Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

For questions about a wiki that is not the English Wikipedia, please post at m:Wikimedia Forum instead.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for 8 days.

« Archives, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83

Question about page views and edits

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but if not, please direct me to the correct place. In the page information section of each page (Information for "Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)" - Wikipedia), there is a section for page views in the last 30 days as well as Total number of edits, Recent number of edits (within past 30 days), and Recent number of distinct authors. I'd like to know if there is a list of pages that detail the amount of page views in the last 30 days as well as the most edits and the authors. If there is no page that has that, could I create a page that has this information and have a bot maintain it? Or would it be better if I did something else? Please ping me when you reply. Interstellarity (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity, have you seen WP:STATS? Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland I looked there, but it doesn’t have the information I need. I’m looking for something that pages from mainspace with other pages as well. The only thing I could find that was relevant was the total number of edits from both main and nonmainspace. Interstellarity (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are looking for the "External tools" section in page information. In particular, check out "Revision history statistics" and "Page view statistics". These are also linked in the view history pages, near the top. 3df (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New(-ish) Wikipedia Library access template

Just a note to draw people's attention to a template I created recently: Template:Wikipedia Library access (alias TM:Twlac). I created it as a way to avoid the hassle involved in manually checking whether or not TWL has access to a particular source.

The idea is that regular (non-TWL) URLs and DOIs should be used in citations, to ensure that readers who don't have access to TWL (ie. the vast majority of readers) can access the ordinary link; this new template could then be tagged on to the end of the citation to direct any future editors with TWL access to an accessible version of the source. The template can take a URL, a DOI, or a JSTOR ID, and converts the input into TWL link format.

Markup	Renders as
{{Wikipedia Library access\|https://www.example.com}}	Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.

(See the documentation for further examples.)

I have very little prior experience of making or editing templates, so I'm very open to feedback and contributions to any aspects of the template that need improvement/could be made more efficient/etc.

On a broader scale, I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on the template's suitability for being included in mainspace articles, as opposed to just on talk/project pages for instance. Given that such a tiny proportion of readers could make use of the link, is it actually beneficial to add this template to mainspace citations, or would it just confuse/distract readers? Should a feature be added to the template so that it only displays for auto- or extended-confirmed users—ie. the users for whom the template is most likely to be relevant? Or should the template be limited to use in non-article namespaces such as talk pages?

If anyone has any thoughts on these issues, or on any other aspect of the template, please feel free to share them on the template's talk page; I'm really keen to get an idea of the community's views on this! Thank you in advance! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How would this work when a particular source withdraws from the arrangement, as has happened not infrequently? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Unless there's something I'm missing, I think all that would happen is that the URL would then just take you to the regular source page, which would say "Log in through your institution" (or similar) where before it would have said "Download PDF"/"Read full text" etc. For example, this book is not available via TWL, but the template still generates a usable output:

Markup	Renders as
{{twlac\|doi=10.4324/9781315675541}}	Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.

ie. a TWL-formatted link that doesn't actually provide TWL access. I think the only solution for this would be to remove this template from the citation whenever a non-functioning/expired version is found, because if TWL doesn't provide access then this template would just be a duplication of (eg.) the |url= parameter in a citation template, so it doesn't add any value.

Alternatively, a function similar to |url-status=deviated could be added (maybe using the existing |2=/|access= parameter), so that if a source stops being available you can edit the template to indicate this (eg. |access=expired) and the template then won't display at all, but there would still be a record in the wikitext that the source was originally accessed through TWL. (I'm not sure in what context that information would be useful/necessary, but it's still a possibility.) Pineapple Storage (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is otherwise consensus for something of this nature, then I do not see expiring TWL partners as a deal-breaker. We have an analogous situation with interlanguage links created by use of Template:Ill: when someone creates a page at en-wiki that is the target of {{ill}}, the wikilink goes blue and the template is no longer needed, and Cewbot task #1 finds them and converts them to plain wikilinks. A bot task modeled on Cewbot could be created to convert your template in the same manner, after a partner was no longer on board. Mathglot (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined vs rejected at AfC

The community who run our WP:AFC process describes articles which are referred back to their creator for further work as "declined", and articles which are utterly without merit and cannot be published as "rejected".

The use of these synonyms to mean two very different things is the cause of frequent confusion among the novice editors who are AfC's main users. We see this regularly on The Teahouse and Help Desk, as this search for "declined, not rejected" in Teahouse replies shows (other permutations, of course, also exist, so that search is not exhaustive with relation to the issue I describe).

Another search shows that this is also an issue on AfC's own help pages.

Sadly, my request to that community to address this issue was rejected swiftly (and I was told "the confusion is on your end because you don't quite grasp the AFC process and terminologies", which rather missed the point that only those closely involved "grasp the AFC terminologies"!); I clearly lack the persuasive powers to cause them to do the necessary work to make the change. I appreciate that such work - with which I am willing to assist - will be a chore, but it will save far more work, in time, for other volunteers, at AfC and elsewhere, and avoid much confusion among AfC's clientele.

