Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Algeria-related articles

Add links

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Index of Algeria-related articles

[edit]

[Hide this box]New toArticles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL)

I started a discussion atWP:VPI#Indexes of country-related articles, but with little participation. We have 148 pages inCategory:Indexes of topics by country, but some are redirects or subtopics. I have picked (relatively randomly) the largest countries for this AfD to keep it manageable, and because not all criticisms may be equally valid for really small countries with a limited number of articles.

The issue is that these lists are permanently, woefully incomplete, in a random way. Maintaining such lists is nearly impossible: a complete list would duplicate the category tree for that country, while a short, curated list duplicates the outlines which exist for many of these. As it stands, these indexes serve no real purpose.

For example, the alphabetically first one, Algeria: the list includesAlgeria at the 2004 Summer Olympics but not the other years. Why? It contains 10 "List of..." pages, but this is only a small fraction of such lists inCategory:Algeria-related lists and its subcats.

The same issues happen with all the below country lists. Either deletion, redirection to an outline, or redirection to a category, seem like the best solution.

Also nominated are the following:

Fram (talk)10:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in thedeletion sorting lists for the following topics:Geography andLists.Fram (talk)10:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what a mess, it gets worse and worse. I looked atIndex of United Kingdom-related articles where I note that Aberdeen is the first entry, but later we have a "heading" that itself is a link toList of cities in the United Kingdom (which isn't actually a straight list, it's a size-orientated summary of big cities with an intro), and this "heading" then has sub-headings below it, predictably including Aberdeen (again), and further down, we have a link toList of United Kingdom locations which is predictably a truly enormous list-of-lists, where Aberdeen can be found inList of United Kingdom locations: Aa-Ak. Would anyone in their right mind navigate all this lot rather than just doing a Google search for "Aberdeen Wikipedia"? I know some people really love classifying and listing, and I don't want to decry their work, but this all seems totally pointless?Elemimele (talk)10:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As indicated, it is unmaintainable. It will never, and can never, be up to date. I think using Categories is a better choice. --Alexf^(talk)10:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hm, can an article be redirected to a Category?—Tamfang (talk)00:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriateOutline of ... article. These indexes are unmaintainable. Cheers,SunloungerFrog (talk)11:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SunloungerFrog and my comments at the village pump. Sitting somewhere between categories and outlines, these indices are more useless than either.Toadspike [Talk]11:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is an online encyclopedia with a search bar and category system. Context-free lists of links with no organization beyond alphabetization do not serve a useful purpose for readers or editors.Reywas92^Talk14:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding that Wikiprojects are more than welcome to maintain a indexed list of pages for whatever maintenance purposes they like, but these are not needed in mainspace. I would recommend deleting or movingother indexes after this. — Reywas92^Talk15:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Aren't these superfluous to both categories and outlines?Katzrockso (talk)14:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,delete all. I agree with whatReywas92 says. I can't claim to have looked at more than one or two, but, for example, the one for Chile will be useless for anyone searching for articles about Chile related to particular subjects.Athel cb (talk)16:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For years, I and others have been monitoring all theancient Egypt-related articles via therelated changes, hunting down vandalism or whatsoever. I can't tell the others, but this one I guarantee is quite up to date and maintained. If you decide to delete it, so be it, but I wish there was a backup way to monitor the topic.Lone-078 (talk)20:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same forIndex of Singapore-related articles which is now maintained via a script by @Robertsky. I believe there are some other indexes which are maintained by similar scripts.~ JASWE (talk)03:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like to refer toprevious similar mass AFDs. Depending on the state of the particular index, this should be raised individually or at least every single index should have been examined before being mass nominated here.~ JASWE (talk)03:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain theIndex of Singapore-related articles and it is fairly up to date. The list is constrained to Singapore throughpreidentified related categories. I would rather to have this index kept, and have the option to have other indexes to be re-created when there is a way to keep them up to date (I am slowly working on extending my tool for other indexes). The indexes do serve several functions:
1. Discovery of new articles by search engines. Given that we do not have a sitemap.xml active, search engines do not know if there are new articles until much later (unless they are written by autopatrolled editors), and wikilinks in existing articles may not be picked up fast as search engines optimise their crawl frequencies of individual pages based on what they perceived as the time to content changes. i.e. if the existing article is being edited once a month and the new article is only linked in that article, search engines would be aware of the new article only a month or two later when they crawl that existing article next in a month or two (assuming that the search engines have no other ways to know that the new article exists). Search engines also do not pick up new articles that are manually reviewed by NPPers until much later and would require a link from somewhere for the new articles to be picked up after the review. The indexes, when well maintained, are frequently updated, and search engines will naturally crawl the indexes more often. This translates into faster discovery of new articles.
2. As a tool for anti-vandalism and spotting national level content hotspots. Through the related changes functionalities, local editors can monitor articles related to their countries for vandalism and other issues. The articles may not necessarily be in their personal watchlists, but because of the familiarity through proximity effect, the editors would be able to quickly jump in at potential hot topics that are not in their orbit previously.

