Jump to content

Wikipedia:Cleanup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.223.90.109 (talk) at 20:48, 12 December 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

The cleanup page is a place where articles with problems (ungrammatical, poorly formatted, confusing, etc.) can be listed. Any user can fix or list articles here.

Older cleanup: Category:Cleanup by month. Pages are archived by month, but are still in need of cleanup (or de-listing if they have already been cleaned up).

Resources for maintenance
and collaboration
Cleanup
Categories
Create an article
Referencing
Stubs
Deletion
Polishing
Translation into English
Images
Controversy
To-do lists
Disambiguation
More
For a listing of ongoing discussions,
see the dashboard.

If you are here because you have found a page that needs attention, you are encouraged to be bold and edit the page yourself to fix the problem. If for some reason you don't have the expertise to fix the problems yourself, for example because you don't know enough about the relevant subject, you can request the attention of other editors as follows:

  1. Check "Resources for maintenance and collaboration" an insert text box on the right, to make sure there is not a more appropriate page on which to list the article.
  2. Add the most specific applicable tag to the article or its talk page (note that having a cleanup tag will be distracting for readers, so only add them to articles if there is a good reason). See Cleanup resources. For general problems, use {{cleanup-date|December 2005}}.
  3. Add your listing under today's date (UTC). Create a new section if yours is the first listing of the day.
  4. Explain what needs to be done in a brief but specific manner in the article's talk page. (Keep in mind not everyone who sees the cleanup tag on the article will see your central listing.)
  1. Sign your name, date and time by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ )
  2. Also remember that you can submit an article in need of cleanup to the Cleanup Taskforce (which is always looking for members).

For more detailed information about this page, see Wikipedia:Cleanup process.

Just to let everyone know, there are 9,433 articles tagged for cleanup as of 01:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC). This means that we are working on an astounding 1.2% of Wikipedia's articles!

December 12, 2005

December 11, 2005

  • Joshua Nkomo - some formating work is needed, some of the claims probably should be verified and edited to conform to NPOV
  • List of mesons - inconsistent use of <math>.
  • Meson - mess of tables, notes, and <math>.
  • Navigation_acts - Needs cleaned up, wikified.

*Ted Harris - Not sure if this article is serious but it may need to be deleted altogether.

*WIlliam Vernor Howard - The title is all wrong for one. But this seems like it was made by someone who hates him alot but who also might love him alot. Needs work, possibly deleting. (Erebus555 14:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Cleaned up, and moved to Roberts Dambitis. Tearlach 19:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Filevault - messy, non-encylopedic voice, cribbed from Apple page, etc. --Sirimiri 22:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

December 10, 2005

*Joey Greco - it reads like a resume. The edit history shows that the subject wrote the entry about himself. The subject has ~500,000 google hits, so he's somewhat notable.Toffile 18:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) *Angel Tears - Poorly formatted, often does not read like an encyclopedia article. --Spring Rubber 20:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

December 9, 2005

I have made this article less crappy but it still certainly needs work. Hnandrew 17:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


MESSEDROCKER (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 8, 2005

  • Ernie will rule the world! Ernie

December 7, 2005

December 6, 2005

  • Flight instruction Completely unsourced but reasonable depth and writing quality. Very United States-centric. Conforms with the little I know about the subject. Needs help from an experienced Wikipedian who knows amateur pilot licensing, please contribute. Durova 05:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 5, 2005

*Alexander von Humboldt (ship) Looks a fair article, but needs that final translation from German. Lots of spelling and syntax issues. --Tagishsimon (talk)

*Robin Jenkins - There is no clear reason whiy this biography should be in Wikipedia (could be self-promotion?) Jon Rob 15:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • I have posted a deletion requested tag. A (less-than exhaustive) google search found nothing notable about a Robin Jenkins born in 1973. The Robin Jenkins born in 1912 IS worthy of an article, for what that's worth. (In short, I think there is a 99.9% chance that this article is either a joke or a vanity piece [or both]. If it's not, let the person who posted it try again.)

