These are the suggested solutions to the issue of article creations at scale that I was able to distill from this workshop. Note that I’ve intentionally combined/shortened/simplified as much as possible, so please point out if I've:

1. Combined proposed questions that need to be separate
2. Left out an important consideration or rationale
3. Missed something altogether

I've created sections below these for endorsement/nonendorsement and any comments or suggestions. Valereee (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Clarify SNG policy

Develop a bot to produce a report listing new creations that is sortable/filterable by editor, category, time range.

3. Creator-at-scale permission

Create a userright to allow creation at scale. Users without this permission would be prevented from creating more than 25 articles/day or 50/week or 100/month or 500/year. Create a dedicated forum to request this right and where requesting and granting this right can be discussed.

4. Require consideration of alternatives to creation

Clarify at WP:N to make explicit whether each specific SNG directly confers notability independent of GNG and to eliminate contradictions.

7. Require a GNG-quality source

Require all articles created under SNGs (other than those which confer notability) to have at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG: that is, that constitutes significant coverage in an independent reliable source.

8. Mass creations noticeboard

Create a dedicated noticeboard to allow for consensus for, notifications of, reports of, and discussions of mass creations and the sources used for such creations. (Details to be developed there.)

Please endorse/not endorse for inclusion in the RfC or make suggestions for each question within the sections below.

Question 1: Clarify SNG policy

Question 2: New creations report

Question 3: Creator-at-scale permission

• Maybe I'm misreading the data above but it looks like <50 editors are making >500/yr, in which case I wonder if an actual userright is necessary, as opposed to just having a list of authorized editors somewhere. A "pseudo-userright" like AWB would probably be easier to implement. Otherwise the thresholds and wording, etc., look good. Levivich^😃 16:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Levivich, it would limit all -- more than 25 a day, and more than 50 a week, and more than 100 in a month, in addition to 500 in year. All four levels of creation would be captured. It was to make sure of capturing someone who, for instance in the case of the 500, sat down every weekend and created 24 articles over a period of 40 hours, but also those who created 100 in a week then didn't edit for six. Valereee (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe it needs a clarification? Valereee (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  would be prevented means by technical limitation, i.e. a software rate limit, as opposed to "would not be allowed to"? That might be good to clarify, like would be prevented by the software. I'm not sure exactly what the thing that would do the prevention is called (edit filter?). Levivich^😃 17:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

So we're confident a software rate limit that ignores the creation of redirects is doable? Just checking. Valereee (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe? I think this is something we would need to ask the WMF for. BilledMammal (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe also split this one into two: (1) what specific rate limits for a rate limit policy, if any (I still like the proposed thresholds of 25d/50w/100m/500y), and (2) whether/how to enforce that, e.g. a software rate limit, a userright to exceed it, or both. Levivich^😃 16:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. I presume the numbers are flexible, but this is the narrowest way forward to address the problem of mass creation. --Enos733 (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• I don't believe this is suitable, or would find consensus - it would have too much of an impact on genuinely highly productive editors, and it wouldn't end up constraining mass creation as once granted an editor would be free to make as many articles as they like. In particular, I imagine Lugnuts would have ended up with the right, and considering how long it took to revert his autopatrolled right I don't think it would have been revoked quickly.

Instead, we need a policy that constrains actual mass creation; something that says if you want to create more than 10 highly similar articles, you need approval for that group. BilledMammal (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The question here is whether the question goes to an RFC. I think that the proposal here is close to your alternative - allowing a highly productive article creator to get an advanced user right (approved by a group) to create more than (10/25/X) articles in a specific period - Enos733 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm suggesting a slightly different one go to RfC. My objection is that this will require productive but otherwise unproblematic editors to go through the process, while also not constraining problematic ones. The ideal here would be to maintain something similar to WP:MASSCREATE; require each "group" of mass created articles to receive consensus, rather than editors with this permission having carte blanche to create whatever they like. BilledMammal (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal, you see asking for a userright one time -- a userright which like any other can be removed if it's abused, which means it's not really 'carte blanche' -- as more onerous than asking for consensus for every planned mass creation? Valereee (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It will be more onerous for prolific editors who don't engage in mass creation, and that I something I want to avoid. In addition, I don't think we want to approve mass creation by editor, I think we want to approve it by mass creation; while we might approve an editor mass creating articles on topic A, that doesn't mean we would approve the same editor mass creating articles on topic B.

