Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The policy section of the village pump is intended for discussions about already-proposed policies and guidelines, as well as changes to existing ones. Discussions often begin on other pages and are subsequently moved or referenced here to ensure greater visibility and broader participation.

If you wish to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals). Alternatively, for drafting with a more focused group, consider starting the discussion on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, the Manual of Style, or another relevant project page.
For questions about how to apply existing policies or guidelines, refer to one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
If you want to inquire about what the policy is on a specific topic, visit the Help desk or the Teahouse.
This is not the place to resolve disputes regarding the implementation of policies. For such cases, consult Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For proposals for new or amended speedy deletion criteria, use Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after two weeks of inactivity.

« Archives, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201

Should WP:Demonstrate good faith include mention of AI-generated comments?

The Village pump is overflowing again. Please continue this conversation at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Good faith and AI-generated comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Using AI to write your comments in a discussion makes it difficult for others to assume that you are discussing in good faith, rather than trying to use AI to argue someone into exhaustion (see example of someone using AI in their replies "Because I don't have time to argue with, in my humble opinion, stupid PHOQUING people"). More fundamentally, WP:AGF can't apply to the AI itself as AI lacks intentionality, and it is difficult for editors to assess how much of an AI-generated comment reflects the training of the AI vs. the actual thoughts of the editor.

Should WP:DGF be addended to include that using AI to generate your replies in a discussion runs counter to demonstrating good faith? Photos of Japan (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Amending ATD-R

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Much discussion preceded this RfC's filing. In 2018, consensus was found that "AfD is a right venue to seek for redirect(s), which have been challenged" (emphasis in original). In 2021, consensus was found that "Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting". Then, in October 2024, a discussion was had at Wikipedia talk:Redirect about whether WP:ATD-R should mention WP:RFD specifically as an available venue. This gained some participation with ultimately no one gaining any ground. This then led to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, with the same stalemate with the same editors continuing, which then led to this RfC. This issue has continually been discussed within this RfC by the same editors (with minimal new participants) as well.

WP:DISCARD explains that closers are "there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments... [and] those based on personal opinion only" (emphasis mine). As previously mentioned, a lot of prior discussion involved WP:RFD's suitability in some context. However, the scope of this RfC does not relate to WP:RFD's suitability in any context. Nor did a plurality of participating editors in this RfC comment on it. This RfC asks whether or not, when a BLAR has been contested as outlined by WP:ATD-R, whether going to the deletion venue appropriate to the page's pre-direct content — as determined by existing guidance — is the preferred option to determine consensus, rather than it being held as an equal option to that of the talk page. The question of what, for an individual page, is the appropriate deletion venue is not in scope nor a topic a plurality of participating editors engaged in. As such, discussion outside of this scope, such as arguments made solely on the basis of the WP:RFD dispute, were discarded.

I have opted to interpret supports which indicate a preference for a deletion venue over the talk page, yet only mention a specific venue (e.g AfD), as ultimately being in support of the proposed wording. The spirit of such supports is that the appropriate deletion venue is preferable to the talk page. Otherwise, if such supporters were literal, that would mean they'd want files and templates, as two examples, to go to their singularly named deletion venue. Given the experience level of most all participants, I find this very unlikely.

In the support camp, most editors argued that AfD (and thus, a deletion venue) is far more likely to get eyes both from more editors in general and from editors which possess relevant knowledge of policy, such as WP:NOTABILITY. Because of this, they argue a more binding consensus is likely to develop, unlike for the talk page, which may have as little as 2 participants. In the oppose camp, there were 2 arguments shared by more than a single editor. The first is the axiomatic preference that XfD and talk pages be equally valid venues. The second is the preference for talk pages over the deletion venue, with an editor using WP:NOTBURO to justify it. These arguments do not weigh well and, in my view, are defeated by the aforementioned supports and their own rationale. A lot of the remaining oppose discussion revolved around material that I classified, as closer, as "irrelevant arguments".

As such, I find there is rough consensus to adjust the wording as currently proposed at time of close. This close does not comment on WP:RFD suitability for BLARs in any scenario, nor does it comment on what deletion venue is appropriate for what kind of page. Questions about those things will require separate consensus discussions to resolve. —Sirdog (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following has been added with Chetsford's consent (diff):

The lead closer suggested a collaborative close on this RfC. I have independently reviewed the discussion and arrived at an identical conclusion drawn from identical reasoning as the lead closer. I concur with the closing statement. Chetsford (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should WP:ATD-R be amended as follows:

Prior discussion: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Amending ATD-R voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Clarified proposed amendment. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Broadened per discussion below. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, Wikipedia talk:Deletion process, Wikipedia talk:Redirect, Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Amending ATD-R)

As proposer. This reflects existing consensus and current practice. Blanking of article content should be discussed at AfD, not another venue. If someone contests a BLAR, they're contesting the fact that article content was removed, not that a redirect exists. The venue matters because different sets of editors patrol AfD and RfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Summoned by bot. I broadly support this clarification. However, I think it could be made even clearer that, in lieu of an AfD, if a consensus on the talkpage emerges that it should be merged to another article, that suffices and reverting a BLAR doesn't change that consensus without good reason. As written, I worry that the interpretation will be "if it's contested, it must go to AfD". I'd recommend the following: This may be done through either a merge discussion on the talkpage that results in a clear consensus to merge. Alternatively, or if a clear consensus on the talkpage does not form, the article should be submitted through Articles for Deletion for a broader consensus to emerge. That said, I'm not so miffed with the proposed wording to oppose it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this proposal as precluding a merge discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either, but I see the wording of although sometimes the dispute may be resolved on the article's talk page closer to "if the person who contested/reverted agrees on the talk page, you don't need an AfD" rather than "if a consensus on the talk page is that the revert was wrong, an AfD is not needed". The second is what I see general consensus as, not the first. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly support the idea, an AFD is going to get more eyes than an obscure talkpage, so I suspect it is the better venue in most cases. I'm also unsure how to work this nuance in to the prose, and not suspect the rare cases where another forum would be better, such a forum might emerge anyway. CMD (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my extensive comments in the prior discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~, although I don't see much difference between the status quo and the proposed wording. Basically, the two options, AfD or the talk page, are just switched around. It doesn't address the concerns that in some cases RfD is or is not a valid option. Perhaps it needs a solid "yes" or "no" on that issue? If RfD is an option, then that should be expressed in the wording. And since according to editors some of these do wind up at RfD when they shouldn't, then maybe that should be made clear here in this policy's wording, as well. Specifically addressing the RfD issue in the wording of this policy might actually lead to positive change. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to oppose. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support the change in wording to state the preference for AFD in the event of a conflict, because AFD is more likely to result in binding consensus than simply more talk. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Thryduulf's reasoning in the antecedent discussion. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. AfD can handle redirects, merges, DABifies...the gamut. This kind of discussion should be happening out in the open, where editors versed in notability guidelines are looking for discussions, rather than between two opposed editors on an article talk page (where I doubt resolution will be easily found anyways). Toadspike [Talk] 11:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support firstly, because by "blank and redirect" you're fundamentally saying that an article shouldn't exist at that title (presumably either because it's not notable, or it is notable but it's best covered at another location). WP:AFD is the best location to discuss this. Secondly, because this has been abused in the past. COVID-19 lab leak theory is one example; and when it finally reached AFD, there was a pretty strong consensus for an article to exist at that title, which settled a dispute that spanned months. There are several other examples; AFD has repeatedly proven to be the best settler of "blank and redirect" situations, and the best at avoiding the "low traffic talk page" issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, my concerns have been aired and I'm comfortable with using AfD as a primary venue for discussing any pages containing substantial article content. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - So as I see it, the changes proposed are simply to say that disputes should be handled at AfD in preference over the talk page, which I agree with, and also to acknowledge that a dispute over a BLAR could consist of something other than a reversion, which it can. Sounds like a good wording adjustment to me, and it matches what I understand to be already existing wikipedian practice anyway. I agree that it may be a good idea to expressly state in policy that a BLAR should not be deleted at RfD, ever... a BLAR could be retargetted at RfD, but if a BLAR is proposed for deletion it needs to go to AfD instead... but that's not at issue in this proposal, so it's off topic for now. Fieari (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've made use of ATD-R, but it did occur to me that it is something of a back door option. If a redirect is reverted, that means we have a controversial article which must be brought before wider scrutiny. You can't achieve that on the article talk page, unless the redirect supporter concedes the point, and so it must go to AFD. Having said that, I see no reason to amend the words "via a reversion". Spartathenian (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's necessary because not everyone may have the ability or desire to use reversion to challenge the deletion. For example someone who lacks sufficient permission to edit the page may still wish to dispute a redirection. Or perhaps they don't want to get into edit wars and would rather leave the task of reverting to the status quo to someone else. The key point is that the action is disputed, not how the dispute manifested itself. — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although talk page discussions are useful for most processes, I think those which affect the fundamental existence or otherwise of the page should go to a formal venue if there is a dispute. The big advantage of XfD is that it has a large number of eyes on it and is frequented by people with lots of experience in notability and deletion policy; whereas a talk page probably has a much smaller number of watchers, some of whom may have particular alignments or points of view. Blank-and-redirect may not meet the technical definition of deletion, but it amounts to the same thing. A similar system applies for requested moves too - if a bold move is reverted per WP:RMUM then the next step it to start a formal WP:RM discussion, not for informal discussions on the talk page. — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Amending ATD-R)

Oppose. The status quo reflects the nuances that Chipmunkdavis has vocalized. There are also other venues to consider: if the page is a template, WP:TFD would be better. If this is long-stable as a redirect, RfD is a better venue (as I've argued here, for example). -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The intent here is to address articles. Obviously TfD is the place to deal with templates and nobody is suggesting otherwise. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section in question is about pages, not articles. If the proposed wording is adapted, it would be suggesting that WP:BLAR'd templates go to AfD. As I explained in the previous discussion, that's part of the reason why the proposed wording is problematic and that it was premature for an RfC on the matter. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a bit of workshopping, how about changing doing so to articles? -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Pinging @Consarn, @Berchanhimez, @Chipmunkdavis, @Thryduulf, @Paine Ellsworth, @Tavix. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gentle reminder to editor Voorts: as I'm subscribed to this RfC, there is no need to ping me. That's just an extra unnecessary step. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone subscribes to every discussion. I regularly unsubscribe to RfCs after I !vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. Just saving you some time and extra work. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

considering the above discussion, my vote hasn't really changed. this does feel incomplete, what with files and templates existing and all that, so that still feels undercooked (and now actively article-centric), hence my suggestion of either naming multiple venues or not naming any consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 23:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I'm beginning to understand those editors who said it was too soon for an RfC on these issues. While I've given this minuscule change my support (and still do), this very short paragraph could definitely be improved with a broader guidance for up and coming generations. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you re-read the RFCBEFORE discussions, the dispute was over what to do with articles that have been BLARed. That's why this was written that way. I think it's obvious that when there's a dispute over a BLARed article, it should go to AfD, not RfD. I proposed this change because apparently some people don't think that's so obvious. Nobody has or is disputing that BLARed templates should go to TfD, files to FfD, or miscellany to MfD. And none of that needs to be spelled out here per WP:CREEP. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be fully inclusive, it could say something like "the appropriate deletion venue for the pre-redirect content" or "...the blanked content" or some such. I personally don't think that's necessary, but don't object if others disagree on that score. (To be explicit neither the change that was made, nor a change to along the lines of my first sentence, change my support). Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. ~~And my support hasn't changed as well.~~ Goodness, I'm not saying this needs pages and pages of instruction, nor even sentence after sentence. I think us old(er) farts sometimes need to remember that less experienced editors don't necessarily know what we know. I think you've nailed the solution, Thryduulf! The only thing I would add is something short and specific about how RfD is seldom an appropriate venue and why. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry if I came in a bit hot there. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think something about RfDs generally not being appropriate could replace the current footnote at the end of this paragraph. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: That latest change moves me to the "~~strong~~ oppose" category. Again, RfD is the proper venue when the status quo is a redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to back down a bit with an emphasis on the word "preferred". I agree that AfD is the preferred venue, but my main concern is if a redirect gets nominated for deletion at RfD and editors make purely jurisdictional arguments that it should go to AfD because there's article content in its history even though it's blatantly obvious the article content should be deleted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is a big part of why incident 91724 could become a case study. "has history, needs afd" took priority over the fact that the history had nothing worth keeping, the redirect had been stable as a blar for years, and the ages of the folks at rfd (specifically the admins closing or relisting discussions on blars) having zero issue with blars being nominated and discussed there (with a lot of similar blars nominated around the same time as that one being closed with relatively litte fuss, and blars nominated later being closed with no fuss), and at least three other details i'm missing

as i said before, if a page was blanked relatively recently and someone can argue for there being something worth keeping in it, its own xfd is fine and dandy, but otherwise, it's better to just take it to rfd and leave the headache for them. despite what this may imply, they're no less capable of evaluating article content, be it stashed away in the edit history or proudly displayed in any given redirect's target consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 10:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained time and time again it's primarily not about the capabilities of editors at RfD it's about discoverability. When article content is discussed at AfD there are multiple systems in place that mean everybody interested or potentially interested knows that article content is being discussed, the same is not true when article content is discussed at RfD. Time since the BLAR is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you want to argue that watchlists, talk page notifs, and people's xfd logs aren't enough, that's fine by me, but i at best support also having delsort categories for rfd (though there might be some issues when bundling multiple redirects together, though that's nothing twinkle or massxfd can't fix), and at worst disagree because, respectfully, i don't have much evidence or hope of quake 2's biggest fans knowing what a strogg is. maybe quake 4, but its list of strogg was deleted with no issue (not even a relisting). see also quackifier, just under that discussion consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 11:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would think NOTBURO/IAR would apply in those cases. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that as well, but unfortunately that's not reality far too often. I can see this new wording being more ammo for process wonkery. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would a footnote clarifying that ameliorate your concerns? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a note about RfD being appropriate in any cases makes it clear that it strictly limited to (a) when the content would be speedily deleted if restored, or (b) there has been explicit consensus the content should not be an article (or template or whatever), then it would move me into a strong oppose. This is not "process wonkery" but the fundamental spirit of the entire deletion process. Thryduulf (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^Voorts, see what I mean? -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See what I mean this attitude is exactly why we are here. I've spent literal years explaining why I hold the position I do, and how it aligns with the letter and spirit of pretty much every relevant policy and guideline. It shouldn't even be controversial for blatantly obvious the article content should be deleted to mean "would be speedily deleteable if restored", yet on this again a single digit number of editors have spent years arguing that they know better. Thryduulf (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
both sides are on single digits at the time of writing this, we just need 3 more supports to make it 10 lol