One AfC regular commented "This comes up semi-regularly but I've not yet seen a suggestion that gets more approval than the status-quo." Can we—together (I have notified that project of this discussion)—find and implement such a solution? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the two options are pretty similar so naturally there will be some confusion among newer editors. Most new editors who have a draft declined also are not even aware that rejection is a thing and vice versa, so they can confuse the two terms. I really don't think it is even a big issue as it can easily be taught with something like The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted and that's it. Like Primefac said in the original discussion, the term "rejection" has been used since 2018, and the project evidently hasn't exploded because of it. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 11:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The options are not similar; they have opposite effect: "Continue working and this might be published" vs. "do not do any further work; this will not be published".

Reference to 2018 etc. is an "appeal to tradition" fallacy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing Do you have any suggestions for terminology? In the last thread, you suggested Referred for further work, but I think this is probably too confusing for ESL editors.

Off the top of my head, alternatives could be..

Needs changes
Not yet accepted
Revise and resubmit
Returned for edits
More work needed

But these all seem too wordy and fundamentally a declined draft could still be totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. I honestly feel like Declined is the best option. Perhaps then the decline banner can be modified to be Declined - changes required? qcne (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are a bit verbose. I think any new proposals should be single words. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The actual AfC script has the labels:

Decline (for later improvement & resubmission)

Reject (unsuitable topic; no option to resubmit)

Any use? qcne (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said that discussion "maybe "Referred for further work". I'm not precious about the exact phrase". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so, any more suggestions? qcne (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In many legal systems, the opposite of "Guilty" is simply "Not Guilty"; what about the opposite of "Accepted" simply being "Not Accepted"? Or is that in the same boat as "Decline" in terms of clarity? Curbon7 (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have any issues with Not Accepted. @Pigsonthewing does this solve any issues you have. qcne (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also a synonym of "rejected". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I've tried to be helpful - I don't see you suggesting anything better. Let's just stick with Declined and Rejected. qcne (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not, for reasons already explained. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then suggest something? qcne (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Referred for further work isn't suitable. Suggest something else. qcne (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support changing Declined for Not accepted, I think it would avoid confusion with "rejection for new editors. NeoGaze (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is {{AfC submission/declined}}. Many of these suggestions simply don't fit grammatically in the template ("Submission revise and resubmit by Example") or sound silly ("Submission needs changes by Example") or awkward ("Submission not yet accepted by Example;" the negative phrasing combined with the "by Example" is off to me). OutsideNormality (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that “declined” and “rejected” are too similar to be helpful for newer editors. “Revise and resubmit” seems the best option suggested so far. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same with block and ban. And many confuse infinite with indefinite, thinking that an indefinite ban means the editor can no longer edit Wikipedia for good. Outside of Wikipedia, decline and reject are interchangeable. Because the project is designed for new editors, perhaps we should reduce Wikipedia jargon. Newbies and readers of Wikipedia won't know what AfD (they think of the German political party instead), XfD, GNG, NPOL, AN(I), TEA, DYK, GA, FA, GAN, FAC, FAR, ITN, etc is all about. JuniperChill (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(For anyone curious, those acronyms stand for: articles for deletion, general notability guideline, notability [for] politicians, administrators noticeboard ([for] incidents), teahouse, did you know, good article, featured article, good article nominations, featured article candidates, featured article review, in the news.)

