View source for Wiki143:Village pump (proposals)

{{redirect|WP:PROPOSE|proposing article deletion|Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|and|Wikipedia:Deletion requests}}<noinclude>
{{short description|Discussion page for new proposals}}{{Village pump page header|Proposals|alpha=yes|
The '''proposals''' section of the [[Wikipedia:Village pump|village pump]] is used to offer specific changes for discussion. ''Before submitting'':
* Check to see whether your proposal is already described at '''[[Wikipedia:Perennial proposals|Perennial proposals]]'''. You may also wish to search the [[Wikipedia:FAQ index|FAQ]].
* This page is for '''concrete, actionable''' proposals. Consider developing earlier-stage proposals at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)|Village pump (idea lab)]].
* Proposed '''policy''' changes belong at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)|Village pump (policy)]].
* Proposed '''speedy deletion criteria''' belong at [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion]].
* Proposed '''WikiProjects''' or '''task forces''' may be submitted at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals]].
* Proposed '''new wikis''' belong at [[meta:Proposals for new projects]].
* Proposed '''new articles''' belong at [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]].
* Discussions or proposals which warrant the '''attention or involvement of the Wikimedia Foundation''' belong at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)]].
* '''Software''' changes which have consensus should be filed at [[phabricator:|Phabricator]].
Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for {{Th/abp|age|{{{root|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|cfg={{{cfg|1}}}|r=y}} {{Th/abp|units|{{{root|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|cfg={{{cfg|1}}}|r=y}}.<!--
Villagepumppages intro end
-->|WP:VPR|WP:VP/PR|WP:VPPRO|WP:PROPS}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{centralized discussion|compact=yes}}
__TOC__
{{anchor|below_toc}}
[[Category:Wikipedia village pump]]
[[Category:Wikipedia proposals| ]]
[[Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(12d)
| archive = Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 219
| maxarchivesize = 300K
| archiveheader = {{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}} 
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 5
}}</noinclude>
{{clear}}

== Superscript and subscript typography guideline ==

{{closed rfc top|1={{nac}} There seems to be a clear consensus in '''support''' of the proposal. [[User:GoldRomean|GoldRomean]] ([[User talk:GoldRomean|talk]]) 02:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)}}

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 05:01, 25 Aug 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1948149267}}
Is there support to upgrade [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts]] to a guideline? 04:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Rationale of the proposer: The main effect would be to officially recommend using HTML superscripts and subscripts instead of [[Unicode subscripts and superscripts]] (e.g. {{char|<sup>2</sup>}} instead of {{char|²}}. This has generally been done on a ''de facto'' basis, for example in widely used templates like {{tl|convert}}, {{tl|frac}}, and {{tl|chem2}}. I estimate only about 20,000 out of about 7 million articles use the Unicode characters outside of templates, mostly for square units of measure or in linguistic notation that should be put into a template. A lot of articles have already been converted to the HTML method, either organically or systematically.

This would also bless the exceptions for linguistic notation, which have arisen after complaints from some editors of that topic, who say these Unicode characters are specifically intended for that purpose.

The other exceptions and sections are I think just summaries of other guidelines, put in one place to help editors who are working on typography or e.g. asking the on-site search engine "how do I write subscripts?" when they really want to know how to write chemical formulas specifically. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 04:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' upgrading to guideline. I don't see any reason not to and this looks like good advice. However, I am also no expert on HTML/Unicode, so if some compelling issue with this proposed guideline emerges, please ping me. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 09:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as someone who is reasonably knowledgable about HTML/Unicode. &nbsp;[[User:Mir Novov|<b style="display:inline-flex;text-decoration:inherit;transform:matrix(1,0,0,1.4,1,-2);color:#070">novov</b>]] <b style="font-size:0.6em;filter:grayscale(1)">[[User talk:Mir Novov|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Mir Novov|edits]]</b> 09:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as good HTML/Unicode practice. However, it could be good to have input from editors who might be more directly affected by this (maybe editors who use screenreaders?) to make sure this will not cause any unforeseen accessibility issues. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 12:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
*:For context, the reason Unicode characters are allowed for only {{frac|1|2}}, {{frac|1|4}}, and {{frac|3|4}} is that these are the only fractions in [[ISO/IEC 8859-1]]; others can cause problems, according to {{u|Graham87}} comments at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics/Archive 4#Accessibility of precomposed fraction characters]]. The only superscript or subscript characters in ISO/IEC 8859-1 are superscript "2", "3", "a", and "o". I would expect using HTML superscripts and subscripts consistently should avoid screenreaders skipping unknown characters (certainly mine reads out footnote numbers). I use a screenreader for convenience and not necessity, though, and I welcome comments from others! -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 17:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
*::Yes, exactly this. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 03:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
*:::Might be a silly question, but what are the odds that we can just get the screenreader(s) to fix their relevant Unicode handling? [[User:Dingolover6969|Dingolover6969]] ([[User talk:Dingolover6969|talk]]) 21:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::That depends on the amount of money and volunteer time devoted to such a project. There are a variety of both proprietary and open source products that would need to be surveyed to see even how big the problem is. With no particular effort on our part, I expect the software actually in use will gradually support more characters over years and decades. Our own [[List of screen readers]] might be a good place to start. There are plenty of other Unicode characters we would also want to have supported; if someone wants to lead an effort to do this, I could make a list or even a page that could be used for testing. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 22:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''<s>Oppose</s> Support'''. <s>[[Wikipedia talk:Citing sources]] is currently having extensive discussions about which rules apply to citations and which do not. {{User|Beland}} is heavily involved in these discussions. I believe those discussions should be resolved before any new related guideline are created. Failing that, I notice the essay has no mention of citations. This means whoever wrote it wasn't giving any thought to citations. Therefore an prominent statement should be added that it does not apply to citations. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 13:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)</s> The RFCs about citations have been resolved, leaving the status quo in place. And the essay does mention citations, although I didn't notice it because it wasn't very prominent. Maybe it should be in a more prominent place so an editor who comes to the essay looking for information about citations can find it. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 20:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
*:I don't think anyone is proposing to use Unicode superscript characters for endnote indicators? It seems reasonable for endnote contents to follow the general guidance on the use of superscript and subscript markup. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
*::I think Jc2s5h means that if the original title of the magazine article is "e=mc²:  How a simple formula change the world" (using the Unicode superscript) then WT:CITE is talking about whether it should be 'legal' to replace that ² character with a {{tag|sup|content=2}}. (What they're really talking about is whether, if one magazine capitalizes their titles as "Man <u>I</u>n <u>T</u>he <u>M</u>oon" and the next as "Man <u>o</u>n <u>t</u>he <u>m</u>oon", these different approaches to capitalization can be put in the refs of the same FA or FL and called "consistent", in the sense of "consistently accepting whatever quasi-random capitalization style is used by each individual source without regard to whether it looks consistent compared to the neighboring refs", but if "copy each separate title with no changes of any kind" is accepted, then replacing a ² with {{tag|sup|content=2}} would probably also fall in that range.)  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
*:::HTML subscripts and superscripts should also be used inside citations. At the end of the section [[MOS:SUBSCRIPT#General guidelines]] it says: {{tq|These guidelines also apply in citations [...]}}. This is fine. Subscript and superscript are just a matter of typesetting, replacing unicode subscripts with HTML subscripts doesn't change the meaning. [[User:Joe vom Titan|Joe vom Titan]] ([[User talk:Joe vom Titan|talk]]) 18:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]], any interest in changing your vote now that [[WT:Citing sources#RFC on consistent styles and capitalization of titles]] has reached consensus against treating capitalization used by sources as an acceptable citation style? With that discussion closed and this essay noting that "these guidelines also apply in citations and template parameters," it seems clear that if promoted, it would not be an an acceptable citation style to retain whatever super-/sub-script formatting is used in the source title. [[User:ViridianPenguin|<span style="color:#40826D">ViridianPenguin🐧</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:ViridianPenguin|💬]]) 16:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with the obvious exceptions of references to characters themselves. I don't see why citations would have an exception here. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 10:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' elevating the essay as written to a guideline. It appears to give good practical guidelines for how to deal with most common situations, including the remark that it should apply inside citations. This is the only way to ensure consistent formatting since there are only few subscript and superscript unicode characters. [[User:Joe vom Titan|Joe vom Titan]] ([[User talk:Joe vom Titan|talk]]) 18:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
*Here via [[WP:RFCC]]. There's obvious consensus to support here but I'm wary of closing an RFC on a new guideline with such low participation. I'll put it up on CENT. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 19:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
*:Is it worth flagging it on [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style]] as well, do you think? I had a quick look and didn't see it there. [[User:Andrew Gray|Andrew Gray]] ([[User talk:Andrew Gray|talk]]) 21:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''', looks reasonable and sounds like it aligns with existing best practice, though I wonder if it is worth adding an explicit exception to confirm that the degree symbol ° should be kept for the normal scientific uses (temperature, arc measurement, etc), rather than using <nowiki>{{sup|o}}</nowiki>. The section about music notation using the two approaches interchangeably confuses things a bit. [[User:Andrew Gray|Andrew Gray]] ([[User talk:Andrew Gray|talk]]) 20:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
::I added a note about that and also started a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Dropping dimdeg and degree symbol guidance]]. The actual degree symbol seems relatively unused for this purpose, so perhaps it would make sense to standardize on {{tl|music}} or superscript letter "o". -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 01:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::No one objected to remove the degree symbol from the template or music guidelines, so I did so and converted articles using the removed parameter. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 18:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
*:If degree is an exception than the guidance should be to use {{xt|&amp;deg;}} or {{tl|Degree}}, rather than an explicit {{unichar|00B0}} character. -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 15:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
*:Although the degree symbol was historically derived from a masculine ordinal indicator, in modern usage it is not a superscript letter o, either visually or semantically, and it would be quite wrong to use {{tag|sup|content=o}} for degrees. I'm not sure why &deg; would be preferred to a character that is in ISO-8859-1, however. [[User:Rosbif73|Rosbif73]] ([[User talk:Rosbif73|talk]]) 13:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
*::If the guidelines in [[WP:MOS|MOS]] for degree signs never change, the recommending the template is not necessary and {{xt|&amp;deg;}} should be preferred. However, if most articles use the template and the guidelines change, then a change to {{tl|degree}} automatically brings those articles into compliance with the new guidelines. I don't understand the last sentence, since the value of {{xt|&amp;deg;}} is the 8859-1 degree sign. -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 14:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::No articles use {{char|&amp;deg;}} - all instances of that have been converted to {{unichar|00B0|degree sign}} and database dumps are scanned for new instances every two weeks. It would save some work if we didn't encourage people to usethe HTML entity; it's easy enough to add from a phone keyboard or the desktop special characters pull-down. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 17:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Beland|Beland]]: If that's the case, you may want to change {{tls|degree}} to output <code>°</code> rather than <code>&amp;deg;</code> too. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 02:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Done; well spotted! -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 04:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::It's much easier to type {{xt|&amp;deg;}} than to use the pulldown as long as you remember that it is {{xt|&amp;deg;}}. -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 13:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::If people need a way to enter special characters without touching their mouse, I would recommend <nowiki>{{subst:degree}}</nowiki> for this one. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 18:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
*:I also agree that the degree symbol should be an exception, as the intended Unicode symbol is semantically different from a superscript o. I agree with Beland's change to the music template to standardize things there. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 18:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I have made two minor edits for clarity. As expressed above, Jc3s5h's worry about this discussion potentially conflicting with [[WT:Citing sources#RFC on consistent styles and capitalization of titles]] is mooted by that discussion now closing with consensus against treating capitalization used by sources as an acceptable citation style. [[User:ViridianPenguin|<span style="color:#40826D">ViridianPenguin🐧</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:ViridianPenguin|💬]]) 19:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''': if we're going to legislate for the curliness of a quotation mark, this seems like a no-brainer. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 09:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''': a guidline is a guideline, and I think this is suitable. All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 11:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC).</small><br />
*'''Support''', but would prefer {{tl|supval}} and {{tl|subval}} templates to render superscripts and subscripts, allowing for easier changes of policy. -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 15:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''', though don't make it a war zone. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 13:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:* '''Oppose'''. Too late. [[User:Joe vom Titan|Joe vom Titan]] ([[User talk:Joe vom Titan|talk]]) 05:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}

