Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting:

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.


RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Cricketer microstubs

In reading over the discussion, there was Consensus that these should be addressed. However, there is No Consensus that mass-draftification (mass-moving-out-of-article-space) is the correct solution for all of these. But rather that these should be addressed on a case-by-case basis (some individually, some as a part of a sub-grouping). Too many various concerns to list. Listification was also proposed. As the primary focus of this nomination was the question of moving the pages en-masse, there is no prejudice against listification (or any other typical editorial process), at editorial discretion, following the typical process (whether that be pre-discussing, WP:BRD, etc.), on a case-by-case basis, to address these. - jc37 04:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC) - Edit: Just to clarify, the result of the discussion is that - "There is No Consensus that mass-draftification (mass-moving-out-of-article-space) is the correct solution for all of these." There were many concerns, and several proposed solutions other than mass-draftifying, but none of those had consensus either. What did have overall consensus, was that "something" should be done (but no consensus on what was proposed). And so, there is "no prejudice" against further discussion, or handling these on a case-by-case basis (at normal editorial disccretion, following the typical process(es), etc). Perhaps restating the close in this way is (hopefully) clearer.[reply]

Should the following 1,182 biographical microstubs, which were mass-created by Lugnuts and cover cricketers, be moved out of article space? 06:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

List of microstubs
Article Initial size Current size Growth Date created # of extant articles created
by Lugnuts on same day
A Aravinddaraj 1963 1967 4 2019/12/09 53
Aadil Rashid 1618 1692 74 2021/02/27 73
Aakarshit Gomel 1647 2411 764 2020/02/12 29
Aakash Choudhary 1661 1785 124 2018/12/06 45
Aamer Ishaq 1738 1789 51 2016/06/16 5
Aamir Aziz 1353 2203 850 2015/10/11 61
Aaqib Khan 1648 2400 752 2020/01/11 33
Aaquib Nazir 1635 1751 116 2017/11/09 38
Aaron Bradley 1572 1579 7 2020/11/01 28
Abdul Ameer 1340 1483 143 2015/11/12 45
Abdul Aziz (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa cricketer) 1736 1788 52 2016/10/18 48
Abdul Kayium 2132 2224 92 2019/04/01 24
Abdul Mannan (cricketer) 1756 1859 103 2016/11/23 13
Abdul Masood 1459 1493 34 2016/03/29 9
Abdul Naseri 1660 2112 452 2018/05/02 7
Abdul Rahman (Afghan cricketer) 1634 2130 496 2017/12/10 15
Abdul Rauf (cricketer) 1663 2105 442 2018/10/16 44
Abdul Razzak Rajib 1699 1747 48 2017/06/02 28
Abdul Wahab Dar 1691 1754 63 2016/11/20 45
Abdullah Jan 1352 1511 159 2015/11/14 32
Abdullah Mukaddam 1675 1766 91 2016/11/13 34
Abdur Rahman (Bangladeshi cricketer) 1436 1520 84 2016/09/25 39
Abdur Rehman (cricketer, born 1989) 1378 1403 25 2016/10/03 31
Abhay Joshi 1636 1675 39 2019/01/07 30
Abhijeet Garg 1669 2031 362 2018/12/06 45
Abhijeet Saket 1658 2401 743 2018/12/30 68
Abhijeet Saranath 1652 1733 81 2018/12/06 45
Abhijit Chakraborty 1616 2140 524 2018/01/08 41
Abhijit Karambelkar 1656 1710 54 2017/01/30 22
Abhijit Salvi 1635 2126 491 2017/02/25 46
Abhijit Sarkar (cricketer) 1348 2203 855 2015/10/11 61
Abhik Mitra 1452 1487 35 2016/03/29 9
Abhilash Gogoi 1627 2054 427 2019/11/08 42
Abhimanyu Lamba 1658 1736 78 2018/02/05 41
Abhimanyusingh Rajput 1661 2309 648 2019/10/07 41
Abhinav Dixit 1651 2007 356 2018/11/01 54
Abhinav Sharma 1611 1659 48 2021/02/22 85
Abhinav Tandel 1657 1695 38 2018/02/12 30
Abhisek Banerjee 1455 1558 103 2016/04/04 8
Abhishek Bhandari 1658 2165 507 2019/02/21 56
Abhishek Bhat 1350 1742 392 2015/10/17 24
Abhishek Chaurasia 1646 1694 48 2017/02/26 35
Abhishek Chowdhury 1471 1532 61 2016/03/26 19
Abhishek Hegde 1348 1503 155 2015/10/24 7
Abhishek Kaushik (cricketer, born 1994) 1615 1674 59 2019/03/08 22
Abhishek Tamrakar 1654 2072 418 2016/10/20 14
Abhishek Tanwar 1650 2370 720 2016/11/20 45
Abhishek Thakuri 1654 2419 765 2017/11/25 31
Abhishek Yadav (cricketer) 1593 2052 459 2016/11/06 35
Abid Hasan (cricketer) 1354 1753 399 2015/12/21 23
Abinash Saha 1624 1766 142 2016/11/13 34
Abraham de Swardt 1503 1508 5 2020/12/02 45
Abrar Ahmed (Indian cricketer) 1468 1485 17 2016/04/16 13
Abrar Alam 1640 1663 23 2019/03/23 21
Abrar Shaikh 1637 1749 112 2017/02/25 46
Abu Naser 1595 1739 144 2018/02/05 41
Abubakar Khan 1774 1834 60 2016/11/22 7
Abuthahir Rizan 1731 1778 47 2021/04/22 21
Aby John 1442 1507 65 2015/07/18 24
Adam Clarke (Cambridge University cricketer) 1438 1661 223 2017/04/17 17
Adam Hope (cricketer) 1716 1537 -179 2015/05/03 38
Adam Mather 1804 1806 2 2017/01/07 22
Adam Smith (cricketer) 1543 1592 49 2015/12/12 28
Adeesha Thilanchana 1757 1848 91 2018/02/25 36
Adil Akram 1741 1805 64 2016/10/10 47
Adil Nisar 1325 1369 44 2015/11/09 8
Adil Sheikh 1445 1480 35 2016/04/02 29
Aditya Dhumal 1623 2420 797 2016/11/13 34
Aditya Jain 1435 1477 42 2016/04/09 39
Aditya Kaushik 1402 2159 757 2016/04/09 39
Aditya Rout 1569 1616 47 2021/01/10 58
Aditya Sethi 1684 1676 -8 2019/09/25 17
Aditya Shanware 1659 1681 22 2015/10/06 26
Aditya Singhania 1672 2401 729 2018/11/01 54
Adjodha Persaud 1396 1443 47 2020/11/22 49
Adnan Baig 1330 1411 81 2015/11/29 32
Adnan Butt 1431 1609 178 2015/07/15 12
Adnan Mehmood 1683 1763 80 2017/10/22 48
Adnan Raees 1344 1500 156 2015/11/11 15
Adnan Sabri 1542 1619 77 2016/10/18 48
Adolph Lipke 1576 1576 0 2020/12/11 44
Adolphus O'Brien 1624 1531 -93 2016/06/19 34
Adrian Grant (cricketer) 1496 1495 -1 2020/11/14 44
Afaq Ahmed (cricketer) 1426 1685 259 2016/10/02 39
Afaq Shahid 1589 2005 416 2018/09/28 61
Afsar Nawaz 1339 1384 45 2015/11/10 10
Aftab Alam (Pakistani cricketer) 1336 1870 534 2015/11/08 43
Afzaal Saeed 1655 1732 77 2017/02/16 19
Afzal Zazai 1620 1634 14 2017/12/10 15
Agith Rajapaksha 1745 1822 77 2018/12/30 68
Agniv Pan 1631 2474 843 2016/10/13 41
Agrim Tiwari 1647 2349 702 2020/01/27 41
Ahemd Abidul Haque 1681 1330 -351 2019/11/12 28
Ahmar Ashfaq 1594 1973 379 2018/09/08 65
Ahmed Asfandyar 1784 1875 91 2016/10/03 31
Ahmed Butt (cricketer) 1331 1412 81 2015/11/12 45
Ahmed Dar 1323 1380 57 2015/11/27 7
Ahmed Hasan 1663 1719 56 2017/12/29 45
Ahmed Hayat 1339 1498 159 2015/11/08 43
Ahmed Rafiuddin 1488 1509 21 2016/04/23 54
Ahmed Sadequr 1410 1450 40 2016/09/25 39
Ahmed Shah (Indian cricketer) 1653 2420 767 2018/12/30 68
Ahsan Baig 1586 1665 79 2018/09/03 59
Ahsanul Kabir 1573 1591 18 2021/03/01 83
Aidan Brooker 1648 1700 52 2016/09/15 26
Aidan Olivier 1493 1553 60 2020/12/05 40
Aishwary Marya 1607 1866 259 2018/10/08 15
Ajay Divecha 1632 1667 35 2016/04/08 17
Ajay Kumar (cricketer) 1629 1791 162 2016/11/20 45
Ajay Lamabam 1621 2339 718 2019/02/21 56
Ajay Pradhan 1562 1988 426 2018/09/23 68
Ajay Rana 1682 2091 409 2017/02/02 18
Ajay Sarkar 1619 1720 101 2017/02/25 46
Ajit Bhatia 1572 1612 40 2016/04/07 20
Ajit Das Gupta 1527 1562 35 2016/04/06 17
Ajith Kumara (cricketer) 1727 1774 47 2021/04/22 21
Ajmal Khan (cricketer) 1641 2069 428 2017/08/13 61
Ajoy Das 1395 1446 51 2016/03/27 32
Akash Choudhary 1636 2352 716 2019/02/21 56
Akash Malhotra 1455 1490 35 2016/04/09 39
Akash Senaratne 1738 2306 568 2017/03/17 14
Akash Sharma 1589 1731 142 2018/11/12 39
Akavi Yeptho 1590 1648 58 2021/02/27 73
Akbar Badshah 1364 1408 44 2015/11/24 16
Akeel Inham 1628 1828 200 2017/04/05 19
Akhilesh Sahani 1597 2341 744 2018/09/19 81
Akhona Kula 1593 1729 136 2016/09/15 26
Akhtar Shah 1631 1975 344 2020/10/15 38
Akila Isanka 1796 1911 115 2017/03/13 30
Akila Jayasundera 1761 1938 177 2017/03/14 11
Akila Lakshan 1609 1812 203 2017/04/04 15
Akoijam Tenyson Singh 1641 2084 443 2019/01/07 30
Akshat Pandey 1661 2084 423 2015/12/13 19
Akshay Brahmbhatt 1638 1686 48 2016/11/21 18
Akshay Chauhan 1386 1422 36 2015/10/23 18
Akshay Jain 1582 2325 743 2018/10/04 47
Akshay Kolhar 1347 1395 48 2015/10/17 24
Akshaykumar Singh 1586 2044 458 2018/09/19 81
Al-Imran (cricketer) 1655 1712 57 2018/02/09 34
Al Bashid Muhammed 1652 2349 697 2019/10/05 46
Alagh Prathiban 1653 1686 33 2020/02/04 36
Alan Cripps 1478 1532 54 2017/11/03 34
Alan Cuff 1658 1691 33 2016/03/05 19
Alan Davidson (cricketer, born 1897) 1648 1714 66 2015/11/21 24
Alan Devlin (cricketer) 1515 1520 5 2020/10/16 48
Alan Favell 1488 1530 42 2018/12/11 25
Alan Finlayson (cricketer) 2502 2131 -371 2013/08/07 3
Alan Jacobson 1543 1635 92 2016/03/13 31
Alan Matthews (cricketer) 2381 2191 -190 2013/08/04 21
Alan McInnes 1626 1564 -62 2015/11/22 48
Alan Reid (cricketer) 1488 1540 52 2020/10/07 60
Alan Tarr 1501 1503 2 2020/12/15 41
Alan Wyatt 1684 1702 18 2017/02/08 11
Albert Bates (cricketer) 1749 1791 42 2020/10/14 29
Albert Bowden 1801 1729 -72 2016/12/23 30
Albert Brown (Australian cricketer) 1654 1692 38 2015/11/18 15
Albert Dakin 1664 1707 43 2020/10/16 48
Albert Drew 1587 1716 129 2017/08/22 25
Albert Fox (cricketer) 1605 1671 66 2015/07/27 12
Albert Freeman (cricketer, born 1844) 1566 1642 76 2017/03/12 45
Albert Frost (cricketer) 1698 1737 39 2016/01/17 20
Albert Harding 1426 1484 58 2020/11/29 34
Albert Hassell (cricketer) 1457 1456 -1 2020/11/14 44
Albert Heffer 1462 1497 35 2016/05/31 9
Albert Hewitt 1531 1563 32 2020/10/04 33
Albert Lansdown 1659 1767 108 2015/11/20 16
Albert McGinn 1559 1573 14 2020/10/05 48
Albert Philpott 1639 1730 91 2015/07/26 23
Albert Putt 1760 1663 -97 2016/06/19 34
Albert Rigby 1525 1627 102 2017/09/26 24
Albert Scanes 1785 1710 -75 2017/01/31 21
Albert Shugg 1630 1695 65 2016/03/01 9
Albert Sims 1557 1611 54 2020/10/07 60
Albert Weeks 1523 1569 46 2020/09/30 24
Albert Whiting 1774 1865 91 2017/02/08 11
Albert Wilkins 1565 1553 -12 2020/12/16 36
Alcon Bowman 1643 1767 124 2015/07/26 23
Alec Clarke 1544 1547 3 2020/12/07 40
Alec Douglas 1534 1588 54 2016/04/13 12
Alec Kerr 1508 1814 306 2016/06/13 12
Alec Marks 1780 1686 -94 2017/01/07 22
Alec Parker (cricketer) 1455 1499 44 2020/10/07 60
Alec Riddolls 1568 1567 -1 2020/10/28 39
Alex Cooke 1466 1528 62 2015/07/16 5
Alex Weir (cricketer) 1508 1508 0 2020/09/30 24
Alexander Addison (cricketer) 1654 1793 139 2016/01/17 20
Alexander Barras 1629 1738 109 2017/10/19 38
Alexander Cox (cricketer) 1524 1559 35 2017/04/28 16
Alexander Fisher (cricketer) 1570 1663 93 2020/10/03 44
Alexander Garbis 1462 1503 41 2016/03/27 32
Alexander Littlejohn 1673 1783 110 2020/10/26 29
Alexander Mavhiko 1689 1744 55 2017/02/24 27
Alexander Meston 2312 2121 -191 2013/07/21 23
Alexander Morgan (cricketer) 1503 1498 -5 2020/11/08 31
Alexander Morrison (cricketer) 1551 1559 8 2016/06/19 34
Alexander Robinson (cricketer, born 1924) 1617 1649 32 2017/07/14 16
Alexander Slight 1539 1674 135 2020/09/26 45
Alexander Webster (cricketer) 1611 1668 57 2017/09/26 24
Alfred Bashford 1540 1624 84 2017/03/16 15
Alfred Black (cricketer) 1628 1574 -54 2015/05/02 18
Alfred Bourne (cricketer) 1526 1632 106 2017/04/10 15
Alfred Britton 1535 1567 32 2020/12/19 40
Alfred Browne (cricketer) 1558 1647 89 2020/11/12 42
Alfred Burchett 1757 1624 -133 2015/05/02 18
Alfred Carlton 1654 1748 94 2015/07/26 23
Alfred Clarke (Surrey cricketer) 1575 1641 66 2017/03/12 45
Alfred Dearlove 1709 1537 -172 2014/03/30 50
Alfred Douglas (cricketer) 1691 1682 -9 2016/01/16 20
Alfred Eneberg 1509 1462 -47 2018/11/27 28
Alfred Geary 1757 1748 -9 2016/12/28 22
Alfred Grace 1778 1596 -182 2014/04/01 17
Alfred Hasell 1692 1763 71 2020/10/17 50
Alfred Low 1548 1616 68 2020/11/29 34
Alfred Motta 1543 1538 -5 2020/11/08 31
Alfred Noyes (cricketer) 1763 1630 -133 2015/05/03 38
Alfred Park (cricketer) 1778 1684 -94 2017/01/14 8
Alfred Patfield 1609 1716 107 2017/07/14 16
Alfred Pickett 1612 1730 118 2016/01/17 20
Alfred Randell 1619 1594 -25 2017/07/14 16
Alfred Scott (New Zealand cricketer) 1765 1668 -97 2016/06/20 18
Alfred Sloman 1583 1627 44 2016/06/21 18
Alfred Sullivan 1793 1715 -78 2017/02/02 18
Alfred Thomson (cricketer) 1761 1626 -135 2015/01/29 10
Alfred Waterman 2310 2137 -173 2013/07/20 14
Alfred White (Australian cricketer) 1771 1758 -13 2017/02/06 9
Alfred Wilkes 1703 1688 -15 2016/03/07 12
Alfred Wilkinson (cricketer) 1555 1601 46 2020/09/30 24
Algernon Findlay 1711 1702 -9 2016/01/23 10
Ali Ahmad (cricketer) 1579 1555 -24 2019/08/01 56
Ali Ahmed (cricketer) 1643 1702 59 2017/11/29 27
Ali Arman 1710 2161 451 2016/12/13 18
Ali Azmat (cricketer) 1326 1351 25 2015/11/10 10
Ali Haider (cricketer) 1337 1418 81 2015/11/12 45
Ali Hasnain 1583 1662 79 2018/10/24 48
Ali Khan (Pakistani cricketer) 1328 1502 174 2015/11/12 45
Ali Mustafa (cricketer) 1592 2035 443 2017/12/16 60
Ali Raza (cricketer, born 1974) 1487 1549 62 2016/04/07 20
Ali Raza (cricketer, born 1977) 1323 1437 114 2015/11/12 45
Ali Salman (cricketer) 1607 2022 415 2018/09/27 60
Alison White (cricketer) 1692 1445 -247 2014/03/29 10
Alistair Applethwaite 1459 1500 41 2020/11/19 52
Allan Anderson (cricketer) 1728 1634 -94 2016/12/22 27
Allan Cooper 1776 1867 91 2016/12/25 16
Allan Jemmott 1536 1575 39 2020/11/14 44
Allan Jinks 1650 1695 45 2015/11/22 48
Allan Outridge 1516 1514 -2 2020/11/22 49
Allan Silvera 1483 1478 -5 2020/11/10 30
Allen Collier 1518 1562 44 2020/11/01 28
Allen Edwards (cricketer) 1572 1526 -46 2018/10/31 24
Allen Kerr (cricketer) 1548 1711 163 2016/06/13 12
Allen Limb 1652 1748 96 2016/01/24 40
Allen Roberts 1465 1657 192 2016/03/24 9
Allen Thatcher 1805 1711 -94 2017/02/03 19
Allister Majola 1657 1703 46 2017/11/23 39
Allman Agard 1407 1408 1 2020/11/26 35
Almas Shaukat 1688 2146 458 2015/10/10 44
Alois Tichana 1793 1844 51 2017/02/24 27
Alok Chandra Sahoo 1357 1466 109 2015/10/06 26
Alok Sharma (cricketer) 1392 1455 63 2016/04/07 20
Aloka Amarasiri 1812 1917 105 2016/12/04 19
Aloke Mazumdar 1466 1501 35 2016/03/29 9
Alokendu Lahiri 1468 1503 35 2016/04/03 21
Alshaaz Pathan 1655 1672 17 2015/12/13 19
Altaf Ahmed 1381 1528 147 2015/12/21 23
Altemont Wellington 1394 1453 59 2017/04/11 20
Alton Beckford 1643 1646 3 2020/11/05 42
Alwis Nanayakkara 1668 1733 65 2019/01/27 62
Alwyn Curnick 1482 1533 51 2020/12/07 40
Amal Athulathmudali 1359 1527 168 2016/01/30 15
Aman Deep 1585 1393 -192 2014/04/05 28
Aman Kumar 1954 2027 73 2019/12/09 53
Amar Naeem 1594 1868 274 2014/04/05 28
Ambikeshwar Mishra 1632 2121 489 2017/03/04 27
Ameer Hamza 1531 2349 818 2015/06/23 13
Ameer Saiyed 2180 2209 29 2019/08/19 64
Ameet Sampat 1586 1751 165 2016/02/08 19
Amherst Hammond 1507 1563 56 2016/04/06 17
Amila Gunawardene 1536 1601 65 2017/11/10 38
Amila Madusanka 1682 2131 449 2018/02/24 32
Amir Ali (Indian cricketer) 1526 1716 190 2016/04/16 13
Amir Zazai 1749 2216 467 2018/05/02 7
Amit Ali 1574 2280 706 2021/02/24 76
Amit Banerjee 1426 1747 321 2016/03/25 46
Amit Das (Odisha cricketer) 1634 1695 61 2015/12/12 28
Amit Das (Tripura cricketer) 1317 1453 136 2015/10/06 26
Amit Hore 1429 1464 35 2016/03/28 32
Amit Kumar (Arunachal Pradesh cricketer) 1698 1843 145 2019/10/01 35
Amit Kumar (Himachal Pradesh cricketer) 1666 1862 196 2017/01/29 42
Amit Suman 1556 1723 167 2016/04/11 16
Amitava Chakraborty 1491 1526 35 2016/03/26 19
Amitava Das 1425 1487 62 2016/03/27 32
Amitava Roy (cricketer) 1452 1490 38 2016/04/01 24
Amith Eranda 1633 2142 509 2017/04/03 15
Amitha Kaushalya 1946 2404 458 2019/03/12 43
Amjad Qureshi 1769 1685 -84 2013/07/15 22
Amjad Waqas 1366 1522 156 2015/11/08 43
Amlanjyoti Das 1633 2433 800 2019/10/07 41
Amod Yadav 1619 2267 648 2020/01/27 41
Amoda Widanapathirana 2070 2117 47 2020/01/04 12
Amogh Sunil Desai 1350 1526 176 2015/10/10 44
Amol Jungade 1349 1394 45 2015/10/17 24
Amol Ubarhande 1351 1396 45 2015/10/06 26
Amos Rai 1542 2311 769 2018/09/20 65
Anand Bais 1350 1518 168 2015/10/18 19
Anand Bhatia 1581 1626 45 2016/04/07 20
Anand Swaroop 1518 1585 67 2016/04/11 16
Andawaththa Tyronne 1813 1906 93 2017/03/17 14
Andre Dwyer 1457 1462 5 2020/11/06 43
Andrew Benke 1448 1484 36 2017/04/09 24
Andrew Brewster 1809 1926 117 2017/03/30 19
Andrew Cadle 1568 1660 92 2020/12/20 32
Andrew Cyster 1492 1552 60 2020/12/02 45
Andrew Dewar 1530 1530 0 2020/12/08 44
Andrew Dewhurst 1483 1545 62 2015/07/16 5
Andrew Durham 1718 1744 26 2016/12/15 16
Andrew Eime 1527 1570 43 2018/10/31 24
Andrew Hammelmann 1462 1463 1 2020/10/04 33
Andrew Hutchinson (cricketer) 1480 1469 -11 2016/05/21 19
Andrew Jones (Australian cricketer) 1700 1658 -42 2017/01/02 15
Andrew Lawson (cricketer) 1504 1576 72 2020/12/11 44
Andrew Meek 1557 1669 112 2017/07/14 16
Andrew Morey 1712 1711 -1 2020/10/27 46
Andrew Sainsbury 1675 1666 -9 2017/01/25 7
Andrew Vanlalhruaia 1669 2325 656 2019/01/07 30
Andrew Wildsmith 1584 1654 70 2015/12/06 21
Andrew Wilkins 1405 1459 54 2020/12/16 36
Angadu Narayanan 1608 1985 377 2018/11/12 39
Angus Dahl 1720 1816 96 2019/03/26 31
Angus Learmond 1557 1563 6 2020/11/21 58
Angus Marshall 1533 1621 88 2020/10/05 48
Anil Bhardwaj (cricketer) 1635 1672 37 2016/04/07 20
Anil Bhattacharjee 1487 1526 39 2016/03/25 46
Anil Das Gupta 1557 1592 35 2016/04/06 17
Anil Dutt 1421 1462 41 2016/03/27 32
Anil Jain (cricketer) 1438 1473 35 2016/04/09 39
Anil Mathur 1739 1776 37 2016/04/09 39
Anil Subba 1620 1690 70 2019/11/14 31
Anilkumar Khanna 1462 1497 35 2016/04/09 39
Anirban Chatterjee 1476 1544 68 2016/03/26 19
Aniruddha Roy 1444 1516 72 2016/04/01 24
Anirudh Kanwar 1688 2337 649 2019/09/25 17
Anis-ur-Rehman 1763 1818 55 2015/11/27 7
Anis Siddiqi 1730 1753 23 2015/11/12 45
Anish Charak 1583 1674 91 2021/01/11 77
Anjana de Silva 1638 2180 542 2018/03/10 12
Anjula Perera 1739 1939 200 2021/04/22 21
Ankit Dabas 1966 2025 59 2016/01/10 18
Ankit Dane 1680 2449 769 2015/11/02 16
Ankit Lamba 1335 1458 123 2015/10/06 26
Ankit Maini 1614 2023 409 2019/02/22 26
Ankit Tiwari (cricketer) 1654 1675 21 2017/02/20 23
Ankitkar Jaiswal 1592 1641 49 2021/01/12 74
Ankur Julka 1441 1500 59 2016/04/09 39
Ankur Vasishta 2017 1775 -242 2014/11/28 25
Ankush Bedi 1401 2186 785 2015/10/23 18
Ankush Singh 24 1672 1648 2015/10/23 18
Anmol Malhotra 1629 2154 525 2017/01/29 42
Ansar Javed 1309 1357 48 2015/11/14 32
Anshul Tripathi 1620 1990 370 2018/01/12 28
Anshuman Singh (cricketer) 1655 1767 112 2017/03/06 22
Ansley Jansze 1716 1781 65 2017/11/20 35
Anthony Amalfi 1559 1629 70 2015/12/10 14
Anthony Andrews (cricketer) 1524 1527 3 2020/11/05 42
Anthony Atkins 1476 1498 22 2020/11/12 42
Anthony Bendel 1492 1499 7 2020/12/19 40
Anthony Brown (cricketer) 1464 1514 50 2020/10/01 36
Anthony Campbell (cricketer) 1519 1514 -5 2020/11/05 42
Anthony Chubb 1571 1571 0 2020/12/07 40
Anthony Clark (cricketer) 1738 1644 -94 2016/12/24 18
