Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

AFCH allowing more than one decline to go through at once

As stated here by both Jovanmilic97 and I, AFCH is allowing more than one decline to go through at once. Needless to say, this is unneeded, and possibly and quite unintentionally bitey. Hopefully, a fix will be in the works ASAP. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 21:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Enterprisey:. Given how long it's taken to discover this, I imagine this is not an urgent problem, because the edits likely have to be pretty close to each other. Nevertheless, it should be addressed if it's a simple fix. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

This has been mentioned before, with the issue seemingly being fixed in '17. Primefac (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, this is what is known in computing as a race condition. There is basically no right way to deal with these. In regular article edits and talk page edits (more common on talk pages), this results in edit conflict, which prevents the race, but is extremely clumsy in dealing with the second editor. In AFCH I have seen two declines at the same time, both permitted, as described here, which results in a double decline message, and I have seen two acceptances. Complicated results can occur if one reviewer is trying to move a sandbox to draft space and another is trying to decline it. I would suggest that we try to address this problem at the most general possible level, with regard to race conditions in general, rather than any specific type of race condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Stubs by PPP001

Hi guys, with respect to "state constituency" stubs by PPP0001, of which I am seeing a number come through (accepted or declined) - we are currently having a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Large_number_of_constituency_stubs_by_PPP001 about this. Feel free to pop in, might save some duplication of effort. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

AFCH bug

@Enterprisey: see this edit - if a wikiproject's templates are already there, it should edit them rather than duplicating them. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019 – phase 2

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects.

Phase 2 of the consultation has now begun; as such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2. All users are invited to express their views. Individual WikiProjects, user groups and other communities may also consider creating their own requests for comment; instructions are at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up. (To keep discussion in one place, please don't reply to this comment.) Jc86035 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sophisticated AFC subversion

For those who may not already be aware. Discussion at COIN.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As the backlog (thus the motive and opportunity) and number of volunteers (means) grew, this was always likely to happen. Now to stop myself bubbling with rage. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. I started to go through the list and then backed off as I was pretty pissed off. Need to chill a few days before I am able to do it with a clear and level head.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

New Thread

Ahmad Narvaw Walla - also known as MANZOOR AHMAD RATHER is BORN in MALPORA NARVAW on 14th January, 1990, the first child of Mr. Bashir Ahmad Rather, a High School Teacher. Manzoor Ahmad Rather passed his Childhood in his native Countryside, west Baramulla, the Narvaw, Jammu and Kashmir. Till the year 2001 he was admitted in a local school, Islamia Model High School Malpora, as he passed 5th Standard, his parents admitted him in a Boarding school, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Shahkote, Baramulla. He passed his 12 th standard in 2007 with Science Stream from Government Higher Secondary School Fatehgarh. In 2010 he graduated from Govt. Degree College Boys Baramulla with English Literature. He is M.A. in History and English Literature. In 2016 he submitted his M.Phil dissertation on Partition - Pain and Pathos of Women. Presently he is persuing P.hD. on the same selected topic Partition - Pain and Pathos of Women. He Visited many Cities in India for education and Research purpose, like Dehradun, Indore, Bhopal, Delhi, Hyderabad, Nagpur, Amravati, Mumbai, Punjab. During his College days in Bar. S.K. Wankhede University's College Of Education Nagpur University , He has been active in student Politics, and was the Member of Baba Saheb Ambedkar Students Organisation , Nagpur University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad Narvaw Walla (talk • contribs)

@Ahmad Narvaw Walla: - this isn't the place to add entire drafts, best to ask on the help page if you need some help with the process. As a side note, you shouldn't try to add an autobiographical article on wikipedia - it's strongly discouraged as it's almost impossible to write without bias. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Create this articles

Articles for Creation - redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for Creation

G-tolerance

Fainting on roller costers

83.20.176.239 (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC), I represent Monniasza

@83.20.176.239 and Monniasza: - we don't create mainspace articles here except in the form of taking a complete draft and turning it into an article. I also wasn't sure what you meant by representing another user. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The place to ask for this is WP:RA Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