December 4, 2005

I've restructured it, but havn't removed the tag yet as I think it needs a bit more content, and still is a bit salesjobby Lochok 04:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Main problem is that it's a close translation of text here. I've asked if the author if he has permission: otherwise, it's copyvio. Tearlach 17:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think all 12 articles on the Chinese Zodiac animals need the same clean sweep. Example: Always neatly dressed, women born in the year of the monkey are particular about their appearance, especially their hair styles. By the way, overusing cosmetics may make their skin rough, because it is easy for them to get allergic reactions. It's not encyclopedic to report this kind of stuff as established fact. Tearlach 17:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They also all appear to be copyvio's... see here citing Source: The Handbook of Chinese Horoscopes by Theodora Lau Published by Arrow Books Limited Rick Boatright 02:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*QUICC - needs alot more info, I tried to tidy up a bit but the last line just completely confused me. - (Erebus555 11:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)) [reply]

*Zapped! - everything is linked to somewhere else via external links. Just a load of utter rubbish - </s?(Erebus555 11:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)) [reply]

*Sunrooms - More an advert than anything. Very informal. Is almost like a guide. I believe it needs a complete rewrite and it is a big article - (Erebus555 14:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)) [reply]

Done. Tearlach 20:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 3, 2005

Searching Google brought up this site which has a video that directs you to www.truecrime2005.com which tells you that the game is actually True Crime: New York City. I'll add the article to WP:AFD. PS2pcGAMER 05:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The text comes right out of the Louisiana Supreme Court opinion from the direct appeal of the case with some changes in an attempt to make read less like and legal brief and more like an article. I cited to it in the sources. It is a product of the gov't and thus not subject to copyright. You will prob not find it on Google as it is an older case and prob has not been reduced to a pdf yet. Any attorney can point you in the right direction however. Nolamgm 05:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the article and given it a spit-shine and a thorough scrubbing. It looks much more presentable now. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 20:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my God that is so funny! I'm not an expert when it comes to Minmi but I'll try to fix it as good as I can. --Thorri 15:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There. I left the cleanup tag because people still need to work on this article. --Thorri 16:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 2, 2005

Needs rebuilding from scratch: most of it was copyvio. Tearlach 18:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A better, more complete page exists at Zul'jin. Someone with more knowledge of the game should check for any unique info on this page, and merge. I've changed the clean up tag to a merge tag. --Crenner 10:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 1, 2005

I can only imagine (ha.) that this article is a stub, so I marked it as such and removed the lyrics. They were not encyclopaedic. It might be an article for deletion, but I left it alone for now. The Hooded Man 00:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Greatest Show on Turf - says "tagged since November 2005" but I didn't see it listed here. Tightened up the language and corrected spelling errors. User: Uncle Bubba

November 30, 2005

November 29, 2005

  • I've done some fixing; more is needed. Besides the archaic language, the original article assumed a fairly intimate knowledge of English politics (e.g., mentioning "the country party" without any further explanation). But Russell was an important politician, so the article is clearly needed (and should not be shortened much more, I think). John Broughton 21:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 28, 2005

  • Spiritism - various minor problems, odd tone.
  • TEMA (group) - This article.................... I can't even put into words whats wrong. Bad phrasing, inconsistencies in formatting of name to say the least. - RedHotHeat 21:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)- The body of the article has only one link, but many are needed, notably " t.A.T.u ", presumably a Russian-language acronym that cannot go unexplained here. So part of what is needed is research on that term.Jerzy•t - It's explained at the link for t.A.T.u.. Tearlach 03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC) + And one of our colleagues has added that lk.[reply]
  • Benoit Falardeau (26-y.o. Quebec electronic-media artist): check out Grafika awards & decide if winning one suffices for notability or if a speedy A7 case; if notable, finish translation, wikify.Jerzy•t - A google search of "Grafika Awards" shows over 87,000 results. I tried to access the grafika website but it was down while I was looking. It seems to be a fairly well known award. I'm not sure as to how prestigious this is but I don't think this page will qualify for speedy deletion. - murder1 02:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC) - The question is not whether the Awards program as a whole is notable, but whether getting one at 26 is notable. E.g. if 87,000, or even 10,000, or even ....?, of them have been given out, having one is non-notable. And the bio certainly cites nothing else that might be construed as a notability claim. More serious reasearch is needed.[reply]

