The message that he was here before I removed it was really ugly (green and dotted red?!) and adds nothing to the article... why does saying this article is listed on cleanup help the article? All articles are liable for improvement, whether they are on cleanup or not. Cleanup is a place is a place to go for people looking for articles to improve, not to tag bad articles. [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]] 20:18, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
:<strike>If you find it so useful to blank the cleanup page, can't you also find ''all'' the articles currently having the <cleanup> tag printout and remove the msg? You've been bold, but I'm tempted to revert. </strike>[[User:Sverdrup|— Sverdrup]] 20:44, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
::Sorry I didn't realise blank messages were displayed like that. I've removed the message from all pages in the article namespace that include the message, according to WhatLinksHere. [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]] 21:09, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
::::I'm rash at times. You've been bold, and that's good. You are probably right that WP:cleanup works much better than msg:cleanup. [[User:Sverdrup|— Sverdrup]] 21:10, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't really agree to your reasoning. Yes, most articles are open to improvement, but I think the ugly red/green thing provides extra incentive for people to improve the article so they can get rid of it. — [[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 17:32, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
:Well, I found it useful, and had to spend about 10 minutes looking around trying to find this when I wanted to insert it just now. I personally would like it restored. -- [[User:Seth Ilys|Seth Ilys]] 04:49, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
:Your reasoning shows that you are only thinking about the needs of editors, not of readers. The article namespace should be for readers. Editors have the luxury of the talk namespace. If such a message is restored, it should be used only on the talk page. [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]] 07:57, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
:: I disagree strongly. The "Cleanup" notice has a use for readers as well as editors. It is a prominent flag that it is a problem article, not up to Wikipedia's standards, and that people here are aware of the problem and wish to fix it. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 15:46, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
::: If we did a survey of all 230,000 articles on Wikipedia, I would guess maybe three-quarters of them would be of a standard that need the cleanup or stub flags. That a few of them have been selected for the cleanup page is neither here nor there. Meta-data like msg:cleanup should be on the talk page only. It's ugly, distracting and adds no value to the article page. [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]] 16:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
::::Well, I guess we just have different opinions as to the usefullness. Yes, it is ugly and distracting, and only gets put on particularly ugly and distracting articles. While most articles can use improvement, most are not such an embarasment as to need the cleanup tag. Cheers, -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 16:36, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
:::We don't need prominent flags on every problem article. A lot of the time it is perfectly obvious that an article is problematic. I've seen this box added to articles that just needed wikification. I can ''see'' that an article is not wikified. I do not need a huge green box telling me so. The main purpose is to draw the attention of editors to it, but this is done by the page being listed on [[wiipedia:cleanup|cleanup]], not by tagging the article itself. I really don't see how this adds anything. How does this benefit someone reading the page? Readers don't need to be told an article is below standard. It's perfectly obvious, and that is the case in many more articles than just those which happen to have this tag on them at the time. It also falsely implies that pages without it ''do'' meet some sort of standard, which, unless they happen to be [[wikipeida:featured articles|featured articles]], is not the case. This makes the tag misleading to readers, not helpful. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 17:01, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|
