If you have comments or suggestions about structure, please feel free to make them here on this talk. Please don't edit the draft without an invitation to do so. Valereee ( talk) 17:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Until further notice, assume this pre-discussion will be held at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. One of us will post in this section if that doesn't happen, so subscribe to this section to be sure of receiving notice. Valereee ( talk) 17:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
We hope to start this discussion as soon as we have some input from others here, with any luck within the next week. Valereee ( talk) 17:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding terminology, I'm not fond of "creation of articles at scale", which sounds more like creating scale models of articles. I prefer something more like "rapid creation of stub articles". I appreciate that "AfD at scale" is a term specified by the arbitration committee.
I suggest that the discussion should examine what the community feels is the minimal content (including types of citations) that should be present in a new stub article. isaacl ( talk) 20:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding
this edit: I think Page-related actions done at scale can overwhelm the community's ability to adequately monitor and participate effectively
appears to use the phrase "at scale" to mean "at a regular production pace". If this isn't the intent, then I suggest saying something like "Rapid page-related actions performed in large numbers [...] The issue is exacerbated in the case of rapid article creation [...]"
On a minor note, I suggest not using the term "p-block". I don't feel it is more expressive or significantly concise than the term "partial block" (and not shorter to type when linking to the full expansion of the term). isaacl ( talk) 15:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I just saw this comment, a few hours after posting above. So here goes; please let me know if we should move this elsewhere. The RFC needs to examine the concept of "presumed notability". We use that language in many places and it's been interpreted in so many different ways. I have read innumerable AfDs where !votes were evenly split between those arguing that since the presumption of notability was met, meeting GNG wasn't needed; and those arguing that a presumption was insufficient, and that at AfD, meeting GNG was necessary. Crucially, this occurs extremely often when NSPORTS and GEOLAND are concerned, which, I believe, are two of the most common justifications for mass-creation (and therefore targets for mass-deletion). The others that I'm aware of are mass creation for vertebrate species, and for politicians meeting NPOL, neither of which seem to attract the same level of controversy at AfD.) Given that true mass-creation is likely very difficult when GNG is the threshold one is trying to meet, precisely laying out what "presumed notable" means, and how it affects the SNG-GNG relationship, is crucial to handling this mess. Vanamonde ( Talk) 05:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey Valereee, I'm working on a proposal to bring here, but I found myself wondering about the level of detail I should put in, and then thought perhaps others would have the same question. Say I make a statement about a problem; "Definition of X is unclear in the notability guidelines". Should my proposal solutions be of the "Define X more clearly" level of vagueness, or "Redefine X in the following way: [definition]" level of specificity? Because I don't want to turn this discussion into a debate of the sort you'd have at the final RfC, but perhaps you're only going to use proposals that have some support here? Vanamonde ( Talk) 14:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Valereee,
My interest in this RfC is about participation in AFD discussions but reading your comments above, this RfC seems to be focused on the mass creation of articles. Is that the sole focus? If so, then I don't have much to contribute to this discussion. If this RfC also covers behavior and practices at AFD and other deletion discussions, then I have some thoughts I'd like to mention once this discussion gets started. Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Is there a reason that the link in "... issue is a necessary precursor to the
ArbCom-ordered RfC addressing AfDs at scale"
is an external link? Thank you for putting this together!
House
Blaster
talk
23:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I think we need to be careful how we define mass creation. I think when most people think of mass creation, we think of spamming stubs, like Lugnuts, and that's what is written on the draft at present. However, if we aren't clear with definitions, someone who, say, moved 30 articles from their sandboxes to mainspace at once could get sanctioned, even if those 30 articles are all well beyond stubs (I don't know why anybody would do this, but I think it's something we should account for just the same).