In addition, I'm not convinced that we'll remove the user right in a timely manner if it is abused; my earlier example of Lugnut's abusing autopatrolled for years demonstrates that. BilledMammal (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• This may have in some part come from my proposed solution #10 above. On thinking about a technical intervention more, I'm thinking that it would be hard to find a number that is (a) high enough that it wouldn't snare too many people who aren't working on "mass creation" but just creating a lot of unrelated articles, while also (b) low enough that it addresses the concerns expressed in recent conversations about mass creation. I'm increasingly of the mind that we shouldn't even include in this RfC the creation of lots of completely unrelated articles and focus on creation of articles on a theme/topic/boilerplate/based on the same sourcing. If that's the case, the number of users the community would trust to do that without asking permission first would be very small, I suspect, and could just be documented as being exempt from whatever process we create. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• I feel the numbers here set the bar for mass-creation far too high. 1 a day is mass creation imo.—S Marshall T/C 22:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• This is the part of these proposals that I think is the most appropriately focused on mass creations, so I support some mechanism like this to watch over and if necessary limit them. It doesn't have to be this specific mechanism. The choice of threshold is obviously an issue, but I think it's appropriate to set it at a level where sustained but hand-crafted creation of articles does not run into artificial limits, but where any kind of mechanical or boilerplate reproduction of article content does. For reference, I believe my own article creation to be "sustained but hand-crafted", with typical numbers of 1–3 new articles per day, usually targeted as being start-class. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think any attempt to meter article creation this way is a problem. It is not the number of articles a user creates per se that is the problem, it is the large number of poorly-sourced stubs (generally produced from a database) that a few editors have created that is the problem. I think requiring that new articles meet minimum standards of sourcing will go a long way in dealing with the problem without having to create rules about how many articles an editor can create in some time period. - Donald Albury 23:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Number of creations isn't a problem, it's the content that matters. Redirects would also need to be excluded, especially if you go any lower than the figures above, yet that would allow the mass creation of redirects which is sometimes problematic. In other words it would create problems that don't currently exist without solving ones that do. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse a limit – NPP is swimming in a 10k+ backlog right now. Back in June we were close to a 16k backlog. But worse, if these mass creations are autopatrolled, then they go straight to main space and get indexed w/o being reviewed. If they are not autopatrolled, then it's a root canal to get the non-notable/promo/unsourced stubs removed. Our CSD language is far too exacting. For example, a 2 sentence stub announcing a brand new stadium that was built in a little city in South America - new stadium with nothing notable beyond new stadium exists and the Mayor is excited about it, yada yada – the locals want the world to know they have a new stadium so they create a stub in WP. NPP reviews the stub, checks the sources, and can see that the stub is promotion because the sources are promoting the new stadium. We tag it G11, an admin comes along and rejects the G11 because admins don't check the sources, and for them, it has to be "blatant promotion" they can actually see in the stub. So now NPP has to take it to AfD and there goes another 7 days down the tubes, and then along comes another admin and decides to relist it. I suggested (tongue in cheek) at WT:V that when an admin rejects a CSD or PROD by NPP, that admin should be responsible for fixing the stub or article. It's easy to reject, but trying to make a stub/article worthy of inclusion when it is not is a time sink. Maybe we should consider unbundling that part of the bit and allow experienced NPP reviewers that right so they can do their job quickly and efficiently? The threat of bots and human bot-like creations is a real problem for NPP that needs to be controlled, or maybe we need a bot to automatically reject creations that don't meet certain criteria - or better yet, prevent publish if certain criteria is not met - like if you forget to add an edit summary you cannot publish changes. Otherwise, everyday is like Ground Hog Day at NPP, and we suffer a lot of burnout. Atsme 💬 📧 01:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• This is a compound question, which is a bad idea for an RFC. It's fine to ask "Should we have some sort of permissions system, like a user right, that allows people to get pre-approval before manually creating an unusually high number of articles?" It's also fine to ask "If we decide to have a pre-approval system for non-bot high-volume article creation, then are these proposed levels – n per day, p per week, q per month, and r per year – about right, too restrictive, or too permissive?" You don't want people saying "I oppose the whole idea because it's a great idea except the suggested numbers are wrong" (and that will happen, even if you tell people not to do it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Agree with points by Donald and WAID. But also agree that a question on restricting the ability to create many short, undersourced articles needs to be in the RfC in some form. In the comments I asked if it would be technically feasible to track the stub-status of articles created by a particular editor, and mandate that they can have no more than X number created after Y date that are both a) <Z bytes excluding infoboxes etc./stub-class, and b) do not contain a SIRS with significant prose coverage that could contribute to GNG. If they exceed that number, they have to go back and expand/source a stub before they can create another such article. And if the "at least one GNG source" thing passes, we could raise the coverage bar to "demonstrably meets GNG". JoelleJay (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Assuming stub status always reliably correlates with article size (it doesn't) it seems likely that it would be possible for a bot to track the number of articles created in a given time period that are smaller than Z bytes, excluding infoboxes. ("etc." would obviously need refinement), and also the number of sources in an article (assuming all sources use a CS1/CS2 template). do not contain a SIRS with significant prose coverage that could contribute to GNG. would be completely impossible to do automatically as there is no way for a bot to know whether a sources is independent, reliable, or how much relevant prose it contains. Even humans who frequently address the question regularly disagree completely about whether a given source "demonstrably meets the GNG" or not, so this is not something even an AI could reliably do. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I mostly wasn't considering automating the GNG source determination, just the article size restriction. However, we can exclude certain types of database sources outright as non-GNG-contributing (e.g. soccerbase, used in ~19k articles), which could be detected by filters. We require a GNG-quality source for NSPORT presumptions to apply at AfD, so editors are already watching out for that sort of thing when looking over athlete stubs; and if the generalized requirement gets passed the larger community would be making that determination regularly too. But the main thing would be to quantify "stub backlogs", with the editors who have reached the threshold then given a notice on their TP, and all subsequent stub-level articles they create would have to pass NPP (even if they're autopatrolled). If they continue making such articles that are flagged by NPP/other editors as lacking GNG sources, that would trigger escalating warnings and admin action. JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  @JoelleJay, w/re: a noticeboard -- perhaps that would include discussions of whether a paticular database can ever be considered to provide significant coverage? WhatamIdoing has given an example (The database problem, collapsed below but feel free to unhat if you'd like to discuss there) of a database entry they argue does provide sigcov. Valereee (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  The "database problem" wouldn't be an issue for the vast majority of cases in sports, where the sources are obviously unusable for GNG, like soccerway or transfermarket. We can also avoid it entirely by clarifying sources must have significant prose coverage that does not just regurgitate stats. A noticeboard would definitely be useful though. JoelleJay (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  WAID's point includes that some databases (and other sources -- Burke's Peerage, for example) shorthand things that once written out in prose do rise to the level of sigcov. Valereee (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  "Shorthand" still isn't significant prose coverage. It doesn't matter if editors can proseify data; literally every database with any collection of facts could be proseified to produce several sentences. But A) such databases should definitely be treated as primary as they do not contain independent secondary analysis; B) reproducing the contents of a database in prose form doesn't transform the content into NOTDIRECTORY; C) a considerable amount of OR, non-NPOV, and potentially CV goes into proseifying data: if we're expanding each fact in a directory entry, we run the risk of plagiarism (see all the "X Greatest Ys" lists that are truncated in our articles because reproducing them would violate copyright); and if we are expanding only a selection of a comprehensive collection of facts, how do we choose which ones are important enough to be in an encyclopedia? We have no independent validation that any particular item is DUE, because the data has not been discussed by someone independent of it. A database containing all international competition results for an athlete will make no distinction in importance between the Olympics and a match between Liechtenstein and any other team (which will necessarily have to be "international"). A second database containing all the athlete's domestic results suffers the same problem. So if it's impossible to write a NPOV, non-directory article solely from two different examples of the same broad class of source, we cannot consider any member of that class to be GNG-compliant. JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse in principle, especially a non-technical solution, but noting the concerns by Donald Albury, WhatamIdoing et al. I believe that 25 articles/day is too high a bar. Unfortunately BM's data is a bit coarse grained at the moment, but observing [1], assuming each editor edits only five days a week (perhaps that's generous), we'd have 15 to 20 editors in the "mass creation" zone. Haven't had the time to look at their articles. Ovinus (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think one is more what you are looking for; 58 distinct editors created more than 25 articles in a single day in the past year, with this happening 163 times between them. I would note that this includes editors creating disambiguation pages and similar, but I would still agree that 25 is too high of a bar, while some of the other numbers are both too high of a bar and too low of a bar; the issue isn't editors creating large numbers of articles, the issue is editors mass creating articles, as the latter tend to be of low quality and require significant work from other editors, while the former do not. BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Agree with WhatamIdoing that this is a compound question. We first need to establish what constitutes mass creation/creation"at scale" and how it will be measured before it is possible to decide whether a permission system will be reasonable practicable, and enforceable, or just creeping bureaucracy with no practical value. A test run might help answer those questions. Another question is how one would qualify, and what would the process be for revoking the permission. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse. The question itself is a good one. Presumably the numbers can be debated in the RfC. Scolaire (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse in principle, but I would prefer to emphasize quality over quantity if possible. The primary issues at play are rapid creation of poorly sourced stubs (not rapid creation of well-sourced articles on notable topics) and/or large numbers of creations by newer users that don't clearly pass GNG and flood NPP. If this were to be a pseudoright, perhaps an assignment somewhat similar to autopatrolled could work, with exact numbers and guidelines (also for rate limits) to be determined at the RfC. ^Complex/_Rational 20:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that the problem is "poorly sourced stubs". The locus of the problem might be "very short stubs". Some editors think that very short pages are embarrassing no matter how many sources are listed, and it doesn't much matter to them if the sources are stellar. In fact, in many cases they actually won't know what the source's quality is, unless they happen to be familiar with the subject area. In medical subjects, it's not especially unusual to see stub that contains two basic sentences plus six or eight journal articles.

