DANFS conversions helpful. I spend more time doing new pages than cleaning up old ones, but there's plenty to do in both categories.

—wwoods 03:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Very useful! Thank you! · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:48, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

What a magnificent resource this is. How about a companion article devoted to the ships of the Royal Navy?. If nobody else does it in the meantime (I am about to go out for the day) I will put a note about the 'Dict of US ships' on our Dictionary page. Apwoolrich 06:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem! its too early in the morning for me. I see that in fact there is a RN ships article, which I did not know about. Nevertheless there are dozens and dozens of names for which no articles yet exist. Apwoolrich 06:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Newton#Lists of ships and naval commands has links to, well, just what it says. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Royal Navy has external links to resources.

—wwoods 22:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those USS articles are some of the most requested missing articles. See User:Gkhan/Mostwanted#United_States_Ship for the long list of them that need to be fulfilled. --Dmcdevit 20:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's because the ship-class footers, e.g. Template:Fletcher class destroyer, have links to all the other ships in the class. As each one gets done, it makes the remaining ones more wanted. The last ones will be very truly sought after. Anyone who wants can help themselves to User:Wwoods/Fletcher class destroyer page template.

—wwoods 22:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, that happens with British Rail Classes and locomotives and US Congresses... But that actually doesn't make them less of a priority, for a few reasons. First, presumably they're on that template for a reason. Also, they clog up the Most Wanted list, so we want to mass-create related articles like that as soon as possible. And since (I'm assuming) there's gotta be a list somewhere with all of these, it's just bad form to have them all redlinked. --Dmcdevit 22:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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)

<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)[reply]

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 {{cleanup}} 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)[reply]

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 {{cleanup}}, but maybe {{Wikify-date|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}} 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 {{cleanup}} 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)[reply]

I really don't like the method you proposed. It's too far away from the old method and I would argue that the old method is not "cumbersome". We need to do it that way to properly log what has been done and what hasn't been done. --Woohookitty 19:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have been adding tasks to desks as part of the metatask and have tried using both the old and the "streamlined" procedure. While the streankuned procedure is a little quicker I also end up making more mistakes. So I'll be using the old procedure. Andreww 08:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must also say that I prefer the old procedure. It isn't particularly clunky, is it? Stewart Adcock 18:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'd like to add a section after 'unassigned' and 'assigned' called something to the effect 'Considering for closure'. Members of the taskforce would be asked to examine articles listed here and list any remaining work; after a week (or whatever time period) articles that didn't have any 'work remaining' listed would be closed from the taskforce.

We have a number of articles that look pretty good but I'm reluctant to say they are done to our exacting standards even though I don't know how to further improve them. This would give us a mechanism to seek consensus to close. RJFJR 20:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that we had a talk page template that said someting like "this page has been improved and is under review by annother taskforce member before being closed" but I can not find the template at present (so I may not be remembering things correctly). What you could do is note that you think the page is almost ready to be closed on the cleanup sub page and add the task to some desks for a week or two for review. At the same time you could add a "considering for closure" list, but I think use of peoples desks should result in quicker results. Andreww 21:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should advertise for people to add a taskforce specialty 'closing evaluator' or something so I'd know who was willing to look at them and offer an opinion.

Maybe we should make a subpage for the list of articles being considered for closing, then people could add it to their watch list if they are interested and get a notice when it changes. RJFJR 02:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why not - but the general aim of the taskforce is to keep tasks moving and asking people to watch a page may not keep things moving so we should not use only this method. Andreww 08:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The process for listing an article for cleanup here is quite complex as it is... is there really a need to add another layer to the process? More valuable, I think, would be a few dedicated members to ensure that tasks assigned to desks are actually being worked on, or are otherwise swiftly reassigned to active members; if a taskforce member declares themself satisfied and ready to close a task, I would think that would generally be sufficient, since we're not aiming for perfection as much as we are fundamental cleanup... right? — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 09:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aiming for perfect but when we close it the template says it's been improved to a higher standard; I'd like it to be a high standard too. Putting a closed template on it sounds like speaking for the group and I don't want to offend anyone by implying it meets their standards when it doesn't. RJFJR 20:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section at Originally from September, 2004 with a list of half a dozen or so entries. Are these assigned or unassigned? Why aren't they with the other articles? Should they be? RJFJR 17:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They were assigned using User:Beland's streamlined procedure (see above). However, they should be checked to see if they are being worked on as they have been there for well over a month. If the streamlined procedure is no longer being used it may be worth removing the sections from the project page and moving the few remaining tasks into the main list (and make sub pages for them). Andreww 22:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I converted them to subpages and listed them under assigned. (converting to subpages was probably unnecessary, we could have left them as links to talk, but this looks a little neater).

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 {{Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Black Sunday}} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know that Contact Consequences has been deleted as per it's AFD here. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a "Cleanup for Dummies" page in my user space right now. I would like this to be concise, maybe five to seven printed pages but the idea is to give the average or intermediate wikipedia editor enough information and tools to be able to cleanup almost any article and, in general, just to make the process easier. Right now its broken up into "issues" (wikification, copyediting, tone) and I would like comments or people to help work on this. I'm No Parking and I approved this 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, I just created two new cleanup templates called {{pagenumbers}} and {{nofootnote}} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1]. We have editors eagerly awaiting your valued feedback :) --Comaze 10:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please see Template_talk:Cleanup_taskforce_notice#TOC. GameKeeper 20:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

“List of Linux distributions” is one example, it has been tagged with {{cleanup}} 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)[reply]

I am now located at Tcrow777. 76.183.213.20 19:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

	Gnomes, unite!
	Hello, Cleanup Taskforce! You are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.
	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
Edit 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)[reply]

I will not have this project deleted, but if this project does not become active again soon I will add {{historical}}.  Tcrow777  talk  23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Absolutely agree with the post above. The Taskforce is necessarily a dispassionate editing group, separated from the vast majority of Wikipedia users who view each artcile they edit as somehow their own. It's a thankless job, but it almost goes without saying, someone has to do it.

We do need support, though. But the question is support from whom? And how to go about getting it? C i d 12:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

	Gnomes, unite!
	Hello, Cleanup Taskforce! You are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between October 21 and October 28, 2007.
	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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm thinking that with the current backlog in Category:Cleanup by month, the idea of assigning articles to editor's "desks" for them to work on sounds like a good one. Because it would help motivate editors to participate if they're assigned specific tasks. Although adding missing content is important I really think more emphasis needs to be placed on cleaning up already existing articles to improve the overall quality of the encyclopedia and this taskforce is important for that goal. It seems the most recent attempt was made here. But I'm thinking what would be better is to focus on just one category such as Category:Cleanup by month until it gets cleared out, by assigning just one or two articles per month to participants' desks so as not to overload or overwhelm the user. Slowly but surely things will get done. -- œ^™ 23:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You revive this group by removing that inaccurate "historical" tag, and getting to work, preferably with frequent (at least once a week) notes here about the progress you've made.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/TheCleanTeam to find some more like-minded editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{EB1911}} or its older version (now a redirect) {{1911}} 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 {{EB1911}} and {{cite EB1911}}, 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)[reply]