ultimately, this has its own caveat(s). namely, with the csd not covering every possible scenario. regardless of whether or not it's intentional, it's not hard to look at something and go "this ain't it, chief". following this "process" to the letter would just add more steps to that, by restoring anything that doesn't explicitly fit a csd and dictating that it has to go to afd so it can get the boot there for the exact same reason consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 10:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks. That alleviates my concerns. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
oppose, though with the note that i support a different flavor of change. on top of the status quo issue pointed out by tavix (which i think we might need to set a period of time for, like a month or something), there's also the issue of the article content in question. if it's just unsourced, promotional, in-universe, and/or any other kind of fluff or cruft or whatever else, i see no need to worry about the content, as it's not worth keeping anyway (really, it might be better to just create a new article from scratch). if a blar, which has been stable as a redirect, did have sources, and those sources were considered reliable, then i believe restoring and sending to afd would be a viable option (see purple francis for an example). outside of that, i think if the blar is reverted early enough, afd would be the better option, but if not, then it'd be rfd
for this reason, i'd rather have multiple venues named ("Suitable venues include Articles for Deletion, Redirects for Discussion, and Templates for Discussion"), no specific venue at all ("The dispute should be resolved in a fitting discussion venue"), or conditions for each venue (for which i won't suggest a wording because of the aforementioned status quo time issue) consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 17:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The proper initial venue for discussing this should be the talk page; only if agreement can't be reached informally there should it proceed to AfD. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ as written to capture some nuances; there may be a situation where you want a BLAR to remain a redirect, but would rather retarget it. I can't imagine the solution there is to reverse the BLAR and discuss the different redirect-location at AfD. Besides that, I think the intention is otherwise solid, as long as its consistent in practice. Moving forward it would likely lead to many old reversions of 15+ year BLAR'd content, but perhaps that's the intention; maybe only reverse the BLAR if you're seeking deletion of the page, at which point AfD becomes preferable? Article deletion to be left to AfD at that point? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC), moving to support, my concerns have been resolved and I'm happy to use AfD as a primary venue for discussing article content. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the first part of the new wording makes it more vague than before. "If the change is disputed via a reversion" was clear. "If the change is disputed, such as by reversion" is vague. What other ways of dispute other than reversion are there? I am assuming "reversion" here implies reversion to pre-redirect content. If the intent of the change in wording to is incorporate scenarios where an editor prefers a redirect target of "Article B" instead of "Article A", or a dab page, or sees no appropriate target, where it is not a reversion, but a bold edit or an RfD nomination, then the accompanying phrase "before blank-and-redirecting again." does not make sense.

I oppose the second part of the new wording as well. The current wording gave editors an equal choice of forum - talk page vs XfD. Why should XfD be the preferred venue, and the talkpage be the forum only "sometimes". I see what Berchanhimez says. If an editor wants to revert and add a {{mergeto}} as a better alternative to BLAR, and all parties are agreeable to in the talk page, why force them to go to XfD. Although, I won't go as far as Espresso Addict in saying the talk page "should" be the proper initial venue, the current wording of giving equal choice of venu goes better with me, than forcing a preference. If editors do not agree on a talk page, it is understood one of them, or a neutral party will take to AfD/XfD.

I support the third part of the change, courtesy Thryduulf, of "appropriate deletion discussion venue for the pre-redirect content" which resolves Tavix's concern of AfD/TfD/MfD.

Note that I haven't touched upon RfD at all, or the prior heated discussions around it, because I don't see the current or new wordings addressing anything about Rfd. It would require a separate RfC to resolve the RfD concerns.

In summary, retain current wordings for part 1 and part 2. Go ahead with new wordings for part 3. Jay 💬 16:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first part was intended to make clear that if someone doesn't revert, but nonetheless contests the BLAR, they should still bring it to the appropriate non-RfD XfD. The second part doesn't limit anyone from going to talk to discuss things first. It merely makes clear that if something can't be resolved, it should go to the appropriate XfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can a nomination can be made at the appropriate (non-RfD) XfD without first reverting to the pre-redirect content? To repeat my question from the earlier comment - what other ways of dispute other than reversion are there? One way to contest the BLAR is to go to RfD to state that turning the article to a redirect was not an acceptable ATD, and that the page should be completely deleted. Someone could overwrite the page with new article content, or non-article content (disambiguation, SIA, for example), but that wouldn't be seen as contesting the BLAR, more like overwriting the BLAR.

For the second part, why will editors use the talk page, if policy sets the preference to XfD? Why do you want XfD to become more preferable over the article talk page discussion? What is the basis for that? Jay 💬 13:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per editor Jay above pretty much word for word, an eloquent positional description! I'm slayed and swayed, and that doesn't happen much. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; while we'd like consistency with the WP:BRD cycle, we'd also like less bureaucracy and less work distracting from building the encyclopedia, so it should be rewritten to explicitly prefer the talk page over XFD. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in strongest possible terms. XFD is a process-heavy, red-tape-filled procedure that is used solely for two reasons; first, because deletion is impossible for regular editors to implement or reverse; and second, because the WMF requires that we have a way to remove things from where ordinary editors can see them. A blank-and-redirect meets neither of these criteria - it is inappropriate to send it to XFD. I would in fact support language specifically discouraging taking such disputes to AFD, where they waste time and energy and involve far more bloated red tape than such discussions ought to have, while also creating a bias towards retaining newly-added disputed material that goes against WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN, and WP:ONUS. Making it possible to send a redirect to AFD implies that an editor can add something on which there is no consensus, then respond to any attempts to remove it by demanding a hearing at AFD, leading to it being retained if discussions there fail to reach a consensus; this is inappropriate and against our other practices and policies, which normally result in new additions that fail to obtain a consensus getting removed. If anything we should therefore prohibit sending redirects to AFD in situations where an actual deletion is not being requested, or make it clear that if the article is newly-created and was redirected prior to being sent to AFD, an AFD outcome of no consensus leads to it remaining a redirect, such that editors cannot abuse AFD to turn WP:BURDEN on its head like this. --Aquillion (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Amending ATD-R)

~~not entirely sure i should vote, but~~ i should probably mention this discussion in wt:redirect that preceded the one about atd-r, and i do think this rfc should affect that as well, but wouldn't be surprised if it required another one consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 12:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not really in the scope of this discussion but to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why BLAR is a still a thing. It's a cliche, but it's a hidden mechanism for backdoor deletion that often causes arguments and edit wars. I think AfDs and talk-page merge proposals where consensus-building exists produce much better results. It makes sense for duplicate articles, but that is covered by A10's redirection clause. J 947 ‡ ^edits 03:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BLARs are perfectly fine when uncontroversial, duplicate articles are one example but bold merges are another (which A10 doesn't cover). Thryduulf (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is my impression that BLARs often occur without intention of an accompanying merge. J 947 ‡ ^edits 03:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because sometimes there's nothing to merge. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say, or intend to imply, that every BLAR is related to a merge. The best ones are generally where the target article covers the topic explicitly, either because content is merged, written or already exists. The worst ones are where the target is of little to no (obvious) relevance, contains no (obviously) relevant content and none is added. Obviously there are also ones that lie between the extremes. Any can be controversial, any can be uncontroversial. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLARs are preferable to deletion for content that is simply non-notable and does not run afoul of other G10/11/12-type issues. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to align to whatever consensus decides, but I'd like to discuss the implications because that aspect is not too clear to me. Does this mean that any time an redirect contains any history and deletion is sought, it should be restored and go to AfD? Currently there's some far-future redirects with ancient history, how would this amendment affect such titles? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see why i wanted that left to editor discretion (status quo, evaluation, chance of an rm or histmerge, etc.)? i trust in editors who aren't that wonk from rfd (cogsan? cornsam?) to see a pile of unsourced cruft tucked away in the history and go "i don't think this would get any keep votes in afd" consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 11:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is about contested BLARs, not articles that were long ago BLARed where someone thinks the redirect should be deleted. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
then it might depend. is its status as a blar the part that is being contested? if the title is being contested (hopefully assuming the pre-blar content is fine), would "move" be a fitting outcome outside of rm? is it being contested solely over meta-procedural stuff, as opposed to actually supporting or opposing its content? why are boots shaped like italy? was it stable as a redirect at the time of contest or not? does this account for its status as a blar being contested in an xfd venue (be it for restoring or blanking again)? it's a lot of questions i feel the current wording doesn't answer, when it very likely should. granted, what i suggested isn't much better, but shh

going back to that one rfd i keep begrudgingly bringing up (i kinda hate it, but it's genuinely really useful), if this wording is interpreted literally, the blar was contested a few years prior and should thus be restored, regardless of the rationales being less than serviceable ("i worked hard on this" one time and... no reason the other), the pre-blar content being complete fancruft, and no one actually supporting the content in rfd consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 13:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well that case you keep citing worked out as a NOTBURO situation, which this clraification would not override. There are obviously edge cases that not every policy is going to capture. IAR is a catch-all exception to every single policy on Wikipedia. The reason we have so much scope creep in PAGs is becaude editors insist on every exception being enumerated. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if an outcome (blar status is disputed in rfd, is closed as delete anyway) is common enough, i feel the situation goes from "iar good" to "rules not good", at which point i'd rather have the rules adapt. among other things, this is why i want a slightly more concrete time frame to establish a status quo (while i did suggest a month, that could also be too short), so that blars that aren't blatantly worth or not worth restoring after said time frame (for xfd or otherwise) won't be as much of a headache to deal with. of course, in cases where their usefulness or lack thereof isn't blatant, then i believe a discussion in its talk page or an xfd venue that isn't rfd would be the best option consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 17:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea that that redirect you mentioned had to go to AfD was incorrect. The issue was whether the redirect was appropriate, not whether the old article content should be kept. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sure took almost 2 months to get that sorted out lol consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 17:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bad facts make bad law, as attorneys like to say. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. @Voorts: in that case I think I agree. I.e., if somebody BLAR's a page, the best avenue to discuss merits of inclusion on Wikipedia, would be at a place like AfD, where it is treated as the article it used to be, as the right eyes for content-deletion will be present at AfD. To that end, this clarification is likely a good change to highlight this fact. I think where I might be struggling is the definition of "contesting a BLAR" and what that might look like in practice. To me, "deleting a long-BLAR'd redirect" is basically the same as "contesting the BLAR", I think?

An example I'll go ahead and grab is 1900 Lincoln Blue Tigers football team from cat:raw. This is not a great redirect pointed at Lincoln Blue Tigers from my POV, and I'd like to see it resolved at some venue, if not resolved boldly. This page was BLAR'd in 2024, and I'll go ahead and notify Curb Safe Charmer who BLAR'd it. I think I'm inclined to undo the BLAR, not because I think the 1900 season is particularly notable, but because redirecting the 1900 season to the page about the Lincoln Blue Tigers doesn't really do much for the people who want to read about the 1900 season specifically. (Any other day I would do this boldly, but I want to seek clarification).

But let's say this page was BLAR'd in 2004, as a longstanding redirect for 20 years. I think it's fair to say that as a redirect, this should be deleted. But this page has history as an article. So unless my interpretation is off, wouldn't the act of deleting a historied redirect that was long ago BLAR'd, be equivalent to contesting the BLAR, that turned the page into a redirect in the first place, regardless of the year? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. In 2025, you're contesting that it's a good redirect from 2004, not contesting the removal of article content. If somebody actually thought the article should exist, that's one thing, but procedural objections based on RfD being an improper forum without actually thinking the subject needs an article is the kind of insistence on needless bureaucracy that NOTBURO is designed to address. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. WP:NOTBURO is absolutely vital to keep the cogs rolling, lol. Very oftentimes at RfD, there will be a "page with history" that holds up the process, all for the discussion to close with "restore and take to AfD". Cutting out the middle, and just restoring article content without bothering with an RfD to say "restore and take to AfD" would make the process and all workflows lot smoother. @Voorts:, from your own point of view, I'm very interested in doing something about 1900 Lincoln Blue Tigers football team, specifically, to remove a redirect from being at this title (I have no opinion as to whether or not an article should exist here instead). Because I want to remove this redirect; do you think I should take it to RfD as the correct venue to get rid of it? (Personally speaking, I think undoing the BLAR is a lot more simple and painless especially so as I don't have a strong opinion on article removal, but if I absolutely didn't want an article here, would RfD still be the venue?) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would take that to RfD. If the editor who created the article or someone else reversed the BLAR, I'd bring it to AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I think we're getting somewhere. I feel like some editors may consider it problematic to delete a recently BLAR'd article at RfD under any circumstance. Like if Person A BLAR's a brand new article, and Person B takes it to RfD because they disagree with the existence of a redirect at the title and it gets deleted, then this could be considered a "bypassal of the AfD process". Whether or not it is or isn't, people have cited NOTBURO for deleting it. I was under the impression this proposal was trying to eliminate this outcome, i.e. to make sure that all pages with articles in its history should be discussed at AfD under its merits as an article instead of anywhere else. I've nommed redirects where people have said "take to AfD", and I've nommed articles where people have said "take to RfD". I've never had an AfD close as "wrong venue", but I've seen countless RfDs close in this way for any amount of history, regardless of the validity of there being a full-blown article at this title, only to be restored and unanimously deleted at AfD. I have a feeling 1900 Lincoln Blue Tigers football team would close in the same way, which is why I ask as it seems to be restoring the article would just cut a lot of tape if the page is going to end up at AfD eventually. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the paragraph under discussion here doesn't really speak to what should happen in the kind of scenario you're describing. The paragraph talks about "the change" (i.e., the blanking and redirecting) being "disputed", not about what happens when someone thinks a redirect ought not to exist. I agree with you that that's needless formalism/bureaucracy, but I think that changing the appropriate venue for those kinds of redirects would need a separate discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, yeah. I'm just looking at the definition of "disputing/contesting a BLAR". For this situation, I think it could be reasoned that I am "disputing" the "conversion of this article into a redirect". Now, I don't really have a strong opinion on whether or not an article should or shouldn't exist, but because I don't think a redirect should be at this title in either situation, I feel like "dispute" of the edit might still be accurate? Even if it's not for a regular reason that most BLARs get disputed 😅. I just don't think BLAR'ing into a page where a particular season is not discussed is a great change. That's what I meant about "saying a redirect ought not to exist" might be equivalent to "disputing/disagreeing with the edit that turned this into a redirect to begin with". And if those things are equivalent, then would that make AfD the right location to discuss the history of this page as an article? That was where I was coming from; hopefully that makes sense lol. If it needs a separate discussion I can totally understand that as well. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1900 Blue Tigers case and others like it where you think that it should not be a redirect but have no opinion about the existence or otherwise of an article then simply restore the article. Making sure it's tagged for any relevant WikiProjects is a bonus but not essential. If someone disputes your action then a talk page discussion or AfD is the correct course of action for them to take. If they think the title should be a red link then AfD is the only correct venue. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you Thryduulf. That was kind of the vibe I was leaning towards as well, as AfD would be able to determine the merits the page's existence as a subject matter. This all comes together because not too long ago I was criticized for restoring a page that contained an article in its history. In this discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Canada, I received the following message regarding my BLAR-reversal: For the record, it's really quite silly and unnecessary to revert an ancient redirect from 2011 back into a bad article that existed for all of a day before being redirected, just so that you can force it through an AFD discussion — we also have the RFD process for unnecessary redirects, so why wasn't this just taken there instead of being "restored" into an article that the restorer wants immediately deleted? I feel like this is partially comparable to 1900 Lincoln Blue Tigers football team, as both of these existed for approx a day before the BLAR, but if restoring a 2024 article is necessary per Thryduulf, but restoring a 2011 article is silly per Bearcat, I'm glad that this has the potential to be ironed out via this RfC, possibly. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are exactly two situations where an AfD is not required to delete article content:

