Wikipedia talk:Cleanup/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Cleanup. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Dictionary definitions

I remove a lot of listings on this page when they reach or near the bottom. Those which aren't already fixed and which I can't fix myself I try to send to the proper places.

However, I won't do this in the case of dictionary definitions. Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary doesn't seem to be maintained any more, and transwiki takes at least 3 page edits for a listing. I'm not all that bothered about dictionary articles, so this is more effort than I'm prepared to go to.

So, if you want wikipedia to be rid of dictionary definition articles, please drop a note here (or on my talk page) nominating somewhere I can put them where you will deal with them. Otherwise, those which I find at the bottom of cleanup I'll have to simply discard. Onebyone 23:26, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd say list them Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary. That page needs to be better maintained, but that shouldn't be a reason not to use it. Angela . 00:03, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Will do. Onebyone

Damage to Cleanup

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on February 21, 2004.

I have reverted Cleanup about 5 hours worth, maybe a dozen edits. Those who can read the history will understand why. I have to go off-line for about 6 hours, starting now. Only one person should take over from me in restoring the lost edits; and no one with any doubt as to whether they understand the process should try. Sys-op status (even tho i lack it) would be a good criterion.

(Leave a note here if you're going to undertake it. Also check with User:MyRedDice to be sure he hasn't started, or gotten someone else onto it. And probably modify my *two* copies of modified "in use" boiler plate, to mention your name and help ensure only one person working on the repair.)

It *can* be left until i can finish it if necessary, but the sooner the better, IMO. --Jerzy 23:43, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)

I'll take over. Onebyone 00:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Finished, as far as I can see I've restored the lost changes. I'm about to remove the warnings from the page itself. Onebyone 00:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Apologize for peing prirent, but what exactly was the problem here? Deliberate vandalism or some misteke? --Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

Just out of curiosity: is there some reason why Cleanup appears to be categorized under "Dutch cities"? Is this some sort of political statement or something? Mashford 15:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Archiving

What does everyone think of summarily archiving the Cleanup after a week? The old entries are unlikely to get cleaned up, but the size of the page might prevent the cleanup of other articles. The archive might be useful in the future in case someone has nothing better to do and wants to go through them. Dori | Talk 04:48, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Better to cleanup the cleanup page. However, I think most people, are, like myself, a tad nervous about removing wholesale a bunch of entries from the page. Is there any kind of solution that gives a green card, (e.g. to the last 'improver' of an article, or poster of an article on this page) to remove an item.

Perhaps stronger wording at the top of the page is needed. E.G. "If you fix up an article; unless it really needs more cleanup or has just been posted; please remove the list item after fixing it." Perhaps add: "State in comments box what you've removed. Also post on talk page if a tad unsure, but do still remove it."

Of course, even implementing a 'harsh' cleanup of cleanup page like that requires a poring over of the current list items. But seriously, there's plenty can be removed - even keeping archaic list items. I might give it a go myself (people can moan at me if they like, or just plain revert).

Zoney 13:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, perhaps some of the old articles are just ones no-one is likely to want to fix and should be put in archive!

Zoney 13:18, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps archiving is the way to go, I've spent an hour or so going through older stuff, and there's lots there that's just, yuk. Sort of a problem - is anyone ever going to look at archived stuff. Even worse, are these blots on wikipedia ever likely to be fixed up? I mean, some are pretty awful to attempt to fix up.

Zoney 14:55, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think they're likely to get cleaned up as no one wants the job, but I think it'd still be useful to have a list of them (in the archive). I just think that having all the articles in there is keeping some people from improving the newer listings. I will wait about a week, and if no one objects, I'll start archiving. I'll post a notice on the pump as well. Dori | Talk 18:19, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think, rather than archiving, just delete them after two weeks. Even if they're unimproved, eventually they'll find their way back to Cleanup or Pages Needing Attention, or will just be improved by some future user. Meelar 21:28, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather they were archived than just removed and forgotten about. It seems a waste of time to add them if they will just be removed as a result of the page being too long. Angela . 21:47, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, no one seemed to complain about my proposal, so I archived everything from the 23rd and prior. Dori | Talk 07:54, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the archiving. So much of what gets posted to cleanup needs someone with specific knowledge, and those people may not come by every week. Archving just sends these articles to Siberia were they will never be looked at. - SimonP 00:10, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

These people are rare. If they want to look at it, that's what the archive is for (one click away! doesn't sound like Siberia to me). In the meantime, the other users don't have to spend all that time waiting for the page to load (not to mention it's good for the servers). Dori | Talk 00:13, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

I should also mention that Cleanup is for quick fixes, and it's supposed to be fast paced. We also have Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. Dori | Talk 00:17, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

I think a better solution would be to more agressively move articles to Pages needing attention, Votes for deletion, and to remove those that have already been cleaned. I went through the leftovers from Janaury and about 80% of them could be removed from cleanup. - SimonP 18:18, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

I took me much of the day, but I removed about two thirds of the entries in the archive. Do you think we could remerge the archive back into cleanup now? - SimonP 22:00, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

As you say, this took you a while. I don't know if there are any other people willing to do this, so it might fall to you. Will you be willing to do this often enough not to make Cleanup cumbersome? I think your efforts might be better spent doing something else on Wikipedia. You can remerge them if you want, but if the page exceeds 32KB, then it wasn't really reduced enough. Dori | Talk 23:51, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

What would be best would be if people who improve articles remove them. Alternatively it would only take ten minutes a day to clean what has been done, rather than a few hours of work every few months. - SimonP 00:52, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Well it's somewhat over 32KB, but the page is now 40KB shorter than when you bisected it and since most people use section editing it shouldn't be a huge problem. I also moved the leftovers to the archive page. Most of those issues should be fine in Siberia as they are mostly obscure articles with difficult fixes. - SimonP 01:38, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Complaints

After cleaning up the archives there are a couple of things I noticed that could help keep the page shorter and make it more useful.