And if someone is mass creating articles, but they're fleshed out and clearly meet GNG, is that still problematic? Or is there a difference between someone spamming database sourced stubs on Austrian cricketers from 1914 and someone creating a large quantity of well written articles? Now in most cases, you'd assume that creating well written articles would be time consuming enough to preclude mass creation, but there are some people who apparently live on Wikipedia 24/7 and can do this. Maybe this is just me being pedantic but I think it's worth considering. Do we consider any form of mass creation a negative, or only when it's a bunch of stubs? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 00:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the definitions/terminology section in the pre-RfC: This discussion (and its lead-up) indicates we might need to clarify what the consensus is on sources that can "count toward" GNG. I think the majority of editors interpret "GNG sourcing" to mean multiple pieces of SIGCOV, each needing to be significant in their amount of coverage, independent of the subject and of each other, secondary, and in RS. But another interpretation is that the whole of the sourcing needs to contain those facets, but to count toward the "multiple" aspect of GNG a single RS need not contain SIGCOV or be independent or secondary. This is based on the "sources" criterion in WP:GNG not being possible for a single source to meet, and therefore none of the criteria are expected to be met for any single GNG-contributing source. Since these interpretations can lead to very different outcomes in which articles are created, it may be helpful to get everyone on the same page before parameterizing any article creation assumptions around GNG compliance. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this. I've read the draft and I think the rules are very well-crafted. Two points:
Another point occurred to me. The rules don't say anything about the RfC talk page. At a minimum, it might be worthwhile to say that it may be used for threaded discussion, but that other rules will still apply, or something like that. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
For literally ONLY the reason of this not going live in my user space before it's been announced and moved to its actual home, please post your proposed issues/solutions here, rather than on the draft itself, and I or Xeno will move them. I'll leave @ Donald Albury's just because it's already there and fine, but I don't want this to become the de facto discussion at this point. Valereee ( talk) 15:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The mass addition of articles to the encyclopedia can be done as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI by stealth because the addition of each article is not subject to review, while the mass deletion of articles cannot be done as a stealth process because the deletion of each article is subject to review. The deletion of one hundred articles must be discussed because the deletion of one article must be discussed. The addition of one hundred articles is not discussed because the addition of articles is not discussed because it is encouraged as normal expansion of the encyclopedia.
The ArbCom WP:FAITACCOMPLI principle disapproves of mass edits after the editor or editors have been advised that their actions are controversial. Sometimes the controversy surrounding mass edits only arises after they have already been made. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Reports should be developed that can be either run by a bot and posted to a project folder for review or run by a human and posted to a project folder for review. The reports can show what editors have produced the most articles by categories in a day or month. A high rate of production may be either cause for recognition as a contributor or cause for discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Robert, I feel like I hijacked your proposal. Now that I am looking at the proposal as a whole I would not be offended in the slightest if you would rather this be a separate one, but I have kept theThe mass addition of articles to the encyclopedia can be done as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI by stealth because the addition of each article is not subject to
review. Whilecommunity review. Individual articles are patrolled by individual new page reviewers. Because they are individuals, they have a harder time picking up on a pattern than the community does at the centralized venue of AfD. On the other hand, the mass deletion of articles at AfD cannot be done as a stealth process because the deletion of each article is subject toreviewextended community discussion. The deletion of one hundred articles must be discussed because the deletion of one article must be discussed. The addition of one hundred articles is not discussedbecause the addition of articles is not discussed because itbecause article creation is encouraged as normal expansion of the encyclopedia.
The ArbCom WP:FAITACCOMPLI principle disapproves of mass edits after the editor or editors have been advised that their actions are controversial. Sometimes the controversy surrounding mass edits only arises after they have already been made.
(Adapted from similar proposal for AfD) When an editor is creating an article, display the number of pages in the New Page Patrol queue, as well as, for comparison, the average number of new articles in the last year (or some other baseline period) so that the nominator can see whether NPP is unusually heavily backlogged. – dlthewave ☎ 04:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Deletion nominations of multiple pages sometimes become train wrecks. (That's what a Wikipedia train wreck is.) This happens because one or more editors split their support or opposition to deletion between different pages. Then multiple editors take multiple positions that are not just forms of Keep or Delete or overall alternatives to deletion.