  @ComplexRational, you've made me wonder if we need a straw poll (more of a gauge-the-mood question than a make-a-rule discussion) that says something like "Agree or disagree: It would be better for Wikipedia to have long articles on fewer subjects than to have short articles on more subjects." I've seen several discussions in the last month suggesting that editors might support this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Question 4: Require consideration of alternatives to creation

Question 5: Clarify WP:BEFORE

Question 6: Clarify SNG policy

Question 7: Require a GNG-quality source

Please limit yourself to a single brief comment. If you must argue a point with another editor, please just take it to their talk; if they convince you to change your mind, come back and revise your single brief comment. Remember that we aren't !voting on these questions, simply trying to refine them and gain consensus on including them in the RfC.

Proposed wording 1: Require all articles created under SNGs (other than those which confer notability) to have at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG: that is, that constitutes significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source.

Proposed wording 2: Require all articles (except those not required to meet GNG) to have at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG: that is, that constitutes significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source.

Proposed wording 3: Require all WP:MASSCREATEd articles to have at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG: that is, that constitutes significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source.

Please in your response indicate whether you'd endorse one, two, or all three for inclusion in the RfC, not whether you'd personally support or oppose. Here we're just trying to refine and gain consensus on wording to include in the RfC. Valereee (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of Q7