The content meets one or more criteria for speedy deletion
The content is eligible to be PRODed

Bearcat's comment is simply wrong - RfD is not the correct venue for deleting article content, regardless of how old it is. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'll keep that in mind for my future editing, and I'll move from the oppose to the support section of this RfC. Thank you for confirmation regarding these situations! Cheers, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: Note that is simply Thryduulf's opinion and is not supported by policy (despite his vague waves to the contrary). Any redirect that has consensus to delete at RfD can be deleted. I see that you supported deletion of the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 17#List of Strogg in Quake II. Are you now saying that should have procedurally gone to AfD even though it was blatantly obvious that the article content is not suitable for Wikipedia? -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that AfD probably would have been the right location to discuss it at. Of course NOTBURO applies and it would've been deleted regardless, really, but if someone could go back in time, bringing that page to AfD instead of RfD seems like it would have been more of an ideal outcome. I would've !voted delete on either venue. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: Note that Tavix's comments are, despite their assertions to the contrary, only their opinion. It is notable that not once in the literal years of discussions, including this one, have they managed to show any policy that backs up this opinion. Content that is blatantly unsuitable for Wikipedia can be speedily deleted, everything that can't be is not blatantly unsuitable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. Speedy deletion is a process that provides administrators with broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion. RfD is a deletion discussion venue for redirects, so it doesn't require speedy deletion for something that is a redirect to be deleted via RfD. Utopes recognizes there is a difference between "all redirects that have non-speediable article content must be restored and discussed at AfD" and "AfD is the preferred venue for pages with article content", so I'm satisfied to their response to my inquiry. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting yourself in a discussion about policy doe not show that your opinion is consistent with policy. Taking multiple different bits of policy and multiple separate facts, putting them all in a pot and claiming the result shows your opinion is supported by policy didn't do that in the discussion you quoted and doesn't do so now. You have correctly quoted what CSD is and what RfD is, but what you haven't done is acknowledged that when a BLARed article is nominated for deletion it is article content that will be deleted, and that article content nominated for deletion is discussed at AfD not RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I requested closure at WP:CR, but that was a week ago. Fortunately, I changed the "do not archive" date to two more weeks before the bot does something. Is one closer sufficient? If so, why hasn't the closure been done yet? George Ho (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is one closer sufficient? Yes. This discussion is not that complicated. If so, why hasn't the closure been done yet? First, there's a backlog and closers try to close older discussions first. Second, see WP:NORUSH. Third, see WP:VOLUNTEER. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll agree to disagree then. From what I learned so far, having two or more closers is more efficient and quicker than waiting for just one who usually understands the policies very lot. Usually, a two-person closure is (unofficially) reserved mostly for more complex cases. Nonetheless, I think it would resolve backlogs. But your wishes and decision then. George Ho (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I close a lot of discussions. It is much faster to read a discussion and write a close than it is to work on a close, send it to another person for additions/edits, wait for them to send it back, ad nauseam. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this discussion would probably take me about half an hour to an hour to read, then write a close I'm happy with. If I then had to have a back-and-forth with another editor until we were both happy with the close, things would take much longer. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or, if we decided to write it together over google docs or something simultaneously, we'd both have to first read the discussion, schedule a time to chat or post messages back and forth on wiki to determine that we're on the same page (and if we're not, then neither of us should probably close it), and then actually write the close. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For better understanding, I found one example: this one from 2017, which I requested such closure... well, against initiator's wishes. But the closure was somewhat criticized: Sept 2018. Tried to find other discussions containing such criticisms, but just found 2017 post-RfC discussion and past user talk discussion for better understanding, hopefully. George Ho (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We only request two or three closers when:
the result is not obvious to everyone and

the result is going to make some (i.e., a lot of) people very unhappy.

The idea with having multiple closers is that the larger number will silence some complaints (sure, you didn't get what you wanted, but multiple admins said you lost, so complaining's probably a waste of time) and spread out some of the others (each unhappy person yells at a different closer, instead of everyone yelling at a single person).

If you are not expecting drama, you don't need multiple closers. In fact, if the answer is completely obvious, and even the people who are "losing" agree that the consensus is against them, then you don't need any uninvolved closers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we're at 11 supports, meaning my throwaway joke about waiting to close until there were 10 has been fulfilled. though i still disagree with how that's written, that's really the one worry i had about closing the discussion consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 10:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with the fundamental position some people are taking, above, that BLAR is some sort of loophole around the AFD process. It's the AFD process that is unusual - our normal way of handling disputed additions is covered by WP:BRD, WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. That is to say that if someone creates a new article, and I immediately BLAR it, the default if there is no consensus ought to be that remains a redirect. They boldly added new material, I removed it, now they must demonstrate consensus for it before restoring it. AFD inverts this for complicated reasons that are hard to change; but the idea that even edits that don't require actual AFDs ought to be required to go through that simply to... cause that inversion is absurd. If anything, I would take the opposite tack and forbid BLAR disputes from being sent to AFD. It's a normal content dispute, and should be handled in the normal way - which includes, crucially, the presumption that if there's no consensus for a recently-created article, it must remain a redirect. It's the person who attempts to send it to AFD who is abusing process to force through new material without consensus in violation of WP:ONUS / WP:BURDEN, not the person who objected and redirected it. --Aquillion (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic, as an admin, I should be able to unilaterally delete a new page per ONUS/BURDEN even if it meets none of the CSD criteria and then insist that the editor who created the article satisfy me that it should be undeleted. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what evidence do you have that XFD favors keeping pages. It's been my experience that redirects are often retained at AfD on contested BLARs, but both of our experiences are anecdotal and this is a factual question. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

admittedly, i think an editor who blars something should have the burden of explanation as well, and the policy could try to cram that in somewhere. granted, it's a burden they can fulfill in edit summaries, talk pages, or, and hear me out because this is something that has never ever been said before ever by anyone ever^{[citation needed]}, rfd, so it's not a hard criterion to fill if it's done in good faith. then again, if an edit war happens over it, i do think a page should be restored to its pre-war diff (which might even not be a redirect), but that's probably besides the point since other policies have that covered consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 13:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: Allow for bots (e.g. Citation bot) to remove redundant URLs known to not host a full freely-accessible version.

Should bots like Citation bot be allowed to remove redundant 'raw' PubMed URLs, and raw OCLC URLs when pmid/oclc identifiers are present. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Details

Following the last, extremely frustrating discussion about the behaviour of bots wrt to links, the consensus that 'emerged' from it was that Citation bot was to leave urls alone, unless it was replacing them with a free alternative (e.g. |url=https://paywall.com → |doi=10.1234/654321 + |doi-access=free or |url=https://paywall.com → |url=https://freetoread.com).

However, there are two corner case I would like to establish consensus for the removal of a link.

Links to PubMed, e.g. |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/123456, which can be given through the standard parameter |pmid=123456.
Links to OCLC, e.g. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/123456, which can be given through the standard parameter |oclc=123456.

The reason is that those links will never contain free versions of articles, they will link to either the PubMed database, which only contain abstracts (free versions would be hosted at PubMed Central instead), or the OCLC database, which formerly held google book previews (then deemed useful), but no longer does.

This means that these urls make it look like a free version is accessible, when really none are, making readers click through links that lead them to nowhere useful. Note that this isn't a proposal to removal any URL covered by an identifier (e.g. |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/123456 → |jstor=123456) that may or may not be free, only these two, known to never host free versions.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (bot removal of redundant URLs)

Number of articles with PubMed links: 7.6k
Number of articles with OCLC links: 32.6k

Nobody (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote (bot removal of redundant URLs)

Support as proposer. These link are reader-hostile. They also discourage the addition of free links because it makes it look like there already are such links. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular assessment of PubMed, but I would oppose this for OCLC because a lot of citations to OCLC for articles on books aren't citing the work attached to the OCLC, but the bibliographic data in OCLC itself. Links to it when that is not the case should be removed, but the bot cannot tell those apart. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then that would be a {{cite web}} with an OCLC url, not a {{cite book}} with a url pointing to OCLC. The RFC concerns the latter, not the former. E.g., the bot would cleanup
- Carlisle, Rodney P.; Golson, J. Geoffrey (2007). Manifest destiny and the expansion of America. Turning Points in History Series. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. 238. ISBN 978-1-85109-834-7. OCLC 659807062.
to
- Carlisle, Rodney P.; Golson, J. Geoffrey (2007). Manifest destiny and the expansion of America. Turning Points in History Series. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. 238. ISBN 978-1-85109-834-7. OCLC 659807062.
Not
- "Manifest destiny and the expansion of America". Worldcat.org.
to
- "Manifest destiny and the expansion of America". Worldcat.org. OCLC 659807062. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it can distinguish between the two use cases then I have no opposition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the use of {{citation}} template in a similar fashion? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's just as easy to detect a {{citation}} where |work=Worldcat (or equivalent) than a {{cite web}} with |work=Worldcat (or equivalent). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that Headbomb's description of the situation is accurate (it does fit with my knowledge of PubMed and OCLC, but my knowledge esp. of the latter is limited), I support this proposal. Toadspike [Talk] 13:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom -- GreenC 19:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:SURPRISE. When we link to a title, readers expect to find the linked reference at the link. No information will be lost because the discussed cases always involve an id containing the same link. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support utterly reasonable. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support makes sense and the link is still present at the end of the citation. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support title-links give the false impression to readers. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this Double-barreled question needs separate answers. If I'm looking at a citation for a book and have a choice between:
- Expert, Alice. The Sun is Really Big. ISBN 978-1234567897. OCLC 1079344976.
- Expert, Alice. The Sun is Really Big. ISBN 978-1234567897. OCLC 1079344976.
then I don't want the version whose link on the title takes me to https://search.worldcat.org/title/1079344976 But if I'm instead looking at a citation for a WP:PAYWALLED article, and I have a choice between:
- Henderson, Jillian T.; Webber, Elizabeth M.; Weyrich, Meghan S.; Miller, Marykate; Melnikow, Joy (2024-06-11). "Screening for Breast Cancer: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force". JAMA. 331 (22): 1931–1946. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.25844. ISSN 1538-3598. PMID 38687490.
- Henderson, Jillian T.; Webber, Elizabeth M.; Weyrich, Meghan S.; Miller, Marykate; Melnikow, Joy (2024-06-11). "Screening for Breast Cancer: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force". JAMA. 331 (22): 1931–1946. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.25844. ISSN 1538-3598. PMID 38687490.
then I'd actually prefer having a link on the title take me to the abstract on PubMed (or at least not object to it). Those of us who are familiar with the literature and our citation conventions know that this is a "duplicate" or "redundant" link, but ordinary people don't know what all those acronyms mean. They expect that clicking the link on the title will take them to some useful place, so it should do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the discussion and limits per PARAKANYAA Jeepday (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The WorldCat links clearly add nothing helpful there. Nobody (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate-limiting new PRODs and AfDs?

Hi, I was recommended to post this at the village pump by a a comment here.

There has been a recent issue where dozens of PRODs and AfDs (about 80 of them last month) of pre-Internet-era track and field Olympians were all created in a short timespan. For comparison, the usual rate that these get created is one or two per week. The rate is of particular importance here because unlike most processes on Wikipedia, there is a one-week deadline for most PRODs and AfDs, so when many are created all at once it can be difficult to properly address them in time.

While it's true that some of these articles were created by User:Lugnuts without SIGCOV references, it's also true that significant coverage exists for most of them -- to quote User:WhatamIdoing at the above linked thread, At some level, we all know that there is local coverage on every modern Olympic athlete, because (a) local newspapers always run the 'local kid does well internationally' kinds of stories, because articles that combine national pride, local people, and good news sell well, and (b) every time someone has actually done the work of getting access to paper copies, they've found these sources.