This is even more likely with mass nominations for deletion than with bundled nominations of up to ten or twelve articles. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
First, define a size threshold where any nomination to delete more than N items will be considered a bulk nomination, and subject to special restrictions. One of those restrictions should be that the nominator must specify the logic, e.g., by defining a query that populates a category. This may focus discussion on the merits of deleting articles that belong to the category rather than deleting the individual articles.
Second, for bulk nominations, disallow any !vote to exclude certain articles from the nomination. If the editor disagrees with some of the articles, they are stating that the bulk nomination is not appropriate. A decision to Keep a bulk nomination will NOT prevent a bulk nomination to delete most of the previously nominated articles. Improvement of the scope of the nomination will be by repeated nominations, not by a split close. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
To avoid WP:FAITACCOMPLI, indiscriminate mass creations should be handled by mass deletion. Create a process whereby hundreds or thousands of similarly mass-created articles can be deleted at once without the requirement for individual WP:BEFORE searches. This would be appropriate for cases where, for example, an editor duplicates the contents of a sports or geography database that contains a mix of notable and non-notable entries. This would have a higher standard of community participation than AfD, for example it could take place or be advertised at Village Pump. The idea is that although some notable topics would be deleted, their re-creation would place a smaller burden on the community than evaluating each one individually for notability. A mass nomination could use criteria such as "Articles created by (X editor) sourced only to (Y database)". – dlthewave ☎ 15:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
It may be possible to turn the red link into a redirect to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topicfor example. By redirecting they aren't redlinks. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 15:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
If changes are made to special notability guidelines that reduce the expansiveness of a criterion, or that otherwise cause subjects, including people or companies, to be no longer covered by a special notability guideline, an editor or editors may then reasonably nominate a large number, possibly hundreds or thousands, of articles for deletion, either as one or more bulk nominations, or as hundreds or thousands of individual XFD items. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment: No proposed solutions are offered at this time, but they may be offered in the near future. This is the case on 28 August 2022, when there are approximately two hundred football players nominated for deletion.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
05:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
One possibility, when changing a notability guideline to make it less expansive, would be to provide that articles that appeared in article space (either by being creating or by being accepted from drafts) before the change in the guideline should remain in the encyclopedia if they satisfied the guideline at the time of creation.
When an editor is creating a deletion nomination via Twinkle, display the number of open XFDs (first listing and relisted), as well as, for comparison, the average number of XFDs in the last year (or some other baseline period) so that the nominator can see whether XFD is unusually heavily backlogged.
Develop a formula to extend the basic discussion period for XFDs from 7 days to a longer period when the applicable class of XFDs is unusually heavily loaded, to recognize that reviewers may need to ration their review and research time. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Set up a watchlistable pseudo-draft space with a longer time limit where articles no longer meeting NSPORT could be moved. Then, have those drafts be eligible for AfD, but only some smallish number are allowed to be nominated per week. Editors can also move articles out of draft space, but only if they meet the minimum SPORTBASIC requirements, the moved drafts go into NPP, and only some smallish number can be moved per week beyond anything kept at AfD. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
If the subject of an article is verifiable and met an SNG when it was created, no matter how it was created, there is no immediate problem with it existing. Such articles are effective seeds for development. In other words, there is not problem with mass creation.
If articles, or groups of articles, are considered not to be notable then they can be dealt with through standard deletion routes. Of course, with some geographical articles verifiability might be a key issue.
I feel some balance is necessary here. This is a valid perspective on the issue and thinking outside whatever box this discussion seems to have gotten into. Ideally there might be some middle ground that could be reached - but this is Wikipedia, so I doubt it. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 16:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
If an article is verifiable, do nothing. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 16:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, suggestions on how to make the discussion more easily navigable/more intuitive etc. with the numbering of proposals etc. are welcome! Valereee ( talk) 19:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
For consistency of appearance and elimination of ambiguity, I suggest the following changes:
Donald Albury 20:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
A possible solution for mass creation that was undertaken without consensus, where the vast majority of creations are problematic, would be moving the entire body of work to draft space. Exclusions could be made based on certain criteria, such as the amount of content added by editors other than the creator.
