User talk:FloblinTheGoblin

Your submission at Articles for creation: Starship flight test 12 (December 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rambley was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Not a large enough range of sources to establish this as notable. Even if the sourcing did exist, which I believe it will in the future, I'm unsure if there's enough content here to warrant splitting from List of Starship launches. Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON though.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Starship flight test 12 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I knew that it could possibly be WP:TOOSOON but I thought it was at least enough to be worth a try. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, FloblinTheGoblin! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Rambley (talk / contribs) 19:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

Hello, I'm Lp0 on fire. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to GOD FUCKING damnit KRIS where the FUCK are we!? have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. lp0 on fire () 13:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC) never mine; please ignore that. lp0 on fire () 13:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, please ignore me. I was over-hasty in my reversion. Lots of uppercase swearing can easily be mistaken for vandalism. lp0 on fire () 13:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah no I totally see how that could happen, 100% understand, that’s actually what I thought when I originally saw this page FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Apology

Thank you for your message and reverting the edit too. Just wanted to let you know it was an honest mistake I made, I was trying to add in his Twitch account info in the infobox. Somehow I wasn’t paying attention and I accidentally deleted all that by accident. Hope you can forgive me, I didn’t mean to do that, it was a complete accident. ~2025-41751-68 (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

It is completely fine. I’m a pretty new editor myself, and I’ve already made several mistakes. This is why we always assume good faith when editing. It’s okay to make a couple mistakes at the expense of editing boldly. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and happy editing. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, FloblinTheGoblin!

Happy New Year!

FloblinTheGoblin,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
SomeoneDreaming (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

SomeoneDreaming (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

DYK for William Riches

On 25 January 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Riches, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that former academic William Riches declared his home an independent nation in 2017, in protest against Brexit? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Riches. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William Riches), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 00:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello FloblinTheGoblin! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Live edit count, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello FloblinTheGoblin! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Today's DYK, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello FloblinTheGoblin! The thread you created at the Teahouse, WP:NOR, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Modern Girl (Bleachers song) (February 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ArthurTheGardener was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Article needs more independent, secondary references to establish notability (I personally would suggest merging this with the existing article on the Bleachers album, which already has a section on Modern Girl).

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Modern Girl (Bleachers song) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ArthurTheGardener (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Not trying to contest here, I'm sure you're right, I'm just trying to understand, how come Relix, Rolling Stone, and People taken together do not satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guideline? Is the issue depth, reliability, or quantity? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 19:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, FloblinTheGoblin: I have to say I was slightly torn. It was close, and the subject does seem reasonably notable, but the references are largely in passing, rather than offering in-depth examination. It would be nice to see something meatier, plus maybe some more content to justify having a whole article on this (I see that the Composition and Lyrics section consists of only one phrase, which doesn't actually mention lyrics). Do feel free to get back to me on this. I'd ike to help if I can. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, I'm going to see if I can get some more work done on it, I'll have some time later this week. If not, or if it gets rejected the second time through AfC, I'll merge any relevant info into the album page. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 19:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		Congrats on your first GA review! I really liked that you commented all the criteria, explaining exactly how it was met by the article. In the future, bear in mind it is customary to list all the sources you checked during the spot check, even if they had no issues. This allows others to see that you are checking sources properly, and it allows future editors/reviewers to look back on the review and see what sources haven't yet been checked by a reviewer :) IAWW (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Do bear in mind that this was quite a simple first review. Other reviews will typically have more issues. If you want any help with reviewing in the future (if you have any questions, want a third opinion, or want someone to look over another review), feel free to message me directly :) IAWW (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Right, thank you. I do understand that this was a fairly simple review (other than all the sources being in Spanish). Thank you so much for your help, I will use this advice in the future. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 22:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello FloblinTheGoblin! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Browsing articles en masse/category browser/any idea where I can find this?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Buddy Holly Brunswick Records.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Buddy Holly Brunswick Records.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello FloblinTheGoblin! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Random thing that has been bothering me, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello FloblinTheGoblin! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Twinkle, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

How was the Independent State of Croatia succeeded by the Governorate of Dalmatia

You reverted an edit I made on the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) article. The Governorate of Dalmatia existed from 1941 to 1943 before it was annexed by the NDH, I do not see how it could be a successor of the NDH, please explain why it is. BlueberryA96 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

