Wikipedia talk:Sheynhertz-Unbayg cleanup

For past discussion, see the Archive.

New WP:SU list

Since the old surname list pages have been cleaned up, I went through some of User:SU's more recent pages and noticed there are still far more surname pages with his unique style than I suspected. I am currently working on compiling a list of such pages by looking through SU's contribution list (starting from the end, looking for redirects per spelling variations). The list currently resides in my userspace (User:Sgeureka/SU) and will be copied here once I've reached the beginning of SU's contribution list. So far, I've scanned roughly 2000 of his (still 18500) contributions, just to give you an idea. Everyone is free to use this list for cleanup work and strike out all cleaned-up pages. Just don't remove entries from that page for now. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't remove pages that have been cleaned up, it will be easier to watch for socks by using Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Sgeureka/SU. SU socks are still active every now and then (but usually he just emails me and tells me I am killing Wikipedia). Kusma (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it will also be easier for me to watch his socks. I already tried to have dozens of his surname pages on my watchlist, but the clutter got too much. By checking Recentchanges pages every couple of days, I figure I still have enough time to spot (and revert) his socks before he can do major longterm damage. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-surname articles

I have sorted through all pages created by SU prior to 2006 (1/3 of his total page creations). Articles that I felt still needed cleanup are posted at Wikipedia:SU/Other. Before deciding what to do about the copy-pastes I think we should deal with the stubs. Many stubs he created were expanded into full articles and others remain stubs but were cleaned up and modified by others. The ones on the list generally have had no content added by anyone else and most have very few interwiki connections that were not added by SU. I think we should first decide what is worth keeping - in my opinion this is only a couple of them. Also, the vast majority of his stubs were created in 2006; this list includes much less than 1/3 of the total. I thought it would be easier to deal with them in small groups rather than all at once. shoeofdeath 21:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going too far

I'm concerned that one editor here in particular seems to be going much too far, in particular:

Dismantling pages which group together names where the last-name spellings could indeed be confused, and/or which most likely do reflect a single original.

-- eg Herskovitz (now dismantled); Weinman(n) split into separate pages for Weinman/Weinmann, with not even a "see also" link communicating between the two; attempt to remove von Mangoldt from Mangold; ... etc, etc - many more.

Removal of all redlinked individuals, even when accompanied by identifying details.
Sweeping PRODs of articles despite potential, and/or content on other wikis, and/or source text from reliable sources (eg Jewish Encyclopaedia).

WP doesn't need a cadre of Red Guards or iconbreakers. We should set out to build, not to destroy. Jheald 11:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you're arriving here when we're in the last steps of cleaning up. Otherwise, you would have easily realized the vast problems that many SU surnames had (Breit, Wein, Schor ...).

1.a This cleanup project was created to dismantle the surname pages in the first place, and it is up to the person cleaning up in how far the splitting-up should go. I think we're trying to break down the pages so that they may be expanded again, which wasn't really possible if all you get/got on a SU surname page were masses of redlinks with foreign language connections that are not clear to the average English-speaking editor. So in effect, whether an SU surname page gets split up into 10 other surname pages, or 12 if the split-up person is really bold, doesn't matter in the end (although I agree See Also sections should be used wherever usable/possible). I've also just started to review all cleaned-up surname pages, and will add seealso sections when I see a confusion connection, so what you see now is not how it will look like at the end.

1.b I also think that a surname variation (and telling from experience from Süßmann there may be dozens) should only be included if there are actually people with that surname variation. Surname variations are IMO for wiktionary or a geneology wiki, but not here. People looking for a person with a certain surname should check for correct spelling in the first place before they click Go.

2. Maybe this is just the known inclusionism/deletionism conflict. The redlinked individuals were copied from name lists such as this, or from other-language wikis without User:SU checking if the people are actually notable (eg. being a rabbi doesn't make you notable) or if a person will ever have his own article in the English wikipedia (eg. no-one would write an article about a German voice actor here). There is also no clear consensus (yet) whether surname pages are more like ordinary article pages (striving to be complete), or disambiguation pages ("There is no need to brainstorm all occurrences of the page title and create redlinks to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics." - MoS:DAB). The last three SU people cleaning up were dab'ers, so there you go. Look at Fischer (where I boldly removed all redlinked people) and tell me what you would have done. I guess out of ten removed redlinks, only one was notable, and that one will be re-included sooner or later anyway. In the meantime, all other people searching for a person with a certain surname will find what they are looking for much faster.

3. No opinion. Talk to the editor in question, and/or or read his/her talk archive. You may find your reasoning there. I know I have.

– sgeureka ^t•c 13:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. This is someone thoroughly unfamiliar with this project making grand suggestions. Thank you for explaining it to him, sgeureka. shoeofdeath 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I can see full well the scale of problems there were to start with, as shown by the old pages for roots like Breit, Wein and Schor. But it is possible to go too far in the other direction. If somebody has heard a name on the radio or the television, and they go to Wikipedia to look the person up, they don't necessarily know how it is spelt. Central pages for names which sound the same are useful. I think that was recognised at the start of this project, and there was some care to leave groupings that might have been useful. That showed some balance. I'm worried now that particularly Shoe's attitude seems to be that if those first passes left anything standing at all, it needs to be redone and removed. That I believe does not show balance. Jheald 17:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what "see also" sections are for. Names which sound the same but are spelled differently should not be on the same page, this was the whole point of the project. Listen, hundreds and hundreds of surname pages were fixed here and not all of them are going to be perfect or satisfy everyone. I have no idea what you mean when you say my "attitude" is not to leave anything "standing" - I am only trying to clean up things as I have been doing throughout the project. If you feel I am "dangerously out of control" that is fine, but to suggest that I am doing "more harm than he did" is simply ludicrous and illustrates your profound ignorance of what went on here. shoeofdeath 17:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/Other

The non-surname article list is pretty much complete, I've sorted through all the created articles as well as some sockpuppet stuff and other things he made major contributions to. The number of crappy bio articles is quite overwhelming. shoeofdeath 06:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link there on the main page should probably be moved up and bolded or something - the surname situation seems to be generally under control, but much more work is needed on those bios. Most articles without content contributions from other editors or actual working links to other language versions should be prodded. The stubs could also be sorted further based on which ones could be translated (usually from German). Perhaps some bot could run through all of them and remove the nonworking interwikis, because the vast majority have at least one (sometimes this is the only problem). Anyway, most of the cleanup needed is very SU-typical, so it shouldn't be too much worse than the surname cleanup.

I'm outta here for a couple of months, and won't be editing again until August, most likely.

Until then, watch out for those sockpuppets and keep up the good work! shoeofdeath 12:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the project page according to your wish. A good solution? Punkmorten 13:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what links here

There could still be clean-up done on links pointing to the pseudo-disambiguation pages. I'm trying to work on this but I have limited time. — Reinyday, 18:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? If you're talking about the John Doe bibliography articles with hatnotes likes For other uses, see Doe, then I am already working on trimming this usage (slowly, and not as dedicated as I was for the surname look).

On a side note: I am currently compiling a list of lowest-quality SU bio stubs that I might take to an AfD in a few weeks. It looks like I'll have around 50 of them then. (shoeofdeath has already tried prod-ing them, but that didn't really work out as wikipedia has just too many WP:AGF editors. :-)) – sgeureka ^t•c 19:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Allenhand

This is another reincarnation of SU, slightly better than usual. I already deleted the worst disambiguation pages, and would appreciate help with cleaning up of the rest of Special:Contributions/Allenhand. Kusma (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project still active?

Has this job been completed? Should it be marked {{historical}}? -- œ ^™ 08:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:SU listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:SU. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]