== Finishing [[WP:LUGSTUBS2]] ==

We had consensus at [[WP:LUGSTUBS2]] way back in March 2024 to draftify a bunch of articles, which was never implemented. Is it finally time to implement it now? [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 14:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yes! [[User:3df|3df]] ([[User talk:3df|talk]]) 18:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
::I concur here, this should be implemented per the community consensus. [[User:Let&#39;srun|Let&#39;srun]] ([[User talk:Let&#39;srun|talk]]) 16:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, it's time to just implement it. The things people are discussing below were just ''suggestions'' by the closer, not part of the consensus; the key point is that the articles {{tq|should not be left in mainspace}}, and even the ''gentle suggestion'' by the closer (which was in no way part of the close or consensus, and is in no way binding the way the requirement to remove them from mainspace is) has been met, since more than enough time has passed for people to review any articles that they believe were salvageable. Further steps forward can be determined after that part is implemented, but constantly re-litigating a settled RFC is inappropriate. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 18:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:The closing statement by @[[User:HJ Mitchell|HJ Mitchell]] says, in part:
:"'''However''', I would urge the proposers not to charge headlong into the draftification process without further thought. A lot of people are uncomfortable with the large number of articles—a list of 1200 people from different eras and different nations is very difficult for humans to parse and I would urge the proponents to break it down into smaller lists by nationality, era, or any other criteria requested by editors who wish to evaluate subsets of articles. I would also urge care to ensure that the only articles draftified are those which clearly meet the criteria outlined, even if that takes longer or even considerably longer—we won't fix mass editing without due care by mass editing without due care. There is merit in the idea of a templated warning being applied to the articles before draftification takes place and in a dedicated maintenance category to give interested editors a chance to review. To that I would add a suggestion to check for any articles that exist in other language versions of Wikipedia."
:What's your plan for breaking down the lists, avoiding more "mass editing [including draftifying] without due care", and adding warning templates in advance? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
::We've left them for a year. If people want to correct the drafts before they're deleted, they are free to. '''[[User:JayCubby|<span style="background:#0a0e33;color:white;padding:2px;">Jay</span>]][[User talk:JayCubby|<span style="background:#1a237e;color:white;padding:2px;">Cubby</span>]]''' 21:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Did you {{xt|break it down into smaller lists by nationality, era, or any other criteria requested by editors who wish to evaluate subsets of articles}}?  Or is it your idea that this part of the closing summary has magically expired because it wasn't done by your [[WP:DEADLINE]]? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Have any editors requested to evaluate subsets? How have they progressed or not? [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:CMD|CMD]] WAID at least has requested that multiple times. The closing summary implicitly rejected it. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure what you mean, I ask as the quote WAID posted explicitly states it. Could you link to which criteria were requested? [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Nationality and era at least, per the closing summary. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::That group is all cricket stubs, so I think that nationality (and therefore language) is going to be the key division. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The closing summary gives them as examples to be requested by editors who wish to evaluate subsets. Are there editors who wish to evaluate subsets, and have they requested these? [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well that's good news. Could you as I asked earlier link to the requests? [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 17:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Firstly, why? Secondly, the discussion that was closed with the summary quoted above, this discussion, and probably other discussions in between the two.
::::::::::::If that is not enough for you, please take this as formal request to break down the list into smaller lists by era and nationality. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Because that's what the close is looking for in quite plain language? It's a quite late request, but if you genuinely want to look through them I'll give you a couple. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 17:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I really don't understand why this is like pulling teeth? Yes, this is a genuine request to do what has been requested multiple times by multiple people in multiple discussions. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::It is very hard to take that last claim seriously as you refuse to provide any links. Anyway, here are some to start you off. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Thank you, finally, for the lists but I don't understand why you need explicit links to the discussion we are currently having and a link to the original being referenced many times. The Australian list alone has 170 entries (which is still really too large for managability, hence the requests for nationality ''and'' era), so it's going to take a long while to do a Propper search on just them (and I'm just about to go to bed). Please be patient and remember that this could have started over a year ago now. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 02:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I don't need links to the current discussion or the original discussion. I was asking for links to what the close asked for, for people to request specific divisions. If they didn't happen then please stop insisting they did. If the request were not made, that has nothing to do with me. I was barely involved in the prior discussion. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::The "finally" is quite a particularly perplexing comment, these lists were produced less than a day after the first request. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Thanks.  As the Indian group is the largest, I've left a note at the [[Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Need help with Indian cricketers|Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics]].  The other lists should also be sent to other suitable groups. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
::That was explicitly framed as a ''suggestion'' by the closer, not as part of the consensus. It has no weight or force whatsoever. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 18:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Collapse top|Australian cricketer tagged list (170 athletes)}}
# [[Augustus Hotham]]
# [[Arthur Lewis (Australian cricketer)]]
# [[Adam Hope (cricketer)]]
# [[Bryan McGan]]
# [[Charles Foot]]
# [[Charles Letcher]]
# [[Alcon Bowman]]
# [[Charles Alsop]]
# [[Albert Philpott]]
# [[David Sutherland (cricketer)]]
# [[Albert Fox (cricketer)]]
# [[Bartholomew Grant]]
# [[Charles Hendrie]]
# [[Albert Brown (Australian cricketer)]]
# [[Albert Lansdown]]
# [[Alan Davidson (cricketer, born 1897)]]
# [[Charles Gardner (Australian cricketer)]]
# [[Allan Jinks]]
# [[Brian Porter (cricketer)]]
# [[David Cowper (cricketer)]]
# [[Colin Thwaites]]
# [[Col Costorphin]]
# [[Andrew Wildsmith]]
# [[Bruce Moir]]
# [[Carey Smith]]
# [[Darren Walker (cricketer)]]
# [[David Harris (Victoria cricketer)]]
# [[Craig Howard (cricketer)]]
# [[Anthony Amalfi]]
# [[Bryan Doyle (cricketer)]]
# [[Brendan Ricci]]
# [[Brent Lodding]]
# [[Ashley Robertson (cricketer)]]
# [[David Shepard (cricketer)]]
# [[Ashley Gilbert]]
# [[Cecil Perry]]
# [[Charles Vautin]]
# [[Charles McAllen]]
# [[Charles Hammond (Australian cricketer)]]
# [[Albert Frost (cricketer)]]
# [[Charles Payne (Australian cricketer)]]
# [[Arthur Braithwaite]]
# [[Charles Russen (cricketer)]]
# [[Arthur Thomlinson]]
# [[Arthur Crowder]]
# [[Arthur Watt]]
# [[Charles Robinson (Australian cricketer)]]
# [[Algernon Findlay]]
# [[Allen Limb]]
# [[Clyde Lucas (cricketer)]]
# [[Arthur Davis (Australian cricketer)]]
# [[Clarence Lee (cricketer)]]
# [[Clarence Driscoll]]
# [[Arnell Horton]]
# [[Cecil Wood (Australian cricketer)]]
# [[Clifton Jeffery]]
# [[Arthur Trebilcock]]
# [[Cecil Oakes]]
# [[Colin Richardson (cricketer)]]
# [[Derreck Calvert]]
# [[Darrell Jackman]]
# [[Clifton Hurburgh]]
# [[Dennis Blair (cricketer)]]
# [[Brian Patterson (cricketer)]]
# [[Brian Carney (cricketer)]]
# [[Brian Sheen]]
# [[Bruce John]]
# [[Daniel Archer (cricketer)]]
# [[Baden Sharman]]
# [[Alan Jacobson]]
# [[Bruce Hodgetts]]
# [[Brian Cartledge]]
# [[Barry Beard]]
# [[Craig Brown (cricketer)]]
# [[Colin Arnold]]
# [[Anthony Spillane]]
# [[Anthony Walters (cricketer)]]
# [[Dale O'Halloran]]
# [[David Mullett]]
# [[Col Westaway]]
# [[David Strudwick]]
# [[Colin Watts]]
# [[David King (cricketer)]]
# [[Allan Anderson (cricketer)]]
# [[Chris Beatty (cricketer)]]
# [[Dave Chardon]]
# [[Anthony Clark (cricketer)]]
# [[Bernard Colreavy]]
# [[Allan Cooper]]
# [[Arthur Fisher (Australian sportsman)]]
# [[Arthur Furness]]
# [[Craig Glassock]]
# [[Charles Smith Gregory]]
# [[Bertie Grounds]]
# [[Dan Horsley]]
# [[Aubrey Johnston]]
# [[David Johnston (New South Wales cricketer)]]
# [[Andrew Jones (Australian cricketer)]]
# [[Charles Kellick]]
# [[Anthony Kershler]]
# [[Charles Lawes (cricketer)]]
# [[Arthur McBeath]]
# [[Cecil McKew]]
# [[Arthur Munn]]
# [[Charles Nicholls]]
# [[Arthur Nichols (cricketer)]]
# [[David Noonan (cricketer)]]
# [[Charles O'Brien (cricketer)]]
# [[David Ogilvy (cricketer)]]
# [[Alfred Park (cricketer)]]
# [[Andrew Sainsbury]]
# [[Benjamin Salmon]]
# [[Bert Shortland]]
# [[Cyril Solomon]]
# [[Alfred Sullivan]]
# [[Carvick Thompson]]
# [[Darren Tucker]]
# [[Brett van Deinsen]]
# [[Arthur Wells (Australian cricketer)]]
# [[Alfred White (Australian cricketer)]]
# [[Albert Whiting]]
# [[Arthur Jackson (cricketer)]]
# [[Charles Munro (cricketer)]]
# [[Clement Wellington]]
# [[Alexander Robinson (cricketer, born 1924)]]
# [[Alfred Patfield]]
# [[Alfred Randell]]
# [[Archibald Hardie]]
# [[Albert Drew]]
# [[Albert Rigby]]
# [[Alexander Webster (cricketer)]]
# [[Derek Woodhead]]
# [[Clint Auty]]
# [[Craig Coulson]]
# [[Barry Causby]]
# [[Darren Chyer]]
# [[Barry Curtin]]
# [[Charles Drew (cricketer)]]
# [[Allen Edwards (cricketer)]]
# [[Andrew Eime]]
# [[Arthur Evans (cricketer)]]
# [[Alan Favell]]
# [[Ashley Hammond]]
# [[Ben Higgins (cricketer)]]
# [[Brian Illman]]
# [[Cornelius Kenneally]]
# [[Chris Killen (cricketer)]]
# [[Chris Owen (cricketer)]]
# [[Alexander Slight]]
# [[Arthur Thomas (Australian cricketer)]]
# [[Albert Weeks]]
# [[Alex Weir (cricketer)]]
# [[Brad Wigney]]
# [[Anthony Brown (cricketer)]]
# [[David Ellis (Australian cricketer)]]
# [[Brian Grace]]
# [[Andrew Hammelmann]]
# [[Albert Hewitt]]
# [[Brad Inwood]]
# [[Darren Kingdon]]
# [[Clarence McCoombe]]
# [[Charles Mengel]]
# [[Clive Page]]
# [[Alec Parker (cricketer)]]
# [[Albert Sims]]
# [[Chris Smart]]
# [[Bruce Taylor (Australian cricketer)]]
# [[Daniel Coleborn]]
# [[Brad Ipson]]
# [[Derek Tate]]
{{Collapse bottom}}
{{Collapse top|Bangladeshi cricketer tagged list (18 athletes)}}
# [[Bishawnath Halder]]
# [[Avishek Mitra]]
# [[Ahmed Sadequr]]
# [[Ashiqul Islam]]
# [[Ashraful Hossain]]
# [[Asif Hossain]]
# [[Belal Hossen]]
# [[Abdul Razzak Rajib]]
# [[Arifur Rahman Rabin]]
# [[Ashikuzzaman]]
# [[Abu Naser]]
# [[Al-Imran (cricketer)]]
# [[Asir Intesar]]
# [[Ariful Hasan]]
# [[Aslam Hossain]]
# [[Abrar Alam]]
# [[Abdul Kayium]]
# [[Ahemd Abidul Haque]]
{{Collapse bottom}}
{{Collapse top|English cricketer tagged list (50 athletes)}}
# [[David Gray (cricketer)]]
# [[Cecil Gosling]]
# [[Alexander Meston]]
# [[Arthur Daer]]
# [[Charles Round]]
# [[Dale Womersley]]
# [[Arnold Read]]
# [[Arthur Johnston (cricketer)]]
# [[Alan Matthews (cricketer)]]
# [[Bertram Watkins]]
# [[Arthur Roper]]
# [[Arthur Barrow (cricketer)]]
# [[Alison White (cricketer)]]
# [[Charles Edwards (English cricketer)]]
# [[Arthur Pickering]]
# [[Arthur Nott]]
# [[Alfred Dearlove]]
# [[Charles Greenway (cricketer)]]
# [[Arthur Newnham]]
# [[Arthur Serjeant]]
# [[Charles Turnbull (cricketer)]]
# [[Amherst Hammond]]
# [[Antony Edwards]]
# [[Alfred Clarke (Surrey cricketer)]]
# [[Arthur Batchelar]]
# [[Charles Burls]]
# [[Albert Freeman (cricketer, born 1844)]]
# [[John Hearsum]]
# [[Charles Morgan (Surrey cricketer)]]
# [[Alfred Bashford]]
# [[David Ashworth (cricketer)]]
# [[Callum Guest]]
# [[David Scott (cricketer)]]
# [[Andrew Brewster]]
# [[Bruno Broughton]]
# [[Charles Bannister (cricketer)]]
# [[David Beaumont (cricketer)]]
# [[Andrew Benke]]
# [[Barrie Bennett]]
# [[Cecil Booth (cricketer)]]
# [[Alfred Bourne (cricketer)]]
# [[Charles Brereton (cricketer)]]
# [[Charles Calvert (Cambridge University cricketer)]]
# [[Adam Clarke (Cambridge University cricketer)]]
# [[Benjamin Collins (Cambridge University cricketer)]]
# [[Daniel Cotton (cricketer)]]
# [[Alexander Cox (cricketer)]]
# [[Ben Seabrook]]
# [[Angus Dahl]]
# [[Charles Barker (cricketer)]]
{{Collapse bottom}}
{{Collapse top|Indian cricketer tagged list (278 athletes)}}
# [[C. R. Mohite]]
# [[Deepak Behera]]
# [[Amit Das (Tripura cricketer)]]
# [[Alok Chandra Sahoo]]
# [[Ankit Lamba]]
# [[Aditya Shanware]]
# [[Amol Ubarhande]]
# [[Bodavarapu Sudhakar]]
# [[Bodapati Sumanth]]
# [[Babashafi Pathan]]
# [[Balwinder Sandhu (cricketer, born 1987)]]
# [[D. T. Chandrasekar]]
# [[Almas Shaukat]]
# [[Amogh Desai]]
# [[Aamir Aziz]]
# [[Azaruddin Bloch]]
# [[Anupam Sanklecha]]
# [[Arnab Nandi]]
# [[Bhavik Thaker]]
# [[Amol Jungade]]
# [[Bikas Pati]]
# [[Akshay Kolhar]]
# [[Bhushan Chauhan]]
# [[Abhishek Bhat]]
# [[Chetan Bist]]
# [[Anand Bais]]
# [[Akshay Chauhan]]
# [[Ankush Bedi]]
# [[Ankush Singh]]
# [[Abhishek Hegde]]
# [[Deepak Manhas]]
# [[Amit Mishra (cricketer, born 1988)]]
# [[Bhima Rao]]
# [[Ankit Dane]]
# [[Anand Singh (cricketer)]]
# [[Amit Das (Odisha cricketer)]]
# [[Akshat Pandey]]
# [[Ankush Jaiswal]]
# [[Alshaaz Pathan]]
# [[Ankit Dabas]]
# [[Boddupalli Amit]]
# [[Anil Bhattacharjee]]
# [[Arup Bhattacharya]]
# [[Amitava Chakraborty]]
# [[Debasis Chakraborty]]
# [[Charanjit Singh (cricketer)]]
# [[Anirban Chatterjee]]
# [[Chandranath Chatterjee]]
# [[Abhishek Chowdhury]]
# [[Avik Chowdhury]]
# [[Bikash Chowdhury (cricketer)]]
# [[Ajoy Das]]
# [[Amitava Das]]
# [[Anup Das]]
# [[Anil Dutt]]
# [[Bhaskar Gupta]]
# [[Amit Hore]]
# [[Debu Majumdar]]
# [[Abdul Masood]]
# [[Aloke Mazumdar]]
# [[Abhik Mitra]]
# [[Bimal Mitra (cricketer)]]
# [[Buddhadeb Mitra]]
# [[Dattatreya Mukherjee]]
# [[Bajina Ramprasad]]
# [[Avijit Paul]]
# [[Aniruddha Roy]]
# [[Debendra Roy]]
# [[Arindam Sarkar]]
# [[Adil Sheikh]]
# [[Arun Singla]]
# [[Alokendu Lahiri]]
# [[Arijit Basu]]
# [[Charles Sumption]]
# [[Abhisek Banerjee]]
# [[David Cooper (Indian cricketer)]]
# [[Ajit Das Gupta]]
# [[Anil Das Gupta]]
# [[Bhaskar Mazumbar]]
# [[Alok Sharma (cricketer)]]
# [[Bharat Awasthy]]
# [[Badaruddin Malik]]
# [[Anil Bhardwaj (cricketer)]]
# [[Ajit Bhatia]]
# [[Anand Bhatia]]
# [[Ajay Divecha]]
# [[Baldev Dua]]
# [[Aditya Jain]]
# [[Anil Jain (cricketer)]]
# [[Ankur Julka]]
# [[Ashwini Kapoor]]
# [[Aditya Kaushik]]
# [[Anilkumar Khanna]]
# [[Arun Khurana]]
# [[Akash Malhotra]]
# [[Ashish Malhotra]]
# [[Anil Mathur]]
# [[Atul Mohindra]]
# [[Balaji Rao (Indian cricketer)]]
# [[Davendra Sharma]]
# [[Deepak Sharma (cricketer, born 1984)]]
# [[Amit Suman]]
# [[Anand Swaroop]]
# [[Bharat Veer]]
# [[Abrar Ahmed (Indian cricketer)]]
# [[Amir Ali (Indian cricketer)]]
# [[Azmath Ali]]
# [[Chelluri Jaikumar]]
# [[Bharat Khanna]]
# [[Babubhai Patel (cricketer)]]
# [[Ahmed Rafiuddin]]
# [[Bobby Zahiruddin]]
# [[Bashir Ahmed (cricketer)]]
# [[Ashok Sandhu]]
# [[Agniv Pan]]
# [[Ashish Kumar (cricketer)]]
# [[Abhishek Tamrakar]]
# [[Ashwin Das]]
# [[Abhishek Yadav (cricketer)]]
# [[Aditya Dhumal]]
# [[Abinash Saha]]
# [[Avnish Dhaliwal]]
# [[Anupam Toppo]]
# [[Bunti Roy]]
# [[Abhishek Tanwar]]
# [[Ajay Kumar (cricketer)]]
# [[Akshay Brahmbhatt]]
# [[Azhar Sheikh]]
# [[Chandrashekhar Atram]]
# [[Chandrapal Singh (cricketer)]]
# [[Arabind Singh]]
# [[Amit Kumar (Himachal Pradesh cricketer)]]
# [[Anmol Malhotra]]
# [[Abhijit Karambelkar]]
# [[Ajay Rana]]
# [[Arjun Debnath]]
# [[Deependra Pandey]]
# [[Deepak Dogra]]
# [[Ankit Tiwari (cricketer)]]
# [[Bikramkumar Das]]
# [[Ajay Sarkar]]
# [[Dasari Chaitanya]]
# [[Ashok Bhudania]]
# [[Abhijit Salvi]]
# [[Abrar Shaikh]]
# [[Abhishek Chaurasia]]
# [[Ambikeshwar Mishra]]
# [[Debabrata Pradhan]]
# [[Anshuman Singh (cricketer)]]
# [[Antony Dhas]]
# [[Arun Bamal]]
# [[Dega Nischal]]
# [[Aaquib Nazir]]
# [[Ahmadnoor Pathan]]
# [[Abhishek Thakuri]]
# [[Abhijit Chakraborty]]
# [[Achit Shigwan]]
# [[Anshul Tripathi]]
# [[Ashutosh Sharma (cricketer)]]
# [[Ayush Jamwal]]
# [[Abhimanyu Lamba]]
# [[Atul Singh Surwar]]
# [[Bikramjit Debnath]]
# [[Bonny Chingangbam]]
# [[Akshaykumar Singh]]
# [[Akhilesh Sahani]]
# [[Ashith Rajiv]]
# [[Chengkam Sangma]]
# [[Amiangshu Sen]]
# [[Ashish Thapa]]
# [[Bikash Pradhan]]
# [[Bhushan Subba]]
# [[Amos Rai]]
# [[Binod Gupta]]
# [[Ashay Palkar]]
# [[Ajay Pradhan]]
# [[Bijay Subba]]
# [[Arya Sethi]]
# [[Asif Khan (Indian cricketer)]]
# [[Arun Chauhan]]
# [[Bibek Diyali]]
# [[Babloo Passah]]
# [[Akshay Jain]]
# [[Aishwary Marya]]
# [[Avijit Singha Roy]]
# [[Abhinav Dixit]]
# [[Ashay Sardesai]]
# [[Arpit Pannu]]
# [[Chitiz Tamang]]
# [[Aditya Singhania]]
# [[Akash Sharma]]
# [[Angadu Narayanan]]
# [[Arpit Guleria]]
# [[Bimol Singh]]
# [[Abhijeet Garg]]
# [[Aakash Choudhary]]
# [[Abhijeet Saranath]]
# [[Bobby Zothansanga]]
# [[Chengalpet Gnaneshwar]]
# [[Bijon Dey]]
# [[Anuj Tiwary]]
# [[Biplab Saikia]]
# [[Abhijeet Saket]]
# [[Ahmed Shah (Indian cricketer)]]
# [[Andrew Vanlalhruaia]]
# [[Abhay Joshi]]
# [[Akoijam Tenyson Singh]]
# [[Avneesh Sudha]]
# [[Bobby Yadav]]
# [[Ajay Lamabam]]
# [[Abhishek Bhandari]]
# [[Asfan Khan]]
# [[Ankit Maini]]
# [[Bhavik Patel]]
# [[Bhiguraj Pathania]]
# [[Ashutosh Das]]
# [[Aosashi Longchar]]
# [[Arjun Azad]]
# [[Anirudh Kanwar]]
# [[Aditya Sethi]]
# [[Ashish Chaudhary (cricketer)]]
# [[Amit Kumar (Arunachal Pradesh cricketer)]]
# [[C. Lalrinsanga]]
# [[Darremsanga]]
# [[Al Bashid Muhammed]]
# [[Avdhoot Dandekar]]
# [[Amlanjyoti Das]]
# [[Arkaprabha Sinha]]
# [[Chiranjivi Kumar]]
# [[Abhilash Gogoi]]
# [[Atif Attarwala]]
# [[Basir Rahman]]
# [[Anil Subba]]
# [[Ashish Joshi]]
# [[Aman Kumar]]
# [[Arnav Sinha]]
# [[Bohoto Yeptho]]
# [[Deepak Shetty]]
# [[Aaqib Khan]]
# [[Atulya Priyankar]]
# [[Chopise Hopongkyu]]
# [[Aniruddha Choudhari]]
# [[Agrim Tiwari]]
# [[Basukinath Mishra]]
# [[Amod Yadav]]
# [[Alagh Prathiban]]
# [[Aakarshit Gomel]]
# [[Aryan Bora]]
# [[Deepak Joon]]
# [[Aditya Rout]]
# [[Anand Rao (cricketer)]]
# [[Bhanu Pania]]
# [[Chinta Gandhi]]
# [[Chandan Ray (Tripura cricketer)]]
# [[Denish Das]]
# [[Anish Charak]]
# [[Arpit Gaud]]
# [[Ankitkar Jaiswal]]
# [[Akash Pandey]]
# [[Akash Raj]]
# [[Anuj Raj]]
# [[Avijit Singh]]
# [[Binny Samual]]
# [[Bal Krishna (cricketer)]]
# [[Bhagmender Lather]]
# [[Ashish Rai (cricketer)]]
# [[Anton Subikshan]]
# [[Anwesh Sharma]]
# [[Abhinav Sharma]]
# [[Amit Ali]]
# [[Apurva Anand]]
# [[Akavi Yeptho]]
# [[Chingakham Ranjan]]
# [[Aadil Rashid]]
# [[Abhishek Pandey]]
# [[Asif Manzoor]]
# [[Ahsanul Kabir]]
# [[Amrish Gautam]]
{{Collapse bottom}}
