I can't get any work done. It seems all I ever do is patrol New Pages. I can't count the number of times I've typed an edit summary of "Speedy Delete tag -- obvious test page." I'm all for stubs becoming short articles becoming articles to be proud of, but can't we at least place a lower limit on the byte count allowed for new articles?
I think 200 bytes is a reasonable lower limit. Under 200 bytes gets you a message about needing more substance (or some more tactful word) before an article can be created, along with a link to the sandbox for those who want to practice editing.
That would eliminate almost all tests in the article space and increase the likelihood that an article has at least some useable context to it. It would also decrease the number of dicdefs posted, making it more likely that the original author expands it, if possible.
There are so many people, most of them well-intentioned, posting unuseable content to the Wikipedia, and so few dedicated regulars trying to clean up after them. We're being deluged with fluff, and we don't have to be. I think a reasonable minimum byte count would reduce the workload of those trying to maintain the Wikipedia, while simultaneously improving the quality of the articles.
Anyone who is really interested in a topic will write more than 200 bytes without being told they need to. Well over 99% of all tests in the article space are far less than 200 bytes. Most dicdefs are under 200 bytes. Many Candidates for Speedy Deletion are under 200 bytes. I love the Wikipedia, but I strongly dislike the *unnecessary* workload.
Your thoughts?
Stephen W. Adair