Anthony Evans (cricketer) 1690 1742 52 2016/11/10 27
Anthony Kershler 1743 1649 -94 2017/01/03 7
Anthony Lyons (cricketer) 1477 1550 73 2020/12/11 44
Anthony Moor 1590 1633 43 2019/03/11 37
Anthony Small (cricketer) 1516 1521 5 2020/10/31 36
Anthony Spillane 1571 1637 66 2016/03/15 15
Anthony Walters (cricketer) 1516 1634 118 2016/03/15 15
Anthony de Kock 1492 1492 0 2020/12/08 44
Anton Subikshan 1608 1617 9 2021/02/21 73
Antonio Whybrew 1574 1572 -2 2020/11/23 22
Antony Dhas 1619 1704 85 2017/03/25 22
Antony Edwards 1547 1662 115 2016/04/08 17
Anuj Raj 1557 2028 471 2021/01/15 99
Anuj Tiwary 1665 1610 -55 2018/12/22 30
Anuk Fernando 1662 1920 258 2015/06/27 41
Anuk de Alwis 1813 1913 100 2019/01/05 52
Anup Das 1440 1475 35 2016/03/27 32
Anupam Sanklecha 1366 1511 145 2015/10/11 61
Anupam Toppo 1622 1673 51 2016/11/13 34
Anurag Tiwari 1622 1983 361 2015/12/12 28
Anurudda Rajapakse 1681 1736 55 2020/07/13 24
Anushka Perera 1700 1747 47 2020/07/30 42
Anushka Polonowita 1357 1848 491 2016/01/30 15
Anuththara Madawa 1646 1711 65 2018/03/14 25
Anwesh Sharma 1590 1961 371 2021/02/21 73
Aosashi Longchar 1688 2459 771 2019/09/24 35
Apurva Anand 1588 1552 -36 2021/02/26 92
Aqeel Anjum 1453 1425 -28 2021/03/27 98
Aqib Javed 2096 2131 35 2018/09/13 58
Aqib Shah 1353 2235 882 2015/12/21 23
Aravind Singh 1354 1679 325 2015/12/12 28
Aravinda Bandara 1644 1691 47 2019/12/15 33
Aravinda Premaratne 1743 1963 220 2017/03/14 11
Archibald Bell (cricketer) 1488 1539 51 2020/11/19 52
Archibald Dean 1644 1713 69 2015/11/19 7
Archibald Hardie 1561 1669 108 2017/07/17 7
Archibald Rigg 1623 1665 42 2020/10/28 39
Ariful Hasan 1793 1833 40 2019/02/25 15
Arifur Rahman Rabin 1705 1753 48 2017/06/02 28
Arijit Basu 1439 1451 12 2016/04/03 21
Arindam Sarkar 1461 1496 35 2016/04/02 29
Arjun Azad 1671 1635 -36 2019/09/25 17
Arjun Debnath 1641 2097 456 2017/02/03 19
Arkaprabha Sinha 1645 2323 678 2019/10/09 3
Armaghan Elahi 1359 1422 63 2015/11/12 45
Arnab Nandi 1305 1400 95 2015/10/11 61
Arnell Horton 1644 1752 108 2016/03/05 19
Arnold Read 2356 2169 -187 2013/07/23 7
Arosh Janoda 1791 1969 178 2016/12/11 41
Arosha Perera 1916 2419 503 2017/12/18 34
Arpit Gaud 1592 1633 41 2021/01/11 77
Arpit Guleria 1662 2261 599 2018/11/28 37
Arpit Pannu 1660 2430 770 2018/11/01 54
Arrie Schoeman 1522 1513 -9 2020/12/14 34
Arsalan Arshad 1639 1724 85 2018/10/08 15
Arshad Junaid 1531 1637 106 2016/04/03 21
Arshad Nawaz 1718 1758 40 2016/10/18 48
Arthur Aldersley 1611 1616 5 2020/10/23 37
Arthur Allsopp 1670 1934 264 2015/11/22 48
Arthur Barber 2192 1982 -210 2013/07/21 23
Arthur Barrow (cricketer) 1768 1522 -246 2014/03/27 9
Arthur Batchelar 1527 1639 112 2017/03/12 45
Arthur Bauer 1528 1614 86 2020/12/06 35
Arthur Bethell 1395 1435 40 2017/04/11 20
Arthur Bonitto 1544 1539 -5 2020/11/05 42
Arthur Braithwaite 1612 1745 133 2016/01/19 10
Arthur Cant 1578 1620 42 2020/10/15 38
Arthur Carracher 1533 1634 101 2018/05/21 37
Arthur Crowder 1635 1795 160 2016/01/22 8
Arthur Daer 2311 1984 -327 2013/07/21 23
Arthur Dare 1531 1578 47 2020/11/20 46
Arthur Davis (Australian cricketer) 1686 1650 -36 2016/01/24 40
Arthur Dean (cricketer) 1564 1610 46 2015/12/02 16
Arthur Duff (cricketer) 1478 1481 3 2020/11/06 43
Arthur Duncan (New Zealand cricketer) 1825 1917 92 2020/10/24 46
Arthur Evans (cricketer) 1584 1494 -90 2018/11/27 28
Arthur Fagan (cricketer) 1666 1676 10 2016/12/28 22
Arthur Fisher (Australian cricketer) 1824 1730 -94 2016/12/28 22
Arthur Furness 1791 1697 -94 2016/12/28 22
Arthur George (cricketer) 1692 1741 49 2020/10/24 46
Arthur Gregory 1797 1749 -48 2016/12/30 32
Arthur Hawthorne 1637 1669 32 2020/10/25 34
Arthur Hayes (cricketer) 1544 1640 96 2020/12/10 35
Arthur Howard (New Zealand cricketer) 1818 1820 2 2020/10/25 34
Arthur Jackson (cricketer) 1546 1642 96 2017/07/13 29
Arthur Johnston (cricketer) 2500 2285 -215 2013/07/27 16
Arthur Kenny 1645 1732 87 2015/11/15 32
Arthur Lewis (Australian cricketer) 1748 1541 -207 2015/02/13 16
Arthur Lovett 1677 1797 120 2016/03/07 12
Arthur Maingot 1631 1679 48 2020/11/29 34
Arthur McBeath 1873 1799 -74 2017/01/07 22
Arthur McKenzie (cricketer) 1486 1481 -5 2020/11/08 31
Arthur Muhl 1536 1552 16 2020/10/05 48
Arthur Munn 1764 1670 -94 2017/01/09 18
Arthur Murrell 1553 1719 166 2020/12/12 42
Arthur Newnham 1782 1705 -77 2014/03/30 50
Arthur Nichols (cricketer) 1763 1669 -94 2017/01/11 11
Arthur Nott 1740 1605 -135 2014/03/30 50
Arthur Pattison 1604 1614 10 2021/03/26 94
Arthur Pellew 1533 1551 18 2020/09/19 45
Arthur Peters (South African cricketer) 1438 1441 3 2020/12/13 32
Arthur Pickering 1664 1525 -139 2014/03/30 50
Arthur Roper 1804 1553 -251 2014/03/26 11
Arthur Serjeant 1710 1509 -201 2014/04/01 17
Arthur Shingler 1571 1562 -9 2020/12/14 34
Arthur Simmons 1807 1713 -94 2017/02/01 12
Arthur Sprenger 1572 1563 -9 2020/12/15 41
Arthur Tarilton 1672 1621 -51 2020/11/10 30
Arthur Thomas (Australian cricketer) 1523 1569 46 2020/09/28 22
Arthur Thomlinson 1553 1625 72 2016/01/22 8
Arthur Trebilcock 1647 1722 75 2016/03/06 29
Arthur Trestrail 1493 1558 65 2016/04/05 6
Arthur Triffitt 1645 1711 66 2016/03/09 9
Arthur Washer 1530 1570 40 2020/10/22 35
Arthur Watt 1733 1757 24 2016/01/22 8
Arthur Weakley 1440 1513 73 2020/12/16 36
Arthur Wells (Australian cricketer) 1796 1735 -61 2017/02/06 9
Arthur Williams (cricketer) 1606 1662 56 2016/06/26 22
Artie Combes 1634 1820 186 2016/03/06 29
Arun Bamal 1622 2301 679 2017/10/06 27
Arun Chaprana 1567 2012 445 2018/09/21 48
Arun Chauhan 1577 1979 402 2018/10/02 35
Arun Khurana 1448 1508 60 2016/04/09 39
Arun Lal (Pakistani cricketer) 1322 1367 45 2015/11/12 45
Arun Singla 1474 1458 -16 2016/04/02 29
Aruna Dharmasena 1676 1789 113 2017/04/09 24
Aruna Priyantha 1742 1789 47 2021/04/20 8
Aruna de Silva 1341 1520 179 2016/02/18 12
Arup Bhattacharya 1476 1489 13 2016/03/25 46
Arya Sethi 1560 2299 739 2018/09/26 52
Aryan Bora 1642 1974 332 2020/02/12 29
Asad Khan (cricketer) 1582 1582 0 2019/08/01 56
Asad Zarar 1344 1370 26 2015/11/12 45
Asadullah (Afghan cricketer) 1638 2026 388 2018/04/04 21
Asadullah (Pakistani cricketer) 1699 1853 154 2016/12/19 17
Asanga Jayasooriya 1365 1986 621 2015/08/05 3
Asantha Singappuli 1646 2167 521 2019/02/15 30
Asel Kulathunga 1624 1717 93 2019/03/06 23
Asela Aluthge 1827 1948 121 2017/04/05 19
Asela Jayasinghe 1448 1662 214 2016/01/30 15
Asela Wewalwala 1759 1806 47 2021/04/21 16
Asfan Khan 1603 1698 95 2019/02/22 26
Ashan Ranasinghe 1695 1794 99 2020/05/31 52
Ashay Palkar 1576 2347 771 2018/09/23 68
Ashby Mutumbami 2077 2195 118 2017/01/17 7
Ashen Kavinda 1623 2066 443 2018/02/24 32
Ashen Maleesha 1689 1736 47 2020/07/13 24
Ashen Mendis 1710 2485 775 2020/07/14 43
Ashikuzzaman 1642 1685 43 2017/09/15 29
Ashiqul Islam 1666 1749 83 2016/09/28 23
Ashish Chaudhary (cricketer) 1702 1665 -37 2019/09/25 17
Ashish Hooda 1336 1930 594 2015/10/04 31
Ashish Kumar (cricketer) 1637 1912 275 2016/10/14 30
Ashish Malhotra 1454 1483 29 2016/04/09 39
Ashish Thapa 1552 2395 843 2018/09/20 65
Ashith Rajiv 1594 2376 782 2018/09/19 81
Ashley Gilbert 1582 1722 140 2015/12/12 28
Ashley Hammond 1470 1476 6 2020/08/06 44
Ashley Hart (cricketer) 1555 1556 1 2020/10/17 50
Ashley Robertson (cricketer) 1584 1630 46 2015/12/12 28
Ashok Bhudania 1646 1695 49 2017/02/25 46
Ashok Puna 1591 1598 7 2020/11/02 37
Ashok Sandhu 1612 1986 374 2016/10/06 48
Ashraf Ali (Karachi cricketer) 1328 1385 57 2015/11/08 43
Ashraf Ali (cricketer, born 1979) 1334 1410 76 2015/11/08 43
Ashraful Hossain 1694 1734 40 2016/09/28 23
Ashutosh Das 1590 1682 92 2019/03/02 22
Ashutosh Sharma (cricketer) 1627 2160 533 2018/01/12 28
Ashwani Kumar (cricketer) 1652 2046 394 2019/12/09 53
Ashwin Das 1644 1569 -75 2016/10/27 31
Ashwini Kapoor 1509 1568 59 2016/04/09 39
Asif Ali (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa cricketer) 1746 1945 199 2017/01/08 23
Asif Ashfaq 1335 1416 81 2015/11/29 32
Asif Fawad 1697 1788 91 2016/10/09 31
Asif Hossain 1671 1725 54 2016/12/20 12
Asif Khan (Indian cricketer) 1586 1621 35 2018/10/01 18
Asif Manzoor 1596 1753 157 2021/03/01 83
Asif Raza 1330 1446 116 2015/11/12 45
Asim Iqbal 1338 1367 29 2015/11/08 43
Asir Intesar 1657 1676 19 2018/03/29 46
Asiri Bandara 1629 1719 90 2017/04/07 23
Asiri de Silva 1654 1719 65 2018/03/02 51
Aslam Hossain 1703 2135 432 2019/02/28 12
Aslam Sattar 1391 1536 145 2015/11/12 45
Aston Powe 1462 1457 -5 2020/11/09 25
Ata-ur-Rehman (Balochistan cricketer) 1775 1812 37 2021/03/27 98
Athi Mafazwe 1606 1652 46 2018/09/14 86
Athol Hagemann 1540 1540 0 2020/12/09 31
Athol Shephard 1689 1755 66 2016/03/08 13
Atif Ali 1366 1490 124 2015/12/18 11
Atif Ashraf 1336 1459 123 2015/11/08 43
Atif Attarwala 1637 1928 291 2019/11/11 27
Atif Jabbar 1362 1874 512 2016/10/03 31
Atiq-ur-Rehman 1470 1514 44 2015/12/21 23
Atiq Ahmed (cricketer) 1725 1809 84 2021/03/27 98
Attaullah (Afghan cricketer) 1632 1646 14 2017/11/28 17
Atul Mohindra 1449 1484 35 2016/04/09 39
Atul Singh Surwar 1654 2028 374 2018/02/05 41
Aubrey Bishop 1460 1458 -2 2020/11/19 52
Aubrey Ferreira 1663 2388 725 2017/10/12 26
Aubrey Johnston 1779 1684 -95 2017/01/01 18
Aubrey Ritchie 1604 1481 -123 2016/06/20 18
Augustus Hewitt-Fox 1741 1744 3 2021/03/17 80
Augustus Hotham 1774 1629 -145 2015/02/13 16
Augustus Page 1677 1700 23 2020/10/20 34
Austin Dummett 1539 1537 -2 2020/11/20 46
Avdhoot Dandekar 1653 2017 364 2019/10/07 41
Avijit Paul 1438 1473 35 2016/04/01 24
Avijit Singha Roy 1565 1743 178 2018/10/09 15
Avik Chowdhury 1455 1490 35 2016/03/26 19
Avinash Yadav 1354 2006 652 2015/10/24 7
Avishek Mitra 1420 2010 590 2016/09/25 39
Avishka Chenuka 1603 1693 90 2019/03/04 33
Avishka Fernando (Kilinochchi District cricketer) 1641 1731 90 2017/04/05 19
Avneesh Sudha 1636 2446 810 2019/01/15 12
Avnish Dhaliwal 1672 2102 430 2016/11/13 34
Awais Iqbal 1609 1687 78 2018/09/30 59
Ayan Bhattacharjee 1610 2459 849 2016/10/22 29
Ayantha de Silva 1601 2454 853 2019/02/16 32
Ayaz Jilani 1738 1804 66 2016/10/18 48
Ayush Jamwal 1671 2102 431 2018/02/05 41
Azam Hussain 1388 1499 111 2015/11/01 42
Azam Jan 21 1521 1500 2015/02/28 28
Azaruddin Bloch 1350 1395 45 2015/10/11 61
Azhar Hasan 1595 1484 -111 2014/05/19 6
Azhar Sheikh 1377 1477 100 2016/11/24 26
Azhar Sultan 1785 1821 36 2017/02/16 19
Azlan Samsudeen 1665 1712 47 2020/01/06 12
Azmath Ali 1455 1494 39 2016/04/16 13
Azmatullah Nazeer 1454 1652 198 2015/07/17 13
Babar Ali (cricketer) 1330 1411 81 2015/11/14 32
Babar Khan (cricketer) 1405 1456 51 2015/12/16 6
Babar Rehman 1352 1417 65 2015/11/24 16
Babashafi Pathan 1352 1846 494 2015/10/10 44
Babloo Passah 1585 1933 348 2018/10/04 47
Babubhai Patel (cricketer) 1529 1558 29 2016/04/23 54
Badaruddin Malik 1572 1599 27 2016/04/07 20
Baden Sharman 1566 1632 66 2016/03/13 31
Bajina Ramprasad 1451 1505 54 2016/04/01 24
Bakhtarullah Atal 1662 2124 462 2017/08/16 35
Bal Krishna (cricketer) 1586 2032 446 2021/01/16 101
Balaji Rao (Indian cricketer) 1580 1608 28 2016/04/10 24
Baldev Dua 1445 1480 35 2016/04/08 17
Balwinder Sandhu (cricketer, born 1987) 1351 1364 13 2015/10/10 44
Bantu Dandala 1692 1750 58 2017/02/12 43
Barakatullah Kadada 1678 1693 15 2018/05/02 7
Barney McCoy 1751 1779 28 2017/01/08 23
Barney Russell 1795 1701 -94 2017/01/25 7
Barrie Bennett 1489 1552 63 2017/04/09 24
Barry Bates 1692 1601 -91 2016/12/22 27
Barry Beard 1645 1711 66 2016/03/14 8
Barry Causby 1491 1538 47 2018/05/21 37
Barry Curtin 1631 1524 -107 2018/06/06 22
Barry Stevens (cricketer) 1575 1621 46 2015/12/03 14
Bartholomew Grant 1594 1664 70 2015/11/15 32
Bashir Ahmad (Afghan cricketer) 1669 1646 -23 2019/05/02 43
Bashir Ahmed (cricketer) 1443 1468 25 2016/06/10 10
Basil Bradfield 1792 1799 7 2020/12/19 40
Basil Crews 1579 1630 51 2020/12/07 40
Basil Totman 1521 1632 111 2016/06/25 14
Basir Rahman 1639 2097 458 2019/11/12 28
Basit Ali (Karachi cricketer) 1670 1781 111 2016/10/24 13
Batin Shah 1618 2492 874 2017/09/11 15
Bawantha Udangamuwa 1613 2053 440 2019/02/18 18
Bede McCauley 1791 1697 -94 2017/01/07 22
Behram Khan (cricketer) 1317 1342 25 2016/10/02 39
Bekezela Moyo 1622 1648 26 2017/02/24 27
Belal Hossen 1675 1732 57 2017/01/02 15
Ben Beecroft 1687 1863 176 2018/01/03 43
Ben Higgins (cricketer) 1503 1602 99 2020/08/08 43
Ben Seabrook 1731 1907 176 2018/04/08 45
Ben Stoyanoff 1638 1638 0 2019/11/08 42
Benjamin Collins (Cambridge University cricketer) 1472 1658 186 2017/04/18 7
Benjamin Hart (cricketer) 1506 1578 72 2016/05/13 21
Benjamin Katsande 1360 1385 25 2016/10/03 31
Benjamin Salmon 1788 1749 -39 2017/01/31 21
Benjamin Wilson (New Zealand cricketer) 1579 1583 4 2020/10/29 42
Benoy Upreti 1623 1707 84 2019/11/09 45
Benson Mwita 1471 1535 64 2015/07/19 41
Bentley Wimble 1799 1998 199 2016/10/06 48
Bernard Colreavy 1811 1719 -92 2016/12/25 16
Bernard Cook 1543 1624 81 2020/10/02 23
Bernard Meakin 1772 1788 16 2014/03/30 50
Bernie Thomas 1541 1539 -2 2020/11/23 22
Berry Webb 1528 1543 15 2020/10/08 43
Bert Shortland 1763 1669 -94 2017/02/01 12
Bert Wright (cricketer) 1657 1702 45 2015/12/02 16
Bertie Grounds 1822 1728 -94 2016/12/30 32
Bertie Verley 1542 1575 33 2020/11/10 30
Bertie Watson 1743 1739 -4 2017/02/05 9
Bertram Watkins 2434 2243 -191 2013/08/04 21
Beverley Esterhuizen 1541 1532 -9 2020/12/08 44
Bevon Brown 1493 1488 -5 2020/11/05 42
Bhagya Ediriweera 1688 1735 47 2021/03/28 64
Bhanu Pania 1568 1938 370 2021/01/10 58
Bharat Awasthy 1480 1540 60 2016/04/07 20
Bharat Khanna 1707 1749 42 2016/04/17 25
Bharat Veer 1415 1474 59 2016/04/12 14
Bhaskar Gupta 1438 1480 42 2016/03/28 32
Bhaskar Mazumbar 1499 1534 35 2016/04/06 17
Bhavik Patel 1615 1700 85 2019/02/27 10
Bhavik Thaker 1350 1431 81 2015/10/17 24
Bhiguraj Pathania 1622 1635 13 2019/03/02 22
Bhima Rao 1648 1864 216 2015/11/02 16
Bhushan Chauhan 1354 1422 68 2015/10/17 24
Bhushan Subba 1557 2383 826 2018/09/20 65
Bibek Diyali 1572 2322 750 2018/10/02 35
Bijay Subba 1549 2119 570 2018/09/26 52
Bijon Dey 1647 2112 465 2018/12/20 26
Bikas Pati 1332 1429 97 2015/10/17 24
Bikash Chowdhury (cricketer) 1463 1528 65 2016/03/26 19
Bikash Pradhan 1590 1749 159 2018/09/20 65
Bikramjit Debnath 1607 1669 62 2018/09/19 81
Bikramkumar Das 1639 2354 715 2017/02/25 46
Bilal Anwar 1583 1968 385 2018/09/09 64
Bilal Hussain 1354 1600 246 2015/10/25 24
Bilal Shah 1747 2248 501 2016/12/19 17
Bill Beath 1794 1814 20 2016/12/22 27
Bill Bryant (cricketer) 1602 1569 -33 2017/09/26 24
Bill Burton (cricketer) 1747 1747 0 2020/10/23 37
Bill Donaldson (cricketer) 1815 1721 -94 2016/12/26 28
Bill Tallon 1554 1665 111 2020/10/08 43
Bimal Mitra (cricketer) 1469 1413 -56 2016/03/30 17
Bimol Singh 1653 2083 430 2018/11/28 37
Binod Gupta 1552 1670 118 2018/09/21 48
Biplab Saikia 1654 1687 33 2018/12/22 30
Bishan Mendis 1582 1989 407 2021/03/04 55
Bishawnath Halder 1467 1706 239 2016/09/25 39
Bishwash Singh 1645 1719 74 2020/02/12 29
Blessing Juspen 1647 1677 30 2017/02/24 27
Bob Homani 1782 1837 55 2016/12/12 15
Bob Masefield 1481 1488 7 2020/10/18 35
Bobby Fernando 1794 1884 90 2018/12/16 62
Bobby Madden (cricketer) 1791 1697 -94 2017/01/06 12
Bobby Zahiruddin 1555 1576 21 2016/04/24 33
Bobby Zothansanga 1667 2436 769 2018/12/14 51
Bodapati Sumanth 1381 1391 10 2015/10/07 15
Bodavarapu Sudhakar 1380 1411 31 2015/10/07 15
Boddupalli Amit 1436 2026 590 2016/03/24 9
Bohoto Yeptho 1642 1719 77 2019/12/09 53
Bokang Mosena 1567 1612 45 2015/09/06 35
Bonaparte Mujuru 1388 1421 33 2016/10/03 31
Bongani Mahlangu (cricketer) 1680 1749 69 2016/10/14 30
Bonny Chingangbam 1603 2362 759 2018/09/19 81
Bothwell Chapungu 1646 1874 228 2016/09/07 50
Brad Dolley 1597 1947 350 2015/09/03 21
Brad Inwood 1542 1543 1 2020/10/04 33
Brad Ipson 1442 1443 1 2020/10/09 62
Brad Wigney 1509 1505 -4 2020/09/30 24
Bradley Mauer 1641 2014 373 2018/03/25 12
Bradley Nielsen 1537 1567 30 2016/06/19 34
Bradley Staddon 1369 1394 25 2016/10/03 31
Bradley Williams (cricketer) 1714 2127 413 2017/01/08 23
Bradley de Villiers 1710 2370 660 2018/02/03 41
Brandon Scullard 1598 1677 79 2015/09/06 35
Brendan Creevey 1512 1562 50 2020/10/02 23
Brendan Ricci 1575 1645 70 2015/12/12 28
Brendan Ward 1573 1580 7 2020/11/03 19
Brendon Oxenham 1612 1748 136 2016/06/19 34
Brendon Reddy 1755 1810 55 2016/12/13 18
Brent Kops 1736 1791 55 2016/12/13 18
Brent Lodding 1555 1625 70 2015/12/12 28
Brent Robey 1554 1576 22 2021/03/30 65
Brett Hood 1550 1557 7 2020/11/02 37
Brett van Deinsen 1762 1792 30 2017/02/05 9
Brian Barnard 1580 1632 52 2016/09/21 38
Brian Bath 1466 1514 48 2016/04/05 6
Brian Buchanan (cricketer) 1498 1501 3 2020/11/05 42
Brian Carney (cricketer) 1594 1627 33 2016/03/12 5
Brian Cartledge 1656 1766 110 2016/03/13 31
Brian Clayton 1519 1529 10 2020/12/20 32
Brian Dold 1597 1600 3 2020/12/21 42
Brian Ford (cricketer) 1461 1522 61 2020/10/16 48
Brian Foulds 1532 1539 7 2020/11/01 28
Brian Gill (cricketer) 1507 1514 7 2020/11/01 28
Brian Grace 1462 1463 1 2020/10/03 44
Brian Grove 1537 1515 -22 2020/08/06 44
Brian Harbridge 1584 1627 43 2020/10/17 50
Brian Hopkins (cricketer) 1487 1567 80 2020/10/25 34
Brian Illman 1537 1551 14 2020/08/09 38
Brian Mallinson 1474 1523 49 2020/12/12 42
Brian Ndzundzu 1482 1473 -9 2020/12/13 32
Brian Patoir 1529 1687 158 2020/11/22 49
Brian Patterson (cricketer) 1617 1643 26 2016/03/11 13
Brian Porter (cricketer) 1551 1598 47 2015/12/05 31
Brian Sheen 1603 1604 1 2016/03/12 5
Brian Sorenson 1776 1679 -97 2016/06/21 18
Brian Spragg 1560 1567 7 2020/11/02 37
Brian Warner (cricketer) 1706 1613 -93 2016/06/26 22
Brighton Mugochi 1662 1688 26 2017/02/24 27
Broderick Warner 1397 1393 -4 2020/12/01 18
Brook Hatwell 1815 1844 29 2016/12/13 18
Bruce Baldwin (cricketer) 1666 1674 8 2020/10/29 42
Bruce Eligon 1577 1622 45 2016/11/14 24
Bruce Friderichs 1567 1558 -9 2020/12/21 42
Bruce Gordon (cricketer) 1432 1389 -43 2020/12/09 31
Bruce Groves 1513 1547 34 2016/05/16 14
Bruce Hodgetts 1571 1679 108 2016/03/13 31
Bruce John 1601 1634 33 2016/03/13 31
Bruce Kerr 1593 2001 408 2016/09/21 38
Bruce Livingston 1765 1671 -94 2017/01/05 11
Bruce Long 1482 1536 54 2020/12/11 44
Bruce Moir 1547 1690 143 2015/12/06 21
Bruce Sibanda 1348 1377 29 2016/10/03 31
Bruce Such 1482 1504 22 2020/10/08 43
Bruce Taylor (Australian cricketer) 1527 1661 134 2020/10/08 43
Bruce Tembo 1621 1647 26 2017/02/22 38
Bruce Vawser 1613 1683 70 2015/12/02 16
Bruce Wardlaw 1705 1731 26 2016/03/06 29
Bruno Broughton 1696 1729 33 2017/04/03 15
Bryan Bayley 1644 1650 6 2020/10/14 29
Bryan Doyle (cricketer) 1569 1639 70 2015/12/10 14
Bryan Higgins (cricketer) 1593 1600 7 2020/11/02 37
Bryan Lones 1465 1418 -47 2020/12/11 44
Bryan McGan 1769 1528 -241 2015/05/03 38
Bryce Cooper 1773 1679 -94 2016/12/25 16
Bryce Postles 1774 1677 -97 2016/06/19 34
Buddhadeb Mitra 1453 1397 -56 2016/03/30 17