Comments like "needs work" or "has problems" are much too vague. Be specific.
People place many requests here that belong elsewhere. We have a page for image requests, for NPOV disputes, etc.
People comment without doing anything. A lot of people suggest something be deleted and then never list the article on VfD. Many people also add a comment saying that they have cleaned an article rather than removing the entry from the page.

-SimonP 22:56, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Comments like "needs work" or "has problems" are much too vague. Be specific.
- Listing is supposed to be quick though, and someone might not know what the specific problems are. Perhaps they just want a second opinion on it. In these cases, if someone else looks at it and see nothing wrong, maybe it should just be removed.
People place many requests here that belong elsewhere. We have a page for image requests, for NPOV disputes, etc.
- NPOV issues are not NPOV disputes though. To add a NPOV tag, you are supposed to have discussed it first. Cleanup is for simpler cases where editing is needed, but no one is fighting over it.
People comment without doing anything. A lot of people suggest something be deleted and then never list the article on VfD. Many people also add a comment saying that they have cleaned an article rather than removing the entry from the page.
- That could be because a lot of the things that get listed on VfD are not deleted because people there claim "it should have been listed on cleanup first".

-- Angela . 21:02, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

A new idea

I have added three new headings:

Articles over a week old
Articles over two weeks old
Articles over a month old

My idea is that each day when these titles are moved up that the person doing so could check all the articles passed over to see if they still need to be cleaned. Ideally the same checking would occur at the two month point before an article is moved to Leftovers. This regularly scheduled checking would help keep the page shorter and prevent a duplication of effort because the location of the bar would indicate how recently an article has been checked. - SimonP 22:56, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

The flood of headings

I wrote on User talk:SimonP before looking here,

I like what you're doing with the week-and-larger headings, and i think it's at least more valuable than what i've been doing with merging the Toc-visible headings. Now that i see what you are doing daily, i suspect my compression is probably an impediment to your work rather than complementing and enhancing it. Let me know how you see it; i'll defer to the approach you prefer. --Jerzy (t) 00:28, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

He replied

I think that the merging of headings is still essential and valuable work, if just to keep the TOC short enough to be useful. - SimonP 21:07, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

And

OK, i like that answer, since i think it's worthwhile to keep old entries on the list long enuf that compression is worth putting up with. (I'm the only one i'm aware of who's been doing it, but (of course) i wouldn't feel i "own" the job, if someone felt it should be consolidated with the reviewing Simon is doing.)

I've generally tried to group about 5-6 days all from the same month, but made exceptions of various kinds when there's an especially busy day. And i've 14 days old ungrouped. It appeared to me that Simon was reviewing, daily, one day from each section just before or after moving it to the next section. My main concern was that i would be creating groups of the wrong size, and forcing someone to fiddle with redistributing if they want to move single days into, e.g., "older than a month". Is it convenient to move multiple days at the same time to "older than a month" (even if they may be reviewed a day at time)? --Jerzy (t) 23:47, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

The flood of headings has returned, via one editor's (this is not a reference to User:SimonP) nearly four-hour series of edits, consisting of both heading changes and other, presumably constructive work, inextricably interspersed. IMO this is an example of what "edit boldly" does not mean: the revert that would re-compress the ToC would throw away the other work, yet this was done without any sign of consultation here, where the reason for having the headings as they were has been discussed.

One the other hand, it occurs to me that another response to a ToC with over 40 entries (a suburban-sprawling ToC) is a compact ToC, and i've created one for the top level headings (which will very seldom change, so the compact ToC doesn't need regular updating). For those really wanting to go directly to a specific date more than 2 weeks in the past, the automatic ToC should IMO stay, rather than be suppressed.

I may follow the t-l ToC, on the next line, with a separate compact ToC just for days (without the top-level headings, so that it doesn't need to be updated to reflect the aging of single-day entries), but not right now. --Jerzy (t) 03:04, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

The maintenance effort is small (and therefore the positives don't have to be big); it can be done nicely once a month, with a copy and paste to an editing program (no WP or regular expressions needed) to create a new month's markup with a single global edit, and a copy and paste back to the edit window.
Even (for my configuration) with a half-width window, the whole compact ToC is on screen at once, as soon as the window opens, along with the front matter and the section-edit link needed by those adding an entry. That's instead of about the last half the index being off the bottom of the screen (for my configuration), even with the window maximized. Hitting Page Down or clicking in the scroll bar shows about the bottom half, at the cost of losing the top half; getting the whole ToC on screen is a finicky business.

Also note (if this is seen as an issue) that the extra info in the auto-ToC is now real advantage, since it consists of

the hierarchical relationship between the two levels of headings, which (except for those doing the reviewing as the entries age) actually is merely spatial and conveys no useful meaning the top level, just providing a coarse first step for navigating the page, and
exactly which days have headings, which is not significant since nearly all the dead-links are to future dates whose lack of useful content should be obvious.

--Jerzy (t) 01:02, 2004 Apr 12 (UTC)

I still do not like the Horizontal TOC. It TOC does not work very well if dates are merged or deleted, having dates that do not yet exist is also a confusing problem. The manual TOC is also very large in an article that is hovering around 32KB already. A non-standard TOC is confusing, it is good to have a uniform style throughout the 'pedia. We have a very good automatically generated TOC that the developers spent a lot of time creating, and I see no reason not to use it. - SimonP 16:36, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)