• Splitting this from Q1, revising for comments. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse as written but I think it would benefit from two changes: (1) "Require all articles created under SNGs (other than those which confer notability)..." -> Require all articles (except those not required to meet GNG)..., and (2) "...significant coverage in a reliable source" -> ...significant coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject or significant coverage in an independent reliable source. I would also endorse this if it said "Require all WP:MASSCREATEd articles...". Levivich^😃 16:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Levivich, are we inadver then placing into policy that all articles need only a single GNG source? I try for three before I move to article space, and that's what I look for at AfC. Valereee (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think at least clarifies that? Right now, we don't require any GNG sources; I'd say this intentionally places into policy "at least one". Further clarifications might be Require all newly-created articles (or mass created). Levivich^😃 17:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Trying to avoid "mass-created" because of the definition problem. :D I'm hoping it'll be less muddy at the AfD RfC. Valereee (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  True, 'at least' does do that. Hm...maybe offer a couple wordings, ask for feedback? Jeez. This workshop. WTaF possessed me? Valereee (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  The leading theory is that you and Xeno went out drinking one night and one of you stole the other's phone and emailed arbcom signing up for this, and the other did the same as retaliation. Maybe the easiest thing to do is delete this whole section since no one else has commented here yet, and offer a Q7a/Q7b/Q7c/whatever, and see which version gets the most endorsement? Levivich^😃 17:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  oops too late lol...go on about the WP:MASSCREATEd version, though. I thought that was just about bots, am I misreading? Valereee (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  (I don't want to directly clerk this page, but maybe move my !vote and all the replies down to Discussion? I can !vote again later on the two proposed wordings.) WP:MASSCREATE says "automated or semi-automated", so I don't think it's limited to bots. Also, it's part of WP:BOTPOL, which also includes WP:MEATBOT; the policy is (IMO) consistent in saying there is no difference between a bot edit and a bot-like human edit. Anyway, if we say "Require WP:MASSCREATEd articles...", that punts the definition of "mass created" to WP:MASSCREATE, and the community can adjust it there (now or in the future). For those editors who are concerned that this question isn't sufficiently focused on mass-creation, it's one possible way to more narrowly focus it. Levivich^😃 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is the discussion for this question. The discussion below (now titled "General discussion (please discuss specific proposed questions above in their own sections)" was added at some point for general discussion by someone else, I think. By the time I saw it there were multiple responses, so I didn't remove. I'll add the masscreate wording as a third. Valereee (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think one source is insufficient and would strongly recommend two (in particular, I would strenuously object if the RFC moves forward without a two-source requirement as an option.) Two sources is necessary for the WP:GNG, which specifies "multiple", and from a common-sense perspective is necessary to write neutral articles, since any article with only a single source is by definition placing undue weight on it. --Aquillion (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  The problem again becomes one of complexity. If we end up proposing two or three different wordings, and then have to figure out how to offer 'require 2' as an second option for each, are we getting into the RfC becoming a train wreck? Valereee (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse 2 & 3 - I think 1 and 2 are saying the same thing but 2 says it better, so we should present 2 and 3 as options in the RfC. Levivich^😃 22:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Dislike all - as they are not really connected to mass-creation or I don't see a way to automate review of sourcing to prevent the mass creation of articles (that is all mass created articles will go to mainspace where there will be a process for deletion). If any of these are going to an RFC, my preference is #3. --Enos733 (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Effectively, what we want to do is say that all articles must have at least one (or two) sources that plausibly contribute to GNG from creation. The issue with the current wording here is that it isn't clear whether we are requiring one source from creation or in general - and given that editors abuse WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 to argue that one source is sufficient to grant notability, this lack of clarity will cause issues.
  In general, #2 is the closest to what we want, as I agree that we should avoid using the ambiguous term "mass creation", and there is no reason to permit articles covered by the GNG to not have at least one source from creation. However, to address my earlier concerns I would suggest All articles (except those not required to meet GNG) must be include at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG: that is, that constitutes significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Articles must not be created in or moved to article space without meeting this requirement, but meeting it is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. BilledMammal (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed with BilledMammal, but would also add the requirement that the source be secondary. JoelleJay (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Adding that; if anyone objects, speak up! Valereee (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• All of these are basically pointless, as there is no agreement about what constitutes WP:SIGCOV. These amount to "Prevent disputes by requiring articles to meet a highly disputed, subjective, variable criterion". It doesn't matter whether any of them are debated or adopted, because none of them will solve the actual, practical problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  There is some agreement; some sources are uncontroversially considered to not be WP:SIGCOV, while others are uncontroversially considered to be WP:SIGCOV. In between the two there is some controversy, but that's why the words plausibly contribute to GNG are used; for this area of controversy, that is where we need things like AfD, rather than an uncontroversial move to draft space.

  This also means that this wouldn't be pointless, as almost all mass created articles are created with sources that are uncontroversially not significant coverage. For example, Lugnuts used this article as the sole source for Enrique Hernández (weightlifter); no one would consider that to be significant coverage, and this rule would have prevented that article from being created unless Lugnuts spent the time to find a proper source. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Here's what I could write from that archived source alone:

  Enrique Hernandez (b. 13 July 1945) is a male weightlifter. When he was 23 years old, he competed in the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, where he represented Puerto Rico. A small man, he stood 157 cm high and weighed 60 kg at the time.

  In the 1968 Summer Olympics, he competed in three events: military press, snatch, and clean and jerk. His overall standing at the end of the games was 13th place. He ranked 8th for the military press, lifting 115 or 120 kg on each of three tries. He ranked 13th for snatch, lifting between 95 and 102.5 kg each time. He ranked 16th on clean and jerk, managing 122.5 to 135 kg each time.

  Hernandez was born in Santurce, Puerto Rico.

  That's nine sentences, so still a stub, but it's not a bad stub (except, of course, for any errors I might have made because I don't know what any of these events are). I'd say that a source that can be turned into a substantial stub is a source that provides significant coverage. Wouldn't you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Absolutely not. That interpretation would permit inclusion of literally every middle school athlete on maxpreps. It also runs afoul of NOTDIRECTORY since it's literally indistinguishable in content from an actual directory. JoelleJay (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  The middle school comment sounds like an Appeal to consequences to me. There's no problem with WP:NOTDIRECTORY in what I've written, as it's not any kind of list at all. NOTDIR's components are "simple listings", "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", "cross-categorizations", genealogical entries", TV guides, or business-related lists, and this is little stub falls into none of those categories.

  The point of this sub-thread is that BilledMammal said "no one would consider that [source] to be significant coverage", and I not only disagreed with him, but provided a worked example of exactly why someone might genuinely believe that this source constituted significant coverage.

  The problem isn't whether The Community™ would agree that this is/isn't SIGCOV; the problem is that some editors would genuinely, sincerely, believe that it did. They might, in fact, believe that it was "plausible, adj.: Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; conceivably true or likely", and all we have on the other side is editors claiming that it's inconceivable that any of our >>100K editors would ever hold a different view from them.[2]

  This might be a perfectly fine rule to have, in that magical future when we all agree (more or less) what SIGCOV actually means, why we require it, and how to tell whether a subject has it. Until such a point in time, adopting or not-adopting this rule would simply be a waste of effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  But it is not plausible; an editor who claims that is WP:SIGCOV either has WP:CIR issues, or WP:IDHT issues. The idea of "plausible" isn't that no one can believe it's SIGCOV, it's that no editor with a reasonable understanding of and respect for community norms can believe it is SIGCOV.

  I would also point out that I think they meant WP:NOTDATABASE, not WP:NOTDIR, with the issue being that it is a replica of a database entry. The fact that you have converted the database entry to prose and padded it with superfluous words and a little WP:OR doesn't change that. BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal, I invite you to find my name in the lists of top 10 the editors ever of WP:N and the policy on how to write policies and guidelines and also WP:RFC, and then consider whether you really meant to say that I don't have a reasonable understanding of community norms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  If someone believes such a source can plausibly meet GNG, then they can be disabused of that on their talk page like we do for every other content issue. Our guidelines say that GNG-contributing sources need to be secondary, which non-prose items in a database are not (just like census results or official records or raw research data or tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires); that notability is necessary to prevent "indiscriminate inclusion" of topics, which would exclude entries sourced solely to databases; and that Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases. JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  It turns out that secondary databases are a thing.[3] WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  (Funny that that footnote calls advertisements a reliable source.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's obviously not "secondary" in the sense used on Wikipedia. I use PROSITE all the time; in fact I literally have three tabs open right now. This one is querying UniProtKB for motifs found in a particular protein. No human was involved in publishing that specific page, it's just another result of a database search. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Speaking as the editor who created pages like Wikipedia:Independent does not mean secondary and Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources to clear up some serious misunderstandings about what secondary sources are:

  I don't know whether Wikipedia editors consider a secondary database to be a WikiJargonSecondarySource. Our rules don't necessarily follow any of the multiple and conflicting versions of the real-world definitions.

