Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Cebuano Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a proposal for closing and/or deleting a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is subject to the current closing projects policy.

The proposal is currently open for discussion by the community.

The Cebuano Wikipedia mostly consists of bot-generated stubs, like the Volapuk wiki did 10 years ago. There are virtually no active users other than Lsj, his bot, a few vandals, and the MediaWiki message delivery bot. I propose that the bot-created articles be deleted, and that the rest of the wiki be moved to Incubator. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment This affects a Philippine language so notified PhilWiki Community, the Wikimedia User Group in that country. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment Comment One of the General Objectives of PhilWiki Community is to create, organize, develop, and engage in activities that promote free, responsibly open-content resources and reference materials in English, and Philippine languages where there are existing communities. Since its formation, the User Group has conducted activities for Bikol Wikipedia (in Naga City and Camarines Sur) and Rinconada Bikol Wikipedia (in Naga City and Iriga City) which is still in the Incubator, unfortunately, and has supported activities for Waray Wikipedia (in Tacloban City and provinces of Samar and Northern Samar). In 2013, I initiated to hold Wiki Takes Cebu but unfortunately it was cancelled because my flight was cancelled. We listed in our Specific Activities (#s 2 and 4) the creation of Wiktionary in Cebuano and translation into Cebuano the interface of Wikimedia projects because one of our members knows the language. Although another user who speaks the language joined the group however both of them are now inactive. --Filipinayzd (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Comment CommentI tried to add entries for cebwiktionary but I do not know how. It seems adding entries is not supported in incubator phase. So ended up adding some grammar stuff instead. Anyway my focus and that of the FB groupchat circle is saving cebwiki from those who want to close it. -Josefwintzent Libot (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Let's not close a Wikipedia for 21 million people, with multiple users, because there's a few too many bot-created articles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Inactivity alone is not a reason for project closure, as has been stated in past discussions. The main criterion for closing a project would be absence of content and/or community. Cebuano Wikipedia has a lot of content (it is the second-largest Wikipedia!) and, having 21 million native speakers (as stated above), as well as being the second-most spoken language in the Philippines, getting more native speakers on board to grow the community should not be a problem. A large number of bot-created articles is also not a reason to close a Wikipedia. In the top 10 largest Wikipedias, Dutch Wikipedia and Waray Wikipedia were also grown by using bots; does that mean we should close them too? In short, there isn't really a case for closing this Wikipedia. --DraconicDark (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • If somebody ran a bot to autogenerate low-quality articles on, they'd probably be community-banned. On, there is no community to ban Lsj, so this is the only thing I can do. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support for full retaliation against the people who have covered multiple language editions of Wikipedia with complete and utter rubbish, such as (going through local Special:Random) ‘Governor's Mansion Historical Marker’ and ‘Ribeirão da Onça (suba sa Brasil, São Paulo, lat -22,45, long -51,50)’. I would also argue in favour of full global ban of Lsjbot and nuking of all the ‘articles’ that were created by its owner. This is unprecedented abuse and I am frankly astonished that it took so long to start this closure request. There are no current options at the table other than to close the editions that are fully populated by bots (Cebuano and Waray Wikipedias) and move with the strictest sanctions possible against the language editions that have other content as well but are still densely populated by automatically created content (Swedish and Dutch Wikipedias). stjn[ru] 02:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
    • There certainly are other options; at one extreme, we could just let Wikipedias chose how they populate their content. I certainly have no problem with the appropriate use of automatically created content; the English Wikipedia has a large block of automatically created content that has been a useful basis for expansion. Perhaps the Cebuano Wikipedia deserves a stronger response, but deleting useful Wikipedias because of excessive automatically created articles seems to go against to providing information to everyone in their own language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