Buddika Hasaranga 1693 1783 90 2018/02/24 32
Buddika Janith 1710 1796 86 2017/04/08 24
Buddika Madushan 1670 2263 593 2018/03/02 51
Buddika Prasad 1617 2064 447 2019/02/17 41
Buddika Sanjeewa 1681 1866 185 2017/03/17 14
Bunti Roy 1605 1743 138 2016/11/13 34
Burton Forbes 1413 1415 2 2020/12/08 44
Buxton Peters 1543 1545 2 2020/11/30 50
Byron Drury (cricketer) 1517 1607 90 2020/11/06 43
Byron Hyland 1571 1650 79 2016/03/10 6
C. R. Mohite 1613 1516 -97 2014/05/26 20
C Lalrinsanga 1956 1981 25 2019/10/03 31
Caleb Gaylard 1529 1530 1 2020/10/30 52
Callum Guest 1810 1873 63 2017/03/29 29
Calvin Moore 1425 1521 96 2020/11/21 58
Capel Baines 1523 1574 51 2020/12/06 35
Carey Cawood 1772 1823 51 2020/12/20 32
Carey Smith 1546 1616 70 2015/12/09 9
Carl André (cricketer) 1552 1546 -6 2020/12/06 35
Carl Boy 1623 1618 -5 2020/11/05 42
Carl Furlonge 1394 1463 69 2016/03/22 5
Carl Gouveia 1463 1461 -2 2020/11/20 46
Carl Mellors 1476 1534 58 2020/12/04 35
Carlos Maynard 1645 1682 37 2018/01/31 53
Carlton Gordon 1465 1468 3 2020/11/06 43
Carlton Hay 1723 1802 79 2016/06/11 9
Carlton Reece 1555 1553 -2 2020/11/22 49
Carvick Thompson 1764 1670 -94 2017/02/03 19
Castell Folkes 1468 1463 -5 2020/11/06 43
Cecil Booth (cricketer) 1526 1618 92 2017/04/10 15
Cecil Bryce 1587 1603 16 2020/10/01 36
Cecil Colman 1603 1606 3 2020/12/20 32
Cecil De Cordova 1516 1511 -5 2020/11/06 43
Cecil Gosling 2218 2117 -101 2013/07/20 14
Cecil Gray (cricketer) 1548 1563 15 2020/08/06 44
Cecil Hanify 1533 1550 17 2020/10/04 33
Cecil Kirton 1495 1483 -12 2020/12/11 44
Cecil McCallum 1425 1471 46 2020/12/12 42
Cecil McKew 1808 1840 32 2017/01/08 23
Cecil Oakes 1669 1695 26 2016/03/07 12
Cecil Perry 1754 1744 -10 2016/01/07 10
Cecil Shearman 1543 1553 10 2020/12/14 34
Cecil Thomas (cricketer) 1553 1565 12 2020/11/23 22
Cecil Warner 1497 1500 3 2020/12/16 36
Cecil Wood (Australian cricketer) 1612 1678 66 2016/03/05 19
Celso de Freitas 1568 1566 -2 2020/11/20 46
Chaamikara Hewage 1703 1900 197 2018/03/10 12
Chad Baxter 1806 1860 54 2016/12/13 18
Chalana de Silva 1789 2021 232 2017/01/04 10
Chalanaka Weerasinghe 1663 1762 99 2017/04/09 24
Chamal Perera 1717 2108 391 2020/07/14 43
Chamara Fernando 2071 2498 427 2020/01/04 12
Chamara Lasantha 1689 1760 71 2016/12/13 18
Chamara de Soysa 1661 1769 108 2016/04/03 21
Chamath Perera 1768 1976 208 2021/04/22 21
Chameera Dissanayake 1689 2136 447 2018/03/02 51
Chaminda Boteju 1771 1818 47 2020/01/17 33
Chaminda Gamage 1730 1802 72 2017/11/10 38
Chaminda Handunnettige 2068 2163 95 2018/03/16 25
Chaminda Hathurusingha 2162 2244 82 2016/12/14 10
Chaminda Pathirana 1717 1816 99 2020/06/13 40
Chamindu Wickramasinghe 1626 1720 94 2021/03/04 55
Chamod Silva 1691 1807 116 2017/04/05 19
Chamod Wickramasuriya 1694 1741 47 2020/01/15 12
Champa Sugathadasa 1617 1713 96 2016/10/26 40
Chanaka Wijesinghe 1639 2227 588 2017/01/22 18
Chandan Ray (Tripura cricketer) 1572 1632 60 2021/01/10 58
Chandana Aravinda 1993 2116 123 2017/10/27 30
Chandi Wickramasinghe 1779 2045 266 2014/04/12 31
Chandimanthu Rodrigo 1686 2215 529 2017/04/06 5
Chandranath Chatterjee 1545 1580 35 2016/03/26 19
Chandrapal Singh (cricketer) 1653 1898 245 2017/01/29 42
Chandrashekhar Atram 1705 1756 51 2016/12/13 18
Chandula Weeraratne 1706 1753 47 2020/07/13 24
Channa Fernando 1635 1725 90 2018/03/16 25
Chanuk Dilshan 2315 2457 142 2019/02/19 34
Chanuka Bandara (cricketer, born 1998) 1625 1672 47 2020/01/14 9
Charanjit Singh (cricketer) 1462 1524 62 2016/03/26 19
Charith Keerthisinghe 1894 1984 90 2017/12/04 30
Charith Mendis 1649 2101 452 2018/02/27 24
Charith Rajapakshe 1682 1777 95 2018/03/01 31
Charith Sudaraka 1734 1815 81 2017/01/06 12
Charith Tissera 1810 1857 47 2021/04/22 21
Charitha Kumarasinghe 1738 2181 443 2018/02/27 24
Charles Aldridge 1541 1848 307 2020/10/13 29
Charles Allcock 1557 1785 228 2017/04/01 31
Charles Allee 1631 1701 70 2015/06/06 32
Charles Allison (cricketer) 1642 1628 -14 2020/12/17 15
Charles Alsop 1638 1780 142 2015/07/26 23
Charles Baldwin (cricketer) 1589 1689 100 2017/03/12 45
Charles Bannister (cricketer) 1486 1671 185 2017/04/08 24
Charles Barker (cricketer) 1684 1728 44 2020/10/14 29
Charles Basson 1740 1827 87 2020/12/19 40
Charles Blades 1562 1628 66 2020/11/12 42
Charles Brereton (cricketer) 1504 1751 247 2017/04/10 15
Charles Britton 1535 1567 32 2020/12/19 40
Charles Burls 1547 1753 206 2017/03/12 45
Charles Calvert (Cambridge University cricketer) 1538 1666 128 2017/04/15 13
Charles Chandler (cricketer) 1560 1563 3 2020/11/05 42
Charles Chapman (cricketer, born 1860) 1514 1553 39 2017/04/17 17
Charles Clark (Canterbury cricketer) 1696 1725 29 2016/06/05 13
Charles Delbridge 1718 1772 54 2020/12/20 32
Charles Delgado 1462 1460 -2 2020/11/06 43
Charles Dick (cricketer) 1562 1565 3 2020/12/08 44
Charles Drew (cricketer) 1564 1607 43 2018/10/31 24
Charles Edwards (English cricketer) 1800 1551 -249 2014/03/29 10
Charles Fearon 1567 1605 38 2020/10/16 48
Charles Foot 1630 1744 114 2015/07/23 12
Charles Gardner (Australian cricketer) 1646 1716 70 2015/11/22 48
Charles Gingell 1589 1646 57 2020/12/22 20
Charles Greenway (cricketer) 1665 1455 -210 2014/03/30 50
Charles Gregory (cricketer, born 1847) 1803 1836 33 2016/12/30 32
Charles Griffith (Australian cricketer) 1608 1644 36 2020/10/03 44
Charles Guiney 1586 1617 31 2020/10/17 50
Charles Hammond (Australian cricketer) 1705 1734 29 2016/01/16 20
Charles Hendrie 1580 1646 66 2015/11/16 21
Charles Hendrikse 1555 1608 53 2020/12/03 38
Charles Hurditch 1538 1659 121 2020/11/07 24
Charles Inder 1473 1598 125 2016/03/28 32
Charles Kellick 1804 1833 29 2017/01/02 15
Charles Lawes (cricketer) 1735 1868 133 2017/01/04 10
Charles Letcher 1651 1721 70 2015/07/25 19
Charles Lownds 1745 1745 0 2020/12/11 44
Charles McAlister 1605 1608 3 2020/12/12 42
Charles McAllen 1685 1812 127 2016/01/14 8
Charles McCalgan 1503 1546 43 2020/12/12 42
Charles Mengel 1455 1456 1 2020/10/05 48
Charles Miles (cricketer, born 1850) 1750 1762 12 2020/10/27 46
Charles Morgan (Surrey cricketer) 1573 1656 83 2017/03/13 30
Charles Morgan (Victoria cricketer) 1635 1698 63 2015/11/21 24
Charles Munro (cricketer) 1581 1645 64 2017/07/13 29
Charles Nicholls 1842 1916 74 2017/01/11 11
Charles O'Brien (cricketer) 1783 1812 29 2017/01/12 9
Charles Osmond 1721 1750 29 2016/06/19 34
Charles Packer 1585 1641 56 2020/11/16 29
Charles Patrick 1881 1962 81 2017/01/14 8
Charles Payne (Australian cricketer) 1681 1719 38 2016/01/19 10
Charles Restieaux 1601 1673 72 2016/06/20 18
Charles Rix 1717 1725 8 2020/10/20 34
Charles Robinson (Australian cricketer) 1864 2003 139 2016/01/22 8
Charles Ross (Australian cricketer) 1628 1667 39 2015/07/25 19
Charles Round 2329 2070 -259 2013/07/21 23
Charles Russen (cricketer) 1685 1724 39 2016/01/20 12
Charles Rutherfoord 1838 1898 60 2016/10/06 48
Charles Snyman 1582 1582 0 2020/12/15 41
Charles Stafford (cricketer) 1616 1643 27 2016/06/22 12
Charles Stone (New Zealand cricketer) 1709 1744 35 2016/06/22 12
Charles Sumption 1485 1547 62 2016/04/03 21
Charles Turnbull (cricketer) 1792 1547 -245 2014/04/04 13
Charles Valencia 1525 1519 -6 2020/11/10 30
Charles Vautin 1660 1703 43 2016/01/14 8
Charles Wakefield (cricketer) 1754 1759 5 2020/12/16 36
Charles Warner (Trinidadian cricketer) 1449 1485 36 2020/12/01 18
Charles Weir 1579 1563 -16 2020/12/16 36
Charuka Tharindu 1976 2023 47 2021/03/28 64
Charuka Wijelath 1656 2107 451 2019/02/15 30
Chase Young (cricketer) 1485 1485 0 2020/12/16 36
Chathupama Gunasinghe 1762 1863 101 2017/01/29 42
Chathura Lakshan 1631 2162 531 2018/02/24 32
Chathura Milan 1644 2111 467 2018/03/02 51
Chathura Peiris 1307 1584 277 2016/01/30 15
Chathuranga Dikkumbura 1644 2118 474 2019/02/16 32
Chathuranga Jayathilake 1663 1710 47 2021/03/05 84
Chathuranga Silva 1700 1747 47 2020/08/10 45
Chatterpaul Persaud 1633 1632 -1 2020/11/22 49
Chaturan Sanjeewa 1796 2470 674 2019/03/06 23
Chelluri Jaikumar 1506 1544 38 2016/04/17 25
Chengalpet Gnaneshwar 1734 2075 341 2018/12/17 46
Chengkam Sangma 1579 2317 738 2018/09/20 65
Chenutha Wickramasinghe 1694 2147 453 2018/03/01 31
Chetan Bist 1338 2007 669 2015/10/18 19
Chingakham Ranjan 1606 1711 105 2021/02/27 73
Chinta Gandhi 1575 1613 38 2021/01/10 58
Chintan Gaja 1631 2499 868 2016/10/27 31
Chinthaka Edirimanne 1365 1459 94 2016/02/10 20
Chinthaka Perera 2017 2151 134 2017/12/18 34
Chiranjivi Kumar 1646 1678 32 2019/10/16 29
Chitiz Tamang 1643 2176 533 2018/11/01 54
Chongtham Mehul 1580 1918 338 2021/03/01 83
Chopise Hopongkyu 1631 2375 744 2020/01/19 42
Chris Beatty (cricketer) 1742 1771 29 2016/12/22 27
Chris Brent 1477 1477 0 2020/12/07 40
Chris Cruikshank 1537 1536 -1 2020/10/30 52
Chris Davies (New Zealand cricketer) 1502 1531 29 2016/05/08 37
Chris Killen (cricketer) 1502 1555 53 2020/08/12 33
Chris Lee (cricketer) 1553 1600 47 2016/06/15 10
Chris Owen (cricketer) 1466 1453 -13 2020/09/18 29
Chris Smart 1537 1538 1 2020/10/07 60
Christiaan Snyman 1710 1572 -138 2015/01/21 16
Christopher Davies (South African cricketer) 1639 1639 0 2020/12/08 44
Christopher Dwyer (cricketer) 1588 1675 87 2015/11/16 21
Christopher Janik 1816 1643 -173 2014/10/24 29
Christopher Marrow 1612 2073 461 2016/09/13 29
Christopher Simpson (cricketer) 1447 1480 33 2020/11/22 49
Christopher Webb (cricketer) 1564 1603 39 2020/10/31 36
Clare Baker 1576 1482 -94 2017/03/16 15
Clarence Driscoll 1640 1735 95 2016/03/01 9
Clarence Lee (cricketer) 1632 1698 66 2016/03/01 9
Clarence McCoombe 1551 1619 68 2020/10/05 48
Clarence Worme 1561 1564 3 2020/11/18 25
Claude Mandy 1488 1494 6 2020/12/12 42
Clement Bengough 1769 1540 -229 2014/04/01 17
Clement Browne (cricketer) 1557 1596 39 2020/11/12 42
Clement Bryce 1551 1535 -16 2020/12/07 40
Clement Gaskin 1543 1541 -2 2020/11/20 46
Clement Hill (cricketer, born 1904) 1753 1874 121 2016/12/31 17
Clement McFarlane 1567 1586 19 2020/10/05 48
Clement Wellington 1581 1644 63 2017/07/13 29
Cleveland Bailey 1575 1555 -20 2020/11/05 42
Cleveland Davidson 1535 1538 3 2020/11/06 43
Clifford Kuhn 1563 1563 0 2020/12/11 44
Clifton Cawley 1542 1546 4 2020/11/05 42
Clifton Folkes 1534 1539 5 2020/11/06 43
Clifton Hurburgh 1681 1707 26 2016/03/09 9
Clifton Jeffery 1706 1732 26 2016/03/06 29
Clifton Satherley 1625 1632 7 2020/11/02 37
Clint Auty 1515 1471 -44 2017/11/10 38
Clinton Reed 1542 1545 3 2020/11/16 29
Clive Campbell (cricketer) 1460 1455 -5 2020/11/05 42
Clive Kolbe 1690 1570 -120 2016/11/10 27
Clive Page 1564 1570 6 2020/10/07 60
Clive White (cricketer) 1533 1536 3 2020/12/16 36
Clyde Lucas (cricketer) 1635 1707 72 2016/01/24 40
Cobus Pienaar 1891 1941 50 2016/10/29 24
Cody Andrews 1751 2108 357 2016/03/21 6
Col Costorphin 1652 1722 70 2015/12/05 31
Col Westaway 1508 1576 68 2016/03/23 6
Colin Arnold 1551 1662 111 2016/03/14 8
Colin Bloomfield (cricketer) 1746 1741 -5 2020/11/05 42
Colin Fletcher (cricketer) 1507 1502 -5 2020/11/06 43
Colin Fraser-Grant 1503 1596 93 2020/12/09 31
Colin Kretzmann 1505 1505 0 2020/12/11 44
Colin Maritz 1589 1575 -14 2021/03/21 16
Colin McCallum (cricketer) 1476 1542 66 2020/12/12 42
Colin Richardson (cricketer) 1695 1721 26 2016/03/08 13
Colin Stibe 1569 1598 29 2020/10/08 43
Colin Thwaites 1588 1658 70 2015/12/05 31
Colin Watts 1453 1480 27 2016/05/27 14
Collette McGuiness 1985 2086 101 2016/10/26 40
Collin Kelbrick 1531 1585 54 2021/03/17 80
Conrad Lotz 1609 1609 0 2020/12/04 35
Courtenay Daley 1471 1466 -5 2020/11/06 43
Courtney O'Connor 1518 1513 -5 2020/11/09 25
Coventry Tainton 1590 1593 3 2020/12/15 41
Craig Abrahams 1518 1572 54 2020/12/01 18
Craig Ballantyne 1463 1536 73 2020/12/06 35
Craig Bartlett (cricketer) 1550 1551 1 2020/10/29 42
Craig Brown (cricketer) 1600 1602 2 2016/03/14 8
Craig Coulson 1560 1512 -48 2017/11/10 38
Craig Glassock 1763 1794 31 2016/12/30 32
Craig Howard (cricketer) 1567 1637 70 2015/12/10 14
Craig Kirsten 1587 1675 88 2015/09/06 35
Craig Lowe (cricketer) 1423 1478 55 2020/12/04 35
Craig Marais (cricketer) 1428 1428 0 2020/12/04 35
Craig Ross (Canterbury cricketer) 1510 1571 61 2020/10/20 34
Craig Ross (Northern Districts cricketer) 1558 1565 7 2020/11/02 37
Craig Wilson (cricketer) 1448 1502 54 2020/12/06 35
Curtley Louw 1603 2305 702 2017/09/15 29
Cyprian Bloomfield 1539 1534 -5 2020/11/05 42
Cyril Solomon 1820 1849 29 2017/02/02 18
Cyril Tyler 2333 2169 -164 2013/08/03 8
D'Arcy Galt 1454 1473 19 2020/11/28 41
D. T. Chandrasekar 1683 1755 72 2015/10/10 44
Dale Ellcock 1492 1491 -1 2020/11/13 49
Dale O'Halloran 1563 1673 110 2016/03/15 15
Dale Womersley 2293 2070 -223 2013/07/22 11
Dalen Mmako 1625 2024 399 2018/01/20 36
Daljit Singh (cricketer, born 1935) 1480 1527 47 2016/04/05 6
Daljit Singh (cricketer, born 1937) 1533 1571 38 2016/04/05 6
Damidu Ashan 1660 1843 183 2017/04/08 24
Damien Nadarajah 1379 1498 119 2016/02/10 20
Daminda Kolugala 1412 1531 119 2016/02/11 11
Daminda Ranawaka 1817 1917 100 2016/12/15 16
Damith Gunatilleke 1856 1903 47 2021/04/22 21
Damith Indika 1820 1915 95 2016/12/15 16
Damith Perera 1691 2150 459 2017/04/07 23
Damith Priyadharshana 1798 1888 90 2017/12/18 34
Damitha Hunukumbura 1354 1926 572 2016/01/30 15
Dammika Perera 2037 2141 104 2017/12/18 34
Dammika Rajapakse 1613 2122 509 2021/03/07 89
Dan Horsley 1689 1706 17 2017/01/01 18
Danal Hemananda 1633 1685 52 2021/03/06 107
Dananja Madushanka 1622 1688 66 2017/04/05 19
Danico Philmon 1528 1582 54 2020/12/05 40
Daniel Archer (cricketer) 1627 1637 10 2016/03/13 31
Daniel Coleborn 1496 1455 -41 2020/10/09 62
Daniel Cotton (cricketer) 1463 1572 109 2017/04/28 16
Daniel Cullen (New South Wales cricketer) 1774 1803 29 2016/12/25 16
Daniel During 1487 1523 36 2016/03/25 46
Daniel Erasmus (cricketer) 1485 1511 26 2017/02/22 38
Daniel Gee 1769 1798 29 2016/12/28 22
Daniel McLeod 1637 1707 70 2015/07/26 23
Daniel Noonan (cricketer) 1638 1702 64 2015/08/16 16
Daniel Sincuba 1577 1709 132 2015/09/06 35
Daniel Stephen 1467 1458 -9 2020/12/15 41
Daniel Zvidzai 1605 1920 315 2020/02/04 36
Danniel Ruyange 1810 1640 -170 2015/01/24 13
Danuka Prabath 1658 1676 18 2018/03/18 31
Danush Peiris 1707 1776 69 2017/03/18 19
Danushka Bandara 1702 1798 96 2018/02/25 36
Darrell Jackman 1694 1720 26 2016/03/08 13
Darremsanga 1961 2309 348 2019/10/03 31
Darren Chyer 1468 1515 47 2018/05/25 38
Darren Tucker 1668 1632 -36 2017/02/04 9
Darren Walker (cricketer) 1538 1640 102 2015/12/09 9
Darryl Brown (South African cricketer) 1581 1675 94 2015/09/01 28
Darryl Hendricks 1634 1655 21 2018/01/13 39
Dasari Chaitanya 1644 1685 41 2017/02/25 46
Dastagir Khan 1659 2036 377 2017/11/09 38
Dasun Senevirathna 1684 2075 391 2017/12/09 58
Dattatreya Mukherjee 1495 1530 35 2016/03/30 17
Dave Chardon 1734 1765 31 2016/12/24 18
Davendra Sharma 1483 1529 46 2016/04/10 24
David Airey 1491 1492 1 2020/10/23 37
David Alers 1474 1451 -23 2020/12/06 35
David Ashworth (cricketer) 1423 1632 209 2017/03/18 19
David Beaumont (cricketer) 1471 1579 108 2017/04/09 24
David Blake (New Zealand cricketer) 1579 1586 7 2020/10/29 42
David Boyle (cricketer) 1532 1705 173 2020/10/14 29
David Clarke (Australian cricketer) 1484 1532 48 2018/05/25 38
David Cooper (Indian cricketer) 1347 1410 63 2016/04/04 8
David Cooper (New Zealand cricketer) 1461 1472 11 2016/04/04 8
David Cowper (cricketer) 1598 1640 42 2015/12/05 31
David Daly (cricketer) 1674 1677 3 2020/12/20 32
David Dempsey (cricketer) 1535 1573 38 2020/10/16 48
David Eaton (cricketer) 1482 1512 30 2016/06/21 18
David Ellis (Australian cricketer) 1477 1478 1 2020/10/03 44
David Emerson (cricketer) 1571 1641 70 2015/12/06 21
David Emslie 1559 1569 10 2020/12/21 42
David Gray (cricketer) 2479 2186 -293 2013/07/19 24
David Harris (Victoria cricketer) 1568 1613 45 2015/12/09 9
David Hosking (cricketer) 1492 1491 -1 2020/10/25 34
David Jacobs (cricketer, born 1989) 1714 1773 59 2017/01/21 17
David Johnston (New South Wales cricketer) 1770 1923 153 2017/01/01 18
David Kerr (cricketer) 1633 1703 70 2015/11/29 32
David King (cricketer) 1669 1722 53 2016/09/28 23
David Kivell 1549 1832 283 2020/10/30 52
David Lumsden (cricketer) 1593 1567 -26 2021/03/17 80
David Mailer 1640 1734 94 2015/07/27 12
David Martins 1461 1467 6 2020/11/21 58
David Masterson 1647 2054 407 2019/03/23 21
David McGuire (cricketer) 1693 1719 26 2016/03/11 13
David McMeeking (cricketer) 1484 1524 40 2016/06/10 10
David Mogotlane 1702 1731 29 2016/10/27 31
David Mullett 1552 1641 89 2016/03/15 15
David Noonan (cricketer) 1748 1777 29 2017/01/11 11
David Ogilvy (cricketer) 1760 1789 29 2017/01/12 9
David Partridge (cricketer) 2641 2367 -274 2013/07/30 7
David Pryor (cricketer) 1745 1883 138 2017/01/15 22
David Scott (cricketer) 1769 1824 55 2017/03/30 19
David Shepard (cricketer) 1557 2164 607 2015/12/12 28
David Strudwick 1475 1610 135 2016/03/29 9
David Sultan 1432 1433 1 2020/11/30 50
David Sutherland (cricketer) 1642 1688 46 2015/07/27 12
David Tarrant 1544 1645 101 2020/10/31 36
David Taylor (Australian cricketer) 1694 1723 29 2017/02/03 19
David Weston (cricketer) 1579 1605 26 2016/06/26 22
David Whitefield 1510 1544 34 2016/05/17 17
Dawlat Khan 1581 1624 43 2017/09/17 55
Dawson Ritchie 1585 1615 30 2016/06/20 18
Dean Mazhawidza 1371 1396 25 2016/09/07 50
Dean Morgan (cricketer) 1502 1505 3 2020/11/08 31
Dean Potter (cricketer) 1796 1833 37 2016/06/19 34
Debabrata Pradhan 1619 2400 781 2017/03/06 22
Debasis Chakraborty 1478 1513 35 2016/03/26 19
Debendra Roy 1439 1474 35 2016/04/01 24
Debu Majumdar 1448 1483 35 2016/03/29 9
Deendyal Upadhyay 1665 2447 782 2018/12/14 51
Deepak Behera 1337 1421 84 2015/10/06 26
Deepak Dogra 1678 2165 487 2017/02/03 19
Deepak Manhas 1687 1778 91 2015/10/25 24
Deepak Sharma (cricketer, born 1984) 1405 1440 35 2016/04/10 24
Deepak Shetty 1641 1651 10 2019/12/25 28
Deependra Pandey 1680 2041 361 2017/02/03 19
Dega Nischal 1640 2117 477 2017/11/01 33
Delroy Morgan 1490 1485 -5 2020/11/08 31
Demitri Hayidakis 1606 1606 0 2020/12/10 35
Denham Price 1477 1565 88 2016/06/02 11
Denis Cotter (cricketer) 1593 1614 21 2015/07/25 19
Denis Rampersad 1435 1493 58 2020/11/30 50
Denish Das 1568 2021 453 2021/01/10 58
Dennis Blair (cricketer) 1556 1674 118 2016/03/11 13
Dennis Hewitt 1506 1587 81 2020/11/21 58
Dennis Hollard 1691 1727 36 2020/12/10 35
Dennis Thorbourne 1519 1522 3 2020/11/10 30
Denuwan Fernando 1648 1684 36 2016/09/28 23
Denville McKenzie 1535 1538 3 2020/11/08 31
Denzil Whitfield 1428 1474 46 2020/12/16 36
Derek Mitchell (cricketer) 1691 1749 58 2016/11/06 35
Derek Scott (cricketer) 1552 1582 30 2016/06/20 18
Derek Tate 1423 1424 1 2020/10/09 62
Derek Woodhead 1619 1571 -48 2017/11/03 34
Derreck Calvert 1665 1731 66 2016/03/08 13
Derrick Townshend 1481 1506 25 2016/06/03 7
Des Hansen 1541 1619 78 2020/10/04 33