– robertsky (talk)03:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per robertsky, I like to add on that I particularly work on monitoring changes on the index for vandalism. Without an equivalent tool, localised vandalism will be much harder to respond to or be picked up.~ JASWE (talk)03:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Singapore article shows the limits of this system quite clearly, as it is one of our longest pages at 400K+ (for a fairly small country). Anti-vandalism is never a good reason to have an article, if a list is needed for anti-vandalism it should be in projectspace. And the Ancient Egypt page is far from complete, e.g. the whole tree ofCategory:Ancient Egypt in fiction seems to be missing, but also major things like theEgyptian–Hittite peace treaty, theAncient Egyptian race controversy,Ancient Egyptian agriculture and so on. So even one that tries to be complete is very far from it, from even a cursory glance.Fram (talk)09:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to the maintenance of the index which I mentioned in my own comment above, each index is in very different states of maintenance. For the index of Singapore-related articles, it is maintained with occasional reviews (based on categories). If the Ancient Egypt index is far from complete and there are maintainers trying to do their best to do it, like all incomplete lists etc, should we not inform and discuss with the maintainers etc? Just because it is incomplete, do we delete articles and lists? If an index is in bad shape and no editors stepping forward to help to maintain it, I will agree that we should go ahead and delete it. As such, per my comment, a mass AFD might be inappropriate and each nomination in this mass AFD should be assessed individually and not lumped together.~ JASWE (talk)10:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I replied to the maintainers? To quote from above in this discussion: "For years, I and others have been monitoring all the ancient Egypt-related articles via the related changes, hunting down vandalism or whatsoever. I can't tell the others, but this one I guarantee is quite up to date and maintained." So it is in bad shape, but the maintainers believe it is "up to date and maintained" and put their trust in it to combat vandalism.Fram (talk)10:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literally everything you mentioned above, from agriculture to the pages contained in the category you indicated, was already present in the index, so I don't really understand what you're suggesting.Lone-078 (talk)10:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. @Lone-078,Index of ancient Egypt–related articles is not bundled with this nomination. However,Index of Egypt-related articles andIndex of modern Egypt–related articles are.

On the general point about the pages being useful to counter vandalism and other disruptive editing, that being the case, is it not better that they are maintained in project space somewhere? Personally, as a reader wishing to know about, for example, Egypt, a dense list like this would not be my first port of call. That's why I think they do not belong in article space. A redirect in the first instance would preserve history for porting the content elsewhere. Cheers,SunloungerFrog (talk)11:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the works in the category treeCategory:Ancient Egypt in fiction are not included in that list either (obvious example:Papyrus (comics)). As it isn't even up for deletion, I guess it makes little sense to discuss it any further here though.Fram (talk)11:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy the reasons for the lists. I can't see why indexes are better than categories for those monitoring anti-vandalism. I don't see any strong benefit to helping search engines find a new page more quickly: it's quite deliberate that new articles aren't exposed to search engines until after NPP has seen them, and we shouldn't do things that encourage search engines to find them sooner. Wikipedia-life is not a race; it's better to expose good, solid articles a month late than to expose articles that shouldn't have made it into main-space as soon as they do.Elemimele (talk)11:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele Technically, the search engines are exposed to the new articles regardless of them being reviewed or not as long as they are first published (they probably ingest EventStream to pick up new articles). The search engines are honoring the noindex flag for non-AP created articles, while indexing AP created articles immediately. Even if the indexes are updated with the links to non-reviewed articles, the search engine will not index the articles in the non-reviewed state. The search engines require encouragement to look for reviewed articles after the review is done because there is no feed (sitemap.xml) for the search engines to look at. By having the links in the index, the search engines will run through them all when they crawl the index next, and will only index the article when the NPP review is done.– robertsky (talk)13:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation - I do have considerable blind faith in Google's ability to find things...Elemimele (talk)22:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, I think you are mixing different responses for different people into your reply, so I am going to address only the Singapore specific ones.