I believe regardless of what terms are used, authors will still ask "why was my article rejected". People take it as a rejection, so will ask why it was rejected. Submitters who know they can edit and resubmit and have done so still ask "why was my article rejected again". If we changed declined to "Referred for further work", the only difference is people would not respond with "it was declined, not rejected" but "it was referred for further work, not rejected". So we could change 'rejected' as well, but then we would be explaining "it was referred for further work, not rejected we don't reject". For example: see this pre rejection existing in 2016 I've been working on a draft of a musician's biography, which has been rejected. As such it is probably a non-fixable issue. KylieTastic (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear although I don't think changing the terms will stop people asking why a submission was rejected, I'm totally fine with changing declined to not accepted or not approved. I don't like terms that suggest that all they have to do is make the correct changes and it will be accepted as for many subjects the sources may just not exist. KylieTastic (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if we could find a term that is positive, rather than negative. Maybe something like "Awaiting improvement". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with KylieTastic above as this is an issue that has no simple solution. It is not necessarily the terminology, but how it is perceived. Any process that allows a draft to not be accepted will be perceived by the author that the draft is being rejected. No matter which word we choose to describe the process, it will always come down to ”I submitted my draft, but they rejected it!” Especially since AfC is largely used by brand new editors that don’t have a grasp on the intricacies of Wikipedia’s endless WP:RULEBOOK, any terminology or process will be foreign. cyberdog958^Talk 13:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that there's a huge rulebook hurdle, we can try to adapt our language and wording so as to be more clear. I don't think just changing the terms decline and/or reject is enough. We need better, clearer communication in the "decline process". If the full message is softer and explains the difference between "decline" and "reject", we might help some users understand better. Since this issue is as much about how our language usage is perceived as it is what language we use, we should probably poll a sampling of users who have received a "decline" to get a sense of what they would find more helpful. (Not that I think they know, but a conversation with the community of "editors who have had a draft declined" may spark a better solution than just the same wonks talking to themselves...) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is very true! Changing these two specific words almost certainly wouldn't help as much as adding more advice and information to the messages more generally. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asking the actual authors of the declined drafts what would help them understand the process better is an interesting idea. I could of swore one of the regulars at the Help Desk had a user space essay that had a good explanation about the differences between “declined” and “rejected”, but I can’t find it. cyberdog958^Talk 19:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, the message that goes on the editor's talk page says Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time., while the Teahouse invite says Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. The one on the draft says Submission declined on. Maybe be consistent on all three by using "not accepted"? S0091 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I wonder if we just change the Teahouse one if that would make a difference. S0091 (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there's a clear case for a change, if you're being reguarly misunderstood then saying "people should just understand me better" is kind of ridiclious, and it's not how communication really woks. I'd like to suggeest that rejected stay as rejected and that declined be rephrased as not approved which is almost as brief but doesn't have the sense of finality to it. This would lead to clear statements like "your draft was not approved, so you can/should keep work on it". -- D'n'B-📞 -- 14:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to this concept; I've only ever made two submissions to AfC, and both were accepted, so I wasn't aware of the "declined"/"rejected" distinction until seeing this discussion. With that huge caveat, and based on absolutely no further research into the topic, my first impression is that these terms do feel too similar. For "Declined", how about something like Needs improvement, or as @D'n'B said above, Not approved? For "Rejected", I was going to suggest either "Unsuitable" or "Unworkable", but "Unsuitable" doesn't feel final enough and "Unworkable" might be so harsh as to exacerbate tensions. Still, even if "Rejected" is kept, a change to something significantly less decisive than "Declined" would definitely help to clear up some of the confusion among new editors, I think. As I said though, take all of this with a big pinch of "I don't really know what I'm talking about" salt. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pineapple Storage Not knowing what youre talking about is exactly the kind of salt required here - the issue at hand is that the communication is peppered with subjectivity by highly seasoned editors. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually going to suggest something like Needs improvement or, per Mathglot, Needs more work. I think something along these lines helps to communicate that the door is still open if the submitter puts in the work. (I have no bright ideas about the "rejected" wording.) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these two terms need changing. That's for two separate reasons. First, as Pigsonthewing mentioned, "declined" sounds too similar to "rejected". But secondly, for editors who submit drafts that could potentially be publishable with some additional work, we want them to keep working on the draft, not to feel bitten and give up. "Declined" sounds much more final than we intend it to be. For that reason, I prefer needs changes. But as second choice, I support other less harsh alternatives over the status quo. I find the effort needed to modify templates or our inability to all agree on a 100% perfect alternative to be unpersuasive arguments for retaining the status quo and hope the closer takes that into account. Of course, we do need to be careful about using the two options correctly, since it's not nice (and causes resentment) to tell someone to do extra work when there's no hope of that work paying off. But that's always been part of the work of AfC reviewing. Sdkb ^talk 19:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb the current message that goes on the submitter's talk page says Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. It does not use the term "declined". S0091 (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree they need changing (and made the identical proposal somewhere before). How about:
Permanently rejected – this topic is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and unfortunately, no amount of work on the draft will change that. Please find another topic.

Needs more work – it looks likely that this topic may be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but your draft needs more work before it can be approved.

Mathglot

talk

19:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

[reply]

@Mathglot Unfortunately, that won't work.

Rejected: An article can be un-rejected if there was an error in the reviewer's reasoning or if the draft has been substantially changed since the last review.

Declined: Quite often a declined article actually isn't suitable for Wikipedia, and sometimes leads to a rejection after repeated reviews. qcne (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy your argument. An Rfc close can be undone by review, but that doesn't mean the original close cannot or should not be made. The fact that no single reviewer's decision is immune from later consensus to overturn doesn't mean you cannot declare one. Anything can be overturned; even indef blocks. Even if multiple reviewers say 'it looks likely that this topic may be suitable' and then get overturned by an even larger consensus later, that is no reason that thy should not in good conscience give their original reviews at the outset. Your status-quo ~~vote~~ echo has all the weaknesses pointed out in the OP. I stand by my original suggestion. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot I haven't made any vote on this topic, I don't know why you think that. Please strike. I am just pointing out that "Permanently rejected" is untrue, and "Needs more work" may give false hope. qcne (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted. Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "this topic may be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but your draft needs more work before that can be determined."? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good start. Take a look at User talk:Thatisreallycool223 for the current messages (AfC decline and the additional note about the Teahouse). We would need to change both of them. For the decline, maybe "Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. This topic may be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but your draft needs more work before it can be accepted for the following reasons left by X". S0091 (talk) S0091 (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between "declined" and "rejected" is well understood, and frequently explained, by hosts at the Teahouse and Help desk. Some of the documentation and templates could be better written, but changing the terminology will just cause confusion. Maproom (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Well understood, and frequently explained" – hmm, do those two go together? The difference between "accepted" and "rejected" is well understood, and *never* explained at Teahouse or Help desk. Mathglot (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom is correct, in that the terminology is indeed well understood by the people explaining it. However, the problem is that it is not well understood by anyone else.

