This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

This idea is in the brainstorming stage. Feel free to add new ideas; improve, clarify and classify the ideas already here; and discuss the merits of these ideas.

Greetings,

Requesting brainstorming for Manual of Style proposal suggesting chronological listing (in sequence as they would occur on a map) of coastal cities (instead of alphabetical) on water-bodies namely rivers, lakes and oceans.

Usual trend is to list is alphabetical order, but reader friendliness point of view and their utility point of view listings of human Settlement ( Villages/ townships) one after other chronological listing (in sequence as they would occur on a map) will be beneficial besides it will be helpful in creation and presentation of maps.

For example I wish to have clockwise map of townships @ Black Sea trade and economy

Convincing every individual user to help out listing in chronological order becomes difficult so I am suggesting Wikipedians to adopt a common Manual of Style for chronological listing of coastal human settlements for articles under WP:WikiProject Rivers, (& also WP:WikiProject Highways) and clockwise chronological listing of coastal human settlements of coastal human settlements for articles under WP:WikiProject Lakes & WP:WikiProject Oceans.

Please feel free to curate this proposal for spelling and grammar and conciseness. Looking forward to inputs.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 06:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

What advantage is there in having them in chronological order? How do you define that order? Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 06:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Alphabetical order does not have any special advantage to the reader other than being alphabetical.
• No doubt those who know chronological routs will be less concerned.
• But every reader will not be expert and knowledgeable of every rout across coasts or highways.
• Chronologically which place comes after which place has utility value making understanding simpler, whether it is planning of trade/ travel simpler.
• I do good amount of historical reading but many times not aware of chronology end up confused unless do some back and forth research confusion continues.
• So Chronological order may save readers time of back and forth research and help avoid confused state of mind.
• Last but not least, I already cited example of Black Sea trade and economy, personally I do not know chronological order of townships and still wish to request and display a map with every coastal township on the map. Map maker will help only after we provide chronological order.
• Which Chronology to be applied?

It is open to suggestions and discussion but my prefered suggestion is

• • In case of Lakes and oceans it be clockwise starting from most southern well known point like Istanbul in case of Black Sea
  • In case of rivers form source of river to end / delta of the river.
  • In case of highways North to south or Left to right (West to east)

That is how I look at it

Thanks and regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 07:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The advantage of an alphabetical list is that if the reader knows the name of the town they can easily find it in the list. Few casual readers will have any real idea of the chronology of the area unless they are already quite expert on the history. Do you actually mean chronolgical order or do you mean sequential? Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 08:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

On most devices you are easily able to search on the page, right? And otherwise if the table is sortable you can also just sort by name. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 09:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• By chronological listing, I mean ' in the sequence as they would occur on a map ' Is there any better word for this, whether word 'sequential' would fit better?
• For most comp users searching with Ctrl + F search is easily possible if they are looking for specific city name. Additionally as user Jochem van Hees says , providing sortable alphabetical option will address that issue. But to most users whether in the sequence as they would occur on a map as default listing won't be better?

Thanks for responses, I hope more Wikipedians will express their opinions too in coming days. Regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 10:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not chronological order, that's spacial or sequential order. And does that order go north to south, or south to north? East to west, or west to east? From the coast inward, or outward towards the coast? Upstream or downstream on rivers? And how do all of those directions interact? Seems much more confusing. Stick with alphabetical. -- Khajidha ( talk) 14:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Pl. do see the description clock image now added.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 17:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

If I'm looking at a map of an area that I am unfamiliar with it would seem more logical to me to start from the coast and work inward, regardless of whether that was left to right or right to left on the map. I would also find the sequence going up an unfamiliar river more useful than that going down it. So what you describe as "natural" habits do not seem to be such to me. -- Khajidha ( talk) 23:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Chronological means in order of date. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 17:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, chronological refers to time, like calling a watch a chronometer. Determining the relative age of cities would be very difficult for most readers. Locational sequencing has similar difficulties including deciding what was the starting location around a lake, or how to order twin cities on opposite sides of a river. I suggest alphabetical listing is more convenient than either, although difficulties persist for cities which have been renamed, or have different spellings. Thewellman ( talk) 18:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the arrangement in the "By drainage basin" section of List of rivers in Florida what you have in mind? Note that the next section in that article is an alphabetical list. - Donald Albury 20:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

