Archive:The Big Cleanup: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Aleksander Stos
m (→‎Questions?: answered)
imported>John Stephenson
m (moved CZ:The Big Cleanup to Archive:The Big Cleanup: Move to Archive: namespace; see http://ec.citizendium.org/wiki/EC:R-2011-011)
 
(27 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''What's going on here?'''  We need ''you,'' yes you, to sign up as a tester for the Big Cleanup.  As a tester, for each article in a set of articles, you'll do two things: first, you'll go through a simple "to do" list; second, you'll slap the <nowiki>{{checklist}}</nowiki> template on the talk page and fill it out.  Neither of these things is terribly difficult.
{{initiatives}}


== How to get started as a tester ==
''Note: This page is now obsolete. The Checklist on the Talk: page has been superseded by the [[CZ:Metadata|metadata]]; [[Template:Checklist]] has been obsoleted; the [[:Category:Checklisted Articles]] is no longer in use; etc, etc.''


Follow the following instructions; if you have any questions, [[#Questions?|ask below]]! Note, you might find it most efficient to follow the precise steps listed below in this precise order each time.
== Concluded! ==


# Sign up above.  To find your articles, go to [[Special:Allpages]] and search on the page for your first article.
The Big Cleanup was finished on May 23, 2007, two months after it was started.
# For each article, complete this to do list (it's quite easy to do), which can be found at [[CZ:The Article Checklist#Basic cleanup done?|The Article Checklist]]:
#*Bold the article title, if necessary.
#*Remove all unused (red) templates, category tags, images, and interwiki links.  It might be a good idea to copy the templates and images to the talk page for people to reinsert later.  Please ''don't'' remove links to nonexistent ''articles'' (unless you feel moved to work on the article: removing such links isn't part of the "assignment").
#*Add workgroup category tag(s).  Please use only the workgroup categories listed under [[CZ:Discipline Workgroups]].  If you think there needs to be another workgroup (which hasn't been created) in addition to one that you've placed an article into, then simply specify: <code>cat_check = y</code> .  Also, use "Category:Needs Workgroup" (capitalization important) ''only if'' there are not any suitable workgroups for an article.
#*Add [[:Category:Topic Informant Workgroup]] if an article is a biography of a living person, profile of a company, group, etc.--essentially, any article that concerns an existing nonpolitical entity with legal interests.
#*Add (or remove) the CZ Live tag as appropriate.  Note: ''remove'' "CZ Live" if no significant changes have been made to an article.  Removing unused templates, etc., ''are not'' significant changes.  For purposes of this exercise, let's define "significant changes" as at least three changes in three different places to the wording of an article.  Deletions count as changes.  Any new article, even if a stub, is automatically "CZ Live".
#*Check the "Content is from Wikipedia?" box if the article is sourced from Wikipedia.  NOTE: if this is the ''only'' edit that you make to an article, you have to make some small edit in the article text box as well (e.g., add a space at the end of a line--it won't show up).  Otherwise your change won't be saved.  Doublecheck at the bottom of the page that there's a link to Wikipedia.
#Then add [[Template:Checklist]] to the article's talk page, and complete the Article Checklist.  Basically, copy the code in the box below, paste it on the article's talk page, and fill out the form.  It's pretty easy.  Essential instructions for doing so are on [[CZ:The Article Checklist]].  Please sign your name with four tildes, not three, so that the date you filled out the checklist is given.
#If you have any suggestions or questions, please state them below. If you think this is all a big big mistake, say that, too!


'''Here is the checklist template you can copy and paste:'''
Here is [[/Signup|the old sign-up list]].
<br>


<pre><nowiki>
== Why a "Big Cleanup"? ==
{{checklist
|                abc =  
|                cat1 =  
|                cat2 =  
|                cat3 =  
|          cat_check =
|              status =
|        underlinked =
|            cleanup =
|                  by =
}}


</nowiki></pre>
In the months since the ''Citizendium'' began, we have created and borrowed many articles.  Widespread problems have crept in--for example, there are "live" articles that are not marked [[:Category:CZ Live]].  In fact, we have a whole "to do" list that we are using to improve articles ''en masse.''  That's what we mean by "The Big Cleanup."