A similar situation happened about four months ago, and the solution was just to procedurally revert all of the PRODs: User_talk:Seefooddiet/Archive_1#109 proposed deletions in a couple of hours?

Because finding pre-Internet newspaper sources for non-English speaking countries can be labor intensive, is there a policy solution to the above problem? --Habst (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is something we can solve with more rules.

Making 109 PRODs in one hour is just silly, and there's no amount of regulation that will stop people from doing silly things. I do understand this kind of rate is frustrating, but I think creating and enforcing rules about the rate of nominations will create unforseen problems. You can't stop people from being silly, but you can trout them after the fact. Cremastra (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can also WP:TBAN them after the fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

109 PRODs in one hour sounds like a WP:MEATBOT issue. There is no way you can evaluate that many articles in that amount of time, so the first step would be to deprod with the summary that no WP:BEFORE was done and the article needs a full evaluation. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note it's possible, if unlikely, that the tagger spent significant time researching the 109 articles individually before tagging them all at once. A single rapid tagging session does not by itself indicate WP:MEATBOT. Anomie ⚔ 13:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For small groups of closely related articles that is possible, but it's not at all plausible that you'd research that many before nominating them - you'd tag them as you go. Especially if you are not doing a group nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly something that can be dealt with informally through current P&G (disruptive editing applies to all sorts of things). For larger deletion projects, it would be preferable to either bundle them or start a community discussion, depending on the nature of the articles. With that said, note that per WP:NSPORTS2022 Proposal 5 there's already consensus to delete any sports bios that do not currently have significant coverage in the article, overriding WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. These deletions aren't indefinite, they're just until someone gets around to finding significant coverage. I'd also ask about whether local coverage is "significant" as opposed to routine; if all athletes have local coverage regardless of notability, it's unlikely to be significant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a relevant discussion open at WT:NOT about the definition of 'routine'. We're just getting started, so things may change, but from early comments, it appears that 'routine' is frequently understood to have no particular relationship to 'significant coverage'. SIGCOV is how many (encyclopedically useful) words/facts were written. 'Routine' is that if every ____ automatically gets (e.g.,) one article printed about it the next morning, then that is the routine. ("____" is a relevant large category, like "film" or "sports game" or "election", not a small category like "films starring Joe Film" or "FIFA World Cup finals").

With these two models, it is possible for routine coverage to provide SIGCOV. And if you agree or disagree with that, then I invite you to join that discussion and tell us so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing in general is a matter of good old common sense, no ammount of policy will help here. If you need one, WP:BULLINACHINASHOP would be it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, not unless a similar rate limit is applied to article creation. At the moment an editor can mass-create a ton of articles very rapidly; to avoid a WP:FAIT situation, it is obviously necessary for another editor to be able to challenge those articles equally-rapidly. Regarding the evaluation of articles, above - often when people do this, it's in response to discovering such a mass-creation. In that case all the articles can reasonably contain the same crucial flaw that means they shouldn't have been created; I continue to assert that WP:BEFORE is advisory and optional (otherwise it would invert WP:BURDEN, which obviously places the burden to search for sources on the people who add or wish to retain material - you can't add something and then insist other people do that search before deleting it.) But even for people who try to insist that it is mandatory, it only requires "reasonable" searches, and when dealing with mass-created articles it is reasonable to simply evaluate the method they were created by and therefore examine them all at once before mass-prodding or mass-AFDing them. Obviously such mass actions are meant to be taken cautiously but we can't forbid them here, since they're sometimes clearly necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can't mass-create more than 25–50 articles per day without getting written permission (and nobody's actually done that for years). If the goal is to mirror creation limits, then that suggests a rate limit of 25–50 AFDs per day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Years, huh. —Cryptic 15:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects aren't articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a limitation of the data available. Manual inspection of the results reveals plenty of instances where the created pages are mostly non-redirects. Example. —Cryptic 16:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages aren't articles, either. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can Quarry filter by Special:Tags or edit summaries? Excluding any edit with "Tags: New redirect" or an edit summary containing words like redirect or disambiguation would help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors can't mass-create more than 25–50 articles per day without getting written permission (and nobody's actually done that for years). " ??? Where do you get that idea from? See e.g. User:Ponor, who created 235 articles between 02.27 yesterday and 06.10 today. Fram (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:MASSCREATE, which says "large-scale" creations require written permission in advance, and adds that "While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed."

If Ponor has not received permission under this policy provision, then any concerned editor can take the violation off to ANI, with the possible results including mass deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that Ponor appears to be using a script (PAWS) to facilitate the masscreation. Cremastra (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So not "can't" but "aren't theoretically allowed to, but nothing's stopping them". There is no rate limit like there is with account creations and so on. Fram (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the very rare occasions it is actually desirable (it's never "necessary") to mass-delete articles then we have processess for that - namely group AfDs and in extreme cases RFCs. PRODs should never be used en-mass because PRODs are explicitly only for uncontroversial deletions, and mass deletion is always controversial. And anyway it should never be easier to delete an article than create one - our goal is to build an encyclopaedia not to delete one. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
mass deletion is always controversial Is that a guideline or your opinion? I was reading this because in December I proded a bunch of articles a single editor had made in a short period of time and I think most of them were deleted. I do not recall anyone mentioning this to me at the time Czarking0 (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How many is "a bunch"? On 18 December 2024, I see five articles that you prod'd but that did not get deleted. They were by two different editors, writing about two unrelated subjects. Two or three articles per editor/subject is not "mass deletion". Something like 25–50 articles, all on the same subject, and especially if it were all of the articles on that subject or if the prod statement had a lousy rationale (such as "No ____ is ever notable" – something an experienced editor like you would never claim) would be mass prodding.

Reasonable people could disagree on exactly where to draw the line between those two extremes, but I don't think that, say, five articles on the same subject would count. And if the article is unsourced and qualifies for WP:BLPPROD, then any editor who runs across it should either promptly make it ineligible (i.e., add a source) or prod it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there needs to be proportionality here, and specifically that the effort required to delete an article should be proportionate to the effort spent in its creation. Lugnuts stubs were created at extremely high rate, often several per minute, from databases. Therefore they should be proddable at an extremely high rate; but they aren't, because we have editors who insist on laborious and time-intensive processes that have the practical effect of making them ludicrously difficult to get rid of.

Per policy, we're expected to be very firm about the use of high quality sources for biographies of living people. Lugnuts' creations very largely consist of undersourced, unmaintained, unwatchlisted BLPs and in my view they represent the most ghastly risk to the project. I continue to feel that the best thing we could do with Lugnuts articles is purge them all. In due course, good faith editors who will actually curate and maintain them will be ready to bring the appropriate ones back.

Of course, on the day that happens, I'll be hitting the slopes with my good buddy Satan.—S Marshall T/C 23:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a fairly specific issue that is better addressed on a case by case basis

Czarking0 (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'd like to address 93,000 extremely similar articles one by one because...?—S Marshall T/C 10:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the articles may be similar the subjects are not necessarily so. It is very significantly more important to get things right than to do them quickly, so we need to take the time to assess what the correct action for each article is. I'm not advocating individually in every case, but any grouping must be done carefully and thoughtfully. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you if the subjects were similar, but they are from wildly different countries and time periods. Just because the article format or length is the same doesn't mean the subject matter is. --Habst (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These would be the editors who insist on laborious and time-intensive processes to whom I referred. The time should have been taken at creation, because these are biographies. It was not. Lugnuts made these very rapidly from a database, and they read almost identically. I do feel that it is for those who advocate keeping them to review and watchlist them all.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How much time should have taken at creation is irrelevant now they have been created. What matters now is that two wrongs don't make a right and those who wish to review articles before deletion be given the time to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've had years. How much more time will you need?—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming your figure of 93,000 articles is correct, and an average of 10 minutes to do a full and proper BEFORE and add make any relevant improvements to the article (I don't know how accurate this is) comes to 645 days, 20 hours. That's about 1¾ years of volunteer time assuming no duplication of effort, no time spent pushing back against proposals to just delete the lot without adequate review, no time spent on other articles, no time defending articles improved (but not sufficiently to someone) from PRODs/AfDs, no time discussing articles on talk pages (e.g. merge/split proposals), no time dealing with vandalism, no time improving articles to more than the bare minimum standard, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are exactly 93,187. Lugnuts' autopatrolled rights were removed in April 2021, so the community has been well aware of the magnitude of the problem with his creations for about four years. I would like to comply with policy by being very firm about the use of high-quality sources for these biographical articles. But I can't: no venue exists in which I'm allowed to be firm. If I tried to mass-PROD or mass-AFD them then I would be told off for being disruptive. The whole quagmire is unfixable in any rational or acceptable timescale, which is why I keep saying that the incredible number of unwatchlisted biographies represents the most ghastly risk to the project.—S Marshall T/C 16:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole quagmire is unfixable in any rational or acceptable timescale that depends entirely on your definitions of "rational" and "acceptable". In the view of myself and many others, any way forward must allow time to properly review each article, search for high quality sources in the place they are most likely to be found (which may be offline and/or not in English) and (where applicable) add them to the article. Anything shorter than that is neither rational nor acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why I say that "no venue exists in which I'm allowed to be firm."—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then create them after the sources are found. Would you still believe we should leave them be if someone used bots to create articles for all ~10 million people listed on IMDB? Also going to note (somewhat in response to S Marshall) that as I said above, this was addressed at WP:NSPORTS2022 where it was decided that sports biographies must have sigcov in the article. So any without already-existing sources in the article are fair game. This includes but is not limited to the articles in Category:Sports biographies lacking sources containing significant coverage. There's already consensus for this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram @S Marshall @Thebiguglyalien, according to the OP, "NEXIST and NBASIC override NSPORTS2022" and "SPORTSCRIT #5 does not apply" to athletes who meet a subcriterion, which is why he has been deprodding every Lugstub and insisting editors have to have checked all local offline archives to prove no SIGCOV exists at AfD. This has been a problem in particular for non-English subjects, where he often dumps search results that he hasn't even translated as evidence of "coverage" and obliges others to translate them all, after which he will claim that various sentences and sentence fragments add up to BASIC. See also this ongoing headache, and this, and this. JoelleJay (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's not deprodding every Lugstub – its mainly only ones that have a high chance of being notable (I've seen hundreds of Olympian PRODs recently, many of which are probably notable, get deleted without anyone attempting to take a look into it) – nor is he insisting editors have to have checked all local offline archives to prove no SIGCOV exists at AfD. All we want is that some archives be searched – its very frustrating when we're having some of the all-time greatest African athletes deleted because no one is checking any relevant places. What's wrong with listing coverage of a subject that one can't translate themselves so that someone who can speak the language can hopefully see if its sufficient for notability? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If All we want is that some archives be searched then why wasn't searching all Czech newspaper archives available at Charles University, or all Al-Anwar and Al-Ahram and Akhbar Al-Usbo and Addustour newspaper archives, or any of the other archives in dozens of other AfDs enough? BEFORE does not even hint at recommending a local or even nation-specific archives search, so you are demanding WAY more than is expected at AfD ON TOP of ignoring a global consensus requirement. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more talking about the many African and Asian subjects being deleted, rather than the one Czech athlete for which the argument was in part that the sources were sufficient (even if you disagreed). I'm going to go through the last few Olympian AFDs that have been deleted/redirected and note if a relevant archive was searched: Mohamed Al-Aswad? No. Bohumír Pokorný? Yes, but no one was willing to look at the coverage. Kamana Koji? No. Sami Beyroun? No. Alfredo Valentini? No. Artur Elezarov? No. Faisal Marzouk? No(?). Piero Ferracuti? No. For many of these, there's not even evidence that any search anywhere is being done. Suggesting that someone should look for sources from that subject's nation is not "demanding WAY more than is expected". BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is demanding way more when there is literally nothing in BEFORE that suggests anything close to what you are asking for. JoelleJay (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, as I've stated in other threads, I do think prods/noms should provide evidence that a search was done in the native language. But it's not editors' faults that potentially notability-demonstrating sources are not verifiable; we don't keep articles on other GNG-dependent topics just because no local resources are accessible. I've asked WMF numerous times, including in several on-wiki discussions, to put their considerable largesse into media digitization efforts in underrepresented countries, but they would rather spend it on ridiculous unvetted grants and on attempts at enshittifying the platform. JoelleJay (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (sports) § Basic criteria (with one exception) describes how the individual bullet points at Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline are interpreted in the context of sports figures. Thus it serves as an overall framework for the sports-specific guidelines for presuming the existence of suitable sources which demonstrate that the general notability guideline is met. This framework is also suitable for sports without sports-specific guidelines. It's not a case of one overriding the other, but the two complementing each other.

The one exception is the last bullet item in Wikipedia:Notability (sports) § Basic criteria, which is a documentation requirement that doesn't really belong in this section as it isn't a criterion for evaluating if the standards for having an article are met. Nominally, it does run counter to Wikipedia:Notability § Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, but it's an exception that was created by consensus agreement, and is really a "document this when you create an article" requirement, rather than a way to determine if an article should theoretically exist by English Wikipedia's standards. For better or worse, Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Rough consensus doesn't require evaluators of consensus to discount opinions that run counter to guidelines, so it's up to participants in deletion discussions to convince each other of the more compelling argument. isaacl (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I explicitly stated earlier, what should be done before creation is irrelevant now they have been created. Every discussion about NSPORTS2022 and similar has found either no consensus for or explicit consensus against mass deletion or deletion without review, so no there isn't consensus for that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what should be done before creation is irrelevant now they have been created – Not true. We could absolutely revert to the status quo ante, but people make a stink about it whenever the solution is raised. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Cremastra (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to the status quo ante is a method of dealing with the situation we find ourselves in now, we could apply that regardless of what was or wasn't done before creation. I will continue to oppose that solution as deleting articles about notable subjects just because someone also created articles about non-notable subjects is very much cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting to "status quo ante", aka mass deleting everything a Very Naughty Editor™ created, means deleting Muzamil Sherzad, which had 16 refs at the time of creation.

I found this article by glancing through the first page of Special:Contribs for the pages he created (it's mostly redirects).