November 27, 2005

  • It was an ad (press release-ish); I cleaned it up and added some information. The company is quite legitimate (and interesting) - I read an article (don't recall where), recently, about their niche publishing, and a google news search turns up lots of recent activity (new books). (The article is still a stub, but I removed the cleanup marking.) John Broughton 23:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 26, 2005

*American Motors - A bit too long and too much redundancy. -- ApolloBoy 04:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Toy-Box - Article is written extrememly poorly, i fexed up a few things quickly. Very subjective and colloquial 202.161.103.230 18:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Orkut - Needs overall cleanup for both (1) consistent standard English and (2) elimination of various minor instances of POV
  • Uberculture - Needs to be rewritten without using text from the website. The aritcle has potential should it be rewritten and even expanded upon wherever possible. --Spring Rubber 21:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 25, 2005

Hoax. Tearlach 16:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 24, 2005

It is old enough to be out of copyright (it's at the Catholic Encyclopedia) and is also of historical significance: see Fascism#Fascism and the Catholic Church for the context (dispute between the Vatican and Mussolini over the Catholic Action organisation). However, dumping the full text definitely isn't on: ideally someone interested in this territory could summarise it. Tearlach 02:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with sensible stub material. Tearlach 12:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 23, 2005

Urgh! That again. The same user (presumably) keeps reposting this article after its deletion under various previous incarnations. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British diplomatic peace proposes also political struggle between Toho Kai and Kodoha groups in 1942 and Special:Undelete/Hideki Tojo,the Prime Minister,Commander-in-Chief and Party Leader. You can also find the same text at Hideki Tojo#General Tojo,diplomatic actions and politics. Whatever its merits as an article, it was deleted because some at least comes nearly verbatim from a book by Violet Sweet Haven - [2] - who died in 2001, so it's still under US copyright. Tearlach 03:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 22, 2005

Done. Needs categories. As to verification, notability... Tearlach 19:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 21, 2005