I addressed this specific issue in a parenthetical comment in the fourth paragraph of my original post here, which they seem to have overlooked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that we don't need to change both terms necessarily, if one of them is already clear. In terms of confusing experienced reviewers, updating templates and software, etc, less term changing is better. Of what I've seen so far, one proposal might be to change declined to Needs improvement, and leave Rejected the same. (I am pointing this out as the least bad option here, but am still leaning towards keeping the status quo.)
One downside of terms like "needs improvement" though is it cannot be used as a verb easily (i.e. "I declined the draft" vs "I marked the draft as needs improvement"). This means it is likely to morph into an acronym such as NI ("I NI'd the draft"), which is also unreadable to newbies, leading us back to square one.
Also, as the main software engineer / maintainer of AFC's tools right now, this has the potential to create a lot of work for me. This kind of change would require updates to WP:AFCH and https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/, and probably break a lot of quarry queries and reports related to searching for decline and reject counts. There's also a bunch of templates that would need updating by someone.
Finally, someone above points out that Wikipedians frequently use precise words to differentiate between wiki-concepts. For example blocked vs banned and infinite vs indefinite. There is plenty of precedent for having a word pair such as declined vs rejected.
Talking this out has crystallized my thoughts. For these reasons I oppose any change and prefer the status quo. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Combine the terms, since people are using 'rejected' to mean both things anyway, and this version of the draft is being rejected, in non-jargon. Rejected pending improvement vs Rejected - do not resubmit. No more "Actually, your draft wasn't rejected", just "Your draft was rejected, so here are your options, as they have been explained to you." 207.11.240.2 (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Novem Linguae. There is nothing wrong with the terminology. The problem is expecting submitters to use the terminology precisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think that there is nothing wrong with the terminology, one suggestion was made which is Not Accepted which I think is at least as good as Declined. I disagree with any of the other proposed changes in terminology, because most of them imply that the draft will be accepted when changes are made. We don't want the submitter to think that we are promising that their draft will be accepted with more work. That would be a worse terminological problem than we now have. A simple Not Accepted seems reasonable, as long as we don't try to imply that it either will or will not be accepted. It is very important, in my opinion, not to give the submitter the impression that their draft is provisionally or conditionally accepted (except in the rare cases that it is). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Terminology and Patience

I may have a moderately short statement and a moderately long statement, so I will try to write the shorter statement now. Wikipedia, like many activities, has terminology that is used in specialized ways. Any scientific activity has its own vocabulary, including many words that are in everyday use, but have very precise meanings when used by scientists. A lay person may use the words 'force', 'energy', and 'power' interchangeably. A scientist or engineer never will, because 'force', 'energy', and 'power', while related, have different units of measurement. However, an engineer, in discussing an electric bill with a lay person, will know that the issue is how much energy was used and is being billed. If someone has a question about how much power they are being billed for, the answer is not to explain that power is energy per unit time, but to answer how much energy they are being billed for. That is, the specialized person should be able to discuss without making an issue about the correctness of terminology.

The problem that I see is not so much that the difference between decline and rejection is not understood or is not clear. The problem is that some reviewers make an unnecessary issue about correcting the terminology. If an author asks, "Why was my draft rejected?", saying that it was not rejected, but declined, is answering the wrong question. The right answer is to say: "Your draft was declined because you did not show that the band meets any of the musical notability criteria," or, "Your draft was declined because your sources are not reliable sources, or, "Your draft was rejected because it appears to be a hoax." That is, answer the question that the person would ask if they knew the terminology.

I don't think that changing the terminology is an answer. Answering the intended question politely but precisely is the answer. Tell why the draft was declined.

That was neither short nor long. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert said:

The problem that I see is not so much that the difference between decline and rejection is not understood or is not clear.

The OP (and many others) saw that as precisely the problem, and labeled it as the cause of frequent confusion among the novice editors who are AfC's main users. Imho, that is undoubtedly the case, and at the root of the problem. Reviewers should certainly not lecture submitters about terminology confusion (or anything else), but that is merely a side effect of the real problem, which is the terminology. I understand from this discussion that changing the terms would be onerous for a number of reasons, and is not going to happen. That does not, however, change the actual locus of the problem. We just have to accept that the problem is a permanent one. Given that, anything that can be done to mitigate it, such as your suggestion to finesse the issue by responding to the user's intent without reference to their actual wording, is a good thing. Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I understand from this discussion that changing the terms ... is not going to happen"

Really? I see one volunteer maintainer disinclined to do that work, but we are not (or if we are, we have a bigger problem!) reliant on one person.

Otherwise, I don't see those who do not see this as an issue as having consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can only hope that you are right. Mathglot (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon

Some of the discussion above is focused on finding a way to inform draft submitters of the action that was taken on their drafts that is clear and does not use jargon. I think that 'declined' and 'rejected' are fine. Neither of them is jargon. The distinction between the two terms is jargon. The problem has not been the use of jargon. The problem has been that some reviewers have been scolding some submitters for not understanding the jargon. The solution is for the reviewers to recognize that submitters do not know the terminological distinction, and just answer the question. As we have seen, trying to rewrite the phrases used for clarity while avoiding jargon is resulting in proposed phrases that are long and wordy. A long and wordy explanation after the statement that the draft has been declined or rejected is useful, but is not a reason why we need to change the lead statement. If a submitter asks, "Why was my draft rejected?", the answer should be, "Your draft was declined because you did not show that the band meets any of the musical notability criteria. You may expand the draft to show how the band satisfies any of the criteria, with reliable sources, and resubmit the draft."