I have been considering doing this through nominations at the village pump, but it may also be worth discussing here to see whether a formal process would be appropriate rather than bombarding the village pump with hundreds of such proposals. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
what does "without consensus" mean?- it means without a formal consensus for the mass creation of articles. BilledMammal ( talk) 15:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a response to JoelleJay's comment above.
I have two ideas:
Wikipedia:
namespace, similar to the retired
WP:Article Incubator. It had
Robots.txt noindexing (its entries are still in
MediaWiki:Robots.txt), and the {{
Article Incubator}} template may have added __NOINDEX__
. If I remember correctly, a bot ensured that they were tagged properly.Draft:
namespace with an exemption from
WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13. This utilizes all the Draft:
configuration.It may make sense to break these proposals apart:
Wikipedia:
subpagesDraft:
subpagesAt least one use case must be accepted to proceed. Flatscan ( talk) 04:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Some SNGs, notably WP:NSPORTS, have been used to support mass-creation, based on thresholds of notability besides besides GNG. These articles are subsequently taken to AfD on the grounds that while their subjects meet participation criteria listed in NSPORTS, for example, they do not meet GNG. Without commenting on the merits of these articles, if the threshold for notability is functionally different when articles are being created versus when they are discussed for deletion, we will necessarily have a stream of repetitive AfDs and considerable associated conflict.
The threshold to be met when an article is created needs to be the same threshold that is applied at AfD. SNGs that do not confer notability independent of GNG therefore should not be used to justify mass creation. Vanamonde ( Talk) 11:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Please hold off on further additions, preparing to move this to the pre-RfC page. Once that's done any user will be able to add proposed issues/solutions and comment. Valereee ( talk) 13:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
If you have comments or suggestions about structure, please feel free to make them here on this talk. Please don't edit the draft without an invitation to do so. Valereee ( talk) 17:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Until further notice, assume this pre-discussion will be held at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. One of us will post in this section if that doesn't happen, so subscribe to this section to be sure of receiving notice. Valereee ( talk) 17:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
We hope to start this discussion as soon as we have some input from others here, with any luck within the next week. Valereee ( talk) 17:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding terminology, I'm not fond of "creation of articles at scale", which sounds more like creating scale models of articles. I prefer something more like "rapid creation of stub articles". I appreciate that "AfD at scale" is a term specified by the arbitration committee.
I suggest that the discussion should examine what the community feels is the minimal content (including types of citations) that should be present in a new stub article. isaacl ( talk) 20:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding
this edit: I think Page-related actions done at scale can overwhelm the community's ability to adequately monitor and participate effectively
appears to use the phrase "at scale" to mean "at a regular production pace". If this isn't the intent, then I suggest saying something like "Rapid page-related actions performed in large numbers [...] The issue is exacerbated in the case of rapid article creation [...]"