      • @Prosfilaes: I see that there is a major misunderstanding of this topic (bot-created articles). The difference between Russian Wikipedia choosing to use bots for facilitating growth of the project, English Wikipedia choosing to do this, French etc. and these projects is that there was an active community to check in on these bot-created articles to see if there are any errors. I don’t suggest that any other project that I mentioned improved all articles that were created by bots, but at least in any other case they at least cared enough to have excessive checks at the quality of material. When I see articles such as ‘Grodno Oblast’, which has the following sentence in its text: ‘Grodno Oblast mopakigbahin sa usa ka utlanan sa Brest Oblast, Vitebsk Oblast, Minsk Oblast, Podlaskie Voivodeship, Alytus, ug 維爾紐斯縣’, I see gross negligence first and foremost. And I can’t justify to myself that other articles do not have such blatant errors, when the rate they were uploaded at is 10,000/day. This is not the case of appropriate use of automatically created content by any measure. stjn[ru] 07:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
        • ceb and war should be moved to Incubator and their subdomains should be redirected to en:Lsjbot. sv and nl should be perma-ACTRIAL'd and perma-CAPTCHA'd. Lsjbot should be perma-globalled, and Lsj himself should be indef'd from ceb, war, and sv. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Don’t see how some of those actions will be beneficial to anyone: sv and nl should be perma-ACTRIAL'd and perma-CAPTCHA'd − what is this supposed to solve? There are still active communities there and anons there didn’t participate in any part of this. Lsj himself should be indef'd from ceb, war, and sv – activity of Lsj was supported by active communities that agreed to these kinds of abuse, so indefinite block will solve nothing (and I think that he acted in good faith, even if there was no one to call him to order). Moreover, I don’t think that redirecting any subdomain on will be technically possible or something that anyone would agree to. stjn[ru] 09:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's my 2 cents as a technical person in my volunteer capacity, I'm not reflecting position of any of my employees (WMF, WMDE), These articles has put lots of pressure on the whole infrastructure of Wikimedia. Here's an example directly caused by this mass import: phab:T171263 and tens of thousands of dollars (and probably way more) donor money is spent on this (in matter of server, bandwidth, database as it's putting pressure on other s3 wikis and it needs a dedicated shard, human software engineering time, etc.) which is okay if anyone reads these articles. I think this wiki has lost the idea of what means to be a Wikipedia Amir (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree. This is what might happen: a Cebuano speaker clicks "random article" a few times, reads the LSJBOT pages, is astounded by their low quality, and decides to create his or her own CC-licensed Mediawiki-based Cebuano-language encyclopedia. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see how closing the Cebuano Wikipedia is a solution to that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's hear a solution. Closing a Wikipedia of 21 million speakers is not a solution.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I guess it's a solution that you don't like, but it is a solution. Do you have a better idea? Mx. Granger (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Not doing anything. If the only option is to close or not close, the status quo is better.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is alternate (compromise) solution: removing all bot created articles except those from List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have/Expanded and from lists like "all years" and "all centuries".--EUvin (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I reviewed Lsjbot created articles in ceb.wki, and do agree that indeed it poor comprehensibility. However, I also discover that the issue of comprehensibility is actually easy to resolve under a supervision of a native speaker of Cebuano. I am trying to collaborate now with the bot creator to address this. So please do not anymore close down -- Josefwintzent Libot
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Please do not close as it will make my contributions as Joseph Walay Hanaw go to the drain too. Since 2010 I often do editing as anonymous both here in and but now as my work allows it finally I am openning a new account as Josefwintzent. The Cebuano speaking community are now organizing too to improve the contents of so please do not close it yet. User:Josefwintzent Libot
    • I would argue that the closure is not an endpoint for Cebuano community. You and others like you could still contribute to a project in Wikimedia Incubator after the wiki will get rid of bot-created articles. But this is the key difference − there must be a demonstration that there is a healthy community of editors, that is willing to support the project in good faith and not turn it into bot malfunction on steroids anymore. The same goes to others that are currently plagued by this stuff. stjn[ru] 01:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support I find the arguments for keeping this wiki extremely weak. You have 5,382,920 articles with 154 active users? And you find that acceptable? The amount of people who speak the language is not indicative of the status of a wiki or its need. I am very concerned about the rampant editing that Lsj's bot has done on the wiki. 12,219,065 edits out of the 16,544,718 total? That's not a wiki, and its continuance should not be permitted. Nihlus 03:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Having a high number of articles is not a good reason for closing a Wikipedia. How do you measure the need for a Wikipedia? w:List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers puts Cebuano as one of the 60 largest languages in the world, and w:Internet_in_the_Philippines says at least a third of Filipinos have Internet access. That seems to establish the justification for the existence of a Wikipedia. That 150 active users is about on par with Afrikaans and Welsh, certainly justification in and of itself for a Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    • To be frank, the most ‘active’ users in that list are those that come and go from other language editions, not Cebuano-speaking people. stjn[ru] 01:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