{{Collapse top|New Zealander cricketer tagged list (89 athletes)}}
# [[Allen Roberts]]
# [[David Cooper (New Zealand cricketer)]]
# [[Chris Davies (New Zealand cricketer)]]
# [[Carlton Hay]]
# [[Alec Kerr]]
# [[Charlie Kerr (cricketer)]]
# [[Chris Lee (cricketer)]]
# [[Alexander Morrison (cricketer)]]
# [[Bradley Nielsen]]
# [[Adolphus O'Brien]]
# [[Charles Osmond]]
# [[Brendon Oxenham]]
# [[Dean Potter (cricketer)]]
# [[Albert Putt]]
# [[Charles Restieaux]]
# [[Aubrey Ritchie]]
# [[Dawson Ritchie]]
# [[Alfred Scott (New Zealand cricketer)]]
# [[Derek Scott (cricketer)]]
# [[Alfred Sloman]]
# [[Brian Sorenson]]
# [[Charles Stafford (cricketer)]]
# [[Charles Stone (New Zealand cricketer)]]
# [[Basil Totman]]
# [[Brian Warner (cricketer)]]
# [[David Weston (cricketer)]]
# [[Arthur Williams (cricketer)]]
# [[Brook Hatwell]]
# [[Ben Beecroft]]
# [[Ben Stoyanoff]]
# [[Charles Aldridge]]
# [[Albert Bates (cricketer)]]
# [[David Boyle (cricketer)]]
# [[Arthur Cant]]
# [[Albert Dakin]]
# [[David Dempsey (cricketer)]]
# [[Alan Devlin (cricketer)]]
# [[Charles Fearon]]
# [[Brian Ford (cricketer)]]
# [[Charles Guiney]]
# [[Brian Harbridge]]
# [[Ashley Hart (cricketer)]]
# [[Alfred Hasell]]
# [[Arthur Longden]]
# [[Bob Masefield]]
# [[Augustus Page]]
# [[Charles Rix]]
# [[Craig Ross (Canterbury cricketer)]]
# [[Charles Treweek]]
# [[Arthur Washer]]
# [[Alexander Wilson (cricketer)]]
# [[David Airey]]
# [[Arthur Aldersley]]
# [[Bill Burton (cricketer)]]
# [[Arthur Duncan (New Zealand cricketer)]]
# [[Arnold Gedye]]
# [[Arthur George (cricketer)]]
# [[Arthur Hawthorne]]
# [[David Henry (cricketer)]]
# [[Brian Hopkins (cricketer)]]
# [[David Hosking (cricketer)]]
# [[Arthur Howard (New Zealand cricketer)]]
# [[Charles Kreeft]]
# [[Alexander Littlejohn]]
# [[Charles Mansill]]
# [[Charles Miles (cricketer, born 1850)]]
# [[Andrew Morey]]
# [[Cedric Muir]]
# [[Alec Riddolls]]
# [[Archibald Rigg]]
# [[Benjamin Wilson (New Zealand cricketer)]]
# [[Bruce Baldwin (cricketer)]]
# [[Craig Bartlett (cricketer)]]
# [[David Blake (New Zealand cricketer)]]
# [[Chris Cruikshank]]
# [[David Kivell]]
# [[Dave Richardson (New Zealand cricketer)]]
# [[David Tarrant]]
# [[Christopher Webb (cricketer)]]
# [[Aaron Bradley]]
# [[Allen Collier]]
# [[Brian Foulds]]
# [[Brian Gill (cricketer)]]
# [[Bryan Higgins (cricketer)]]
# [[Brett Hood]]
# [[Ashok Puna]]
# [[Craig Ross (Northern Districts cricketer)]]
# [[Brian Spragg]]
# [[Brendan Ward]]
{{Collapse bottom}}
{{Collapse top|Pakistani cricketer tagged list (76 athletes)}}
# [[Amjad Qureshi]]
# [[Azhar Hasan]]
# [[Azam Jan]]
# [[Ameer Hamza]]
# [[Bilal Hussain]]
# [[Azam Hussain]]
# [[Ashraf Ali (Karachi cricketer)]]
# [[Ahmed Hayat]]
# [[Asim Iqbal]]
# [[Amjad Waqas]]
# [[Atif Ashraf]]
# [[Adil Nisar]]
# [[Ali Azmat (cricketer)]]
# [[Afsar Nawaz]]
# [[Adnan Raees]]
# [[Asif Raza]]
# [[Arun Lal (Pakistani cricketer)]]
# [[Ahmed Butt (cricketer)]]
# [[Ali Raza (cricketer, born 1977)]]
# [[Armaghan Elahi]]
# [[Asad Zarar]]
# [[Ali Haider (cricketer)]]
# [[Ali Khan (Pakistani cricketer)]]
# [[Anis Siddiqi]]
# [[Aslam Sattar]]
# [[Abdullah Jan]]
# [[Babar Ali (cricketer)]]
# [[Ansar Javed]]
# [[Akbar Badshah]]
# [[Babar Rehman]]
# [[Ahmed Dar]]
# [[Anis-ur-Rehman]]
# [[Adnan Baig]]
# [[Asif Ashfaq]]
# [[Babar Khan (cricketer)]]
# [[Atif Ali]]
# [[Aqib Shah]]
# [[Abid Hasan (cricketer)]]
# [[Atiq-ur-Rehman]]
# [[Altaf Ahmed]]
# [[Aamer Ishaq]]
# [[Behram Khan (cricketer)]]
# [[Afaq Ahmed (cricketer)]]
# [[Ahmed Asfandyar]]
# [[Asif Fawad]]
# [[Adil Akram]]
# [[Abdul Aziz (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa cricketer)]]
# [[Adnan Sabri]]
# [[Arshad Nawaz]]
# [[Ayaz Jilani]]
# [[Basit Ali (Karachi cricketer)]]
# [[Abdullah Mukaddam]]
# [[Abdul Wahab Dar]]
# [[Abubakar Khan]]
# [[Abdul Mannan (cricketer)]]
# [[Asadullah (Pakistani cricketer)]]
# [[Bilal Shah]]
# [[Asif Ali (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa cricketer)]]
# [[Afzaal Saeed]]
# [[Azhar Sultan]]
# [[Adnan Mehmood]]
# [[Ali Mustafa (cricketer)]]
# [[Ahmed Hasan]]
# [[Ahsan Baig]]
# [[Ahmar Ashfaq]]
# [[Aqib Javed]]
# [[Ali Salman (cricketer)]]
# [[Afaq Shahid]]
# [[Awais Iqbal]]
# [[Arsalan Arshad]]
# [[Abdul Rauf (cricketer)]]
# [[Ali Hasnain]]
# [[Akhtar Shah]]
# [[Aqeel Anjum]]
# [[Ata-ur-Rehman (Balochistan cricketer)]]
# [[Atiq Ahmed (cricketer)]]
{{Collapse bottom}}
{{Collapse top|South African cricketer tagged list (137 athletes)}}
# [[Alan Finlayson (cricketer)]]
# [[Darryl Brown (South African cricketer)]]
# [[Craig Kirsten]]
# [[Brandon Scullard]]
# [[Daniel Sincuba]]
# [[Bokang Mosena]]
# [[Daniel During]]
# [[Brian Bath]]
# [[Alec Douglas]]
# [[Bruce Groves]]
# [[David Whitefield]]
# [[Albert Heffer]]
# [[Denham Price]]
# [[David McMeeking (cricketer)]]
# [[David Eaton (cricketer)]]
# [[Christopher Marrow]]
# [[Aidan Brooker]]
# [[Akhona Kula]]
# [[Brian Barnard]]
# [[Bruce Kerr]]
# [[Charles Rutherfoord]]
# [[Bentley Wimble]]
# [[Bongani Mahlangu (cricketer)]]
# [[David Mogotlane]]
# [[Derek Mitchell (cricketer)]]
# [[Anthony Evans (cricketer)]]
# [[Bob Homani]]
# [[Chad Baxter]]
# [[Brent Kops]]
# [[Brendon Reddy]]
# [[Bradley Williams (cricketer)]]
# [[David Jacobs (cricketer, born 1989)]]
# [[Bantu Dandala]]
# [[Curtley Louw]]
# [[Allister Majola]]
# [[Darryl Hendricks]]
# [[Dalen Mmako]]
# [[Bradley de Villiers]]
# [[Bradley Mauer]]
# [[Athi Mafazwe]]
# [[David Masterson]]
# [[Craig Abrahams]]
# [[Andrew Cyster]]
# [[Abraham de Swardt]]
# [[Chad Grainger]]
# [[Charles Hendrikse]]
# [[Cecil Heydenrych]]
# [[Conrad Lotz]]
# [[Craig Lowe (cricketer)]]
# [[Craig Marais (cricketer)]]
# [[Carl Mellors]]
# [[Aidan Olivier]]
# [[Danico Philmon]]
# [[Craig Wilson (cricketer)]]
# [[David Alers]]
# [[Craig Ballantyne]]
# [[Capel Baines]]
# [[Arthur Bauer]]
# [[Bevan Bennett]]
# [[Chris Brent]]
# [[Clement Bryce]]
# [[Anthony Chubb]]
# [[Alec Clarke]]
# [[Basil Crews]]
# [[Alwyn Curnick]]
# [[Christopher Davies (South African cricketer)]]
# [[Anthony de Kock]]
# [[Andrew Dewar]]
# [[Charles Dick (cricketer)]]
# [[Beverley Esterhuizen]]
# [[Burton Forbes]]
# [[Brian Foulkes]]
# [[Colin Fraser-Grant]]
# [[Athol Hagemann]]
# [[Arthur Hayes (cricketer)]]
# [[Demitri Hayidakis]]
# [[Dennis Hollard]]
# [[Cecil Kirton]]
# [[Colin Kretzmann]]
# [[Clifford Kuhn]]
# [[Andrew Lawson (cricketer)]]
# [[Adolph Lipke]]
# [[Bryan Lones]]
# [[Bruce Long]]
# [[Charles Lownds]]
# [[Anthony Lyons (cricketer)]]
# [[Charles McAlister]]
# [[Charles McCalgan]]
# [[Colin McCallum (cricketer)]]
# [[Cecil McCallum]]
# [[Brian Mallinson]]
# [[Claude Mandy]]
# [[Arthur Murrell]]
# [[Brian Ndzundzu]]
# [[Arthur Peters (South African cricketer)]]
# [[Charles Pope (South African cricketer)]]
# [[Arrie Schoeman]]
# [[Cecil Shearman]]
# [[Arthur Shingler]]
# [[Charles Snyman]]
# [[Arthur Sprenger]]
# [[Alec Stander]]
# [[Daniel Stephen]]
# [[Coventry Tainton]]
# [[Alan Tarr]]
# [[Charles Wakefield (cricketer)]]
# [[Cecil Warner]]
# [[Arthur Weakley]]
# [[Charles Weir]]
# [[Clive White (cricketer)]]
# [[Denzil Whitfield]]
# [[Andrew Wilkins]]
# [[Albert Wilkins]]
# [[Chase Young (cricketer)]]
# [[Charles Allison (cricketer)]]
# [[Charles Basson]]
# [[Anthony Bendel]]
# [[Basil Bradfield]]
# [[Alfred Britton]]
# [[Charles Britton]]
# [[Andrew Cadle]]
# [[Carey Cawood]]
# [[Brian Clayton]]
# [[Cecil Colman]]
# [[Arthur Coy]]
# [[David Daly (cricketer)]]
# [[Dennis Daly]]
# [[Charles Delbridge]]
# [[Brian Dold]]
# [[David Emslie]]
# [[Bruce Friderichs]]
# [[Charles Gingell]]
# [[Christiaan Goetz]]
# [[Augustus Hewitt-Fox]]
# [[Collin Kelbrick]]
# [[Colin Maritz]]
# [[Arthur Pattison]]
{{Collapse bottom}}
{{Collapse top|Sri Lankan cricketer tagged list (121 athletes)}}
# [[Anuk Fernando]]
# [[Asanga Jayasooriya]]
# [[Angelo Jayasinghe]]
# [[Damitha Hunukumbura]]
# [[Anushka Polonowita]]
# [[Amal Athulathmudali]]
# [[Asela Jayasinghe]]
# [[Chathura Peiris]]
# [[Damien Nadarajah]]
# [[Chinthaka Edirimanne]]
# [[Daminda Kolugala]]
# [[Aruna de Silva]]
# [[Chamara de Soysa]]
# [[Arshad Junaid]]
# [[Denuwan Fernando]]
# [[Aloka Amarasiri]]
# [[Arosh Janoda]]
# [[Chamara Lasantha]]
# [[Chaminda Hathurusingha]]
# [[Damith Indika]]
# [[Daminda Ranawaka]]
# [[Chalana de Silva]]
# [[Charith Sudaraka]]
# [[Chanaka Wijesinghe]]
# [[Chathupama Gunasinghe]]
# [[Akila Isanka]]
# [[Akila Jayasundera]]
# [[Aravinda Premaratne]]
# [[Akash Senaratne]]
# [[Buddika Sanjeewa]]
# [[Andawaththa Tyronne]]
# [[Danush Peiris]]
# [[Amith Eranda]]
# [[Akila Lakshan]]
# [[Asela Aluthge]]
# [[Avishka Fernando (Kilinochchi District cricketer)]]
# [[Akeel Inham]]
# [[Dananja Madushanka]]
# [[Chamod Silva]]
# [[Chandimanthu Rodrigo]]
# [[Damith Perera]]
# [[Asiri Bandara]]
# [[Damidu Ashan]]
# [[Buddika Janith]]
# [[Chalanaka Weerasinghe]]
# [[Aruna Dharmasena]]
# [[Chandana Aravinda]]
# [[Chaminda Gamage]]
# [[Amila Gunawardene]]
# [[Ansley Jansze]]
# [[Charith Keerthisinghe]]
# [[Dasun Senevirathna]]
# [[Chinthaka Perera]]
# [[Dammika Perera]]
# [[Arosha Perera]]
# [[Damith Priyadharshana]]
# [[Ashen Kavinda]]
# [[Buddika Hasaranga]]
# [[Amila Madusanka]]
# [[Chathura Lakshan]]
# [[Danushka Bandara]]
# [[Adeesha Thilanchana]]
# [[Charith Mendis]]
# [[Charitha Kumarasinghe]]
# [[Charith Rajapakshe]]
# [[Chenutha Wickramasinghe]]
# [[Chameera Dissanayake]]
# [[Chathura Milan]]
# [[Asiri de Silva]]
# [[Buddika Madushan]]
# [[Anjana de Silva]]
# [[Chaamikara Hewage]]
# [[Channa Fernando]]
# [[Chaminda Handunnettige]]
# [[Danuka Prabath]]
# [[Bobby Fernando]]
# [[Agith Rajapaksha]]
# [[Anuk de Alwis]]
# [[Alwis Nanayakkara]]
# [[Charuka Wijelath]]
# [[Ayana Siriwardhana]]
# [[Asantha Singappuli]]
# [[Chathuranga Dikkumbura]]
# [[Ayantha de Silva]]
# [[Buddika Prasad]]
# [[Bawantha Udangamuwa]]
# [[Chanuk Dilshan]]
# [[Avishka Chenuka]]
# [[Chaturan Sanjeewa]]
# [[Asel Kulathunga]]
# [[Amitha Kaushalya]]
# [[Aravinda Bandara]]
# [[Chanaka Ruwansiri]]
# [[Chamara Fernando]]
# [[Amoda Widanapathirana]]
# [[Azlan Samsudeen]]
# [[Chanuka Bandara (cricketer, born 1998)]]
# [[Chamod Wickramasuriya]]
# [[Chaminda Boteju]]
# [[Ashan Ranasinghe]]
# [[Chaminda Pathirana]]
# [[Chandula Weeraratne]]
# [[Ashen Maleesha]]
# [[Anurudda Rajapakse]]
# [[Chamal Perera]]
# [[Ashen Mendis]]
# [[Anushka Perera]]
# [[Chathuranga Silva]]
# [[Bishan Mendis]]
# [[Chathuranga Jayathilake]]
# [[Dammika Rajapakse]]
# [[Charuka Tharindu]]
# [[Bhagya Ediriweera]]
# [[Aruna Priyantha]]
# [[Asela Wewalwala]]
# [[Anjula Perera]]
# [[Chamath Perera]]
# [[Abuthahir Rizan]]
# [[Charith Tissera]]
# [[Ajith Kumara (cricketer)]]
# [[Damith Gunatilleke]]
{{Collapse bottom}}
{{Collapse top|Zimbabwean cricketer tagged list (18 athletes)}}
# [[Dobbo Townshend]]
# [[Bothwell Chapungu]]
# [[Dean Mazhawidza]]
# [[Bonaparte Mujuru]]
# [[Bruce Sibanda]]
# [[Bradley Staddon]]
# [[Benjamin Katsande]]
# [[Andrew Durham]]
# [[Ashby Mutumbami]]
# [[Daniel Erasmus (cricketer)]]
# [[Bruce Tembo]]
# [[Blessing Juspen]]
# [[Brighton Mugochi]]
# [[Alexander Mavhiko]]
# [[Alois Tichana]]
# [[Bekezela Moyo]]
# [[Anthony Moor]]
# [[Daniel Zvidzai]]
{{Collapse bottom}}
I noticed this added up to 957 and there were 1,106 on the original list. The missing ones and their nationalities are below [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 19:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Missing nationalities (probably – 161 people – some duplicates due to moves)}}
# [[Abdul Naseri]] – Afghan
# [[Abdul Razaq (cricketer)]] – Afghan
# [[Abhishek Kaushik (cricketer, born 1994)]] – moved to draft and then deleted, which would seem irregular on all counts
# [[Aby John]] – Vanuatu
# [[Adjodha Persaud]] – Guyana
# [[Adnan Butt]] – Bahrain
# [[Adrian Brathwaite]] – Barbados
# [[Adrian Grant (cricketer)]] – Barbados
# [[Aftab Alam (Pakistani cricketer)]] – Pakistani – moved to [[Aftab Khan (fielding coach)]] were sources have been added. Remove from list
# [[Afzal Zazai]] – Afghan
# [[Ajmal Khan (cricketer)]] – Afghan
# [[Akash Vashist]] – India
# [[Albert Harding]] – Trinidad
# [[Albert Hassell (cricketer)]] – Barbados
# [[Alex Cooke]] – Jersey
# [[Alexander Clarke (cricketer)]] – Guyana
# [[Alexander Morgan (cricketer)]] – Jamaica
# [[Alfred Browne (cricketer)]] – Barbados
# [[Alfred Low]] – Jamaica
# [[Alfred Motta]] – Trinidad
# [[Alfred Taylor (cricketer)]] – Barbados
# [[Ali Ahmad (cricketer)]] – Afghan
# [[Ali Ahmed (cricketer)]] – duplicate
# [[Alistair Applethwaite]] – Jamaica
# [[Allan Jemmott]] – Barbados
# [[Allan Outridge]] – Guyana
# [[Allan Silvera]] – Jamaica
# [[Allen Kerr (cricketer)]] – NZ – sources have been added, remove from list
# [[Allman Agard]] – Trindad
# [[Altemont Wellington]] – Jamaica
# [[Alton Beckford]] – Jamaica
# [[Aman Deep]] – Austria
# [[Ameet Sampat]] – Oman
# [[Amir Zazai]] – Afghan
# [[Amitava Roy (cricketer)]] – India
# [[Amogh Sunil Desai]] – India
# [[Andre Dwyer]] – Jamaica
# [[Andrew Dewhurst]] – Jersey
# [[Andrew Hutchinson (cricketer)]] – moved to draft and then deleted, which would seem irregular on all counts
# [[Angus Learmond]] – Guyana
# [[Ankur Vasishta]] – Hong Kong
# [[Anthony Andrews (cricketer)]] – Jamaica
# [[Anthony Atkins]] – Barbados
# [[Anthony Campbell (cricketer)]] – Jamaica
# [[Anthony King (Barbadian cricketer)]] – Barbados
# [[Anthony Small (cricketer)]] – NZ ≠ moved to [[Tony Small (athlete)]] – sources have been added so needs to be removed from the list
# [[Antonio Whybrew]] – Guyana
# [[Archibald Bell (cricketer)]] – Guyana
# [[Arthur Bonitto]] – Jamaica
# [[Arthur Dare]] – Guyana
# [[Arthur Duff (cricketer)]] – Jamaica
# [[Arthur Fisher (Australian cricketer)]] – Australia – sources have been added so needs removing from the list
# [[Arthur Maingot]] – Trinidad
# [[Arthur McKenzie (cricketer)]] – Jamaica
# [[Arthur Tarilton]] – Jamaica
# [[Arthur Trestrail]] – Trinidad
# [[Asad Khan (cricketer)]] – Afghan
# [[Asadullah (Afghan cricketer)]] – Afghan
# [[Asadullah (Pakistani cricketer)]] – Pakistan
# [[Ashwani Kumar (cricketer)]] – India – sources have been added so needs removing from the list
# [[Aston Powe]] – Jamaica
# [[Attaullah (Afghan cricketer)]] – Afghan
# [[Austin Dummett]] – Guyana
# [[Avelyn Medford]] – Barbados
# [[Azmatullah Nazeer]] – Kuwait
# [[Bakhtarullah Atal]] – Afghan
# [[Bashir Ahmad (Afghan cricketer)]] – Afghan
# [[Bashir Ahmed (cricketer)]] – India
# [[Batin Shah]] – Afghan
# [[Benson Mwita]] – Tanzania
# [[Bernie Thomas]] – Guyana
# [[Bevon Brown]] – Jamaica
# [[Bismillah Zadran]] – Afghan
# [[Brent Robey]] – moved to draft and then deleted, which would seem irregular on all counts
# [[Brian Buchanan (cricketer)]] – Jamaca
# [[Brian Patoir]] – Guyana
# [[Broderick Warner]] – Trinidad
# [[Bruce Eligon]] – Trinidad
# [[Bruce Gordon (cricketer)]] – South Africa
# [[Bruce Inniss]] – Barbados
# [[Buxton Peters]] – Trinidad
# [[Byron Drury (cricketer)]] – Jamaica
# [[Calvin Moore]] – Guyana
# [[Carl André]] – South Africa
# [[Carl Boy]] – Jamaica
# [[Carl Furlonge]] – Trinidad
# [[Carl Gouveia]] – Guyana
# [[Carl Mullins]] – Barbados
# [[Carleton Clarke]] – Barbados
# [[Carlos Maynard]] – Barbados
# [[Carlton Gordon]] – Jamaica
# [[Carlton Reece]] – Guyana
# [[Carlyle Miller]] – Guyana
# [[Castell Folkes]] – Jamaica
# [[Cecil De Cordova]] – Jamaica
# [[Cecil Rogers]] – Barbados
# [[Cecil Shearman]] – South Africa
# [[Celso de Freitas]] – Guyana
# [[Chamara de Soysa]] – Sri Lanka
# [[Chamara Fernando]] – Sri Lanka
# [[Chamara Lasantha]] – Sri Lanka
# [[Chamindu Wickramasinghe]] – Sri Lanka – sources have been added, needs to be removed from the list. The draft note has already been removed from this article (in June 2024)
# [[Champa Sugathadasa]] – Sri Lanka
# [[Chandi Wickramasinghe]] – Sri Lanka
# [[Charles Blades]] – Barbados
# [[Charles Bourne (cricketer)]] – Barbados
# [[Charles Chandler (cricketer)]] – Jamaica
# [[Charles Chapman (cricketer, born 1860)]] – merged with [[Charles Chapman (rugby union)]] (created Nov 2024). Obviously sourced, so remove from list
# [[Charles Delbridge]] – South Africa
# [[Charles Delgado]] – Jamaica
# [[Charles Gregory (cricketer, born 1847)]] – Australia – moved to [[Charles Smith Gregory]]; some sourcing added so should probably be removed from the list
# [[Charles Hurditch]] – Jamaica
# [[Charles Packer]] – Barbados
# [[Charles Spooner (cricketer)]] – Barbados
# [[Charles Valencia]] – Jamaica
# [[Charles Warner (Trinidadian cricketer)]] – Trinidad
# [[Charles Webb (Barbadian cricketer)]] – Barbados
# [[Charlie Taylor (cricketer)]] – Barbados
# [[Chatterpaul Persaud]] – Guyana
# [[Chester Cumberbatch]] – Barbados
# [[Chetwyn Burnham]] – Barbados
# [[Chongtham Mehul]] – India
# [[Chris Humphrey (cricketer)]] – Barbados
# [[Christiaan Snyman]] – Namibia
# [[Christopher Janik]] – Singapore – a source added which should probably take this off the list
# [[Christopher Simpson (cricketer)]] – Guyana
# [[Clarence Worme]] – Barbados
# [[Clement Browne (cricketer)]] – Barbados
# [[Clement Gaskin]] – Guyana
# [[Cleveland Bailey]] – Jamaica
# [[Cleveland Davidson]] – Jamaica
# [[Clifton Cawley]] – Jamaica
# [[Clifton Folkes]] – Jamaica
# [[Clinton Reed]] – Barbados
# [[Clinton St Hill]] – Barbados
# [[Clive Campbell (cricketer)]] – Jamaica
# [[Clyde Beckles]] – Barbados
# [[Colin Bloomfield (cricketer)]] – Jamaica
# [[Colin Fletcher (cricketer)]] – Jamaica
# [[Colin Payne (cricketer)]] – Barbados
# [[Collette McGuiness]] – Ireland women (international)
# [[Courtenay Daley]] – Jamaica
# [[Courtney O'Connor]] – Jamaica
# [[Cyprian Bloomfield]] – Jamaica
# [[D'Arcy Galt]] – Trinidad
# [[Dale Ellcock]] – Barbados
# [[Dale Mason]] – Barbados
# [[Danniel Ruyange]] – Uganda
# [[Darnley Da Costa]] – Barbados
# [[Dastagir Khan]] – Afghan
# [[Dave Marshall (Barbadian cricketer)]] – Barbados – sources added; remove from list
# [[David Lumsden (cricketer)]] – South Africa
# [[David Martins]] – Guyana
# [[David Sultan]] – Trinidad
# [[Dean Morgan (cricketer)]] – Jamaica
# [[Delroy Morgan]] – Jamaica – sources added; remove from list
# [[Denis Rampersad]] – Trinidad
# [[Dennis Hewitt]] – Guyana
# [[Dennis Thorbourne]] – Jamaica
# [[Denville McKenzie]] – Jamaica
# [[Deonarine Deyal]] – Trinidad
{{collapse bottom}}