On a minor note, I suggest not using the term "p-block". I don't feel it is more expressive or significantly concise than the term "partial block" (and not shorter to type when linking to the full expansion of the term). isaacl ( talk) 15:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I just saw this comment, a few hours after posting above. So here goes; please let me know if we should move this elsewhere. The RFC needs to examine the concept of "presumed notability". We use that language in many places and it's been interpreted in so many different ways. I have read innumerable AfDs where !votes were evenly split between those arguing that since the presumption of notability was met, meeting GNG wasn't needed; and those arguing that a presumption was insufficient, and that at AfD, meeting GNG was necessary. Crucially, this occurs extremely often when NSPORTS and GEOLAND are concerned, which, I believe, are two of the most common justifications for mass-creation (and therefore targets for mass-deletion). The others that I'm aware of are mass creation for vertebrate species, and for politicians meeting NPOL, neither of which seem to attract the same level of controversy at AfD.) Given that true mass-creation is likely very difficult when GNG is the threshold one is trying to meet, precisely laying out what "presumed notable" means, and how it affects the SNG-GNG relationship, is crucial to handling this mess. Vanamonde ( Talk) 05:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey Valereee, I'm working on a proposal to bring here, but I found myself wondering about the level of detail I should put in, and then thought perhaps others would have the same question. Say I make a statement about a problem; "Definition of X is unclear in the notability guidelines". Should my proposal solutions be of the "Define X more clearly" level of vagueness, or "Redefine X in the following way: [definition]" level of specificity? Because I don't want to turn this discussion into a debate of the sort you'd have at the final RfC, but perhaps you're only going to use proposals that have some support here? Vanamonde ( Talk) 14:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Valereee,
My interest in this RfC is about participation in AFD discussions but reading your comments above, this RfC seems to be focused on the mass creation of articles. Is that the sole focus? If so, then I don't have much to contribute to this discussion. If this RfC also covers behavior and practices at AFD and other deletion discussions, then I have some thoughts I'd like to mention once this discussion gets started. Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Is there a reason that the link in "... issue is a necessary precursor to the
ArbCom-ordered RfC addressing AfDs at scale"
is an external link? Thank you for putting this together!
House
Blaster
talk
23:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I think we need to be careful how we define mass creation. I think when most people think of mass creation, we think of spamming stubs, like Lugnuts, and that's what is written on the draft at present. However, if we aren't clear with definitions, someone who, say, moved 30 articles from their sandboxes to mainspace at once could get sanctioned, even if those 30 articles are all well beyond stubs (I don't know why anybody would do this, but I think it's something we should account for just the same).
And if someone is mass creating articles, but they're fleshed out and clearly meet GNG, is that still problematic? Or is there a difference between someone spamming database sourced stubs on Austrian cricketers from 1914 and someone creating a large quantity of well written articles? Now in most cases, you'd assume that creating well written articles would be time consuming enough to preclude mass creation, but there are some people who apparently live on Wikipedia 24/7 and can do this. Maybe this is just me being pedantic but I think it's worth considering. Do we consider any form of mass creation a negative, or only when it's a bunch of stubs? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 00:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the definitions/terminology section in the pre-RfC: This discussion (and its lead-up) indicates we might need to clarify what the consensus is on sources that can "count toward" GNG. I think the majority of editors interpret "GNG sourcing" to mean multiple pieces of SIGCOV, each needing to be significant in their amount of coverage, independent of the subject and of each other, secondary, and in RS. But another interpretation is that the whole of the sourcing needs to contain those facets, but to count toward the "multiple" aspect of GNG a single RS need not contain SIGCOV or be independent or secondary. This is based on the "sources" criterion in WP:GNG not being possible for a single source to meet, and therefore none of the criteria are expected to be met for any single GNG-contributing source. Since these interpretations can lead to very different outcomes in which articles are created, it may be helpful to get everyone on the same page before parameterizing any article creation assumptions around GNG compliance. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this. I've read the draft and I think the rules are very well-crafted. Two points:
Another point occurred to me. The rules don't say anything about the RfC talk page. At a minimum, it might be worthwhile to say that it may be used for threaded discussion, but that other rules will still apply, or something like that. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
For literally ONLY the reason of this not going live in my user space before it's been announced and moved to its actual home, please post your proposed issues/solutions here, rather than on the draft itself, and I or Xeno will move them. I'll leave @ Donald Albury's just because it's already there and fine, but I don't want this to become the de facto discussion at this point. Valereee ( talk) 15:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The mass addition of articles to the encyclopedia can be done as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI by stealth because the addition of each article is not subject to review, while the mass deletion of articles cannot be done as a stealth process because the deletion of each article is subject to review. The deletion of one hundred articles must be discussed because the deletion of one article must be discussed. The addition of one hundred articles is not discussed because the addition of articles is not discussed because it is encouraged as normal expansion of the encyclopedia.