== Some examples ==
But the cleanup job doesn't consist just of going through the to do list and "cleaning up" articles.  For each article, we're also putting a template on the article's talk (discussion) page--[[CZ:The Article Checklist|The Article Checklist]]--and tracking information about the article.


A complete list of articles that make use of the Article Checklist can be found at [[:Category:Checklisted Articles]].
This is not, however, mere busywork.  If we give this treatment to our entire body of articles, consider what we achieve.


== Tester sign-up ==
== A list of benefits ==


Samples article sets, for testingThese are just the first twelve articles in the first five letters of the alphabetWe really need some practical experience doing this before asking people to do this on a large scale. To find your articles, just go to [[Special:Allpages]] and paste in the name of your first article into the search box.
The big benefits:
* We assign articles to [[CZ:Workgroups|Workgroups]]After we've finished, workgroups will have a complete list of articles in their care.  As a result,
** The "recent changes" function for each workgroup actually tracks the recent changes made to ''all'' of the workgroup's articlesFor example, have a look at [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Category%3ABiology_Workgroup recent changes for the Biology workgroup.] Pretty handy.
** Workgroups can see what they have started on--and what they haven't.  It's an inventory.  We just don't have that now, for any group.
** These benefits in turn allow workgroups to start functioning (better).


To sign up to handle the articles in the set (12 articles per set), just sign your name.
* We divide our body of articles into five categories: approved (status = 0), developed (status = 1), developing (2), stub (3), and "external" (4) (i.e., borrowed from Wikipedia but not significantly changed).  Furthermore, since every article is also marked with its categories, the Article Checklist ''automatically'' generates lists of articles such as [[:Category:Biology Developed Articles|Biology Developed Articles]] and [[:Category:Computers Stub Articles|Computers Stub Articles]].
** This gives us a nice overview of what proportion of our articles are at what stage of development.  Nice for bragging.
** It helps workgroups a lot.  For example, it alerts workgroups to what high-priority articles are underdeveloped; it also alerts them to what articles that are "developed" but not yet approved.
** It will allow us to find easily and, if we so decide, delete articles that were copied from Wikipedia (or wherever) without significant changes.


[[1 CE]] - [[acclamatio]]
More benefits:
:Cleaner: [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]
* We place "[[:Category:CZ Live|CZ Live]]" on all articles on which we've done significant work. This is probably several hundred more than the 1100+ that we are now taking credit for. This generates our most visible statistic, and it also allows for alphabetical browsing; so it's important that we use that tag correctly.
:Done? Yes
* We give Wikipedia credit where we've borrowed their content.  This is crucial for purposes of our being compliant with the [[CZ:GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]].
[[Baccalauréat]] - [[Bahá'ísm]]
* We get a list of all the articles that are about living persons (and other legal entities); they are listed at [[:Category:Topic Informant Workgroup]].  This allows us to manage these sensitive articles more effectively.
:Cleaner: [[User:'Dragon' Dave McKee|&#39;Dragon&#39; Dave McKee]]
:Done?
[[Cachalot Scout Reservation]] - [[Canthal scales]]
:Cleaner: [[User:Luke Brandt|luke brandt]]
:Done? Yes
[[Daboia]] - [[Daboia persica persica]]
:Cleaner: [[User:Paul Derry|Paul Derry]]
:Done? In progress...
[[Ear]] - [[Echidna Gabonica]]
:Cleaner: [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten]]
:Done? Yes
[[Factor analysis]] - [[Fence plowing]]
:Cleaner: --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 03:53, 10 March 2007 (CST)
:Done? Yes <s>(more feedback soon)</s> (done)