List of rivers of Florida is a good example. It such sequencing helps me communicating with a map creator and update if any thing is missing, it helps reading along with a map better. The article helps provides both sequences. First in section Atlantic coast provides "Rivers are listed as they enter the ocean from north to south. Tributaries are listed as they enter their main stem from downstream to upstream." later another section Lake Okeechobee provides Rivers are listed as they enter Lake Okeechobee from west to east. Tributaries are listed as they enter their main stem from downstream to upstream. then next section Gulf coast Rivers are listed as they enter the gulf from south to north, then west. Tributaries are listed as they enter their main stem from downstream to upstream.

The later section provide alphabetical option too. User:Jochem van Hees suggests option of sortable table and that is okay with me. IMHO Singularly alphabetical lists create information gap for readers who want to study details along with the map.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 02:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

See here. Site is used as a source in about 43,000 articles related to various geographical locations world-wide, including rivers and streams. FOARP ( talk) 09:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I find that French rivers are being put not just into departmental categories like Category:Rivers of Ain but also in regional categories like Category:Rivers of Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, which lumps together 12 departments, and into the overall category Category:Rivers of France, which lumps together 100 departments and has 753 rivers. Petscan shows 4,289 rivers in the France in the French wiki, so Category:Rivers of France could become enormous.

I suggest that Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Categories be expanded to say something like:

Comments? Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Currently, all rivers of France are in the Category:Rivers of France, which has been tagged with {{ all included}} since 2015. To me, it's useful to have all French river articles in one category because it makes it easier for me to do maintenance. There are more countries where all rivers are in the top category, also if they are in subcategories, e.g. Belgium, Romania, the Netherlands, Germany and Spain. There may be more arguments in favour of all-included country categories, for instance for looking up a river. In the specific case of France, there are three levels for every river: national, by region and by department. For instance the Bèze is in Category:Rivers of France, Category:Rivers of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté and in Category:Rivers of Côte-d'Or. It may be disputed whether the intermediate level (the regions) shouldn't be turned into diffusing categories. Markussep ^Talk 14:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You're proposing that Category:Rivers of Massachusetts and Category:Rivers of Switzerland should be depopulated of articles, with their contents scattered to county- and canton-level categories. This would mean that the articles would be findable and accessible only at the level of those smaller geographic units. I'm strongly opposed to that. I think this is exactly the kind of situation that non-diffusing subcategories and the "All included" template are for. ( Category:Mountains of Switzerland is one of the examples given at WP:ALLINCLUDED.) The country- and state-level categories, even if they are large, are valuable to readers and editors who are not intimately familiar with the names and hierarchy of all the administrative subdivisions of the world, which is most of us. Readers and editors should be able to access and browse a group of related articles at a level in the geographical hierarchy that meets their needs, not just at the smallest level. Thanks-- TimK MSI ( talk) 14:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A list of all rivers in France can be obtained using this Petscan query listing all rivers in sub-categories of Category:Rivers of France by department. The rivers in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté can be listed with this scan. Instructions for running a scan could be placed in an infobox in the category header.

The danger with allowing rivers to be placed both in sub-categories and parent categories is that they may be placed in one but not the other. An editor may consider that a river that runs through several departments in a region should be placed only in the category for the region, and not in the departmental categories. Another editor may consider that it should only be put in the departmental categories, since these categories are included in the region category.