The ArbCom WP:FAITACCOMPLI principle disapproves of mass edits after the editor or editors have been advised that their actions are controversial. Sometimes the controversy surrounding mass edits only arises after they have already been made. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Reports should be developed that can be either run by a bot and posted to a project folder for review or run by a human and posted to a project folder for review. The reports can show what editors have produced the most articles by categories in a day or month. A high rate of production may be either cause for recognition as a contributor or cause for discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Robert, I feel like I hijacked your proposal. Now that I am looking at the proposal as a whole I would not be offended in the slightest if you would rather this be a separate one, but I have kept theThe mass addition of articles to the encyclopedia can be done as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI by stealth because the addition of each article is not subject to
review. Whilecommunity review. Individual articles are patrolled by individual new page reviewers. Because they are individuals, they have a harder time picking up on a pattern than the community does at the centralized venue of AfD. On the other hand, the mass deletion of articles at AfD cannot be done as a stealth process because the deletion of each article is subject toreviewextended community discussion. The deletion of one hundred articles must be discussed because the deletion of one article must be discussed. The addition of one hundred articles is not discussedbecause the addition of articles is not discussed because itbecause article creation is encouraged as normal expansion of the encyclopedia.
The ArbCom WP:FAITACCOMPLI principle disapproves of mass edits after the editor or editors have been advised that their actions are controversial. Sometimes the controversy surrounding mass edits only arises after they have already been made.
(Adapted from similar proposal for AfD) When an editor is creating an article, display the number of pages in the New Page Patrol queue, as well as, for comparison, the average number of new articles in the last year (or some other baseline period) so that the nominator can see whether NPP is unusually heavily backlogged. – dlthewave ☎ 04:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Deletion nominations of multiple pages sometimes become train wrecks. (That's what a Wikipedia train wreck is.) This happens because one or more editors split their support or opposition to deletion between different pages. Then multiple editors take multiple positions that are not just forms of Keep or Delete or overall alternatives to deletion.
This is even more likely with mass nominations for deletion than with bundled nominations of up to ten or twelve articles. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
First, define a size threshold where any nomination to delete more than N items will be considered a bulk nomination, and subject to special restrictions. One of those restrictions should be that the nominator must specify the logic, e.g., by defining a query that populates a category. This may focus discussion on the merits of deleting articles that belong to the category rather than deleting the individual articles.
Second, for bulk nominations, disallow any !vote to exclude certain articles from the nomination. If the editor disagrees with some of the articles, they are stating that the bulk nomination is not appropriate. A decision to Keep a bulk nomination will NOT prevent a bulk nomination to delete most of the previously nominated articles. Improvement of the scope of the nomination will be by repeated nominations, not by a split close. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
To avoid WP:FAITACCOMPLI, indiscriminate mass creations should be handled by mass deletion. Create a process whereby hundreds or thousands of similarly mass-created articles can be deleted at once without the requirement for individual WP:BEFORE searches. This would be appropriate for cases where, for example, an editor duplicates the contents of a sports or geography database that contains a mix of notable and non-notable entries. This would have a higher standard of community participation than AfD, for example it could take place or be advertised at Village Pump. The idea is that although some notable topics would be deleted, their re-creation would place a smaller burden on the community than evaluating each one individually for notability. A mass nomination could use criteria such as "Articles created by (X editor) sourced only to (Y database)". – dlthewave ☎ 15:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
It may be possible to turn the red link into a redirect to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topicfor example. By redirecting they aren't redlinks. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 15:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
If changes are made to special notability guidelines that reduce the expansiveness of a criterion, or that otherwise cause subjects, including people or companies, to be no longer covered by a special notability guideline, an editor or editors may then reasonably nominate a large number, possibly hundreds or thousands, of articles for deletion, either as one or more bulk nominations, or as hundreds or thousands of individual XFD items. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment: No proposed solutions are offered at this time, but they may be offered in the near future. This is the case on 28 August 2022, when there are approximately two hundred football players nominated for deletion.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
05:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
One possibility, when changing a notability guideline to make it less expansive, would be to provide that articles that appeared in article space (either by being creating or by being accepted from drafts) before the change in the guideline should remain in the encyclopedia if they satisfied the guideline at the time of creation.