== Suggestions ==
Still more benefits:
* We get a list of all articles about which someone is uncertain of the proper categories: [[:Category:General Category Check|General Category Check]].  We also get similar lists for each workgroup (e.g., [[:Category:Politics Category Check|Politics Category Check]]).
* The articles look considerably "cleaner": we get rid of unused (red) templates, category tags, images, and interwiki links.
* We get a list of [[:Category:Underlinked Articles|"underlinked" articles]], meaning those articles that have no links from ''any'' of their expected "parent" articles.  For example, if "tree" were not linked from "Biology," "Botany," "Plant," or any other such important "parent" topic, then it would be underlinked.  Having a list of such articles allows us to work toward integrating all our articles into a more systematic whole.
* All article titles are bolded.


:''Questions that it would be useful to have answered.  Is this a good idea?  Is it worth the effort?  Is this something we can expect to implement on a large scale?  Is it too confusing to be implemented on a large scale?  (If the answer is "yes," please be honest.)  Should we add, or delete, any fields to the checklist?  Should we add, or delete, any items to the cleanup "to do" list?''
{{checklist categories}}


Particularly if you have been doing some testing, please give feedback here.  Are there Article Checklist fields that you'd like to see added?  Would you like to see new categories tracked?  New things to put in the checklist?
== An outline of your job as "cleaner" ==
:If basic cleanup includes removing underlinking, will the links have to be reinserted as and when those new (related) articles come up in CZ? But will anyone be tracking them at that time? On the other hand, if the red tags remain, that may stimulate some of the contributors to start articles on those - at least in WP I had created many new pages from the underlinks. [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten]] 22:56, 8 March 2007 (CST)


::Basic cleanup ''does not'' involve removing red links to ''articles,'' but only red links to nonexistent templates, pictures, categories, and interwiki links. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 21:56, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
Interested in helping?  Here (in summary) is what you'd be doing.  First, you'd go to [[CZ:The Big Cleanup/Signup|The Big Cleanup/Signup]] and volunteer for a set of articles (a dozen in a set).  Then, for each article, you'd go through [[Template:cleanup_todo|the to do list]]--click through, now, to see what's involved.  Sometimes you won't have to do anything; sometimes you'll have to do a few things.  In either case it doesn't usually take longer than a minute or two per article.  Next, you click on the article's discussion tab. You paste in [[Template:checklist_blank|the blank checklist]]--again, click through to see what it looks like--and fill it in.  This won't usually take more than a minute or two.


Hmmm. The workflow feels broken... or maybe I just didn't quite fall into one. Might do a bit more somewhere (there were four actual articles and eight redirects to [[Baha'i Faith]] in my dozen!) [[User:'Dragon' Dave McKee|&#39;Dragon&#39; Dave McKee]] 14:00, 9 March 2007 (CST)
More complete instructions are below. Eventually, you'll have questions. You can ask them on [[CZ talk:The Big Cleanup|the talk page]].


:Well, as the veteran of countless hours of busywork, my advice is to pick ''one'' workflow and ''stick to it.''  As you practice exactly that workflow, you get better and more efficient at it quite quickly. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:57, 9 March 2007 (CST)
== Instructions ==


There seems to be some problems with template implementation. Not specifying either "y" or "n" in the "underlinked" attribute leads to a "Not specifiedNo" output. As other attributes have no problem with not specifying any entry that seems strange. Also specifying "status = 2" leads to the article (resp. the talk page) becoming member in "Computers Developing Articles" as well as "Computers Nonstub articles" (and if one specifies the status as 1, one additionally gains the "developed article" category. Shouldn't it be only one category? Otherwise "Nonstub article will become quite full. --[[User:Markus Baumeister|Markus Baumeister]] 15:04, 9 March 2007 (CST)
You might find it most efficient to follow the precise steps listed below in this precise order each time--or, anyway, sticking to the same routine each time.


