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.

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) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Afghanistani is currently going through AfC, and I'm hoping someone in the know could comment on it. It has been previously declined as duplicating Afghans, or rather a section thereof, but we could of course have a new article effectively as a topic split, because this draft covers the subject much more extensively. My problem in reviewing the draft is that I don't know the first thing about the subject, and can't determine whether this is legit, OR/synthesis, or just someone trying to 'right great wrongs'. (See also the draft's talk page.) Any views on this? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 05:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To editor Tartan357: I've just noticed that the emblem for this WikiProject has been updated to depict the current regime. I find this in poor taste, as I'm pretty sure the Talibs are opposed to Wikipedia. (I didn't ask them; I'm just guessing.) Certainly some Afghans still reverence the tri-color and I think this WikiProject might consider returning to the GIRoA-era design or at least something more neutral than the preference of the theocratic pretenders. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

That is neutral. That is simply what the flag of Afghanistan is now, and all contemporary content about Afghanistan on Wikipedia has been updated to reflect that. Using a generic symbol would also be okay, but not the tri-color. If someone wants to design a new barnstar or use a generic map image, that's fine with me. I just swapped out the old government symbol with the new one. They are not pretenders, that would mean they aren't actually in charge. The symbol for this WikiProject has been updated multiple times through the edit request system without objection; see Template talk:WikiProject Afghanistan. ―  Tartan357  ^Talk 00:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the templates to be placed on user talk pages to a neutral image, and created an Template:User in Afghanistan (Islamic Republic) for users who want to display the tri-color on their user pages. ―  Tartan357  ^Talk 01:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Afghanistan conflict (1978–present)#Requested move 11 July 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 ( talk) 13:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Just here to bring attention to the Afghanistan War map, which has been kind of neglected for a while now. I hope more people can contribute to it. Firestar464 ( talk) 03:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest it be deleted now. The war is over, and republican insurgents are not holding territory consistently. The map has been neglected because there is basically no reporting anymore about insurgents holding particular locations. The Taliban's grip on the country is quite solid. ―  Tartan357  ^Talk 04:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Should this project's branding specifically use the de facto IEA flag in the WikiProject's image & a white-and-black themed project page? I know that this is technically a continuation of what the project looked like before the Taliban takeover (it was already white-and-black and the flag map file was already there; the file was simply updated), but now it looks as if the project page was designed around the colors of the Taliban flag.

I would argue that this isn't the most neutral option. I don't think it's necessarily not neutral, either, as editors (myself included) agreed in a number of discussions at Talk:Afghanistan that the Afghanistan article should be about the de facto regime, but I see that Tartan357 above agreed to use a more neutral image for the barnstar, and I think the project should do the same for its overall branding.

When it comes to international disputes, it's common for WikiProjects to either use symbols that are as neutral as possible, or to default to the de jure situation. For examples of projects that only use neutral symbols such as blank maps, see that WikiProject Abkhazia uses both the de jure and de facto flag on the main page, and simply a blank map of the area on the talk template. Likewise, WikiProject Kosovo simply uses a blank map on both the project page and in the talk template. For examples of projects that only display the de jure maps, see WikiProject Ukraine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country) displaying undivided maps of the territories that the international community regards as belonging to their respective countries. Granted, it's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison when Afghanistan is in a somewhat unique situation as the de jure Islamic Republic simply doesn't exist anymore, but to the international community, it continues to be regarded as "the real Afghanistan." Nevertheless, I still think that the other examples show that when disputes between de facto and de jure arise, WikiProjects tend to opt for more neutral options like using blank maps.

I recommend replacing the Taliban flag-map logo with a flagless map (either a provincial one like the one in the barnstar, or a solid green one like the other projects use) and changing the colors of the project to something other than the white-and-black color scheme seen in the Taliban flag. The background can still be white if that's the easiest on the eyes, but the border should be something other than black. I apologize if I've devoted way too much energy to discussing colors and flags here, but neutral symbolism is important.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you're devoting too much energy to it. I did make the changes actively since the page was colored with the tricolor and the seal of the republic was used as the main image. The portal image had already been changed to the Taliban flag, causing both the Taliban flag and the IRA seal to appear together in {{ WikiProject Afghanistan}}, which looked wrong. Also, keeping the IRA symbols (in my view) would've amounted to an activist stance since these symbols are effectively banned in Afghanistan, and the vast majority of what we write about Afghanistan has to do with what happens inside the country. It was the least change option preserving the existing structure of the page, and I have no problem with using another symbol that doesn't have to do with government at all. This is after all, not a government-oriented WikiProject but a country one focusing on all aspects of Afghan society. It can be a photograph taken in Afghanistan, a generic map, or a cultural symbol. This is not just a disputed symbols thing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Myanmar uses a lovely image of a peacock! When we have to use a flag, the default should be the IEA flag unless it's in an international context, but we don't have to use a flag as the symbol of this WikiProject. I would personally prefer something a little more engaging than a blank map, perhaps one of the images out of the collage at Kabul. ―  Tartan357  ^Talk 06:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Leader of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan#Requested move 28 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The page which had been Gautama Buddha was unsuccessfully proposed for a change to Siddhartha Gautama, then successfully changed to The Buddha, and is being proposed for a change to Buddha. Your input and expertise would be most welcome at: Talk:The_Buddha#Requested_move_25_November_2022 Best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pakistani Taliban/Archive 2#Requested move 11 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of 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 decides 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) 13:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:Afghan Premier League#Requested move 10 April 2023 and help decide if the existing article should be moved or if a new article should be created. -- Theurgist ( talk) 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see here for more details: Talk:Afghanistan_conflict_(1978–present)#Should_be_renamed_to_Afghan_Conflict_(1978–present) FOARP ( talk) 08:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia ( per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! — CX Zoom[he/him] ^{( let's talk • { C• X})} 20:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Afghanistan:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst ( talk) 12:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:First Perso-Turkic War#Requested move 9 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 14:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Deportation of undocumented Afghans from Pakistan#Requested move 5 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Alalch E. 23:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)