When an editor is creating a deletion nomination via Twinkle, display the number of open XFDs (first listing and relisted), as well as, for comparison, the average number of XFDs in the last year (or some other baseline period) so that the nominator can see whether XFD is unusually heavily backlogged.
Develop a formula to extend the basic discussion period for XFDs from 7 days to a longer period when the applicable class of XFDs is unusually heavily loaded, to recognize that reviewers may need to ration their review and research time. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Set up a watchlistable pseudo-draft space with a longer time limit where articles no longer meeting NSPORT could be moved. Then, have those drafts be eligible for AfD, but only some smallish number are allowed to be nominated per week. Editors can also move articles out of draft space, but only if they meet the minimum SPORTBASIC requirements, the moved drafts go into NPP, and only some smallish number can be moved per week beyond anything kept at AfD. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
If the subject of an article is verifiable and met an SNG when it was created, no matter how it was created, there is no immediate problem with it existing. Such articles are effective seeds for development. In other words, there is not problem with mass creation.
If articles, or groups of articles, are considered not to be notable then they can be dealt with through standard deletion routes. Of course, with some geographical articles verifiability might be a key issue.
I feel some balance is necessary here. This is a valid perspective on the issue and thinking outside whatever box this discussion seems to have gotten into. Ideally there might be some middle ground that could be reached - but this is Wikipedia, so I doubt it. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 16:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
If an article is verifiable, do nothing. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 16:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, suggestions on how to make the discussion more easily navigable/more intuitive etc. with the numbering of proposals etc. are welcome! Valereee ( talk) 19:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
For consistency of appearance and elimination of ambiguity, I suggest the following changes:
Donald Albury 20:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
A possible solution for mass creation that was undertaken without consensus, where the vast majority of creations are problematic, would be moving the entire body of work to draft space. Exclusions could be made based on certain criteria, such as the amount of content added by editors other than the creator.
I have been considering doing this through nominations at the village pump, but it may also be worth discussing here to see whether a formal process would be appropriate rather than bombarding the village pump with hundreds of such proposals. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
what does "without consensus" mean?- it means without a formal consensus for the mass creation of articles. BilledMammal ( talk) 15:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a response to JoelleJay's comment above.
I have two ideas:
Wikipedia:
namespace, similar to the retired
WP:Article Incubator. It had
Robots.txt noindexing (its entries are still in
MediaWiki:Robots.txt), and the {{
Article Incubator}} template may have added __NOINDEX__
. If I remember correctly, a bot ensured that they were tagged properly.Draft:
namespace with an exemption from
WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13. This utilizes all the Draft:
configuration.It may make sense to break these proposals apart:
Wikipedia:
subpagesDraft:
subpagesAt least one use case must be accepted to proceed. Flatscan ( talk) 04:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Some SNGs, notably WP:NSPORTS, have been used to support mass-creation, based on thresholds of notability besides besides GNG. These articles are subsequently taken to AfD on the grounds that while their subjects meet participation criteria listed in NSPORTS, for example, they do not meet GNG. Without commenting on the merits of these articles, if the threshold for notability is functionally different when articles are being created versus when they are discussed for deletion, we will necessarily have a stream of repetitive AfDs and considerable associated conflict.
The threshold to be met when an article is created needs to be the same threshold that is applied at AfD. SNGs that do not confer notability independent of GNG therefore should not be used to justify mass creation. Vanamonde ( Talk) 11:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Please hold off on further additions, preparing to move this to the pre-RfC page. Once that's done any user will be able to add proposed issues/solutions and comment. Valereee ( talk) 13:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)