Details (mass draftification of cricket articles)

Selection criteria: Generated using a Quarry query, these 1,200 articles are a subset of the articles that meet the following criteria:

  1. Articles are created by Lugnuts
  2. Articles are on cricketers
  3. Articles are smaller than 2,500 bytes[a]
  4. Referenced only to CricketArchive or ESPNcricinfo[b]
  5. No significant contributions from editors other than Lugnuts[c]

If this proposal is successful: All articles on the list will be draftified, subject to the provisions below:

  1. Draftified articles will be autodeleted after 5 years (instead of the usual 6 months)
  2. Any editor may userfy any draft (which will prevent autodeletion)
  3. Any WikiProject may move a draft to their WikiProject space (which will also prevent autodeletion)
  4. Any draft (whether in draftspace, userspace, or WikiProject space) can be returned to mainspace when it contains sources that plausibly meet WP:GNG[d]
  5. Editors may return drafts to mainspace for the sole purpose of redirecting/merging them to an appropriate article, if they believe that doing so is in the best interest of the encyclopedia[e]

Background (mass draftification of cricket articles)

In the 2022 Deletion ArbCom case, ArbCom found (Finding #6) that User:Lugnuts had created over 93,000 articles, "the most articles of any editor ... Most of these were stubs, and relatively few have been expanded to longer articles", which led to sanctions from the community and to Lugnuts being indefinitely sitebanned by Arbcom.

Arbcom also mandated an RfC on mass deletion. A mass creation RfC took place but the mass deletion RfC did not, and the RFC mandate was rescinded, leaving the question of how to handle mass-created microstubs such as these unresolved. In March a proposal was made to draftify approximately 1000 articles on Olympians as a possible resolution to this. The proposal was successful and this proposal continues that process.

Survey (mass draftification of cricket articles)

(1) Mass creation. The articles at issue were the product of Lugnuts' well-documented mass process in which thousands of articles were created, often at the rate of approximately a minute per article.
(2) Lack of substance. The articles are microstubs that contain very limited narrative text, simply reciting that the person was a cricket player who appeared in X number of games for X team. If the articles are ultimately deleted, nothing of real substance is lost. If SIGCOV is later uncovered and brought forth, and given the fact that only a minute or so was devoted to the original effort, the articles can be re-created without any meaningful loss of prior effort.
(3) Violation of SPORTBASIC. The articles violate prong 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC which provides: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." The articles here are sourced only to database sources and do not include SIGCOV.
(4) Cleanup of "deliberate errors". A departure from normal processes is also warranted by the unique case involving Lugnuts' admission in August 2022 (here) that he added "countless deliberate errors on pages that have very few pages views." Draftification of these microstubs allows us to undertake screening for such errors before any such articles are returned to main space.
In sum, I support draftification in this narrow situation. However, this RfC should not be precedent to evade regular order in less egregious circumstances. In such circumstances, normal AfD or redirect procedures should be followed. Cbl62 (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the claim of countless deliberate errors is just plain trolling. It is just too much hard work to be plausible. Has anyone detected any of these countless errors? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1: Survey (mass draftification of cricket articles)

Next ten

The next ten would be:

  • Deshan Fernando - Sri Lankan so difficult to find sources on, although he's played quite a lot. Would probably redirect to a list, although the list available isn't ideal;
  • Deshan Withanage - Sri Lankan as above but played fewer games longer ago so less chance of finding sources. Redirect possible to List of Galle Cricket Club players but that list is meh;
  • Desmond Crene - New Zealander so we have more chance - we known his school and job for example. Played in the 60s though and PapersPast doesn't cover that period as well, so it's likely a redirect to List of Northern Districts representative cricketers
  • Desmond Daniel - South African who played for Orange Free State so there's no list (and it will be a long list to create). His fairly recent death might turn something up but I doubt it, so this would probably end up as delete because I doubt anyone has the capacity to create that list in a fairly short period of time;
  • Desmond Drummer - South African who played for Western province so exactly the same issues apply
  • Desmond Fitzmaurice - Australian. We'd want a good look here - there's often lots of stuff on Trove about people like this and he played in Comonwealth sides and other stuff so there are hooks. Worst case is a redirect to the Victoria list;
  • Desmond Park - New Zealander so as above. Played a little earlier so we might pick up more coverage and he died in 2019 so that might get coverage as well. Worst case is a redirect;
  • Desmond Whittaker - European name, odd birth and death, played in India in the 50s - instantly I want to look at this one in depth. There's a list if necessary, but I suspect we'd be interested in researching here;
  • Detlev Traut - South African, so these can be tricky. Odd name will help, but there's a redirect if necessary;
  • Devender Lochab - Indian. Has played quite a lot very recently so this will depend on whether someone with access to sources can dig something out. This is the sort of article we could easily lose, but which we clearly shouldn't imo. List of Services cricketers exists (but is meh) if necessary. There might be some transliteration issues here that people could explore.

So, we'd be 2 probable delete based on lists not existing and up to 8 redirect - with my gut feeling between 1 and 3 kept based on expansion, but we might not get any in this set of ten. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sample list of 21

Based on the list of who I believe are the remaining 4,102 cricketers after the 1,200 above are removed (so 4 of the numbers are out of range - I'm happy to add four more if numbers are generated. I can't promise it's a perfect source list, but it's about right and is based on the mammoth list at User:Blue Square Thing/sandbox6 and filtering out everything apart from national identification from the cats. This list of 21 is also at User:Blue Square Thing/sandbox8. I've not looked at it yet. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying, my post was answering the "draftification" question. Like others, I was misled by the section title and did not directly answer the actual RFC question which was to move (in some way) out of article space. Although the answer can be deduced from my response, per the first close, that might be missed. I'll now answer it directly. Support moving out of article space Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2: Survey (mass draftification of cricket articles)

Article User (i.e. human) views (2022) Spider views (2022) Automated views (2022)
Abdul Naseri 96 235 85
Abinash Saha 120 357 80
Alfred Black (cricketer) 88 292 82
Arthur Bauer 209 398 141
Chingakham Ranjan 56 161 50
Danush Peiris 78 267 86
Derreck Calvert 75 180 71
collapsing extended discussion
  • Is article improvement really just the duty of the creator, though? I thought this was a collaborative project, in which we all have responsibility to contribute. Particularly where deletion is concerned, I thought that everyone involved had a duty to find the right outcome. If an editor were to regularly turn up at AFD with votes like "Delete, they didn't convince me personally, and I can't be bothered to evaluate the subject's possible notability myself – that'd require knowledge and effort", I'd expect a WP:TBAN to be proposed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a collaborative project we can all contribute to improving an article, sure, and this may indeed be helpful to new users who don't necessarily know the rules around notability or verifiability. Normally, if notability is disputed then AFD is the usual venue. But I was clearly referring to this specific example of mass created microstubs and AFD is not an option here. We know this mass creation activity was disruptive. I do not believe there is any value to keeping micro-stubs for which there is no meaningful prospect of expansion. Many other editors have assessed this here, much knowledge and effort HAS been expended and I concur with their assessment. Conversely I don't see evidence provided by the creator or their supporters that they are actually notable afterall. I agree with Nigej that "Wikipedia mustn't become any sort of "mirror" for a stats database". The poor quality of these "articles" is not disputed by anybody, I believe there lack of notability has been more than adequately demonstrated. Polyamorph (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD is not an option here yes it is. That AfD would require some people to put more effort in than they want to does not mean that AFD is somehow impossible. The main point of this is that the lack of notability has not been demostrated - it has been asserted time and again but it has never been actually demonstrated, because that's impossible to do without putting in the effort to evaluate the articles that supporters are insisting cannot be reasonably done. Some articles that have been evaluated have failed to demonstrate notability, but equally some articles have been evaluated have been shown to be notable. The dispute is about whether some articles in a set being non-notable means it's fine to declare that all articles in a set are non-notable without bothering to actually look at them. I've not yet seen a single convincing argument why that should be true. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is time to step away from the keyboard. This is a request for comment. I have provided my comment. It is not appropriate to continue this badgering of users who disagree with you. Polyamorph (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of cricketer LUGSTUBS of similar quality that have been taken to AfD have been removed from mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of all cricket bios brought to AfD since March 2022, 75% have been removed from mainspace. But that includes many subjects who would not have qualified for this proposal; some that were kept for SIGCOV completely separate from sports; some that were kept initially and then deleted; and a non-trivial number that were kept for actively anti-consensus, non-guideline-compliant !votes. Examples:
  • Here where the only !voters are a BlackJack sock and StickyWicket, with the arguments If playing in 171 top-class matches isn't "evidence of notability", then what is? The article needs greater context, copyediting, linkage and expansion and What an absolutely ridiculous nomination. The subject is easily notable, having made 171 appearances at the highest domestic level. The article needs expansion, not deletion, who bullied the nom into withdrawing without a single SIGCOV source being identified (every source is still pure stats, including the paywalled one).
  • Here where apparently the subject may have been notable as a religious teacher at Oxford rather than as a cricketer.
  • Here where cricket project members again bullied a nom into withdrawing based on spurious claims of "meeting NCRIC". This page was later deleted.
  • Here where a large number of cricket project members insist the subject must be notable due to cricket achievements despite zero SIGCOV being identified.
  • Here where a BlackJack sock pointily nominated a subject then closed it as "speedy keep" after a bunch of cricket project members !voted to keep based on meeting NCRIC rather than any SIGCOV being verified.
  • This nom by the same sock, with cricket members swamping the AfD with keeps largely based on meeting NCRIC and with the couple "GNG-based" !votes being centered on routine match recaps, stats, and brief mentions.
  • This one that still appears in the project's AfD archives as "keep" despite it being overturned to delete at DRV.
  • Here where the combined efforts of the cricket project and ARS members resulted in a keep based wholly on meeting NCRIC and in spite of no SIGCOV being identified for SPORTSBASIC #5.
And that's just a selection of the keeps that I already happened to have in my ":( sports closes" bookmark; there were many more that I never even saw. JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you still miss the point that the ones that are clearly notable are not being sent to AfD, so the proportion that are which are deleted is not evidence regarding anything. Also, it really doesn't matter why the subject is notable, only that they are notable and so should not be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:AFD 100 days, back in 2005, deletion was the outcome in 75% of AFDs, so that would be evidence that nominated cricket articles are approximately as likely as any other subject to get deleted at AFD.
Of course, the ideal would be to have 100% of articles about non-notable subjects get deleted, and 100% of articles about notable subjects never get nominated, but that ideal is probably not realistic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...overall AfD deletion statistics in 2005 are in no way comparable to the rate of deletion of pages created based on a notability guideline that was supposed to predict GNG in 95% of cases. These article subjects were already presumed to meet GNG, which is a categorically different position to start from than a class of random subjects that will mostly contain subjects that don't meet any SNG and are not presumed to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a biased sample because nobody acting in good faith is going to take a page to AfD after they have done an appropriate BEFORE search that demonstrated the subject is notable. The fact that not every article was deleted also demonstrates that treating these en masse is not appropriate, because we'd be removing articles from the mainspace that should not be removed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No BEFORE was done before they were created either. Attempting to create an asymmetry where articles can be created unsourced at a rate of dozens a day, but not deleted until a whole raft of different databases are consulted and a week spent debating them one-at-a-time, is exactly what has led us to the current situation. It's "heads I win, tails you lose" logic. FOARP (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not a BEFORE was done before creation is irrelevant to whether one was done before they were nominated at AFD. The point I was making was that you cannot use what happened to those nominated at AfD as a reliable metric for the whole set because those where the BEFORE search turned up material indicating notability are not getting nominated at AfD.
"heads I win, tails you lose" is only correct if you define losing as not being able to delete notable and non-notable content indiscriminately. Despite the many thousands of words in this discussion nobody has yet managed to explain how doing that will benefit the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nobody has yet managed to explain how doing that will benefit the encyclopaedia Not to your satisfaction, obviously, but I believe I have done so very effectively in my !vote. Not to mention, this proposal is just partially reverting a violation of WP:MASSCREATE. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have certainly tried to explain how deleting notable topics simply because they were created in a way you do not like will improve the encyclopaedia, but you are correct to say that you have consistently failed. Regarding your last sentence, you have also failed to explain why two wrongs will make a right. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your last sentence, you have also failed to explain why two wrongs will make a right. Because restoring the status quo isn't a second wrong; it isn't a wrong to undo a wrong, and that is what we can and should do here. BilledMammal (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting an article about a notable subject is a wrong, regardless of your motivation for doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily a wrong. Deleting a crap stub article about a notable subject simply shifts us back to the status of “We don’t have an article about this subject yet… please write one”. That new article will hopefully be much better than the crap stub. That would be a positive. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A stub article that conveys encyclopaedic information to the reader about a notable topic and gives them a link to external sources that they can use as a starting point for further research is better than a redlink that tells the user "We don't have an article about this subject." They can look elsewhere if they want but we aren't going to give them any help finding what they are looking for.
If they try and create an article then they will probably have to wait weeks or months for anyone to look at it and its basically pot luck whether what they have written will be deemed good enough for mainspace (even if it would never even be nominated for deletion if it had been created directly in article space). A decade or so ago a redlink was clearly an invitation to expand the encyclopaedia and that expansion was clearly welcomed, but these days far more effort is expended preventing the encyclopaedia including anything that might possibly be regarded as non-notable (by increasingly strict standards) than it is welcoming content that is notable. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I keep reading "notable subject(s)/topic(s)" but I see no evidence that the overwhelming majority of the subjects of these database entries masquerading as articles are in fact notable – since they do not meet any current SNG and a high proportion get deleted (or redirected) at AFD, we shouldn't presume that they are. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly read immediately above for explanation of why the proportion deleted at AfD is not a reliable indicator of anything (other than it not being 100% indicates that at least some that appeared non-notable were in fact notable). Secondly I keep seeing this claim that the overwhelming majority are not-notable without even an attempt to demonstrate this is true.
AFAICT nobody is claiming that the "vast majority" are notable (although a similar claim has been made of at least one subset), simply that enough are notable that deleting the notable ones harms the encyclopaedia more (some say very significantly more) than any benefit gained from deleting the non-notable ones. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
deleting the notable ones harms the encyclopaedia more ... than any benefit gained from deleting the non-notable ones: This seems to me to be the key argument. I doubt anyone supporting draftification argues nothing notable would be deleted; I doubt anyone opposing draftification argues that the encyclopedia is better off with non-notable articles. I don't think many of the !votes are IDONTLIKEIT; I think most are assessments of how much harm will be done to the encyclopedia by each option. I think draftication is the least bad option and have !voted that way above but it is not irrational or unsupported to argue on either side of this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These "articles" are so bad and devoid of real encyclopedic content (i.e. they are nothing more than a simple db entry with some stats) that they would not pass even a cursory NPP check, let alone AFC. As such, there is absolutely no harm whatsoever in removing them from article space, even if there are a few potentially notable subjects in there. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean no harm other than for the people who will then be unable to find that (albeit limited) encyclopaedic information in an enyclopaedia, for the editors who will now have to repeat the work of adding this information to the article (and in many cases have to fight harder to get their work into the encyclopaedia proper)? That's not "no harm whatsoever" but rather "harm caused for the convenience of those who don't want to have to follow the deletion policy when it suits them." Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I obviously don't mean that at all. If readers want to view a cricket database, they will go to a cricket database, several of which are freely available online; Wikipedia should not be another one. Getting articles into the encyclopedia proper is not a struggle at all for competent editors, or even incompetent ones; after all, we are discussing this because Lugnuts managed to get tens of thousands of inadequate sub-stubs through the door before eventually being censured. If these were created now, they would be moved to draft space by NPP without anyone questioning why; mass-moving simply negates the need for excessive contributor hours spent processing them individually – this would be grossly disproportionate to the creation effort and exceedingly disruptive. Finally, realistically, the only way almost all of these subjects should possibly be mentioned on here is in suitable list articles; as such, there is negligible potential for repeating any of Lugnuts "work". wjematherplease leave a message... 18:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wjemather, what if the reader in question is not a sportsball person, and therefore doesn't actually know that cricket databases are the One True™ Place to look for information about cricketers? (I'd never looked at one until this discussion happened.)
BTW, I picked three names out of the list, spent an hour searching for sources, and all three were proved notable. I suspect that "limited search skills" is one factor for editors who are unable to find sources. You have to know things like "David" might be "Dave" in the sources. You have to be willing and able to search for non-English sources, and for older players, you in old newspaper archives. A quick "Is there anything on the first screen of Google" is not sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you found for Newman most definitely are not sufficient to demonstrate notability (@Wjemather can probably attest to this too). They are passing mentions in routine announcements/rosters[26][27][28] or consist primarily of repeating what the subject or his affiliates had said in interviews (both as quotes and as non-quotes) rather than providing substantial commentary independent of the interview.[29] [30] One of the sources doesn't even discuss his playing cricket;[31] if it's possible for someone to gain the same amount of coverage strictly for being a high school PE teacher as they got for playing cricket, doesn't that suggest that level of coverage is neither significant nor evidence that these cricketers can be presumed to receive SIGCOV for the reason the article was created in the first place? JoelleJay (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, half a dozen non-db sources that either lack significant coverage or independence (and zero GNG-qualifying sources) doesn't prove anything notable. It's shocking that we still have apparently experienced editors (and the occasional administrator!) appearing to claim otherwise. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wjemather is quite right. Wikipedia mustn't become any sort of "mirror" for a stats database. It's something Wikipedia is very poor at. Relying on countless editors/edits to maintain the "mirroring" is a pointless exercise. Articles should only exist where we can provide significant extra information. Nigej (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigej - "Wikipedia mustn't become any sort of "mirror" for a stats database" - Agree, and also note that we have pretty much the same problem in GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the two essays-masquerading-as-guidelines, WP:NSPECIES and WP:NJOURNALS... JoelleJay (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NSPECIES is because named species must pass GNG, due to various comprehensive directories, IIRC Mach61 (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Directories are not secondary SIGCOV (otherwise every footballer in a comprehensive sports database would easily pass GNG). Also NOTDIR. JoelleJay (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A species can't get a valid name unless a Species description exists, and the Species description is SIGCOV (because if the description doesn't "address the subject directly and in detail", typically including comparing and contrasting it with closely related species, the description doesn't qualify for naming). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The papers that provide the species descriptions are primary scientific papers. They shouldn't count towards notability any more than my primary papers describing and characterizing a new cellular behavior would count towards the notability of that behavior. JoelleJay (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating what I said elsewhere: But even if all his microstubs were deleted right now, what info would be lost from the world? Nothing, because the exact same info--actually, much more comprehensive, accurate, and automatically updated info--is still available in the stats sources; Lugnuts imparted zero biographical value by creating those stubs. All that would happen is there would be some redlinks in team rosters. The difference between improving stubs on the truly notable subjects and just recreating their articles once GNG sourcing is found is utterly trivial (literally click the red link, add the prose + sources you would have added to improve the article in the first place, click publish; if the sources are actually sufficient for GNG or even just SPORTSBASIC you don't need anything else besides a sentence asserting significance that meets the very low threshold for passing CSD).
Moreover, any relevant encyclopedic info formerly contained in the stubs on many of these players already exists at the lists and articles where they are mentioned. Someone searching for X cricketer would still find info on them on wikipedia. The tiny amount of info that is "lost" (birthdate, sometimes team lists) is literally, by definition, that which is most easily accessible from databases. Readers will in all cases be much better served by visiting the well-maintained, updated, and comprehensive cricket databases to find info on these players than they would by visiting a stub that hasn't been updated since Lugnuts was banned at the latest. JoelleJay (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but I think you’re misrepresenting the argument WRT recreating articles. The point being made is one of discoverability (someone looking up the cricketer on Google, and choosing to improve the article), not that it’s hard for veterans to move articles into mainspace than inprove existing ones. Is this a good argument? From my experience, the vast majority of work on improving sports bio’s comes from a few prolific WikiProject participants, so probably not. Mach61 (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, but that also generally assumes that a reader is searching for the subject with the intent of updating the wikipedia article, since someone who has any info to add to the page will necessarily have gotten it from a place with much more than that available from epsilon-effort microstubs. Someone searching for more details who actually learns anything from discovering our page would basically have to have been starting from zero knowledge; someone searching for details who already has more info is going to go elsewhere to get those further details; and thus what we're banking on for discoverability is the unusual reader who was disappointed with our lack of coverage, sought it out elsewhere, and then decided to come back to update the page with verifiable material suitable for wikipedia. Is the incidence of this kind of person high enough, and their distaste for creating the article anew so predictable, that it's worth the reciprocal risk of vandalism/highjacking/PROMO posed by an under-watched, IP-editable stub on an obscure cricketer? JoelleJay (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the answer to that last question was "no" then we would semi-protect (at least) every stub and/or underwatched article on Wikipedia on the off-chance that it will be vandalised and this vandalism not spotted by the anti-vandalism bots and the recent changes patrollers and those who have it on their watchlist. Given this is contrary to multiple fundamental aspects of Wikipedia we don't do that so you have your answer. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't just stubs/underwatched articles, they are microstubs that objectively do not meet the requirements to be in mainspace, were created on presumptions of notability that have been deprecated for being terrible predictors of coverage, and have never been edited substantially by anyone besides Lugnuts, who is no longer even around to watch them. They provide so little info and context that anyone trying to learn about them would be far better off clicking on one of the databases in Google search results than going to our article.
The odds of these stubs being expanded by random editors outside the cricket wikiproject are extremely low. Pasting my survey from earlier:
You can look at the histories of the articles that didn't meet the draftification criteria to see who has added genuine SIGCOV and when they added it. For example, out of all 48 pages in category:cricketers from Manipur, we have only 2 that have a secondary independent source other than Cricinfo stats. One has a match recap added by Lugnuts, the other has a primary match recap added by another cricket project member. Neither is non-routine/SIGCOV, so wouldn't qualify to get out of draftspace anyway. Out of the 7 additional pages in category:Manipur cricketers, which is a separate category for some reason, one has a routine match recap added by Lugnuts.
2/12 Lugstubs in category:cricketers from Allahabad have sources besides stats databases: one with some obits added by a highly active sports contributor, the other with a news report added by Lugnuts.
4/11 Lugstubs in category:cricketers from Lucknow1,2,3 with non-stats sources added by Lugnuts, 1 with sources added by a highly active cricket project member.
3/18 Lugstubs in category:cricketers from Dhaka1,2,3 with non-stats sources added by Lugnuts.
0/9 Lugstubs in category:cricketers from Fremantle with non-stats independent sources.
5/29 Lugstubs in category:cricketers from Newcastle, New South Wales1,2 with non-stats sources added by active project members, 1 with primary, non-independent sources added by a random editor, 1 with an ANYBIO #2 source unrelated to cricket added by an admin, 1 with a non-stats source added by Lugnuts. JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More data:
6/53 Lugstubs in category:cricketers from Launceston, Tasmania: 1,2,3 with non-GNG sources added by active cricket member; 1 with a non-GNG source added by Lugnuts; 1 with a Wisden cite added by an active cricket member; 1 with a bunch of match recaps added by an active Aussie sports editor.
Even for pages on active or recently-retired players we see very little GNG-meeting expansion:
6/14 Lugstubs in Category:Defence Housing Authority cricketers: 1,2,3 with useless P/NI trivia added by random editors; 1 with links to the subject's COVID death added by Lugnuts and an active Pakistani cricket editor; 1,2 with a trivial routine recap added by Lugnuts
These particular stubs have been around for 7-8 years... JoelleJay (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether we still have a shared agreement about what it means to "objectively meet the requirements to be in mainspace".
For example, is there an actual requirement that an article must contain an inline citation to be permitted in the mainspace? It's obviously an excellent idea, but if I started Christmas candy with a picture of a candy cane and an unsourced statement that "Christmas candy is candy associated with the Christmas holiday season", do you think you could find a written policy statement saying that the article does not meet the minimum requirements for being in the mainspace? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Minimum requirements to be in mainspace" means "would AFC or NPP approve of this article." Mach61 (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. "Minimum requirements to be in mainspace" means "does not meet one or more speedy deletion criterion and there is not a consensus to delete it or move it." (articles nominated at AfD stay in mainspace unless and until the discussion reaches a consensus otherwise; previous consensus is relevant only if it meets the requirements of G4 speedy deletion). Anyone can move a page from draftspace to mainspace, regardless of what NPP or AFC patrollers think, and once moved it should stay there until there is a consensus to delete it or move it elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPP just strives to implement the requirements.North8000 (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wales, Jimmy. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Polyamorph (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't talking about negative or false information about living persons here, we're talking about correct factual information mostly about dead people, so that quote isn't relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant "This is true of all information", it is the backbone of WP:V per BilledMammal below. Polyamorph (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Rips massive bong hit* - You know, like, what even are verifiability and notability anyway dude? What if we, like, just kept articles? FOARP (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability is not the issue with these articles - an article cannot be be both a duplicate of a stats database and unverifiable at the same time. The dispute is about notability, which is a completely separate thing. I'm not at all opposed to deleting articles that fail to meet the policies, what I object to is deleting and draftifying articles without regard to whether they meet policies or not. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V - in particular, WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS; the former allows any editor to remove the entire article as unsourced, and the second allows any editor to challenge the existence of the article and, as a newly created article, would put the onus on you to get consensus for its creation. (Incidentally, I would consider WP:ONUS to apply to most of these Cricketer articles; there isn't a clear line when an edit becomes the status quo, but how long it takes for that to happen is dependent upon the visibility of the page; a change to a highly visible change becomes the status quo far faster than a change to an extremely obscure page - and there are no pages more obscure than these.) BilledMammal (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We had the big RfC that determined, by strong consensus, that sportsperson articles must actually cite a SIGCOV source to be in mainspace, which effectively should mean there is no inherent claim to notability provided by meeting an NSPORTS subcriterion. None of these articles meet SPORTSBASIC #5, so objectively they should not be in mainspace until they do. JoelleJay (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (mass draftification of cricket articles)

If there is a consensus for this proposal than I plan to boldly create the following redirects in line with If this proposal is successful #5, unless there are issues with doing so that I have missed. This is in response to a request by members of WikiProject Cricket.

