Forum:Cleanup vs. Gone to Pot

Index → Panopticon → Cleanup vs. Gone to Pot

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

What's the difference between

This article needs a big cleanup.

It's unclear what's wrong with the article, because the editor who placed this tag here didn't enumerate the page's problems.

These problems might be so great that the article's factual accuracy has been compromised. Talk about it here or check the revision history or Manual of Style for more information.

and

This article needs a big cleanup.

It's unclear what's wrong with the article, because the editor who placed this tag here didn't enumerate the page's problems.

These problems might be so great that the article's factual accuracy has been compromised. Talk about it here or check the revision history or Manual of Style for more information.

I was trying to update the top one, template:cleanup, when I realized that both templates actually place the offending page in the same category: category:Articles in need of major additions. So if the practical effect is the same, why have two different messages? Wouldn't it make some sense to turn template:cleanup into a redirect to Template:Gone to Pot? CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 06:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Gone to Pot is an article with gigantic problems, but somewhere in the mess is the possibility of a good article, or at least a stub of an article. Cleanup is basically what it says, it needs a bit of a cleanup to get it up to standard, or it has some spelling, grammar or wikification errors. --Tangerineduel 07:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)