Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList
ShowcaseAssessmentParticipants
Talk
Reviewing instructions
Helper script
Help
desk
Backlog
drives

Welcome to the main articles for creation WikiProject talk page
AfC submissions
Random submission
2+ months
4,668 pending submissions
Purge to update


WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated Project-class)
This page 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
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.

AFC archives

Contents

Chart: Pending AfC submissionsEdit

Adding and making a sticky with a do-not-archive template:

--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Excellent!! --CNMall41 (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: - what is the definition of v.old? Nosebagbear (talk)
Very old is pending for 9+ weeks. What is labelled as 8+ weeks is really just 8 weeks (those pending for at least 8 weeks, but less than 9 weeks). --Worldbruce (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
"8 weeks+" plot should be removed. ~Kvng (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer not responding to concernsEdit

Thankfully this is a case of a little miscommunication and some out-of-date browsers. Feel free to continue the bugfix discussion in a subsection if necessary. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple editors have expressed concern on Dan's talk page (permalink to thread) about excessive numbers of rejections (not declines) on drafts that could be notable; from what I have seen of the various rejections most fail WP:V (and definitely should be declined) but make claims that would seem (if verified) to meet WP:GNG or at the very least WP:CCSI. Are the editors that posted on his talk justified in their concerns? If so, should Dan be admonished, put on "one more chance" status, or removed from AFC? The last option would require them to re-apply through WP:AFC/P should they wish to continue reviewing. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I've already provided my concerns, so I'll answer the 2nd part as to action. Notwithstanding a great explanation for actions, I'm inclined to say that if Dan engages then he should revert to a 2 month parole status (somewhere between an admonishment and a "1 chance"), and we can make an ongoing/concluding judgement. If he continues not to engage, then I don't see what choice we have but to remove him. Much like Admins, reviewers must be willing the engage and explain their reasoning for their actions. - given browser concerns Nosebagbear (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Follow-up, I wanted to specifically stress Primefac's comment that the yes/no decision part has been made (afaict) flawlessly. It's purely the decline/reject aspect. Nosebagbear (talk)
The above (initial) comment should be viewed as in abeyance until the decline to reject aspect has been considered in more detail Nosebagbear (talk)
  • I am one of those that voiced my concerns. While the lack of engagement with his peers is worrying, Dan's most recent AfC activities have been accepts or declines, rather than rejects, so hopefully our feedback on his talk page has been heeded. I suggest we monitor for the timebeing. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I raised this with Dan arndt a couple weeks ago. He replied on my talk page, and that's where the discussion continued. He concluded that the AFCH script was turning his declines into rejects (except those he was reviewing using mobile devices). Wolfson5 and Calliopejen1 have mentioned the AFCH script behaving that way as well. Enterprisey looked at it when it was first reported, but I'm not aware of any resolution. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
That's bizarre but would obviously render the concerns thus far rather moot (though communicating to a mass of editors on your talk page is somewhat key)...has anyone else come across this. I look at declines when I make them, but I'll have a look through a mix of my prior declines to see if it's happened to me. If a few others could do the same that's not unreasonable. Pinging @Enterprisey: as he might be helpful to the discussion. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nosebagbear:, @Primefac:, @Curb Safe Charmer: It seems that this has snowballed into a potential avalanche. Firstly I have been busy in real life for the last week, which has meant that I haven't been checking WP, which is why I haven't been responding - I can understand people immediately jumping to the conclusion that I have avoided responding to them however this isn't the case. As indicated by Worldbruce I have already indicated that there appears to be a problem with the AFCH script which appears to automatically turn my declines into rejects, except when I'm using my tablet. I'm not certain what the cause is but I certainly haven't being doing it deliberately as some editors appear to be implying. As also previously indicated I have generally being dealing with those AfC requests, where it is obvious that they are unlikely to ever satisfy the requirements for notability - such as copyright infringements, paraphrasing, blatant advertising, complete lack of sources/references and even then I have always put a description of why I have declined them rather than relying solely on the AFCH script. In addition I don't always decline AfC requests - occasionally where I see that article satisfies or potentially could satisfy notability requirements I go in and edit the article to bring it up to scratch and then approve it. I have also tried to be diligent where a user contact me directly I respond directly to them - with the last week being the exception. I hope that the above clarifies your concerns. If you have any further queries let me know. Dan arndt (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Dan arndt: - I believe the judgement on lack of response is because of your activity on days after the concerns were raised. As with regard to the AFCH script, hopefully Enterprisey can take a look at it when he gets a spare bit of time. I've not had the chance to check back over mine yet, should do that tonight. Query - do they immediately appear as rejections, rather than declines? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd just like to ping @Calliopejen1 and Wolfson5: as they both reported instances (though less "standard" than in Dan Arndt's case) of the same issue. Wolfson has been inactive for a fair while, but CalliopeJen - if you've reviewed since you noted the issue in June, has it reoccurred? If this is affecting multiple users then this is a more major issue. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it happens every time (as far as I know) that I do/did a review from IE on my work computer. I stopped doing reviews there to avoid the issue. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Dan arndt: - could you try a review in a different browser (but still on your computer) to see if the issue persists? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, will give it a shot Nosebagbear but I’m just about to crash for the night - will do it in the morning. Dan arndt (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough! Nosebagbear (talk)
Sorry had a bit of work to catch up on first. Well Nosebagbear I just tried using Google Chrome for User:23csmooth/sandbox and the AFCH script worked perfectly. However when I tried it just using Google - User:Andrewjmeade/sandbox the AFCH script states the article was rejected (even though I hit Decline not Reject). Which is weird given my mobile devices just use Google. Does that help with this ongoing mystery. Dan arndt (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Dan arndt: Google you say. What browser is that? Google is just a search engine. And Google Chrome is a browser developed by Google. Masum Reza📞 07:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
That's bad. Will investigate tomorrow and post an update. My apologies to Dan (and everyone else affected) for the stress and issues. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
My Bad Masumrezarock100, I'm not exactly computer literate - its Internet Explorer... (I think that's what you were after). Dan arndt (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. If you are having problems with IE, then you shouldn't use it. Most of the versions of IE are now outdated. Masum Reza📞 08:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Only problem with that is that it is the default browser for my work computer & the IT department take dim view of me changing things like that. Dan arndt (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I know the above discussion was closed a couple of weeks ago, but I am in a similar situation to User:Dan arndt where my work-supplied computer requires the use of Internet Explorer 11, and that browser incorrectly rejects drafts that should've been declined instead. My solution was to turn off AFCH in my preferences, and instead add the following lines to my Special:MyPage/common.js:

if ( $('<div style="color:#ffd"></div>')[0].outerHTML != '<div style="color:#ffd"></div>' ) {
	mw.loader.load( '//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Enterprisey/afch-old.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' ); // AFCH old script [[User:Enterprisey/afch-old.js]]
} else {
	mw.loader.load( '//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' ); // AFCH beta script [[MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js]]
}

This will detect incompatible versions of Internet Explorer and load the older pre-reject version of the script in those cases. I'm not sure if it's worth having User:Enterprisey add a similar IE detection routine to the master script. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 18:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Been fairly busy IRL, yeah, but getting on a computer with IE installed and testing this out is definitely a priority for me. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Idea: AFCBot to cleanup stuff upon submissionEdit

You know, there's a lot of small potatoes cleanup that can/should be done upon submission. So, to make the life of reviewers more simple, I propose that whenever an article is submitted

  • User:AFC bot (or whatever we call it) applies WP:AWB general fixes and moves the submission template to the top of the page. This would make the 'Cleanup submission' thing of the AFCH script irrelevant.
  • That same bot asks User:Citation bot to cleanup and tidy the citations.

What's the feeling on this? Should I go make a WP:BOTREQ? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support This will make reviewing a lot more easier. Masum Reza📞 08:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral at the moment (surprise surprise) but if we're going to have Citation bot do its tidying thing, it might make sense to either re-use the same code with this new bot or just have Citation bot do the submission cleaning as well. Saves an edit. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Can't, Citation bot deals purely with citations, it's not approved to do general tidying up, and will never be. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm concerned that potentially substantial and cryptic changes may be disorienting to new authors with minimal wikitext skill. I do improve primitive reference formatting just enough to make links clickable so it is easier to check them. I think adding {{citation}} templates may be going too far. This stuff can wait until the article is in mainspace and collaboration starts to happen and WP:GNOMEs do their thing. ~Kvng (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    The problem is that most GNOMEs don't edit AFC submissions. At least I haven't seen them. I think they wait for the articles to be moved to mainspace. Masum Reza📞 19:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see this as a problem. Gnomes would be wasting a lot of their time working on drafts and new authors may not appreciate the help. ~Kvng (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Citation bot just tidies the existing information, adds the missing stuff, and converts bare links URLs when it can. E.g. [1], [2], etc... Not doing that just makes things harder to review and assess. If authors are missing, it's hard to tell if a source is independent or not. If you just have a bare url, instead of a titled link, that makes it even harder to asses what the source is about. If DOIs are missing, it makes it hard to find what journal they are citing. Note that I'm not talking about unleashed the bots during the drafting phase, only when the drafter tells us they're done with it and asks us to look at things. Having the submission templates on top (especially when a lot of them are at the bottom, with previous declinations on top, making it look like someone else already got to it), and the citations tidied will save a lot of time to reviewers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm all for adding any missing information to make the reference easier for reviewers to access. It is reformatting of existing information in drafts that I beleive is unnecessary and unwelcome. Also nothing wrong with reviewers improving ref formatting or anything else before accepting (or rejecting) a draft. I just don't think we need to or should apply automated changes to drafts while they're in the queue waiting for review. ~Kvng (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
What then, is the problem with this type of edit: [3], [4] ? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
No real problem with the first but the second introduces templates which are an unnecessary complication for new authors. ~Kvng (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
It also adds a lot of missing information which I would need as a reviewer. Raw URLs help no one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
How is a raw URL not helpful? ~Kvng (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It gives little to no indication of what the link is about and you basically need to click on every one of them to figure it out to make sure it's an appropriate reference. Which of

or

  • "UNDP's response to the Syria crisis – within Syria and in neighbouring countries".

is clear about what it's about without clicking on the link? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of the time an accurate description doesn't give you any more relevant information to assess WP:SIGCOV and WP:RELIABLE than the bare link. Exceptions are if the name of the subject appears in the title (good) or byline (bad). In any case, I'm not sure we should trust the description so I generally ctrl-click all links when reviewing. ~Kvng (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is a great idea but I like to manually do it as I actually decline many substandard drafts in the process, eliminating them from the queue.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - If Wikipedia will continue to use wikitext for editing, then for new users, it would be best to know how to manually cite the source specifically in draft space. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Geography of Brisbane, existing redirectEdit

Hello AfC. This draft would make a good article. However, there is currently a redirect set up that sends "Geography of Brisbane" to the article for Brisbane. The information in the draft is more substantial than the section on geography in the Brisbane article and therefore merits a standalone article. In addition, the AFCH helper noted that an article with the same title was deleted 11 years ago because it was created by a banned user. However, this current draft appears to have been part of a University project. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@AugusteBlanqui: If you intend to accept Draft:Geography of Brisbane, you may request that Geography of Brisbane be speedily deleted to make way for moving the draft, by placing on the redirect the template: {{Db-move|1=Geography of Brisbane|2=To make way for AfC acceptance of [[Draft:Geography of Brisbane]]}} --Worldbruce (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Worldbruce: for the help. I've requested the speedy delete. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I came across this in my reviewing and, since it has been waiting for 11 days, I went ahead and accepted it for you. ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

IP maskingEdit

The WMF has been thinking about the best ways to handle IP editing. The WMF-Community discussion is at m:Talk:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation. This is of particular concern for AfC, NPP, and others who control new content and combat vandalism. Please consider joining the discussion and weighing in with your pros and cons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Rejection without explanation is a little WP:BITEyEdit

I haven't been around AfC much since the introduction of the "Reject" feature in AFCH, but I am a bit disturbed by the number of rejections I am seeing recently where no explanation is given in the draft or on the author's talk page, and the edit summary is just "Rejecting submission: undefined (AFCH 0.9.1)". Some reviewers have been leaving a comment on the draft under the decline message with more info, but I think the software should require that a reason be given, especially if it is the first review and there are no previous declines. Even something as simple as "The subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements" or "This appears to be a test edit" would be better than just "Submission rejected". Yes, the author may not have a valid contribution now (perhaps they misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia), but we still shouldn't be WP:BITEing them as they may become a valid contributor in the future. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 18:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I also think there needs to be a bit more than just two reasons. In particular 'not notable' could be broken down to subcategories (e.g. athlete, prof, etc...). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The majority of these instances I've seen (all with explanations outside the red box) are by Dan, who does it that way because the software is playing up with his browser and he'd otherwise be unable to review. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