Possible redirect targets
Article Redirect target
Aaron Bradley List of Northern Districts representative cricketers
Aaron Daley (cricketer, born 1956) List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Abdul Mannan (cricketer) List of Attock Group cricketers
Abdul Masood List of Bengal cricketers
Abdur Rahman (Bangladeshi cricketer) List of Rangpur Division cricketers
Abhik Mitra List of Bengal cricketers
Abhisek Banerjee List of Bengal cricketers
Abhishek Chowdhury List of Bengal cricketers
Abhishek Das (cricketer) List of Bengal cricketers
Abraham de Swardt List of Boland representative cricketers
Abrar Ahmed (Indian cricketer) List of Hyderabad cricketers
Adam Hope (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Adam Maher (cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Adam Mather List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Adam Smith (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Adil Sheikh List of Bengal cricketers
Aditya Jain List of Delhi cricketers
Aditya Kaushik List of Delhi cricketers
Adjodha Persaud List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Adolph Lipke List of Border representative cricketers
Adolphus O'Brien List of Auckland representative cricketers
Adrian Grant (cricketer) List of Barbadian representative cricketers
Afzaal Saeed List of Pakistan National Shipping Corporation cricketers
Ahmed Rafiuddin List of Hyderabad cricketers
Ahmed Sadequr List of Sylhet Division cricketers
Aidan Olivier List of Boland representative cricketers
Ajay Divecha List of Delhi cricketers
Ajit Bhatia List of Delhi cricketers
Ajit Das Gupta List of Bengal cricketers
Ajoy Das List of Bengal cricketers
Akash Malhotra List of Delhi cricketers
Alan Cripps List of Western Australia first-class cricketers
Alan Cuff List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Alan Davidson (cricketer, born 1897) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Alan Devlin (cricketer) List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Alan Favell List of South Australian representative cricketers
Alan Jacobson List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Alan McInnes List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Alan Reid (cricketer) List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Alan Tarr List of Border representative cricketers
Alan Wyatt List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Albert Bates (cricketer) List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Albert Bowden List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Albert Brown (Australian cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Albert Dakin List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Albert Drew List of Western Australia first-class cricketers
Albert Fox (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Albert Frost (cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Albert Harding List of Trinidadian representative cricketers
Albert Hassell (cricketer) List of Barbadian representative cricketers
Albert Hewitt List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Albert Lansdown List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Albert McGinn List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Albert Philpott List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Albert Putt List of Auckland representative cricketers
Albert Rigby List of Western Australia first-class cricketers
Albert Scanes List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Albert Shugg List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Albert Sims List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Albert Weeks List of South Australian representative cricketers
Albert Whiting List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Albert Wilkins List of Border representative cricketers
Alcon Bowman List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Alec Clarke List of Border representative cricketers
Alec Kerr List of Auckland representative cricketers
Alec Marks List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Alec Parker (cricketer) List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Alec Riddolls List of Wellington representative cricketers
Alex Weir (cricketer) List of South Australian representative cricketers
Alexander Addison (cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Alexander Barras List of Western Australia first-class cricketers
Alexander Fisher (cricketer) List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Alexander Garbis List of Bengal cricketers
Alexander Littlejohn List of Wellington representative cricketers
Alexander Morgan (cricketer) List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Alexander Morrison (cricketer) List of Auckland representative cricketers
Alexander Slight List of South Australian representative cricketers
Alexander Webster (cricketer) List of Western Australia first-class cricketers
Alfred Black (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Alfred Britton List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Alfred Browne (cricketer) List of Barbadian representative cricketers
Alfred Burchett List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Alfred Carlton List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Alfred Douglas (cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Alfred Eneberg List of South Australian representative cricketers
Alfred Geary List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Alfred Hasell List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Alfred Low List of Trinidadian representative cricketers
Alfred Motta List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Alfred Noyes (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Alfred Park (cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Alfred Patfield List of Western Australia first-class cricketers
Alfred Pickett List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Alfred Scott (New Zealand cricketer) List of Auckland representative cricketers
Alfred Sloman List of Auckland representative cricketers
Alfred Sullivan List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Alfred Thomson (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Alfred White (Australian cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Alfred Wilkes List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Alfred Wilkinson (cricketer) List of South Australian representative cricketers
Algernon Findlay List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Alistair Applethwaite List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Allan Anderson (cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Allan Cooper List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Allan Jemmott List of Barbadian representative cricketers
Allan Jinks List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Allan Outridge List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Allan Silvera List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Allen Collier List of Northern Districts representative cricketers
Allen Edwards (cricketer) List of South Australian representative cricketers
Allen Kerr (cricketer) List of Auckland representative cricketers
Allen Limb List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Allen Roberts List of Auckland representative cricketers
Allen Thatcher List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Allman Agard List of Trinidadian representative cricketers
Alok Sharma (cricketer) List of Bengal cricketers
Aloke Mazumdar List of Bengal cricketers
Alokendu Lahiri List of Bengal cricketers
Alton Beckford List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Ameer Saiyed List of Botswana Twenty20 International cricketers
Amherst Hammond List of Bengal cricketers
Amir Ali (Indian cricketer) List of Hyderabad cricketers
Amit Banerjee List of Bengal cricketers
Amit Hore List of Bengal cricketers
Amit Kuila List of Bengal cricketers
Amit Suman List of Delhi cricketers
Amitava Chakraborty List of Bengal cricketers
Amitava Das List of Bengal cricketers
Amitava Roy (cricketer) List of Bengal cricketers
Anand Bhatia List of Delhi cricketers
Anand Swaroop List of Delhi cricketers
Andre Dwyer List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Andrew Cadle List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Andrew Cyster List of Boland representative cricketers
Andrew Dewar List of Border representative cricketers
Andrew Eime List of South Australian representative cricketers
Andrew Hammelmann List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Andrew Jones (Australian cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Andrew Meek List of Western Australia first-class cricketers
Andrew Morey List of Wellington representative cricketers
Andrew Sainsbury List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Andrew Wildsmith List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Angus Learmond List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Angus Marshall List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Anil Bhardwaj (cricketer) List of Delhi cricketers
Anil Bhattacharjee List of Bengal cricketers
Anil Das Gupta List of Bengal cricketers
Anil Dutt List of Bengal cricketers
Anil Jain (cricketer) List of Delhi cricketers
Anil Mathur List of Delhi cricketers
Anilkumar Khanna List of Delhi cricketers
Anirban Chatterjee List of Bengal cricketers
Aniruddha Roy List of Bengal cricketers
Ankur Julka List of Delhi cricketers
Ankur Vasishta List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers
Anthony Amalfi List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Anthony Andrews (cricketer) List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Anthony Atkins List of Barbadian representative cricketers
Anthony Bendel List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Anthony Brown (cricketer) List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Anthony Campbell (cricketer) List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Anthony Chubb List of Border representative cricketers
Anthony Clark (cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Anthony Kershler List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Anthony Lyons (cricketer) List of Border representative cricketers
Anthony Small (cricketer) List of Central Districts representative cricketers
Anthony Spillane List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Anthony Walters (cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Anthony de Kock List of Border representative cricketers
Antonio Whybrew List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Antony Edwards List of Delhi cricketers
Anup Das List of Bengal cricketers
Anwell Newman List of Boland representative cricketers
Archibald Bell (cricketer) List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Archibald Dean List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Archibald Hardie List of Western Australia first-class cricketers
Archibald Rigg List of Wellington representative cricketers
Arijit Basu List of Bengal cricketers
Arindam Sarkar List of Bengal cricketers
Arnell Horton List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Arrie Schoeman List of Border representative cricketers
Arshad Nawaz List of Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers
Arthur Aldersley List of Wellington representative cricketers
Arthur Bauer List of Border representative cricketers
Arthur Bonitto List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Arthur Braithwaite List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Arthur Cant List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Arthur Carracher List of South Australian representative cricketers
Arthur Crowder List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Arthur Dare List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Arthur Davis (Australian cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Arthur Dean (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Arthur Duff (cricketer) List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Arthur Duncan (New Zealand cricketer) List of Wellington representative cricketers
Arthur Evans (cricketer) List of South Australian representative cricketers
Arthur Fagan (cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Arthur Fisher (Australian cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Arthur Furness List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Arthur George (cricketer) List of Wellington representative cricketers
Arthur Gregory List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Arthur Hawthorne List of Wellington representative cricketers
Arthur Hayes (cricketer) List of Border representative cricketers
Arthur Howard (New Zealand cricketer) List of Wellington representative cricketers
Arthur Jackson (cricketer) List of Western Australia first-class cricketers
Arthur Kenny List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Arthur Lewis (Australian cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Arthur Maingot List of Trinidadian representative cricketers
Arthur McBeath List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Arthur McKenzie (cricketer) List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Arthur Muhl List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Arthur Munn List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Arthur Murrell List of Border representative cricketers
Arthur Nichols (cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Arthur Pattison List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Arthur Pellew List of South Australian representative cricketers
Arthur Shingler List of Border representative cricketers
Arthur Simmons List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Arthur Sprenger List of Border representative cricketers
Arthur Tarilton List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Arthur Thomas (Australian cricketer) List of South Australian representative cricketers
Arthur Thomlinson List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Arthur Trebilcock List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Arthur Triffitt List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Arthur Washer List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Arthur Watt List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Arthur Wells (Australian cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Arthur Williams (cricketer) List of Auckland representative cricketers
Artie Combes List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Arun Khurana List of Delhi cricketers
Arup Bhattacharya List of Bengal cricketers
Ashish Malhotra List of Delhi cricketers
Ashley Gilbert List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Ashley Hammond List of South Australian representative cricketers
Ashley Hart (cricketer) List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Ashley Robertson (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Ashok Puna List of Northern Districts representative cricketers
Ashwini Kapoor List of Delhi cricketers
Aston Powe List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Athol Hagemann List of Border representative cricketers
Athol Shephard List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Atul Mohindra List of Delhi cricketers
Aubrey Bishop List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Aubrey Johnston List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Aubrey Ritchie List of Auckland representative cricketers
Augustus Hewitt-Fox List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Augustus Hotham List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Augustus Page List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Austin Dummett List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Avijit Paul List of Bengal cricketers
Avik Chowdhury List of Bengal cricketers
Avishek Mitra List of Rajshahi Division cricketers
Ayaz Jilani List of Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers
Azhar Sultan List of Pakistan National Shipping Corporation cricketers
Azmath Ali List of Hyderabad cricketers
Babubhai Patel (cricketer) List of Hyderabad cricketers
Badaruddin Malik List of Delhi cricketers
Baden Sharman List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Balaji Rao (Indian cricketer) List of Delhi cricketers
Baldev Dua List of Delhi cricketers
Barney McCoy List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Barney Russell List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Barry Bates List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Barry Beard List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Barry Causby List of South Australian representative cricketers
Barry Curtin List of South Australian representative cricketers
Barry Rhodes List of Wellington representative cricketers
Barry Stevens (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Bartholomew Grant List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Basil Bradfield List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Basil Totman List of Auckland representative cricketers
Bede McCauley List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Ben Higgins (cricketer) List of South Australian representative cricketers
Benjamin Hart (cricketer) List of Otago representative cricketers
Benjamin Salmon List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Benjamin Wilson (New Zealand cricketer) List of Wellington representative cricketers
Bernard Colreavy List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Bernard Cook List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Bernie Thomas List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Berry Webb List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Bert Shortland List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Bert Wright (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Bertie Grounds List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Bertie Verley List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Bertie Watson List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Beverley Esterhuizen List of Border representative cricketers
Bevon Brown List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Bharat Awasthy List of Delhi cricketers
Bharat Khanna List of Hyderabad cricketers
Bharat Veer List of Delhi cricketers
Bhaskar Gupta List of Bengal cricketers
Bhaskar Mazumbar List of Bengal cricketers
Bill Beath List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Bill Burton (cricketer) List of Wellington representative cricketers
Bill Donaldson (cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Bill Tallon List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Bimal Mitra (cricketer) List of Bengal cricketers
Bishawnath Halder List of Khulna Division cricketers
Bob Masefield List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Bobby Madden (cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Bobby Zahiruddin List of Hyderabad cricketers
Brad Doody List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Brad Inwood List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Brad Ipson List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Brad Oldroyd List of Western Australia first-class cricketers
Brad Stacey List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Brad Wigney List of South Australian representative cricketers
Bradley Nielsen List of Auckland representative cricketers
Brendan Creevey List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Brendan Ricci List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Brendan Ward List of Northern Districts representative cricketers
Brendon Oxenham List of Auckland representative cricketers
Brent Lodding List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Brent Robey List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Brett Hood List of Northern Districts representative cricketers
Brett van Deinsen List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Brian Buchanan (cricketer) List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Brian Carney (cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Brian Cartledge List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Brian Clayton List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Brian Dold List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Brian Ford (cricketer) List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Brian Foulds List of Northern Districts representative cricketers
Brian Gill (cricketer) List of Northern Districts representative cricketers
Brian Grace List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Brian Harbridge List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Brian Hopkins (cricketer) List of Wellington representative cricketers
Brian Illman List of South Australian representative cricketers
Brian Mallinson List of Border representative cricketers
Brian Murphy (Jamaican cricketer) List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Brian Ndzundzu List of Border representative cricketers
Brian Patoir List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Brian Patterson (cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Brian Porter (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Brian Sheen List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Brian Sorenson List of Auckland representative cricketers
Brian Spragg List of Northern Districts representative cricketers
Brian Warner (cricketer) List of Auckland representative cricketers
Broderick Warner List of Trinidadian representative cricketers
Bruce Baldwin (cricketer) List of Central Districts representative cricketers
Bruce Friderichs List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Bruce Gordon (cricketer) List of Border representative cricketers
Bruce Hodgetts List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Bruce John List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Bruce Livingston List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Bruce Long List of Border representative cricketers
Bruce Moir List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Bruce Such List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Bruce Taylor (Australian cricketer) List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Bruce Vawser List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Bruce Wardlaw List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Bryan Doyle (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Bryan Higgins (cricketer) List of Northern Districts representative cricketers
Bryan McGan List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Bryce Cooper List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Bryce Postles List of Auckland representative cricketers
Buddhadeb Mitra List of Bengal cricketers
Buxton Peters List of Trinidadian representative cricketers
Byron Drury (cricketer) List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Byron Hyland List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Caleb Gaylard List of Central Districts representative cricketers
Calvin Moore List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Capel Baines List of Border representative cricketers
Carey Cawood List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Carey Smith List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Carl André (cricketer) List of Border representative cricketers
Carl Boy List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Carl Gouveia List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Carl Mellors List of Boland representative cricketers
Carlton Gordon List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Carlton Hay List of Auckland representative cricketers
Carlton Reece List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Carvick Thompson List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Castell Folkes List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Cecil Bryce List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Cecil De Cordova List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Cecil Gray (cricketer) List of South Australian representative cricketers
Cecil Hanify List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Cecil McCallum List of Border representative cricketers
Cecil McKew List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Cecil Oakes List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Cecil Perry List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Cecil Shearman List of Border representative cricketers
Cecil Thomas (cricketer) List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Cecil Warner List of Border representative cricketers
Cecil Wood (Australian cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Celso de Freitas List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Chandranath Chatterjee List of Bengal cricketers
Charanjit Singh (cricketer) List of Bengal cricketers
Charles Allee List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Charles Allison (cricketer) List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Charles Alsop List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Charles Barker (cricketer) List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Charles Basson List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Charles Blades List of Barbadian representative cricketers
Charles Britton List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Charles Chandler (cricketer) List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Charles Delbridge List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Charles Delgado List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Charles Dick (cricketer) List of Border representative cricketers
Charles Drew (cricketer) List of South Australian representative cricketers
Charles Fearon List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Charles Foot List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Charles Gardner (Australian cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Charles Gingell List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Charles Gregory (cricketer, born 1847) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Charles Griffith (Australian cricketer) List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Charles Guiney List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Charles Hammond (Australian cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Charles Hendrie List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Charles Hendrikse List of Boland representative cricketers
Charles Hurditch List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Charles Inder List of Bengal cricketers
Charles Kellick List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Charles Lawes (cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Charles Letcher List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Charles Lownds List of Border representative cricketers
Charles McAlister List of Border representative cricketers
Charles McAllen List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Charles McCalgan List of Border representative cricketers
Charles Mengel List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Charles Miles (cricketer, born 1850) List of Wellington representative cricketers
Charles Morgan (Victoria cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Charles Munro (cricketer) List of Western Australia first-class cricketers
Charles Nicholls List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Charles O'Brien (cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Charles Osmond List of Auckland representative cricketers
Charles Patrick List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Charles Payne (Australian cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Charles Restieaux List of Auckland representative cricketers
Charles Rix List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Charles Ross (Australian cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Charles Russen (cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Charles Snyman List of Border representative cricketers
Charles Stafford (cricketer) List of Auckland representative cricketers
Charles Stone (New Zealand cricketer) List of Auckland representative cricketers
Charles Sumption List of Bengal cricketers
Charles Valencia List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Charles Vautin List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Charles Wakefield (cricketer) List of Border representative cricketers
Charles Warner (Trinidadian cricketer) List of Trinidadian representative cricketers
Charles Weir List of Border representative cricketers
Chase Young (cricketer) List of Border representative cricketers
Chatterpaul Persaud List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Chelluri Jaikumar List of Hyderabad cricketers
Chris Beatty (cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Chris Brent List of Border representative cricketers
Chris Cruikshank List of Central Districts representative cricketers
Chris Davies (New Zealand cricketer) List of Otago representative cricketers
Chris Killen (cricketer) List of South Australian representative cricketers
Chris Lee (cricketer) List of Auckland representative cricketers
Chris Smart List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Christopher Davies (South African cricketer) List of Border representative cricketers
Christopher Dwyer (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Christopher Simpson (cricketer) List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Christopher Webb (cricketer) List of Central Districts representative cricketers
Clarence Driscoll List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Clarence Lee (cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Clarence McCoombe List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Clarence Worme List of Barbadian representative cricketers
Claude Mandy List of Border representative cricketers
Clement Browne (cricketer) List of Barbadian representative cricketers
Clement Bryce List of Border representative cricketers
Clement Gaskin List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Clement Hill (cricketer, born 1904) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Clement McFarlane List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Clement Wellington List of Western Australia first-class cricketers
Cleveland Bailey List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Cleveland Davidson List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Clifford Kuhn List of Border representative cricketers
Clifton Cawley List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Clifton Folkes List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Clifton Hurburgh List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Clifton Jeffery List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Clifton Satherley List of Northern Districts representative cricketers
Clinton Reed List of Barbadian representative cricketers
Clive Campbell (cricketer) List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Clive Page List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Clive White (cricketer) List of Border representative cricketers
Clyde Lucas (cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Col Costorphin List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Colin Arnold List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Colin Bloomfield (cricketer) List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Colin Fletcher (cricketer) List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Colin Fraser-Grant List of Border representative cricketers
Colin Kretzmann List of Border representative cricketers
Colin Maritz List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Colin McCallum (cricketer) List of Border representative cricketers
Colin Richardson (cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Colin Stibe List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Colin Thwaites List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Collin Kelbrick List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
Conrad Lotz List of Boland representative cricketers
Courtenay Daley List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Courtney O'Connor List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Coventry Tainton List of Border representative cricketers
Craig Abrahams List of Boland representative cricketers
Craig Ballantyne List of Border representative cricketers
Craig Bartlett (cricketer) List of Central Districts representative cricketers
Craig Brown (cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Craig Glassock List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Craig Howard (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Craig Ross (Canterbury cricketer) List of Canterbury representative cricketers
Craig Ross (Northern Districts cricketer) List of Northern Districts representative cricketers
Cyprian Bloomfield List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Cyril Solomon List of New South Wales representative cricketers
D'Arcy Galt List of Trinidadian representative cricketers
Dale Ellcock List of Barbadian representative cricketers
Dale O'Halloran List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Dale Turner (cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Daljit Singh (cricketer, born 1935) List of Delhi cricketers
Daljit Singh (cricketer, born 1937) List of Bengal cricketers
Dan Horsley List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Danico Philmon List of Boland representative cricketers
Daniel Archer (cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Daniel Coleborn List of Queensland first-class cricketers
Daniel Cullen (New South Wales cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Daniel Erasmus (cricketer) List of Mashonaland first-class cricketers
Daniel Gee List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Daniel McLeod List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Daniel Noonan (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Daniel Stephen List of Border representative cricketers
Darrell Jackman List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Darren Chyer List of South Australian representative cricketers
Darren Dempsey List of South Australian representative cricketers
Darren Tucker List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Darren Walker (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Dattatreya Mukherjee List of Bengal cricketers
Dave Chardon List of New South Wales representative cricketers
Davendra Sharma List of Delhi cricketers
David Airey List of Wellington representative cricketers
David Boyle (cricketer) List of Canterbury representative cricketers
David Clarke (Australian cricketer) List of South Australian representative cricketers
David Cooper (Indian cricketer) List of Bengal cricketers
David Cowper (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
David Daly (cricketer) List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
David Dempsey (cricketer) List of Canterbury representative cricketers
David Ellis (Australian cricketer) List of Queensland first-class cricketers
David Emerson (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
David Emslie List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
David Harris (Victoria cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
David Hosking (cricketer) List of Wellington representative cricketers
David Johnston (New South Wales cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
David Kerr (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
David Kivell List of Central Districts representative cricketers
David Lumsden (cricketer) List of Eastern Province representative cricketers
David Mailer List of Victoria first-class cricketers
David Martins List of Guyanese representative cricketers
David McGuire (cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
David Mullett List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
David Noonan (cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
David Ogilvy (cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
David Pryor (cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
David Shepard (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
David Strudwick List of South Australian representative cricketers
David Sultan List of Trinidadian representative cricketers
David Sutherland (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
David Tarrant List of Central Districts representative cricketers
David Taylor (Australian cricketer) List of New South Wales representative cricketers
David Weston (cricketer) List of Auckland representative cricketers
Dawson Ritchie List of Auckland representative cricketers
Dean Bartlett List of Auckland representative cricketers
Dean Morgan (cricketer) List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Dean Potter (cricketer) List of Auckland representative cricketers
Debasis Chakraborty List of Bengal cricketers
Debendra Roy List of Bengal cricketers
Debu Majumdar List of Bengal cricketers
Delroy Morgan List of Jamaican representative cricketers
Demitri Hayidakis List of Border representative cricketers
Denis Cotter (cricketer) List of Victoria first-class cricketers
Denis Rampersad List of Trinidadian representative cricketers
Dennis Blair (cricketer) List of Tasmanian representative cricketers
Dennis Hewitt List of Guyanese representative cricketers
Dennis Hollard List of Border representative cricketers

BilledMammal (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break (mass draftification of cricket articles)

Alternative proposal (mass-draftification of cricket articles)

  1. Most of these substubs would be quite acceptable content if merged into an existing article which already meets general notability.
  2. The existing database references are adequate for mention in an already accepted topic. I.e. the information itself, while minimal, is encyclopedic, verifiable, neutral and non-trivial. Someone may even find it useful educational or interesting. It is within scope for Wikipedia.
  3. Most of the articles already give enough information to find a suitable article or list to merge them into.
  4. A category for all these articles can be divided into subcategories based on the category of article which they could be merged into without dispute. This would make it quicker to find merge targets
  5. A few new articles and lists might be needed for the outliers. This should not be a problem in most cases.
  6. Merging one of them into a list and leaving a redirect would be about the same amount of work as commenting meaningfully and usefully on AfD for that article, and would be constructive and almost always non-controversial. Far less a waste of time than this RfC, because all of the work and time expended would actually be fixing the problem and building the encyclopedia.
  7. Some of the substubs might be found unusable, AfD them.