::::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]], they've had more than a year at this point. Time enough. Plus they have more than a half-decade before they are actually deleted. '''[[User:JayCubby|<span style="background:#0a0e33;color:white;padding:2px;">Jay</span>]][[User talk:JayCubby|<span style="background:#1a237e;color:white;padding:2px;">Cubby</span>]]''' 15:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:JayCubby|JayCubby]] - There is [[WP:NORUSH]] [[User:KatoKungLee|KatoKungLee]] ([[User talk:KatoKungLee|talk]]) 18:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::So? It is not up to those who don't think there is a need to delete/draftify the articles en-mass to work out which ones those who do believe that is a desirable course of action are referring to, let alone without the latter group having done what was explicitly noted as a prerequisite to deletion/draftification. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Jay, I agree:  You've had more than a year at this point to follow the directions in the closing summary and {{xt|break it down into smaller lists by nationality, era, or any other criteria requested by editors who wish to evaluate subsets of articles}}.  Time enough? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:Something should be done. [[User:Mrfoogles|Mrfoogles]] ([[User talk:Mrfoogles|talk]]) 23:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::What something consistent with the close are you proposing? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, I would support draftify-ing those articles sooner rather than later, especially before Wikipedia reaches the 7 million articles mark. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 14:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:Can I point out that there's a talk page for this at [[Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list]]. I've already gone through a bunch of these articles, mainly New Zealanders, to suggest those that might be kept, those are, in my view, a merge – which retains the page history and is a valid [[WP:ATD]] – and those that might be deleted. Some have been improved. I've not gotten to all of them by any means. But that's somewhere that anyone about to make any of these a draft needs to have a look at first please. I've not done any work on these lists for a while as it's so time consuming and I'm not sure when I'll get a chance to look again, but a clear procedure for reviewing these was put in place. Ta [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 10:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
::e2a: a quick look through the British and New Zealand ones suggests all are either keeps or redirects – I note a number that have had suitable sourcing added and some with suitable levels of detail, other than the ones that I'd worked through. I imagine the same is true of the Australians as well – an ATD will be available on almost every case if they haven't has sourcing added. I'm not entirely sure that the original list is really that valid from the POV of these subsets if I'm honest. It's certainly not a job that I would like to automate based on the list as it exists [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 11:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
:: Yes, please. The Village pump is not a good place to post these lists. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 11:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
:::As an update:
:::*I've gone through the British list at [[Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list#British list]] and made recommendations for all of them. There are 12 or so which I think could be worked up. I've listed these at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket]] in case anyone has an interest
:::*I'm working through the New Zealanders – 70+ done. There's an interim list at [[User:Blue Square Thing/sandbox3#NZ]]. Once I'm done (a few weeks I imagine – I have 22 left) I'll push that list to the same talk page as above
:::*At [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket]] The-Pope has broken down the Australian list into state teams, which is really helpful. But these will take a while to get through
:::Those are the three where sourcing is easiest to come across, so it's easiest to deal with those first [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 19:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The instructions on the {{tl|Special draft pending}} tag say that when sources have been added, the tag shouldn't be removed (why?), but instead the article should be listed at [[Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list]] for review.

However, so far, over the course of the last year, almost 200 articles have been individually reviewed and listed there (either with a recommendation to redirect or with sources), and this work has been ignored.  The editor who wrote these instructions is no longer editing. 

Should we:

# Tell people to just remove the tags when they redirect or add sources?  (This would require re-generating the list.)
# Tell them to remove the tag ''and'' to remove the entry from [[Wikipedia:Lugstubs 2 list]]?
# Find some volunteers who will actually follow up on the chosen process?  (I believe the process was boldly made up by one editor; I've seen no evidence of discussion, much less consensus.)

