This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There are significant issues which affect the validity of any consensus at this RfC.
Firstly, there is strong community precedent and consensus that proposed mass blanks-and-redirects should be discussed through AfD (and not, for example, RfCs at WikiProject pages). This is not the proper venue to make such a proposal.
Secondly, (and I mention this as only as a minor point) not all relevant community discussion venues were notified. I will note that the OP made
WP:CITIES
were not notified.
Thirdly, only 8 editors participated in the discussion. Therefore, as this discussion had low participation it is in my honest opinion an insufficient level of participation to determine a consensus commensurate to the hundreds of articles it would apply to due to the controversial nature of the options proposed, in light of the context discussed in the next paragraph.
Finally, this RfC's options as proposed have serious effects on the application of WP's notability guidelines (namely
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
of a WikiProject that villages in their scope should not have their own article cannot override conflicting, wider community consensus on the criteria upon which villages are judged notable enough to have a stand-alone article.
Thus, any result to this RfC either in support of the options provided by OP, a rejection of these, or of no consensus would be moot. In light of this, I strongly encourage editors in this discussion to continue it at a more applicable venue such as
Please ping me!
22:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Should Turkish village/neighbourhood stubs that meet one of the following criteria be redirected to a list in the District-level article? –dlthewave☎ 18:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
A: Articles consisting of "X is a village in Y district" referenced to an unreliable source such as Koyumuz (e.g. Sazak).
B: Articles consisting of "X is a village in Y district" referenced to a reliable government population table or database (e.g. Karataş)
C: Articles consisting of "X is a village in Y district. The village is populated by Kurds." (e.g. Düdüklük). This is an "add-on" for articles that also mention Kurds and would only kick in if there's consensus to redirect under A or B.
Please choose any combination of A, B or C. I propose using AWB to mass-redirect these stubs to lists in the District-level article such as the one at Çınar, Diyarbakır. Only geographic coordinates would be preserved, with no objection to others adding population tables at a later time or re-creating articles with significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave☎ 18:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I've been cleaning up Turkish geostubs created by Lugnuts based on prior discussions [1][2][3] which I believe show consensus to redirect any stub that's sourced only to Koyumuz. I'm opening this discussion to seek further consensus for cases where an additional source was cited, or where government tables/databases were used for mass creation. –dlthewave☎ 18:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
C is clearly problematic. First off, information on articles, particularly if sourced reliably, must be preserved unless it violates any other core content policies, so a simple redirect would never be acceptable, a merge of that information would be required at the very least. We have observed so far that the use of semi-automated tools to help with this is proving... error-prone, to say the least. This information may often come with caveats e.g. the name of the Kurdish tribe, the religious affiliation of the Kurds in the village, and I simply do not trust that this could be handled reliably with AWB. It must be remembered that this whole redirection process was started in response to the meatbot-ish mass creation of geostubs. Where the articles have expanded beyond this with actual human attention, I think semi-automated redirects are unwarranted and unhelpful, as a matter of principle. There has been demonstrable interest in people adding at least a sentence to these articles, so they could be expanded further and need individual notability discussions on AfD as a matter of principle - for more details, please see my comments and the closing remarks on this AfD.
Whilst we're at it, there are other aspects to discuss. I also don't really agree with the way that these redirects are being carried out to essentially dump a database of inhabited places on district articles. On the AfD people have argued that "a good article might help the readers better" but that is clearly not the case in reality. Even with Alanya, a featured article, the list of "neighbourhoods" just looks out of place, awkward and frankly unhelpful. People must remember that Turkish district centres are actually towns, and that unlike American counties, we don't have separate articles for Turkish districts as opposed to the district centre towns. Many Turkish centres are barely more than tiny stubs so this results in clunky, lopsided articles with an undue information on the rural areas (see Adıyaman, Çınar, Diyarbakır). For this reason I'm not too keen on any redirection, but this objection is outweighed in the cases where the only source in the article is an unreliable one (so A is acceptable). When this information is more than just the name/coordinates, the articles start to become very clunky (see Baskil). As such, the amount of information being merged per village should be kept to a bare minimum, so I'd be opposed to even merging in the case of C - standalone articles are the best way to organise this information.
A somewhat unrelated but important note: for non-metropolitan municipalities, these are not "neighbourhoods", they are villages. Please be sure to check for every district to use correct terminology for redirecting.