Looks like a no-brainer, what have I missed? Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge work is pretty tedious. I don't have an objection to merging, but what I've often seen after merge discussions end with consensus to merge is that no one actually wants to do that work. Valereee (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorting the stubs into categories would be a good start, as a large part of the work would be finding a suitable destination article. For a job this big, maybe some skilled hacker could write us a script for the actual merge and redirect work, as it would be fairly repetetive. Perhaps some of those who are so keen to get rid of the stubs would put in a bit of constructive work, and perhaps some of those who are keen to not lose the content would help. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, though tedious, it is actively constructive, which puts it ahead of tedious and unconstructive debate, and much less tedious than AfD first, then merging. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also far less pointy than AfD or mass draftifying. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BlueSquareThing and I have been discussing ways to do this. If there is a consensus for this proposal we are likely to take a WP:BOLD action to merge and redirect many of these in line with If this proposal is successful #5. BilledMammal (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merging and redirecting to lists eliminates any objection centered on this violating deletion policy, per WP:ATD-M. Any particular article that editors want to expand with additional sources can be unmerged later, but in the meantime that route preserves the minimal current content and reader ability to access it. The main thing remaining is to get a mapping of which stubs would go to which lists, but the obvious framework seems to be country of origin and year they played. Steven Walling • talk 02:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the years they played in, some of the difficulty is that these stubs don't include that information; for example, Dean Mazhawidza. Indeed, this is part of the issue with Lugnut's mass creations; if we really wanted these mass created we should have written a bot to do it; it would have taken considerably less work, would have permitted the inclusion of considerably more information, and would have prevented the inaccuracies - whether deliberate or accidental - that we see in many of Lugnut's creations.
When I have the initial draft of the plan for merging and redirecting I'll ping you to it, as I believe you'll have useful insights on what can be added or changed. BilledMammal (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improved articles

Editors who have improved any of the articles on this list please add them to User:BilledMammal/Improved cricketers, so that I can ensure they are not draftified with the rest at the end of the discussion. While I should catch any that have been improved I may miss some, and adding them to that page will ensure I don't miss yours. Pinging James500, who I know has improved some. BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have anything I've worked on watchlisted, so I'll pick anything up that way. Tbh I've been working on lots of articles, only some of which might be on this list, so I think we'll catch any that way - I assume that a bold revert would be entirely appropriate in these circumstances! I'll try and get to some of the other things above when I have time, but I've missed quite a bit of this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting I've added the ones I've improved so far and will continue to do so. – Teratix 21:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Structural observation for closer(s)

The actual question of the rfc (bolding added) is "Should the following 1,182 biographical microstubs, which were mass-created by Lugnuts and cover cricketers, be moved out of article space? Much of the discussion does not directly answer that question but instead discusses several different particular ways of moving them out of article space. IMO the close still needs to respond on the actual RFC question. It's possible there there could be a consensus to move out of article space but no consensus on any particular way to do that in which case a second RFC might be required. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the oppose votes see the various means of removing from article space without direct deletion as de facto or "backdoor" deletion, since once removed from mainspace that is where they will likely end up anyway even if consensus to delete doesnt exist. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question at the top of the thread is not the proposal the community has been asked to discuss. The section Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Details (mass draftification of cricket articles) says "If this proposal is successful: All articles on the list will be draftified, subject to the provisions below". That statement is the proposal the community has been asked to discuss. James500 (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@James500: I don't agree with your conclusion but you made/ pointed out a good point there. The stuff that you pointed out is actually different that the lead question of the RFC. I don't envy the closer(s) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not create new sections just to bias the whole discussion? Yes, if you only look at the support !votes, this is the framing. I thought about creating yet another subsection to clarify that "The actual question of the rfc (bolding added) is 'Should we disregard the deletion policy in order to remove 1,182 articles out of process, based only on the size, current sourcing, and name of the creator?' Much of the discussion does not directly answer the question about the deletion policy but instead focuses on the manner of creation or guesses as to notability of the group." ... but creating new subsections just to skew things towards a position that I happen to agree with is...not ideal. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As with the first discussion, the fact this is happening at VPP and the nature of the question is inherently that this will be an exception to the normal process. I would hope that no-one was unsure about that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "an exception to the normal process"? The proposal is to take actions contrary to the normal process regarding over a thousand articles, but the discussion about it should follow the normal processes of discussions - including those regarding canvassing, determining consensus and attempting to bias the closer. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're getting cross-wired. My point was that I believe editors knew this was meant as an exception to the normal process. Not anything about 'canvassing, determining consensus' etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications (mass draftification of cricket articles)

The following people/pages will be notified:

Please list any other groups of editors you notify here. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes (mass draftification of cricket articles)

  1. ^ This excludes many mass-created microstubs, but it keeps the number of false positives extremely low
  2. ^ With the exception of ESPNcricinfo references with the subheading of "Stories" or "Wisden" as such references are not database sources
  3. ^ "Significant contributions" is defined as "larger than 200 bytes, excluding edits that are reverts or were reverted"
  4. ^ This does not mean that the article is guaranteed to be kept at AfD on the basis of the sources contained within it, just that it is possible to make a good faith argument at AfD that WP:GNG is met on the basis of those sources.
  5. ^ This option is provided to support editors who may determine that some of the articles on this list would be more useful as redirects than drafts.
  6. ^ Nominating 500 articles a month would increase by a third the number of articles going through AfD, and conservatively assuming that only half of Lugnut's creations have notability issues would take almost eight years
  7. ^ Most of these aren't candidates for draftification due to the extremely conservative nature of the query we decided to use

Replace nyt with reuters

i disagree with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3AFind_sources%2Ftemplates%2FFind_sources&diff=prev&oldid=722553515 . i propose to replace nyt with https://www.reuters.com/ .

reuters search link format is https://www.reuters.com/site-search/?query=Canton+Hong+Kong if keywords are "Canton Hong Kong". RZuo (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because...? Why do you disagree with that change from 2018? Why are you making this proposal? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. there was no argument for why nyt was preferred over other news agencies to justify that edit.
  2. nyt is US-oriented. reuters is world-oriented.
  3. nyt has a paywall.
just any of AP, reuters or AFP is better than nyt. RZuo (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sounds like "I don't like it", not an actual reason to change. Zaathras (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I think the paywall issue is a reasonable point. Schazjmd (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of them are reasonable points. --stultiwikiatext me 00:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters also has a paywall that kicks in after a few complimentary articles.
No reason we can't use both, though. We definitely should be suggesting both Reuters and AP. Masem (t) 22:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we were going to any more links, they should ideally be to non-paywalled articles. Reuters paywalls after a few articles, and NYT does similar. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian begs for contributions, which apparently it sorely needs, but has been trying to stay solvent without a paywall (however non-subscribers will see a small, voluntary, "please contribute" box). It may not be quite so comprehensive as the AP, AFP or Reuters, and not everyone likes its political slant (any more than everyone likes those of The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal’s), but it's still (after 2 centuries) a sound source. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. reuters has a registration wall.
  2. it can be easily bypassed by browsing incognito. hit the wall? close and open incognito again.
RZuo (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Valid points. Reuters tends to write with less editorial bias than the NYT. The US orientation can be a useful aspect in regards to US specific things. UnironicEditor (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Reuters maintains a more neutral approach, because they make money by supplying news to anyone who will buy it from them. Yet responding to other comments above, I have also observed that Reuters is slowly moving to a more aggressive paywall model to ensure that they do in fact get paid. For this reason, I give less credence to paywall arguments and more to neutrality arguments. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing NYT with Reuters in the find sources default seems controversial, but adding Reuters (or AP) search to the module (specifically Module:Find sources/links) as a link code option for templates to use (which it currently isn't) seems uncontroversial and is a necessary precursor for replacement or addition of Reuters/AP to default source search options. I've put in an edit request to add both AP and Reuters to the link codes. Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 00:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree I feel if there can be three sources for any given citation or story, it is better to look as unbiased as possible, with non profit sources, at least one so nothing seems tainted Coopaloop1984 (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This inappropriately centres a certain worldview and should be removed at once. Jack4576 (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional insight: NYT left-bias source 1, NYT left-bias source 2 non-biased alternatives --stultiwikiatext me 00:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting from your own source about the NY Times:
    They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors.
    I see a lot of editors tossing out comments about NYT being left-biased which appear to fail to recognize a basic fact of the news business in the U.S., which is the separation of op-ed and editorial from the news side. As it happens, editorial and news at NYT are completely separate: if you work in editorial, you don't write news articles, and vice versa.(This article might enlighten.) Our WP:Verifiability for factual assertions should never be based on opinion or the views of the editorial board, but exclusively on reliable news reporting. That is one area where the NYT really shines, and is considered highly reliable for factual reporting by most observers, and in particular by your source. Searches such as most reliable newspapers in the world regularly turn up NYT in the top ten. The first result for that search happens to result in this Forbes article, which lists the New York Times as the #1 most reliable newspaper in the world. Reuters, AP, BBC, WSJ, The Guardian, C-Span, The Economist, and others regularly turn up on these "best of" or top ten lists as well. Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I never actually expressed an opinion here, partially because I don't feel particularly strongly. There is extremely strong consensus that NYT is a generally reliable source (with the usual reminder that this does not mean "unbiased" or "lacks an opinion section", nor does it mean "all claims can be accepted uncritically in all circumstances" or "by using only this source, you can build a neutral and complete article"). Though there have been a few less RSN discussions, there is similarly strong consensus that Reuters is a generally reliable source (with the same disclaimers). Including NYT, Reuters, both, or neither in "Find sources" all seem like perfectly fine options.
Personally where I tend to start my source searches depends on what I'm looking for, but it's usually some form of aggregated search like Google News, newspapers.com, Archive.org book search, or Google Scholar. I also pretty much never use the template links though. Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 00:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nyt doesnt cover the world as much as the major agencies. for example:
https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=false&query=Botswana&sort=newest
https://www.reuters.com/site-search/?query=Botswana
https://apnews.com/search?q=Botswana&s=1
enwp is about the world, not usa. RZuo (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The agencies will often spin the same story with different slants so the buyers can choose which one is best for their audience ie. a right or left slant to the same story. -- GreenC 10:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GreenC here. The NYT remains a generally reliable source, though its fact-checking and neutrality seem, subjectively, to have been declining lately. But it offers a distinctively US East Coast-centric view on the world. Reuters is not behind a paywall (yet), merely a registration wall, and probably offers a more neutral take on world affairs. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you agree with GreenC .. I said the agencies (Reuters etc) are not always neutral they produce multiple versions of the same story with different political slants so buyers can choose which is best for their local audience ie. The Texas Register might choose a version of the story that has a right-leaning slant, while the San Francisco Times might choose the version with a left-leaning slant. Same article, different emphasis for different readers. -- GreenC 17:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some sources for this claim?
The wire agencies started providing different leads some years back, but the difference was magazine-style vs traditional newspaper style, and it only affected the first sentence/paragraph. I have never heard of any of them offering a service for "slanting" the news. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding request for sources regarding Reuters producing stories with varying perspectives that media partners can choose from. Are you sure what you're seeing isn't the wire customer's in-house staff "contributing" to the wire story by adding interpretations that cater to their subscriber base? I do note that Reuters offers content creation partnership, so you can contract with them to produce content that fits your bias, but that doesn't seem to include their wire stories, and it's not clear if they even host the partnered content on the reuters.com domain. Folly Mox (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC, I would like to learn more about the claims you're making. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove nyt

look, if a so called consensus to replace nyt cannot be established after 2 months, remove it then.

there was no consensus to choose nyt over any other sources in the first place, before the edit in question was made. so, now that the edit is contested, revert it.

maybe then in future you will find a consensus to use one or more websites, or not, but as it stands, contested edits without consensus should be reverted.--RZuo (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have a consensus to replace it (or to otherwise change it), why would we remove it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo, I'm wondering if you mean that if consensus to keep NYT can't be established, we should remove? Valereee (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
point to the consensus for its addition https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3AFind_sources%2Ftemplates%2FFind_sources&diff=prev&oldid=722553515 .
afaict, there's never such a thing.
yet there have been repeated questions and objections to using nyt. i'm not the first user to raise objection.
i offered an alternative. maybe users like or dont like reuters, it doesnt matter. the problem is using nyt and nyt alone was never endorsed. why nyt? why not one of the other List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States#Top_10_newspapers_by_circulation, wsj, lat, wapo or the trib? (or List_of_newspapers_by_circulation#Top_newspapers_by_circulation, The Times of India?) the answer to that is obviously it was arbitrary and not discussed. RZuo (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Enterprisey, do you have any memory of the reasoning behind this, or whether there was discussion at the time? The edit summary doesn't provide any information on the rationale. Valereee (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to the reasoning above. --stultiwikiatext me 13:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for sure, but I vaguely recall that it might've been because AfC wanted it for their submission template, because they were already linking to a NYT search. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without a clear consensus to change it (which I don't think we have yet) I think it should stay. If there were a newspaper source that was clearly regarded as more reliable it would be easier to get consensus but I can't imagine there's a single paper that someone won't object to. And as Mathglot says above, although the NYT's editorial stance is clearly left-leaning, their news reporting has as high a reputation as any in the country. They are a very reliable source for news and I see no reason to replace them here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that the NYT has become a bit more corporatized towards consumers, but I am not sure whether it's a good idea to go with Reuters instead. I would recommend maybe both NPR and BBC, as well as for non-Qatarian topics, Al Jazeera. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A choice would be ideal, I see no reason to prefer NYT over AP, say.Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we should change NYT to something else. It's a fine source, but it's paywalled. AP and BBC might be my top two choices, but I would also support AFP, Reuters, Al Jazeera, or CBC. Folly Mox (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening US Township names

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.



So there's quite a few US township names which I would recommend that we shorten. The present naming scheme is X township, X County, X state, but in a lot of cases where there is only one township in such state, we shouldn't need to further complicate and disambiguate beyond necessity. I would propose mass-moving these township articles to a naming scheme that only names the township and state, and only disambiguating with the county when there are multiple townships in a state.

As an example, it makes sense to have this naming scheme for Peters Township, Pennsylvania, as one exists in Washington County and one more in Franklin County. However, the name for Upper St. Clair Township shouldn't be as long as its present incarnation, Upper St. Clair Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, as since there's only one Upper St. Clair in the entire state (not to mention the entire country), we don't need to disambiguate further. A relatively giant addition to giant text containing the county in the title when not needed is a major inconvenience and a waste of time; we have infoboxes and article body space which can do the same thing much more efficiently.

If examples outside of Pennsylvania are needed, more can be found. Blendon Township, Ohio only exists in Franklin County, so we don't need to add a giant Franklin County to the title for the only township of its name in Ohio. Likewise, there is only one Aitkin Township in all of Minnesota. And only one South Loup Township in Nebraska. Michigan townships already do this (see Beaver Township, Bay County, Michigan and Holmes Township, Michigan) disambiguating only when multiple townships of the same name exist like with Beaver Township in Newaygo and Bay counties. Michigan's naming scheme seems to have worked out well, so isn't it about time we expand this to the rest of the township-having United States? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 12:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is natural disambiguation and shorter article titles are better whenever possible. casualdejekyll 16:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In New Jersey, county government does little, if anything. NJ townships and boroughs provide local government functions.
90+% of adult North Carolinian don’t know their counties are technically divided into townships. These NC townships serve no purpose, have no authority and no administrative organization.
Alaska has boroughs in some areas but sort-of-maybe-a-borough in other places.
I don’t know how you get a uniform convention for 50 states. If you try, some good hearted, slightly OCD editor is going to go on a tear changing things in the wrong states to fit the rules. (No aspersions on slightly OCD editors- they’ve made Wikipedia great!)
A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 00:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a tiny correction to North Carolina; township names are used for land survey purposes among a few other uses; title deeds for example will list the township(s) that a plot of land is in when defining it. And a few townships are also used as the name of a local unincorporated place, but that really should be treated as two separate entities that coincidentally share a name. That being said, you're basically right, no one at all knows what township they live in in North Carolina. --Jayron32 12:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 19:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would challenge this – as mentioned above, Michigan townships do this already. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InvadingInvader, help me out, here. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the proposal.
Does this mean we end up with Concord, Township 2, Poplar Tent, North Carolina? Or maybe Concord, Township 3, Odell, North Carolina. Or one of several other dinky townships that Concord spreads across?
North Carolina has 1035 townships that are mostly vestigal. Our civil township article has a paragraph describing the role of NC townships but there's no citation given and I've never seen any of those uses for them. 90+% of North Carolinians probably don't even know they exist.
People in Concord just know they live in Cabarrus County, a strong local government unit that handles schools, EMS, taxing, zoning, law enforcement, etc.
Can we get a carveout for states where townships don't have substantive powers?
If a carveout is unacceptable, can you devise a good scheme for the many cities that spread across multiple townships? (As opposed to Concord, Township 2, Poplar Tent / Township 3, Odell / Township 12, Concord / etc., North Carolina)
Thanks,
--A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 18:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, somebody has actually added a few township articles as denoted by blue links at List of townships in North Carolina. We don't need any of those articles.
--A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 05:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. The proposal is seeking to shorten article titles when possible, not make them longer. To use one of the nominator's examples: Blendon Township, Franklin County, Ohio is the only Blendon Township in the state, thus the title should just be Blendon Township, Ohio. You link to NOTBURO above; this proposal seems to be going against the overly-bureaucratic current naming convention for townships. Curbon7 (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. You're right, I misunderstood. Thanks for setting me straight.
--A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 16:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Curbon7 in his phrasing, and it's basically the same thing he said. Only disambiguate when necessary. For example, since there is only one Upper St. Clair Township in all of Pennsylvania, move it to Upper St. Clair Township, Pennsylvania instead of the current title at Upper St. Clair Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. However, since there are multiple Adams Townships in Pennsylvania, keep the current naming scheme for them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
InvadingInvader: If the need to disambiguate a township by adding its county was rare then I'd be less dubious about the proposal... but evidence shows it's actually very much the reverse, which is one of the reasons that in many states we include the county name for all those states' township articles.

For example, you earlier cited Blendon Township, Franklin County, Ohio, and you're right that it is the only township of that name in the state. But if we look at the rest of the townships in that county we see that all but one is repeated, sometimes a truly impressive number of times: Brown (8 times), Clinton (7 times), Franklin (21 times), Hamilton (5x), Jackson (37x), Jefferson (24x), Madison (21x), Mifflin (5x), Norwich (2x), Perry (26x), Plain (4x), Pleasant (15x), Prairie (2x), Sharon (4x), and Washington (43x), leaving just Truro as the only other unique one. All the rest have to be disambiguated with the county name no matter what.

Since this is the case for so many, adding it for all makes for a more consistent and predictable set, per the guidance at WP:CONSISTENT (which advises using similar patterns for similar articles "to the extent that this is practical"). ╠╣uw [talk] 20:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this query is correct, there are 13,890 township articles with 10,027 different town+state combinations, including 8,659 unique combinations. Certes (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Across all minor civil divisions nationwide I'm sure that's correct, but per WP:USPLACE we're directed to make such determinations on a per-state basis — and states vary quite considerably in how they name such divisions. The number of townships with duplicated names in New Jersey, for instance, is only about 11% (28 out of 241), whereas in some others the repeated names are a sizable majority: in Ohio they're 65% (884 out of 1362); in Indiana over 70% (707 out of 1008); etc. One size doesn't sensibly fit all in this case, so I strongly recommend following the guidance in our geographic naming conventions to consider this at the per-state level, not nationwide. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per obvious parsimony.
JoelleJay (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2023 (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.

Refideas notification upon editing an article

I propose that whenever a user clicks "Edit" on any article that has the Template:Refideas on its talk page, that the user will see a small yellow text box above the editing area that says "There are suggestions for sources on the talk page that you may find useful."

I brought this idea up at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Refideas notification upon editing an article[32] and received positive feedback from @Edward-Woodrow, @Donald Albury, @JimmyBlackwing, @A. B., @Folly Mox, @Timur9008, and @Freedom4U so I am bringing it for a proposal. See that discussion for more background. BOZ (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do support this idea and am unclear on the implementation details. Will this require a software change? Can it be implemented as an Editnotice? Would a bot-delivered usertalk message after an editor first edits the article, in the vein of User:Qwerfjkl (bot)#Task 17, be an acceptable fallback method? Folly Mox (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it working somewhat similarly to how users get a notification of an existing draft page when an article of the same name that does not exist. For example, pulling a random draft: [33] I would not want anyone to get a talk page notification for this idea I had. BOZ (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I don't know much about how technical implementation works so I may not be able to answer questions about that. BOZ (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging two arbitrary very helpful technical users who seem to have a strong knowledge of the software: @PrimeHunter and Pppery: sorry to pick on yall, but what's the most realistic way this idea might be implemented? Folly Mox (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably via an edit to Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main (which any admin can do), although for historical (?) reasons the related Template:Disambig editintro and Template:BLP editintro use JavaScript code instead - those should probably also be moved into Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate you, thanks.  :) BOZ (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: pretty clear benefit to the project. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the idea, but have no insight on implementation. Donald Albury 20:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can get behind this. Refideas is something I have made use of in the past, in order to mention that I found useful articles for other editors (who have more experience in the subject area) to use. It's a shame they're not super prominent, because it's a really great feature! SWinxy (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilverLocust 💬 07:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I love how that looks. :) I'm also 100% open to suggestions if anyone can think of a better wording. BOZ (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of wish that the normal talk page banners (the "coffee roll" color) was lighter/higher contrast like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the crudest implementation would be via a bot. Is there a way for an edit notice to read the content of the attached talk page? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um I think that might be possible if ((Refideas)) were edited to include code allowing for labeled section transclusion, which the editnotice could then transclude using the ((TALKPAGENAME)) magic word for the article it's being called from? But I'm not sure this is what you're asking, or why it would be desirable (to preview the reference ideas?).
I just reread Wikipedia:Editnotice, and it says that editnotices are kept in subpages of Template:Editnotices, like Template:Editnotices/Page/Cao Wei, so the act of adding the editnotice would just involve creating a subpage which calls a single template like User:SilverLocust's mockup above. I'm also not sure if this is what you're asking. I'm also not a particularly technical user, nor very smart in general. Folly Mox (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Give yourself more credit, I wouldn't have even thought of those ideas. ;) Although it may be my idea as the genesis, it's really up to anyone in the community to find the best way for this to work for everyone. The example you gave makes a lot of sense; I also just recalled that we get a notice whenever we edit a BLP and I think the same could work when we edit an article with the Refideas template on the talk page. I feel this is coming together. BOZ (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Namely, Template:BLP editintro BOZ (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the next step for this proposal? BOZ (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One other thought I had, if the technical implementation on this further point would be challenging we can skip it or make the change in the future, but we could have it where the actual refideas template shows on the editnotice but is hidden? So that someone who doesn't want to be bothered going to the talk page just to see what is there, could click "show" on the editnotice and see the transcluded contents of the refideas template to even more quickly see what sources are available for that article.
This is not in any way a priority in my opinion, just a "hey that would be nice", right now I just want to see if we can get this editnotice in place to begin with. :) BOZ (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Enabling collapsible templates on the mobile site

Should a JavaScript gadget be installed and enabled by default to enable collapsible templates on the mobile site? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background (enabling collapsible templates on the mobile site)

When users of the mobile site encounter content in a collapsed template, they always see the content in an uncollapsed state with no way to collapse it. On some pages this can result in a long list to scroll past. For example, compare the "official status" section in the infobox of the article about the English language on the mobile site with the same article on the desktop site.

This has been a longstanding issue, phab:T111565 has been open since 2015. In response to myself and @Izno, @Matma Rex (who works for the WMF) said the following: As there are people opposed to making this change in MediaWiki core, I would suggest doing it in your wiki's MediaWiki:Common.js or a gadget, as long as your community finds that agreeable.

The reason some oppose making the change in MediaWiki core is the "fat finger problem", some people may have difficulty to tap short links titled "Hide" or "Show". The proposed gadget alleviates this issue by enforcing a minimal link element width of 6em.