What do you think? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I really don't know what is the most effective way to do this. I can see the benefit to removing them as someone works on articles, but it involves removing them from two places. There certainly seems to be evidence that articles have been worked on without notes left on the talk page, so I'm not sure it's reliable to ask people to remove from two places.
:It makes sense to redirect as we go though. Ultimately this is a human task – unless there's a really clever way to do it, I don't think it can be automated due to the need to redirect a huge number of the articles – in the original discussion I estimated 75% were redirects
:On that subject, there was some discussion about the best way to do the draft/redirect process. MY gut feeling is that it's redundant to send articles to draft, have someone bring the article back to mainspace, and then redirect the article – the draft isn't deleted automatically and that creates more overheads. I think. A straight redirect is better I think
:But it's difficult to do this when the tags are still on the articles, I agree. I would have started to do that last March, but for the process that was put in place... It will, fwiw, take some time [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 19:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
::If people pulled the template off the page when redirecting/improving, then we should be able to combine (e.g., with [[grep]]) the original list against the list of pages that transclude the template, to find which ones are still in need of work/eligible for being moved to the Draft: space. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
:::If that works then it's something that sounds sensible. But we'll obviously need to get the template message changed first [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 07:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Changing the template message just involves going to [[Template:Special draft pending]] and clicking the [Edit] button.  However, I don't know how the opponents of these articles would feel about that.  What if somebody adds a source and removes the tag, but they think the added source isn't good enough to justify keeping the article in the mainspace?  They might prefer more bureaucracy. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:I've now managed to work through all the British and New Zealand articles. Of the 50 British ones, seven need to be removed from the list as sources have been added, and the other 43 are probably redirects – although a number of them (at least 12) have significant possibilities (i.e. I know that if I could expend the time on them that they'd almost certainly have sources added). Of the 89 New Zealanders, one needs to be drafted, 40 have had sources added, and 48 can be redirected (with strong possibilities for 10 or so at least). The detail is at [[Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list]]. I'm about to start on the Zimbabweans.
:Perhaps someone could let me know what they'd like me to do next? There's a list of 1,106. A great many of them will be redirects or drafts, but at the minute the note added to the top of each page stops me doing anything very much to those articles – one [[Charles Chapman (cricketer, born 1860)]] (British but not appearing on the British list for some reason) has been merged with [[Charles Chapman (rugby union)]] as they were the same person, but the article still appears on the original list. I have no idea what an automated attempt at this process would do to an article like that, but I can't imagine that any automated process will work, I can't remove the list, I don't think I'm allowed to redirect them, and I'm pretty certain I'm not supposed to remove them from the list.
:So, what next? Other than leave it another year and talk about it then if people prefer. [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 17:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::Well, let's ping the people who wanted this work done:  @[[User:Pppery|Pppery]], @[[User:3df|3df]], @[[User:JayCubby|JayCubby]], @[[User:Let'srun|Let'srun]], @[[User:Mrfoogles|Mrfoogles]]:  You all asked above for [[Somebody else's problem|someone else]] to do this work for you.  It's being done.  How do you want the procedural bits to be handled?  If you don't care, please say so. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::: Speaking only for myself, I'm annoyed by the fact that we had a lengthy discussion that came to a consensus to do something, and then didn't do it, and that we've had articles  that have been allegedly pending being moved into draft space for years. I don't care much more about the procedure than that we get out of that state. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 18:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::So if BST removes the tags for the ones they think shouldn't be draftified, and pulls them off the list, then you're okay with that? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::: Yes. Which says nothing about what anyone else is okay with, of course. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 18:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, I tried to support it being done if someone wanted to do it. To be honest, I don't completely understand the situation, but if it helps I think the ones that @[[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] describes as probably redirects should probably be redirected? Or if the draft tags don't allow that, drafted. Enough time has gone by in my opinion if they're still unsourced -- don't know whether there was an already-fixed timeline?
:::If I'm understanding this correctly, I think we should just let people go through and draftify/redirect them all (except the sourced ones), removing the tags. If there are some that sources could be found for, well, new pages can always be created later with the sources. [[User:Mrfoogles|Mrfoogles]] ([[User talk:Mrfoogles|talk]]) 18:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::None of these are unsourced articles.  The ones on this list were chosen because they:
::::# were created by an editor who fell out of favor with the community, and
::::# are sourced (only) to specific websites.
::::The tag was boldly created by an editor and suggests a new/unprecedented process that, e.g., claims that redirecting an article to a suitable list would still leave that redirect subject to draftification and eventual deletion.  I suspect that his intention was to personally review any article that others thought was eligible to be left in the mainspace.  However, he has since stopped editing, so we can't ask him how he thought this would work out in practice. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Part of the problem is that you have to know where to redirect them to. Which is slightly tricky. Sometimes lists don't exist, which means we draft; sometimes you need to choose a list from options, which is OK but tricky. I can start to do that, but it takes time and is slightly difficult as it tends to rely on having accessed to a paywalled source. But it needs doing – the current situation is starting to get silly and I share the exasperation of Pppery because I could already have dealt with a couple of hundred of these
::::At least four have already been sent to draft and then the draft deleted. I thought the process we have here guaranteed that they wouldn't be deleted from draft space for five years? (from memory) That doesn't appear to be happening – for whatever reason [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 19:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::They were probably deleted because the people who wanted to delete these didn't set up the procedures correctly.  We can ask for a [[WP:REFUND]] for those four. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::They were probably just draftified independently of the RfC without putting the tag on them.{{pb}}What about just draftifying everything you (or others) haven't already redirected or otherwise exempted via introducing IRS SIGCOV, then you can get started on deciding which other pages to redirect/exempt from within draft space? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 16:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I was/am interested in working on this myself{{snd}}I didn’t mean to imply with my comment that it’s somebody else’s problem. [[User:3df|3df]] ([[User talk:3df|talk]]) 21:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I concur with Pppery here. [[User:Let&#39;srun|Let&#39;srun]] ([[User talk:Let&#39;srun|talk]]) 23:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:Any that have not already been individually assessed as probably meeting notability criteria (or as being redirectable) should just be draftified. The whole point of their getting privileged draftification treatment was so that interested editors had 10x time to trawl through these articles '''after they were removed from mainspace''': {{tq|'''I find that there is a ''rough consensus'' in favour of the proposal, and a stronger consensus that they should not be left in mainspace'''}}. They don't get to hang around indefinitely in mainspace just because the same editors who staunchly opposed the consensus neglected to show any interest in the ''non-mandatory'' close recommendation of making more discretized lists (which are supposed to make it easier for the ''post-draftified'' articles to be parsed, not as a way for one editor to adopt a set beforehand and delay its articles' draftification by claiming they "need more time" to run through them individually). We most definitely do not need a ''second'' RfC to ratify the first one, and a year is more than enough for any editors who cared to ensure draftification is only applied to eligible articles. The rate-limiting step here '''cannot''' be the inaction of the same editors opposing draftification, that would completely defeat the consensus to remove these from mainspace. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 20:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::The rate-limiting step appears to be the inaction of the editors supporting draftification.
::The immediate question here is, for the (small?) subset that has "already been individually assessed as probably meeting notability criteria (or as being redirectable)", how do we stop them from wrongly getting dumped in the Draft: namespace?
::This would be a stupid process:
::# BilledMammal puts a page on his list of pages to dump in the Draft: namespace.
::# Alice reviews one.  She decides that it does not meet the GNG and redirects it to a {{fake link|List of Olympic athletes from Ruritania}}.
::# Bob draftifies everything on the original list, including Alice's new redirect.
::# Chris un-draftifies the redirect, because it's stupid to have a redirect in the Draft: space when Alice has already determined that this athlete doesn't appear to qualify for a separate, stand-alone article and has already redirected it.
::What's a non-stupid process that will actually work? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:::...What are you talking about? We remove them from the draftification list, then draftify the list. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 16:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
::::So your suggested process is:
::::# Redirect the article or add suitable sources.
::::# Remove the tag that says {{xt|"do not remove the tag, as this may not prevent draftification"}}.
::::# Remove the article's name from [[Wikipedia:Lugstubs 2 list]].
::::# Eventually, someone (who?) will move anything that's left on the list to the Draft: namespace.
::::Right? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think we should mark all of these with [[Template:Old prod]] as well. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::No. I am saying any that are ''already'' redirected or clearly ineligible can be removed from the list, any that are not '''are draftified NOW''' by an admin, per the consensus that these stubs should not remain in mainspace. The accidental draftification of false-positives is of minuscule concern: editors have 5 more years to go through them. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Why the rush? As @[[User:HJ Mitchell|HJ Mitchell]] pointed out in the close, it is more important to get it right than to do it quickly. There are currently multiple people actively working out what doing it right means. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I wonder whether the auto-deletion process in the Draft: space has been modified to accommodate this five-year timespan.  I suspect that the answer is "no". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::''One year is not "doing it quickly"''. If the editors who believed certain articles ought to be exempted just never bothered to address those articles, then that's too bad for them: there was a consensus to remove the articles from mainspace and into a protected draftspace where they could be worked on, and a stronger consensus ''not'' to leave them around in mainspace for some indefinite length of time while some editors maybe work on some selection of them. You and WAID contributed like 50 comments in the RfC unsuccessfully trying to kill the proposal, now you're trying to do the same thing to its implementation. At some point this just becomes disruptive. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 03:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Please read this entire discussion where all your complaints have been fully addressed and/or rebutted multiple times. I'm not trying to kill it's implementation, I'm trying to ensure that the damage to the project is minimised by ensuring that the due care the closer found consensus for is actually applied. If that takes longer than you want, then I'm sorry but the community wanted due care rather than haste. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 03:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Yet the consensus was that it is ''more'' damaging to the project that these articles remain in mainspace, and it certainly did not include your definition of "due care". [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 03:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Instead of talking about hypothetical "editors who believed certain articles ought to be exempted just never bothered to address those articles, then that's too bad for them", how about we talk about "the editors who ''did'' address those articles, and who ''are'' addressing those articles, and who ''have been'' addressing those articles for over a year now, but who have been told that they're not allowed to take the tag off or remove the articles from the list"?
::::::::::This process has been badly designed, with incomplete documentation, instructions that contradict normal practices, no tools to separate these drafts with their RFC-mandated five-year time period in the Draft: space from the ordinary six-month G13 process, and an implicit dependence on an editor who is not editing any longer.  One goal (i.e., boldly redirect articles that editors believe won't qualify) is simple and straightforward under normal circumstances, but it's being stymied by editors who are trying to follow the directions they've been handed, because the tag says nobody's allowed to remove it.
::::::::::If we want to move forward on this, then we need to figure out things like how (e.g.,) [[User:Liz|Liz]] and [[User:Explicit|Explicit]] identify Draft: pages that are eligible for G13 deletion, and how they could not have their systems screwed up by these pages, which aren't eligible for five years.  
::::::::::We need to get this right.  I've no sympathy for people who ignored this for the last year and a half, but now that we've been reminded about it, they think it's an emergency.  People have been posting on the designated talk page for well over a year, and their questions and comments have been ignored by you and everyone else who just wants these pages gone.  If you don't choose to help, then that's fine, but the result is that sorting out this process is going to take longer. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{Reply to|WhatamIdoing}} The bot {{np|SDZeroBot}} lists pending draft deletions on its subpages [[User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon]] and [[User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon sorting]]. It ignores all drafts tagged with {{tl|Special draft}} for five years. [[User:Explicit|<span style="color:#000000">✗</span>]][[User talk:Explicit|<span style="color:white;background:black;font-family:felix titling;font-size:80%">plicit</span>]] 05:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::How does it determine the date for tagged pages? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::: The other way in which G13s are found is via [[User:DreamRimmer bot II]]. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 05:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thanks.  @[[User:DreamRimmer|DreamRimmer]], is your bot already set up to handle this? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]: My bot already ignores all drafts in the [[:Category:All drafts subject to special procedures]]. – [[User:DreamRimmer|<span style="color:#5A4FCF">'''Dream'''Rimmer</span>]] [[User talk:DreamRimmer|<span style="color:##5A4FCF;">&#9632;</span>]] 17:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Hang on, we were '''explicitly told''' not to remove the hatnote and not to redirect. That was supposed to be handled sensibly – multiple reassurances were given at the original RfC and since. If someone were to draft all those with the hatnote remaining, you'd send articles which obviously meet the GNG to draft – there are hundreds that either were in the original process or that need to removed from the list – almost 50% of the New Zealanders for example. That would, in my view, be likely to be used as an argument against any future mass-draftification of articles. Any support that I was able to give to the original RfC was based entirely on the assurances received that redirects would be handled sensibly. I imagine I would feel I had been lied to if they were simply all drafted without any consideration for the process that I've been working my arse off on for periods of the last year [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 08:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The proposal says {{tq2|If this proposal is successful: All articles on the list will be draftified, subject to the provisions below: [...]<ul><li>Any draft (whether in draftspace, userspace, or WikiProject space) can be returned to mainspace when it contains sources that plausibly meet WP:GNG[d]</li><li>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]}}</li></ul>}}{{pb}}I imagine any resistance to removing hatnotes or redirecting would be due to concerns the article would just be recreated from the redirect without undergoing scrutiny for GNG and without having the hatnote returned. Maybe it would be helpful to have a hidden category for redirects from this list and/or a talkpage banner noting they were originally part of LUGSTUBS2 on them as well as on any pages that are returned to mainspace as GNG-compliant. Anyway, I don't see why we can't just draftify the pages that ''haven't'' been worked on by you guys (or that you have found non-notable), while separately addressing redirection/removing hatnotes for those that remain. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 17:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::A talk page banner might be more helpful – cats can get deleted easily.
::::::::In terms of what to draft and when, it would be more efficient to redirect first where a redirection is possible. In some subsets, this is nearly all articles; in other subsets it will be fewer. It would be possible to work fairly quickly through those I think – over the last day or so I've reviewed all 170 articles on the Australian list. 147 of those can be redirected in the first instance (a number having strong possibilities); 23 need to be kept. None need to be drafted. Of the 89 New Zealanders, one needs to go to draft. The others are all redirects or to be removed from the list and kept. The same won't be true of Pakistanis, for example, where there are a lot fewer lists for redirection. 
::::::::I'm not entirely sure how it would be possible to identify those that have been worked on btw. I've come across some today which other people worked up but haven't left a note anywhere about [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 20:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The practical reason {{xt|why we can't just draftify the pages that haven't been worked on by you guys (or that you have found non-notable)}} is because you don't actually know which ones haven't been worked on.
:::::::::I think that an Old prod tag is the best way to flag that history.  Use the <code>|nomreason=</code> parameter to link to [[WP:LUGSTUBS2]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::The ones that can be redirected can be put in a new list, removed from the original list, and a banner put on their talk pages. The ones that BST et al have determined should be kept can likewise be put in another list and a banner put on their talk pages. The ones that others have since worked on but which have not been actively endorsed as demonstrably meeting SPORTCRIT can be moved to draft alongside all the other eligible pages for the individualized attention that the community decided ''should take place in draftspace''. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 20:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:::{{od}}That makes sense. The banners are a good idea – who will create them? Can I check:
::::a) that we're talking about dealing with the list at [[WP:Lugstubs 2 list]] (1,106) – these are the ones that were tagged with the hatnote? This is not the same list as the one at [[WP:LUGSTUBS2]]] (1,182). I can't remember why they're different – I think everyone on the first list is on the second one. From memory I think the query was re-run and some came off it. They had probably been improved to the extent that they dropped off the list
::::b) where would you like me to create the lists? [[Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list]] is a bit of a mess because I've stuck so much stuff on there and the lists that are on there are messy as well
::::c) I think the original idea was to re-run the query again first to remove the ones that would have fallen off the list. I wouldn't have a clue how to do that. Is that something someone could do? It might save a bit of time and effort
::::Once we have the banners made and an idea about where to create the lists, we're good to start moving on this I think. Is it worth discussing a formal timeframe? [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 07:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Whichever is the most recent agreed-upon list should be used. We can run a new query on it, then look over any pages that no longer qualify through the query to make sure their disqualification is legitimate. I think the three new lists (redirectable, likely notable, all remaining eligible stubs) can just be put in a new talk page section. I don't know anything about making banners or running quarry queries; perhaps @[[User:Pppery|Pppery]] has background or knows editors who do? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 16:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::: I have some familiarity with Quarry queries, but it's not clear to me what is being asked for right now. Or, one you have a clear request, you can ask at [[WP:RAQ]] (although that's largely a single-person operation too). [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 16:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I think the intent is to just run the same query as before on the current list to see if any other names now need to be removed? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 17:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I think that would be best.  It would also be best to actually deal with the ones that have been sorted out before re-running the list.  Do you have a link to the query?
::::::::I'm going to go edit [[Template:Special draft pending]], and I'll add some instructions to the top of [[Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list]].  Please check those (i.e., in half an hour) and see if that reflects what we have been talking about.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Alternatively, we could use [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Template%3ASpecial+draft+pending&namespace=&hidelinks=1&limit=50 Special:WhatLinksHere on the template]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::: I looked pretty hard and could not find the exact query BilledMammal used to generate the list at [[WP:LUGSTUBS2]], but it seems to be a close variation on https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/73984 (the pre-saved results almost but don't quite match the list there). It's probably better to rely on the list as saved rather than trying to reverse-engineer it. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 17:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm 99% certain that the list at [[WP:Lugstubs 2 list]] is the list that had the template added to it. I know of at least two articles where editors have removed the template, but that list hasn't been edited since BilledMammal put it there, so it should be reliable [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 17:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::One of the inefficiencies in [[Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list#2025 procedure]] is that, for redirecting non-notable subjects, I think we need to remove the template from the page and the name from the list.  But if we are reasonably certain that everything on the list got tagged with the template, I'd love to simplify this to "anything still transcluding the template is getting moved" (after a reasonable but short pause to get those known-non-notable subjects redirected).   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I've only found two without the template, and I've looked at getting on to 750 of the articles over the last week. If at all possible it would be better to use those using the template (the other two have easily good enough sourcing I think – [[Alexander Cracroft Wilson]] and [[Chamindu Wickramasinghe]]) and then conduct a check with the quarry query afterwards or run through and check them some other way. There doesn't seem to have been any mucking around with the list other than the three (not four) which were drafted early and have since been moved back to mainspace e2a: a look at the number of articles with the template, shows that there are six more somewhere where it's been removed. I'll sort out which at some point by comparing the lists [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 18:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Please see [[Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list#2025 procedure]].  Note that it's instructions, not a signed comment, so you're free to update it. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Can we specify mid (or late) June – my life is complex over the next fortnight :-) I won't do anything until this is generally agreed on btw [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 18:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Could be July, if you'd like.  I picked next month because it'd be nice to have this resolved already, but [[Wikipedia:There is no deadline]] – just a target. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::23 June. That goes everyone a month. If it goes a bit further than that then fine, but a deadline in this case is probabyla  good diea to stop me from prevaricating [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 19:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That sounds good to me.  I've updated the directions to state that date.  I've also removed instructions to edit the list itself.  We can use the templates themselves to track it.  (I assume nobody's spammed the template into other articles; if my assumption is invalid, then we'll have to check the list.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I've done "a test edit" for one of the names you mentioned at the talk page.  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Richardson_(New_Zealand_cricketer)&diff=prev&oldid=1291698154 Please check this edit] and let me know if that looks right to you.  In particular, I've left the categories in place and added a {{tl|R to list entry}} tag. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:::{{od}}I actually managed to do some myself yesterday morning (the Auckland redirects), but had a ridiculous day at work so wasn't able to leave a note here. It sees to work, although it's slightly trickier that I thought – need to remove the class rating from the talk page and the circular redirect from the list as well. I also added {{tq|R with possibilities}} to the ones I did as they're ones that I think have that. Oh, and in some cases we can redirect to a section...
:::It would be better if we could re-run the querry that BilledMammal used in the fist instance as there are 400+ articles I've not managed to check – the Sri Lankans and Indians. But if we can't do that, I think this is the best option [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 04:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
::::AIUI the WikiProject banner figures out redirects automatically, so you can ignore those.  We should be able to get a bot or an AWB run to handle the circular redirects.  (Surely we have a bot that can do this?) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::I've started more work on these – it's just the class on the redirect talk page that I'm slightly worried about.
:::::The special draft pending template still says to remove people from the list. Do we actually want to do that or does the template need changing to remove that? [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 17:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]], ignore the class on the redirect's talk page.  A while ago, we updated [[Module:WikiProject banner]] to auto-detect redirects and ignore whatever the banner incorrectly claims the class is.  Eventually, a bot will remove it (but it's basically a [[WP:COSMETICBOT]] edit, so it won't happen quickly).
::::::Don't bother removing people from the list.  I'll update the template to say that.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
::Here's a potentially useful option. Many of these articles have a see also section with a link to a list. One potential solution is that if the article still meets the criteria (which will need to rechecked obvs) and if it contains such a link, it gets redirected to the list that's linked; if multiple lists are linked someone tells me and I sort it out (this is rare fwiw)
::Fwiw I rather think this has been a lot more complex than everyone expected it would be. I did start working on this in March 2024, after the list was finalised. The original rfc included multiple assurances that redirects would be dealt with sensibly. I think we can do that, but I'm waiting to be told how to do it [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 04:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
::: Agree that if there is a clear and obvious redirect target then redirecting there is far more appropriate than draftspace for the article, as per [[WP:ATD]]. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#000000">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 19:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:::This can be done just as easily after the articles are draftified. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 03:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, it could be. It would mean that the draft article would stay as well however, which is inefficient from a storage post of view. It would involve double the work involved, as rather than simply redirecting the articles I'd have to move them back and then redirect them. [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 08:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::But wouldn't you have to do such move for any articles you end up working on in draftspace anyway? Moving to mainspace and then redirecting is just one more trivial step than what was already expected to happen if this RfC got implemented. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 17:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Given the numbers of articles that will end up as redirects – as above, of the 170 Australians, 23 are keepers right now and the other 147 are all redirects; not a single draft – it would be a '''lot''' more efficient for me to just have to do the redirects. I have them sorted in teams anyway, so the redirection notice will essentially be the same. Given that I've ploughed through all of those over the last 28 hours, I don't see why I couldn't manage the redirection process over a similar sort of timeframe for those 170. Having to bring back from draft first, more than doubles the time it would take – I'd have to do all the drafts first to keep the note I'd need to place in the reason box and then go through and do all the redirects by team afterwards. That's really adding to the work – all of it by hand. From a technical efficiency perspective, it must also be better to not have absolutely unnecessary drafts kicking around for five years either. All I need is for someone to work out exactly what process to go through and to have a bunch of people agree it. I'm not sure how long it would take to do work through the full 1,100 and come up with a list to draft, but it wouldn't be that long so long as I'm in the country and able to work at it [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 20:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I don't see any reason not to redirect most of, if not all of the remaining articles as well, unless I am missing something here? [[User:Let&#39;srun|Let&#39;srun]] ([[User talk:Let&#39;srun|talk]]) 23:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::We don't always have lists to redirect to – so, for Afghan cricketers, for example, I don't believe there's a suitable list. I've managed to redirect the New Zealanders who need redirecting and have started to remove tags from those I think we should keep, but it's a slightly complex process to do by hand. It will take a little time to get it done right [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 14:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
:This process is now under way. I'm focussing on removing tags and redirecting. It takes a long time and all has to be done by hand. If anyone can figure out a way to automate any or all of the process it would really help. In particular, I've stopped doing anything to the talk pages – it's just taking so long. Thanks to all the people who have been cleaning them up, but if there were an automated way to do this it would really, really help matters. I'm aware that I'm leaving work for other people to do in the short term. I will try and return to the talk pages if I can do, but sorting out the articles seems like a sensible priority in the relatively little time I'll have to do this
:I've not had time to even look at the Indian or Sri Lankan list if anyone wants to help out [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 09:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
::I think the fact that redirecting was not actually easy was the entire reason why draftification was chosen in the first place. Frankly, I favoured just straight deleting them and if there's a [[WP:LUGSTUBS3]] that will get my !vote. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 11:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
:::The assurance that redirection would be handled automatically was the only reason I was able to give any support to the original proposal. Unfortunately BilledMammal is away for at least most of the rest of this year otherwise that might have happened. I appreciate that people wanted to punish Lugnuts by removed their articles entirely, but there are clear ATDs in many cases and redirection would have almost certainly been the result of AfD discussions in the cases where there are realistic ATDs. So I'll keep going. If you could look through the 200+ Indian articles and see if any have had loads of sources added it'd help massively. Thanks [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 11:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
::::The reason why I prefer straight deleting is because recreation of the content worth keeping (which is minimal) is way easier and cleaner. Redirects are cheap... to create... [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
::::To be clear, are we redirecting the ones with no substantial edits, or draftifying them? Taking the first on the Indian list, [[C. R. Mohite]], since they were an Umpire what is the redirect target supposed to be? [[List of Baroda cricketers]]? But then is it even verified that he played for Baroda rather than just coming from there? Draftify looks like a way easier option.
::::BTW to me this was never about "punishing" Lugnuts. This was about saving editor time vs a massive time sink with minimal value-creation that was negligently dumped on us. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::I've redirect the first ten in the list, none of which had any source but ESPNCricinfo and so were straight-forward NSPORTS fails. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for doing what you're doing there. I really appreciate anything that anyone else does to help this process. The key is to find the small number of articles where sources have already been added and that need to be removed. Then redirecting.
::::::Yes, redirect to wherever is most obvious – any that cause significant problems shout and I can check on CricketArchive, which is paywalled unless you know the way around it – so Mohite played 25 matches for Baroda, but the redirect you have is just as good.