The problem isn't that the distinction between 'declined' and 'rejected' isn't obvious. The problem is that some reviewers scold the submitter for not knowing the distinction. Sometimes jargon should be used with a technical sense that conveys meaning to those who know what the technical terms are. What is important is to recognize that the technical distinctions are not known to the questioners.

If someone asks, "How much electrical power was I billed for?", the answer is, "You were billed for 1500 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy" without scolding the customer. It isn't necessary to provide an explanation of the difference between power and energy.

We don't need to change the terminology. We need to avoid lecturing the submitters about terminology. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to change the terminology. We need to avoid lecturing the submitters about terminology. Indeed. I myself gave up trying to get experienced editors to stop doing this years ago. Glad to see someone's still attempting to fight the good fight. -- asilvering (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two problems are not mutually exclusive; both exist and both need to be addressed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion 1: User talk page

In an attempt to make some progress on this it should be noted that user talk page notice {{AfC decline}} does not use the word decline itself instead using "has not been accepted...", it's the Teahouse welcome {{Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation}} that uses decline twice. This could easily be changed similarly to remove all the declines from the talk page without having to change all the tools, templates and script etc that use decline/reject. The edit summary for the AfC decline notice still says decline as does the template on the submission itself, but changing the Teahouse welcome seems sensible to align the Teahouse message with the existing AfC one. Thoughts? KylieTastic (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incremental improvements such as these would be a good thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

age of different groups of articles by quality

I've been having a look at the age of some of the articles in our various maintenance categories (not the time since they were tagged, but the time since they were created) and thought the results might be interesting:

Articles in Category:All articles needing additional references (insufficiently sourced) are often from the earliest years. 15% of all articles surviving from 2001-2005 are tagged like this, compared to 3% of those created in the last five years.

Articles in Category:Articles lacking sources (completely unsourced) are more likely to be from the "fast growth years". 1% or more of all articles created in 2006-2011 are tagged this way, compared to less than 0.1% of articles created 2019-25 (0.01% in 2024!) and ~0.6% for the earliest years (this is I think indicative of the great work WikiProject Unreferenced articles have been doing to clean up the oldest ones).

Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability is fairly evenly distributed, except for the first couple of years which are noticeably lower (which makes sense, I think, we had a lot of obviously-encyclopedic things to pick from in those days). There is a significant jump for notability issues this year, but I think that is just reflecting things that are in the process of being deleted/merged and not a significant change.

Stub articles are an interesting one as we have two measures (talkpage stub rating and article stub tags) which give different counts, but it turns out the two have a similar distribution - a small proportion of the 2001-05 articles are still tagged as stubs (14% by tags, 21% by rating); a very large proportion of 2006-21 articles (37% by tag, 50% by rating); and a smaller proportion of recent articles 2022-25 (21% by tag, 30% by rating)

I think the take-home message from this is that you can really see the effect of increasing standards & new-page patrolling over time - articles created in the last few years are less likely to be marked stubs, less likely to have sourcing issues, and almost never marked as completely unsourced. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Thank you for doing this. Donald Albury 19:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting. At the other end, I wonder how the analysis would look for Category:Good articles; have you tried something like that or do you think it is not large enough? —Kusma (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma For Category:Good articles, the oldest pages show a high rate of eventually becoming GAs - 2.2% of the pages created in the first three years are now GAs, and 1.5% across the first five years. It drops off to ~0.45% by 2008, and stays about that level, give or take, until this year (which is lower, but that's expected). So a page created in the first five years is maybe 3x more likely to have become a GA than one that is more recent, but after that it's pretty even odds. I guess this is a similar sort of phenomenon to what we saw with the notability tags, just from the other direction - the earliest articles had a high concentration of good solid notable topics which in turn make good GAs? Andrew Gray (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a similar sort of phenomenon to what we saw with the notability tags, just from the other direction - the earliest articles had a high concentration of good solid notable topics which in turn make good GAs? Probably, yes. 142 of the 998 level 3 vital articles are rated GA (14%) and 81 are FAs (8%), compared to 0.6% GA and 0.1% FA overall. This does seem to suggest that the most obviously encyclopedically important articles (which probably were disproportionately likely to have been created early in Wikipedia's history) are overrepresented at FA and GA level.

In fact the uneven distribution of FA- and GA-rated articles by vitality is incredibly stark: at level 1, 20% are FA and 40% are GA; at level 2 13% are FA and 17% are GA; at level 3 it's 8% and 14%; at level 4 it's 5% and 8%; and by level 5 it's 1% and 2.5%, which is still 10x more FAs and 5x more GAs than the general population. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto-public Interesting, thanks! I'm always impressed by how many of the highest tier of articles are GA/FA - I can understand how to put together a GA on a manageably small topic, but something like Agriculture or Education just seems unbelievably daunting...