The value to our readers of an alphabetical list of all articles about rivers in France is questionable. A well-organized article like List of rivers of France is more useful, and should be encouraged. One of the main purposes of categories is to support gnomish tasks, making the same improvement to all articles of a given type. If we allow redundancy we make it easy for error to creep in. The Petscan approach finds two rivers in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté that are not in Category:Rivers of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté: the Ain (river) in Category:Rivers of Jura (department) and the Seine in Category:Rivers of Côte-d'Or. Aymatth2 ( talk) 15:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Insofar as maintenance concerns are driving your opposition to using the "Allincluded" model, I don't think the maintenance of a worldwide set of list articles will solve them. I think groupings of rivers (and other geographic features) at the level of a country, a U.S. state, etc., are useful, and that it's entirely reasonable to expect that Wikipedia would provide them. And I think the dangers you intend to convey are outweighed by the usefulness of the large number of categories you're proposing be depopulated. (Again, this usefulness is the reason the "Allincluded" template exists, and is widely used. Is Category:Rivers of Switzerland somehow less useful than Category:Mountains of Switzerland?) And I don't think the general readership should be expected to run a Petscan query to gather together Wikipedia's articles about rivers in Massachusetts. Thanks-- TimK MSI ( talk) 16:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

List of rivers of Massachusetts, which includes redlinks, seems more useful for the general readership and is right at the top of a Google search for rivers in Massachusetts. They would anyway have trouble finding Category:Rivers of Massachusetts on their phone. And Chapel Brook, Stony Brook (Charles River tributary, Boston) and Stony Brook (Charles River tributary, Weston) are missing from the category.

The general public would use a structured article like List of rivers of Switzerland, the {{ cat main}} for Category:Rivers of Switzerland. This is much more useful than an alphabetical list of articles, and supports redlinks. Gnomes who want to work through a single large list for all river articles in a given country, state, department etc. would use a Petscan query to build it from the ground up, avoiding errors like those in Category:Rivers of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté. A note at the top of the category could link them to the query, as in Category:Rivers of Corsica. Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as a (very) part-time Gnome, I'd never heard of a Petscan before and find the existing category system very useful as I am sure the general reader does as well. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 16:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Petscan should be in every gnome's toolkit. An powerful and accurate way to browse categories and find specific types of problem. Before depopulating a parent category the corresponding scan can be linked at the top of the category, as in Category:Rivers of Corsica.

We are inconsistent here. Nobody is proposing to add all the articles on rivers in the United States into Category:Rivers of the United States. There are about 11,435 of them. Category:Rivers of California has 25 pages, but this is just a sample. There are about 807 of them, almost as many as in France. Aymatth2 ( talk) 20:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Since I haven't done so clearly, I'll echo User:Murgatroyd49 and say that I use the existing category scheme regularly, and I find it useful.

I am skeptical that "eh, nobody needs alphabetical order anymore" will be a successful consensus-building argument on Wikipedia.

Lists vs categories is an argument that has raged since the beginning of Wikipedia, and there is an editing guideline that addresses the conflict. Some highlights: "Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category," and "the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system." The fact that categories aren't operable on phones is noted as a known drawback of categories, not as a reason to depopulate them or replace them with lists.

You're right that nobody is proposing that Category:Rivers of the United States be filled with thousands of articles. We're discussing your suggestion that hundreds of longstanding categories should be depopulated of articles, and whether, within Wikipedia's category structure, articles about rivers should be discoverable only at the level of the smallest possible geographic unit (for example Category:Rivers of Dorchester County, South Carolina, which contains one article).

As I've noted, Category:Mountains of Switzerland is presented at the Categorization editing guideline as a good example of the usefulness of Template:All included in the category structure. I'll ask again, why are rivers different from mountains? Are you mainly taking issue with the Categorization guideline, and not specifically with the categorization of rivers?