      • How do you whether they're Cebuano-speaking people? How does this differ from the Afrikaans and Welsh Wikipedias? Why shouldn't we expect Cebuano speakers, who in many cases will speak Tagalog and English, to also edit other Wikipedias? If the number of active users is relevant, then I'd rather work with hard numbers than vague analysis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Closing the wiki doesn't sound like it will solve anything. If your concern is with the bot-created articles, then propose something to deal with them. I'll also note that stubs can sometimes generate content improvement, as people fill in missing information when they see it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for people like you that are more considerate. -- Josefwintzent Libot
    • Stubs can both generate improvement and stay in the same condition for hundreds of years. In the case of Cebuano Wikipedia, there is no possible situation in which people would go to these articles about every micro-organism, about every park which Lsj made up, about every city he didn’t research information about and improve on it. It is not a minor issue, it is one of the biggest in the history of Wikipedia, and this is an appropriate place to discuss ways of resolving this situation. stjn[ru] 01:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Indeed it is true that there is no possible way an individual human can check all those articles, however there is no possible way either one can predict which articles each human visitors will check out. So you cannot actually say I will delete this and I will delete that based on the argument that no individual humans can check all of these. The solution is not deletion of articles nor closure of a wikipedia. The real solution is improving these articles. That is what we are initiating now in the cebwp editing community. Josefwintzent Libot(Talk)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose The Cebuano Wikipedia should be improved not closed. The solution should be to recruit and reach out to Cebuano native speakers for improving the existing stubs and merging duplicate entries. —Harvzsf (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose I agree with the arguments of Harvzsf and DraconicDark above. None of the pro-closure arguments actually build a case for closure. A look at Cebwp:Recent Changes will show that there is an active community, even if it is not huge. Several users are actively working both on improving the bot articles and on adding other content, though I agree with Harvzsf that recruiting more native speakers would be highly desirable. Concerning the articles themselves, they should be judged on their merit, not on their method of creation. Furthermore, they should be judged by their merits as a whole set, both good and bad, not only by hand-selected examples of "rubbish". In any case, the quality issues are better handled within the cebwp community, and are currently being handled there. Lsj (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    • ↑ Full disclosure: this is a man that is the current author of 99% of content at Cebuano Wikipedia.
      Lsj, have you ever looked at how the creation of articles by bots works in other language editions, except of those that followed the ugly trend of Dutch Wikipedia? Well, for one thing, there is something called checking process, in which users that want to uncontrollably push the articles into the project have to at least check what they are going to upload. You have not done it over your entire career, I can assure you, otherwise there would’ve not been any stuff to ‘hand-select’ (which isn’t true, by the way). When you are uploading over 5 million articles without any checks about the validity of data, every fu... misstep you have is completely yours to deal with and not the one you can shun away from. Not the community you are trying to sign up to this task of cleaning Augeas’ stables up. stjn[ru] 01:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    • You are killing the wiki. In ruwiki we have only 10-20% of bot-created articles with better quality and a big community to improve them, and they are still a huge problem. The mass bot-creation stopped several years ago, though even now the community resources are not enough to make them properly sourced and meaningful. It is a problem for the future community, not a help. Better stop and nuke all the bot-stuff. The community won't arise around all that. Only die out of enormous work and lack of resources.--Abiyoyo (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I have Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support for the deletion of all the bot-created articles per Abiyoyo: actually, it seems to me there is no problem in doing so as such articles usually has no editors but Lsjbot and other bots. It seems interesting to me to know the reasons why this was not done before.
