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]

Importance of "All Female" label for musical groups?

Many musical group articles have "all female" right at the top of the lede. For instance: The Bangles, The Go-Go's and I'd say about a quarter of the bands listed in Category:American_all-female_bands. To me, that really feels like othering. Do we need guidance about that? - Immigrant laborer (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Titles beginning with "♯P"

These use "♯" to substitute "#" due to technical restrictions. However "♯" is a non-keyboard character, so I would rather locate articles currently beginning with "♯P" using "Sharp P". For example, I would locate ♯P-completeness of 01-permanent at Sharp P-completeness of 01-permanent. Per Pppery, ♯P and P are completely different things, so #P-completeness of 01-permanent should not be located at P-completeness of 01-permanent. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 00:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly didn't get the memo people have been trying to tell you here. I move for Faster than Thunder to be topic-banned from Category:Restricted titles, broadly construed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's an unrelated dispute having nothing to do with the series of behaviors at ArbCom, and can probably be handled by the community. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything more to this than what's at Talk:♯P-completeness of 01-permanent#Requested move 23 July 2025? —Cryptic 03:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faster Than Thunder has a history of similarly misguided proposals: Talk:♯P-complete#Requested move 23 July 2025, Talk:Engine Engine Number 9#Requested move 10 July 2025, Talk:Noel (rapper)#Requested move 5 July 2025, Talk:M. Son of the Century#Requested move 1 June 2025. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I promise that I will cease and desist enforcing my arbitrary ideas and instead leave restricted titles as-are unless there is a really good reason to change its title (i.e. A♯1 Roller Rager → A No. 1 Roller Rager) is better since "#" doesn't stand for sharp in this context. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 04:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you looking at restricted titles, and why do you think that # not standing for sharp is a "really good reason" to change the article from the actual title written on the album cover? CMD (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks unprofessional to use "♯" in place of "#" when "#" doesn't stand for what "♯" is technically for. Most other titles that intend to use "#" use substitutes like "Number" and "No." despite what the cover actually says, which can easily be typed on the keyboard. From what I see, "♯" is only used in (but not all) cases where the meaning of "#" in the correct title is sharp. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 04:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... yet your very next edit after this one was to start Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Substitution of invalid characters, WP:FORUMSHOPing to continue this very same crusade. Sorry, I don't trust your so-called promise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But per User talk:Faster than Thunder#July 2025, I'm much better off proposing rules on relevant policy talk pages with corroboration than enforcing my ideas on others. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 13:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I promise that I will carefully consider article content relating to the title before requesting a move. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 00:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"possible prose issues" tag

What is this? I saw this on an LLM-generated edit the other day, and it seems to have been introduced recently. There is no description listed at Special:Tags. Here's a recent diff of an edit with this tag: [1]. Does anyone have more information on this tag? OutsideNormality (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be from Special:AbuseFilter/1325? 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:3633:C798:379B:BB (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought to check the edit filters (it seems it was updated only recently to include the tag) as the tag didn't have the normal "Tagged by filter XXXX (hist · log)" in its description; thanks for finding that! OutsideNormality (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone with the ability to edit the descriptions add something about that? We should also find somewhere to link the new edit check filters, and for those that have links, a better link than a page to report False positives. CMD (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article mergers

After some discussion on its talk page, I've revamped Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers with a simpler process and easier instructions. For a while it had been accumulating posts for merge ideas that weren't actually being discussed and didn't serve any purpose. I'm curious what others think about the page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User making suspected self-promotional edits

Hello. How can I report a user whose edits all promote a product? The user hasn't been active for over a decade and I suspect this user might be affiliated with said product. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I was able to find WP:WPSPAM. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they havent been active for more than a decade, then why bother now? Seems pointless if you ask me. Gommeh 🎮 15:23, 24 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 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.

Thanks, 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]

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]