:I'll investigate and fix the first bug. "Developing Articles" are a subset of "Nonstub Articles," which is 1 + 2--a useful category, because it shows us how many (and which) articles are under active development and beyond stub stage. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 16:02, 9 March 2007 (CST)
# Sign up at [[CZ:The Big Cleanup/Signup|The Big Cleanup/Signup]].  (Sign up instructions are on that page.)
# Click on the title of your first article on the signup list; it will bring up a search that includes all your articles.
{{cleanup_todo}}
# Be sure to click "toolbox" > "What links here" before you navigate away from the article page to the talk page.  Look to see whether the article is "underlinked" according to the definition on [[CZ:The Article Checklist|The Article Checklist]].
# Then copy the Article Checklist (you can copy it from below these instructions, or [[template:checklist_blank|here]]) and paste it at '''the top''' of the article's talk page.  Complete the checklist. Instructions for doing so are on [[CZ:The Article Checklist|The Article Checklist]].  Please "sign your name" on the checklist with four tildes, not three, so that the date you filled out the checklist is given.


Another thing: It would be useful if the {{cite needed}} template would exist. I just removed it several times from [[Computer Science]] because it was red. That seems wasteful. If WP thinks some citations are lacking, we should not remove those hints during cleanup. --[[User:Markus Baumeister|Markus Baumeister]] 15:53, 9 March 2007 (CST)
That's itIf you have any questions, again, [[CZ talk:The Big Cleanup|ask on the talk page]].


:I disagree.  Articles are written for the end-user, not for contributors, and the {{cite needed}} template is a hint strictly for the use of contributors.  ''Users'' should take ''everything'' in the article with great caution, regardless of any template, if it hasn't been approved by an expert.  Besides, Wikipedians do not seem to be particularly good at deciding what does and does not require citations. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:59, 9 March 2007 (CST)
{{checklist_blank}}
:: I agree with Larry. In practice, many "POV-pushing" Wikipedians use {{fact}} or {{cite needed}} (or the worse {{dubious}}) just as a mark for the content they do not like (or a first step to removing something if the requested source is not given). So it needs a general cleanup. While sometimes it is well-intended and, in Wikipedia, perfectly OK, it looks useless here, as I guess we make the well-intended requests on talk pages. --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 04:05, 10 March 2007 (CST)
Hi Guys - I missed out [[canis familiaris]] and [[Canonical Gospels]] for now, and did an extra 2 instead. The ''canis'' article seems to have been developed a lot from the original Wikipedia version, so "External article: from another source, with little change" didn't seem right. And I wasn't sure about [[Canonical Gospels]]. --[[User:Luke Brandt|luke]] 19:25, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
----
''Some feedback''. 
It looks like a good idea. However, it was not as simple to do as I thought before. For example, it is not always clear whether the "WP checkbox" should be checked (see e.g. [[Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards|FCLB]]). Sometimes it was difficult to judge the status (is the article nearly complete or not that much??), especially when it concerned topics outside my domain (so virtually all articles given by the "standard" alphabetical range). I assessed as "almost complete" a viper article; at the same time a much longer article on another viper was labeled "developing" by a more qualified editor (BTW, the serpents are somehow special).


''Is it worth the effort?'' I think so. It gives a good general framework. It can be useful for workgroups and improve some "management" of the project. I see an analogy with bookkeeping in a business - while sometimes it can be excessive or "virtual", basically it reflects the state of the project.
== Useful links ==
''Is this something we can expect to implement on a large scale?'' I guess it's not impossible. I'd prefer to deal with my domain. This would at least double the speed and divide the number of doubts by two. However, if we put "cleanup your home" as the general rule, a problem arises, since not all workgroups are really active at the moment. So, maybe we could start the cleanup by domains where we have some active users and then pass to what remains.


