Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 58: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 107:

:We don't really have an article writing service. (It's [[WP:RA]] but no one uses it.) Your best bet is to write a draft yourself using the [[WP:AW|article wizard]]. Before you start writing though, you should do a search for newspaper articles and/or books covering this player in depth. If such sources don't exist, then this player doesn't pass [[WP:GNG]] and won't qualify for an article. If you provide links to some sources, [[WP:TEAHOUSE]] can help with advice on whether or not this person passes GNG. Hope this helps. –[[User:Novem Linguae|'''Novem Linguae''']] ([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]]) 07:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

~~== Problem with terminology ==~~

~~At the Teahouse, a colleague recently gave the advice: {{Tq|1="Rejected means stop, don't go on. Declined means it might be accepted with revision."}}~~

I'd love to know which dictionary makes this distinction. Or does it just exist in the minds of AfC reviewers? If so, please pick better terms, as the confusion between the two phrases quoted is a ''frequent'' cause of confusion among new editors commenting at The Teahouse and Help Desk. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 11:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

:We've been using this wording since rejection was brought in to use in 2018. Yes, there is sometimes confusion about the terms, but it is easy enough to clarify as you just indicated above. Personally speaking, I find a ''much'' greater distinction between rejection and declination, where the former is a hard "you done fucked up" and the latter is more of a polite thing. Of course, this comes as a native English speaker; anecdotally most of the confusion seems to come from ESL speakers (and even more anecdotally, from India).

:As a minor point, coming in and insulting us straight off the bat is a really good way for us to get defensive; there are better ways to start a discussion. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 11:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

~~::Actually, to answer your asinine question, [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decline Merriam Webster] gives:~~

~~::*{{tq| decline often implies courteous refusal especially of offers or invitations.}}~~

~~::*{{tq| reject implies a peremptory refusal by sending away or discarding.}}~~

~~::So yes, there ''is'' a lexicological difference. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 11:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)~~

:::You're welcome to quote the insult you imagine I made, but meanwhile, I didn't say there was ''no'' difference in dictionary definitions; I asked which dictionary made the distinction which I quoted. I note you have no source for that. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 12:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

::::You know as well as I do that such a thing doesn't exist; the words are different, and have been used to mean different things by this WikiProject for six years now. The fact that one user has come up with (in my opinion) a short and simple way of remembering those differences does not mean they are wrong. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 12:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::"used to mean different things '''by this WikiProject'''" Indeed. This is exactly the problem which I seek to resolve. You've already acknowledged that "there is sometimes confusion", and that there is cultural bias in the jargon being used. You have advanced no argument (except, perhaps one equating to "we have always done it this way") why the status quo offers more benefits than does fixing the issue. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 12:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::That's mostly because I wasn't trying; that is not how you phrased your initial post and not what you appeared to be looking for. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 12:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Primefac}}, I think ''asinine'' is too strong a word, although your defensive response is understandable. [[User:Pigsonthewing]], it seems like the confusion is on your end because you don't quite grasp the AFC process and terminologies. Instead of asking for clarification or seeking help to understand the terms, you jumped to conclusions with your question, implying that the phrases in question only exist in the minds of AFC reviewers. Really?{{pb}}To clarify, "rejection" as it was already explained by Primefac, applies to drafts that are not notable and will not be for the time being, or falls under [[WP:WWIN]] to thr sight of God and man, and it's given no option for resubmission except in rare cases of re-review. "Decline" means the draft fails to meet the [[WP:AFCSTANDARDS]]. Perhaps, hed suggest that the decline message should exclude Teahouse as where to ai question about the decline to avoid all this confusion, as some editors from there seem to misinterpret AFC wording and try to favor unintentionally non-notable drafts in the name of fighting for new cheated editors. Next time, please ask questions instead of making assumptions or final conclusions. Cheers! [[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]][[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']] 12:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

::There is no confusion on my part, and no assumptions. I fully understand the process; having both submitted articles via AfC and reviewed and rejected and published others' submissions. The confusion is experienced - ''frequently'' experienced, as I said - by the people to whom I referred; not least the individual to whom the ''quoted advice'' was given. But thank you for confirming my point, that the distinction is internal to AfC. That, no doubt, is why it is often misunderstood by people new to it, and why less ambiguous phraseology will benefit ''all'' concerned. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 12:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC).

~~:::If you have an alternate suggestion, I'm all ears (and yes, this is a genuine statement, not sarcasm). [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 12:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)~~

::::Find an alternate phrase instead of "Declined"; one which actually relates to what is being done - maybe "Referred for further work". I'm not precious about the exact phrase, nor clear whether a single-word verb is needed. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 13:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::This comes up semi-regularly but I've not yet seen a suggestion that gets more approval that the status-quo. "Referred for further work" along with similar suggestion is often criticised for suggesting that with further work it will get accepted which is often not true. Declined (or its replacement) has to say that it may or may not be acceptable with more work. Note that the notice posted on the submitters page does not even mention the word decline. The message on the submission does though but explains the issue - people just don't/won't read what it says. A lot of the time submitters ask why a submission was "rejected" when it was declined and I think regardless of what wording is used for a declined draft they will still see, and refer to it, as a rejection, which is what happened in this case. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 13:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

~~:::::: {{Tq|1="This comes up semi-regularly"}} I'm not surprised. As I say, the confusion occurs frequently.~~

:::::: {{Tq|1="criticised for suggesting that with further work it will get accepted"}} Is there ever a case where an article is "declined" without a prose comment suggesting or implying that further work should be done? If not, the objection seems spurious.