The gadget can be tested on betacommons. If any bugs or serious issues with the gadget surface the deployment will be delayed until those issues are resolved. Similar to WP:ENOM, if the gadget is deployed this will be done in waves. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (enabling collapsible templates on the mobile site)

Discussion (enabling collapsible templates on the mobile site)

@Xaosflux, there are actually quite some use cases. ((Sidebar with collapsible lists)) for example is disabled on mobile because mobile can't collapse anything. As a result, any content that is shown using that template is inaccessible on mobile. ((Sidebar with collapsible lists)) is transcluded nearly 90.000 times. While this template won't suddenly become visible with this gadget (it uses the nomobile class), editors will be able to decide on a case-by-case basis if such a sidebar should also be visible on mobile which can be viable once collapsible elements are made available. For another example of an even longer list of countries in an infobox, see IPhone 14.
Some numbers on performance impact: the gadget is currently just 911 751 bytes and gets cached in localStorage. Measuring how long the script takes to load on a page without collapsible elements is difficult because a duration of less than 1 millisecond is hard to measure accurately. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that discussion has already occurred that it was appropriate to not show this content on mobile; if it isn't it should be just fixed. — xaosflux Talk 15:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux, if at some point collapsible elements become available on mobile, like with this gadget, the editorial decision could be made on a per-article basis. There are other considerations regarding sidebars and navboxes, but there would be options. The status quo for existing usage of ((Sidebar with collapsible lists)) wouldn't change, but for existing usage a parameter could be implemented to suppress the nomobile class or it could switch to a different template. Module talk:Sidebar/Archive 6#How to override "class=nomobile" to display sidebar in mobile view? is an example where this could be done. According to that thread, "nomobile is used because the old class vertical-navbox is already hard-coded to be removed on mobile, but I wanted to change that class name to reflect the name of this module and because it was shorter for the purposes of TemplateStyles, so I added nomobile as a result." It doesn't say why, but the fact nothing can be collapsed on mobile will surely be one of the reasons for this.
nomobile is actually a hack, quote from User talk:Jon (WMF)#nomobile is my current annoyance today: "as the Minerva maintainer I'd love to remove the `nomobile` class in the Minerva skin eventually. Now all that said I wouldn't rely on `nomobile` at all to be honest. It was a short term fix for a long term problem. If you are using TemplateStyles just add a media query and display: none anything that you don't want to show on mobile and avoid the class entirely. There's no need to rely on it. Sure this will increase the HTML payload of mobile, but leave that to us WMF staff - we can always add rules for DOM-heavy elements at a later date."
The overall sentiment seems to be that navboxes should be enabled on mobile. See also phab:T124168. In what exact form is TBD, but one thing seems clear: without the ability to make elements collapsible on mobile, it can't ever happen. As a side note, the proposed gadget has one extra trick up its sleeve: it enables the creation of elements that are collapsible on mobile but don't become collapsible on desktop. This would make it possible to make long lists or tables collapsible on mobile only, potentially saving mobile users from some lengthy scrolling. Update: this mobile-only feature has been commented out for now and may be revisited if the gadget gets enabled as a default gadget. This gadget now more purely aims to replicate the functionality of the desktop site without alterations.Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason these don't display on mobile is partially the display. But a bigger reason is that navboxes do not suit the mobile need, which is predominantly get in and get out with the desired fact. This quality, combined with the basically useless and usually quite large HTML downloaded just to inevitably not need a navbox is why these are "disabled". (Why yes, MobileFrontend does rip them fully out of the HTML.) IznoPublic (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question - As a Gadget, would this be enabled for logged-out users? –dlthewave 14:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave, the way I phrased the proposal ("installed and enabled by default"), yes. However, if many votes include the condition that it be made opt-in I would consider that a valid outcome as well. If it would be enabled by default it would allow editors to assume the feature is available to mobile users when writing templates and articles which won't be the case if it's opt-in, but c'est la vie. If the proposal passes (without opt-in condition) the gadget will be deployed in waves. At first it'd be enabled for admins only and every week or so another group would be added: WP:extendedconfirmed, wp:autoconfirmed and finally everyone (including logged-out users).Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good! I wasn't quite sure how gadgets worked, wanted to make sure it would eventually be available to all users. –dlthewave 02:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dlthewave, a gadget is a collection of JavaScript and/or CSS pages, similar to WP:User scripts. Unlike user scripts, they are centrally governed in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition. Some gadgets, for example mw:Reference Tooltips, have the "default" parameter set in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, those are enabled and loaded by default. The wording "enabled by default" in the proposal refers to the default parameter in Gadgets-definition.Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on this. I left some suggestions for the implementation at Wikipedia talk: MakeMobileCollapsible.

Before enabling the gadget, please consider whether the "mobile-only collapsible" feature is really desirable. Personally I think we should avoid adding any mobile-only and desktop-only features these days, to avoid confusion for people who only use desktop or only mobile and see different things. It might also lead people to use collapsible elements in cases where other approaches would be better (per MOS:COLLAPSE): moving the content to a separate section (which are already collapsible on mobile, and easier to navigate using the TOC on desktop), or to a separate page – and since it would be mobile-only, the desktop power-users might not notice it.

And while we're talking about MOS:COLLAPSE, it will need some updating about the mobile support. Matma Rex talk 12:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matma Rex, interesting points. I added the "mobile-only collapsible" feature because it was easy and I believe there is a difference between mobile and desktop here: scrolling is more labor-intensive on mobile devices as you have no page up/page down keys and dragging the scrollbar is more difficult without a mouse or touchpad. If it turns out the feature goes unused or causes people to use less optimal approaches it could be removed easily and any existing uses could be updated by a bot in that case.
Header levels above level 2 don't become collapsible on mobile. I guess the only way to find out if it's a good idea is to just see if and how people would use it. If people don't use it or only use it when other approaches would be better, it could be scrapped at a later point. Btw, one way to use that feature is to combine mw-collapsible with mw-collapsed-mobileonly, resulting in a collapsible element on both mobile and desktop but which is only collapsed by default on mobile. I also think mobile-only collapsing could be an alternative for the nomobile class in some cases.Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firefox won't even let me drag the scrollbar. It only supports manual scrolling. On the pages I linked to in my not-vote, it might take me forty or sixty seconds to scroll all the way down to what I'm tryna read. Usually I end up all the way at the foot of the page and have to work my way back up, but too aggressive of an upscroll will – alas – trigger a page reload. Anything to help ameliorate this would be quite welcome. Folly Mox (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on this tangent, adding a collapsibility to level three subheadings, defaulted to uncollapsed, would be pretty nice. Some of those get real long, and it would be convenient to collapse them if I'm editing them one after another. Folly Mox (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Matma Rex here: let's not introduce mobile specific behavior, especially since that's not the primary point of the change we're trying to make here. (And were you going to do it, using the same class namespace as core functionality is a bad idea "mw-".) IznoPublic (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matma Rex, what specifically needs updating about MOS:COLLAPSE? IznoPublic (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example this part: "the mobile version of the site, which has a limited set of features and does not support collapsing". Matma Rex talk 16:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It... Doesn't, still. We just went from "displays nothing" to "displays everything", so I think that statement remains valid. (Perhaps less than obviously the context of that section ignores MF collapsing whole sections.)
As for limited set of features for mobile, yeah, less true, but also not totally relevant to that section, so removing it in toto might be called for. Izno (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, "will need". Missed the auxillary verb. Izno (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Matma Rex, following your and Izno's comments, I commented out the mobile-only collapsing feature for now. If the gadget gets enabled by default I plan to open a discussion on enabling it again. Maybe in some more limited form, like only changing the default collapse state on mobile. For now, the gadget just aims to replicate the collapsing functionality from the desktop site.Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change the venue for new community-authorized general sanctions

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.


Should the venue for seeking consensus to establish a new general sanctions program, and amending or revoking existing general sanctions programs, be changed to the village pump for proposals (with a courtesy notification at the administators' noticeboard)? 21:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, should the text at Wikipedia:General sanctions § Community sanctions be amended as follows?

The community may also impose general sanctions on all editors working in a particular area, usually after a discussion by consensus at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") village pump for proposals (VPR), following a notice at the administrators' noticeboard (AN). While community-authorised discretionary sanctions are not bound by Arbitration Committee procedures and guidelines, they usually follow the Arbitration Committee standard discretionary sanctions model. Deviation or additions to these standards typically requires community consensus, unless purely clerical in nature. Requests for amendments, clarification, or revocation (if sanctions are no longer required) should also be discussed at the administrators' noticeboard VPR, following a notice at AN.

Background

The Wikipedia community may impose "general sanctions" upon an entire topic area. Current examples of active community-imposed general sanctions include:

The place that the community currently imposes these "general sanctions" schemes is at WP:AN, as provided by Wikipedia:General sanctions § Community sanctions:

The community may also impose general sanctions on all editors working in a particular area, usually after a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"). [...] Requests for amendments, clarification, or revocation (if sanctions are no longer required) should also be discussed at the administrators' noticeboard.

This proposal, if enacted by the community, would change the appropriate venue to the village pump for proposals (WP:VPR) and require a courtesy notification of such discussions at WP:AN.

Discussion (GS authorization venue)

Close

This feels like a nearly perfect example of If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. from WP:RFCEND and suggest we close and implement as such. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2023 (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 on Module:Find sources - replace New York Times with Associated Press

Currently, the only media outlet in Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources is the newspaper The New York Times (nytimes.com). Should we replace it with the news agency Associated Press (apnews.com)? Previous discussions here and here. starship.paint (RUN) 04:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (Find sources: NYT vs AP)

Discussion (Find sources: NYT vs AP)

  • Are these the right metrics? Without expressing a preference for any of the choices, I'm not sure the metrics given above are what we should be prioritizing. First being paywall; we should strive for the most neutral and accurate sources, not the most free-as-in-beer. Unlike media (such as images or sound), for which we prefer freely-licensed content as we host and display that content directly, news sources should be the most accurate available, as it is in many other areas in Wikipedia that are not news-oriented. Next is international coverage— the "countries operated in" statement is not quite accurate. For example, NYT has actively staffed bureaux in many countries but that's more of a logistics matter; they will send reporters to any country in the world as needed and permitted. And I found at least three different figures in different areas of the AP site so I'm not sure what is going on there. Finally, I fear that a lot of this is moot because many news organizations' public-facing search capabilities are often terrible. As a test, I took the first linked term in today's WP:ITN (Tharman Shanmugaratnam) and tried it with both the AP and NYT search. The AP search returned nothing and the NYT search returned a lot of things, yet notably none of them relevant to the ITN item in question. Are we focusing on the right issues here? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.reuters.com/site-search/?query=Tharman+Shanmugaratnam
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=Tharman+Shanmugaratnam RZuo (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "GERALDINE'S NEW RECORD; MADE YESTERDAY AT THE NEW RACE TRACK. A MOST SUCCESSFUL OPENING DAY AT THE FINEST RACE TRACK IN THE WORLD". The New York Times. 1889-08-21. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-09-14.
  2. ^ Nast, Condé (2012-02-23). "The Beauty and Tragedy of Hungary's Supple Stringbike". WIRED. Retrieved 2023-05-27.

mondonomo.ai should be blacklisted

mondonomo.ai is used on WP as if it was a reliable source. However, the website seems to be a mere content farm. Thus, mondonomo.ai should be blacklisted. Veverve (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place for proposals to blacklist sources is Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard. As far as I can tell the source has not been discussed there previously so you'll be better to add a bit more background information than you have here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the goal is blacklisting, then please see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist#Requests for listing. If the goal is to list it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, then – assuming it's actually a source of "perennial" discussions, and not just one of the zillions of websites that is easily identified as undesirable – RSN will be the right place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the link search. Why not blacklist *.ai? Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.ai is the TLD for Anguilla and thus there are many legitimate websites using it. Examples include gov.ai, fsc.org.ai, tennis.ai, shing.ai. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to GEOLAND

Regarding the section "Settlements and administrative regions" of the notability guide for geographical features (WP:NGEO), which of the following should we do?:

Settlements and administrative regions are typically presumed notable, provided information about them beyond statistics, region, and coordinates is known to exist. The extent of coverage in secondary sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. Editors should avoid creating very short articles on these topics, e.g., "Village X is in County Y, Province Z of Country A, at coordinates C, with a population of P." is not enough content for a stand-alone article.
If a Wikipedia article on a settlement or administrative region cannot be developed using known sources, information on it should instead be included in a more general article on a higher-level administrative region, or in a list article collecting information on similar settlements or regions (per the list notability criteria and common list selection criteria #2).
This criterion applies to settlements and administrative regions including states, provinces, municipalities, districts, parishes, counties, cities, villages, towns, and their equivalents, that provide general-purpose administration for their region, regardless of whether they presently exist or are abandoned, even if their population is low. It does not apply to special-purpose districts such as census tracts, irrigation districts, library districts, etc. which should instead be assessed on a case-by-case basis according to the general notability guideline.
This change to be made in combination with the amonishment that editors should avoid flooding AFD with articles (e.g., more than 10 nominations per day as with minor planets) that fail the amended guide. FOARP (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current "Settlements and administrative regions" guideline, which would be removed in favor of the text above
  • Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.[1][2]
  • Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.
  • Disputed regions are generally considered case-by-case. Their notability for Wikipedia is independent of the validity of their claims. Sometimes it may be more appropriate to merge these articles into ones on a broader conflict or political movement, or to merge articles on multiple disputed names for the same region into one article.

Background

The proposed amendment is the result of a discussion on the NGEO talk-page involving the editors @Davidstewartharvey, Bookku, Certes, North8000, Horse Eye's Back, Selfstudier, Crouch, Swale, Visviva, BilledMammal, Hut 8.5, Bkonrad, Newimpartial, Hike395, Donald Albury, Viridiscalculus, Mxn, Avilich, Dlthewave, Choess, Joe Roe, Ezhiki, Rschen7754, Atlantic306, XOR'easter, and Imzadi1979:. This change was prompted by discussions involving sets of mass-created articles about Geographical entities based primarily or solely on database sources including:

Survey (Changes to GEOLAND)

Thebiguglyalien explained it better BilledMammal (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • My understanding is that you are opposing this because you believe we should include this content in lists, and you believe that through NOPAGE the current wording permits this. I disagree with this, because NOPAGE is not relevant to deciding whether a topic is notable; instead, such lists are permitted through NLIST. If this is incorrect, please correct me. BilledMammal (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think:
    • Whether a populated place is covered solely through statistics (extremely broadly construed concept, for populated places) or not is something where being able to argue about it for ages, rather than shrug and move on to the next article, is not a net positive to the project or its encyclopedic coverage (there are multiple subsets of this one; whether people can easily find non-statistical sources depends on factors other than their existence, 'statistics-only' for a populated place is a concept such that it is not in all circumstances incompatible with a valuable article, etc)
    • The only reason we care about this is because mass creation burns the commons/ruins everything, by producing a vast number of articles that don't have reference work value
    • But "large number of stubs that won't realistically be expanded" is solvable through routes other than changing notability, because they can be upmerged, because notability is specifically "below this you can't have an article" rather than "above this you must have an article"
    • Accordingly, the specific problem here is solvable through routes other than "raising the minimum threshold under which it's impossible to ever have an article"
    Vaticidalprophet 20:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf I've switched to my proposed Option 3 then, which I think is stronger than the others..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Changes to GEOLAND)

Extended discussion and responses here please... FOARP (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like FOARP brings this up every year because they clearly don't like the idea that Wikipedia exists in part to detail places where people live. A couple years ago there was a unilateral change which was then brought to the larger community and thoroughly rejected. This would have the same effect - by making NGEO slightly more difficult to apply at AfD, we would tighten our notability guidelines and lose one of our purposes as an encyclopedia.

The The idea wikipedia is a gazetteer was boldly added by Unitedstatesian in 2008 and reflected how NGEO worked at AfD (this was later made a guideline.) Even though it was boldly added, its place was further confirmed in discussion in 2009. In reality, right now, the NGEO test is very easy: if we can prove people live or lived in a place, it's eligible for a stand-alone article, similar to how gazetteers work. This would require us to be able to say something about the place, which would instantly put a number of places at risk of deletion, especially in non-English countries or in places where you can't just web search for a village.

The reason is clear: even though we may not be able to say anything about a verified populated place now does not mean we'll never be able to: the fact people live in a locale means there's something notable about that locale, even if there's just an oral history and it's not on the internet yet. A lot of the deletion discussions I've been a part of have been about verifiability, for instance the American GNIS stubs, and I can see a change leading to a lot of negative outcomes where we would delete verifiable places without easily accessible online information. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer - You said you were going to find a source to support your assertion that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. None of these links do so. Even WP:5P (an essay) only states that it includes elements of gazetteers. FOARP (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in there. It was boldly added to reflect geography policy at early AfDs and then was further accepted by the community through discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 21:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in where? A simple quote will do. FOARP (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again it goes all the way back to the first edit of NGEO, and the concept was endorsed as much a little under two years ago: [37] SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... which only ever said that Wikipedia includes "combines many features of ... gazetteers", not that it is a gazetteer. FOARP (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However given how many people in this and related discussions base their argument on Wikipedia being/including a gazetteer I'm not convinced that the distinction you are making is one that is supported by community consensus. When it comes to the inclusion of information about populated and formerly populated places, I don't think the distinction is either meaningful or useful. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think people should recognise this “Wikipedia is a gazetteer” argument for what it would logically require: that Wikipedia give the same level of coverage to geographical features that gazetteers do. This means extending our coverage to every single named feature, regardless of notability or whether there is anything verifiable to write about it beyond statistics. FOARP (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should have coverage of every populated place we can verify. That doesn't necessarily mean a standalone article, but nothing in current policy or guidelines requires that so it's not a problem. Whether we have a similar coverage of every named feature, if that's what the community wants then I see no issue with that. Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the primary result of this would be "more uncertainty" rather than "better project". "Statistics-only" for a populated place is extremely broad; it's possible to write a significant amount about a place based solely on its census stats. I could pull out any neighbourhood in my city and assemble its census stats into a legitimate-reference-work-addition. In fact, just to test my point, I've done that and massively expanded Clayton, Victoria#Demographics. There's a lot more to the article than this section -- but if you replaced the whole article with that section and a lead saying Clayton is a suburb in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 19 km south-east of Melbourne's Central Business District. It is the home of Monash University, you would have a substantially more explanatory article than the one that currently exists. I could write more there, but I very consciously restricted myself only to census results and to one article based off census results (because its secondary analysis drew a comparison the results themselves don't). The problem we have right now is that there are mass-created articles for which it's unrealistic to assume mass expansion, which is a different problem to what you can write based on something. Vaticidalprophet 22:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Purer example: I remembered Salisbury East, South Australia being a stub. Excitingly, it was even an uncited stub! It's not now. I think this tells you a fair bit about the place. Vaticidalprophet 23:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The process was not started by FOARP, but my me. If you had looked at the actual discussion instead of just reading the blarb at the top, the discussion was started on the basis of the actual wording of the current GEOLAND. Legal recognised place is virtually impossible to actually evidence in large parts of the world. This is why the phrase has been changed to Settlements and Administrative Regions. From that discussion the issue of permastubs came up. Now I don't have a problem with stubs if they are accurate, but census data being the only evidence to create an article is not really good enough for an encyclopedia. Glasgow University History of the British Census says "It is essential to bear in mind when examining census data that the census it is not a completely accurate record." And that is in a western country where census data is seemed to be accurate, as pointed out in the original discussions how many census in parts of the world give a name to a nomad village (such as Abadi) which has disappeared by the next census and a new one appears? As pointed out by Vaticidalprophet, he took an article which was just statistics and expanded hugely, so it is possible in a large number of cases. However sometimes you can't. Hare Green, a hamlet in Essex is a perfect example. It was just evidence by a map and census data. I have filled out with all that I can find to expand it - some historical houses and some info about the roads. None of it would meet GNG. To be honest I live in Essex and had not heard of it, and if it was redirected to Great Bromley and added there we would not lose the information.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hare Green doesn't seem a great example to me. There are two 17th-century listed buildings, suggesting a long history which will be covered in (offline) local history books. The population is over 700, which is a small village, not really a hamlet. The settlement will appear in local newspapers, probably for hundreds of years, and certainly in multiple historical directories, which will probably turn out to include material on local public houses and businesses. 'I've never heard of it' is never a reason for deletion.
When academic sources state that the historical UK census is not completely accurate, what's generally meant is that old handwritten records can be difficult to decipher and people gave their names in different forms, so tracing individuals can be tricky, not that a whole village was incorrectly entered! Espresso Addict (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying something shouldn't exist cos i have no heard of it! I have done more than internet searches - as I said I am local and found very little beyond architecture. Because something has existed doesn't mean anything interesting exists and needs an article about it based on that it just exists. If the information was added to the Great Bentley page and the page redirected there, we are not losing anything as there is not much to lose.
The Glasgow University comment is on the British Census, but it counts for census' around the world. How many people put down Jedi as their religion? And although you maybe bound by law to complete the census in parts of the world, they are actually not considered legal documents to confirm settlements actually legally exist in many parts of the world either.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ Davidstewartharvey: Hare Green satisfies GNG and, on account of the listed buildings, GEOFEAT. Your expansion is far from exhaustive. You have said virtually nothing about the two listed buildings, despite the fact that there is more coverage. You have not even mentioned the ancient earthworks: [38]. No apparent use of the coverage in GBooks, GScholar and the Internet Archive. You have made little use of the newspaper articles in GNews, which contain more information than you have added. You have not added any of the newspaper articles in the British Newspaper Archive [39] [40] [41], or in Newspapers.com [42] [43]. I don't see any use (beyond what is included in GNews) of the websites of the essex newspapers like this one: [44]. (GNews only contains articles from the last few years, whereas newspaper websites often go back to the 1990s). More importantly, Great Bromley itself certainly does satisfy GNG by a wide margin, but would be in real danger of an AfD or draftification under this proposal, because the sources are not in the article yet. I can put up with a place like Hare Green being merged, but I can't put up with a place like Great Bromley being mistakenly deleted or draftified, which would be the probable outcome of this proposal.
As for the census: There is no reason to assume that any reliable source is completely accurate. It would not surprising if every reliable source in the world contains errors. If we rejected every source that contained at least one error, it would not be surprising if we end up with no sources at all. I happen to be aware that sources say that even the New York Times contains some errors (such as in its coverage of the Russian Revolution) and is therefore not completely accurate. James500 (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does the current article meet GNG? Firstly maps can't be used to define notability, the census data is not from ONS but a database site based in Germany - very questionable. The road references - one a local newspaper and the other's primary source as it is the official legislation. The references on BNA - sales of properties and livestock, a barn fire with a death, are these really enough to establish GNG? And as to GEOFEAT, I remember that there was a discussion a few years back that agreed a concensus that Grade II properties are were not accepted as notable based just on a listing. This was based on the fact there is 343,004 Grade II listed along in England. In addition the Henge is not in Hare's Green but in Little Bentley.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read that discussion about GEOFEAT. IIRC, it was not an RfC, established no consensus, either to change the wording of the guideline or otherwise, and it was based on a pseudohistory argument that because the population of the UK is smaller than that of the USA today, the UK should have fewer listed buildings than the USA. In fact, buildings are not normally listed in the UK unless they were built before 1840, and are not automatically listed unless they were built before 1700. The UK had a much larger population than the USA before 1840, and a vastly larger population before 1700. The UK has a much larger number of pre-1840 buildings, and a vastly larger number pre-1700 buildings, than the USA. Therefore the UK should have a much larger number of listed buildings than the USA, because the UK has more historic buildings than the USA, and the UK's historic buildings are generally more important than those of the USA. The reality is that the NRHP largely consists of late 19th and 20th century buildings that would never get listed in the UK in a million years, because their historical importance is very low. The number of grade II listed buildings in the UK is reasonable for a country that has a massive concentration of medieval and early modern buildings of immense historical importance, something that does not exist in the USA, which has no medieval buildings and almost no early modern buildings. James500 (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BAR British Series 175 says that the penannular ditch is in "Hare Green, Great Bromley". Unless you have another source, it is in Hare Green. James500 (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there are two henges one in Great Bromley map ref 51.860498N Longitude: 1.054156E [1] and one in Little Bentley map ref Latitude: 51.884112 Longitude: 1.062716 [2] Other henges in the Tendring area is at Great Wigborough Latitude: 51.7942 / 51°47'38"N
Longitude: 0.8369 / 0°50'12"E, Tye Henge in Lawford Latitude: 51.936516N Longitude: 1.036039E, though the closest to Hare Green is Little Bromley Latitude: 51.905055N Longitude: 1.035369E. The book is the only reference to a Henge in Hare Green. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And further more upon checking the website https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/eastofengland/ which is the source of the population data, it quotes states Source: UK Office for National Statistics (web).
Explanation: All population figures and depicted boundaries are based on output areas officially assigned to the 2022 built-up areas. Output areas often include some unbuilt parts. However, tabulated area figures refer to (typically smaller) actual built-up areas in order to present a more realistic population density. Some of the older population figures are approximate values. Well when you check the data that is currently on the site (supposedly 2021 data) it states Hare Green has a population of 678. However Great Bromley is not in there list, and when you check the data on the ONS [3] it says the parish of Great Bromley has 1100 people, with no further breakdown available. So the reference is actually duff!Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial mentions do not count towards GNG. This is very explicitly stated. Hare Green being mentioned once as a location in local news stories (failing NOTNEWS) is not detailed, direct coverage of Hare Green. It is indirect and incidental. List entries for individual historic structures that happen to be in Hare Green are also not direct significant coverage of Hare Green. And literally no one would be trying to get Great Bromley deleted with this proposal, what a ridiculous leap. JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is that a village cannot be notable for significant coverage of its history or its buildings. In other words, you are arguing that a village can never be notable, since there is no other coverage that a village could receive (unless you want coverage of the quality of its subsoil). I do not think that your argument is within the letter, let alone the spirit, of GNG or NGEO. And all that your argument could achieve, at most, is a page move to something like History and buildings of Hare Green, which will put you in violation of WP:COMMONNAME. James500 (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a building that happens to be in Hare Green receives SIGCOV that doesn't actually discuss Hare Green itself it is not coverage of Hare Green. This should be exceptionally clear from our P&Gs. And the buildings in question don't even have SIGCOV themselves, they just have a context-less, nearly-prose-less description of the building and items inside.

TM 02 SE GREAT BROMLEY HARWICH ROAD HARE GREEN (north side)
House. C17 with later rear extension. Timber framed and rough rendered. Red plain tiled roof. Central red brick chimney stack. 2 storeys. 2 window range of small paned vertically sliding sashes. Central 2 panel 2 light door, simple surround. Interior features include vertically boarded and panelled doors, some with HL hinges. Inglenook fireplace with cast iron fireback reading "1640", "Fairfax" and depicting a man on horseback. Iron meathooks to rear kitchen ceiling beams.