  I can tell you that we have never had a rule that says a secondary source requires a human being involved in publishing the specific page. (Also, I suspect you mean "creating that specific page" rather than "publishing that specific page".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Of course a "secondary database" isn't secondary in the wikipedia sense. It's only secondary in the sense that it includes more higher-order annotated data like protein motifs and interaction profiles rather than just straight sequences. And regarding a "human rule": A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Do you think "an author's own thinking" includes, like, the raw output of protein docking software? JoelleJay (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  A source that contains information that can be put into a stub isn't the same as a source that provides significant coverage demonstrating that English Wikipedia's standards for having an article has been met. Routine mentions of a person's activities can often be found in sources which would fill out a stub. From the notability guideline, significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail. Consensus discussion at the talk page for the sports notability guideline has agreed that routine sports coverage is not suitable for meeting the requirements of the general notability guideline. I agree with you that making blanket statements about databases (or potentially even about all topics in one database) may be subject to individual exceptions, and thus might not be sufficiently helpful. isaacl (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  You're mixing criteria. It's fine to say "Routine coverage doesn't count", but it'd be silly to believe that routine coverage can't "address the topic directly and in detail". That database entry is probably routine coverage. But you'd never say that the database record doesn't "address the topic directly" (It's got his name right there at the top, and everything in it reports what he did himself at a particular event. This isn't a source that's about his family, or his country, or about weightlifters in general – it is 100% directly about the subject) or "in detail" (it names his exact height and weight, and the precise amount of weight he lifted each of three times on a specific day; how much more detail do you expect? What he ate for breakfast each morning?).

  I've long had my doubts about the sentence we use to describe SIGCOV. For example, I suspect that we actually want sources, when viewed in combination with each other, to address a subject comprehensively rather than in detail. But that's a problem for a separate RFC, not for this one, and I see no point in proceeding with this question until we have an agreement on what SIGCOV is. In the meantime, this source might be SIGCOV, and "non-routine" isn't mentioned in any of the above proposals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't say that routine coverage doesn't address a topic directly. I agree that in the context of the notability guideline page, the word "detail" is being used in the sense of providing comprehensive discussion of the subject's different aspects and history. I'm not aware of any areas where routine coverage is considered to be evidence that the general notability guideline is met (though I do know there is disagreement on what coverage is considered routine); if you know of some examples, I would appreciate learning about them. isaacl (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Part of the problem is that everyone has their own idea of what counts as "routine". Is a news story saying that the FDA approved a drug for Alzheimer's "routine"? It's certainly expected, and that kind of news story happens every single time they approve a drug, and some editors would say it's therefore "routine". But there has never yet been an FDA-approved drug that wasn't considered GNG-notable, and the media attention at the time of approval is one of the key factors for this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  For that case, the ensuing comprehensive coverage of the drug is suitable for demonstrating that the general notability guideline is met. isaacl (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  (It's got his name right there at the top, and everything in it reports what he did himself at a particular event. This isn't a source that's about his family, or his country, or about weightlifters in general – it is 100% directly about the subject). sports-reference.com literally has a page for every single Olympic weightlifter and every single Puerto Rican Olympian; just because it has a UI that lets you access tabulated results on one particular athlete at a time doesn't mean the source (the database itself) is directly covering each one in detail. I could export the 1968 Men's Featherweight event as a CSV and apply a filter to include only the elements associated with Enrique; that doesn't make me, or the filter, or Excel suddenly a source of SIGCOV. No human wrote that page, all it is is the result of a database query. And even in cases where we do have proseified stats, without someone independent actually interpreting them and publishing their original analysis, that coverage remains primary. JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Do you think the database is indirectly covering the subject?

  We have never required that a subject be a particular percentage of a source. It's okay if only 1% of a book directly addresses the subject; it's therefore okay if only 1% of any source directly addresses the subject.

  I don't believe that we have ever required that humans create the sources. With the rise of software that can write plausible-sounding text, we might want to consider that. Creating such a rule would require us to stop citing Google Earth (looks like it's in a couple hundred articles), online maps, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Do you genuinely believe that the results of a database query comprise secondary independent SIGCOV? Seriously? In what possible way is that a secondary interpretation of data? We have policy against basing articles on primary sources specifically because [s]econdary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.

  And no one said we can't use databases as sources, they just don't count toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I wrote a bit about this in my suggestions above, but generally-speaking I would advise that the policy say something like "any good-faith assertion that a source satisfies the GNG is sufficient." Individual cases where there is a dispute over whether a source is sufficient should go to WP:AFD as usual, whereas if someone is repeatedly presenting sources that cannot possibly be considered good-faith efforts to satisfy the GNG (after being informed of the problem), that is a conduct issue better handled at WP:ANI or the like. But the purpose of this policy is to act as a general pointer towards what the ideal expectations are, plus establishing a justification for sanctions against people who flagrantly and repeatedly disregards them - the purpose isn't to allow articles to be deleted instantly without going through AFD just because someone quibbles over the source. This is not so different from how we handle sourcing anywhere else. --Aquillion (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

    I'm a little leery of adding complexity unless it's really necessary to explain the idea. We already have "plausibly contributes", does 'good faith assertion' really add much to that? Valereee (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

    "Plausibly contributes" leads to disputes about whether it's really plausible according to all of us.