For vital articles I'd say at least 50% of level 1-5 articles were present by the end of 2003, and 80% by the end of 2005. That's equivalent to 11.5% of 2001-03 articles being on vital topics, and 5% of 2001-05 articles. This is likely to be an undercount, as the method I'm using can get confused by pagemoves & deletions, and these pages have been quite high-profile so had a lot of that sort of activity.

Work (human activity) (2020) is probably the most recently created level 1-3 article, other than injury (created 2023, but injury in humans was at that title forever)

Just for completeness, as you might expect, there's a similar pattern for FAs as with GAs - 0.9% of all articles created in the first three years are now FAs, and 0.4% in the first five years. Since 2011 it's hovered around 0.03-0.05% of articles created in any given year. Amazingly there are five or six created this year that are already FAs. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Global ban for Chealer

Hello, this message is to notify that Chealer has been nominated for a global ban at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Chealer. You are receiving this notification as required per the global ban policy as they have made at least 1 edit on this wiki. Thanks, --SHB2000 (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:SHB2000 - I think that this notice should be posted at the Administrators' Noticeboard. I haven't had any dealings with that user, but the history does make a case for a global ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I'll post a notice there as per the local community wish. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I almost never participate in these discussions, but – wow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Open proxies § UK law leading to increase in VPN usage

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Open proxies § UK law leading to increase in VPN usage. Sdkb ^talk 14:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AWC 2025 Edit-a-thon Follow-up & Request for Community Guidance

Hi everyone, I hope you're well. I'm writing on behalf of the team behind the Africa Wiki Challenge (AWC) 2025, which is currently wrapping up in the next 3 days. We've been working to support and train new editors across Africa to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia, with an emphasis on alignment with core community guidelines and quality. We recently noticed that several participant accounts have been blocked during the event. While we understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia's standards and policies, we’d appreciate guidance on how we can engage better with the editing community moving forward—particularly when organizing outreach programs of this scale. Additionally, if possible, we’d like to request community consideration or direction for a review of the following participant accounts:

We want to ensure that if any policies were unintentionally violated, we can take the necessary steps to address them, support editor development, and avoid similar situations in the future. DAnane(OFWA) (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like @Mz7 and @Asilvering were discussing this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crab44/Archive. Also pinging Canterbury Tail, whose name I noticed in the block longs.

Basically the problem is this: There is no technical way for us to differentiate between:

Alice logs in and tries to make an edit.
Alice logs out so Bob can have a turn at the same computer.
Bob logs in and tries to make an edit.
Bob logs out so Chris can have a turn at the same computer.

etc. (which would be fine!) and this problem:

Oscar logs in to one account and makes an edit.
Then he logs out of the first account and logs into his second account.
Oscar makes an edit in his second account.
Then he logs out of the second account and logs into his third account.

etc. This is because we can't see Alice getting up from the chair, offering to let Bob have his turn, etc. (or Oscar staying right there the whole time). All we know is one account logged in, made a weak edit, and then logged out, followed by a second account doing the same thing at the same place/device. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is more than that: if the edits were constructive, absolutely no one would have noticed or cared. These edits, however, were LLM-generated or violated other English Wikipedia policies/norms. To some degree, this is unavoidable. It doesn't matter how clear you are about the expectations; some people involved will simply not listen to what you are saying. (I say this with extensive teaching experience and great sympathy.) But this issue can be significantly reduced by making it very clear to participants that using AI and/or multiple accounts is not allowed, that communication is required, and, critically, by having an experienced English Wikipedia editor as part of the team. If you'd had one, they would have pointed out that the list of topics was, at least for en-wiki's purposes, a total nonstarter, and that would have reduced a lot of the friction here. Would a better list have helped? Well... maybe. As someone who teaches early-year undergraduates, my optimism on this point is basically zero. The way forward might be to ditch the list.

I realize that "get a highly experienced en-wiki editor onboard" is much easier said than done. The best way to do it is to become highly experienced en-wiki editors yourselves. If you try that method: welcome! My talk page is always open if you want help. There's also WP:TEA, WP:IRC, and WP:DISCORD. But again, the core problem is that most people are not "Wikipedia naturals" and it's not easy to "train" someone who isn't. You've got your work cut out for you.

using [...] multiple accounts is not allowed. Is it possible that they had their edit-a-thon participants make unique accounts, and just logged them in from the same computer / internet cafe / internet connection? If so, that sounds fine to me. One account per person, on the same IP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask Mz7; I can't see the data. I think that's plausible. But if the pattern of disruption continues across accounts, they'll get blocked either way. -- asilvering (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to ping Zzuuzz here as they reached out to me on my talk page to discuss these blocks: User talk:Mz7#Crab44. Unfortunately, I was not aware that the edit-a-thon was in progress until shortly after I made the blocks. I definitely considered immediately unblocking these accounts upon learning of the edit-a-thon, but the reason I have not done so yet is because beyond just sockpuppetry, there are several behavioral issues shared among many of these accounts that seem quite disruptive.