The benefits of deleting this article would be:
We'd really show that already blocked Very Naughty Editor™ that we're so mad about his bad actions that we'll even delete his good ones.

Indiscriminate actions – unlike writing a 368-word-long article with 16 refs – don't require editors' time, effort, or thought.

The cons are:
Readers won't have the information.

Removing good information is against the mission.

Indiscriminate actions are against the community's values.

We're Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, not to grandstand about how awful the Very Naughty Editor was and how just blocking him is not good enough.

It's illogical to say that we want to promote the creation of well-sourced articles, and then propose deleting some well-sourced articles. (By that "logic", if you miss any questions on your math test, the teacher should mark everything wrong, including the once you answered correctly.)

I would like to prevent the creation of badly sourced articles. But since nobody's given me a working time machine, that can't be done for Lugnuts' articles. The options available to us are:
Review them one by one (cons: lots of work)

Mass delete them (cons: see above)

Stop caring about whether some usually unimportant, usually accurate, and usually low-traffic pages exist, and do something that you think is actually important with your time.

This is fundamentally the "fast, cheap, good" problem. At most, you can get any two of those qualities. So if you say "I want to solve the Lugnuts problem quickly and with minimal effort", you are effectively saying "I want low-quality results from this process". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just delete the ones that don't currently have significant coverage, like I said above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which requires manual review, which is the opposite of mass deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what the original Prods did, apparently. They manually reviewed the articles, saw they had only had non-significant coverage (sports-reference.com), and prodded them (e.g. [1][2][3]). And still they are accused of mass deletion. You can't have it both ways. Fram (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's far worse than WAID makes out. Reviewing them one by one would be the least rotten option, if we could review them, find they're crap, prod them, and move on. But we can't. We're barred from prodding them at a rate that would get the job done in the next decade, because we'd overwhelm the self-appointed proposed deletion proposers.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
25 a day would cover every article Lugnuts created in almost exactly one decade. (I assume the ~90K article count does not include his 75K redirects.) The prod folks are unlikely to complain about 25 in a day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 77,502 redirects aren't included. For the 10 years without a day off that it will take to clear this backlog, who will watchlist and maintain these poorly sourced biographies?—S Marshall T/C 08:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that there are also all the articles that Carlossuarez46 created from databases. Those aren't biographies so they're less appallingly risky, but the volumes are extremely high. PROD can only cope with so much, and it's not reasonable to make PROD sclerotic for that long.

So even if I could, by working for ten years solidly without a day off, clean up Lugnuts' mess, he would still need his own personal CSD criterion. Something like "article that's sourced only to databases", so it covers Carlossuarez46 as well.—S Marshall T/C 10:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That CSD criterion isn't viable, because it conflicts with WP:NEXIST and is therefore controversial. The notability of a subject isn't determined by whether someone has already added a suitable source. If "didn't add a good source yet" were a viable CSD criterion, then Category:Articles lacking sources could be emptied by bot. That might be no skin off my nose – WPMED's articles are all sourced now – but it would be controversial, and thus not a candidate for CSD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Who will watchlist and maintain these" – the same people who do now; the same people who would do so if they had better sources.

Also, keep in mind that it doesn't have to be you spending 10 minutes x 25 articles x 3650 days to either add a decent source or suggest a WP:PROD. A couple dozen editors could each do one a day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the path we choose to go down, we might as well update WP:MASSCREATE to clarify that your articles will be allowed to stay up if you violate it, no matter how many you make. I should have some fun with five-digit or six-digit mass creation. I know for a fact that it will be basically impossible to get rid of them once I create them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it shouldn't be too hard to write a bot to scrape databases for new species articles, the majority of which are already written by lazy editors who can't be bothered to write beyond "a is a species of b described by c in d" and who should honestly be blocked at this point. Cremastra (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have previously demonstrated, you can write a whole lot more than a single sentence from a species database – including the addition of non-database SIGCOV sources.

If someone would like to do this, then they need to follow the WP:MASSCREATE procedure. Also: We're missing quite a lot of insect articles, but we have almost all the mammals already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should they be blocked if their creations are perfectly within the guidelines.... JoelleJay (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MASSCREATE is a behavioral rule, which means you are more likely to get blocked for violating it than to have content deleted for violating it. You might have noticed that Lugnuts is blocked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why Wikipedia works is because of proportionality. Edits can be reverted with less effort than it took to make them. That's how it's possible to have an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit; we can fix things with a reasonable amount of labour.

This violates that principle. It's a free gift to griefers and bad actors. As soon as you've got an autopatrolled account, you can create two or three articles a minute, and they'll take (on Thryduulf's estimate above) 10 minutes' labour just to go through the WP:BEFORE.

BEFORE is the right principle when it protects people who care, and try. If you spend an hour researching and drafting an article then a ten minute BEFORE is perfectly fair.

It's not the right principle for people who splurge out thirty articles in thirty minutes.

The answer to Lugnuts and Carlossuarez46 is definitely fast and cheap, not good. They created fast and cheap so good's unviable.

They need reviewing individually but there's got to be a proportionate workflow. It has to be glance, see if there's a non-database source, draftify if there isn't, move on. It cannot possibly be prod-deprod-triptodramaboards-argue-tag-detag-argue-AFD-DRV-argue. And the people who advocate the long-winded process need to be the ones responsible for watchlisting and maintenance.—S Marshall T/C 23:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of preventing future such problems, I think the answer is that we need to stop people when they're in the "first hundred" range, and not wait until they're on the multi-ten-thousands.

Carlossuarez46 was yelled at in March 2021 because articles he created in ~2008–2009 (example) did not comply with a guideline that was adopted in December 2012. Yes, it would be nice if those articles were in better shape, but it's also unfair to tell people that they've done a bad thing because they didn't predict how the rules would change in the future.

I just added two sources to that article, BTW. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but now that we've shut the stable door, the horse still needs to be caught and returned. We still need to agree a reasonable and proportionate workflow for dealing with the lugstubs we have, and "do a full before for each one" isn't it.—S Marshall T/C 08:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, did we only have a guideline or policy from 2012 on that articles had to be verifiable and truthful? E.g. not creating articles claiming to be about villages when they weren't about villages at all? Carlossuarez was "yelled at" because "we have one-sentence articles hanging around for years where that one sentence is an outright falsehood."[4] Please don't write alternative truths to support your position. That there were occasionally correct articles among the thousands of dubious or outright wrong ones is hardly an excuse. Fram (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I was paying attention to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#Suggested block for Carlossuarez46, where editors say things like "One of the worst periods for Carlos's article creation activities appears to have been in July 2009". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As we saw with the mass Lugnuts deletions, many of the articles had sources out there and were able to be fixed if you just looked. But despite there being WP:NORUSH, the articles just HAD to be drafted ASAP. It can take me hours to days to write various articles and if you are able to nominate dozens a day, you are probably not doing the proper research. Foreign articles also need extra care since you have to search in different languages and databases.

I also do think something needs to be done with Lugnuts being brought up time and time again. It's just harassment at this point and despite nobody being able to WP:OWN an article, it sure seems like many people think he does.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the complaints about Lugnuts show a breakdown in the community. We're no longer in this together. Instead, some of us see WP:IMPERFECT contributions as a burden being foisted on to us. He gets to make an article, and now I'm stuck watching to see whether anyone vandalizes it? (The article I expanded yesterday has averaged less than one edit per year. Most of them were bots/scripts, and zero touched the article's content.)

Perhaps we're feeling the strain more than we used to? We used to spend a huge amount of time – perhaps as much as a third of active registered editors – manually reverting blatant vandalism. The bots have taken over most of that, so perhaps that has given us enough space to start complaining about things that are at the Paper cut level rather than the serious injury level? When you spend your day reverting poop vandalism, then a new article that contains no vandalism at all might seem particularly good. When you almost never see blatant vandalism, maybe the problem of a single-sentence stub seems more burdensome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deaths.

Recent deaths often omits celebrities who have recently reported died even those who have a Wikipedia page. How recently is recent? 2A0C:4F41:1C13:6800:10A1:649C:E601:63CD (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deaths are nominated at WP:ITNC where they are reviewed for quality purposes, and if they don't reach sufficient quality in 7 days, the nomination fails. Most celebrities (particularly actors and musicans) do not have quality articles due to unsourced filmography or discography tables, nor get improved, so many of these are not posted. — Masem (t) 17:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also sometimes happens that people are not nominated, although this is uncommon with people likely to be described as a celebrity. Unsourced or partially sourced filmographies and discographies is by the most common reason but the whole article needs to be fully cited and free of orange maintenance tags and other significant issues. By far the best thing to do if there is someone you really think should be featured is to make sure their article is of good quality - and you don't need to wait until they die to start doing this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a news site. The idea of this section is to show what encyclopedic content we have about the person who has died, not to report that fact. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking on the "Recent deaths" link leads to Deaths in 2025, which is more comprehensive.—Bagumba (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2025 indicates that about 20 deaths/day are recorded on Wikipedia. ITN's RD section only seems to do about 4/day on average. The selection of this fraction seems quite arbitrary. For instance, the current selection is:

Kitty Dukakis – American author (1936–2025)
Eddie James – American murderer and sex offender (1961–2025)
Munir Shakir – Founder of terrorist group Lashkar-e-Islam (1969–2025)
Dik Wolfson – Dutch economist and politician (1933–2025)
Eddie Jordan – Irish motorsport executive and broadcaster (1948–2025)
Aaron Gunches – American murderer executed in Arizona (1971–2025)

The most prominent celebrity death currently is George Foreman – American boxer (1949–2025) but that article has not been posted yet. It still got millions of readers so ITN's failure doesn't much matter – most readers access such articles using search engines, not the main page. (see What's known about how readers navigate Wikipedia)

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Testing the waters: Overturning USPLACE

Yes, I know this is at perennial proposals, which is why I'm not jumping straight ahead to an RFC, but WP:USPLACE, the guideline that determines the titles of settlements in the United States, is fundamentally at loggerheads with the five criteria:

Recognizability: Large cities that are not usually associated with their state may astonish readers who see the page name connected to the state (for instance, when I hear Louisville, I don't think of it being in Kentucky). Yes, this is a double-edged sword, as people with no knowledge of the city might not know of it, but this can easily be solved with textual disambiguation. For instance, 2022 Ürümqi fire says in its lead sentence: On 24 November 2022, a fire broke out... in Ürümqi, Xinjiang, China, because the average reader will not recognize Ürümqi as being in Xinjiang or China, yet no disambiguation is present in the Ürümqi article. We could easily use this in the lead sentences of articles concerning these cities. Also, the short descriptions and previews of the articles with USPLACE disambiguation, which include the state, are redundant to the disambiguation in the title.
Naturalness: Readers are likely to search Louisville instead of Louisville, Kentucky just because of typing efficiency, and in articles, the short form is usually linked to (example: in Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport). This satisfies both subcriteria in the Naturalness section.
Precision: In cases where there is a primary redirect, such redirect is unambiguous if a hatnote is added, as is present on Boston, Cleveland, and most of the other 26 undisambiguated city articles. If the title was ambiguous in any way, there would be no primary redirect.
Concision: Raleigh, North Carolina is almost three times longer than just plain old Raleigh, which redirects there already, so moving the much longer name to the shorter name breaks nothing and makes Wikipedia more efficient.
Consistency: Another double-edged sword. The argument for consistency is clear: not a single other country uses USPLACE. Yes, consistency has been used by supporters of USPLACE to argue that it goes against consistency to have some articles using commas while others don't. However, we don't worry about that in any other country: we have Valence, Drôme but Biarritz not Biarritz, Pyrénées-Atlantiques. There's no reason we need to treat the US different from literally every other country.

The argument is that appending the state is part of American English. That is not even remotely true. No source describes American English as such (see American English, which does not mention the comma convention at all) and other articles that use American English, such as Agua Prieta, whose article uses American English and with the town just across the border, even so, the article is not titled Agua Prieta, Sonora, which would be the title if the comma convention were part of American English. Yes, the AP Stylebook recommends the comma convention. But if we followed the AP stylebook, then we'd be ending quotes with ." instead of "., our article on the Salem witch trials would have to be moved to Salem Witch Trials, and our article on Gulf of Mexico would have to be moved to Gulf of Mexico/Gulf of America. Simply put, USPLACE violates our guidelines on article titles.

Furthermore, many editors oppose USPLACE, as can be shown by the three RMs opened in the last month, all of which unfortunately failed, on removing the state name from Brownsville, Lubbock, and Redmond. Even some of the oppose !votes in those RMs and others expressed dissatisfaction with USPLACE, with one editor calling it peculiar and another saying they were personally opposed to it. Consensus can change, especially when consensus is determined to be in conflict with policy. Thank you for considering my request.

—🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 19:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what the arguement is. We gave naming conventions for most of the world. In the case of Brownsville there us clearly two places on wikipedia with that name, so we need to distinquish them and the US has a lot of places with the same name. If we didn't have these conventions, based upon some of the arguments raised, Boston, Lincolnshire should be just plain Boston as it is the original - which is just silly. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's true of lots of topics. Having the larger area name is something we do for disambiguation, and like anything that we disambiguate, there can be a primary name. We even do that geographically; we have an article on Paris and don't feel the need to specify it's the one in France and not Paris, Texas. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But we should not have "Primary pages", as how can we determine what is primary? Boston, Lincolnshire or Boston, Massachusetts, or the 16 places in the US or the 34 other places around the world? Paris should be Paris, France. Even Britannica has it as Paris (national capital, France) so we are following normal conventions. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting viewpoint, however, it is not the consensus of Wikipedians, who believe that it is much more convenient to have a primary topic, with such a high consensus that it became one of our policies and guidelines. Feel free to open an RM at Paris asking to have it moved to Paris, France, however, in accordance with the primary topic guideline, it will likely fail. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 20:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus? In Bios it isn't. Take John Smith, there is no primary article. What is the primary article is conjecture, which leads to edit wars. Clearly making something clear and simple is easy, and falls in line with what Encyclopedias have done for years. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything has a primary topic. John Smith is such a vague, common name, that of course there isn't one. But Boston, Mass., not Boston, Lincolnshire, is clearly the primary topic and thus does not need a disambiguator. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So how is Boston MA the primary? The tea party may have taken place their, but that is a page on its own? Boston, Lincolnshire has a history of over 1000 years, while Boston MA is named after the UK town by settlers from their? I would say neither are primary, as they are amongst how over 40 world wide. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boston: population of 675,000 in the city proper, and 4,900,000 in the Greater Boston area.
Boston, Lincolnshire: population of 45,000 in the city proper, and 67,000 in the borough.