November 20, 2005

November 19, 2005

  • Zine_El_Abidine_Ben_Ali: some edits tried to remove pov but ended up adding some as well. --sj
  • Atari Forums: a stub that needs a language and style copyedit. A nice simple little job; the only reason I don't do it myself is I don't know the subject well enough to understand the text (I did do the first sentence). I think it's probably quite comprehensible to someone just a little more savvy. Bishonen|talk 01:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • Lahore Marathon: Serious POV issues. Reads like a breathy press release. Needs to be reformed into neutral encyclopedic style. Most of it is about bureaucratic origination, not the actual marathon itself. It's been held twice -- in 2004 and 2005 -- and not a mention of any important participants nor winners. David Hoag 05:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tagged as copyvio. Foofy 23:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may not be a copyright violation. The text reads like it came from a press release, as does the stuff on the page you linked. Press releases, almost without exception, are not copyrighted, as the originator wants it spread as far and wide as possible. David Hoag 23:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood, but copyrights apply (even without a copyright notice) unless other terms are laid out. Press releases are copyrighted, but they aren't usually copied verbatim, and even if they were, nobody is going to complain about free publicity. Just because nobody wants (or needs) to defend the copyright doesn't mean it's not copyrighted. Wikipedia still requires valid licensing for everything, full copyright is assumed otherwise.
        • However, since this was published by the Pakistan goverment (post office), it may very well be public domain, but I can't find any information about that. Foofy 01:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You stated, Press releases are copyrighted, but they aren't usually copied verbatim. I was a journalist for close to fifteen years. Based on that experience, I can tell you that press releases are reprinted verbatim by the thousands upon thousands upon thousands. That's the whole point of doing press releases -- a well written press release will be picked up word-for-word by thousands of press outlets, including many major newspapers and television news programs. That's probably one of journalism's dirty little secrets -- the sheer volume of "news" which is nothing but a verbatim copy of a news release. On the copyright issue, American courts have held that a press release does, by its very nature, grant a free license to republish the material in its entirety in perpetuity without permission. The copyright is therefore worthless and the material is thus considered in the public domain. I don't know if that is the same standard in Pakistan. And I don't know that the material in question is a press release; however, it reads like one, with all the chatter about people's vision and blue skies. David Hoag 05:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't know that and would be interested in learning more. So we don't get in trouble for having a huge discussion on the Cleanup list, it might be best to move things to my talk page. Anyway, it's still uncertain that the article is a press release, and if it's not shot down by another Wiki policy, it'd still need a lot of rewriting. Foofy 06:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • The site has a policy page: The site visitor agrees not to alter the presentation, reproduce, retransmit, disseminate, sell, distribute, publish, broadcast, circulate or commercially exploit the information in any manner without the express written consent of the Pakistan Post Office. That looks clear enough. Tearlach 20:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • We don't know that's the original source, however. That site could've built their article around the same possibly public-domain source from which the Wiki article was built. After all, post offices aren't usually in the business of running marathons; therefore, it's not unlikely some postal employee creating the webpage merely copied that text from another source. David Hoag 20:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Perhaps a "standard policy statement" on press releases and similar could be included somewhere on Wikipedia - clarification rather than Wikibureaucracy (which could go with Wikigovernment and Vandalopedia, both presently on BJAODN to form a topic - Future possibilities for Wikis?)
                    • There's some discussion of this issue in the Talk:News_release. The problem with press releases is that some are informational while others are propagandistic and many are somewhere in between both. Given that Wiki is meant to be free of bias, and a press release by its nature is biased, an inherent conflict results. David Hoag 23:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User Ombudsman has written a new article completely from scratch on the Lahore Marathon; therefore, this discussion is now moot. David Hoag 23:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink Panther: This article needs some elaboration, grammar fixes, general Wikification. 09:59 EST 19 November 2005 (Onyx Corel)

November 18, 2005

November 17, 2005

Done Soldan 20:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the cited title of the Wikipedia article, here - it's "Campaigns", not "Camps" (the link now works). As far as the Wikipedia article goes, it's okay (assuming there isn't a list/snoposis elsewhere), except that there are no links to the individual campaigns/battles (which is really the point of a summary and list of this type). (The copied article is from the .mil domain, which is a U.S. government TLD, so I believe it's not copyrightable/ed.) If the article stays, it would be nice if someone provided those links. John Broughton 21:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the purpose of this article? It has no context, no introduction, nothing. It's disconnected paragraphs about ten important actions in the American Revolutionary War and an orphan para at the end about George Washington. Yet each of those actions has their own Wiki page. And there's also a general American Revolutionary War article. So what's the point? It would make more sense to: a) have a list of important actions with links to the detailed pages and/or b) to comb any non-duplicated information from this article and put it into the general American Revolutionary War article. But since it's all apparently glommed from another webpage, why not delete it entirely and put links in the appropriate battles and war pages? David Hoag 21:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no horse in this race - feel free to fix or delete the article. John Broughton 21:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 16, 2005

Spoof material - even if there may be a grain of truth! - deleted. Tearlach 12:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 15, 2005

Article has been edited by several people and, by consensus, the cleanup tag was removed. David Hoag 19:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction revised / biography section created. Tearlach 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Undumped I'm No Parking and I approved this message

November 14, 2005

*Nakhichevan - the history section is very impressionistic and unprofessional. The rest needs a good rewrite too.--Amir E. Aharoni 07:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Urgh: needs someone who understands Infobox Country coding to clear up the dubious HTML formatting. Tearlach 03:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extensive copyvio snipped. Tearlach 03:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 13, 2005

I've tried to fix up the formatting and moved it to Irish telephone numbering plan, as that title is consistent with the other numbering plan articles. I also put it in its correct category. Graham/pianoman87 talk 07:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 12, 2005

