User talk:Morwen

Archived talk: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14 15. 16. Current talk: User_talk:Morwen

I have produced a list of districts that don't have separate articles to their namesake settlement at User:Crouch, Swale/District split. Of those York, Peterborough, Sheffield, Warrington and Corby should probably be split and Newcastle upon Tyne, Redditch and Chesterfield maybe should be split. Of the changes since you're splits in 2004 the changes seem to be Darlington, Hartlepool, Havant and Preston have been split, Sheffield, Peterborough and York (split in 2002) have been merged and Bournemouth, Ipswich, Middlesbrough, Poole, Reading and Tamworth were once split but were merged. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks, that's interesting trip through memory lane! As I recall back then I was seen as quite a bit of a splitter - I was trying to mostly apply some sort of general principles country-wide, to do with the size of settlements not part of the main BUA in the district. Most editors from various localities never really saw the big picture. Corby was one of those one that was right on the edge where I think I reckoned it should be split but it was clear that would be unable to achieve a consensus. I do remember blank incomprehension from people particularly for calling the split articles 'City of X' vs 'X' for the ones that had city status. Perhaps that was a mistake and I should have just gone with X (district). My "but that's the actual name! that's how council uses it, and it's the legal name! you just don't apparently know what things are called" argument never really worked. Oh god now I'm getting flashbacks to the chap who imagined an entire county borough that never existed and refused to accept my documentation that it didn't on the basis that I was too young. Anyway, not as contentious as counties (although that seems to have settled down now, at least). Morwen (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that Corby would ever have been controversial if split, the only controversy seems to have been with splits of districts with city status mainly due to the confusion with the title. In addition as noted Corby district is due to be abolished in April next year and the unparished area parished so the borough would be a former entity anyway. The only proposal to merge a district without city status that I'm aware of is Barrow-in-Furness (see Talk:Barrow-in-Furness#Merge) failed in 2008/9. In 2012 most of the districts were moved from "X (district)" and X (borough)" to "X District" and "Borough of X" in 2012 see Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts#Naming conventions (so an article for Corby district would be at Borough of Corby just like Borough of Kettering). I think the tests for having single articles there are too lax, namely I think that if the district does have recent boundaries like Cheltenham but the ONS BUA/BUASD is similar shouldn't be split as well as cases like Ipswich where the BUA/BUASD is larger than the district aren't split. The only ones that have pre 1974 boundaries that are split are Havant and Fareham, I think Havant is somewhat an exception anyway since the district contains distinct places (such as Hayling Island) and the older district was actually called "Havant and Waterloo" anyway. Fareham could maybe be merged. Note that I have created Category:Unparished areas but not all are included due to some nakesake districts being partly parished but having only 1 article. Out of the "Partly parished" section on my list which ones would you recommend/consider splitting? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I may well have misjudged that. I never really liked 'X District' as a solution because nobody ever really uses it as a name independently - certainly not with the capital letter. It's only ever found as part of the phrase 'X District Council', and in that case it's the 'District Council' of 'X', not the 'Council' of 'X District'. But also 15 years later maybe I've matured enough to just let go of it. Or at least pretend to.

I'm not really sure my opinion matters very much just because I happened to do this work originally. BUT having said that, of you partly parished list

• Birmingham, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Coventry - keep merged - just cans of worms if you do these. Manchester in particular get used as a name for a much larger urban area than the 'locality'. We also do already have Greater Manchester Built-Up Area, Manchester City Centre, Greater Manchester; there's a point where splitting just adds confusion rather than clears things up
• Chesterfield - probably split, on account of Staveley.
• Corby, Redditch - i think are marginal splits
• Cheltenham, Gloucester, Oxford, Slough, Southend, Worcester - the boundaries are fairly tight with the urban area, keep merged.
• Newcastle upon Tyne, I think the unwieldiness of the name for a split article makes me want that to keep merged.
• Peterborough - definitely agree with splitting this. Over half the land area is outside of the settlement.
• Sheffield - definitely split.
• Warrington - yeah probably split
• York - split yeah

so i think ultimately i don't disagree with any of your assessments there although maybe I wouldn't bother to do the marginal ones if there was any local pushback. Morwen (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"X District" is used as an alternative label by the OS and Vision of Britain and GeoNames use "X District" (though that is a Wiki) and "Borough of X" is (or as least was) used by the OS for boroughs with unitary status.