Neither the Categorization guideline nor Wikipedia:PetScan invites editors to direct readers to PetScan queries as a replacement for "All included" categories. Has a Wikipedia-wide consensus ever been sought in support of the practice? Thanks-- TimK MSI ( talk) 22:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I also echo those in favor of the current structure. This is good use of WP:ALLINCLUDED, which I prefer in general. Sure it's not the best practice for every situation; just as it wouldn't be best practice to subdivide every country category.

I've never heard of PetScan either, but I may use it now that I have:) Thanks! DB1729 ( talk) 15:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Alternative approach

I seem to be getting less than wholehearted support for emptying out the parent categories. I propose instead to have the guideline say

Samples of the {{ Parent cat}} template follow. Most of the populated parent categories have discrepancies with the child categories, so the canned Petscan queries should be valuable for editors who are trying to keep the parent and children in sync.

Category:Rivers of Corsica

This is a diffused parent category for categories like Category:Rivers of Corse-du-Sud. It should not hold pages that belong in the department-level categories, but may hold other pages such as lists. All department-level articles for this parent

Category:Rivers of the United States

This is a diffused parent category for categories like Category:Rivers of Alabama. It should not hold pages that belong in the state-level categories, but may hold other pages such as lists. All state-level articles for this parent The main article for this category is List of rivers of the United States

Category:Rivers of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté

This is a non-diffused parent category for categories like Category:Rivers of Côte-d'Or. It should hold all the pages in the department-level categories, and may hold other pages such as lists. All department-level articles for this parent department-level articles not in this parent category articles in this parent but not in a department-level category

Category:Rivers of Massachusetts. This one badly needs maintenance. There are 163 rivers in the county-level categories. 9 of them are not in the parent category. There are 5 rivers in the parent category that are not in any county-level category.

This is a non-diffused parent category for categories like Category:Rivers of Barnstable County, Massachusetts‎. It should hold all the pages in the county-level categories, and may hold other pages such as lists. All county-level articles for this parent county-level articles not in this parent category articles in this parent but not in a county-level category The main article for this category is List of rivers of Massachusetts

Category:Rivers of Switzerland

This is a non-diffused parent category for categories like Category:Rivers of Aargau‎. It should hold all the pages in the canton-level categories, and may hold other pages such as lists. All canton-level articles for this parent canton-level articles not in this parent category articles in this parent but not in a canton-level category The main article for this category is List of rivers of Switzerland

Out of curiosity, I ran a check for Category:Mountains of Switzerland. All the pages in the parent are in one of the children, but even after excluding lists, massifs etc., 10 pages in the child categories do not appear in the parent list.

This is a non-diffused parent category for categories like Category:Mountains of Aargau‎‎. It should hold all the pages in the canton-level categories, and may hold other pages such as lists. All canton-level articles for this parent canton-level articles not in this parent category articles in this parent but not in a canton-level category

Comments?

@ Markussep, TimK MSI, Murgatroyd49, and DB1729: are you ok with the alternative approach described above? It formalizes the status quo, and suggests but does not require a banner box with links to maintenance reports that may help keep the parent categories in sync with the child categories. Aymatth2 ( talk) 02:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm OK with your new version for the categories guideline at WP:RIVERS, describing the status quo. I'm not sure whether the Petscan links should be in all category banners. Petscan is a nice tool, but if its main purpose is maintenance, it's probably better to put it on some wikiproject list. An exception may be made for diffusing categories, like the Category:Rivers of the United States example, here a Petscan might be useful for readers. BTW since Corsica and Bourgogne-Franche-Comté are both regions of France, shouldn't their river categories both be either diffusing, or non-diffusing, for consistency? Markussep ^Talk 09:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Petscan queries differ for each category. Most editors will not know how to write them, but the canned queries let them clean up discrepancies between parent and child categories, an ongoing task. The category header is the obvious place to link to them. I would prefer to diffuse all French regional categories, but see no reason to be consistent. Category:Rivers of England with 1,041 articles is diffused, Category:Rivers of California with 807 articles is sort-of diffused, but Category:Rivers of Pennsylvania with 1,276 articles is not diffused. We cannot define a rule for when categories should be diffused, but when they are not it should be as easy as possible to maintain them. Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

