Wikipedia talk:Cleanup/Leftovers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If something is only a stub and it's been on cleanup for over 2 months can i just remove it? obviously we're not able to help it out like whoever added it saw fit. If i think they are important i've been adding them to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion but some just don't seem that important. rhyax 07:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that's the thing to do. If they're not important enough to go there, then perhaps they should be being considered for VFD. Ambi 10:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. You can also mark things substubs after cleanup and remove them from this page (if the topic is notable and not VFD material, that is). --Joy [shallot] 12:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One thing I forgot, however - I notice a few substubs have been removed from this page recently. While I think it makes sense to remove stubs after two months, substubs clearly still need work, and with those, I think they should stay. Ambi 06:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why. substubs aren't unclean (so that they would need cleanup), they're just very very short. --Joy [shallot]

Which, by definition, means they need serious help. Stubs, on the other hand, can sometimes stand on their own (I've had a couple which provide perfectly good information, but due to a scarcity of it, are unlikely to ever be more than stubs). Ambi 12:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Our definitions are shifted, so to speak. If something needs much expansion, it doesn't need cleanup, it belongs to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. If something doesn't need much expansion (and it's not too long by default), it doesn't really need a stub notice either. --Joy [shallot] 14:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanuplo template

Do people think we should change the cleanuplo template to match the cleanup one? Another option would be to stop using the cleanuplo template altogether and just use cleanup. It is time consuming to change them when they pass the 2 month mark, and I don't know if that really guilts anyone into cleaning it that has waited that long anyway. rhyax 05:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I am going to go ahead and change it, as that template isn't on too many pages anyway. In the intervening minutes I have decided that I personally like the separate leftover tag, because the links in it need to be specific to the leftover page etc. rhyax 06:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Leftovers system

Cleanup:Leftovers has a problem with an excess of articles. Here are some ideas for alternate systems, please add any you can think of, or discuss the situation. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 19:30, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

• Remove articles from Cleanup after a certain amount of time cleaned or not
• Remove articles from Cleanup and tag them on their talk page with a template stating when the article was removed from Cleanup
• Keep Leftovers as an archive of substandard articles
• Move articles to VfD after a predefined amount of time

I don't think it's got much of a problem. There's always going to be some amount of article that will fall through the cracks, and if they remain listed here they'll eventually get dealt with -- either via VfD or via some other method. The system seems to be working well enough so far. --Joy [shallot] 20:27, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

hmm, my perception may be due to sampling error based on what i usually look at. i'll wait for other responses if any - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 08:28, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

After watching the cycle for another week I do not believe that my perception is based on any sampling error, I think the current system is flawed. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 06:45, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RFC?

Does this page still need to be listed at RFC? Maurreen 04:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the RFC listing. Maurreen 04:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)