    "Good-faith assertion" means "I might be incompetent or gullible, but I am not lying or deliberately trying to harm Wikipedia when I tell you that personally think this contains what I personally call significant coverage".

    I still think this whole section is pointless. We need a definition of SIGCOV before we can address this problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse 1 & 2, prefer 1. Three would prohibit mass creation of articles that aren't required to meet GNG, which is an overreach. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not happy with the wording of any of the three alternatives. If we are trying to limit the creation of large numbers of poorly-sourced articles, then whatever we adopt should apply to all articles, and not exempt articles under some SNG. I also think requiring two sources is a good idea, although getting that accepted may be harder than requiring one reliable source. I am interested in restricting the mass creation of articles based on a single database, such as was the case with many articles created by User:Carlossuarez46 and Lugnuts. For example, exempting articles about populated places from the sourcing requirement because they fall under the Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) SNG would not have prevented Carlossuarez46 from creating that large number of very short, often very mistaken, articles. I cannot support any solution that leaves that big a hole. Please note that this is not about notability, my concern is about preventing the mass creation of poorly sourced articles that require major efforts to cliean up. - Donald Albury 13:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Donald Albury, WhatAmIDoing has addressed multiple times their concerns about making a blanket assumption that all entries in all databases inherently cannot meet SIGCOV, there's a section below (The database problem) I've collapsed. Valereee (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  ETA: if you'd like to continue that discussion with them, feel free to unhat. Valereee (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Also none of these proposed wordings exempts all SNGs. Just those that do not confer notability; that issue is addressed in Q6, but the general comments so far indicate that hsould be a separate question. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  If we are trying to limit the creation of large numbers of poorly-sourced articles...

  It is not clear that we are trying to do this, though I imagine some editors would like this outcome. Even if we are, it is not clear to me that any of these proposals would have that result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Without any mention of what happens if an article doesn't have the required sources these are all incomplete, but I strongly oppose 1 and 2. Small numbers of articles do not cause the problems that this is about solving and existing processes handle issues with them well so there is absolutely no justification to adding more barriers and more bureaucracy to article creation all of which bite good faith editors. I'm less opposed to 3, but I'm still opposed it's all very vague and I worry that something like this is going to be (or at least attempted to be) rigidly enforced leading to arguments about whether something was mass-created, whether it could plausibly contribute to the GNG, whether it's plausibly reliable or not, etc. I fully endorse also what WAID said. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse any or all. However, I think it should require two sources, simply because GNG says "reliable sources" (plural). Also, you might consider adding "significant coverage", because this would eliminate the likes of Olympedia, but not the sort of database WhatamIdoing talks about. Scolaire (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• I feel that articles should have at least two good quality sources, not just one. Because an article with only one good quality source is either (1) plagiarism of that source, (2) obfuscated plagiarism of that source, or else (3) not really based on its only decent quality source. We really need to combine at least two good quality sources to get outside copyvio territory. Even a two-source minimum doesn't solve the sportsperson problem because sports bios are inevitably sourced to the hinder pages of several local newspapers.—S Marshall T/C 20:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think you're wrong about plagiarism and copyvio. I just wrote a faux stub above, from a single source, on a subject that I know nothing about. It's not plagiarism (I told you exactly where I got this information from), and it's not a copyright violation (I never took even so much as four consecutive words from the source). If I can write from a single source without falling afoul of Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Copyright violations, then so can others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  You know plagiarism isn't just word-for-word copying...if there's any original creativity behind the organization of data, reproducing the data with the same presentation can also be infringement. Even the simple fact of selecting particular data can be creative, so reordering the data and giving it a new treatment might not be protective either. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  That'd be copyright infringement, not plagiarism.</pedant> There's also the unlikely possibility that you're prosifying a copyright trap. —Cryptic 02:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Plagiarism is using information written by someone else without crediting them, so as long as the content is cited, it hasn't been plagiarized. Regarding copyright infringements, facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, only a specific expression of them. I can learn something from one source, and then retell what I learned in my own words without infringing copyright. isaacl (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Question 8: Mass creations noticeboard

Create a dedicated noticeboard to allow for consensus for, notifications of, reports of, and discussions of mass creations and the sources used for such creations. (Details to be developed there.)