::::::Redirects, for me, have other advantages. They make re-creation of the article as a duplicate more difficult and retain cross-wiki links (Mohite is linked from multiple pages, for example). Drafting removes those. Eventually we might get notes added to articles – like on [[List of Otago representative cricketers]] for example – which summarise careers and so on. The problem, of course, is that that takes time. More clarity over the process from the get go and a set of lists organised in some way are all things that would make that easier if we do this again. [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 14:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Honestly, we should just delete these articles and save ourselves the time, and then use the time save to create real articles. But if redirecting is how we're resolving the issue right in front of us today then that's how we're resolving it. I'll do the others in the India list after work. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I appreciate anything that you can do with these. I'd be interested in knowing if any had been worked up by someone or the tags removed [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 07:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::None of the first ten anyway. For all the protestations that time was needed, in reality no-one was doing anything nor was there any obvious signs of the intent to do anything. Even if it wasn't intended, the effect of this was simply to suspend the decision for a year with no obvious improvement. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I think having them sorted into lists of countries **really** helps. Knowing what sort of sources are available for each country does as well. It would be better to present future lists by country (preferably by team); I think it's much more likely that the process gets done better and quicker if we can do that. Shorter lists will help as well – give me 50 New Zealanders and I can tell you what needs to happen to them within a few weeks. BilledMammal largely not being here to shepherd the process obviously hasn't helped fwiw [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 10:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|CricketArchive, which is paywalled unless you know the way around it}}{{pb}}Is there an easier way than inspect>sources>refresh>pause load? That's how I've been doing it the last few years. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Hitting Esc quick enough also works I believe. Or if you can still find it, I have Opera 12 installed - the last update before they moved the browser to Chromium I think. For some reason it ignores the redirects to the paywall. Obviously it's years out of date now, but it's the only thing I use it for and it seems to work [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 07:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
* Glad to see we're moving on with this. We should add a note at [[WP:LUGSTUBS2]] linking to this discussion. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 10:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
* Picking a random name [[Arnell Horton]] (Arnell Stanley Horton), there is more information available about him, but even what was in the stub has not been copied to the notes field on the redirect target.  Better to do this slower without losing the information.  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 20:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC).</small><br />
*:That can also be done after the redirection... [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
*:I appreciate that we're, at least temporarily, losing information, but there's just so much to do. I'm going to copy the lists of names on to the talk pages of the teams the redirects have been done to so that we know which ones need to be gone back to. I have no idea how long it would take to copy across as we worked through, but I might have two or three half-days available until the deadline and that'll be about it [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 07:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
*::I took a look at the Zimbabwe list. Dobbo Townshend is clearly notable. I've redirected a couple more. But most of the other ones don't have clear redirect targets and should probably be PRODded. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 00:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::Thanks. Draft though, surely? It's possible someone might create lists or even find sources? [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 08:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::The whole point of LUGSTUBS was to draftify these articles in a protected draftspace rather than going through the PROD/AfD process for each individually. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 16:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
*Update: All but the British, Indians, and Sri Lankans are just about done. I know what's probably happening to the British articles, so my calculation is that of the 805 articles that have been dealt with (excluding Indians and Sri Lankans), 695 have been redirected to a list of some kind or developed and removed from the list, I've PRODed 7, which leaves 104 to send to draft. It's about 13.7% being drafted or PRODed. I've not calculated how many have been removed from the list after having been improved or as false positives (a handful) – gut feeling says around 75–100, maybe a little less. Sri Lankan lists are scarce, so that will probably increase the percentage of drafts. I'm not sure about the Indian lists [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 08:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Indians are all done 65%ish redirect or keep the article fwiw, but I didn't look too hard for places to redirect to. Just the British and Sri Lankans to do now [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 20:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Sri Lankans all done – just a 22% redirect rate. I think we now know how to deal with these sorts of articles more effectively if we wanted to do this again [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 07:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
*Update: I have five more articles to work through of British cricketers. All five will either be redirects or ones that can be improved – I'm vaguely hoping one might make DYK actually... I should be done with these by the middle of next week. That should leave around 287 to send to draft [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 11:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
*Final update: I'm done working through the lists. Of the 1,211 which were originally suggested for tagging, either at [[WP:LUGSTUBS]] or in the initial identification process, 8 have been PRODed and deleted and 287 remain on the list of articles with tags. That's about 25%. Oddly it's almost exactly what I predicated during LUGSTUBS, but that's more by luck than anything.
:The majority of the articles which remain tagged are south Asians, with a few South Africans and the odd other article. That's essentially because we have fewer lists to redirect to. I guess someone should double check them all before sending them to draft – I presume there will be an automated process for it.
:If we do this again can I suggest:
:*smaller, more targeted lists. It's much easier to do this when you're looking at 50 New Zealanders or 100 Australians. 200 Indians is just about manageable, because so many will be redirects. It will make the process so much easier if they're broken down by country at least. By team is even better. Sorting by surname, where possible, is also so much easier;
:*a recognition that some sets of articles will take longer to process because there is more of a chance of sources existing. New Zealanders, Britons, and Australians in particular. These, particularly the first two, are where most of the articles that have been developed are from;
:*the ability to redirect and remove tags as we go – this has been the only thing that has made this process workable and was decided upon in May 2025. We could have moved things so much quicker;
:*ideally the process could be made more efficient. Do articles that are going to be redirected need to be considered for draft? Yes, they need to be checked and any which are obvious keeps weeded out, but when redirects exist we should probably do that up front. A two stage process where a list is produced, checked and obvious redirects and keeps noted, and the others tagged for draft, perhaps, to allow double checking etc... would be quicker I think – for example, as IP editor dropped a set of 36 names on my talk page last week, all British. I've already identified that 15 or so are obvious keeps with easy sources to add, 7 or 8 need more investigation, and the others could probably be redirected straight away. That's much more effective;
:*gut feeling says at least a three month time frame for each set that need to be considered for draft;
:*a short pause between sets – I need a fortnight break from this and there will times of the year when people are busier or not around.
:So, I assume someone will be along with some kind of automated process to clear up the 287 which remain. There's no way I can do that I'm afraid [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 11:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
::I think you've done great work. But I think this would have been a lot less time-crunchy for you if your assessments had taken place while these pages were already in the special draftspace and we had some automated way for mass-moving (and talk page-tagging) those you identified as redirectable. The point of LUGSTUBS was to give editors the chance to evaluate and improve these articles ''outside'' of mainspace, over an extended draft-life. So in the future I think it would be beneficial for us to talk to the bot people to see if there are better options than someone manually undraftifying and then tagging and redirecting each eligible page. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 16:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:'''Implement'''. About darn time. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 15:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
::{{U|InvadingInvader}} have you actually read the whole discussion, or is this a drive-by comment? {{U|Blue Square Thing}} has made an effort to check notability of most of these articles and supplied a sensible list of recommendations for them- so blindly saying "draft them all" seems like a drive-by comment to me, as you haven't provided justification that most/all would benefit from this process. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#000000">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 15:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I have PRODded more than a few Lugstubs in the past (admittedly not recently), but I think that a draftification gives a chance and an incentive to actually improve them. Six months should be more than enough time. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 16:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
::::The time limit rather depends on the number of articles suggested. It takes a while to work through. And a stubborness to try to get things done in a way that's moderately "right" (spoiler: it's not; I've almost certainly redirected articles that should have been kept because I didn't have time to check Wisden obituaries, for example). It might be different for other sports. A two-part process where articles are selected and then reviewed before tagging for draft would probably be more effective. The same would apply to PRODs and AfD noms fwiw – if I de-PROD I'll often boldly redirect immediately afterwards if I can't see anything quickly that makes me think the article would survive an AfD without the outcome being to redirect [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 16:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:::: {{tq|draftification gives a chance and an incentive to actually improve them. Six months should be more than enough time.}} – I can say as one of the users most active in trying to save notable "Lugstubs", draftification does not give any incentive, nor is six months sufficient time to research hundreds or thousands of foreign, pre-internet subjects. Of the 1,000 draftified in Lugstubs1, less than 2% have been restored in two years. At minimum, over a third of those would turn out notable if someone looked for coverage. But thanks to draftification, we don't have anyone doing that. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::No one would be doing that if they were in mainspace, either... [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 16:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::: They get occasionally improved in mainspace. At least in mainspace editors can ''see'' them. In draftspace, the only editors aware are the ones who participated at the LUGSTUBS discussion, almost none of whom seem to have much interest in improving them (going off of only a tiny tiny handful having been improved in draftspace in two years). [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
::::The drafts are supposed to be put in a special 5-year draftspace. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 16:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for the list of recommendations.  I agree that the original process was broken, and I'm glad that we got that fixed.
::One of the things that has struck me is how many editors have been pushing to hide these [[m:where articles go to die]] and demanding that other editors deal with everything right now, but who have not done any of the work themselves.  It has not felt (to me) like we're all in this together.  It has felt like some editors have set themselves up as wiki-rulers and assigned themselves the job of ordering other people to do things they aren't willing to do themselves.
::If I could change one thing in any future versions, it would be that people need to help with the work, at least in some small way, and not just issue demands that [[Somebody else's problem|somebody else]] do all the work.  Wikipedia is a collaborative project.  This has felt more adversarial – like dealing with an unreasonable client, rather than working together.  Let's do better next time. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:::{{u|Chipmunkdavis}} broke the lists down into nationalities. That was crucial. Without that there's no way I'd have been able to get even close to the stuff I've done. {{u|The-Pope}} broke the Australians down. Again, that was crucial in helping to crack a large set. Those sorts of things are invaluable and it would have been so much more useful to have had this happen right at the beginning. I think {{u|BilledMammal}} did provide some categories, but they seemed to disappear into the ether [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 19:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
::::I think that getting those lists organized was one of the most important steps towards success. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:::There was strong consensus that these articles ''not'' remain in mainspace. It has been a ''year'', the burden was on those wanting to keep them to initiate whatever process they felt necessary to reduce false positives. The "work" was ''always'' supposed to be taken on by those editors, otherwise we would not have had a consensus to skip the timesink of individual AfDs for the stubs to get draftified. Creating the special draftspace was a compromise to allow such editors to put in that work over an extended period. The only additional effort needed was rerunning the original stub eligibility script. The process would have been much smoother if, per the proposal and consensus, they had just been draftified in the first place and editors interested in demonstrating standalone worthiness had worked on categorizing and tagging for redirection from within draftspace. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 15:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure that "strong consensus" is really a fair reading of the close. But anyway, it got done. Lets see if we can take less than 18 months next time [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 17:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
::::: How about just going through normal processes, rather than this which guarantees the loss of many notable subjects and wastes extraordinary amounts of editor time with very little benefit? [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 17:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::AFD and PROD have practical logistics problems, which I summarize here:  
::::::* The editors who viscerally dislike the articles don't want to redirect the articles to appropriate lists themselves.  (That requires effort, usually – but definitely not always! – entailing reading the first sentence, seeing that it says "for the Foo Team", and replacing the contents with #REDIRECT<nowiki>[[List of players on the Foo Team]]</nowiki>, maybe with an {{tl|R to list entry}} tag.  Also, it should be [[Somebody else's problem|somebody else's job]], because ''I'' shouldn't have to lift a finger to fix a mess created by somebody else.)
::::::* The community objected to a single mass AFD nomination, because the correct outcome depends on the individual.  AFD, despite having higher median participation than in previous decades (i.e., four respondents instead of three), believes that it is chronically short of participants and therefore unable to properly address large volumes of nominations on the same subject.  The community has also opined that nominating large numbers of similar articles (especially athletes who are all from the same non-English-speaking country) at the same time results in inadequate evaluation of any of them.  That means you can send 25 articles a week if they're Al American, Bob British, Chris Chinese, David Danish, Eve Egyptian, Frank French, etc. but not 25 Gabonese athletes this week followed by 25 Hungarian athletes next week.  This could be solved by making a list and marking your calendar to nominate four random articles from that list each day, but again:  that's work for ''me'', not work exclusively for thee.  Also, quite a lot of these are going to end up with a recommendation to blank and redirect to a list, which would not be good for my success rates in the [https://afdstats.toolforge.org/ AFD stats] department, and people might (legitimately) start yelling at me for using AFD on subjects that should be merged.
::::::* PROD has the same volume restrictions and at least as much possibility of getting yelled at for abuse.  Also, mass prodding tends to get mass reverted, especially if there is a significant number of false positives/pages that should be redirected instead of deleted.  So the opponents of these articles believe – and I believe that they're correct – that prod is an ineffective route for removal.
::::::The end result of this is that whingeing in the village pump about how no other [[WP:VOLUNTEER]] has already done the things that you don't choose to do yourself actually is a "rational" response to the self-imposed and community-imposed restrictions.
::::::One thing I've been thinking about this morning is the math.  140 people commented in LUGSTUBS2.  About 60% of them voted in favor of the proposal.  What if we had taken the list and had a bot parcel individual articles out to everyone who helped make the decision?  Imagine that 1200 articles had been divided between the 140 participants, with instructions to check this one article and either add a source or redirect it to a suitable list?  There were less than 10 articles per person in the list.  Even at a rate of one a month, this would have been done faster, and without the [[bus factor]] risk of having a very small number of people doing nearly all the work. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The point of LUGSTUBS was to get permastubs out of mainspace in bulk ''without'' needing to go through and evaluate them individually ''while still in mainspace''. That received strong consensus. The work of determining what to do with them individually was ''always'' supposed to be the burden of those who wished to keep them in some form. All that was recommended in the close pre-draftification was reconfirming continued stub ''eligibility'' according to the original draft inclusion standards, with breaking them into smaller groups being a suggestion; that is absolutely not the same as obligating anyone to evaluate them manually pre-draftification and certainly not obligating performing editorial actions like redirection (which is usually much more involved than your bulleted example). The proposal was not for a mass AfD or mass prod so your other bullets are strawmen. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 01:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You will note that the close explicitly found consensus against "indiscriminate mass editing", shoving them all into draftspace without any evaluation at all is indiscriminate mass editing. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: {{edit conflict}} How about, rather than mass removing through either draft or AFD or PROD or whatever process, we actually work to ''improve'' them? (And if some are truly non-notable, then take a few to AFD each day.) Crazy idea, I know. But it results in a lot more benefit to the encyclopedia than endlessly arguing then arguing even more about whether the aforementioned arguing is best addressed by ''this'' type of mass removal or ''that'' type of mass removal... [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 02:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Because we achieved a consensus that these improvements should take place in draftspace. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 14:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::: There was a consensus, a very, very narrow one, in ''this'' particular discussion on a select group of them. Not for all of them. We should not have more time-wasting RFCs like this in the future – we should actually spend time improving them because it has been proven that a very sizable portion of them are indeed clearly notable. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 15:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Joelle, the summary for that allegedly "strong consensus" begins with these words:
::::::::"'''Tl;dr: the proposal passes, but by a narrow margin and with caveats.'''"
::::::::Emphasis in the original.  The proposal achieved, to again quote the closing statement, "rough consensus".  I would not describe it as "strong consensus", and I doubt that most experienced editors would.
::::::::This sentence of yours:  {{xt|The work of determining what to do with them individually was always supposed to be the burden of those who wished to keep them in some form}} is a good description of what I'm identifying as a problem.  Why should some editors (e.g., those who don't want to keep articles) be able to impose "the burden" of curating the mainspace on other editors?   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Maybe this will be clearer:
:::::::::* What happened:  "We" over here decided that "they" over there will do this work.
:::::::::* What I'd prefer:  "We all" decided that "we all" will do this work.
:::::::::Less "us-versus-them" attitude.  More "we're in this together". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|I find that there is a rough consensus in favour of the proposal, '''and a stronger consensus that they should not be left in mainspace.'''}} The burden is on editors wanting to keep content to demonstrate it is verifiably encyclopedic. Lugnuts had imposed the much more serious burden of maintaining tens of thousands of mass-created non-notable BLPs upon everyone else. There is zero presumption of notability for these stub subjects and additionally they currently violate the global consensus requiring them to cite IRS SIGCOV, so the rest of the community is ''compromising'' by creating a special draftspace lasting 10x longer than normal just so those editors who want the stubs retained have more time to improve them. {{pb}}You three have just been trying to interfere with the implementation of a consensus that was against you using the same arguments that were rejected in that consensus. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 14:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::* "Stronger" than weak isn't automatically "strong".
::::::::::* Statements like {{xt|"The burden is on editors wanting to keep content to demonstrate it is verifiably encyclopedic"}} are exactly the kind of us-vs-them and "I get to boss you around without lifting a finger to help" thing that I'd like to see less of in the future.
::::::::::* I don't feel like I've been interfering with anything.  I'm the person who figured out how to solve most of the incomplete, broken process so that hundreds of the articles could actually get moved.  I believe that constitutes helping implement the LUGSTUBS2 consensus.  Do you disagree?  BST spent dozens of hours manually reviewing articles and getting most of them boldly redirected.  I would describe that as complying with the closing statement's injunction against mass draftification "without further thought" and "without due care", and even helping us "ensure that the only articles draftified are those which clearly meet the criteria outlined, even if that takes longer or even considerably longer".  CMD produced the organized lists that made BST's work feasible and which the closing statement "urge the proponents to break it down into smaller lists by nationality, era, or any other criteria requested".  I wonder what you did.  How did you contribute towards compliance with the RFC's closing statement?  Did you do anything in the last few months that I can't see in this discussion?
::::::::::*
::::::::::[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq|I find that there is a rough consensus in favour of the proposal, and a stronger consensus that they should not be left in mainspace}}Nowhere does this say the consensus was "weak". The only consensus mentioned as "weak" in the close is a finding for a weak consensus to ''apply this process to Lugstubs '''beyond this list'''''. {{pb}}I don't know what broken process you "solved"...? <br>The close said we should be careful to make sure the articles in question still fit the original eligibility criteria. '''That explicitly does NOT involve evaluating each article for notability or even redirectability'''. In fact, the consensus proposal states {{tq|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}}. Articles should've been draftified ''before'' redirects were considered; the only reason this wasn't pursued right after @[[User:Pppery|Pppery]] resurrected the topic was out of respect for the good work BST has been doing and his assurance he'd be done with his redirection effort soon. {{pb}}Repeatedly muddying the process by insisting editors have to jump through hoops that never existed, or that were even rejected, is disruptive. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 03:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Nowhere does it say that the consensus is "strong".  Being stronger than the rough consensus doesn't mean it is actually "a strong consensus".  (Compare:  a weak acid is stronger than a very weak acid, but still not actually a strong acid.)
::::::::::::My solution for the broken process can be seen at [[Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list#2025 procedure]] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Special_draft_pending&diff=1293790289&oldid=1212405400 in these changes to the template].  The unfinished and abandoned process in place before then would have failed the "make sure the articles in question still fit the original eligibility criteria" requirement, because it had no provision for letting editors communicate that an article did not "still fit the original eligibility criteria", except to post a note on a talk page that was being ignored. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::*Whoa, hang on there. At every stage of this ([[User talk:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification|here]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 93#Heads up|here]], [[WP:LUGSTUBS2|here]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 94#Charles Baldwin (cricketer)|here]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal&oldid=1169340432 here], [[Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list|here]], and here at least, probably in other places as well) I've been looking for practical solutions to make this happen. I supported the proposal, with caveats. I have a long record of disagreeing with editors at the cricket project who believed every cricketer should have an article. I'm not sure I find it fair to characterise that as some kind of interference. The inability to boldly redirect and/or remove the special draft pending tag from articles was a major element in stalling the process – and that was never mandated by the RfC either. And bear in mind that Billed Mammal's original intention was to re-run the querry once people had had a chance to churn through and check things – this was all discussed in multiple places throughout the process. We've ended up in about the right place by hook or by crook. We'd have gotten to a similar place if the articles had all been moved to draft immediately fwiw. It just took longer (bad) and half as many clicks (good). I suspect it may be best for someone to hat this now. I don't think we're getting anywhere anymore. [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 06:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::*:{{smalldiv|1=Just in case there was confusion, by "you three" I was referring to WAID, BF, and Thryduulf. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)}}
::::::::::*::This allegation of interference has been made on multiple occasions, but that doesn't make it any more true now than it was on any of those other occasions. All I've been trying to do is ensure that the implementation matched the actual consensus that was found, not the outcome that some proponents would like to have been found. I would appreciate it if you could now stop making unfounded allegations of bad faith and work with other people to achieve the outcomes that consensus determines are best for the project rather than simply attacking those who don't do exactly what you want them to do at the speed you want them to do it. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
:'''Implement''' on the 287 subjects who remain on the list with tags, which are the non-notable cricketers who don’t have an obvious redirect target; so that the community can then move on to LUGSTUBS3, which consists of the remaining 4,000 cricketers from the [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/73984 original list]. [[User:Luis7M|Luis7M]] ([[User talk:Luis7M|talk]]) 2:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:: Immediately starting a discussion on 4000 articles is not the most helpful way to do this, and violates [[WP:NODEADLINE]]. Let editors have time to look into articles- as has been done for hundreds of articles here- rather than trying to push them all into drafts pace blindly and in violation of [[WP:ATD]] where sensible redirects exist. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#000000">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 10:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Luis7M|Luis7M]], we don't need a "LUGSTUBS3".  If you read [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#c-Blue Square Thing-20250618110700-WhatamIdoing-20250513161700|the comment above about what's actually needed]], the answer is ''not'' a vote over whether to clean up this old mess.  What's needed is things like someone to make "smaller, more targeted lists".  
::Naturally, things like making lists requires actual, hands-on work instead of just bossing other people around.  Are you able to do any of this work? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|WhatamIdoing}} I don’t boss anyone around. I have created [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Luis7M over 800 non-stub sports bios in the last 18 months alone, including +300 Cs], so I consider myself capable of doing “hard-work”.
:::I will leave the "one by one" analyses to more experienced and driven users like {{ping|Blue Square Thing}}, but I don't mind making some of those lists. I'm sure none of them can be worse than [[List of France international footballers (1–4 caps)]], which took me around 8 brute hours.
:::Assign me a list (anything except Asia) and consider it done before June is over (without deadlines, I will procrastinate). Kind regards. [[User:Luis7M|Luis7M]] ([[User talk:Luis7M|talk]]) 22:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks for offering to help out, @[[User:Luis7M|Luis7M]].  The reviewers don't need anything as complicated as [[List of France international footballers (1–4 caps)]].  What they really need is just a simple, short list posted at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket]], with a note like "Here's 50 ____ cricket players that meet the LUGSTUBS2 criteria, if anyone's willing to sort through them.  Ping me when you're ready for the next list" really is enough to help them out significantly.  Fill in the blank with whatever you want, e.g., South African players, players on a particular team, etc.  You don't even have to get all the ____ players, as they've said that lists of 50 or so at a time are preferable to one huge list.
::::If you wanted to help with reviewing individual athletes (even just for the easiest cases), then I'm sure someone there could make some recommendations for the fastest methods.  They also need editors who are willing to make list articles when no plausible redirect targets exist (e.g., a [[List of Imperial Lions players]], to which non-notable players for the [[Imperial Lions]] could be redirected), but this need not be as complex as your French list. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks. It'll depend on how you plan to work. My starting point might be South Africans – a set I mostly redirected where possible because sourcing is less easy. Ideally I'd like them in lists by team. I have no idea how many that would be – a rough list in a sandbox first might be the easiest way to go about it. There will be some overlap where people played for more than one team, but we can deal with that. The teams are slighly complex because of name changes – so Orange Free State and Free State are the same side; both had B teams which played at the highest level as well, so all four grouped in one would be most useful; Transvaal became Gauteng; Natal became KwaZulu-Natal etc... Once I know how easy (or not) that is and how many players are involved we can decide what a sensible approach is from there. There's a list of South African teams in [[Template:Cricket in South Africa]] and a list of lists in [[Template:Lists of South African cricketers]] – lots of red links so if you're able to produce even partial lists - perhaps from categories - that would be useful as well.
::::I think BilledMammal had an adapted quarry script that dug out likely relevant cats that would help create team lists, but I'm not sure how to find it and I don't have a copy [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 05:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|WhatamIdoing}} and {{ping|Blue Square Thing}} something like this? [[Draft:List of Imperial Lions cricketers]]. Kind regards. [[User:Luis7M|Luis7M]] ([[User talk:Luis7M|talk]]) 02:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes, that's the sort of thing we're looking for. I assume it's been put together using categories, yes? The list isn't complete because the cats aren't complete: so people like [[Craig Alexander (cricketer)]] also played for Lions. But they can be added inonce we have more lists. There's a couple of things we could use doing to the lead – the team also played T20 cricket, for example – and the naming of South African teams is complex. I'm going to try to get some clarity on it, so it might be helpful not to publish it just yet (the (unreferenced) history section at [[Dolphins (South African cricket team)]] seems to summarise it quite well, but it doesn't help with how we name teams as we still have [[KwaZulu-Natal (cricket team)]].) But, yes, that's the sort of thing we're looking for. Thanks for using the layout and so on that most of our lists follow.
::::::The other franchise teams don't, I believe have any lists: [[Cape Cobras]], [[Dolphins (South African cricket team)]], [[Knights (cricket team)]], [[Titans (cricket team)]], and [[Warriors (cricket team)]]. Then there are the traditional province sides that you'll see in the navigation box at the bottom of the draft list. Some of them have been around for over a century so the lists will be longer, but cats look like they work to speed up the first step of the process which is a good thing [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 05:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Blue Square Thing}} Done! Here's what you asked. [[Draft:List of Cape Cobras cricketers]], [[Draft:List of Dolphins cricketers]], [[Draft:List of Knights cricketers]], [[Draft:List of KwaZulu-Natal cricketers]], [[Draft:List of Titans cricketers]], and [[Draft:List of Warriors cricketers]].
:::::::I don't have access to CricketArchive, so please add those refs, so that I can then put this articles into the mainspace without risk of AfDs. Kind regards. [[User:Luis7M|Luis7M]] ([[User talk:Luis7M|talk]]) 15:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Could this book be useful at all?  https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Extraordinary_Book_of_South_African/BC2jf1cWCJEC
::::::::Or this one?  [https://www.perlego.com/book/3494885/cricket-and-society-in-south-africa-19101971-from-union-to-isolation-pdf?queryID=d2baa0291fe716896ed8d0e706c7ff7c&index=prod_BOOKS&gridPosition=3&searchType=title https://www.perlego.com/book/3494885/cricket-and-society-in-south-africa-19101971-from-union-to-isolation-pdf] (available in [[WP:TWL]]; apply at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/144/ ). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|WhatamIdoing}} Well, well, well, guess who is bossing who now? I have made the (partial) lists, so why don't YOU add those refs. It mustn't be that hard. Not to mention that you seem to be much more familizared with them than I am. Kind regards. [[User:Luis7M|Luis7M]] ([[User talk:Luis7M|talk]]) 13:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I know nothing about cricket, and what I know about these books is that they claim to have information about cricket players in South Africa.  You said that not having access to CricketArchive was impeding your work, so I thought I'd see if there were other sources on this subject that you would have access to. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks. I'll try and get to this over the next coupe of days, but it may be the start of next week. Things are slightly crazy just now... [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 04:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I've worked on [[Draft:List of Cape Cobras cricketers]]. Think the list is complete and I've written a lead which tries to explain what the heck is going on. It's complicated and the lead may be too complex. Could people give it a read and suggest any changes please? Once we have an OK lead, we can run that out to the other franchises, with obvious changes [[User:Blue Square Thing|Blue Square Thing]] ([[User talk:Blue Square Thing|talk]]) 09:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::This looks good to me.  I appreciate the description of the [[Wikipedia:List selection criteria]] in the last paragraph.  That should help future editors. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