GGT, some editors have suggested redirecting to "List of villages/neighbourhoods in X district". Would this address your concerns about clunky town articles? –dlthewave☎ 19:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it would be a significant improvement. It would still not be sufficient to justify allowing the use of a semi-automated tool to redirect articles containing reliably sourced information (or expanded otherwise), however. These always need to be assessed on a case-to-case basis, as per this AfD. The list suggestion does not entirely solve the problem, for instance, having the ethnicity info for only the Kurdish-inhabited villages would also not be preferable. It is the Köyümüz-derived articles that caused the original concern, and I see no rationale to expand AWB use beyond this. --GGT (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
A Mass redirecting articles that includes removing reliably sourced population information is very disruptive, an abuse of AWB, and should not even be listed as an option. If it goes ahead it should be reconsidered at
Redirect all to district - Unreliably sourced information should not be kept so "A" has to go. Population data can just as easily be presented in a table at district level, particularly given the very small populations of some of these units, so "B" is also a good redirect. "Kurds live here" is not a meaningful statement in a country with a substantial Kurdish population and adds nothing to the article, so "C" goes as well. Obviously this is all with the caveat that where expansion into a full article is possible this should be done. FOARP (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Non of the above It is egregious to assume that all (village) stubs should/must be redirected to another article, and the three links provided above, do not backup this assumption. The ANI discussion was focused on mass creation and not notability, two very different areas of WP. Reading through the comments of the AfD, it's a rough 50/50 split of redirect vs. keep. That AfD was from almost a year ago, with multiple recent AfDs now favouring keep (details below). The mass creation discussion was at the same time of that AfD, and ultimately created a lot of heat and noise on the back of mass creations of Iranian villages, where the issue there was that those places simply did not exist. Mass creation (on my part) has now ceased.
On that last point, there are two vastly different issues. The places in Iran did not/do not exist, while the places in Turkey do exist. Infact each village I created already had a corresponding article on the Turkish WP, along with multiple other wikis (Armenia, Germany, and others).
WP:GEOLAND
, a long established Wikipedia notability guideline.
Three very recent AfDs (
forum shopping
("Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages").
The village of
rules of use for AWB ("Do not make controversial edits with it"). Such redirects done en-masse have been reversed by other editors as "inappropriate
", and have been labled as "disruptive" in this very thread.
A final observation - Why just Turkey? Why not other villages in other countries? Well on 11th Dec, the OP
WP:PROD. A month has now passed and none of those articles have either a) been redirected or b) sent to AfD, which seems quite puzzling based on the modus operandi of redirecting and/or deleting similar village articles. In conclusion, I feel this RfC is flawed (bad RfC?) with a loaded question based on an assumption of everything must be redirected. I've now put my points across, and hope that the OP and the single supporter of redirecting don't feel the need to bludgeon every rationale I've listed, as I don't want to engage in further protracted discussions, as we both have opposite points of view on this issue. Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me
14:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Lugnuts, I respect your wish not to engage further, especially when it comes to differences in opinion. I do have one question: How best to handle the thousands of remaining Koyumuz-sourced stubs, if not by redirecting? Are you still working on replacing Koyumuz references with a more reliable source? –dlthewave☎ 19:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Aren't villages (as opposed to suburbs and hamlets) not generally inherently notable especially if they have a stated population? Until November last year when the OP changed NPLACE to specify that they must be legally recognized but this seems to be the case anyway here at least with B and yes the argument that the population could be covered in a table is an argument that could apply to any place so doesn't seem persuasive. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Support all. These are database entries, not articles, and as such violate
WP:NOTDATABASE. These articles should all be replaced with a line in a list, until someone wishes to take on the task of writing something more than a database entry on the topic - if coverage ever exists for such a creation. BilledMammal (talk
) 10:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Bad RfC. I initially came here to close the RfC from a request on
talk
) 19:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
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.
Levantine Arabic FAC
Levantine Arabic is a FAC and any review would be more than welcome. Levantine is spoken historically in Hatay and nearby provinces but with the Syrian Civil War, millions of Levantine speakers now live in the rest of Turkey. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
The new Turkish-language Netflix TV series now has a draft page: Draft:Yakamoz S-245. Referencing might benefit from information in Turkish, which is going to be easier to come by to start, and there is also a tr Wikipedia stub. Consider contributing! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on
WP:CITEWATCH
and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
-
b
}
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Good Party
Publicising this -
WP:RFCTP. It really needs input from more editors. Please place your views on the linked talk page. Thanks. Helper201 (talk
Hi, I am User:Bookku, I find information and knowledge gaps create Drafts, try to recruit draft expanding editors and promote drafts articles for further expansion.
Requesting your visit to following drafts and help expand the same if any of these interests you.
Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia