Category talk:Wikipedia spam cleanup

Justification
Why don't people just remove the spam instead of putting this template in?!!! Pcb21 Pete 11:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are two reasons: 1) It asks editors who know more about the subject of the article than the spam-removers to cleanup the external links per WP:EL and 2) it indicates which articles need to be revisted regularly by spam-removers to remove the spam. I think the two functions could probably be separated. -- Linkspamremover 11:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 2) is a good point. A category (preferably in talk) called "frequent spam target" will have its uses.
 * 1) on the other hand is not. If an editor is not sure something is spam, he should not flag it as such. Spam is a very inflammatory word and should not be used lightly. If you are sure, then just remove it, if you are not sure then a talk page note might be appropriate, but this template/category is not. Pcb21 Pete 11:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur to a large extent with what you say, though there are reasons why it is better to ask regular editors to cleanup external links per WP:EL rather than it being done by fleeting spam-fighting editors. Similarly, this template can be better used with recent changes if it is placed in the article rather than the talk page. This discussion may be better off being raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam or Wikipedia talk:Spam because we may be the only two people here. -- Linkspamremover 11:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a third reason for inserting this template without cleaning up spam, which is that one frequently runs into more spammed articles than one can clean up by oneself. It can be particularly tiring cleaning up linkspam, as it often involves debate with the spammers.  I don't blame anyone who doesn't feel up to the task of cleaning out spam every time one runs across it.  Cleaning up an article is of course most desirable, but merely identifying a problem article is better than doing nothing at all.
 * And I do think point number 1 is good. When a page has dozens of external links to things which apparently aren't notable enough to warrant their own articles, it is not hard to guess that  some of them are probably spam.  If you consider the template too inflammatory, then perhaps the language of it should be changed, and the word "spam" avoided entirely.  —Veyklevar 16:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello! Your third reason is very true - I often think of it as leaving a marker to return later when I have time. To give a recent example where I left a template - Prediction market. I think the language in the template is confusing - it talks about spam, and about removing commercial links, and about WP:EL - which are three different things. -- Linkspamremover 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Some of them are probably spam" is NOT a good enough reason to cast suspicion over all of them. Yes maybe a rename would help ameloriate that.
 * As for the third reason, let's be honest here. The cleanup category is massive and growing bigger all the time i.e. the cleanup mechanism does not really work because very very few people work through it. It would be better to fix one article than tag two. Pcb21 Pete 16:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do think that "some of them are probably spam" is a good enough reason. Links don't get their feelings hurt, and if we had a cleanup template that was more subdued, less accusatory sounding, and didn't use the word spam in bold, centered text, well-meaning people wouldn't be hurt either.
 * At the heart of this problem is the fact that to people who regularly concern themselves with linkspam, "spam" is just a piece of jargon that gets tossed around rather casually. We forget how insulting it can be. If we could reword the template and category to avoid the word spam, it would be an improvement.
 * And you are right, the cleanup mechanism does not work exceedingly well, but that applies to nearly all cleanup categories, not just here. It is only in particular a problem with the spam category because people want to use it to watch recent changes. That could be fixed by having separate categories for clean-up and vigilance, as suggested above.
 * All I can add is that I can point to several articles that are substantially better off for having been tagged by one person and cleaned by another. But I am obviously not as experienced a Wikipedian as you are, so no doubt I am not aware of all the issues involved. &mdash;Veyklevar 00:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Category placement
This cat should be placed on the talk pages of the articles, not in the actual articles themselves. -- Zanimum 17:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. This category should not be placed anywhere. It is automatically added when the article is tag with certain maintenance templates, as specified on the category page. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)