== Latitude and longitude ==

Hi all - not sure whether this is possible but it would be nice. I see a lot of latitude and longitude coordinates given to impossibly precise levels of accuracy - buildings and structures given with coordinates like 41.572947546321°N, 125.462903749248°W. While I like accuracy, this pinpoints a building to within 1/1000 of a micrometre - which is probably overkill. Is there anyway of automatically truncating such precision to, say, six decomal places? That would still give precision within about 20 centimetres, which is close enough for any practical coordinate purposes. (PS, I'd prefer if they were all in ° ' ", but that's probably just me and not worth doing). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small>[[User_talk:Grutness|<span style="color: #008822;">wha?</span>]]</small>'' 03:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
:{{small|1={{tq|pinpoints a building to within 1/1000 of a micrometre - which is probably overkill}} Have ye so little faith in modern architecture?{{jk}} <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF;text-decoration:inherit;font:1em Lucida Sans">Sdkb</span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 06:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)}}
: It's the fault of whoever added it like that and you are welcome to change it. It's hard to do automatically, though, since the proper precision depends on the size of the thing that is being located. A building is worth more digits than a river, etc. Maybe a bot could be written for certain types of articles that the bot can recognise, but I'm not sure it would have few enough false positives. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 07:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
:Most of these will be copied directly from services like Google Maps which displays the location you click to 5 decimal places but puts about 15 decimal places on the clipboard. e.g. on it's minimum zoom level I got 51.23262708044534, 0.23095125460548796 despite 1 pixel making tens of kilometres of difference at that latitude.
:The first step to fixing over-precision is to identify the scale of the issue. For example get a bot to list all the articles with coordinates more precise than 6 decimal digits (or the equivalent in DMS). There is likely to be some way of cross-referencing articles with Wikidata to group them by the "instance of" property. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
: https://xkcd.com/2170/ seems relevant here. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 11:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
:I see there was a suggestion at [[Template talk:Coord/Archive 14#Decimal degree rounding]] to allow for rounding on display, while still having higher-resolution inputs to {{tl|coord}} to allow for checking against UGS - no outcome, alas. [[MOS:COORDINATES]] gives rough guidance, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision guidelines]] is more, err, precise. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 14:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
::My thought would have been to trim down some overly-precise examples and leave an edit summary referring to WP:OPCOORD or the coord template documentation. When other editors see it some may take note and make similar edits. However, the guideline seems a bit technical and I suspect that some editors would find it easier to understand "If it's the same size as a football field use X level of precision" - perhaps it would be helpful if OPCOORD also included a precision/object conversion chart equivalent to the xkcd table. [[User:EdwardUK|EdwardUK]] ([[User talk:EdwardUK|talk]]) 15:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Agree, a simple easy to understand table, although perhaps we have fewer rows than the xkcd one. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 05:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Ideally yes, but rows need to be worded carefully. Going back to the structure example earlier, there are some bridges that have a rather extreme length dimension, however we are still going to want coordinates that are within its width dimensions and approximately midway down the length. [[Special:Contributions/184.152.65.118|184.152.65.118]] ([[User talk:184.152.65.118|talk]]) 16:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|EdwardUK}} {{tq|the guideline seems a bit technical}} and [[WP:COORDPREC]] was created to address exactly that. It's just below OPCOORD. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 01:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
::::That is also rather technical and suggests that there is no suitable precision for an object ~100m in size located further than ~37° from the equator. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::I don't know how it could be less technical. It's closely analogous to a [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DRFC5ZN1?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title&th=1 Blackjack strategy quick-reference card], which any teenager could handle. It's a simple two-dimensional table lookup, eliminating the need for any arithmetic; the arithmetic was done when the tables were created. Does an editor need help determining that 35 is closer to 30 than to 45? Or 35.41899175, even? If so, maybe coordinates aren't a good place to spend their efforts. Coordinates are ''all'' about numbers. (Most likely, the editor is working on coordinates because they like numbers. We rarely like numbers unless we're good with numbers. I speak from experience, as that's why I spent multiple years of my life working with Wikipedia coordinates.){{pb}}{{tq|there is no suitable precision for an object ~100m in size located further than ~37° from the equator.}} Sorry, I don't follow. That precision will be '''d°&nbsp;m'&nbsp;s.s"''' or '''d°&nbsp;m'&nbsp;s"''', depending on ''how much'' further than 37° from the equator. Or, in the other format, '''d.dddd'''. Both are derived from the tables at OPCOORD, like the rest of COORDPREC.{{pb}}Regarding coordinates, like so many other things, we need to beware of overthink, of over-engineering. [[Perfect is the enemy of good]]. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 08:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Re the suitable precision argument, if d° m' s.s" is suitable why is it coloured red in the table? I interpret red to mean that that precision should not be used for objects of that scale at that latitude. If that interpretation is right, then there are several combinations of scale and latitude where no suitable precision exists (e.g. 50m above ~37°, 100m below 57°, 10km at any latitude). If my interpretation is wrong then the table needs a key or some other explanation of what the colours actually mean. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The colours appear to be meaningless, and are used only to differentiate between each level of precision - it should be possible to change them to something else that does not suggest yes/no in the way green/red can do. [[User:EdwardUK|EdwardUK]] ([[User talk:EdwardUK|talk]]) 16:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC) 
::::::::The colors improve the aesthetics, and that's important. Colors make the tables more inviting, less intimidating. But that's secondary to the usability enhancement. With an all-white table, it would be significantly more difficult to see minor differences between cells on the same row. That's why the [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DRFC5ZN1?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title&th=1 Blackjack strategy quick-reference card] uses colors in a similar way.{{pb}}I'm not married to red and green. Any two complementary pastels would do, and that could easily be changed lest a user looks at the tables and sees traffic lights. (Or they could just read the instructions above the tables. The tables are derived from those at OPCOORD only if the instructions are followed.) &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 18:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I think it would work better if each level of precision had its own colour across rows, so the overall table would resemble a topographical plot. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 18:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Four different colors for the dms table and six for the decimal table? Struggling to see the improvement. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 18:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The colours would have an independent meaning easier to intuit. That being said, the change to two colours with higher contrast helps in creating visual diagonal bands, also tying the same precision levels together across rows. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 21:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I changed them to blue/green as neither carries a connotation of "incorrect", does that work for you? [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 20:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::That's less confusing in one way, but I only know that the colours are there to distinguish the different precisions. This needs to be noted in the key to the table. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Added! [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 20:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::I was about to say that we also need to avoid putting "meaning" into coordinates where the meaning is known only to Wikipedia editors. Then I realized that's exactly what we're doing with any kind of variable coordinates precision. How many readers will find and read this discussion, COORDPREC, or any other guideline, do you think? One has to wonder who's benefiting, and how. Is coordinates precision just a fun exercise for Wikipedia editors who like numbers? Is it a case of the aforementioned over-engineering? Should we sack OPCOORD and COORDPREC in favor of some fixed precision, in a rare simplification of Wikipedia editing? Perhaps coordinates need re-imagining, but that's a different discussion (scope expansion bad). Or, perhaps this is an appropriate place for that discussion; I see comments below moving in that direction.{{pb}}In my opinion, it's about time for a new subsection containing a specific proposal for standard precision (both decimal and dms). I'm not inclined to create one, but I would !vote in it. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 01:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for watching my thinking evolve in real time. I hate it when that happens. I should throw it all away and start over with a clean sheet of paper, but I'm damned if I'm going to discard the product of all the effort I put into it. Sue me. :D And, if standard precision fails, COORDPREC is my fallback position. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 13:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:The OP's suggestion is good. I don't think we have anything on Wikipedia that warrants precision to less than 20 centimetres, so a bot could easily truncate to 6 decimal places. Articles where lower precision is needed (such as cities or countries) can be taken care of manually. Let's not let the best be the enemy of the good. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 21:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
::If we have a reliable source that cites the coordinates to greater precision than that we should keep them. I sort-of remember [[User:Geni|Geni]] mentioning that this is the case for some museum exhibits. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Wikivoyage imports ("copies", not "dynamically transcludes") coordinate data from Wikidata when it's available.  Wikidata stores the lat/long data as degrees/hours/minutes (12° 3' 45").  Wikivoyage uses the decimal format (12.345).  One result of the automated conversion is that I've seen a few that look like "12.34500001".  This is false precision. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
::Smallest object with coordinates is [[DeYoung Red Diamond]] although the [[Strawn-Wagner Diamond]] is smaller still if anyone is looking to beat that.[[User:Geni|©Geni]] ([[User talk:Geni|talk]]) 07:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
:::There must be articles on smaller objects, but I don't know that latitude and longitude would be appropriate. Are there any articles on individual electrons? I guess not, because they are [[indistinguishable particles]], but we can work up from there. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 08:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Smallest individual items with articles are cosmic rays ([[Oh-My-God particle]] and [[Amaterasu particle]]) but we have no idea where they currently are.[[User:Geni|©Geni]] ([[User talk:Geni|talk]]) 16:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::From my layman's knowledge of quantum mechanics I would say that they don't exist any more, having been destroyed by the process of detection. I may be wrong. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::They still exist in the [[Many-worlds interpretation]] of Wickepedia ;-) -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 10:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC) 
:::There's the [[Myojin parakaryote]], but I'm sure someone can beat that. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 08:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
:::: Strictly speaking, [[Four Corners]] is a point, with no dimensions of length or width. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 01:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::However since the Four Corners is defined by the location of the Four Corners Monument things like continental drift and thermal expansion means its location can be only so exact.[[User:Geni|©Geni]] ([[User talk:Geni|talk]]) 06:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
::I think that even with objects as small as the Strawn-Wagner Diamond, 20cm is likely close enough - unless we want to go around altering the coordinates every time the cabinet is dusted! Even then, 7 digits would put it within an inch. We don't need anything listed to 12 digits unless we start getting articles about specific atoms, and they vibrate so... that way lies madness. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small>[[User_talk:Grutness|<span style="color: #008822;">wha?</span>]]</small>'' 12:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I agree, especially since most GPS systems are only reliable to a level of about 3 m/10 ft.  More than four digits is dicey, and more than five is like reading a 19th century recipe, seeing that it calls for "one pat of butter", and weighing your butter out to the tenth of a gram.  The resulting 4.7 grams of butter isn't a wrong answer, but "about five or so" would have been fine, too. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Also agreed.
::::Even if we assumed for the sake of argument that objects on museum display at this sort of size (or even slightly larger, such as the [[Ain Sakhri figurine]] or [[Aineta aryballos]] in the British Museum) can have their locations known with precision to the millimeter, and assuming for the sake of argument that their locations remain consistent to the millimeter over the medium-to-long term: how frequently do readers need to know the location of such an object more precisely than to the nearest foot?  
::::Even if these coordinates {{em|were}} actually accurate to twelve decimal points I can't see any real downside to automatically truncating to six d.p.; given that we can be almost certain that they are {{em|not}} in fact that accurate there is at least some benefit in {{em|not}} conveying false precision with little to no downside that I can concieve of. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 09:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah going down to a inch is the point where you hit the problem that most things don't stay that still in the medium term.[[User:Geni|©Geni]] ([[User talk:Geni|talk]]) 06:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
::Apparently the [[United States Geological Survey]] is more precise, but I don't know why – reluctance to shed data, tracking minute movements of tectonic plates, identifying particularly beautiful dirt? [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 12:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
:::If you do not know why a source uses a given precision (regardless of what that precision is) then it is completely inappropriate to say that it is more or less precise than is necessary. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::I can imagine the UGSS having good reasons and I don't think it's inappropriate to mention a couple of possibilities, but I'm not saying it's either more or less precise than necessary for their purposes or ours. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 13:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:Today's [https://xkcd.com/3104/ xkcd]. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 17:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:In articles I've been working on where I need to give the coordinate of a major building or natural feature, I've been using maps to get the coordinates from the approximate center of the area (in decimal form rather minutes-seconds), then rounding that to about three decimal places, making sure to double-check that the rounded figure still designates the right place. I might be able to justify four, but unless it's something pretty precise, it's overkill to use more than that. For a large area, I might round it to even fewer decimal places. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] ([[User talk:Peter G Werner|talk]]) 04:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