Discussion of Q8

• Endorse --Enos733 (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse on the proviso that there is no prohibition on the same venue also handling (discussions about) mass deletions, mass moves, etc. if there is consensus for it to do so (to be established in subsequent discussion(s)). Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't include those simply because I didn't want to get out of scope or muddy the waters, but my intention with this wording is not to exclude other mass actions. I think it's possible such a proposed specific inclusion could be made during the RfC. Valereee (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  I was not proposing their inclusion be proposed here, just that the option to propose them later remains available. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Wondering if we should remove "dedicated" as implying only for mass creations? Valereee (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps "specific" would work better? Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. Scolaire (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse, to provide a centralized/dedicated venue (though also encompassing the types of discussions described by Thryduulf) and to keep non-conduct issues away from AN/ANI. ^Complex/_Rational 20:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse as an RfC question, whether I'd support this would depend on the details. I can just see a flood of AfD !votes along the lines of "keep, needed prior discussion at MAR". Which would be unhelpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• @127(point)0(point)0(point)1, AKAF, Andrew Davidson, Aquillion, Atsme, Barkeep49, Blue Square Thing, Bluerasberry, Cryptic, CT55555, David Eppstein, Donald Albury, Enos733, GoldenRing, Indy beetle, JoelleJay, Jogurney, NotReallySoroka, Ovinus, Pbsouthwood, Plantdrew, Robert McClenon, S Marshall, Scolaire, Shooterwalker, Supertrinko, Thryduulf, Vanamonde93, and WhatamIdoing: Your response is requested for these questions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  I am guessing I got pinged because I left a comment, in my role as an arb? Regardless because of that role I feel it's not my place to weigh in on these questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is correct. I pinged everyone with a signature above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• I realise I've just opposed all five suggestions, but one of them doesn't require consensus and is not a solution in itself (but an aid to other processes that may be), and none of the others will solve the actual issues (and at least some will create new problems). I wont have time for a couple of days I don't think, but perhaps someone could transfer the ideas at Wikipedia:Mass action review here for workshopping. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf, sorry to ping you if you're busy, but I'm not sure whether that board might be out of scope here unless you're seeing WP:MARV as possibly the place Rhodo is suggesting people go to post notice they're planning to use a single source to create multiple similar articles? Valereee (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  That wasn't my original intention when drafting the page (as I hadn't thought of that as something that would be needed), but if there is consensus that such a venue is something we want then having a single venue to discuss all aspects of mass actions would seem logical. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Are we taking it as a given that creation of policy compliant articles on any scale is acceptable, and that the problem and proposed remedies refer to non-compliant articles only? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• I am not sure how clarifications of GNG or the SNGs affect mass creation. These proposals appear to only address the creation of stub-class articles and articles that are already or would be flagged as needing sources. --Enos733 (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I believe that requiring a GNG source at creation (Q7=yes) would effectively stop mass creation altogether, because you can't mass-create (i.e., 25/day or more) articles when you need to find a GNG source for each topic. Finding a GNG source can't be automated or semi-automated. So I see the "requirements at creation" issue to be a fundamental issue upon which rate-limitation issues depend. In other words, if Q7 failed, I'd be a strong supporter of Q3, but if Q7 passed, I'd probably be neutral on Q3. Levivich^😃 17:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Your suggestion would appear to lead to the subjective assessment of what constitutes a GNG source. And since there is no technological barrier of how (from either the size or any sourcing) an article can get placed in the mainspace, I do not see how this suggestion actually prevents mass creation, other than potentially helping to determine if a user warrants a block or other sanction. - Enos733 (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Well we eventually have to do that at AfD, and AfC/NPP already make subjective assessments of article merit, so having a sourcing requirement enforced at creation would just redistribute an existing burden and likely reduce it. JoelleJay (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  All unsourced BLPs are already supposed to be PRODded, or speedily deleted. Wikipedia:NOCITE - Enos733 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Levivich:, that isn't correct though. You could mass-create under NPOL or GEOLAND, for instance; and mass-creation of articles about recognized vertebrate taxa is still fundamentally possible, if slightly harder. My problem is more that unless there's consensus that NSPORTS (for instance) does not grant independent notability, mass-creation under that will continue. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this item appears to have gone off the rails. The cited issue was mass creations, and various proposals for source-requirements were then phrased without mentioning mass creation. This should be explicitly tied back to mass creations. Are we seriously discussing speedy delete for a single good article by a new user, because they didn't know to cite easily available sources? A new user isn't creating an article under any SNG or GNG, they are making an ignorant but good faith first effort. It becomes an even bigger problem when an SNG could plausibly apply, but where appealing to that SNG is unnecessary or undesired. (i.e. failing an SNG is irrelevant if GNG is satisfied.) Alsee (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think we're discussing speedy delete at all? Levivich^😃 17:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Valereee, I wasn't sure where to put this, but it seemed useful to discuss here rather than your talk page. If it's disruptive or confusing down here, feel free to move it to my section above.

There are many people who have been following the issues of mass creation/deletion. What about instead of treating every variable as unknown for the purposes of an RfC, what if we workedd together to workshop an actual process for mass creation based on what we've seen in the various threads -- a process that could be refined later, but provides a starting point. Large, multi-stage, multi-question RfCs are thorough, and can produce good results, but they can also be complicated, result in some confusing/contradicting outcomes, and produce results that are hard to modify or implement. The risk of proposing a specific process for the community to !vote on is that the specificity has the potential to lose people who feel passionately about a particular detail, but can also be productive in giving people something actionable to work with (and later implement). I'm thinking of, for example, when WP:NCORP was completely overhauled, and we had an RfC about using the rewrite as the new starting point rather than debating each and every change. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

A process to workshop

So you want to create a bunch of articles.

Does this guidance apply to you?

1. Are you planning to create more than 50 new articles in the span of a month or 500 in the span of a year?
2. Are those articles on a similar topic, similar theme, or are they based on the same set of sources?
3. Will the articles be created manually, rather than through use of a bot or tools like AutoWikiBrowser (these must go through the Bot Approvals Group)?

If the answer to all of these is yes, this guidance applies to you. (Note that even if the answer is no, if an uninvolved administrator has determined your editing fits within the spirit of these requirements, you will still be expected to follow them).

You must post a notice to [new venue to be created] with the following information:

1. The approximate number of articles you will create
2. The approximate time frame for creation
3. A description of the overall topic/theme
4. Which notability criteria you will be using, and the kind of sourcing you will use to demonstrate that each article meets the criteria

[some additional work on how long these discussions stay open, who approves them, if there's an appeals process, etc. could be added here or deferred to a separate RfC on process for that new venue]

Mass created articles must include sufficient sourcing to show notability, and cannot be based only on simple statistical databases. While there are no firm requirements about the level of quality an article must reach when created, many in the community have a strong preference for mass created articles to be more than one- or two-sentence stubs.

If articles are created after [date this goes into effect] that do not comply with these rules, notice should be posted at [the new venue] for review. An uninvolved administrator may, at their discretion, and with feedback from the community, speedy delete the articles under [criterion TBD, but it should be one that allows refunds], draftify/userfy, or in unusual circumstances even allow keeping the articles and requiring they go through AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (proposing a process)

I think that's okay – could be a workable process, could be helpful – but I don't think it solves all the problems. Some of the problems described above have relatively little to do with mass creation per se. Consider, e.g.:

• complaints about the NPP backlog, even though most of them aren't mass-created articles, and even though most of mass-created articles are really quick and easy to process.
• complaints about article quality, even though mass-creation of FAs, or heavily sourced jewels of stubs, is just as much mass creation as two-sentence stubs.

