Template talk:AfC submission

Add topic
Active discussions

WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.WikiProject icon
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Bot proposal (AFC submission templates)Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Bot proposal (AFC submission templates). There is a proposal to have a bot add {{AfC submission/draft}} to all new pages in the draft namespace. --Ahecht (TALK
) 18:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit requestEdit

Template:AfC submission/comments

Change the notability decline text (and changing the sng declines' texts can't be that far fetched) to what is mentioned below.

This submission's referencing does not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. See an explanation for our inclusion guidelines here.

In summary: the sourcing in this article does not demonstrate significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Make sure you add additional references that meet these criteria before resubmitting (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.

VPR: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 189#Proposing a change to the notability declining message in AFCAssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Not done for now: The WP:VPR proposal has only been open for 26 hours at this point. Please wait a week and reopen to allow for any and all editors who have an opinion on the matter to give their thoughts. Thanks, Terasail[✉️] 04:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Reopening to request the bullet point proposal be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AssumeGoodWraith (talkcontribs) 00:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Re-closed. I don't see a clear consensus for it in that discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

RFC to Change Wording in Article SpaceEdit

Should the text that is displayed when the {{AFC submission}} template is on an article in article space be changed? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The text that is displayed on an article that has the AFC submission template on it while in article space currently reads:

This article, XXXXX has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon.

Should it be changed to:

This article, XXXXX was recently moved from draft space to article space while it was in the Articles for Creation process. There are several reasons why this may have been done. Please check the history of this page and take appropriate action.


Explanation: There are several reasons why the page may have been moved to article space. An incompletely closed review is the least likely explanation.

The most likely reason is that the page was moved from draft space by the originator, rather than by a reviewer, either without AFC review, or ignoring AFC review. If so, the action may be to determine whether the page should be in article space, and, if necessary, to write an AFD nomination.

This wording has been discussed at length for years and has not been changed.


  • Support. Seems fine to change it. Another reason this message sometimes appears is when a UPE copy pastes wikicode from an offline save location, as part of a shady re-creation attempt. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. The existing wording is unhelpful and misleading. The proposed wording is more accurate. Inspecting the history of the page would help an editor assess whether the tag should (together with other AfC tags remaining in the markup) should simply be removed, or whether it might need to be draftified / speedily deleted etc. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. As Curb Safe Charmer says, the existing wording is confusing, and is usually not correct. Since there are several possible reasons, it is a good idea to look at the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - constructive uncontrversial change which removes the apparent "blessing" of a reviewer when a unilateral decision to move to mainspace is made. History inspection can show an incomplete AFCH process, a valid unilateral move, move warring, and other salient matters. While it should be done in these circumstances anyway it is well to have the prompt 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose the new phrasing because of issues mentioned below, but I support the general idea. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose this particular text change. I have no objection to improving the text. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak support Support idea, would like to see a more concise phrasing, though. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak support 100% support the idea - the current wording is so wrong for non AfC reviewer moves and when properly reviewed you almost never see, so the wording has always been very misleading. Not so sure about the new wording, but better than the existing. KylieTastic (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


Robert McClenon, two questions: first, why is this being discussed here instead of the much-more-viewed WT:AFC, and second, why is this an RFC? I'm pretty sure the AFC crew can make an informed decision to update the wording without needing a full RFC. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It has been discussed many times, although not recently, in various places including AFC, and it never gets fixed. This, or one of the templates that this template transcludes, is what needs to be changed, and it gets discussed, and there is agreement that the message is usually wrong, and nothing happens. If the AFC crew will change the wording, then I will be glad to withdraw the RFC. It has been confusing some people for years. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough (and for the record, this wasn't meant to be any sort of chastisement, just genuine questions). I'll cross-post to WT:AFC for more feedback. Primefac (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"and take appropriate action"? Is there any case in which the template should not be removed if it is in article space? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

If the page was created directly in the article space (e.g. a copy/paste from a deleted draft) it could be moved to the Draft space, wherein the template would no longer need to be removed. Primefac (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
In that case it doesn't need to go through AfC anyway because that editor can clearly create pages by themself. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I support some similar change in principle, but "There are several reasons why this may have been done." seems hopelessly vague. Maybe "This may be an attempt to circumvent the AfC process." might be a better version of the first sentence? Rusalkii (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The statement that there "are several reasons why this may have been done" (the page could have been moved to article space) is intentionally vague because a list would be too long for a template (and might not be all-inclusive anyway). The instruction to take appropriate action after checking the history is intentionally vague because appropriate action depends on what the reason was, and a more complete explanation would be much too long for a template.
User:Rusalkii I avoided saying that the editor might be bypassing AFC review, both because that is only one reason why the page was moved, and because I didn't want to restart the arguments about when AFC review should be required, strongly encouraged, encouraged, or permitted. One possible action would be to write an information page explaining what some of the reasons may be and what the actions are.
At this point, the question is whether the template should continue to say that the article has been accepted and the reviewer will soon remove the template, or to make the intentionally vague statement. In my opinion, the intentionally vague statement is better because it is accurate, even if vague, while the current wording is usually wrong.
User:Jochem van Hees asks whether there is any case when the template should not be removed when the article is in article space. In my opinion, it should be left on until the history is reviewed by a reviewer who takes appropriate action. Depending on the circumstances, the appropriate action might be:
  • Remove the template because the article was accepted but the script did not finish the acceptance (what it now implies).
  • Remove the template because the article was moved into article space by a non-reviewer, and should be in article space.
  • Push the article back into draft space, leaving the template(s) on as a review record.
  • Nominate the article for deletion.
  • Tag the article for speedy deletion.
See, I told you that it was too long a list to go in a template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talkcontribs)
Yeah I guess it makes sense to wait for someone who knows what they are doing to remove the template. But those people then also don't need any instruction from this template anyway right? Maybe at most a link to the policy. The "take appropriate action" part might as well be removed then I think. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - Does anyone want to propose a second alternate wording? Since there are several possible reasons, I don't want to see anything that oversimplifies. Taking no action will leave the current oversimplification in use, which has been confusing reviewers for a few years. (The current wording, that a reviewer has not finished the review action, is occasionally true, but much more often it is something else.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    How about something along the lines of: "This page is a draft in article space. Attention from a reviewer is needed to take appropriate action." It's not vague and still keeps options open for what to do. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


compact-ambox is a class that is used principally by {{multiple issues}} which makes amboxes "collapse" to their primary text and date (judicious hiding of specific elements, etc.). There are two uses in subpages, one added to /declined a decade ago and one in /rejected copy-pasted from there. Is this template actually used in the way that {{multiple issues}} is used, and if so, can someone provide an example?

My motivation is TemplateStyling the *mbox system; right now, these two subpages and multiple issues are the only uses of this class, so that's an opportunity to limit the use of the class only to where {{multiple issues}} is used rather than putting it in the core ambox styles. (I'll limit it regardless, so this is more me trying to get ahead of a much later curve.) Izno (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Um... neither of these templates currently uses |class=compact-ambox... am I missing something? Primefac (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Ignore me, I asked the question right after Izno removed the class... Primefac (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Heh, yeah. Basically, the question is whether you put any kind of ambox inside afc submission. From a super brief purview of uses, I think the answer is no, but I could be wrong. Izno (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)