As with User:Markussep, I'm okay with the language describing the status quo. Has the practice of directing readers to Petscan queries via the Category namespace been widely used? If not, I'd like to see some indication of a consensus in support of it among a broader base of users, in a more generalized venue than WikiProject Rivers. Thanks-- TimK MSI ( talk) 19:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I concur with TimK. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 21:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Most articles link to external sites in citations, and often link to sister wikis, wikimedia and wikidata in the sidebar. Category:Rivers of California has an interesting link to osm4wiki at toolforge.org. The history of this category links to pageviews at toolforge.org. I can wander from the history to xtools at wmflabs.org. A link to petscan at wmflabs.org does not seem odd to me, if it is useful. Still, I suppose it could be discussed at the village pump. I can start that. Aymatth2 ( talk) 08:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories with a link directing to the centralized discussion a Village Pump. I think the petscan links are a good idea btw. DB1729 ( talk) 13:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 186#Non-diffused category checker. Not a lot of comments, but there were no objections to linking to a PetScan query, which after all is no different in concept from linking to GeoHack from a {{ coord}} template. There were suggestions that we should go further, and either automate population of the non-diffused category using a bot, or else build and display the list of articles in the child categories at viewing time, but that seems over-ambitious at this stage. If nobody objects, I propose to implement the proposed wording in this alternative. Aymatth2 ( talk) 17:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Larrys Creek for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 15:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith " Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith " Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb { t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

White Deer Hole Creek is a FA and is being reviewed for meeting FA criteria ( Larrys Creek was a FA, and was delisted recently as part of the same review of older FAs). Both articles had watershed information from here, which included information like the watershed's area, population in the previous US census, and area / percentages of the watershed by forest or agriculture, as well as what portion of the county was in the watershed (White Deer Hole Creek drains parts of 3 counties). This information is no longer available from the Chesapeake Bay program website, and the WebArchive links are to "URL not found" pages. Many year ago I emailed the Chesapeake Bay program asking where they got the information. Their reply was basically it was easy to get without giving me a source. My hope is that there is a database somewhere or website that I am not aware of, but someone here knows about. Anyone have any ideas? The two most important pieces of information for now would be 2020 census population of the watersheds, and area in each by forest, agriculture, built up. Thanks! - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Ruhrfisch: I can't help with population, but this page has land use percentages and other useful info. You can get these reports for any U.S. stream segment via the EPA's WATERS GeoViewer: For the watershed, select the lowermost stream segment (at the mouth) and click "Watershed report." Just make sure you're looking at the figures for the entire watershed, and not the much smaller catchment for the stream segment alone. Hope this helps — TimK MSI ( talk) 19:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much TimK MSI! This is very helpful and much appreciated. The data there (like total basin area) also matches what the article already has. Does anyone else have a source for watershed populations? 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC) - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I recently submitted Draft:List of longest rivers in Eurasia for review, but it was rejected as it "does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own". That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as there already exist List of longest rivers of Asia and List_of_rivers_of_Europe#Rivers_of_Europe_by_length, and Eurasia is bigger than both Asia and Europe. Can anyone advise? Stara Marusya ( talk) 00:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

as there are lists of the longest rivers of Europe and Asia already, do we really need a duplication of that information? Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 09:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I will add that the list of longest rivers in Europe is just part of the quite comprehensive List of rivers of Europe, which has a fair amonnt of explicative text as well as a wealth of details about the rivers and their basins. I would suggest that List of longest rivers of Asia could be merged into List of rivers of Asia, and the latter article could be expanded along the lines of List of rivers of Europe. - Donald Albury 14:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Good idea but that still doesn't require yet another list of the rivers of the combined continents as proposed by Stara Marusya. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 15:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I was offering an idea for another project to work on instead of the Eurasian one. I find expanding/improving an existing article as satisfying as creating one. Donald Albury 16:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