Now, how many articles per author on average? As far as my scripts can tell, we have about 100 users visible on recent changes from March 1; about 40 of them have made more than 10 edits. So, roughly 30-40 articles per author. Looks feasible, not effortless, though. Not sure how many articles here on board; nor how many authors would be interested in "accountancy".
* [[:Category:Checklisted Articles|Checklisted Articles]]: links to category pages you can use to track our progress in the Big Cleanup.
* [[CZ:Unchecklisted Articles|Unchecklisted Articles]]: articles still in need of a checklist.
* [[CZ:The Article Checklist|The Article Checklist]]: explanation of, and instructions on how to use, the Article Checklist
* [[Template:Checklist categories]]: some categories generated by the checklist (included above)
* [[Template:Checklist blank]]: the blank checklist (included above)
* [[Template:Cleanup todo]]: the to do list (included above)
* [[Template:Checklist]]: the template itself


''Other remarks/suggestions''.
[[Category:Archived Pages]]
*Almost all our articles - as far as I can tell - are "underlinked". I guess it still will be the case a few months from now. So the checklist entry looks superfluous.
* technical issue observed: The "Show changes" button do not work properly when editing a section (if editing the whole page it works well). BTW, glad to see "WP content" checkbox working properly ;-)
* Serpents articles are somehow special... These are often of status 2 or 1 CZ live _internal_ articles - and at the same time not very different from its Wikipedia version, so, formally, of status 4 _external_. I think this would be more frequently the case when we have more former WP authors on board. It is not clear to me whether the "content-from-WP" checkbox applies in such cases. After all it uses the author's own knowledge and not that much the content of WP. Maybe a declaration of the author would do?
 
Sorry, it was long (just some thoughts). --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 16:21, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 
----
 
Thank you, Alek, for the best and most comprehensive comments yet.  You're right that it isn't easy, it requires many judgment calls, and we need to expand our rule set carefully.  But I also have become convinced that it will help tremendously to have all the various categories that the checklist creates--and to preliminarily assigned all of our articles to workgroups.
 
You can deal with your domain, but first we need to assign articles to workgroups, so that you ''can'' review the articles in your domain.
 
As to the snake articles, they should be 4, I think.  They ''are'' special in that the main author of those articles has declared that he wants to edit/maintain them here on CZ (well, perhaps pending a Forum discussion--I haven't checked in on that).  But that doesn't make them any less 4s: they have not been significantly changed from the WP copies.  I could be mistaken (a check of the page history is in order), but I doubt any of them have three or more edits in three different places, which is the ''minimum'' criterion for something to move out of the 4 category.
 
I believe you are mistaken about the proportion of underlinked articles.  It's true that most articles are underlinked, but at present writing, 46 of 79 articles are underlinked.  I would hope that this proportion will decline over time, and this is important to work on--particularly in particular domains.  For example, I can more easily find a "home" for an orphan philosophy article.
 
--[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:27, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:Right. Assigning workgroups seems absolutely necessary; perhaps some snake checklists should be reconsidered; I have no big problem with "underlinked" entry - just had no chance to put there "no".  As a side note, please do not think that the term "accountancy" was used in a pejorative way. To make it clear, I think it is needed as necessary for efficient management. --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 09:21, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
 
== Questions? ==
 
Please list any questions you have below, and Larry (or someone) will answer them.
 
'''What if I don't know what category to put an article in?'''
 
:Choose a category from our [[CZ:Discipline Workgroups|list of workgroups]] that seems most likely to you, and then make sure that on the checklist you set cat_check to "yes" (so, one line in the checklist template looks like this:
 
::<code><nowiki>cat_check = y</nowiki></code>
 
:If none of the [[CZ:Discipline Workgroups|categories]] look right, then add [[:Category:Needs Workgroup]] to the article.
 
