Template talk:Cleanup

Wiki is self-regulating. If you feel you've cleaned up a page &mdash; and have consulted the discussion page and any other notes in reaching this conclusion &mdash; go right ahead and remove the notice. Chances are you're right. If not, someone else can re-install the cleanup notice, and if the matter becomes really contentious, a discussion will ensue.

Leaving a cleanup notice around until it is somehow agreed that the article is clean runs counter to the wiki principle of be bold. -dmh 05:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * However, if a cleanup notice is reinstated, common sense dictates that you proceed slower the second time around. As a matter of curtesy, wait for the person who re-added the cleanup notice to remove it.  --Connel MacKenzie 21:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, the "higher standard" version really doesn't work for me. It looks nice and clean and concise, but it doesn't point to the right places or explain what's being pointed to.

The current version is ugly but at least tries to say what to do and what to look for.

Note that it now says to look on the talk page for reasons for cleanup. This seems to fit much better with using a category for tracking. Otherwise, one would have to consult the manual list, which would get out of sync. This isn't such an issue on RFD, where there is frequent and lively discussion and therefore many eyes. The manual RFC list seems more of a backwater.

We should also note that there it will often be pretty clear what needs to be cleaned up, and there only needs to be a note on the Talk page if the cleanup is non-obvious.

All this IMHO -dmh 20:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)