    At the same time let me comment on the general potential of the Cebuano-speaking Wikipedia: around 20 millions of speakers is more than many European languages with healthy Wikipedia communities have, and even if it is (please excuse me if I am rather blatant, English is not my native language) fourth-sort language as most of its educated speakers probably prefer Tagalog, Spanish or English Wikipedias instead, with the situation being probably worsened by the poor access to the Internet, I believe the complete closure of Cebuano Wikipedia is Oppose not necessary. Викизавр (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    It wasn't done before because it takes a lot for external users to mess with the internal policies of a Wikipedia, and the local community seems to be largely made up of the person who is running the bot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment I don't speak the Cebuano language, so I think I personally have no position to decide whether to close it or not, since I am not either the potential reader or editor. However, I found out that from the pageview tool, we can see the Cebuano Wikipedia itself attract more human readers then incubator wikimedia. In that case, if I am the community who need to fight the bot, I would try to use this as advantage, for example to make Site Notice to direct people from the page to community editathons or writing bootcamp, so potential new editors can increase. --Liang(WMTW) (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • My vote on this is to Oppose Oppose the proposed closure. However, the Cebuano Wikipedia (and the Waray Wikipedia by extension) need a serious overhaul, perhaps by turning off Lsjbot (preferably for a period between six months to two years) while simultaneously undergoing a very thorough review of bot-made articles and subsequent modifications, deletions and redirects. A parallel effort to create and expand articles from this list (preferably done manually) can also be done in the same timeframe and in the thereafter. -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Per above comments, reason not valid to close a wiki. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 15:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Nothing gets better after closing. Fixing is only possible as long as you have something to fix. Of course it is tough to fix, but what isn't? --Oop (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    • 5 million non-checked articles about ‘New York (city in New York State, USA, the coordinates 12 N, 23 W)’. stjn[ru] 01:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose :I oppose KATMAKROFAN (talk) closure proposal in the strongest terms. This is not the right move or action. He didn't bother discussing this first in our community notice board or the embassy. I understand that the bot-inflated-article-count issue has a long history of discussions but I have never encountered one on nuking a wikipedia for using bots. Clean-up and deletion of articles is the way to go, not closure. Jordz (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Up to the community their to regulate the bots creation of articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support mass deletion of bot-created articles. Oppose Oppose full closure. No need to close the wiki. Just intervene and nuke all the bot-created articles.--Abiyoyo (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't see how deleting the stubs would benefit Cebuano-speakers, they have something to work with to expand, many people are shy about creating articles but love expanding them. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 11:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
      • The number of bot-created articles has to be proportionate to community abilities to improve them. If it is not, the motivation to improve exhausts: no one can improve a million of articles. If one's contribution sinks in millions of bot-stubs it is just invisible. The desperation kills the community. Eventually the bot-articles will turn out to be something that slows down not boosts the community growth. Bot-stubs are like steroids. If you use them reasonably they may help to boost the community, the excessive abuse makes you sick.--Abiyoyo (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose per Jordz and Doc James. There are other alternatives. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 04:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose, let’s look at the long-term value of the Cebuano Wikipedia here, having automatically created content doesn't mean that the content is unnecessary, imagine if in the future a lot of people decide to improve those stubs, a huge quantity of content isn't a bad thing per se as it could always be expanded and improved in the future. Local wiki’s should have their own autonomy and if the Cebuano Wikipedia and Waray Wikipedia sites want to make automated articles and no-one there is against this then this should be handled locally, Cebuano has as much speakers as Dutch so by discontinuing this wiki it would prove millions of people a disservice. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 11:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This is incredibly easy to deal with. Simply append all unedited bot creations to draftspace. And note that any humans subsequently making pages can use them as a base, or delete them and start from scratch on an individual basis. There is no reason to waste the many thousand's of dollars spent on automated wikipedia growth. Nor to close a wikipedia read by over a million people every day. A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Let's fix the quality of cebwiki without closing it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Was this discussed within the community, or at least attempted? — regards, Revi 13:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I don’t think so. If the proposer speaks Cebuano he would have noted that one of the admins had opened up the topic of the bots in a discussion and it was still ongoing. Based on what’s on the Cebuano Village Pump (the Cebuano name is Tubaan), the proposer only posted the notice of this proposal for closure a mere 3 minutes before posting this proposal here. Three minutes isn’t enough time for a discussion. —Harvzsf (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support It's time to give a strong signal. We should first think of creating a stable and self-sustaining community, by letting them grow at their own pace. This explosion of articles created just by one bot is a quirk that risks to give us bad publicity, especially with institutions with whom we're addressing the issues of reliability and overall quality. --Sannita - not just another sysop 14:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose What the hell is going on here? Bae, let me have my glasses. OK, now I can see that someone is requesting the closure of a language Wikipedia spoken by millions of people in Philippines. I don't know whether to describe this as a nonsensical request or trolling but I want to believe this request is made in good faith. I think we should be discussing how to improve this language Wikipedia through several outreach program that will focus on recruiting contributors to this project. I do want to support a program that will increase the number of editors that will continue to contribute to that project and not a proposal to close a Wikipedia language spoken by millions of people. Wikicology (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Hello, I think that such a wikipedia version should be closed. It is hard to find any content that is encyclopedic. By that I mean texts that are describing the world. What I see usually in this wiki are sentences based on the content of databases. I do not regard that to be encyclopedic, and I doubt that this kind of content really serves readers. On the contrary, I am a big fan of the ArticlePlaceHolder thing because it keeps the presented information fresh and it does not pretend to be an encyclopedic article. Ziko (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose This is deletism to a new level. --Filipinayzd (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose The main purpose of any version of Wikipedia is to deliver knowledge in its language. As long as there is some content of educational value there, I don't actually care whether it's created by people, bots, elfs or Klingons. If it gives some people free access to some knowledge, then it serves part of our mission. Powerek38 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Please do understand the fact that the people opposing you also might not care that the articles themselves are written by bots or not. I do think that some classes of Lsj’s work were better than others (so articles about places are generally better in terms of quality and content than thousands upon thousands of worse-than-stubs about some biological species right out of one database), but I also think that Lsj is blinded by the initial success of his bot. He did not create an environment for other editors to improve upon these articles, he did not check them themselves (otherwise there would not be such problems with having Chinese text in multiple articles), he did not do anything to start an actual community. He just needed a carte blanche for this kind of abuse and in the current form this language edition deserves either closure or nuking of 99% of its content entirely. stjn[ru] 20:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment I have nothing against bot-generated content, but this wiki is a problem. It decreases the creditability of all wikimedia contents. I wouldn't close it, thou. Emptywords (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support you cannot possibly attract new users to help with developing something build on the wrong basis. There is a great joy in writing new article. With this level of botting you removed one of the main reasons, why new people join Wikipedia. PuchaczTrado (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Do you really think that new user can find and join WP on cebuano language? IMHO no one will use this language as native. That's why ceb-wiki is useless as encyclopedia. But it is very useful as testing ground, polygon etc. for wikibots. It's not bothering anyone. Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose A motion to delete a Wikipedia by someone who has made a total of six edits there? Really? And with support from people who have made none? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Lol. It is laughable, Andy. Wikicology (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    This is a bad ad hominem. Try to deal with arguments instead. stjn[ru] 20:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I see that a lot of people seem to be under the impression that creating 5 million articles in 5 years would seem like a piece of cake and bot-created articles could be fixed in no time. Let me show you this: Hayward (lungsod sa Estados Unidos, California), Al Wakrah (munisipyo), Zhejiang Sheng. Bot uploads full lists of interwiki links in its articles in 2017. Bot creator did not notice this at any stage of his work, maybe he’ll even come up with a fancy excuse for this. The fact is, when you look at the scope of missteps and errors made by this bot, that there are no general checks at any point. There is a lot of trying to make it look like it is a respectable source of information by putting a lot of information about climate and terrain around the place in articles about airports, mountains (notice the name, this name pattern is so frequent it hurts), islands (notice that Swedish interwiki removed this information and provided an actual one that is at least related to an island), parks that are actually just nameplates (there are 4150 of them)... If I can nitpick this much of bogus information spread out across the entire wiki, then it is Lsj’s fault alone, not of the people that are disappointed by it. stjn[ru] 22:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Сириус ли? Some user of EnWP has a fire on its seat because ceb-wiki will become bigger then his dear project? (English) Большинство статей в шведоботопедиях имеют достаточно неплохой формат: пара слов о предмете статьи, заполненная карточка, открываемая карта и ссылки на АИ. Не каждая статья в "нормальной" Википедии дотягивает по качеству до них. В будущем боты поумнеют и смогут писать ещё более подробные статьи на самые разные значимые темы. Можно сказать, что себуанская Википедия - тестовый полигон. Всё равно как энциклопедия она никому не нужна - вряд ли кто-то в мире пользуется себуанским языком - но как полигон вполне сгодится. Всё равно никому не мешает. А в шведской Википедии идёт заливка лишь наиболее подробных статей из того, что может бот, причём все ботостатьи обрабатываются так, что никому не мешают (в т.ч. исключены из Special:Random по кнопке -bot). Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Going to translate this mildly xenophobic rant: Most articles in Swedo-botopedias [botopedia is a term used in Slavic communities for WPs populated mainly by bots] have a pretty good format: some words about the topic, filled infobox, a map that can be opened and links to reliable sources. Not every article in ‘normal’ Wikipedia has the same quality. In the future bots will smarten up and would have the ability to write the content that is even more detailed on the many different topics. You can say that Cebuano Wikipedia is a test site. No one needs it anyway, it’s unlikely that anyone in the world uses Cebuano language, but it comes in handy as a test site. Doesn’t harm anyone. But in Swedish Wikipedia you can upload only the most detailed articles that were written by bot, and they are treated in a way that doesn’t interferes with anyone (e.g. they are removed from Special:Random with a -bot button). stjn[ru] 14:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Языком очень даже пользуются, а вот Википедия на себуанском, судя по отсутствию сообщества, которое могло бы пресечь эту профанацию, в настоящий момент самим носителям не нужна. И смысл тратить на неё ресурсы Фонда? The language is very used, but native speakers do not need the Sebuan Wikipedia, if we taking into account the lack of community that could stop this profanation. So why the WF should spend resources on this?--Soul Train (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Фред-Продавец звёзд, у себуанского вдвое больше носителей, чем у шведского. Это второй по распространённости язык на Филиппинах. Le Loy 01:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, because I believe moving it to Incubator would create a more focused environment for gathering active community members and planning, with a "soft" deadline of some months ahead for expected re-launching. Tony (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support for deleting the bot created articles (which are rife with errors as others have highlighted, and as I've seen myself on Australian topics), mild Support for moving to Incubator per Tony's suggestion above. This is an editing community that's been destroyed from the outside and needs a chance to rebuild out of the limelight. Once it has done so, I'd hope any application to return under indigenous casre and management would be viewed favourably. Orderinchaos (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are 21 million people who speak this language, I don't know what proportion currently