If you seriously think that is direct significant coverage of Hare Green then I seriously question your understanding of our policies. JoelleJay (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You have not answered what I said to you at all. You have instead twisted my words and put words into my mouth.
(2) WP:SIGCOV does not contain a definition of the word "directly" (other than "so that no original research is needed to extract the content") and it is not acceptable for you to claim that your personal opinion about how that word should be interpretated is community consensus unless you can produce evidence of that alleged consenus. Could you, for example, provide me with a link to an RfC on the meaning of the word "directly" in WP:SIGCOV which confirms that your interpretation of that word actually is supported by community consensus?
(3) At this point, I really suspect the fact that you are still making comments like "nearly-prose-less" tells me everything I need to know about the level of community support for your opinions. I happen to remember that your theory (and it is still only a theory) that significant coverage must consist of what you refer to as "prose" was discussed during WP:ACAS. The community pointed out to you that GNG contains no such requirement, and your personal interpretation that GNG requires what you refer to as "prose" was totally rejected by community consensus. Your proposal in Q14 was simply rejected out of hand by the community.
(4) If you don't stop making unevidenced claims about alleged community consensus about the interpretation of particular words in guidelines, I could put a stop to that by starting an RfC myself on the meaning of "directly", to find out what the community really thinks. James500 (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. I'm the one twisting and putting words in your mouth!? You literally said Your argument is that a village cannot be notable for significant coverage of its history or its buildings. In other words, you are arguing that a village can never be notable, since there is no other coverage that a village could receive (unless you want coverage of the quality of its subsoil). That is either an intentionally outrageous mischaracterization of what I said or your reading comprehension is unsuitable for this project. I didn't make a single statement that claimed to restate your arguments whatsoever; the closest would be saying If you seriously think... which is very clearly not saying "You seriously think".
2. What do you believe "directly" in "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail means if it doesn't mean the topic must be discussed directly! Do you believe that a source's SIGCOV is distributed to all topics that are named within it?? A source on a movie that trivially names who its director was before going into detail that has nothing to do with the director's role is not SIGCOV of the director, obviously.
3. I don't know how you are reading that the community "totally rejected" the interpretation that secondary coverage should be in prose from a proposal in the very specific context of limitations on acceptable sources for mass creation that the closers said had no discernible consensus. Most of the opposes were against "disallowing mass creation of articles that are based on any database" or were somehow misinterpreting the proposal as asserting that a database isn't RS, rather than making any statement on the prose-non-prose database distinction.
4. You are more than welcome to ask the community whether "directly and in detail" includes all coverage adjacent to a trivial mention of a topic regardless of whether any coverage is actually specifically about the topic. JoelleJay (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter whether you expressly claimed to restate my words or not (and the words "If you seriously think" and "This should be exceptionally clear" were close enough), if you answered my comment in a way that clearly implied that I had said that the coverage was "direct significant coverage of Hare Green" or clearly implied that I had said that coverage of "a building that happens to be in Hare Green" discusses "Hare Green itself" and "is . . . coverage of Hare Green". If I ask what kind of coverage a village can receive other than coverage of its history and buildings, I should not get a response that implies that I have argued that such coverage satisfies GNG, when I did not comment on whether that coverage satisfies GNG at all in that particular post. I am prepared to accept that you did not realise what you were implying, because I am also starting to have doubts about your literacy and, in particular, whether you understand that you can imply something by means of juxtaposition. (If you put your comment beneath my comment, the juxtaposition can, in of itself, imply that your comment is talking about my comment). That said, I really think it would be better if we both stop questioning each others' literacy and just walk away from this conversation, because it is clear that neither of us wants to talk to the other. Goodbye. James500 (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You asserted Your argument is that a village cannot be notable for significant coverage of its history or its buildings. In other words, you are arguing that a village can never be notable, since there is no other coverage that a village could receive. 1. I did not say anything close to that. I said passing mentions in primary news do not count and existence of listed buildings with zero coverage of the location do not count. 2. there is no other coverage that a village could receive is a claim you are making about what kind of coverage exists for villages. Since my statement only applied to the latter of your two options of "coverage of its history" and "coverage of its buildings" (I never said coverage of a town's history doesn't count, unless you are suggesting that primary trivial newspaper mentions qualify?!), your comment was read as claiming the coverage of the buildings in this particular case is sufficient for notability. So I responded with a rebuttal of this claim. JoelleJay (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked at the talk pages of the notability guidelines, I saw the discussion on WT:N that you are obviously referring to. I should point out that a discussion between three people (yourself, Masem and Whatamidoing) does not create, and is not evidence of, any kind of community consensus. Especially when at least three people (myself, Expresso Addict and Whatamidoing) now object to your interpretation. In short, there is no consensus for your interpretation of GNG. James500 (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is the mere existence of old buildings enough to assume a location has had SIGCOV? If these sorts of things are essentially conferring notability then that is a serious source of systemic bias since obviously that's only going to work for the places where society has been stable enough that random buildings have survived and there have been modern efforts to document and preserve them and there is a presumption of a written historical record providing significant primary coverage that has itself received secondary analysis (because we certainly cannot be using 17th century sources as the bases for any articles ever). JoelleJay (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[E]ven though we may not be able to say anything about a verified populated place now does not mean we'll never be able to, and even though we will eventually be able to say more about these populated places when interested editors decide to add content, that does not mean we can't upmerge everything shorter than (say) four sentences into a list article now, leaving behind redirects for future expansion. Folly Mox (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: comment on content, not contributers. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 18:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't personally attacked anyone. Thank you. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that. I reminded you not to comment on contributors. Saying that it looks like FOARP brings this up every year because they clearly don't like the idea that Wikipedia exists in part to detail places where people live. A couple years ago there was a unilateral change which was then brought to the larger community and thoroughly rejected. This is not a personal attack, but it is unnecessary commentary on a fellow editor. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They have consistently tried to make this change over the past few years, without gaining any consensus for it. It's getting tiring. Not sure why that's not allowed to be said. SportingFlyer T·C 12:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer - You're basically stating that this is my proposal: it was not, very little of the proposed amendment was from me. I linked the discussion where the proposed amendment was developed, and named the editors who contributed to that discussion. "it's getting tiring" - two vaguely-related discussions on the subject in three years tires you? "without gaining any consensus for it." - the proposed edit is the result of a consensus.
We can see from other discussions (NSPORTS, SCHOOLOUTCOMES, NASTRO) that previously over-broad notability standards can be reined in. Proposing the same be done in other areas is just part of the healthy give-and-take of policy on Wikipedia. FOARP (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued by the proposed ten-per-day rate limit on AfD. If I understand correctly, some here fear mass creation of geographical microstubs. So why not put a rate limit on that instead? That could dampen the motivation for someone to run up their new article count by harnessing a poorly understood database. You don't want the waitstaff to take orders faster than the kitchen can fill them, but you also don't want the waitstaff to clear the tables faster than the diners can finish their meals! :^D – Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on the subject that got derailed by disagreement over the borderlands of what constitutes mass creation. IMO the obvious thing to ban is automated mass creation -- there are some arguments about certain other forms of high-volume article creation, but there's no number that a human can reach that people agree is problematic (and really shouldn't be). Discussion didn't establish scope, though, so it got bogged down in those, and until then we retain all these everything-not-mandatory-is-forbidden arguments. Vaticidalprophet 02:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think some kind of forced limitation (maybe using an edit filter) of five articles per day, and no more than 100 articles per month, would slow down any mass-creations like this. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 18:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible to legitimately create articles past that rate, though the day one moreso than the month. The problematic sort of mass creation is well beyond what can be done by an actual person; there are people who take an unusually wide view of what mass creation is problematic, but the actual motte of "mass creation produces data integrity and sometimes sensitive-topic-maintenance problems" is implausible for anything human-doable. Vaticidalprophet 20:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Vaticidalprophet: "two sources = must have an article"-type thinking is a major problem. Mass creation can only be addressed directly, not through changes to notability guidelines. It merits a trip to ANI for WP:NOTHERE. I've thought a good bit about mass creation, and I don't think there's a realistic way to address it except requiring that notability be demonstrated inline rather than "presumed". I don't think automated creation is the real problem. And it'll mean that we don't have microstubs that are useless verbatim reprints of external sources, whether database entries or non-SIGCOV passing mentions. DFlhb (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain it to me like I'm an idiot: why is people writing lots of encyclopaedia articles a problem that we need to address at all? I thought that was kind of the point of this place? – Joe (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Writing lots of articles isn't a problem; writing lots of low quality articles is. I have been considering proposing expanding WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 to all topics; it would effectively prevent mass creation, as the work required to identify at least one source makes it non-viable, and creates a (very low, but extant) minimum quality requirement. BilledMammal (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the kind of stub discouraged in the proposed guideline (Village X is in County Y, Province Z of Country A, at coordinates C, with a population of P.) is low quality? Why? – Joe (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it replicates database-style content, like taxon sub-stubs. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And because it is likely erroneous. We saw that with the US "village" articles based solely on GNIS. We saw that in the Iranian "village" case. We saw that with Dr Blofeld's Indian "villages". We saw that with Lugnuts Turkish "villages". These database sources just aren't made for the purpose that some editors on Wikipedia think they are made for. FOARP (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reason to designate those sources as unreliable or at least unsuitable for certain purposes. I don't see how it's a reason to rule out that whole type of article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward-Woodrow: WP:NOTDATABASE is a shortcut to our policy Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which in brief states that data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. I can't see how stubs like this contradict that policy? If anything, a stub is rather the opposite of an "indiscriminate collection of information". – Joe (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Government censuses are not independent secondary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Independent secondary sources are only a requirement of GNG. Verification is the requirement of NGEO, and government censuses do verify the existence of a populated place (yes, with spot exceptions based on the country). SportingFlyer T·C 09:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP: "Likely"? Really? Do you have any data to back that up? AFAIK the errors made by the editors you cite were a small fraction of even their own output, never mind the hundreds of thousands of similar articles created by editors who have never made any waves. – Joe (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The errors in GNIS and GEONet Names Server are par for the course - and discussed at length in the links in the background section. FOARP (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and those two databases are specifically excluded by WP:GEOLAND (but not your proposed new version). – Joe (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are already addressed at WP:RSP; while it's probably a good idea to keep the restriction in NGEO as editors creating articles based on it sometimes forget that other policies exist and apply, removing it won't permit editors to create articles based on them. BilledMammal (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is absent of context. What other villages exist in County Y, Province Z? How are they distributed spatially? Is P around the average population of this set, or an outlier? If I have to navigate to a different article to understand basic questions like these, I'd feel comfortable characterising such a stub as low quality. How is it high quality? Folly Mox (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing notability, not quality, and one of the important reasons why you might have a stand-alone article for town X in county Y in province Z even though there's nothing else written in the article is because you may be able to link it to other articles in other Wikipedias where you may be able to find more information. I just looked up a place in a foreign language Wikipedia that doesn't have an English language article - there should be nothing wrong with a little stub in English on that particular place. SportingFlyer T·C 08:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our notability guidelines shouldn't be encouraging the creation of low quality articles; they particularly shouldn't be encouraging the creation of articles that are so low quality that they violate policies like WP:NOT and WP:OR.
Our purpose isn't to be a directory to foreign language articles. BilledMammal (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What in that policy actually rules out being a directory of foreign-language articles? It says that Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed; the set of things that have Wikipedia articles in other languages is obviously more restricted than that. None of the specific no-no's (genealogy for the sake of genealogy, product pricing, etc.) either apply directly or are analogous enough to be applicable. I know that Wikipedias in different languages have different inclusion standards, and just because the Ruritanian WP includes an article doesn't mean we have to have an exact counterpart, but geographic locations are a case where parallel pages do make a considerable amount of sense. At the very least, WP:NOTDIRECTORY isn't a knock-down argument against it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. If the only justification for an article like this to exist is to link to external resources, then its existence violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as it is nothing more than a simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. BilledMammal (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With NGEO though we've decided through long standing editing practices that the entire set of populated places is notable. The NOTDIRECTORY part you quote links to LISTCRIT which says selection criteria should be unambiguous and supported by reliable sources. While this isn't a list, Giddawa qualifies for both of those things. Unlike a cricketer of questionable notability, it's easily verifiable, and we're not improving the encyclopaedia by deleting it. SportingFlyer T·C 09:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand the point I'm making; I'm merely saying that links to foreign language articles isn't a justification to keep articles like the one I linked, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, not that there aren't other reasons to keep it. BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, I've seen you around, you're no idiot. Anyway: my motivation is that obscure articles lack scrutiny, so the risk of inaccuracies is too high. Contributions aren't vetted, a-la Britannica. Given our natural lack of formal review, and our dearth of contributors, I think maintainability is a prime concern. We're the 7th most visited website, and false info entails real-world harm, including citogenesis, which makes inaccuracies very hard to fix.
According to WP:STUB, stubs should be "capable of expansion". I'm not trying to make an appeal-to-authority ("appeal-to-guideline"?), but it raises interesting questions: when people mass-create articles, do they take into account expansion potential? If not, are non-expandable stubs desirable? And given that non-notable articles need to be deleted eventually, can't we avoid their creation in the first place, saving the time of both the creator and the AfD-nominator?
Months ago BilledMammal showed that stubs are rarely improved by anyone other than their creator. So our long-held assumption, that stubs are a way to incubate articles until someone improves them, and that "stubiness" is temporary, is no longer true for many stubs. Wikipedia's changed, and the low-hanging fruits are gone; why shouldn't our practices adapt? DFlhb (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. I asked you to treat me like an idiot because reading statements like yours (you're far from the only one), I genuinely feel like I am missing some fundamental piece of the puzzle. It simply does not make sense to me that creating stubs can be a problem in and of itself, and yet many people seem to state this as if it is self-evident. Rather than assuming that you're stupid (or I am), I assume there's a more basic misalignment of views underlying this disagreement.
Reading your response, it definitely seems like a big factor here is whether or not you feel like Wikipedia is in a consolidation phase, struggles with maintainability, and/or cannot tolerate more 'potential articles'. I've been around here a while, created a few dozen articles, and have a list of ones I'd like to create long enough that I'll never realistically finish it, so I'm a bit more optimistic on that score. Unfortunately it does sound more like a difference of perspective than something we'll come to an agreement on. – Joe (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right; it's a difference in views/approach, not something that can be easily worked out. And maybe I'm wrong on all this; still trying to read around, and open to changing my mind. DFlhb (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's way more low-hanging fruit than you think. (My current drafts and protodrafts include a Pulitzer winner, multiple recent popular works of media, and a major active political figure in an enwiki market -- and that's just what's redlinked, not what's in bad shape.) The trouble we have is not that we're in a maintenance phase -- quite the opposite -- but that we don't have the manpower for the expansion we need. The myth of the maintenance phase makes this worse, because people who've been exposed to it in the first place are people who are already part of the project so should be expanding articles. This is one reason I keep banging the drum of no seriously Wikipedia is not paper, in that how something is covered can change on a regular basis and that's a sign of the project functioning well. Increasing notability thresholds specifically is the worst of all worlds, because it decreases rather than increases the opportunity for editorial judgement on how to cover things that may or may not have article potential. Vaticidalprophet 21:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: I also find the idea of rate-limiting article creation to be unfortunate: it runs counter to what the readership imagines to be the ethos of Wikipedia. But I can also see how mass creation of stubs, if not well-planned, can have the same effects as mass vandalism, namely, a loss of trust on the part of the reader and a loss of morale among editors. On some other wikis, Lsjbot is the logical conclusion to this form of vandalism.

What I struggle with when evaluating this proposal is that we're treating the subject's notability as a proxy for the article's quality as a proxy for the editor's behavior. How am I supposed to explain to a prospective Wikipedian that they should not write a stub about a real place until they've called around about offline sources to prove that an article "can be developed using known sources", and that this hurdle exists because some people once misused databases to run rampant over the site? This is why we can't have nice things?

To me, the turmoil over databases like GNIS (the U.S. federal government's official gazetteer) actually shows that an individual basic error can persist for a long time in a prominent, somewhat mission-critical reference work without causing the sky to fall. We want Wikipedia to be better than that, but not at the cost of cutting off the motivation for people to transform themselves from readers to editors.

My other big hobby is contributing to OpenStreetMap, which has somehow managed to institute an automated edits code of conduct that requires getting buy-in from the community. This policy is the lodestar of mappers who identify as "craft mappers" and view automated edits with varying levels of suspicion, while the people who fill in the map at scale often chafe at the red tape. The policy is as robust as Swiss cheese, but it does send a message to people in a hurry that community health comes first.

Nowhere in this calculus is the idea that a contributor cannot micromap some kind of map feature in detail just because someone once botched a bulk import of it (which does happen, to be sure). Contributor behavior doesn't fundamentally change the nature of the real world that we document. A wiki map is very different than a wiki encyclopedia, but regardless a wiki is truly defined by what it can be, more than what it cannot be.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 00:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I moved a couple comments here up to the survey section, as they appeared to be intended as votes rather than comments. If I am mistaken, please feel free to move them back.) – Minh Nguyễn 💬 17:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that you can write a fleshier stub on most legally recognized populated places. Even if it's map observation. The problem is the sub stubs where all there is is "xxx is a village" and you do a google search and no population data for it, nothing but databases. In those cases, I absolutely support the proposal to encourage merger into tabled lists. What about an Option 3. Legally-recognized populated places are generally considered to be notable, but the creation of short stubs where there is nothing but a database mentioning location online is strongly discouraged. The minimum requirement expected is a population figure and basic location details as a precondition for a stub (like Aung Myay), where the stub can be fleshed out to resemble an encyclopedia article instead of an xxx is a village type database substub. In cases where there is no population data and it resembles a database, consider merging into a tabled list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tale of two countries

Reading the votes so far, I observe that there's a commonly held fear that the proposed changes would insert extra scrutiny of cited sources into the process of assessing notability. Whereas currently, there is of course an expectation of reliable sources, but that's orthogonal to the subject's inherent notability to the extent that we can ascertain it. I'm also surprised that relatively few concrete examples have been explicitly named.

On the bright side, the United States will probably be OK, though many civil townships, census-designated places, and unincorporated places will need to be expanded, probably using information from (non-census) databases, to rescue them from deletion. Since the guideline will no longer explicitly discourage GNIS, it will be quite handy for this purpose. I bet most who like to conjure up the GNIS boogeyman don't know that the database very often includes historical details cited to reliable sources, if you can resolve the source codes. For example, our entry on Rudd, Iowa, omits the most interesting thing about it, the story of how it got its name. [45] Meanwhile, our encyclopedia is completely oblivious to Howard, Idaho [46], and Green Castle, Johnson County, Iowa. [47] But under the existing guideline, these places would have a decent shot at GNG anyways; the sources listed in GNIS are just the tip of the iceberg.

Not every country is so lucky. Turning to the other country that I write about, Vietnam, I certainly wonder if readily available online sources will be adequate for a place like Tân Hà commune (equivalent in stature to a township in the U.S. or a parish in England). The article already has a good start; it just needs a Vietnamese Wikipedian to translate to English. One need not worry that GeoNames has hallucinated this place. Otherwise, how would the infobox include a photo of the Tân Hà Commune People's Committee headquarters (equivalent to a town hall)? But it contains very little text "beyond statistics, region, and coordinates" and relies almost entirely on a government gazetteer and official website. The one addition is its administrative history, citing the relevant government edict (a primary source). Digging around online for a hot second, all I could find are content mills punctuated by the occasional news article that, if included, would surely provoke howls of WP:RECENT and WP:TOPIC and WP:COATRACK regarding this 40-year-old commune. [48]

Since this is a region that has been settled for millennia, there's likely a wealth of information about this commune's administrative predecessors and the local human geography in general. Much of it will be offline, perhaps in rare books collections in Vietnam, France, and the Vatican. Some of it will be written in chữ Nôm and thus difficult to search for. All of this information can be added in due time. Unfortunately, it will be even more difficult to find sources that technically pass muster as independent secondary sources. This is a country that, by law, lacks an independent press or publishing industry, so the kinds of sources we often take for granted may not exist, through no fault of the community in question. Honestly, under a strict reading of our guidelines, the best chance this place has is that a tourist from the West decided to write about it (most likely misspelling its name).

Other than the photo, this is quite typical of a Vietnamese commune article, at least to start out with. The Vietnamese Wikipedia originally banned articles on communes and everything below them, in order to encourage editors to write about districts and provinces first. But in 2007, the community decided that the ban was counterproductive and voted to allow communes under a guideline very similar to the existing one here. I'd imagine that Vietnam is not nearly the only country that would experience difficulty meeting the standard proposed here, even as the particulars may differ. I'm not entirely sure how I'll vote. Either way, I think the guideline will still be an unfinished one, subject to the usual inconsistent interpretations.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 00:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If y'all could decide soon, I getting ready to start on 1.6 million new permastubs on villages in China and India which qualify under the current N:Geo that don't have an article yet. After that I'll move on to the electoral discticts. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we need to agree on a rate limit on permastub creation by @North8000. ;^) Minh Nguyễn 💬 17:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And spoil my fun? :-) At two per minute going 24/7 it will still take 1 1/2 years to make them but they would live forever because it would millions of person-hours at AFD to get rid of them. :-) North8000 (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but we could set up a bot to delete any articles created by you. Sure, there might be some collateral damage (like this B-class article with ~300 pageviews this month) but it be worth it. Probably. Edward-Woodrowtalk 21:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast - I picked 12 at random and was able to expand all of them to Start Class by adding postal code, area code, distance to the nearest airport and a brief history of the province in which they're located! –dlthewave 22:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's anyone notable from the village, one can just copy I mean, "summarize" their article, probably doubling the length! You're right, there is potential for growth. We could also transliterate the village name into various languages. Edward-Woodrowtalk 22:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My dog chewed that patch up after I took the picture for Wiki, so Wiki got me to create my only memory. I was also riding high when SS Edmund Fitzgerald was the article of the day but a making zillion permastubs is is appealing enough to make me give up collecting string. :-) North8000 (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, at least WP:N8KSTUBS will give China and India something to agree on. Levivich (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Notifications

Proposal: extend ACPERM to IP editors overwriting redirects

Over at ANI there's a discussion about a long term vandal who has been using sockpuppets to hijack redirects by moving them to a new title, then logging out and overwriting the redirect with an unrelated new article, and then resetting the pagemove redirect at the former title to hide the move. This has the effect of evading new pages patrol, and removing attribution from the original redirect's creator which makes this an issue for content licensing. It also requires a lot of steps toi properly unwind, and the vandal did this to about 50 pages just yesterday.

I'm pretty sure that an edit filter can be made to detect when a logged-out editor removes the redirect code from a page, and since this behaviour goes against WP:ACPERM, I'm proposing that we implement such a filter to disallow those edits. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding economic base analysis to articles on U.S. metropolitan areas

Our articles on administrative subdivisions of the United States, and particularly on cities and metropolitan areas, lack useful descriptions of their economic structure. With a few exceptions, they offer little information on regional economies beyond anecdotal mentions of companies headquartered there. I would like to write brief sketches of the economic structures of the largest U.S. metropolitan areas (starting with the largest by population and working down the list in order of population size as my time permits). To do so, I would use publicly available data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis to perform the arithmetic calculations described in our article on economic base analysis. I would not draw any conclusions beyond those directly indicated by the data (for example, that the manufacturing sector of a given metropolitan area is larger than the U.S. average). I checked the detailed description of the policy of No Original Research because I was concerned that others might object to this information on those grounds. But the policy seems to allow arithmetic calculations using clearly sourced data. I want to see if others agree that this would be an acceptable way to strengthen our coverage of regional economies. So my proposal is to provide simple economic base analyses of U.S. metropolitan areas. Forgive me if my presentation departs from the norms here. I've been an infrequent editor for years and am not familiar with these norms. I appreciate your contribution to the consensus on my proposal. Marco polo (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simple calculations are fine, but I'd be careful with things like statistical analysis. The best approach would be to find sources that have already done this analysis and then summarize them. There should be plenty of journal articles or books that cover the economies of major American cities. And if there's certain information you can't find, that probably means it's not important enough to be included. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thought was that it might be helpful to have a uniform set of information for each metropolitan area to facilitate comparisons among them, but maybe that sort of thing isn't wanted in Wikipedia. Marco polo (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the problem described at WP:VPT#Strange linkages, piping through miscapitalized redirects. If clicking the link button would more prominently show a link through the selected text, editors would be less likely to select an inferior piping through a poor redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not something that can be fixed by anyone on this page, it needs a software change. Per the instructions at Wikipedia:Visual Editor problems should be reported on Phabricator. Thryduulf (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intertranswiki reference bot

I was wondering if it would be possible when transwikiing articles from other Wikipedias that a bot could be programmed to convert the sources which use citation templates into English. If the sources could be copied directly from other wikis in their language, and a bot picks up on the foreign reference text and is able to reformat it in English this would save an enormous amount of time in drawing up sources. Obviously it is the duty of all editors translating content to check the sources and verify it, but this is one of the issues which puts off editors such as myself and others who transwiki content but don't do as much work as they want to because it is so time consuming having to draw up the sources from scratch in English. If we could have something to swiftly facilitate the transwikiing of good, sourced content this would be a great help. I think something which is able to put Spanish, German, French, Italian sources, and perhaps Portuguese and Dutch into English would be a good start. The bot would need to be coded to recognize the basic parameters of the citation templates on other wikis and what parameter corresponds to what in English. Obviously it wouldn't work for sources which don't use citation templates though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBOT will substitute cites in other languages, see this edit for instance. You still need to check the output, as with any bot, as not all fields are used the same way across different language wikis but it does most of the work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 18:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note AnomieBOT doesn't do anything very special there, people have created ((Lien web)) that substs to a proper invocation of ((cite web)) and flagged it for bot auto-substing. Only a few languages seem to have these templates at the moment, but I'd think the people over at WT:CS1 would help in creating more if there's a need. Anomie 20:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying indef-blocked editors of deletion discussions

I realize that this is built into the automated nominations process, but it seems distasteful to me when I see a notice pop up on an indef-blocked editor's user talk page that an article or category they created has been nominated for deletion. Can this practice be changed? BD2412 T 03:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's useful to me if I follow the person's userpage, since it lets me go and check if the nomination is vindictive BS (which a fair amount of the time it is). SilverserenC 03:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]