'''An article is not linked from other expected articles not because the links were not made, but because those other articles do not exist yet. Expected links from existing articles instead exist. Does such an article qualify as underlinked?''' --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 14:19, 8 March 2007 (CST)
 
:Yes, it does.  The point of tracking "underlinked" articles is that we want to encourage the development of the important conceptual pathways, as it were, to our relatively specialized articles.  The more of these "in demand" articles we create, the more sense CZ will make to the end user.  "Underlinked" articles are a superset of orphaned articles (articles to which ''no'' other articles link), but reason for caring about the concept is roughly the same.
 
'''Does Topic Informant Workgroup exist?''' I assigned it once and it was red. --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 16:47, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:It does.  Check the link: [[:Category:Topic Informant Workgroup]].
::I see. It works in the article (=mainspace); in the checklist, however, it is red. <s>Maybe I did something wrong, maybe it's a problem with the template  -- see [[F. Albert Cotton]], perhaps the first TI Workgroup's checklisted.</s> BTW, I believe this Workgroup should appear somewhere over [[CZ:Discipline Workgroups|there]]. I put it under "Humanities", but do not know whether it is the right place (easy to revert). --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 09:55, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
:::Ok, I solved my problem: TI Workgroup Home Page does not exist yet (and this is what is linked from the checklist). --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 10:12, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 01:41, 25 February 2012

Citizendium Initiatives
Eduzendium | Featured Article | Recruitment | Subpages | Core Articles | Uncategorized pages |
Requested Articles | Feedback Requests | Wanted Articles

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}


Note: This page is now obsolete. The Checklist on the Talk: page has been superseded by the metadata; Template:Checklist has been obsoleted; the Category:Checklisted Articles is no longer in use; etc, etc.

Concluded!

The Big Cleanup was finished on May 23, 2007, two months after it was started.

Here is the old sign-up list.

Why a "Big Cleanup"?

In the months since the Citizendium began, we have created and borrowed many articles. Widespread problems have crept in--for example, there are "live" articles that are not marked Category:CZ Live. In fact, we have a whole "to do" list that we are using to improve articles en masse. That's what we mean by "The Big Cleanup."

But the cleanup job doesn't consist just of going through the to do list and "cleaning up" articles. For each article, we're also putting a template on the article's talk (discussion) page--The Article Checklist--and tracking information about the article.

This is not, however, mere busywork. If we give this treatment to our entire body of articles, consider what we achieve.

A list of benefits

The big benefits:

  • We assign articles to Workgroups. After we've finished, workgroups will have a complete list of articles in their care. As a result,
    • The "recent changes" function for each workgroup actually tracks the recent changes made to all of the workgroup's articles. For example, have a look at recent changes for the Biology workgroup. Pretty handy.
    • Workgroups can see what they have started on--and what they haven't. It's an inventory. We just don't have that now, for any group.
    • These benefits in turn allow workgroups to start functioning (better).
  • We divide our body of articles into five categories: approved (status = 0), developed (status = 1), developing (2), stub (3), and "external" (4) (i.e., borrowed from Wikipedia but not significantly changed). Furthermore, since every article is also marked with its categories, the Article Checklist automatically generates lists of articles such as Biology Developed Articles and Computers Stub Articles.
    • This gives us a nice overview of what proportion of our articles are at what stage of development. Nice for bragging.
    • It helps workgroups a lot. For example, it alerts workgroups to what high-priority articles are underdeveloped; it also alerts them to what articles that are "developed" but not yet approved.
    • It will allow us to find easily and, if we so decide, delete articles that were copied from Wikipedia (or wherever) without significant changes.

More benefits:

  • We place "CZ Live" on all articles on which we've done significant work. This is probably several hundred more than the 1100+ that we are now taking credit for. This generates our most visible statistic, and it also allows for alphabetical browsing; so it's important that we use that tag correctly.
  • We give Wikipedia credit where we've borrowed their content. This is crucial for purposes of our being compliant with the GNU Free Documentation License.
  • We get a list of all the articles that are about living persons (and other legal entities); they are listed at Category:Topic Informant Workgroup. This allows us to manage these sensitive articles more effectively.