November 11, 2005

Too many Wikilinks to non-existent articles. That kind of assessment needs caution. The implication is non-notability: but it could just mean that the topic (i.e. Algerian music) is under-covered in Wikipedia. Tearlach 03:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Context found: the Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game. That's all I care to do... Tearlach 04:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tidied up the opening paragraph a little. My impression is that the rest is written to appeal to people who already know all of this, rather than to newcomers. ColinFrayn 14:28, 23/Nov/05(GMT)
I formatted and added context, but it needs much expanding Chris the speller 06:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK: converted to Tolo disambiguation page. Tolo (dance) looks a reasonable stub. Tolo, Greece and Tolo Toys need cleanup.

November 10, 2005

November 9, 2005

November 8, 2005

See also Greenbat by the same author. Content good: style a trifle folksy. Tearlach 20:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 7, 2005

Merged into Paleomagnetism. That spelling appears twice as common on internet searches and has more info. Swegner 19:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned, stubbed. Tearlach 01:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned. *drew 12:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Intro paragraphs expanded: rest needs wikify and cleanup. Tearlach 03:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
about a book: Yeah, it's a manga. Tearlach 01:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 6, 2005

Furthermore, one originally posted by the guy who coined the term! Tearlach 23:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but clicking through leads to many more in this area of history: Bao Zhong, Zu Mao, Pan Feng, etc. Tearlach 19:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep: even though the Tod text is old enough to be out of copyright, Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources applies. Tearlach 21:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 5, 2005

  • I hate to single out any contributors who mean well, but Jeffman52001 (talk · contribs)'s contributions leave something to be desired. This user, whose specialty is actors, makes the same exact errors in each contribution, as they are poorly formatted and misspelled (i.e., he always misspells "role" as "roll"), and they all read like its everything off of imdb (even though they are not copyvios). I tried to contact him through his talkpage, but he wouldn't respond. It would be nice if we could all chip in to clean up his contributions. ErikNY 22:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but what is an 'exact error' and what does 'off of' mean? If we are all going to rectify other people's mistakes, it would be nice if we didn't make our own.Rob cowie 18:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rob, I'm not sure what you mean here. The only error I really see is his use of "i.e." where "e.g." would be more appropriate. "Same, exact error" would mean...well, exactly the same error he had committed previously. This is a really common formulation and I hardly know where to begin to respond to your assertion that it is some manner of error. All I can say is that it is not. More or less the same for "off of," though it is an informal structure. Chris, 7 Decemeber 2005.
See Talk:Paul Anibal Mesquita: it was afd'd and deleted as vanity on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Tearlach 04:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 4, 2005

Fixed. Aecis praatpaal 14:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Had a go at cleaning it up. Ray 18:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 3, 2005

  • Crazy Frog was recently one of Wikipedia's top clickthrough articles from Google. Also, we are #2 for the term. However, the article could use some restructuring, as well as copyediting. It makes too much use of:
    • overly long words,
    • the passive tense,
    • and long sentences.
I am not sure where to mark the article as very important for cleanup, considering the number of hits it gets, but it definitely needs cleanup, as for many Web users, the Crazy Frog article is their first impression of Wikipedia. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 09:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Metal-rich - awkward prose.

November 2, 2005

  • The Jim Rome Show - wiki is too detailed and list-oriented and seems to be more of a fansite than an encyclopedia listing. BEWARE! Regular editors are very defensive and will launch personal attacks (i.e. vandalism of your user page and public humiliation on other websites) if you try to edit it down. --Zpb52 06:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Context: above user tried to AFD the article on grounds of being the originator and disliking how it had developed, then to blank most of it when that failed. Tearlach 18:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That isn't why I nominated it for AFD at all, but thanks for assuming. I nominated it for AFD because I wanted to bring attention to the fact it was too long and unencyclopedic...not because I didn't like it, but because it didn't fit with the vision of Wikipedia. Next time, make sure you know about the subject on which you're talking before you claim to know it all. --Zpb52 01:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I started this article, and now I'm ashamed I did. This has ballooned into something very unencyclopedic and overblown. Whatever the reason, an AFD is not the way to achieve cleanup. Any further attempts to blank the article or its talk page will be treated as vandalism. Tearlach 01:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You took that out of context. I hate that I have to keep explaining my intentions to someone who thinks he knows it all. I wasn't trying to get it deleted because I was ashamed I started it. I was ashamed that I created a monster that became way too long and un-wiki-like. Stop assuming. Stop it. Stop. Stop. Stop. --Zpb52 02:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 1, 2005