It would appear that many of these accounts are using LLMs to post poor-quality AI-generated content to Wikipedia. For example, administrators can see the way that Prempy was editing on the now-deleted article Role of social media in the modern reparations movement and compare it to the edits that Yirwelle Angela made on the same article—many of these accounts like to submit dozens of small edits where usually editors would submit just one or a few (which looks like an attempt to game extended-confirmed; oftentimes the edits stop mid-sentence, for example). See also the deleted edits by Dalvin23 to The Restitution of Benin Bronzes: A Case for Cultural Reparations; that account was blocked previously by asilvering for this behavior and then later unblocked by Newslinger on the condition that they would not use LLMs to make edits.
Multiple other accounts in the group above have engaged in changing English varieties disruptively: see e.g. [1][2][3][4].
Similarly, multiple accounts involved seem to change date formats disruptively: see [5][6][7].

It is concerning to me that these accounts seem to be coordinating to apply these disruptive behaviors across many articles, which is why I think that these blocks may still be necessary. But I also think Zzuuzz made convincing arguments on my talk page that maybe the right thing to do would be to unblock these accounts for the time being, and if they continue their disruptive behavior even now that the edit-a-thon is done, then they may be re-blocked directly for the specific disruptive behavior, rather than for "sockpuppetry", which does not seem like a correct block reason at this point. Mz7 (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instructing your edit-a-thon participants to not use AI/LLM would probably help. When these blocks happen, an organizer posting on the blocking admin's talk page with an explanation would probably also help, and is your best chance to get a quick unblock. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to go through and unblock the accounts that I had blocked as part of this case. See User talk:Prempy#Blocked as a sockpuppet for the statement I am leaving on each of the accounts' talk pages. I apologize for missing the edit-a-thon when I originally made these blocks, and I am giving some warnings of certain potentially disruptive behaviors I noticed. Mz7 (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked. I have unblocked the following accounts:
- Prempy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Crab44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Yirwelle Angela (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Dalvin23 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Naquentta Israel (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- TheAdiza (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- ThePilgrimX (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Dalvin02 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- FineCaptain32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Aniekay (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Maame kay20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Jacquerietheartist (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
I have left the blocks that were made by Canterbury Tail alone for the time being, though I have deleted the sock tags I added. Mz7 (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mz7 Thanks for the prompt response to this call. Just as i have indicated earlier, as organisers these happening serves as learnings for future campaign planning. The use of LLM's is increasingly becoming the norm and would address this especially in our meet ups with trainers and local organisers. On IPs, sometimes there can little to what we can do as organizers. I welcome suggestions to remedy such occurances. DAnane(OFWA) (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DAnane(OFWA): One recommendation I have would be to instruct edit-a-thon participants to edit their user page as part of their first edits to disclose that they are participating in an edit-a-thon. To make this easier, you could craft some kind of userbox, something that looks like {{User Wikimania 2024}}, and ask participants to place the userbox on their user page. This would make it clearer to editors reviewing the contributions of edit-a-thon participants that they are related to each other by the event they are attending. Mz7 (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Mz7 for working faster than me, and to User:DAnane(OFWA) for reaching out. I'm mainly someone who deals with blocks for multiple accounts (as well as IP block exemption in West Africa), so I'll focus on those issues. The main thing I want to say is something many experienced users know: if you're in an editathon, say something. That can be on your userpage, especially for a new account, or in an edit summary or two (it doesn't have to be all of them).
Related to that, I have a question, or more of a vibe. I've been chatting with User:Owula kpakpo about this specifically, and User:Robertjamal12 on an adjacent issue (both of whom I have no complaints about) - why aren't these dots getting joined up? Admins like to be able to zoom in to one competent person to answer questions and address issues, and in some cases that's not easy. I'm going to pick a random example of good practice from the user creation logs: this one. Take a look at their first 4 edits; these are standard for WikiEd users. Then take a look at the first 20 edits, which are all involved with educating about guidelines. Perhaps some wiki training should be a starter for these events. Having said what I've said, and the efforts I've made to keep people unblocked, I have an addendum: Multiple accounts (ie actual sockpuppetry) have occurred, and it reflects poorly on everyone. I feel this should be stressed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HI @Zzuuzz, thanks for your continuous help and support for our communities in West Africa. I will address the issue that has been raised around multiple people editing from one computer and sockpuppeting. I can tell you without any shred of doubt that it is never the case especially from my experience as an trainer. What is the actual issue is Internet providers especially those I have encountered in Ghana have one IP for a large range of its users so even though people use different account to create articles they have the same IP address. This we have consistently spoken about in numerous communications on issues about IP blocks. And thanks for suggestion about using new editors involved in Workshops to write something on their userpages regarding it. I am all for it and will be taking that into account moving forward. Owula kpakpo (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am always happy to help out with the IP issues. I've learned more about Ghana IPs in the past few years than I ever thought I could know. That's why I can say with some confidence, sockpuppetry has occurred. It's just an addendum, just sayin'. It can really complicate things. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know planning other Workshops for our year and this learnings will be put to test in the coming days. Owula kpakpo (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DAnane(OFWA), you could try Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure as a way to get first edits made. It might also help to set the goals very small, like "add one sentence" instead of "create a whole new article".