So the Eurasian and Asian lists would be better merged into their respective articles, like the European one? Stara Marusya ( talk) 18:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 " FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek tributary)
2. Riverina
3. White Deer Hole Creek

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Liberdade River (Xingu River tributary)#Requested move 15 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 06:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rs chen 7754 15:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The RFC, now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, has questions related to notability. -- Rs chen 7754 06:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that St. Lawrence River, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{ WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

(Actually) a while ago a user moved a couple of Swedish rivers from X River to X (river), articles now at Torne (river), Ronneby (river), Byske (river), Åby (river). The Rivers where not disambiguators but translations of their name in Swedish (both Finnish and Swedish in one case), where they are named Village/Settlement/Other geographical element+ån/älven (the V/S/Oge River). Torne is in Encyclopedia Britannica as Torne River, Byske and Åby has English Google hits as Byske River and Åby River. I don't think this was the meaning with the section "Naming" on the project page, can I move them back? Kaffet i halsen ( talk) 16:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed a while back. American sources like Britannica frequently used "Foo River" because it follows their national system of naming; likewise British and other national sources often use "River Foo". The outcome of the discussion, however, was to follow the very common English practice of just referring to European rivers as the "Foo" and disambiguating if necessary. Bermicourt ( talk) 18:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I understand for Central European rivers, but in these cases the chosen names are not natural in English (Google gives results from the following two categories), as translated to English (Torne River, Ronneby River, Byske River, Åby River) or in Swedish or other languages spoken where they are ( sv:Torne älv, fi:Tornionjoki, sv:Ronnebyån, sv:Byskeälven, sv:Åbyälven) Kaffet i halsen ( talk) 07:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It is perfectly normal and very common English to refer to rivers as "the Thames" or "the Ronneby". Indeed I looked up Ronneby on Ngram Viewer and it was the most common form. Bermicourt ( talk) 11:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Ronneby is a town that Ronnebyån floats through, so "the Ronneby" gives you plenty of hits for Ronneby the town through the Ronneby bloodbath, Ronneby declaration, and the Ronneby conference. Kaffet i halsen ( talk) 18:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you have a problem with this. "Foo (river)" is entirely acceptable under the guidelines and overwhelmingly the most common form for European rivers. And two of your examples, Torne (river) and Åby (river), just need to be moved to their redirects, Torne and Åby. "the Byske" is more common that the other forms and "the Byske river" is the most common combination - none of the others register. So I'm not sure why you're pushing for a North American naming system for Swedish rivers when it currently follows the same convention as the rest of Europe. Bermicourt ( talk) 19:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not pushing any North American naming system, I just found it strange seeing them differing from other Category:Rivers of Sweden by county and wanted to see why. It is like Ötztaler Ache would be at Öztaler (river) or Öztal (river). Kaffet i halsen ( talk) 06:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

We are discussing a proposal to refactor the guidelines for geographic feature notability. Please feel free to join in the discussion of this proposal. — hike395 ( talk) 03:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I am currently building a tool to check articles without images or with low resolution images ( VCAT). But I am having an issue with the Template:Infobox river: why is there no image in the editable version while there is an image inside the infobox in the rendered article? An example is the article Pur (Russia) Right now my tool cannot detect those images. (example of the tool not detecting images at: VCAT - Wikiproject Rivers). I apologize if this is not the right place for this question, if so delete it. MingoBerlingo ( talk) 09:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@ MingoBerlingo: Hello, the infobox displays an image from wikidata, if there is one there, when not specified in the wikitext. Keith D ( talk) 18:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Is there a way to get the image name from the Edit source or the raw content (like this) of the article using MediaWiki Action API? MingoBerlingo ( talk) 07:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@ MingoBerlingo: Cannot help with that, may be you could ask at Village Pump. Keith D ( talk) 12:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)