=== Proposal for standard coordinates precisions ===
Per my comments above, it does not serve readers to put "meaning" into coordinates when the meaning is known only to Wikipedia editors. That is useless to readers unless they find, read, and understand the applicable Wikipedia guideline(s). It does, however, cost a lot of editor time in determining appropriate precision and discussing how to do so.

Ultimately, coordinates simply provide a way to position a location pointer in a mapping facility such as Google Maps. Mapping facilities do not currently have any way to show the size of the object based on the coordinates precision. 

'''I propose''' "standard precision" of <del>'''d°&nbsp;m'&nbsp;s.s"''' (dms) and '''d.ddddd°''' (decimal)</del> <ins>'''d°&nbsp;m'&nbsp;s.ss"''' (dms) and '''d.dddddd°''' (decimal)</ins>. Per [[WP:COORDPREC]], these precisions would work for objects as small as around <del>ten meters. For even smaller objects, they would place the map pointer within perhaps five meters of the object centers</del> <ins>one meter</ins>, which is easily close enough for the needs of Wikipedia readers. 

As with any guideline, there would remain room for exceptions, though I can't think of an exception that wouldn't ascribe "hidden" meaning known only to Wikipedia <del>editors.</del> <ins>editors. Well, here's one: We might use a smaller (shorter) precision when space is greatly constrained.</ins>

A bot could be created to convert coordinates to standard precision, but that's a separate and independent question. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 13:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC) Edited after early discussion, tweaking the proposal. 04:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 13:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This is already covered by [[MOS:UNCERTAINTY]].
*'''Oppose''' as a blanket rule. We should not be using a different precision to that found in reliable sources, which can be more accurate than those obtained from online mapping sources. Whether the precision given in the source is accurate to that level of precision and/or appropriate to the relevant object is something that can only be determined in the context of both source and article so is completely inappropriate for a high-level guideline. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:We would be free to take coordinates from a reliable source and adjust the precision to our standard. Many sources, including GNIS IIRC, use the same arbitrary precision for everything. Thus, they don't ascribe meaning and neither should we. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 13:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*::However many sources ''do'' use different precisions with meaning, and it would be inappropriate for us to differ from that. My objection is not to removing excessive precision where justified, it is to the blanket treating of all precision greater than d° m' s.s" or d.ddddd° as excessive. If there is a valid reason to differ from a reliable source, that needs to be explained in the context of both the article and the source, regardless of how or why we are differing. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::But you're still ascribing hidden meaning. As with any Wikipedia editing, focus should be solely on reader benefit. Few readers are going to guess that greater precision means smaller object. Few readers will notice the differences at all; those few will very likely assume it's a matter of editors' personal preferences. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 14:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::No I'm not ascribing hidden meaning, I'm accurately reflecting the meaning used by the reliable source I'm using to verify the content. Anything else would be applying my own interpretation not accurately reflecting the reliable source. If there is a good reason to do that, and it's plausible there might be, then I need to be able to explain that in the context of both the article and the source - it is entirely inappropriate to do that at a higher level. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Yes, you are ascribing hidden meaning; you're simply taking the source's hidden meaning and plugging it into Wikipedia articles. Precision adjustment does not violate [[WP:V]] any more than style changes. It would violate V if we modified the coordinates in a way other than precision. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 14:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::::You assume that ''every'' source has "hidden meaning", which is simply not true. Everything else you say follows on from that fallacy. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I think we already agreed that GNIS uses the same precision for everything. That means no hidden meaning, so I'm hardly assuming that every source has it. Maybe you could restate your comment in a way that says what you mean to say. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 18:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::We didn't agree that (you stated it, I didn't comment on it), and the GNIS is not the only source for coordinates. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as blanket rule. 10 meters will easily distinguish between two office buildings. It wouldn't distinguish between two notable sculptures in a park. My rule-of-thumb for precision is "if you change the last digit one up or down and you're still on the object, and you change the next-to-last and you leave the object, you're set." I think I "violated" that rule once for the UMaine Campus, where three directions left it on, and the fourth moved just outside, but close enough so that you could see it. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 14:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|10 meters will easily distinguish between two office buildings.}} In that case, up the standard precisions one level, increasing the precisions by a factor of 10. Same concept, but your objection now addressed. Would ''one meter'' not be close enough for our readers' needs? &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 14:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:For clarity, I have edited the proposal as per my preceding comment. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 04:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Anything unreasonable can be edited out. My main reason is wp:creep.  But also the "can locate" rationale is not a good one to make the decision on.  An extra digit beyond the known precision minimizes unnecessary contribution of an error to the number by the display/rounding process. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 15:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:CREEP?? This would delete both [[WP:OPCOORD]] and [[WP:COORDPREC]] and replace them with one sentence: "Generally, Wikipedia articles use a standard precision of [x] (dms format) or [y] (decimal format)." I believe that's the ''opposite'' of CREEP. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 16:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*::The precision guidelines also say in one sentence: "A general rule is to give precisions approximately one-tenth the size of the object, unless there is a clear reason for additional precision." I don't see anything else that would be deleted except that sentence. [[User:Dege31|Dege31]] ([[User talk:Dege31|talk]]) 17:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::The entirety of OPCOORD and COORDPREC, which are all about how to vary precision, which is what the proposed change would eliminate. The whole point is that precision need not and should not be varied. It's a simple cost vs benefit analysis, ''giving equal thought to both sides of the weight scale.'' &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 18:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::{{tpq|The whole point is that precision need not and should not be varied}} I fundamentally disagree with this. Appropriate precision is a combination of scale of the object and precision available in reliable sources - one size does not and can not fit all uses. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Exactly. The coordinates for [[Plymouth Rock]] and the [[United States]] SHOULD NOT have the same precision. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 18:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Even saying the words {{tq|fit all uses}} shows that you still haven't grasped the "hidden meaning" concept (speaking of "fallacy"). Please confront my point directly, show me the error of my ways. Explain how readers can divine any meaning that is described nowhere readily accessible to them. We are writing this encyclopedia for readers, not for ourselves&mdash;something too often forgotten. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 18:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I don't know how to explain to you any differently than the multiple ways I've explained things already, so I'll leave it up to someone else to try. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::::As a bystander so far,  may I suggest that saying {{tq|you still haven't grasped the "hidden meaning" concept}} doesn't really work? "Hidden meaning" is a phrase you've introduced and it doesn't seem that anyone else finds it powerful or perhaps even understands quite what your point is and why you think it so powerful. Myself, I think of the rounding of other quantities (e.g. distances, money) which we do quite casually with some sort of proportionality, and the only "hidden meaning" I can imagine would be the implication that if we don't round the cents and millimetres, they're important. Which is probably not your point. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 19:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Yes, I coined a phrase for efficiency of communication. Shame on me?{{pb}}"Hidden meaning" is when meaning is known only to Wikipedia editors. One meaning known only to Wikipedia editors: Greater precision signifies smaller object. I'm somewhat patiently awaiting refutation of my point. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 19:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::OK, thanks. "Greater precision signifies smaller X" seems to me to be a corollary of rounding appropriately, and one to which that most readers will be fully accustomed, even if as writers they don't confidently apply all the rules of significant figures. It would be bad communication to go against that and start writing $12,345,000.01 or 15.0001 km if we didn't want to suggest rather strongly that the smallest parts were significant. Or to use "hidden meaning", it would be bad communication to always use the same precision with a "hidden meaning" or footnote that "the precision with which we state values does not imply that the precision has any significance". [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 20:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::{{tq|start writing $12,345,000.01 or 15.0001 km}} - False comparison, IMO. Coordinates differ in function: they generate a map pointer that looks the same for all precisions (among a few other, less-commonly-used functions). This is the only meaning available to readers, and it needs no explanation (assuming a new reader isn't afraid to click on a coordinates link just once, just to see what happens; some ability and willingness to explore is assumed). You click on a coordinates pair and you are presented with a "menu" of things we can do with it. The main one is to produce a map with a pointer. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 21:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::Producing a map pointer might be the most prominent way Wikipedia uses coordinates at present. We can't assume it's all that readers use coordinates for, and you write that Wikipedia uses them for {{tq|a few other, less-commonly-used functions}}. We shouldn't provide data that's apparently more precise than our sources to readers who will be unaware of that and who may be using the data in ways of which we are unaware, or present anyone within Wikipedia working on those "less-commonly-used functions" or any future ones with falsely precise data. Still, thanks for the clarifications, not least the statement below. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 18:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::To be clear, if a source gives us four decimal positions, I have no problem with appending zeroes to extend it to six dp's. Again, that would matter only to Wikipedia editors, and only ''some'' of them. I also have no problem with rounding eight positions to six. I note that the "What's here" function of Google Maps provides six dp's.{{pb}}This ain't a perfect solution, but none exists; any pursuit of perfection is a wild goose chase in this case. It's merely better than any alternative, all things fairly considered. Editors here appear to be looking at only one side of the cost-benefit equation. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 22:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::If that is Madruss' point, then to put my argument in the same terms cents and millimetres are sometimes important so a guideline saying that we should ''always'' round to the nearest metre or nearest dollar is inappropriate. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*::I said wp:creep because it creates a new guideline which is to a partial extent a new rule. (I mentioned this in combination with in essence saying that it's not really needed).    Your response asserted that it is not creep because it might replace lengthier ideas at a wikiproject. A wikiproject is not a guideline or policy so it's still creating a new guideline.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 18:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::A distinction without a difference, in my opinion. [[WP:OPCOORD]] and [[WP:COORDPREC]] may not be guidelines, strictly speaking, but they are sure being used like guidelines (I did so often for years). What do you suppose the shortcuts are for? Instinctively wanting site-wide coherence, editors seek guidance and we'll take it where we can get it. We're not overly concerned about organizational boundaries. We don't really care what the guidance is, as long as it has community consensus. If we have strong feelings against the community consensus, we may challenge it; until the challenge is successful, we comply with the existing guidance. ''Such centralized guidance is the only way to get most editors on the same page, and therefore the only path to site-wide coherence.'' Ergo, the CREEP principle also encompasses OPCOORD and COORDPREC.{{pb}}CREEP applies when the added site-wide coherence is not worth the cost in space and complexity. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 04:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)         
*'''Comment''' I ask the proposer, and supporters, to explain how this is superior to the WikiProject Geographical coordinates suggestion. Why not make that the guideline? [[User:Dege31|Dege31]] ([[User talk:Dege31|talk]]) 18:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:What {{tq|WikiProject Geographical coordinates suggestion}} are you referring to? &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 18:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this removal of proportionality and its replacement with false precision unsupported by sources, to the confusion and frustration of readers and editors using our content in ways not considered at the time of this proposal (or considered and dismissed). [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 18:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''oppose'''I work with two classes of subjects (lighthouses and towns) and I use the precision provided by the sources. For the lighthouses this is down to thousands of seconds; for the towns GNIS gives only seconds, which even then is questionably precise in practice. I see no reason to override those values, and the one standard is not appropriate to the other circumstance. The light of a lighthouse is on the order of less than a meter in size; even the smallest town is a hundred times less precisely located. I would agree that it is reasonable to put some sort of a limit on precision, but context matters here and the best we can say overall is that when you get down to the centimeter level, you're talking about locations for which continental drift is a factor even in the short term, so we probably shouldn't go that low. But a uniform standard precision for all sorts of locations is a bad idea, particularly since few things or places we can locate to the pricision of a navigational aid.[[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 19:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

== "Important, do not remove this line before article has been created." ==
{{atop|status=Done manually|result=I'm not sure if there would've been consensus to remove these invis comments ''without'' any other edits to the affected articles, but these have now all been taken care of manually alongside other improvements to the affected articles. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 00:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)}}
Not sure where to post this so posting here. I'd like to request an exception to [[WP:COSMETICBOT]] to remove 250ish hidden HTML comments (<code><nowiki><!-- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. --></nowiki></code>) from mainspace articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22Important%2C+do+not+remove+this+line+before+article+has+been+created%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 List of articles.] This HTML comment is usually left over from the draft process and can be removed. I did some spot checks and found a couple articles that were never drafts that had this, such as [[Battle of Jahra]] and [[Supreme Constitutional Court (Egypt)]], so I am not sure how the comment got in there. Maybe someone cut and paste moved it from draftspace. Anyway, thoughts? Is this OK to clean up with [[WP:AWB]]? –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 07:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:<code><nowiki><!-- Do not remove this line! --></nowiki></code> may be another good one to tackle. That one has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2FDo+not+remove+this+line%21%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 450ish results]. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 07:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
::The former certainly seems like something that could be added to general fixes without an issue, the second would need to be supervised as it's plausible that it is there for a reason in some cases. In both instances though, I would oppose making the edit in the absence of other changes to the article unless it is causing some actual layout issue/problems for screen readers. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed, I had looked at <!-- Do not remove this line! --> before but decided it was also very common for non AfC left over issues. Possibly it would be OK to remove if it was on a line with nothing other that white-space. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 12:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
:Personally I'd be fine with this. For just 250 articles it won't create any watchlist spam, and a full unneeded HTML comment is a more significant nuisance than most cosmetic edits. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF;text-decoration:inherit;font:1em Lucida Sans">Sdkb</span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 17:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
:I started to fix some of them as I found ones that needed extra clean up and have ended up finishing the lot while chilling to some tunes. So job done. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 22:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
::Gosh darn, that's good work. Thank you Kylie! [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 00:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== RfC on new temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right ==

There is an RfC on the new temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Temporary account IP-viewer]]. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 17:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)