~~:::::: {{Tq|1="Declined (or its replacement) has to say that it may or may not be acceptable"}} Isn't that the job of the prose component? The word "Declined" does not say that.~~

:::::: {{Tq|1="A lot of the time submitters ask why a submission was "rejected" when it was declined"}} This ''again'' reiterates my point - to most people, the two words are close synonyms. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 14:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::I don't think there's too much wrong with the terminology. Yes, it may be that it's no immediately obvious to a newbie, but then neither is the difference between 'page' and 'article', or that between AfC and AfD, or any number of terms of the trade. Until the meaning is explained to you, and then it's usually clear; it's called learning the ropes. Of the million things one needs to learn about Wikipedia, I don't see this one as a biggie. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 14:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

~~[[File:AFC-Logo Decline.svg|50px|right]]~~

~~[[File:Dialog-STOP.svg|50px|right]]~~

:I have taken the liberty of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAfC_reject&diff=1242381833&oldid=1215757749 improving] the iconography on the reject talk page message to use the same more emphatic stop icon [[Template:AfC submission/rejected|used on the draft page]]. This should help especially if this is an ESL issue. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 15:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

In the two days since I raised the matter here, I have seen at east three more editors, at the Teahouse or Help Desk, who are confused by this issue. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 13:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

:Got any ideas for new terms? I can't think of anything better than decline and reject. Could change the two terms to "fix and resubmit" and "do not resubmit", but then those don't work well as nouns. "Your articles for creation submission has been tagged as 'do not resubmit'" is a bit of a mouthful. –[[User:Novem Linguae|'''Novem Linguae''']] ([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]]) 13:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

::{{Tq|1=""Got any ideas for new terms? }} - Yes, answered above. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 14:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

:::Is your proposal to change declined to "Referred for further work"? What do you propose changing rejected to? –[[User:Novem Linguae|'''Novem Linguae''']] ([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]]) 03:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

:Separately, I suggest unchecking Teahouse for editors whose drafts have been reviewed and declined/rejected. What they always ask is about their draft's review and ways to improve it. Both AFC helpdesk and Teahouse should re-examine the draft and corresponding decline or reject messages when providing feedback right? @[[User:Pigsonthewing|Pigsonthewing]], I understand your point, but my concern is that we need to focus on constructive guidance, such as giving additional sources, ways to delete peacock-promotional language, etc., rather than simply knowing whether a draft was rejected or declined. In this context, 'decline' is a more suitable term for not accepting a submission, whereas 'reject' comes across as more absolute and dismissive, implying 'this can never be accepted'. On another note, reject gives no room for resubmission while decline does, hence if one says their draft was rejected but actually, was declined, it isn't a problem. What they need is how to go further. It can then be a different case if it was actually rejected, then tell the editor that there is no room for resubmission with reasons. Is that a big deal? [[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]][[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']] 13:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

::Philosophically, probably not a big deal, but I believe the concern here is that there is ''any'' confusion in the first place. I understand where Andy's coming from, but unless someone can come up with a more clear (but still as succinct) way of separating this "decline/reject" issue I think TEA helpers will just have to include the explanation in their answer. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 13:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

:::Not so: ''some'' confusion is inevitable. The concern is that there is ''frequent'' - and avoidable - confusion. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 14:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

::::Actually, I have a related question - ''how'' is this confusion dealt with? If someone comes to TEA with a declined draft and they say "my draft was rejected, help!" do they still receive help, or is the knee-jerk reply from the first helper "your draft was rejected you can't do anything about that"? Like... if someone says the wrong word, and the person helping them ''knows'' they used the wrong word, do they still try to give advice? [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 15:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::They get helpful advice, of course. First to clear up the confusion caused by the terminology, and then, to address the reason for the draft not being published. The former, in addition to being an unnecessary cognitive load on the new editors, is an unnecessary burden on Teahouse volunteers. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 16:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

:: {{Tq|1="'decline' is a more suitable term for not accepting a submission, whereas 'reject' comes across as more absolute and dismissive"}} - to most people it does not, as I again addressed above. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 14:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

:Andy, look at what I am saying: it's still not bad advising a rejected draft, it can help the editor and may not for the draft anymore. However, Teahouse is to help editors right? It serves as a general help guide to the editors to know what -and-what to do to the drat and subsequent articles. If someone says "my draft was rejected (though it was declined)", won't you help? If another says "my draft was rejected (though it was rejected)", won't you also help? At this point, I think it is not due for change because it serves as a general term out here: decline equals to reject. [[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]][[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']] 16:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

::I don't disagree with your former point; but the issue you discuss is not what I am talking about. Your last sentence, however, makes no sense, since AFC folk keep telling us that the two terms ''do'' have different meanings. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 16:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

:::I was referring to what outside folk will think about: decline equals reject. I don't seem to find what you said is the best to replace. Can I see it here? Thanks. [[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]][[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']] 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

::::See what? [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 17:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

== A Template Foible ==