I saw some articles created recently by an editor in one of these mass-creation discussions. They had a small infobox and said things like: "Geographic Place is a place near Other Place in State, Country. Part of a Film was filmed there." The sources were a single government database (for the location) and a single article (for the film's name). There were a few of these. Even if they were pre-approved, consider the effects from the two viewpoints above:

• If this editor doesn't have Wikipedia:Autopatrolled, then the creation of those articles means that someone in NPP has to look at them. It ultimately doesn't much matter whether one editor writes n of these or n editors each write one of these; n articles created is still n articles for NPP to process, and because of how burdensome we've made NPP over the years, the NPP reviewer might spend more time running their checklist than the editor spent writing the two-sentence, two-source article. You can probably imagine why some NPPers shudder at the idea of anyone mass-creating any articles. (NPP used to be all about CSD, but these days, they're trying to be one-stop shopping for every aspect of quality control, including everything from article titles to stub-tagging, even including typo fixing.)
• It's kind of a lousy article. This doesn't bother me, personally, but it does bother some editors. They are disgusted by the idea of "inadequate" articles. They don't want "embarrassing" articles. They don't actually care about mass creation per se, except to the extent that mass creation is sometimes associated with the creation of extremely brief articles. So for this group, your process doesn't directly address their real problem (short, boring articles on subjects I don't care about), and it might even actively authorize an increase in their problem.

I think we could address these problems (e.g., stop telling NPPers to be human grammar checkers; agree on whether embarrassing articles and imperfect edits are still part of the glorious wiki process, or if only perfect editors are welcome now), and these problems are only partly connected to mass creation, but I don't think your proposed process will appeal to either of these groups, because they have problems that it will not solve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: complaints about the NPP backlog - I think it does get at this by requiring that any mass creation post a request with some basic information about notability/sourcing. That should ensure anyone reviewing at NPP should have an easy time. These are all compromises, of course.

complaints about article quality - There's the line above that starts While there are no firm requirements about the level of quality.... I feel like it's about what we could find consensus for (a recommendation). I'm quite doubtful that a proposal to require a certain size/quality would find consensus, and the request process should ensure any debates over sourcing re: SNG/GNG are sorted out in advance. It does sort of move those debates rather than solve them, but I think finding a SNG vs. GNG solution is outside the scope of this RfC anyway.

The sources were a single government database (for the location) and a single article (for the film's name) - If the source for the location is a database, that's addressed above (Mass created articles must include sufficient sourcing to show notability, and cannot be based only on simple statistical databases). The point of a process like this would be to ensure something like that doesn't get pre-approved.

doesn't much matter whether one editor writes n of these or n editors each write one of these - but the latter is outside the scope of this RfC, isn't it?

some NPPers shudder at the idea of anyone mass-creating any articles - I do get that, even if it's hard to draw clear lines about what "mass-creating" means. Regardless, again, for this approach of proposing a process IMO it's important to try to find something that would be broadly acceptable even if none of the sides feel like they entirely got their way.

It's kind of a lousy article - Sort of similar to above, but I think this is one of the perspectives that has the potential to sink the productivity of this RfC. There's just no way a large RfC is going to codify requirements for quality beyond something really, really minimal (like enough sourcing to show notability and a recommendation that you do more than a couple sentences). YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Number of articles may be difficult to estimate. Greater than N should be an option. Time frame is also going to be tricky. Perhaps a declaration of a maximum daily or weekly rate would be more practicable. Third and fourth criteria look suitable. Clarification may be requested and should be provided if reasonable.
• It is possible that an editor may start with no specific intention to mass create, but find themself doing it as a natural progression. They should not be penalised for this.
• A tool for measuring compliance would be useful.
• Would this be a setting permission or just a finding at the discussion?
• What about revoking permission?· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Greater than N should be an option. - By this do you mean propose a process but ask a separate question about the specific numbers? If so, that seems reasonable to me.
• It is possible that an editor may start with no specific intention to mass create - If we're only talking about creating a large number of articles on a similar topic/theme/using the same sourcing, this is a rule that people will simply need to be aware of (like people are unaware of 3RR until they are, at which point they realize that they'll need to count). Creating that many iterative articles in a month isn't something that just sneaks up on you, I don't think (though I've never done it myself). Ultimately there's not really any difference between someone who mass creates 50 articles in a month and, oops, didn't realize, and someone who just mass creates 50 articles and didn't request permission first. The difference, I suppose, is awareness, and certainly new rules require some flexibility to ensure people are aware of them. Perhaps I've misunderstood.
• Would this be a setting permission or just a finding at the discussion? - I don't understand. You mean permission (or lack thereof)? I'd think it would just be an "ok" rather than something technical. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Does rate or number have to be specified? Seems like that's the weak link when it comes to article creation. I think many of the editors who are mass creating probably have discovered a source and just keep moving through that source until they get to the end of it.

To take one of the quarry searches provided in the above Statistics section and sort for shortest average content, here's 100+ extremely short stubs on species in the genus Carex, created in maybe three months and all sourced to the same database. Before that it was all the entries in a different genus, same database. This editor is working their way through the database in order and creating an article for each entry. They work inconsistently, a few articles a day, then a day off, then ten articles. (Courtesy ping to Hughesdarren)

Surely this is something we'd want the process to include, but that rate wouldn't necessarily be captured by 50 per month or 500 per year, and I don't imagine this editor is necessarily planning to create at that rate...it probably happens one month and not the next, or one year and not the next. Valereee (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a good point, and a good reason to workshop this (I don't know how a sprawling, many-question RfC would quite address all of these sorts of situations, either). The process above includes Mass created articles must include sufficient sourcing to show notability, and cannot be based only on simple statistical databases. It may be worth lowering the threshold when databases are concerned (more than 20/month or 200/year, for example). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, yes, my concern is that this is a pretty complex proposal. Could we boil it down to a single idea, like "Create a noticeboard for reporting and discussing mass creations (see WP:MARV for a current similar discussion)." The exact details perhaps could later be worked out there -- what 'mass creation' entails, for instance, and which planned creations would need to be reported up front to allow for consensus to be gained before the work is done? Valereee (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That's why I suggested putting a limit on the number of stubby, undersourced articles an editor can have in their creations, and requiring them to expand/source them before they can add another stub. JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)