June events with WIR

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125 Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red: Virtual events: New topics: Pride / Royals / Space Geofocus: Mediterranean Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Accept failing for Reed trio

I've made two attempts to accept Reed trio. Both times, the page gets moved to mainspace, but the browser window (I'm using Chrome 74.0.3729.169 on MacOS) hangs and the AfC template isn't removed. Any idea what's wrong? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Did this happen with anything else? It's likely a hangup on your end - I seem to recall it happens sometimes if there's a disconnect between user and server. For what it's worth, if it does this, just clean it up manually - I know it's a hassle but it avoids having four moves in the history. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Chart

Is there something like this available to track AfC backlog. We're out to about 10 weeks at this point. ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

so what with the issue of looking into wrong English or misplace words.....~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.250.176.180 (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kvng: - there was User:Primefac/AFCStats (now well out of date) by @Primefac:, but I'm not aware of a set-up that isn't dependent on one user having enough time to collate the stats. I'd be happy for someone to say we have the figures/graphs somewhere Nosebagbear (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Why yes, there is. As an interesting note, we're almost smack dab in the middle of the "upswing" (see the "view all" version), which indicates that we might actually start decreasing soon. However, the backlog is pretty huge... Primefac (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Primefac Hi, May I know what do these numbers "216, 218, 220, 222,224,226" on "View less page" represent ? and what do these numbers "100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600" on "view all page" represent?Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

It's a three-axis graph, so the overall count (blue) uses the left y-axis, while the "very old" count (red) uses the right y-axis. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Primefac the numbers I referred to is on the right not the left side. what are those represent? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The "very old" count, shown on the graph in red. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course, it is a three-axis graph. My brain was somewhere else yesterday :). Thank you Primefac for taking the time to answer my question. cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Not to nitpick an otherwise helpful graph but Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old currently has 475 drafts but the graph is showing only 190. ~Kvng (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There'sNoTime, any thoughts on that? Primefac (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac and Kvng: That tool is set to look at Category:AfC pending submissions by age/8 weeks ago ^(API) - could definitely change it to look at "Very old" if preferred? - TNT ^💖 19:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There'sNoTime, it should be Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old to show backlog overflow. When that is fixed Primefac may need to reconsider his "upswing" conclusion. ~Kvng (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, given that we haven't had any more than maybe 5 in the very old category since that chart started collecting data, I suppose the 8+ week data was sufficient until this recent upswing... Primefac (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is misleading to call this "8+ week data." It is the number of drafts submitted between 8 and 9 weeks ago. ~Kvng (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Backlog is still rising. Chart is giving an "Account Suspended" error. ~Kvng (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Chart is back online. New Very old plot is working but using the LHS scale which is maybe what what we want, maybe not. Anyone object to removing the 8 weeks+ plot? ~Kvng (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Primefac, I don't quite understand the "Very old" part of the graph. The current count for the Very old category is 700+, while the chart shows ~100. Could you clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  The chart shows it at 700+; it's reading off the left axis. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Primefac thank you for the clarification. It's a bit confusing since there are now three plotlines on the chart. Similar to Kvng I would suggest removing "8 weeks" plot from the chart, since its a "transit" category. "Very old" would provide a better picture of the backlog instead. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Don't look at me, I just use it. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: can we remove the 8 weeks+ plot now? ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2019

223.231.68.4 (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Hiii I didn't find an Article about Stark Maliyk. He is an musical artist.

Spotify- https://open.spotify.com/artist/7xWYSq1Tr6z37mR9QwUdaj?si=l1Zau9dASya5WYkaMq8dyg

Google- Stark Maliyk https://g.co/kgs/7iyYXG

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

AFCH not removing AfC templates when accepting an article

Just as the section header says. I noticed this when I looked at a draft that DGG accepted, and now it's done it again with this one. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 12:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It is the same template that was left behind by the Afc submission of Reed trio, above, on the 25 May 2019. scope_creep^Talk 14:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Announcement: enhanced patrol/AFC acceptance logs

See Special:Permanentlink/899358779#Announcement:_enhanced_patrol/AFC_acceptance_logs. Please comment there. MER-C 14:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Review of a reviewer Process