If you read this section of the Dalmatia article, it says In September 1941, Italy's fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, ordered the military occupation of the entire Dalmatian coast, including the city of Dubrovnik ("Ragusa"), and islands such as Vis (Lissa) and Pag (Pago) which had been given to the puppet Independent State of Croatia of Ante Pavelić. Mussolini tried to annex these areas to the Governorship of Dalmatia creating the province of Ragusa di Dalmatia, but was temporarily stopped by the strong opposition of Pavelić, who retained nominal control of them. In other words, they took over part of the independent state. Then, as you said, it was annexed. So therefore, the region passed through these forms of control: State of Croatia -> Dalmatia -> State of Croatia. So, after it was croatia, it was Dalmatia (and then Croatia again) so it was the successor for that area. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 20:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Duetos (Armando Manzanero album)

On 30 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Duetos (Armando Manzanero album), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the album Duetos, despite receiving mixed reviews, sold more than 100,000 copies within three weeks of release? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Duetos (Armando Manzanero album). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Duetos (Armando Manzanero album)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I see you reviewed Dakota MRT station for GA status

As I promised, what food items (no alcohol) would you like from me? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... could I have some Baklava and some Stroopwafels? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 19:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Give me a second Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep sure :) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 14:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Good topic removal candidates/Asteroid belt/archive3

Wikipedia:Good topic removal candidates/Asteroid belt/archive3, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Good topic removal candidates/Asteroid belt/archive3 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Good topic removal candidates/Asteroid belt/archive3 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JHD0919 (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello FloblinTheGoblin! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Circular/Self reference cleanup templates, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

February 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

		The Minor Barnstar
		This award is given to FloblinTheGoblin for accumulating at least 3 points in the February 2026 GAN Backlog Drive. Your dedicated reviews contributed to the successful reduction of the backlog and helped improve the quality of articles. Here's our token of appreciation. Thank you for your time and efforts, and hopefully we'll see you soon again! Fade258 (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

SailorChibiMoon797

I've bumped their block to site wide indefinite per WP:CIR. Their messages in response to the earlier block make it clear they simply do not have an adequate comprehension of English to be editing here. I don't think they understand any of the messages that have been left on their talk page or any of my replies to their requests to be unblocked. I hate blocking users who are obviously well intentioned, but in this case I'm afraid it's necessary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Got it, thank you for the update. I hope they can find a wiki to edit in their native language, whatever it may be. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 19:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

சப்னா முகர்ஜி moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to சப்னா முகர்ஜி. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Modern Girl (Bleachers song) (May 14)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, RangersRus, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for music. The draft requires either:

• evidence that the subject meets any of the specific criteria for music;

or multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

It is often easier to prove the notability of an album or artist than an individual song or band member. If the subject is not yet notable, consider improving a relevant existing article instead.

Euphoriazine is a blog and unreliable. Pastemagazine is not review but a non-independent source. You need reliable independent secondary source with reviews from music critics.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Modern Girl (Bleachers song) to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

RangersRus (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello FloblinTheGoblin! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Discovered foreign language article, what do I do?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Amazing job at keeping discussions civil and calm! Robloxguest3 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Why thank you! 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 16:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello FloblinTheGoblin! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Files for improvement, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

ฉันมีครอบครัวแล้วอย่าทักมาอีกนะ

คุยเป็นเพื่อนได้ ~2026-42134-31 (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

About Bosnia…

Hi Floblin,

I am investigating and am trying to precisely diagnose when and how/why things took a turn for the absurd, silly, and ironic (and, overall, quite embarrassing for Wikipedia) regarding that Bosnia article. Please help me with this by explaining what happened in this RM: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1336918548#Requested_move_22_January_2026

… To clearly differentiate the entities (as they are called in the constitution) from the municipalities and cantons (which are also divisions). …

Can you explain that? The article was about administrative divisions (aka "political divisions" or "subdivisions") of a country. So what was there to differentiate? The administrative divisions of this country comprise entities, a district as a condominium of the entities, cantons in the entity that has them, and municipalies and cities—all of the mentioned existing at their respective levels.

This was an article like Subdivisions of Switzerland or Administrative divisions of Mexico or Administrative geography of the United Kingdom.