The Singapore article shows the limits of this system quite clearly, as it is one of our longest pages at 400K+ (for a fairly small country). Indeed, which is why one of the plans I have was tosplit the list into two when the time comes (it has actually). Also, while at 400k, I do acknowledge that there may be still articles not listed, but these would typically be in new category trees that have been created in the last few years and I am not aware of. i.e.Special:Diff/1324221152: most of the new 20+ articles here are as a result of adding thenew (to me) sportspeoples categories into the list. Even then, many of the articles (about 600+ articles) in these new categories are already listed in the index beforehand through other Singapore related categories.

Anti-vandalism is one of the many possibilities that the list can be utilised for, but it was not my primary consideration. While the anti-vandalism patrollers have to monitor two lists in the future, it is better than having none. When I started maintaining the index, my interest for the index was to allow anyone who may be interested, no matter how remotely it may seem to be, to see at a glance what articles are there relating to Singapore. This is not possible with the Outline articles where only key articles or sub-lists are there; or Categories, as there is no one flat category available for all Singapore-related articles. In fact, we are encouraged to diffuse large categories!

I recognise that such lists are dynamic and must be actively maintained, otherwise they will quickly be out of date and incomplete, but that's why I am also taking my time to extend my tool so that such lists can be churned out as comprehensively as possible in an efficient manner.

As for the location of the indexes, I am ambivalent of where they will finally be if they are not to be at the mainspace as long as:

actively maintained indexes are not deleted,
if moved across namespaces, the existing titles will redirect to the final page titles.
if deleted due to lack of maintenance or updates, the indexes can be recreated at prescribed new locations, i.e. "Wikipedia:WikiProject CountryBall/Index of related articles", as long as maintenance and update viability can be addressed, and/or redirects can be created at old titles for discovery purposes.

– robertsky (talk)12:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that if some of these are moved to projectspace, that there will be redirects from the current titles, as we normally don't redirect from mainspace to projectspace. I don't think anyone has any objection to your points 1 (if moved to projectspace) and certainly point 3 (I see no reason why these would not be allowed in projectspace, as long as they are of course not too big; a single page list for the US would be a bad idea). As for the mainspace, Singapore is a borderline case IMO: I excluded very small countries or territories from this AfD because for these a single page with all articles may be feasible and maintainable, but I included Singapore here as I thought it would become too massive a list. It's hard to know where to draw the line in cases like this of course.Fram (talk)12:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Singapore is included because it would become too massive a list for maintenance, would a split be sufficient then to have the list remain in the mainspace? This is of course comes with a promise that the upcoming script/tool update will account for the split, and making maintenance relatively stress-free and easy for others to work on the index (these are already in the works actually. JASWE has been bugging me to do so so it is no longer a bus factor of one when comes to updating the index). The current workflow that I have takes less than 30 minutes to prepare the category list and for the generation of the index, and another 30 minutes to update into wiki, verify, and adjust if necessary.– robertsky (talk)12:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Not a notable subject. If anyone wants to maintain an index on wikipedia about its own articles then they should use their own sandbox.THEZDRX_{(User) |}_(Contact)12:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indexes are allowed in the mainspace perWikipedia:Stand-alone lists. As for notability, that's a separate matter to argue on. At risk of being seen as braggadocious, wouldIndex of Singapore-related articles be notable, because it has been cited as one of my main efforts on the project in the news?[1],[2].
Please don't make broad statements like maintaining indexes in sandboxes only are allowed (inferred from above), as it is going to invite whataboutism, i.e. "What aboutIndex of branches of science? Aren't those notable? Should it be in a sandbox?".– robertsky (talk)12:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that page could easily be renamedList of branches of science (currently a redirect). It's a narrow topic with only one type of article listed, all of which have descriptions, though I think it would be better with some further organization like by the major groups at the top rather than all being alphabetical. Broader indexes with people, places, history, sports, fiction, etc. aren't useful in the mainspace, and pages that lack organization or context (likeIndex of underwater diving: F–K has) should be discouraged or moved. — Reywas92^Talk16:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the corresponding Outline article per SunloungerFrog, such articles can never be adequately maintained due to the sheer volume of content within such topics.Frank_{(hasDemoCracyDeprivaTion)}14:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are currently allowed, and if we can maintain these with a script, they may still serve a purpose, especially as metadata.SportingFlyerT·C00:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per ATD.—Fortuna,imperatrix 11:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Index_of_Algeria-related_articles&oldid=1324575833"

Categories:

[8]ページ先頭