Still more benefits:

  • We get a list of all articles about which someone is uncertain of the proper categories: General Category Check. We also get similar lists for each workgroup (e.g., Politics Category Check).
  • The articles look considerably "cleaner": we get rid of unused (red) templates, category tags, images, and interwiki links.
  • We get a list of "underlinked" articles, meaning those articles that have no links from any of their expected "parent" articles. For example, if "tree" were not linked from "Biology," "Botany," "Plant," or any other such important "parent" topic, then it would be underlinked. Having a list of such articles allows us to work toward integrating all our articles into a more systematic whole.
  • All article titles are bolded.

See also: CZ:Unchecklisted Articles

An outline of your job as "cleaner"

Interested in helping? Here (in summary) is what you'd be doing. First, you'd go to The Big Cleanup/Signup and volunteer for a set of articles (a dozen in a set). Then, for each article, you'd go through the to do list--click through, now, to see what's involved. Sometimes you won't have to do anything; sometimes you'll have to do a few things. In either case it doesn't usually take longer than a minute or two per article. Next, you click on the article's discussion tab. You paste in the blank checklist--again, click through to see what it looks like--and fill it in. This won't usually take more than a minute or two.

More complete instructions are below. Eventually, you'll have questions. You can ask them on the talk page.

Instructions

You might find it most efficient to follow the precise steps listed below in this precise order each time--or, anyway, sticking to the same routine each time.

  1. Sign up at The Big Cleanup/Signup. (Sign up instructions are on that page.)
  2. Click on the title of your first article on the signup list; it will bring up a search that includes all your articles.
  3. For each article, complete this to do list:
    • Bold the article title, if necessary, where it appears in the first sentence or so of the article. Note that certain phrases, and "list of X" titles, do not need to be bolded. See Article mechanics.
    • Remove all unused (red) templates, category tags, images, and interwiki links. It might be a good idea to copy the templates and images to the talk page for people to reinsert later. Please don't remove links to nonexistent articles (unless you feel moved to work on the article: removing such links isn't part of the "assignment").
    • Add appropriate workgroup category tag(s). Please use only the workgroup categories listed under CZ:Workgroups. (Note, this page is linked on the left sidebar as "Workgroups".) If you think there needs to be a new workgroup created in addition to one that you've placed an article into, then when you fill out the checklist, simply specify: cat_check = yes to request that someone check over the categories. Also, add "Category:Needs Workgroup" (capitalization important) if, and only if there are no suitable workgroups for an article.
    • Add Category:Topic Informant Workgroup if necessary, i.e., if an article is a biography of a living person, profile of a company, group, etc.--essentially, any article that concerns an existing nonpolitical entity with legal interests.
    • Add (or remove) the CZ Live tag as appropriate. An externally-sourced (e.g., Wikipedia) article is "CZ Live" if there have been at least three significant changes in three different places to the wording of an article. Hints:
      • To determine whether an article should be marked "Live" you might have to click on the page history, and compare the most recent edit with the very first edit. Use the "diff" between those two versions to determine whether the article has been changed enough.
      • The following are not significant changes: removing unused templates, etc.; spelling and minor rewording; deletions; and shuffling text without changing it.
      • Any new article, even if a stub, is automatically "CZ Live".
      • You might wonder if Category:CZ Live is necessary, since we will be constructing Category:Internal Articles. Perhaps--but we should not remove Category:CZ Live or even stop from maintaining it well, until after we have created Category:Internal Articles as its replacement--which means, not until we have added The Article Checklist to all of our articles.
      • Articles that are "CZ Live" are internal (checklist 'status' = 0-3); articles that are not "CZ Live" are external (checklist 'status' = 4).
    • Check the "Content is from Wikipedia?" box if any part of the article is sourced from Wikipedia. To determine this, you might again have to look at the article history and look at the very first version of the article. If that has a lot of red templates and categories, it came from Wikipedia. NOTE: if, for whatever reason, this is the only edit that you want to make to an article, you have to make some small edit in the article text box as well (e.g., add a space at the end of a line--it won't show up). Otherwise your checkbox change won't be saved. Do look at the bottom of the page that there's a link to Wikipedia.
    • Hint: use page history! You should probably make a trip to the page history for most if not all articles. If you want to determine whether an article is sourced from Wikipedia, then just look at the first version in the edit history. Virtually all Wikipedia articles left in the database have templates and images (that we have not uploaded, and thus are distinctive red links). That should be enough for us to tell whether to check the "Content is from Wikipedia?" box. If you want to determine how much an article has been changed from its Wikipedia original, go to the page history and press the radio buttons next to the oldest and the newest edits, and hit "compare". You'll be able to see the differences there. We have mostly been assuming that the original-uploaded version is identical to a Wikipedia original. Note: if an article is an "external" article and it has not been changed enough to be considered "CZ Live," consider whether according to our deletion rules you should put the {{speedydelete}} template on the page (put this template on the article's talk page, please). Please do mark it for "speedy deletion," if appropriate.
  4. Be sure to click "toolbox" > "What links here" before you navigate away from the article page to the talk page. Look to see whether the article is "underlinked" according to the definition on The Article Checklist.
  5. Then copy the Article Checklist (you can copy it from below these instructions, or here) and paste it at the top of the article's talk page. Complete the checklist. Instructions for doing so are on The Article Checklist. Please "sign your name" on the checklist with four tildes, not three, so that the date you filled out the checklist is given.