I'd say that having 15 times as many residents in the city and 70 times as many in the surrounding area is good evidence towards being primary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do it all the time in bios, when there's a clear "primary" topic -- i.e., the one that most of the people entering the name are looking for. Consider, say, Robin Williams, which takes you right to the comedian, even though Robin Williams (disambiguation) shows you eleven other Robins Williams. Over 13,000 page views a day for the comedian's page, and less than a quarter of one percent of those end up on the disambiguation page looking for the other Robin Williams they were looking for. See WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY for how we judge this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go into why Boston is the primary topic, but you can read WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY and then do the analyses between the former and the latter. In any event, Boston isn't a great example since we have an exception for major US cities that don't require disambiguation. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Zzyzx11 has the right idea Czarking0 (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to first look at all the archived discussions and proposals listed near the top of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). I count almost 30 dating back to May 2004 discussion, with the last one in February 2023. Even getting the AP Stylebook exception for the 28 or so for the larger cities seemed to be a hassle. I think it had gotten to the point in that last discussion, with over 20 years and 30 discussions with this disputed issue, that the titles are "stable" now and it would be more of a disruption for a massive change rather than keep retaining this existing style. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Admin recall was soundly rejected for two decades before passing in 2024. Consensus can change, and it does. To Davidstewartharvey, the proposal is only for articles such as Louisville, Kentucky, to which Louisville redirects. If this proposal were to pass, Louisville, Kentucky would be moved to Louisville. And once again, no evidence that this is the style in American English. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 20:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats just plain wrong! Louisville should redirect to Louisville (disambiguation) as there is more than Louisville in the US - 8 in the US alone plus 1 in Belize! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I forgot to say, what do American reality programs for food and property do when they go anywhere? They normally flash the name up in the convention i.e. Boston, MA, which is just an abbreviation of what USPLACE is doing so it is used in American English Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not plain wrong. That is not how we deal with ambiguous names. If something is the primary topic (that is, it is either the most likely reference of that topic that someone is looking for or "itt has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term"), then the article is placed at that page, and a hatnote to a disambiguation page is provided. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would make the disambiguation page malplaced. If you think this primary redirect is incorrect, you can request that Louisville (disambiguation) be moved to Louisville. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Americans want to be excpetional then let's let them do it somewhere relatively harmless, like this. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chicdat, WP:ADMINRECALL finally passed in 2024 partly because it was initially identified as part of the larger urgent need to reform RFA. I did not see that sense of urgency in that last 2023 USPLACE discussion -- everybody basically repeats all the same arguments as in the previous discussions, and it ends with no consensus. I do not think you bring anything significantly new to the table that has not already been discussed repeatedly. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fully concur with User:Zzyzx11's assessment. Also keep in mind that for many American attorneys and other legal professionals, the first Louisville they think of when they hear Louisville is Louisville, Colorado, because that is where the National Institute for Trial Advocacy is currently based. Most people who have heard of Louisville, Kentucky think of it only because they are fast food fans, and of course, all true fast food fans around the world love Yum! Brands. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is my point about Primary that I raised, you dont instantly think Louisville, Kentucky but one of the others! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea NITA was based in Louisville or Colorado. We also don't base a primary topic or decision to disambiguate on whether a small population of people associate something with a place. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with that last point. There are over 1.3 million lawyers in the United States, and that's not counting allied legal professionals like paralegals, assistants, and secretaries, many of whom have also heard of NITA because the lawyer they work for ran off to attend a NITA learning-by-doing program. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely be in favor of allowing more specific exceptions to USPLACE, for additional large or particularly famous cities, and for unambiguously named state capitols. BD2412 T 03:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for this too, but wouldn't want to overturn USPLACE entirely. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that someone should post an announcement at WP:USCITY too, because this topic affect far more editors than just those who watch the WP:USPLACE article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). jlwoodwa (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your sound argumentation, Chicdat. I agree with your points, but as I am not familiar with the history of USPLACE I don't know how much of a trainwreck yet another RfC would be. Toadspike [Talk] 10:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the fact that Palo Alto rediects to Palo Alto, California is strong enough evidence that the article should be at the former. And the best way to challenge the Louisville example stated by User:Coolcaesar would be to move the Kentucky city's article to that title and running a WP:Requested Moves request. Animal lover |666| 23:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that cities where the short name redirects to the long name should be at the short name. Toadspike [Talk] 17:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagree. That someone created an article about the city in California and gave it a non-disambiguated title is not evidence that the non-disambiguated title was correct. That said, I could see an argument for saying that the redirect should point to Palo Alto (disambiguation). Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: I'm not saying these articles should be automatically moved. I'm just trying to get the rule prohibiting such a thing out of the way before opening a bunch of RMs on those articles. If evidence can be provided that the city in California is not the primary topic for Palo Alto, it is likely an RM would fail. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 18:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The “rule” is fine as is. Far simpler to go the other way… and file an RM arguing for an “occasional exception” when appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would make the disambiguation page malplaced. If you think this primary redirect is incorrect, you can request that Palo Alto (disambiguation) be moved to Palo Alto. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern would be that by snipping the states we'd end up with yet another round of RMs on things like Plymouth (MA) v Plymouth (UK) or Birmingham (AL) v Birmingham (UK). Neither US city in these cases is close to being the primary use, but that hasn't stopped people wasting everyone's time over and over before. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They can still make an RM request for Birmingham or Plymouth, claiming that the UK cities are not primary topics (this would necessarily be the case if the US cities are). And if we applied USPLACE-like rules for the UK, we would be much more likely to have an edit war than allowing any real chance for a discussion (an RM would attract attention, while discussion about a redirect target would probably escape all attention). Animal lover |666| 08:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current guideline doesn't stop that from occurring Talk:Birmingham/Archive_12#Requested_move_(2009) Talk:Plymouth Traumnovelle (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 22nd birthday (roughly), notability!

It has been 22 years and 9 days since MartinHarper made an edit that quite a lot of people have missed since. I wrote Special:Diff/1278668922 on the 22nd anniversary, entirely coincidentally since someone was talking about the history and I thought that I should write it up. I didn't even spot the date when I was doing it.

(I'm not aware that this came up on the mailing list prior to that, although memory is hazy and I'd have to pore over the archives to refresh it. However, there is context in the form of m:What to do with entries related to September 11 casualties, which was a contemporary issue. c.f. Special:Diff/715056 on the policy talk page the day before.)

Uncle G (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. It is sometimes difficult to trace the history of our rule and processes, but knowing the history can help understand why things developed the way they did. I hope that you left a note at Wikipedia talk:Notability about this as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this explanation. I'm trying to wrap my head around notability, as my first article, Draft:Josephine Semmes, was rejected based on notability and is now again awaiting review. After reading your article, I'm still baffled, as Semmes's notability as a scientist seems to me to have been pretty well-established in the previous article drafts, per what you wrote about authors (also seen at WP:ACADEMICS). Aurodea108 (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, WP:NPROF is looking for someone with a "named chair" – "The David Donor and Molly Millionaire Professor of Something Or Another". People who "only" discover useful things about the world don't necessarily qualify. If you haven't done so before, you might drop by Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) to ask for advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral Results and local governance divisions

Hi. I recently took to AFD three articles Chalkwell (Southend-on-Sea ward), Westborough (ward) and Milton (Southend-on-Sea ward). All three pages, in my belief, did not meet WP:NPLACE and as per discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. In addition, these articles are just results of the ward elections which dont meet WP:NOTSTATS. All three were kept, 2 as keep and one as no concensus, even though I pointed out in one discussion that ward results were already recorded on Southend-on-Sea City Council elections page.

My question is this, do we or should we have a policy on electoral results? We state that wikipedia is not a Gazetter but has elements of a Gazetter, so should we have lists of results? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't look to create a new policy over a few AfDs with the same participants. Lots of AfD outcomes do somewhat contradict policy. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ASIN links

We have thousands of links to Amazon via the {{ASIN}} template. This seems to me to be entirely inappropriate. There is a neutral and globally unique identifier (ISBN) which every book from a serious publisher carries. If you use the {{ISBN}} template, we will help the user find the book in their own region, from a library or a choice of bookstores. An ASIN is a link directly (and only) to the Amazon sales page. I strongly believe that we should not permit the use of a vendor-specific product SKU and sales link, through a template, in this way. And, as a matter of policy, I believe we should ban the use of sales links as references generally. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We should not be favoring a vendor in this way. Donald Albury 16:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are not limited to books from serious publishers. We conditionally accept self-published sources, particularly for autobiography and material from subject matter experts, which may be in niches that do not interest the "serious" publishers. Where you're most likely to have an ASIN without an ISBN available is when the book is published as a Kindle ebook only, no physical edition. (This does not mean that we should necessarily display the ASIN the way that we do an ISBN.)

An Amazon sales page provides more than just sales information on such an ebook; it provides a preview of the portion of the book, which may be useful in verification of content. A book that is released primarily as a Kindle ebook may have no other significant web presence such as a Worldcat page to point to. And while I understand the desire for Wikipedia not to be a pipeline to Amazon sales, I'm not sure there is a meaningful difference between pointing to an Amazon page for a work that is only available on Kindle and to pointing to other paywalled sources, such as places that will show you the summary of a journal article but sell you the whole thing for $65. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs don't exist for some books, including anything printed before 1966 (when the "SBN" [ISBN's predecessor] was first invented) and quite a lot printed before about 1980.

ASINs also exist for sources that are not books (e.g., music, maps, pamphlets, instruction manuals). Clicking on ASIN B000003F6R will verify the fact that David Bowie really did narrate Peter and the Wolf. There is no ISBN for that recording.

Nat, thinking back to previous discussions, I think part of the problem is that it's Amazon. All the people who hated Walmart in the 1990s have turned to Amazon as the destroyer of working-class life now; we should try to hurt them or de-platform them whenever possible.

I agree with you that some of the objections amount to squeamishness about money. In this model, however, the cachet of an 🌟academic💫 journal offsets the vulgarity of money changing hands. An unabashedly commercial website has no such defense. I would expect "Don't use Amazon" – "No, don't use Barnes and Noble, either" – "No, you can't use the label's webpage" – "No, don't use the band's webpage either!" – and then we end up citing, e.g., a dust jacket cover, and what could previously be checked by anyone who clicked the ASIN link can now only be checked by people who can get their hands on a physical copy.

And some of it may be a game of WP:FETCH. I recall seeing an editor insist that iTunes and similar music services were unacceptable sources for track listing information. It turned out that what the editor actually meant was a lot closer to "I don't think we should have articles about this music genre" than to "I think this source has incorrect information".

I would, therefore, not recommend deleting the ASIN template. But I would recommend minimizing its use. In particular, if the ISBN works, then I'd be happy for the CS1 templates to automatically not display the ASIN. It IMO should be used when we need it, not just because it's an available parameter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{ASIN}} is what we call an identifier of last resort. Some things have no ISBNs, no OCLC numbers, no ISSNs, no DOIs, no PMIDs, etc... but will have an ASIN. It it then, and only then, that ASIN should be used. Take for example

Dyas, William J. (August 1889). "Necessity for Discretion". The Canadian Druggist. 1 (2): 30-38. ASIN B0DQPPGTXZ.

Does an DOI, OCLC or LCCN exist? Maybe. But in the meantime the ASIN is fine and very helpful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"An identifier of last resort" is exactly my feeling. If that isn't already in the template's documentation, then I support adding it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should note that ASINs assigned to pre-ISBN work are slipshod. That's because it's generally used items being entered into Amazon's database by third parties. Sometimes the seller won't find/won't bother to find the previous listing which is there, giving the same publication multiple ASINs; sometimes they find the listing for a different edition (or even different work of a similar title) and assign their item to that, making the ASIN unreliable for what you get. The data that populates the page is not being provided by the publisher and is thus much less reliable. There is also some incentive for deliberate misinformation that allowed some things to show up higher in certain search results; Amazon seems to have reined in the used items that were supposedly being published in 2040, but that was a regular thing for a while. None of this is to say "no ASINs", but just putting a realistic cap on their usefulness on some fronts. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember having this discussion on here somewhere in about 2005, and I think I made more or less the same comments at the time as you do now, but sadly failed to get traction then. I'm weirdly reassured it's only now used about 5k times, to be honest! I expected it to be a lot more prolific.

I would strongly recommend that at the very least we consider migrating any ASIN starting with a digit - ie presumably a valid ISBN - to an ISBN field/template and remove the ASIN template as duplicative. I don't see any obvious reason for using those outside of the very rare circumstance in which we are somehow citing the Amazon page itself, and those could (should?) be using a direct URL instead. A search for these using {{ASIN}} - search Andrew Gray (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That found 783 for me before it timed out. I checked one (Viv Richards) and was easily able to replace the ASIN with an ISBN (by clicking through to the Amazon page and copying the ISBN-13 listed there, but the ASIN was the same as the ISBN-10, which is also valid for us). Should we suggest this as a task at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think assuming that the ASIN resolves to a valid ISBN-10, there would not be any particular problem replacing it with an ISBN. The ISBN-10 can be converted to an ISBN-13 if desired. This might be a little too complex for AWB however (it needs ISBN validation/conversion). Andrew Gray (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent re-covering old ground too much:
Uncle G (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(If there isn't already a list of these discussions on the template's talk page, maybe you would copy them there.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we use the term "committed suicide"?