have internet access, and of those how many have been on the internet long enough to start editing Wikipedia (editing Wikipedia is clearly not an entry level task for new netizens). But Internet access is rapidly expanding in many areas like this and we can expect an influx first of readers and hopefully later editors for this language. There is an underlying issue of bot creation of articles in small Wikipedia communities, I suspect that a proposal to set some rules for bot creation in languages that don't yet have a large enough community to self regulate would be an interesting debate. Hopefully by the time we have such a debate we will be able to say whether the Cebuano experiment was a success or a failure at kickstarting a language version. WereSpielChequers (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose. The project can (and will) be used as educational base for this 21-million community if properly promoted among them. This can be done in a great number of ways, most of all by massively teaching people how to improve Wikipedia. Government can do this (in many countries they do). This can drive up national intellectual growth, can somehow distract Philippinean people from abusing drugs which is, AFAIK, a big problem there nowadays. Of course it is needed to clean up senseless machine content, but it is unacceptable to completely destroy a draft knowledge base for a whole nation. --Ssr (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Speaking of government, WMF may initiate discussion with Philippines authorities to handle this situation. This will be a profit for all. --Ssr (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose. The cebwp community is already conducting a major discourse within and outside wikimedia channels about this issue and how to move on from here. Let us respect their consensus building process in whatever course of action they want to pursue. JinJian (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support for closing this Botopedia and banning the author of this absurdity.--Soul Train (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Strongest ever possible support for, at least, globally blocking the bot and deleting all those absurdic bot-created articles, which are filled with errors, contain Chinese and other non-Cebuano text and are generally unusable spam at best. Then, after the clearance, move the Cebwiki to incubator and allow it to thrive and survive normally, like a neonate on a mother's milk, not on steroids. Роман Беккер (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • One wikipedia trashed by bot, listed on English Wikipedia's main page. Other wikipedia trashed by bot, request for deletion. Oh, wait: Spoken by white people. 20:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    • If this request will go through, I can assure you that we can expect the investigations in form of RfCs about the other bot-filled Wikipedias, even those that are in languages that are spoken by white people. No one closes Waray for now, but it will be needed to be dealt with, with Swedish and Dutch, after this request succeeds. stjn[ru] 20:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Nothing against Cebuano enthusiasts who are willing to maintain their language by writing a serious WP version; but this farce with bot-generated "articles" definitely has to end. At least, the mess should be deleted. --A.Savin (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Community should've been contacted first, rather than this out-of-surprise Request for wiki closure. This doesn't sound like a good way to go. (See the above comment.) — regards, Revi 10:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose. As we at svwp has analyzed the bot generated articles from Lsjbot I also want to share our findings. On the 1,2 m on species we have elaborated manually on the ones on birds and mammals, where the seed articles that had been generated was found to be of great value. For the rest we have also found them to be of great value and representing no real problem. Bot generated articles on species also exist on many other versions like Vietnames (I calculated 8 last time). For the 1,8; that was generated från Geonames before Lsjbot was closed on our site a year ago, the situation is not that clear. A lot of quality issues was raised and after the closure a group of around 20 users has worked with this set. Around 16000 has been deleted and more then that has been redirected also to undo a bad article. So at least 5% of the bot generated has ben seen as as bad to best being deleted. We have fixed manually some 10000-20000 articles mostly in countries close by, as Finland and Estonia, but also in countries like Nicariagua, Swiss and Canada. A test sample today of a limited number of articles, showed noone really bad and just few % of questional quality (like swamps in Mexico-swamps are complicted to define ). Yger (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support With all the bot-generated articles, which constitutes over 99% of the total article count, Cebuano Wikipedia has gone from being an encyclopedia to a database, and therefore, it's not meeting its purpose anymore. Most