I'd agree with you're opinions but I'd make 2 small changes, I'd flip Chesterfield round since although Staveley is a town and parish and was former an urban district it is part of Chesterfield BUA even though its not part of the BUASD. The question can be asked if we define a settlement by the BUA or BUASD? The 2nd question at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts#Naming conventions saying about distinct settlements in a district is interesting here, with Corby (apart from Weldon) the villages in the parished part are unquestionably standalone settlements while with Chesterfield the other town isn't unquestionably stand alone, which do you give more weigh to? IMO the former. Note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of localities in England by population (an article you created) this appears to be being debated, (I can notify you since its standard to notify the author without being classified as canvasing).

With Newcastle upon Tyne I'd actually consider keeping as is for partly the same reasons as Manchester etc you gave above in that many will consider it to be the whole Tyneside BUA but what do you mean by unwieldiness of the name? Are you talking about the fact that the district is called "Newcastle upon Tyne" while its council is merely "Newcastle City Council" similar to Hull City Council/Kingston upon Hull? I'm not sure how this would be problematic other than the fact that the council has a shorter name than what we'd give the district namely City of Newcastle upon Tyne, this was also debated at Talk:City of Newcastle#Requested move 13 July 2020. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure "X District" usage do occur in databases, wikis and procedurally generated content but like, take the principle of WP:NAME as it should be the common name as used in actual English prose about it.

The BUAs are interesting but ultimately as i understand it, a strip development on a main road between two otherwise independent settlements would be enough to merge the BUAs for statistical purposes but doesn't really necessarily affect how people think about on the ground? Hilariously, I think I would actually vote against that list - I'm surprised to find out I made it!, but I do remember being turned against it pretty quickly when I realised it was a choice between synthesis and the BUASDs; and I /really/ didn't like the BUASDs being ranked in a sort of national list, because they didn't seem to be designed for that, and the ONS wasn't presenting them like that. Yeah I just mean that like City of Newcastle upon Tyne is a long name. Mind you it would be far from our longest.

Ultimately I'm not really editing on the ground in this area, though and both what the principles should be and the application of them are are judgement calls and I'm happy to sit those out. Morwen (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've produced some tables at User:Crouch, Swale/District split#Tables, as you can see Chesterfield fails the 1st 3 (as long as you go by BUA and not BUASD) while Corby passes every test. Its also interesting to note that of the 3 that have pre 1974 boundaries all of them are in Hampshire (unless you take into account Basildon which apparently got part of Thurrock Urban District and is now partly parished) but as noted Havant is maybe already an exception due to the former district being "Havant and Waterloo". Interestingly Exeter just like Chesterfield could (but I probably wouldn't recommend) arguably be split for the same reason (aside from being unparished and pre 1974) Topsham is part of Exeter BUA but not BUASD. @MRSC: what do you make of those? you produced the tables in 2009 for WP:UKDISTRICTS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Draft:Borough of Corby, on the flip side how many of those at User:Crouch, Swale/District split#Others that have pre 1974 boundaries would you suggest merging? As far as they go Basildon probably should be kept split since Billericay is clearly a separate town (and the former district was called "Billericay" previously) as well as the fact that it seems part of Thurrock Urban District became part of Basildon in 1974? Harrow should probably also stay split since it seems that many of the other places (like Stanmore) would still be thought of as being distinct and every other London borough is split. Havant might already be an exception since as noted the old district was "Havant and Waterloo" and anyway Hayling Island is clearly distinct. Fareham clearly contains some distinct areas so its marginal. Woking (which I previously missed from the list of post 2005 splits) perhaps should be merged, its an interesting one in that Byfleet may be classified as being distinct in that its not part of the BUASD and was from 1989 to 2010 a parish. The discussion for splitting is at Talk:Woking#Borough v. town and Guildford was used as a precedent for the split again as you have noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive/WikiProject UK subdivisions#Splits where borough is smaller than urban area (and other places) its a false equivalence. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesbrough has now been split again and there is yet another discussion on merging it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Article for both Borough and town?. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Chesterfield has also been split. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Amadou Toumani Touré, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kigns of leon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 12#Kigns of leon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Morwen. You have new messages at c:User talk:Magog the Ogre.
Message added 02:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Diocese of Southwark. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 6#Diocese of Southwark until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Please do visit Talk:Cynthia D. Ritchie#Slander of Benazir Bhutto to examine discussed edits, if you find topic interested requesting your opinion, there.