The village pump is overflowing again. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/The term committed suicide instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Many times this has been brought up, but no consensus has been found. Even in a Wikipedia article, it has been acknowledged that the term "committed suicide" can stigmatizing and offensive (and outdated). Related: MOS:SUICIDE, MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2018, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, CAT 2019, VPPOL 2021, VPPOL 2023. {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 19:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Mandatory Guideline Reading for New Users Before Article Creation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Many new users create articles that fail Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality standards, often due to ignorance rather than malice. This leads to frequent deletions, wasted editor effort, and unnecessary disputes. To address this, Wikipedia should implement a mandatory tutorial that all new users must complete before they can create a new article. Problem Currently, Wikipedia allows new users to create articles without requiring them to read or understand basic policies. This results in:

✔ Promotional or non-notable articles (e.g., local businesses, places, personal pages).
✔ Inappropriate content that requires admin intervention and speedy deletions.
✔ Time wasted by editors and admins who must review, warn, and delete these articles.

While Wikipedia provides guidelines (e.g., WP:NPOV, WP:Notability), new users are not forced to read them before creating pages. Many users skip policies or are unaware of them, leading to repeated mistakes. Proposed Solution Wikipedia should require all new users (those with fewer than 10 edits) to complete a short interactive tutorial before creating an article. This tutorial should include:

✅ What makes a topic notable (e.g., independent sources, significant coverage).
✅ Why Wikipedia is not a promotional platform (e.g., no self-promotion, local business pages).
✅ Basic policies like Neutrality (NPOV) and Reliable Sources (WP:RS).

🔹 Implementation Ideas: Interactive pop-up quiz before article creation (e.g., “Does your topic have independent coverage?”). Minimum 10 constructive edits before gaining article creation rights. A required short reading with a "Confirm Understanding" button. Expected Benefits ✔ Fewer promotional articles → Less admin workload on deletions.

✔ Better new user experience → Newcomers won’t waste time on non-notable pages.
✔ More encyclopedic content → Articles will be higher quality from the start.

This proposal does not block new users but ensures they understand Wikipedia’s purpose before contributing. Request for Feedback 🔹 Should Wikipedia require mandatory policy reading before allowing new users to create articles?

🔹 What is the best way to implement this without discouraging new contributors?

Let’s discuss! 🚀 Sys64wiki (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you write this or did ChatGPT? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explain me? Does it matter or you are thinking yourself too smart? Sys64wiki (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many users, including myself, find undisclosed communication using generative AI offensive. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal preferences aside, Wikipedia decisions should be based on policy and reasoned discussion. If you have a counterpoint regarding the proposal’s merits, feel free to present it. Sys64wiki (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not to use LLM is not a "personal preference". Wikipedia (and many places) discourage using LLMs due to serious issues (see WP:LLM). This particular message, being entirely AI-generated without any updates to follow Wikipedia norms, also shows a lack of knowledge about how Wikipedia works. This is particularly concerning given that you are proposing changes to how we handle new articles, a discussion that occurs regularly among seasoned editors, such as those with AFC and NPP. I am further concerned about you raising this, given your recent BITEY behaviour toward new editors (e.g., [5]). You are certainly welcome on Wikipedia, and we appreciate input from new users such as yourself. However, it may be worthwhile familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia culture and behind-the-scenes work. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also this was genuine thought came to me while discussing speedy deletion of a garbage article. Sys64wiki (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was written with AI assistance or not shouldn’t really matter—what matters is the content and whether it aligns with Wikipedia’s policies. If there’s an issue with the proposal itself, let’s discuss that.

Dismissing something just because AI was involved doesn’t address the actual topic. AI is just a tool, like a spell checker or a research assistant. If we start rejecting proposals just because they were refined with AI, we’re shifting the discussion away from what’s actually important.

So, if anyone has policy-based objections, I’m happy to hear them. Otherwise, let’s stay on topic. Sys64wiki (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me the moment you pasted prompt-generated text here. Not interested. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, you actually wrote "I like the idea" before you reverted due to another person's interaction changed your view. Maybe at first you focused on proposal which itself is important but then you become 'a nerd meme guy'. If you are not interested, there is nobody forcing you to join but I will advise you to put suggestions for greater good of Wikipedia. Sys64wiki (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not interested in sorting through AI slop. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already limit article creation to at least 10 edits. As for the rest, it's complicated and likely ineffective. CMD (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the concern is that enforcing guideline reading before article creation would be complicated and ineffective, that depends on how it’s implemented.

A simple 10-edit requirement doesn’t ensure users actually understand Wikipedia’s policies—many just make random edits to bypass it. If we want to improve article quality, simply displaying guidelines won’t help, because most users will click through without reading.

However, an interactive approach, like a short quiz on core policies (NPOV, verifiability, and notability), could be more effective. It wouldn’t need to be complicated—just a few key questions to confirm that new users grasp the basics before creating articles.

So, instead of dismissing the idea as ineffective, we should consider better ways to implement it rather than assuming it won’t work at all. Sys64wiki (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the llm doesn't grasp that you can click through a quiz fine. Nor does the llm understand that we do want new users, or that promotional editors often aren't trying to meet quality standards. Most crucially, the llm doesn't understand the existing systems we have in place around article creation, such as but not limited to the existing 10 edit threshold. CMD (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny you are using 'LLM' to show that this is a chatbot comment, actually this is going over the discussion.

However, for the discussion, it is incorrect to say that "good faith editors (or new users)" always act as promotional editors. In fact, many new users struggle with Wikipedia’s complex policies simply because they are introduced to a trial-and-error system rather than a structured "learn and write" approach. I personally went through this phase for months, so I understand the issue firsthand.

My proposal is not about changing the existing system but improving how new users understand their expected behavior on Wikipedia—similar to how a school teaches rules and structure. This is not about blocking participation but guiding it.

For your LLM problem, i think i used the proposal draft and that was the end of using LLM. Sys64wiki (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make up quotes I didn't say. As for the rest, we do not ask new users to learn and write. We have help areas they are directed to, mentorship systems, and have already gamified onboarding at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. CMD (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should actually discuss the proposal, rather than than how it was written. BD2412 T 03:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd thing to a reply to a comment which was all about the proposal and said nothing about how the proposal was written? CMD (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CMD, You can actually leave discussion {just an advice} if you have personal issues with AIs. Sys64wiki (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out a second time that nothing in the 03:07, 21 March 2025 comment above is about AIs. CMD (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The we are two of us and ready to discuss real material. Actually i deleted those messages (and this will also be deleted) to remove garbage riots from a sincere topic. Sys64wiki (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I undeleted the material, as your deleting people who did not support you because you didn't like what they were criticizing was inappropriate. (You are free to strike through - but not delete - your own comments in those sections.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay. Sys64wiki (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mentoring system actually focus on trial and error and many are forceful. Such as many experienced editor uses their position as 'dictator' rather than cooperators, as I have said i have gone through this, like reverting edits without explaining or helping inexperienced about the things that are appropriate in wikipedia. Also it would be complicated for a beginner to go through mentoring system rather than a system that is available in his own homepage and wherever he visit within wikipedia {such as while making edit, creating article or influencing other people articles}. Sys64wiki (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a newcomer homepage. See Wikipedia:Growth Team features. CMD (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Topic was about......actually, read downside discussions to understand what i am saying because this is a biographical bulk which almost all newcomer will reject to read. Sys64wiki (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to our actual mentorship program (WP:MENTOR) or just the general introduction most people have, where editors are collaborating on articles? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the general introduction that most people have, which often lacks a structured way to learn. While the mentorship program (WP:MENTOR) exists, it isn't something every new editor engages with, and it doesn't fully address the issue of onboarding.

Instead of relying on either mentorship (which is limited in availability) or just expecting new users to figure things out through trial and error, Wikipedia could benefit from a more interactive step-by-step tutorial system. This would guide new users through essential Wikipedia skills by providing structured tasks, real-time feedback, and simulated editing exercises before they start making real changes.

For example, a new editor could go through a guided process where they practice adding citations, making minor edits, and understanding policies in a controlled environment. This would help reduce mistakes, make the learning process clearer, and create a smoother experience for both newcomers and experienced editors. Sys64wiki (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that was the goal of releasing the Wikipedia Adventure, though I have my own critiques about that. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Wikipedia Adventure had good intentions but ultimately failed due to its flawed design. It was a standalone module rather than an integrated guidance system, making it feel disconnected from real editing. Instead of helping new editors navigate actual challenges, it provided general trivia and surface-level interactions. A better approach would be a front-mode HUD or real-time interactive assistance within the editing interface. New users need practical, in-context guidance—not just theoretical lessons—so they can confidently contribute without getting lost in complex policies. Sys64wiki (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HUD (Heads-up display) is actually a step-by-step guide we see in video games, just for context. Sys64wiki (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would likely be far too technically challenging to implement. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you took interest. The problem should not be how challenging but how we can implement because i am always ready to help AS MUCH AS possible. Sys64wiki (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raising article creation to 1,000 edits would help prevent a lot of garbage articles. Masterhatch (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems highly impractical. Setting such a high edit threshold would discourage new contributors and create unnecessary barriers rather than improving article quality. Sys64wiki (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was being hyperbolic. But in reality, a new user should have been around for a spell and have gotten his hands dirty. 10 edits does not do that. Not even close. Masterhatch (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It varies so much on the individual, though. Someone who's vaguely competent, cautious, and reads instructions can do fine writing an article after their first ten edits, especially if it isn't an especially tricky subject like a BLP, and especially if they have a little bit of help. Adding more hoops to jump through, on the other hand, isn't going to stop the POV-pushers, COI editors, and dumb people from writing bad articles sooner or later, but will dissuade the competent editors we need from jumping in. Cremastra (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am intrigued by the notion of a required tutorial before writing a first article. I have worked at several institutions that require all employees to take, for example, mandatory IT training to avoid phishing attacks, and these are structured much like the proposal, usually doable in a few minutes. BD2412 T 03:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure was mentioned by CMD. I don't know if it proved effective, or what it might have been effective at (something could be effective at teaching wikitext but not at teaching notability, and vice versa), but it didn't take a huge amount of time, and people were generally successful at getting to the end of it (or as much as they wanted to do).

"Read the policies", suggested above, is an impossible request. Even if we assume a reading speed of 300 words per minute (on the high side), it would take about half an hour to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not – and that's just one of the policies. Wikipedia:Notability, which is a guideline, takes 15 minutes to read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose quiz and summarised way to propose WK:What Wikipedia is not rather than just approving a complete biography. It is actually overwhelming to read guidelines, I can assure, but would you agree that there is not any better way to work on wiki without guidelines? The quick boxes, prompts, quizzes and etc would make it much easier to understand wiki policy and we should also make a "child" article about these bulky policies for nerds.

And thanks for considering my application rather than what was going on for decades. Sys64wiki (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes BD, I am student and I too have to face this everywhere. This ensures that you are ready to deal with things rather than coming without any prior info and making 100 mistakes. Sys64wiki (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think an overarching issue is that we don't intend for new editors to create articles. On the list of tasks, article creation is recommended for advanced editors--not even intermediate editors. However, many new editors want to create articles right away and then are frustrated that they run into barriers. Conversations about fixing this issue have been happening for over a decade with back-and-forth between the WMF and experienced editors who work behind-the-scenes, including those who regularly help new editors. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this perspective because it contradicts Wikipedia’s collaborative nature. If Wikipedia truly did not want new editors to create articles, then why is article creation an option for them at all? Instead of discouraging new contributors, the focus should be on providing a structured pathway for them to improve their skills before they attempt article creation. If this issue has been debated for over a decade, doesn’t that suggest it’s time for a more effective solution rather than maintaining the status quo? Sys64wiki (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much has happened in the past decade to improve the new user experience. I have not personally been involved in conversations about improving the experience (in part because I haven't been around nearly that long), so I cannot speak to how the conversation goes. However, from the people I have spoken with about such issues, there is back-and-forth with the Wikimedia Foundation, as well as between editors, given that large changes cannot occur without community support. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any better way of discouraging people from being involved in Wikipedia at all than by making required classes and quizzes. We've somehow managed to get millions of articles created without those impediments. The suggestion seems unlikely to discourage people who come here with the goal of creating the sort of article that we find problematic any more than it will those who have more appropriate intents and just need a bit of practice. Plus, with the new temporary accounts coming to replace IPs, it would effectively mean that every time someone who was not a registered user wanted to create an article, they'd have to go through all that again, even if they had ample experience. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gertler, I don’t see a strong basis for your argument. While classes and quizzes might seem unnecessary to experienced users, they can be incredibly useful for newcomers. How exactly does gaining structured knowledge discourage participation? If anything, these tools would help new users understand how Wikipedia functions more effectively. Sys64wiki (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting barriers between people and the thing they want to do is a discouragement, and there are few people who say "yippee, a quiz!". Tools for learning are already available for those who want them. Making things mandatory is a discouragement for those who don't. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not actually right. Since doing things in right way is a mandatory issue in Wikipedia it is also necessary to implement these things with care and in sense of learning program rather than a rule of concentration camp. I think I didn't proposed quiz as priority of this method but a kind of HUD, as we see in video games, but with such options that guide you with Wikipedia rules. This is Mandatory to guide editors to work within rules that Wikipedia allows because that will implement quick adaptations and less mess. I think this is a very simple things but misunderstood by many, what my proposal was about. Sys64wiki (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for tool for learning, their are huge thousand of words of guidelines that of course no beginner wants to read same as you decline to read any app's user agreement policy even though they contains potential informations. If you meant tool such as article wizard, they are tools to create article rather than any kind of rule that tells how Wikipedia works. Sys64wiki (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean tools such as the page Help:Your first article, a friendly page designed with the key information on the sort of things you seem concerned about, and that we already point every person creating an article to. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use AI. I ran this through an AI checker, and it claims it was fully generated by AI
I overall agree with the idea that we need mandatory reading for every person's first new article. This helps us distinguish good and bad faith edits, and as someone who helps out creators of potential new articles on WP:AFCHELP, this will help prevent tonnes of time wasted on both ends.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sys64wiki Even if this was a pop up that you had to click out of, most new Wikipedians will likely just ignore it. The only real way for them to learn is to go in, find out what they are doing is wrong, fix their mistake (or get blocked). Also new users get an introduction that details all of the policies, noticeboards, etc. DotesConks (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta be honest, I ignored most of the introductions outside of the teahouse (and ones I knew previously as an IP editor), which is probably why my first several contributions were not that great, which is why I believe mandatory reading would be much better than simply "hey, you may want to read these documents". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please edit your proposal to be in your own voice? On the merits, it’s not a terrible idea to have a new role (like EC) that can be attained via reading and attesting to having read, notability, etc. I’m not optimistic that it would reduce the reviewer burden though. Dw31415 (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked by Cullen328 btw, the reason including the use of AI. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think the questionnaire idea is going to fly, we can ask whether we can do better than now. When someone starts a new article, what they see is

Before creating an article, please read Help:Your first article. We recommend that new editors use the Article wizard.
You can also search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted.
You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/WhateverTheNameIs. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready.