The problem with this article is that it's not about the title. The article is a biography (or rather, an OR rant) of William of Orange, but schepen is a position in local politics in Belgium, a position that once existed in the Netherlands as well but was abolished a long time ago. So this article needs more than just wikification and grammar check. I'll replace the current content with a translation of nl:schepen later tonight. Aecis 20:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've translated it, but it could do with review by a native English speaker. Aecis 23:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to alderman, which is what a schepen is. The rest looked ok to me. Also added the equivalent term in the Netherlands. Marshy 17:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
That looks good as a stub to me. Odd bloke 00:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 00:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 31, 2005

A good deal of it comes verbatim from the Futures Academy website. The poster actually works for the place; I've requested confirmation of GFDL release. But it does seem very promotional. Tearlach 23:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Needs watching, more like. Looks like an ongoing attempt to spam Wikipedia's futurology topics: see The World Futures Studies Federation Wiki Raid; this press release; and Wikipedia:Village pump (news)#The Great Wiki Raid of '05. Tearlach 13:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up: small additions needed, like photo. Tearlach 16:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


October 30, 2005

October 29, 2005

October 28, 2005

October 27, 2005

October 26, 2005

October 25, 2005

October 24, 2005

  • Virial theorem I came to this from supernova. No doubt it makes sense to mathematicians - but a one-sentence explanation of what it is used for/context placement etc might be useful to the rest of us. The few other mathematical-symbol-heavy entries I have come across would benefit from a similar improvement. (They may be technicalities, but can usually be given a brief clarification suitable for those not involved. "This is used in describing how one liquid flows through another", "... how the various components of a supernova travel as it explodes." etc.) - What they said, but i'm pretty sure neither sample language is headed the right direction. Good task for someone who's already been wanting to read up on thermodynamics.
The whole thing needs integrating with Virial coefficient and Virial expansion, as there'a lot of overlap. Not my cup of tea. Tearlach 03:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 23, 2005

October 22, 2005

October 21, 2005

  • Hillhead High School - It wasn't me who tagged it; but it was apparently tagged since October 13. I checked the cleanup in this page (October 13th) and it wasn't there. So I am posting the cleanup here. General tidy-up. Personally, I think it is ok. The English is a bit simple though. -- Kilo-Lima 11:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karjalanpaisti (Carelian stew) - Needs to be reviewed by a cooking expert and also expanded. --Thorri 12:33, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

October 20, 2005

Tidied - but ideas on Categories would be useful. Tearlach 10:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely September's cleanup's should be hived off by now (to avoid making this file too fiddly to download).
  • Posterior Hau Lý Nam Đế I cleaned up the grammar somewhat, but the article still needs work. I can't figure out what is up with the title, since it seems to be about someone named Trieu Viet Vuong. --DavidConrad 04:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Context is now organised, but it still needs stylistic tidying. Tearlach 10:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 19, 2005

October 18, 2005

October 17, 2005

October 16, 2005

October 15, 2005

October 14, 2005

October 13, 2005

All but first paragraph appears to be plagiarized; see Talk:Bhuj for details. Fogster 22:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


October 12, 2005

October 10, 2005

October 9, 2005

October 8, 2005

October 7, 2005

October 6, 2005

Update: I've created Win (baseball), and Chick Bowen has developed Win into a disambiguation page. It remains now to disambiguate these baseball articles that currently point to Win. Tearlach 09:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 5, 2005

October 4, 2005

October 3, 2005

More
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Cleanup&oldid=31094777"