Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Hello, Jimbo! Could you give a comment on the situation in the Chechen Wikipedia?--Soul Train (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about it to make any useful comment, I'm afraid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::Jimbo, you do not have to know enough about Chechen Wikipedia.In case you did not notice there's a massive sysop abuse on every Wikipedia, and even you got your share of it on Commons. It is just how Wikipedia works, but somebody said it better than I could: "Wikipedia should not be a Gestapo type state. It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials." except it is a Gestapo type state already. Wake up, Jimbo, the site you've created is falling into abyss. Regards. 76.126.172.249 (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC) -- striking comments by User:Mbz1 who is indefinitely blocked from this project but still engages in trolling.[reply]

Godwin's law--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to Wikipedia User:Mbz1, I didn't realise you had been unbanned. Oh wait, you haven't. Russavia (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The graph below, 2003-2013, shows the counts of article-edits (not talk-page edits), to easily see the stabilized pattern.

During 2012, the numbers declined by about a slight 2% per year, like saying a hot day was only Template:Convert/2. Meanwhile, support for old MSIE browsers remained poor, and if support for the world's IE7 and IE8 browsers improved, then the pattern might reverse as a slight growth when supporting the world's most-popular browsers (although, more likely the world will move to IE9 faster than WP moves to support IE8). The middle (purple) line shows the typical "semi-busy" editors (now ~9,200 people), with 25+ edits per month, which includes most everyone we find talking, because many veteran editors just cannot handle 100+ edits per month, but instead make perhaps "19 changes" in each of fewer edit-saves each month. The top line of 3,400 busy editors (100+ edits) includes the frantic small changes, such as putting a category link into each of 45 articles, and many veteran editors rarely perform mass edits, and so, they rarely exceed 99 edits per month. In fact, many of the 3,400 busy editors might be too busy to even talk very much about their editing. Anyway, that quick graph of editor activity shows "They are here to stay" after the past 10 years. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your conclusions might be valid (my guess is not, though), but one cannot tell from the graph. I think the edit counts of busy editors are down materially, in contrast to the claim of "stabilized" but it is difficult to see with that scale. Can you repost the numbers of the busy only, with a Y axis recalled to 0-5000? I think it will show a material drop, but one either needs the numbers, or a better scale.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See monthly numbers in: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm, including counts of editors who made over 2500 edits per month. -Wikid77 12:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"support for old MSIE browsers remained poor" - how do you mean exactly? MediaWiki is one of a shrinking number of web platforms which still attempts to support the ancient horror that is IE6 (see mw:Compatibility#Browser). If you have examples of specific failings in IE, I suggest you bring them up at bugzilla. the wub "?!" 15:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the unformatted text and lockups have been reported in Bugzilla, where after a few edits, the text just scrolls down the page, such as a navbox listing "95" items down a page (not a rectangular box of 95 entries), or right-side images appear scrolled down the left-side margin, or wikitables have no border lines. I cannot confirm IE6, but multiple sites of IE7 and IE8 showed Vector or Monobook skin merely scrolling down the screen, with few boxed areas except Search[_____]. -Wikid77 12:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The stereotyping of "busy editors (100+ edits)" here is highly dubious - after all just over 3 edits per day, or 25 per week, will get you into this group, while hardly leaving most people "too busy to even talk very much about their editing". Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the numbers are there, as 9,200 make 25+ article-edits per month, but only 3,100 people log over 100 monthly edits. -Wikid77 12:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that; what I am objecting to is your subjective characterization of those "frantic" people. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod. Editors making 100+ edits a month is one of the main metrics tracked by WMF. The official term is "very active Wikipedians," I believe. See: THIS. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see your objection to the characterization of these very active Wikipedians. I agree that 100 edits a month is not at all a "frantic" pace. One could hit that number just by stopping by AfD every morning and adding a few opinions each day. Carrite (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's over 100 article-edits not talk-edits: A common misread is thinking the 100+ article-edit counts include talk-pages, or template edits, and stop around 100, but instead, the count at 100+ includes higher, such as 750 article-edits but no "wp:" edits nor talk-pages nor templates nor images. -Wikid77 12:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is hard to measure - I cant tell you by experience that older editors do fewer edits not because they are adding less, but due to the fact they edits smarter. Thus resulting in less edits for the same amount of information. Moxy (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noticed those multi-change edits, where some long-term editors might make 37 changes during 1 edit-save, rather than 9 edits. -Wikid77 12:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I both agree and disagree with this. I can write entire sections in one sweeping edit, then go off and make a half dozen one-byte changes because I realized I screwed up repeatedly. (My recent performance at 1988 Winter Olympics demonstrates both quite nicely.) Though I would lean to the general idea that veteran editors can edit smarter. Familiarity with the tools helps. Resolute 17:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While there is still plenty of work to do, we do now have over 4 million articles, so there are fewer new articles to write as well. I would assume that as Wikipedia matures, the number of total edits will go down. Most of the "big" articles are already done, although I can easily picture us having over 20 million article topics that are worth writing about, they are just minor things, like red slaw or 1950s American automobile culture (two of my more recent starts, which are a bit obscure.). It took 10 years to get those articles written simply because so few people have even heard of it or thought to write them. The big topics, like Ford, Romania, and Freddie Mercury were covered early on and few big topics are left unstarted and are already past the "stub" stage because many were interested in writing them, and so many reliable sources exist to source them. The most obscure (or minor, if you will) topics take longer and build slower. When I started in 2006, I found more errors as the main articles were rougher than they are now, thus more chances to make minor edits. If anything, that chart shows very strong continuing interest, not a lack of interest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 1/3 of minor topics have articles: There are so many missing articles, for common notable topics, that I find them redlinked everyday, such as recent "prison blues" or "creative incompetence" or "salad fork" (but "dessert spoon") or "slave brick" (but "mudbrick") or "commercial loan" or minor TV character actors, or minor footballers, where WP has over 74,000 footballer articles but among 242,000 known players. Many other terms, not redlinked, are couched as redirects to related articles ("consumer loan" redirects), but the terms could be in separate articles. -Wikid77 12:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point is the huge number of articles, many with high views, that have existed in a poor state for years, but have hardly been changed since an early spurt of editing. But statistics won't tell you that - only looking at some of them will. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I see this graph I always wonder what the impact of the growing legion of bots is, especially ClueBot NG. With many millions of quick and mindless edits being done by machines it may mean that human resources are freed-up, making fewer edits but overall more substantive ones. We may see an acceleration of this as Wikidata comes into force. Has this ever been investigated? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rather hard to believe this graph is accurate. Even if it doesn't include bots or talk pages a lot of high output editors have punched out in the last few months to a year and I find it extremely difficult to believe that we have recruited enough new people to cover that. Rich F did over 10k a month and often more than 25K. I (Yes its Kumioko again) usually did over 10K edits a month and there were several months last year I didn't do any. That's just 2 of several. So although I find this graph interesting, its hardly believable. 108.18.194.128 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other people have replaced the editors on break, even 5 people making 10,000 edits per month, or 50-60 who made over 2500 article-edits monthly. -Wikid77 12:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That is actually a very good question. I also wonder what the number of vandalism/reverts is now, compared to 5 years ago, as each incident creates at least two edits that are essentially null, whether they are reverted by a human or a bot. You could ask User:Okeyes (WMF) who works for the Foundation and does data work like that (his regular admin/editor account is User:Ironholds). He has the access and skills to provide some useful answers to that question, and from my experience, he has a general interest in those kinds of questions. The chart above is interesting and informative, but it is only one piece of the puzzle, so it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions without more information. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really feel like anyone cares or wants to hear my comments these days so I won't be asking about those questions. I just felt compelled to leave a note about my skepticism in the data (although I have no knowledge of how it was generated or how old the source data might be). If you want to ask though you certainly have my permission to do so (not that its needed mind you). As an extra note I think the point you made about the Vandalism/Reversion cycle is a good point too. I wonder how hard it would be to build an algorithm to create some categorization. I also think that using the revision history of cluebot as a measure of vandalism or even maybe a combination of that and edit summaries (it'll never be perfect mind you) that would be a good vetting process for some of the zero sum gains.108.18.194.128 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graph shows live data as of January 2013: The graph above reflects the recent recounting of live Wikipedia article edit-history data, as dumped into data files for analysis. See data counts:

• http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm

The edit-activity data is not from "old reports" to combine guesses from years ago, but rather regenerated from the live contents of all of Wikipedia's current 4.2 million articles (as of January 2013). The data also includes counts of editors who made over 1000, 2500, 10,000 article-edits (or more) per month, which has also stabilized for years. For talk-page edit counts, see numbers in that "stats" data file. -Wikid77 12:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Compare stability of other-language Wikipedias: There are numerous similar graphs for the other languages of Wikipedia. However, looking at just the German, French, Italian, Arabic, Greek, Russian or Japanese, all show a similar stability of editor activity levels in recent years. See others:

• German: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotEditorsDE.png
• French: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotEditorsFR.png
• Spanish: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotEditorsES.png
• Italian: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotEditorsIT.png
• Arabic: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotEditorsAR.png
• Greek: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotEditorsEL.png
• Russian: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotEditorsRU.png
• Polish: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotEditorsPL.png
• Japanese: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotEditorsJA.png
• Esperanto: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotEditorsEO.png
• Latvian: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotEditorsLV.png
• Romanian: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotEditorsRO.png
• Swahili: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotEditorsSW.png
• Chinese (growing): http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotEditorsZH.png

Numerous languages seem to have stabilized in their editor-activity levels, although some still vary widely. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would bet that some of the growth on those other Wikis represents people who formerly edited in English Wikipedia, in spite of their having little ability to communicate in English, and have now started contributing to the Wikipedia in their own languages instead. --Orlady (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, one of the reasons why it appears we hit a ceiling is because of the edit conflict, which is a technological barrier to collaboration. Jimbo, shouldn't the WMF put goal of having real-time collaborative editing (like google documents) down on paper, even if it is for year 2020? Biosthmors (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, take a peek at Hotel television systems. This is a lousy article because it contains no references, it features loads of spam links (many of which are anchored to "Hotel TV", at the bottom of the page), it contains a falsehood about cable TV in hotels (that there is a "set-top box in each room"), and it's been edited almost entirely by IP addresses and one guy who seems strangely familiar with IPTV. One of the recently active IPs is User:164.4.17.33, which points to a Sandvik office, and they've been doctoring Wikipedia for years, it seems, focusing on the articles about products where their materials are used.