This is out of date and can be improved. (1) There is no mention of notability. (2) There is no mention of draft space. (3) We usually do not want new users creating their articles in main space or moving their articles to main space by themselves. What the template should do is to direct them to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, where their new article will be in draft space and subject to approval by someone else. (As an aside, I wonder if the techs can display one template for new users and a different one for experienced users.) Zero^talk 06:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Draft space a better target than userspace (Special:Mypage/WhateverTheNameIs)? They achieve similar purposes, so we should probably have one or the other to keep instructions simple. The other suggestions seem sound. CMD (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Draft: namespace is where articles go to die: m:Research:Wikipedia article creation and m:Research:AfC processes and productivity. There are no easy answers here. Every approach has advantages and disadvantages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, there are lots of reasons for this. I create all my articles in draft space. I often get started, thinking something is notable, then realize it's probably not or at least not yet -- or perhaps I lose interest. That doesn't mean that draftspace was the problem. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach to the draftspace is distinctly uncommon.

The usual approach is: Create article. It's WP:UGLY but possibly notable, so someone moves it to the draft space. Very little happens after that, and then it gets semi-automatically deleted.

The more effective approach is: Create article. It's ugly but possibly notable. Leave it in the mainspace, where other/experienced editors will improve it (or they will take it to AFD to get a notability determination). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've used draft space as Significa liberdade has. Draft:Rennie Garden will probably self-destruct in a few months. I don't think deliberately adding to AfD work is a collaborative default. CMD (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Different people work in different ways. The proposal would suit someone (like me, and, I presume, the OP) who likes to read "the rules" before doing anything, but would discriminate against those who prefer to learn by doing. We shouldn't try to force people into one way of doing things. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is what the discussion is about trying to reach newcomers through prompts and messages rather than telling him to read guidelines only after they make mistakes. Sys64wiki (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but many people prefer to learn by making mistakes. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ This. "Learning by doing" is how most Wikipedia editors learn to contribute. That process entails making mistakes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth considering that expecting people to "learn by doing" and not having a clear way for someone to avoid mistakes is probably intimidating to many potential contributors. At least that's what I've heard from many people as to why they haven't edited ("don't want to mess something up"). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that Wikipedia lacks clear, structured guidance for new contributors. Experienced editors and long-time article creators are already familiar with policies and workflows, so they don’t require tutorials. However, newcomers—especially those with little prior experience—find Wikipedia overwhelming due to its complexity. I don’t mean to undermine experienced editors, but their perspective often doesn’t align with that of new users. You’re absolutely right that many people hesitate to contribute because they don’t know where to start. Instead of intuitive onboarding, they’re faced with extensive guidelines that can feel more like an academic textbook than practical instructions Sys64wiki (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elli, I agree that the "learn by doing" system deters some potential contributors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any one way is going to lose people. Folks learn in different ways, and even if there was a normal one that worked for most human beings, I don't think we can count on Wikipedia editors as being in the center of that bell curve. So we should be making multiple ways of learning available, but forcing none. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I prefer to learn first and do later, but I have always been told that most people learn better by doing. I'm not too sure about Wikipedia editors though, particularly ones who hang out at noticeboards. Maybe we are not representative of the general population? Anyway, there is a significant number of people that "learning by doing" does not suit. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was a "learning by doing" editor

First few edits were not that good, slowly learnt more and more policies

Only really fully understood wikipedia policy after idk, my 1000th edit Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac Same here! DotesConks (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think I understood the spirit of policy and guidelines early on, I'm still ocassionally surprised by the details after 63,000 edits. Donald Albury 16:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YFA and the Article Wizard both discuss notability and draftspace. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal will just drive good faith editors away - you are forcing volunteers to jump through hoops to add content. It won't discourage spammers as there is the expectation that there employers will pay them.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Dw31415 (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special permission to create an article

WRONG VENUE

This isn't the place to request an appeal to a topic ban. Also to note, the t-ban is not appealable until six months after its enactment, which would be May. Aydo h8^[contribs] 14:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. I'm Pek and I'm not allowed to create new articles. However, I would like to ask for special permission to create article about web browser that doesn't yet have an article on Wikipedia. Could I just create this one article? (Please, I'm begging on my knees.) Instabridge Browser needs it's own article. There is currently no article that I could edit to add content about Instabridge Browser. I found some sources too: #1, #2 & #3. --Pek (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources appear to be about an e-sim provider, not a web browser. CMD (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pek - looking at your profile, you have been editing for over 10 years… why are you “not allowed to create new articles”? Were your privileges removed? Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not where you would file an appeal to your ban on article creation. And that ban, from November 2024, makes it clear that you are not allowed to appeal for six months, and those six months have not yet passed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah… looked further… Nat is correct… this isn’t how you appeal a ban, Pek. We can’t help, and you shouldn’t have asked. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, as CMD said, the browser is not mentioned or only mentioned in passing in those sources. I can't help wondering what is so important about that browser that it has to have an article before Instabridge itself does. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reviewing the use of "indefinite" page protection beyond semi-protection level, and prohibiting it for all TALK pages

Kenfree has been indef'd at ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Understanding the need for page protection of some sort in identified controversial areas, it seems that in attempting to overcome the mayhem of more heat than light that many editors have overcorrected with very liberal use of "indefinite E-C protection" and admin protection. The due process involved in these decisions seems opaque, at least to this user. The ability to appeal such peremptory decisions is unduly cumbersome and a very uphill climb. The very idea of indefinitely protecting an article's TALK page practically excludes most Wikipedia editors from any participation whatsoever from influencing content, flying directly in the face of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit." Therefore, the notion of "indefinite" restrictions above semi-protected level should be reconsidered in general, in favor of a sunset provision (say, six months) on articles, and absolutely forbidden on an article's TALK page. Also, 500 edits seems a rather arbitrary and for newbies unreachable level of edits. Why not 200? Just asking... Kenfree (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples where this has caused a problem? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to, Phil. I have mede several edit requests at the E-C protected page WP:Alison_Weir_(activist) page, the oldest of which is dated 11 January, and they are still languishing in the backlog as I write this reply. Efforts to interst E-C editors at WP:Teahouse have been unavailing. Surely Wikioedia users are not well served in such a case. Kenfree (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:RFC is a somewhat formal procedure, lots of rules/details. For example, "Include an initial brief, neutral statement or question about the issue in the talk page section..." You missed this part and went straight into arguing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely a personal matter for User:Kenfree and doesn't require any large scale community discussion to solve it. They've been been editing en.wiki since 2011 (and still don't have 500 edits, yet). Over time they have demonstrated why they are here through their actions. In their sixth edit (2011), they characterize another wikipedian thusly: It is very difficult to accept that the editor who chose the single excerpt from the Green Book did so in good faith. In their ninth edit (2011) they complain a whole slew of late Cold Warriors are making a very unfair characterization of RT. In 2014 they edit warred on RT (TV network) and got blocked for it. On May 25, 2024 at 12:59, User:Kenfree returned after seven years to make their last mainspace edit. Since that time, they've stayed strictly on talk pages and noticeboards, usually discussing their inability to edit EC restricted topics. They turned their attention to Talk:Alison Weir (activist). They've tried to make their case (on the merits) at Help desk, an EC-protected edit request on 03:45, 11 January 2025, again at help desk on January 20, then on Teahouse to fret about how much time it was taking for an EC request to be processed. They filed another help desk request on January 27, canvassed an editor to help them on February 4, accused another of edit warring, pinged the help desk again on February 9, once again on Feb 25, and finally talked directly to an admin on March 8. Over and over it's been explained to them that if they were to put in the minimum effort (they are currently 92 edits short of 500), this wouldn't be an issue for them. They are quite interested in arguing about extended-confirmed permissions on a few contentious topics and not anything else. I'm wondering when assuming good faith for a low edit-count but longtime editor becomes merely facilitating a bad actor. All this help desk and EC banter seems to be covering up a perverse form of WP:PGAME. In any event, their desire for permissions doesn't extend far enough as to actually make effort to earn them. BusterD (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've chosen to post this to ANI. BusterD (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is just because of such lengthy ad hominems by such editors that I sometimes question the good faith of such. In all these wasted words not a single one is addressed to the concern I have raised, just one long diatribe attacking me personally, cherry picking as he goes. Disgusting! Kenfree (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By posting at ANI, I have intentionally made all my own behaviors here a valid subject for conversation. Swing away! BusterD (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to dispute MY BEHAVIOR, you'll have to do it on ANI... BusterD (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the issue here is your behavior, which is relevant to a thread you've started. i have to agree with buster that your lack of attempts to be productive and wanting to skip straight to an ec-protected page (as straight as something can be when you've been around since 2011, anyway) and then to attempting to rework how ec protection works can very easily come off as gaming the system, regardless of whether or not it actually is an attempt to do so

the important part aside, i don't think this needs reworking. there are several valid reasons to protect an article (persistent vandalism, disruptive editing, edit warring, technical stuff...), and most of them can just as easily apply to a talk page (or even the teahouse lmao). in such cases, it can then be deduced that certain types of editors are generally not trusted to handle delicate topics with the level of care that's necessary of it, and thus discussion is locked to editors who have proven that they're here to be productive (and me for some reason), be it by being autoconfirmed (at least 10 edits across at least 4 days) or extended confirmed (at least 500 edits across at least 30 days). if you really want something unprotected, you can just request it here. if the reason is deemed good enough (at least more than just "i want to edit it", for starters) and made in good faith, an admin can then unprotect it. this request, for example, is one i believe didn't meet either criterion, especially after the ensuing complaints over it being declined, and considering why it was protected in the first place. while i would discuss the exceedingly simple solution to this whole issue (that is, you editing more stuff), the current direction of the ani thread seems to suggest that i'm a little late for that consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted the page to be unprotected, I would have said so. I do not. What I want is some guarantee that protecting a page does not throw it into pemanent stasis. Fully or e-c protecting a page (and especially a TALK page) "indefinitely" is tantamount to locking it uo and throwing away the key...thus, my appeal for a sunset parameter on all such protections. Kenfree (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's tantamount to locking it up if you make no effort at reaching the criteria to be able to edit it. this is more like a doorknob you're just not tall enough to open yet consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 18:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you (or anybody else) feels that a page no longer needs to be protected then you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. As with all things on Wikipedia, indefinite does not mean permanent. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if indefinite does not mean permanent, then what is its endpoint? This is the whole concern I am raising: once a page is protected "indefinitely" there is no automatic review parameter, and it goes into limbo. I am arguing for the institution of such a parameter to replace the literally indefinite "indefinitely." I have suggested six months as a reasonable outside parameter on when a review should be imposed, a review open to all interested editors, not simply those already allowed to edit on the restricted page. What I am striving for here is a return to the democratic ideal that once characterized Wikipedia in its salad days: "An encyclopedia anyone can edit." Not a very limited group of editors with 500+ edits to their credit.

As I peruse the various responses here, it seems that a kind of nascent elitism is expressing itself as disdain for those editors who are not "everyday" editors. Well I am not one of those and don't expect to be...I have too many other demands on my time. I am a casual editor, and I think the record shows that from time to time, when I am using Wikipedia for research, I will make a correction or correct a typo here and there to improve readability. These good faith efforts on my part are disparaged by some commenters as "cosmetic." To each his own. If someone can point to a Wikipedia policy that privileges or shows preference for everyday editors over casual editors, please indicate here...otherwise this is a useless distinction IMHO.Kenfree (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The end point is when protection is not required. As noted, a review can be initiated by anybody at any time by simply asking for one. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some after endpoint at Template:Contentious_topics/list#Previously_authorised. Of course, they might start up again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue here is NOT my behavior, the issue is whether the current tendency to, in my opinion, overprotect some Wikipedia pages (especially article TALK pages) serves the inclusivity mission of Wikipedia. You keep TRYING to make it about my behavior, but it's a red herring, and the way you have characterized my behavior, which I won't dignify with a refutation, as a strawman. Kenfree (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i wouldn't agree that it's a red herring. as detailed by cullen in ani, you specifically bringing up this specific issue in this specific way with your specific edits under your belt (that is, the edits at alison weir, and other articles related to the israel-palestine war) implies shenanigans might be at hand (that is, promotional editing, if not outright a conflict of interest), which if proven true, would damage your credibility in this discussion. it absolutely is something worth looking into

and in the specific context of this war, i'm also 99.69% sure that going lighter on protection in pages related to it would invite some absolutely hilarious comedians (vandals) in the mood to enact their endlessly funny jokes (the exact same boring memes over and over), people seeking to right great wrongs, and general bad-faith editors to disrupt said pages even harder than usual, so that's even more of a reason to oppose it. there's also the issue of 500 not actually being all that many edits once you get the hang of things, i guess

should also note that i wasn't implying that you were a vandal with that second paragraph, i just named vandals as an example of people who should probably be kept out of there consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 19:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As this discussion was never an WP:RFC (which requires listing the discussion in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All), I've removed the potentially confusing "RFC" claim from the section heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @WhatamIdoing! I had no idea that a Request for Comment was anything other than what it implies. My bad... Kenfree (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous suggestion. Three years ago, I lost access to this account (trashing three computers and a spell in hospital were involved). So, until I worked out how to recover my passwords, I set up an alternate account. It took me (checks notes) four days making small constructive edits to get it EC. It could have been only one day, but my stamina is not what it was. Narky Blert (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EC requires 500 edits + 30 days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.