AFCH helper script and G6 nominationsEdit

I've been informed by User:Bilorv that "[the AFCH helper script's] acceptance button requires a non-existent title in the mainspace for the draft to be moved to", i.e. that an AFC reviewer cannot approve the draft before deletion of a an article or redirect in mainspace which would block the draft from being moved. (Further discussion took place at User_talk:Bilorv#Draft:Black_Christmas_(2019_film)).

WP:CSD#G6 states that "An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it." My usual workflow is to check the page which is to be moved, and relevant talk pages, and then - if I am happy to proceed - to use the "link to perform this move" link which appears as part of the speedy deletion template.

I fully accept the possibility that I'm doing things wrong :), but as an admin I'm not inclined to accept as "uncontroversial" a move to mainspace of a draft which has been rejected, nor does G6 permit me to just delete the redirect and forget about it.

I was wondering, therefore, whether it might be desirable to either: modify the script so that a draft can be approved concurrent with the issuance of the G6 request; or, tweaking the G6 message to make it clear that the requesting party is an AFC reviewer who is intent on approving the draft immediately.

Any thoughts or advice? --kingboyk (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

As a note, I am the person who tried to approve the article from draft using AFCH. I am not sure that AFCH approval should require the same level that otherwise completely nuking an article would. So I think having the tool generate the delete request...Naraht (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple WikiProject tagsEdit

Hellknowz and probably others have been WikiProject tags to pending draft talk pages. I've seen two problems with this:

  1. Articles remain marked as "Draft" class for the WP after acceptance
  2. If the reviewer also identifies relevant WPs, the accepted article ends up with duplicate tags (example)

Obviously this stuff can be cleaned up manually but maybe there are better ideas. ~Kvng (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed that too that some weird stuff happens between different scripts using different banner sources. I am not sure what can be done other than them all using the same central banner list. Not removing draft classification is probably the AFC script not detecting that template as banner. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Does the banner template auto-detect draft status? If so we could just leave out the parameter and it would be fine. Regarding the second point, I haven't gotten around to it yet. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
It does. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
So let's not put |class=Draft in these tags. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
That depends on the script. Like in the example above the Rater script doesn't add class unless told to. While an example like this edit uses the above-mentioned Draft sorter, which auto-adds it. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Domestic Violence in South KoreaEdit

I chanced upon this draft the other day which was rejected on the basis that an article already exists in mainspace. The advice given was to merge this content into the existing article but this seems counterintuitive to me given the size of the draft compared to what is basically little more than a stub. Honestly, if I was to do a merge myself it would largely be a cut & paste job, but that would be a bad thing. Assuming the draft is otherwise ok, the most logical course (to me) would be to move the existing article to one side, move the draft into mainspace and redirect the original, perhaps reverse merging any usable content into the new article. Is that an appropriate course of action though? PC78 (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If the draft is written by a single author, it should be acceptable for that author to paste their draft contents into the mainspace stub. The main issue with WP:CUTPASTE is retaining attribution. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

A twofold questionEdit

Hello, I was recently added to AfC as a 2 month probationary member 1 week ago. So, from my knowledge, I will be assessed again after 2 months on my progress, and I was wondering if this process is automatic or I needed to apply again. Also, is there anything else that will help when I am reviewed again?

Second, I recently reviewed and denied Draft:Andrea Marinelli due to its lack of sources. However, the creator added new sources in Italian (that I do not speak), so can someone take a look at these sources? (I also seem to be getting 404 errors on these sources)

Thanks, Taewangkorea (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I had been working with the author on Draft:Andrea Marinelli. See Draft talk:Andrea Marinelli. I had not received a response about the 404 errors in almost a week so your decline was appropriate.
I don't know how AfC probation works. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Articles for creation".