Based on my experience, I estimate that this article is one of thousands that have been subverted to be little more than a spam link repository and an original research dumping ground. And it's not for lack of "crowd" to keep an eye on the article -- it gets nearly 2,000 page views per month. Is Wikipedia still working properly, or is this a sign of things to come, as more and more strong content editors are driven off or lose interest in the project? - 2001:558:1400:10:9881:9B5B:7FA5:A11A (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). 88.104.17.92 (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing particularly new about this sort of thing, so I wouldn't view it as a harbinger of things to come. And I don't agree that "strong content editors" are being driven off. (That's something I've been hearing for many many years as well. Some have been, but I don't think it can be established as an overall trend.) We've always had random crappy articles on topics too boring for anyone to really care about. In my opinion, we should just delete them. Unfortunately if you make a rule that says "every article with no sources should be deleted" then someone will get wound up to go around saving all the bad articles by adding one reference... which is improvement of course, but more or less misses the point. One of the most powerful counters to this sort of thing is to make sure that an appropriate and lively Wikiproject is aware of it... this article is cataloged under Wikiproject Television, but that might not be the best one. (But it is, however, an active project, so I'd bring it to their attention). --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have BLPPROD which is a similar rule for BLPs only, which requires that the article contains at least one source. Articles actually do get deleted under BLPPROD; people don't go around saving all of them by adding one source each. (And I don't think all of them are unsourceable.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your thoughts on the administrative category, Category:Eponymous categories, categories named after Wikipedia article subjects, such as Category:Steve Jobs. This category tree has been discussed 3 times, in 2007, 2010 and 2012, and has of course been kept. I think I understand the rationales for it, and do appreciate what its trying to accomplish (I wont try to summarize, prefer you read the proponents rationales, to be fair to them, as I'm biased). However, I find it counter-intuitive to have the category for Steve Jobs not placed in a further content category, such as Category:American technology company founders (I do recognize that having the Steve Jobs category in EACH of his article's categories could appear as overkill). I also think its often a redundant category tree (as pointed out originally by Alan Liefting), since Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in China‎ covers the same content as Category:Cities in China, and it mixes up administrative functions with reader/content functions, as a reader may wonder why the category for steve jobs doesnt "go" anywhere, and editors can erroneously place an eponymous category in a content category, as with Category:Wikipedia categories named after American people being in Category:American people. I know that there are serious, competent editors with differing/opposing views on this subject. If you feel your input would be at all useful, I invite you to do so, here or at the category talk page. Thanks so much for what you have done for all of us who always wanted to help write an encyclopedia, and didn't even know it!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you had to go back and rebuild Wikipedia from the ground up, what- if anything, would you do differently?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues Jimbo has noted: I am not sure what wording could be searched in the archives, to find things to have done differently years ago, but some issues I recall from Jimbo's comments:

• Lower numerical consensus, perhaps as 63%: There have been several cases where a 2/3rds majority was needed, and the percentage was extremely close, such as a 64% majority, but not 66.7% or such. In some cases, Jimbo explained that the consensus was abundantly clear (unlikely to reverse), so that perhaps 63% in some decisions (among numerous editors) should be considered sufficient to decide an issue, but this would not apply to a small set of people making a decision, but rather when dozens of people respond with support/oppose. Such a redefinition for a two-thirds majority might have allowed major decisions to occur as months, or years, sooner. In the U.S. some obvious "landslide" votes are split only 55%-43%-2%, and it is often clear how the 55% are a sizable majority. -Wikid77 10:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Have a WYSIWYG interface sooner: Jimbo has commented extensively on the VisualEditor feature, as needed years ago, in possibly helping more people to edit articles. I am not convinced, because longer edits can be tedious in a point-and-click environment, where I think some people would tire of the too-many-keystrokes navigation needed to make multiple changes, and when edit-conflict occurs, then people would not have been using copy/paste to salvage their portions of the total page, so an edit-conflict would tend to require re-entering all those point-and-click keystrokes manually (rather than just cut/paste from the wikimarkup buffer we edit today). However, there has been talk of "forced-save" mode to ensure part of a WYSIWYG edit gets saved before an edit-conflict occurs, as less new text rejected by the edit-conflict. So, in that case, Jimbo is probably right about ease of use, with little loss from edit-conflict during longer edits. -Wikid77 10:00/14:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Some prior method to limit size of major articles: Jimbo has noted when many major articles were smaller, then they seemed easier to read, or more effective at covering topics (as well as faster to load or edit). If there could have been a smaller size limit, earlier, to insist on moving tangent text into subarticles for the myriad, rambing details, then perhaps major articles would still read like a comfortable overview of a topic, as perhaps 2-3 book pages, rather than 17-24 screens of text, tables, and lists. Now any talk of smaller pages might incur claims of "unfairness" against new topics, relative to older long pages. -Wikid77 10:00/14:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Higher thresholds for notability: Another issue has been too many articles about minor participants, such as villages of 23 people, or new schools of 35 senior students. So, there should have been more-stringent standards to require a school to have higher attendance, or longer history, before creating an article for every corporation who hires a few teachers and declares themselves a "school" rather than focus on larger public schools, or private schools with longer histories. -Wikid77 10:00/14:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]