of the articles will not be read by a human within the foreseeable future, which is a deeply unfortunate development and nothing worth striving for in our encyclopedic creation. Quality before quantity. / Reddarn (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment CommentAn argument based on a capacity of any human to read all those articles actually does not hold substance. That same argument is applicable for any language wiki with over a couple thousand article. Shall we close them too just because "no single human is capable of reading all its articles"? -Josefwintzent Libot (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Comment Comment: You misunderstood the argument. Reddarn do no mean that one human have to be able to read all articles. Reddarn means there is high probability that any randomly selected article in Cebuano never ever will be read by a human. I still do not think that is a valid argument, as the value for having an article when it is read, and searched for, is so great that it is worth having every "waste of space article". What is valid is if the articles have a notable subject, have good quality in sources and correctness and describes the subject.--LittleGun (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose There is nothing inherently wrong in having a bot-only encyclopedia. While some guidance to potential newcomers is always welcome, hopefully one or more people will eventually join and bring some real UGC.--Strainu (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Let's go back to the argument of proposer. (1) The proponent of this closure proposal argues that there is virtually no active users but one of the supporters of the proposal said that there are 154 active users contrary to what the proposer believes. So, indeed, there are active users. (2) It seems also that proposer and most of the arguments siding with the closure generally have problems with the bot-created articles (or the bot creator) and not with the Cebuano Wikipedia per se. Thus, the real issue of the proposer is the bot-created articles and closing the Cebuano Wikipedia is not the solution for the issue. (3) The proposer informed the Cebuano Wikipedia editors about the concerns of the bot-created articles on September 23, 2017 and proposed the closure one month after. The proposer did not realize that on October 9, 2017, a Cebuano Wikipedian started to ask the editors on the community portal of the Cebuano Wikipedia about the concerns raised on bot-created articles. The post is in Cebuano and perhaps, the proposer did not understand Cebuano because he proposed the closure ignoring the post. The proposer should have engaged the Cebuano Wikipedians more and avoid this proposal, which is sort of redundant. (4) In conclusion, do not close the Cebuano Wikipedia because there is an active community of editors. Let those active editors decide the fate of the bot-created articles. Actually, they are discussing it now within the Cebuano Wikipedia community portal. --Jojit (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose to closure and/or moving to incubator of Cebuano Wikipedia due to the following: (1) although most of the articles are lsjbot-created, these articles are currently being improved with the assistance of Cebuano speaking editors to achieve quality to be of more use to Cebuano speaking people (about 10,030,667 as of 2000); (2) although during the deployment of lsjbot, Cebuano Wikipedia did not seem to have an active editing community to monitor and/or check the resulting bot-created articles, it does have now, that's why the articles are currently being improved; (3) as regular people who understand information more when it is written in their native or mother tongue, Cebuano-speaking people most likely will use Cebuano Wikipedia than Tagalog Wikipedia because they understand the Cebuano language more than they do Tagalog; (4) thanks to information provided by Liang above, moving Cebuano Wikipedia to incubator will lessen its page views thereby making or encouraging people to edit it will be more difficult. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support in retaining Cebuano Wikipedia and letting its editing community improve the said Wikipedia. The improvement is being discussed in their community portal under the heading "Pagtangtang sa mga artikulong nahimo ni Lsjbot". --Billie bb (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Inactivity alone is not a reason for project closure, as has been stated in past discussions. The main criterion for closing a project would be absence of content. Cebuano Wikipedia has the second-largest content of all Wikipedia's (viva Lsjbot!) and potentially reaches 21 million native speakers! --Aliwal2012 (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Now there is issue: quality of bot-generated articles in Cebuano language Wikipedia. If this Wikipedia will be closed then another problem appear: absence of Wikipedia for 20 million people. Do you proposing to ban entire nation in Wikipedia just because you don't like quality of articles in language that you even do not understand? Artem.komisarenko (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)