That's it! If you have any questions, again, ask on the talk page.

Here's a copy of the blank Article Checklist template and it's instructions that you can copy and paste onto the talk page of articles. Once you have filled out the checklist, delete the instructions!

{{#switch: {{{info}}}

<!--general article properties-->
|       pagename = 
|        variant = 

<!--Required for checklist-->

|            abc =  
|      cat_check = 
|         status = currently no status
|    underlinked = 
|        cleanup = 
|             by = 
|           cat1 = 
|           cat2 = 
|           cat3 = 
|           sub1 = 
|           sub2 = 
|           sub3 = 
|           tab1 = 
|           tab2 = 
|           tab3 = 

<!--required for ToApprove template-->
|    article url = 
|    subpage url = 
|        cluster = 
|            now = 
|     ToA editor = 
|    ToA editor2 = 
|    ToA editor3 = 
|           date = 

<!--required for Approved template-->
|       A editor = 
|      A editor2 = 
|      A editor3 = 

}}<noinclude>{{subpages}}</noinclude>

In brief:

  • pagename: must contain the correct name of the article.
  • variant: records the dialect of English which the article is written in.


  • abc: means the form of the title for alphabetization, e.g. "Doherty, John" or "Orient, The". Please think this one through.
  • cat_check: put "yes" if you want someone to check over the categories.
  • status: 0 for approved articles; 1 developed, 2 developing, 3 stub, 4 external
  • underlinked: put "yes" if not enough other articles link to it (click "What links here" at left)
  • cleanup: put "yes" if basic cleanup has been done.
  • by: obsolete; leave blank.
  • cat1, cat2 and cat3: workgroups; fill in numerical order.
  • sub1, sub2 and sub3: sub-workgroups; fill in numerical order.
  • tab1, tab2 and tab3: per-article subpages; fill in numerical order.


  • article url: a URL link to the version to approve.
  • subpage url: a URL link to the version of a subpage to approve.
  • cluster: blank unless the whole cluster needs to be approved.
  • now: the date and time when the nomination was made.
  • ToA editor, ToA editor2, ToA editor3: name of the editor(s) who nominated the article for approval; fill in numerical order.
  • date: deadline for comments (format yyyymmdd).


  • A editor, A editor2, A editor3: copied from ToA editor etc when Approval is completed.

Useful links