If the article covering administrative divisions of Bosnia did not differentiate well between the different types of administrative divisions … why is that a topic for an RM? Would it not not have made sense to … differentiate? As in, fix the article prose to differentiate better. What does it have to do with the title? The title was a generic concept denoting the scope that includes all types of administrative divisions. It is illogical to say that "administrative division / political division / subdivision” does not differentiate "entity" from "municipality” or "canton". That is like saying Vegetable does not differentiate Potato from Tomato and Carrot, and then moving Vegetable to Potato.

Is it the case that certain content discussing some of the divisions was missing, so instead of fixing the issue by adding the missing content to an incomplete article, you came to believe that this is an article exclusively about the first-level administrative divisions? —Alalch E. 15:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, content discussing all of the subdivisions other than the first level ones was missing. Here is the revision as of when the move request was started. The cantons are mentioned, but the municipalities and other things were solidly missing. Furthermore, the infobox states that there are only three political divisions, and has various statistics that correspond solely to those three. To me, this is essentially equivalent to if you went to Political divisions of Russia and it said there were only 89, I would assume they were only talking about federal subjects. From what I've seen, for some states (here meaning country) it is not necessary to have a comprehensive article about the political divisions if they are each covered separately. For example, Political divisions of the United States redirects to a list of states and territories (i.e, first level divisions), and there is a separate article for Local government in the United States (towns, townships, counties, and whatever else). Additionally, the cantons have their own page, but the entities have no other page.

TL;DR: I assumed that the name was the wrong name for the right article as opposed to the other way around. I don't think there was any issue with starting a move request as opposed to adding the other divisions to the article, I believe the issue arose with the chosen name, which in 20/20 hindsight was god-awful and caused numerous issues. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 14:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

In other words, the article was completely about the entities, and the entities has no article unto themselves, so I assumed the article title was incorrect and needed to be changed. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 14:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. That is understandable. I understand the perspective. … But I would have never seen the article in that way and as needing that change. I would have seen a short and not a well-developed article at a conventional title for a high-level country topic, with content that does not meet the reader's expectations for an article about the denoted topic, with partial, non-comprehensive coverage, and I would have put it on some list on which to work or tagged with {{missing information}}, or added a skeleton section with {{empty section}}. A Wikipedia article itself is not instructive as to what a finished article (such as a recently promoted Featured-class article) on the subject should say; sources are. The thing is, that was a good topic for an article, a properly-scoped topic, and was a more discoverable title. Having an article solely about the entities at all is questionable because there are only two of them, and they are quite different from each other (that is a part of the reason that they are named "things" basically; each is a sui generis thing in its own right, ergo "entity"). When treating them as a genus, there is not much to say about what they have in common, and what is different is precisely described when one continues to describe the rest of the levels. And, then, to additionally complicate things, since Brčko District is for all practical purposes a third first-level administrative component (notionally a condominium) and is explicitly not an entity in the relevant sense (so it is a third different thing), no title based on the term "entities" denotes the correct and complete scope for an article about all three first-level divisions. … to cover only the first-level administrative divisions, a title based on "entities" would not be suitable because it excludes Brčko, and yet a third title would have to be invented. Those are my thoughts on this. No specific actionable points in mind currently, but maybe I'll think of something up eventually. —Alalch E. 15:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that, I just didn't see it that way at the time. I still don't think an article about all the subdivisions together is necessary, nor do I think they are too different from each other to be put together (I mean, look at Local government in the United States or Federal subjects of Russia). As far as there only being two, you raise a good point there. The only thing I can think of is that the article should focus on what can be said about them taken together, and their differences but... I don't know. And with the Brcko District... well, nobody can really decide what it is, and it doesn't really have a category, so I don't know of anything you could add to the title to make it more clear. I mean, you could go with the generic First-level administrative division but even that could be controversial because that implies it isn't a condominium, which I think would be an NPOV problem unless we can find the sourcing to back up that it is 100% de facto equally sovereign as the other two. So, I don't know. I can see the point you're making, and if you want to bring that up in the discussion at the main page, feel free (although I would wait until after we've improved the name at least). Perhaps I should've seen it that way originally, I don't know. But those are my thoughts. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 20:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts about this. —Alalch E. 21:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations RfC

Hi FloblinTheGoblin,

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC, which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.

By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.

Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 16:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)