If you can manage a series of small events, then imagine creating an account and learning to edit on Event #1 (or as a pre-event activity), followed by fix a problem on Event #2 (maybe find a reliable source to add for Africa-related subject: https://citationhunt.toolforge.org/en?cat=1d44eba9 ), followed by adding a sentence or paragraph at Event #3, and only people who make it to the final event are encouraged to create a new article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing, I think TWA is kind of broken these days? I'm not sure it's a great suggestion anymore. However, there are less-gamified, but nonetheless very helpful, tutorials at https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training. The usual "you can lead a horse to water" problems exist with students of any kind, but I can at least affirm that no one I've trained has ever been blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that note. Obviously, if TWA's not working, then that won't help the students.

Generally, we find that student editors in the Wikipedia:Education program are about 600x less likely to get blocked than other brand-new accounts, so I don't expect students in organized programs to end up blocked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've never gone through wikiedu. I'm just endorsing their teaching materials. :) -- asilvering (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TWA works in a technical sense (or at least I've never been able to reproduce any of the problems people have reported with it). Whether it's correct for this specific use case, of course, is unclear. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Zzuuzz for your ongoing support and constructive feedback around these issues and I appreciate being looped into the broader conversation. I fully agree with the points raised and ways we can help reduce these problems. There’s a lot I'm learning from these experience and the support you are providing to help coordinate better moving forward. Thank you once again -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 20:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How (not) to spam

An editor seems to have been assigned in writing the task of adding advertising to the article on Travel insurance. I say this because when they made this edit, they pasted in not just the ad but also the instructions they'd been given for doing that. Largoplazo (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing the diff. It's interesting that the employer emphasizes the importance of a non-promotional style:

Important characteristics:

keeps the objective, factual tone that Wikipedia requires.

ends with a natural reference to UIC as a regional example.

Links to the official UIC website for confirmation

blends in seamlessly with the current policy types and coverage content

gives background information on the regulatory framework (SECP).

Except for their requirement of a non-WP:INDY WP:PRIMARY source, the rest of this is not unreasonable (e.g., we do occasionally want to name an example from different regions of the world). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be an LLM note explaining what it has produced, rather than an employer's brief? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that's correct, I've been seeing some spammers use LLMs to generate plausible text to hide WP:REFSPAM within. The "instructions" above will be reflective of what was requested in the initial prompt. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New essay: Past and future of Wikipedia

Hello. I've written this new essay. Of course, improvements are welcome. I hope it helps to think more about long-term continuity of Wikipedia and its sister projects, and their contents (and also short-term, that is also implicit in long-term). Both the human community and the technical aspects are important, but these last ones are often taken for granted, as if data had not physical existence, and as if thinking about its preservation was the last of priorities. The section about the past helps to value what we have already achieved, which is no small thing. The section about the future talks about ideas that should be avoided, since they may threaten the future growth and the preservation of already existing content, and, finally, how a succesful future could be achieved. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This essay is interesting. It is not only about Wikipedia.

Therefore , I don't know if Wikipedia is the right place to store it.

I don't know if there are essays on "MetaWiki".

It was for me a pleasure to read this essay. I like it. Anatole-berthe (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your words :-)

Yes, it also covers the other WMF projects, but always as part of a whole, whose center is Wikipedia. The other projects are seen as extensions of Wikipedia, as it's said in the essay (for example, many images in Wikimedia Commons can hardly be considered as something separate, since they are shown inside Wikipedia articles). MGeog2022 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning. Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can post essays at Meta-Wiki if you want to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles about areas of Kuwait have unclear notability

I think most Wikipedia articles about an area of Kuwait have unclear notability. What do I do? FSlolhehe (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can WP:AFD one, see how it goes, then if it closed as delete, AFD some of the others. Please carefully read WP:GEOLAND first though. Sometimes places qualify easily without needing to pass WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also assume that most of these areas pass WP:GEOLAND… and are likely to have sources that discuss them - remember that the sources don’t have to be in English, so check for Kuwaiti sources (if you don’t read Arabic, there are other editors who do, and you can ask for their help). Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboar I'm not fluent in Arabic but I can translate, and I will check these Kuwaiti Arabic sources out. Also, are these Kuwaiti Arabic sources enough to achieve a featured article rating for the articles about the areas? FSlolhehe (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in any language are enough to achieve the FA rating. (But trying to jump all the way to FA status is not usually successful. Maybe try to get it up to a solid WP:B-class first?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FSlolhehe, I see you speak Arabic. How good are you at finding things like Kuwaiti government documents on the web? Looking at Abdullah Al-Salem as an example, the (four) sources are all in English, which is probably the wrong thing. If you could find a geography or history textbook about Kuwait, or things like a census report on a government website, then those could make very good sources for improving those articles. Non-English sources are 100% acceptable at the English Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing I'm not fluent in Arabic but I can translate. And a textbook with the most recent data about all areas of Kuwait would be great, although I'm not sure that textbook exists. FSlolhehe (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to look at the articles in other wikipedias and see if there are useful sources there: there seem to be sources in the Arabic and Farsi articles on Abdullah Al-Salem.

And note "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" from WP:GEOLAND, so if "Areas" are officially recognized, proof of existence is really all that we need for notability. There are probably many more important dubiously-notable articles to worry about. PamD 09:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FSlolhehe, the article probably shouldn't focus on "the most recent data". Articles on these subjects frequently need to say more about geography ("contains one mountain and two rivers") and history ("was created in 1955 by...") than about demographics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]