For neutrality purpose opinion request is being made to users who significantly edited different sides of Pakistani political spectrum articles.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Farnborough/Aldershot Built-up Area has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable statistical area. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Pontificalibus 08:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cara Ellison has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This person does not appear to be notable per the criteria of WP:JOURNALIST. The majority of the works she contributed to don't even have Wikipedia articles. The only thing that maybe warrants notability is being the "senior narrative designer" on Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines 2, but she is no longer part of that project nor is the studio she was attached to, so I'm not sure how influential she is on the project.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Thunderforge (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have started a project at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. You previously started Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 1#Insane parish project and we now have 417 left. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ulster Unionism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Ulster Unionism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Heanor (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cara Ellison, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cara Ellison until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With districts that didn't have boundary changes in 1974 (or only had trivial ones, see User:Crouch, Swale/Reconstituted districts) you pointed out years ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive/WikiProject UK subdivisions#Splits where borough is smaller than urban area about problems with scope and links etc with splitting Reading etc. If the boundaries didn't change in 1974 then yes I'd have the district since the older district was formed of which for Reading it is 1835 (it became a county borough in 1888) and links to the older district would point to Municipal Borough of Reading and County Borough of Reading, both of which would redirect to Borough of Reading. So yes county borough would link as [[County Borough of Reading|Reading]]. Take a look at Bury, Greater Manchester/County Borough of Bury/Metropolitan Borough of Bury for example where there is an article about the settlement, older district and modern one. At Template:London Government Act 1963 all the older districts have article (as well as the settlements) with 1 exception Harrow because the boundaries didn't change in which case it redirects to the current one, see Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts#Reconstituted districts. I'd be neutral on if we split the likes of Reading but yes if split it should deal with the district all time rather than just post 1974. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't have any particularly strong need to express any feelings in this area that I was involved in editing over fifteen years ago now. Morwen (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Queen's Speech and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 21#Queen's Speech until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sir Robert McAlpine, 6th Baronet and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Sir Robert McAlpine, 6th Baronet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Long ago in 2005 you created a redirect from Northern Ireland nationalism to Ulster nationalism. Now I changed it to the disambiguation page Northern Irish nationalism. Are you OK with this change? 145.15.244.207 (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kirklees, Calderdale is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirklees, Calderdale until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of languages by writing system is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of languages by writing system until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect King of the United Kingdom has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30 § King of the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Tunbridge Wells has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the 200th London Meetup is happening tomorrow, Sunday 14 January. You may be interested as you were present at the very first one (pictured)! Note that it is now at Penderel's Oak on High Holborn by the Great Turnstile. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andrew. Unfortunately I'm busy tomorrow afternoon. :( Maybe I'll try and come to a 20th anniversary one in the summer? Morwen (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's usually a meetup on the second Sunday of every month. There's lately a risk that Penderel's Oak will close and so we may have to move on to another venue so don't leave it another 20 years! Andrew🐉(talk) 15:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks! I wonder when the last one I went to was. Certainly I was at London 6, but I have a vague recollection of having been to one at the Penderel's some yeah in the interim. Morwen (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Ravalomanana has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Revolutionary Federation has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Bolsover (borough) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 12 § Bolsover (borough) until a consensus is reached. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pakistan Muslim League has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is confusing because it is about a group of political parties under same or similar name. Its infobox says it was established by Ayub Khan in 1962. But Khan didn’t establish Pakistan Muslim League. He established Convention Muslim League. Pakistan Muslim League is the name of another political party existed from 1947 to 1958. By naming this Pakistan Muslim League, we are creating confusion because the article is about a group of political parties. In that sense, there is no need for the existance of this article. we can merge it into related articles, or we can merge it to List of Muslim League breakaway groups because this article, talks about parties under same/similar name, actually came from Pakistan Muslim League and we already have an article about it (Muslim League (1947–1958)). This article has only three sources. And the page gives us an idea that it is an single political party. It looks like WP:OR and it would be best to merge it into Muslim League (1947–1958) or List of Muslim League breakaway groups.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mehedi Abedin 02:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. When I created the page, twenty-one years ago, I did so as a disambiguation. Perhaps your concerns about its content could be resolved merely by restoring the page to disambiguation? Morwen (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pakistan Muslim League is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Muslim League until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mehedi Abedin 08:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Ecuador has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]