I think it should be done privately. The talk page is essentially the spoken word, visible to everybody. There is a known psychological effect on a person when discussing that person in a group context, in the open, when they are the person getting spoken about. It degrades and corrodes them, breaks down their confidence, resulting a net negative loss both to them and to us, unless they are extremly robust and that is the exception. And that is the reason and the norm in Europe and the UK to hold such a meeting like this in private. Any University Court or learned society would use that approach or professional company. It takes as much risk out of the process as possible, preserves the dignity of the person and reduces the probability of the process becoming errant. There is many examples, recent examples where the effect turned into a kind of almost drunken mess. You start with a rationale idea at the beginning and after several days its gone south.

It should be: Prepare the evidence beforehand, select 3 or 5 editors in good standing, and then do a short interview and discussion that takes no more than 4 hours in private, thereby reducing disruption to both the person and Wikipedia. Then publish the outcome and the evidence if the outcome is remove. If it is not remove, then close it with a quiet word on the talk page. It is always puzzled me from the get-go why we have not had something in place like this beforehand and that is the clearest indicator yet that Wikipedia is not a learned society. It really a kind of short-termism. scope_creep^Talk 22:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, one reason is that with very small exception we've never really needed to review reviewers. They're either good enough to keep, or they're so bad that it can be done unilaterally by an admin without much discussion. I implemented the "review of reviewers" system after I screwed up that one time (because I am an admin but there should have been discussion). I thought acting as a neutral mediator I could field complaints, collate the ones that seemed significant, and post them for general review. I'm starting to think (based on not only the above discussion but how previous reviews have gone) that this isn't the best of systems. (I know, the road to hell, etc etc)

Given how few of these reviews we've had, I'd say just go back to the status quo of only dealing directly with the "clearly ineffective"/CIR reviewers. We're all volunteers here, we all make mistakes, and really only the people in the aforementioned category really need to be removed. Primefac (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

That's all of it there. You've summed it up. If they were clearly ineffective this conversation wouldn't have happened, they would have been gone. Competence is core. If they are fully competent, the conversation woudn't have happened either. Hence the reason I posted Warn. It is a clear borderline case. What do you do! I don't think Kvng is incompetent. We had a long discussion about software about three month ago. I thought it it was promotional, but another editor came in and informed me that software sources are based on a slightly different rationale and clearly consensus prior to the event. It was a good discussion and it worked, so the process is definitely working there. I think the choice of certain sources as RS are problematic but that is judgement. I'll leave it there for the moment. scope_creep^Talk 22:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a good place to leave it. I've closed the above discussion and will be encouraging editors who have concerns about other reviewers to talk to them directly. Primefac (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with the closing. It would probably be friendlier for all if we just encouraged more discussion of unsure cases with another reviewer or here, and let us dodge some of the review-reviewer Nosebagbear (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• It is agreeable closing. AfC talk page has been active with discussions of unsure drafts. Reviewers do join in and give opinions and share their knowledge, helping each other. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose ScopeCreep's proposal of setting up a self-chosen kangaroo court and then taking removal decisions through them. Transparency is a fundamental value and I will urge others to be not part of such vehicles. If anybody chooses to have a private talk about anybody's reviews, that's OK and I don't spare a bother but anything more than that is in clear prohibited territory (for me). Once you start taking decisions through off wiki foras (as someone from the IRC days may remember), things start going downhill rapidly. ∯WBG^converse 12:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly - it's also rather arrogant, as we'd be setting up a completely different review method than every other permission Nosebagbear (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I figured it would controversial even though it is the standard way it done in the west and has been since the 1970's as far as I know, mostly because they realise the value of people to a level that we haven't seen here, mostly due to being volunteers. I think it very short-termist that way the processes work here at the moment, the idea that there is an endless supply of new people coming in when it is now clear now that is not happening the way it is supposed to. I don't think self chosen courts would be the way to go. You trust senior people, administrators, bureaucrats and stewards, whatnot, to do the job or you don't. Trust is the core part of it. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There are fundamental differences between how we operate and how those entities, whom you point at, operate. Both has it's own share of advantages and disadvantages. Frankly, there's a whole lot of academic material on the topic of open-door vs closed-door, achieving optimum transparency whilst resolving conflicts and all that. But, that's a debate worth going into over some other venue than this t/p. ∯WBG^converse 16:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Primefac:, can you shed some light upon the rate of receiving credible complains about competency of AfC reviewers? How many times have we reviewed someone in the above manner? Have you removed anyone, (who has passed probation), for competency issues? Does there exist a list? ∯WBG^converse 16:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'll see about collating some bigger stats when I have more than five minutes to check my pings, but just from a quick search I found the following:

  Creating a standard "best practice" for problematic editors (May 2018)

  Review for May AFC reviewers (2018)

  Review for June AFC reviewers (2018)

  Review of a reviewer (Feb '19)

  Those were the discussions. As I said, I'll try and dig through my archives for removals for CIR reasons. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  I checked all the threads and found nothing resembling a pitch-fork brigade, turning out to have a go for the heads of a reviewer. There's nothing to fix and we ought to continue with the tried-and-tested method.

  I personally prefer that for the first time, you leave a note over the reviewer's t/p, explaining the issues in detail and asserting that continuation of non-optimal practices might lead to a revocation of flag. If he still continues in a similar fashion but you are not comfortable to outright yank it, open a discussion over here. ∯WBG^converse 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• As a note on the latter one (an actual review-reviewer) I'd definitely agree that waiting for the editor in question to comment is worthwhile, but we should probably remember to follow-up (says I, the person who made the last comment!) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• I am one of the very few people who make a point of checking prior reviews & reviewers. I see a substantial amount of less than perfect reviewing, but substantially less of the really bad reviewing that was not uncommon 3 or 4 years ago. (This is partly due to the various efforts to remove the worst reviewers, partly to the loss of interest in those not taking the job seriously, and partly to a more general agreement on standards). When I see a single incorrect review, I just review it properly, and try to make word my review to indicate the error. (if the original reviewer is watching, they'll see it and , I hope, understand.) IfI see several of the same sort from the same person, I'll mention it to them. Nowadays, they'll usually see what I mean. If they disagree, I don't press it unless its awful, and it's been over a year since there I've seen anyone that awful

Much more prevalent is inadequate reviewing , where a reviewer just leaves the form message. I do that too, when it meets the case. if it's hopeless ly promotional or impossibly non-notable, or not acceptable for other obvious reasons, the form message does say all that is necessary. But if the contributor is apparently making a sincere effort, they deserve some careful and specific explanation. I'll add it to the review if the macro lets me, and unless my whole message transfers to the user talk page, I'll add it manually. In what I say, I try to indicate specifically why there is a problem, wording it specifically enough to show that I have actually read the submission, not just glance at it. That's the key part--if the contributor just gets a form when they think they deserve a real response, they do what I do when someone sends me a form--I either ignore it, or get angry as well. I try to make concrete suggestions for what references are needed, and where to look for them. When appropriate, I try to indicate what part of the material is considered promotional .

Of course, this takes time. I can only look at maybe 10 articles a day at most, and write 2 or 3 detailed responses. But if everyone does some, instead of aiming for quantity, we would be able to keep up because there would be fewer useless resubmissions. It's those futile resubmissions that contribute half of the backlog. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I also tend to just check off boxes, partly because it's faster, and partly because most of it is just plain crap that's not worth wasting time on. When I write a long review, that's usually an indication that I feel the topic is really mainspace-track and the draft just needs some help to bring up to standards. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

• Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
• From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
• Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From an AfC point of view, it would be an additional new article route for content contribution from external experts.

It also acts as a quality-control mechanism for existing Wikipedia articles, complementary to Featured articles, using established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, University of Sydney

The past few days, I've reviewed (and mostly accepted) a pile of excellent drafts. From what I can see, most of these are from OLES2129 at the University of Sydney, where I guess this is the end of the semester so all the projects are due. I'm not sure where the right place is to provide feedback, but I do want to thank the folks who ran and participated in this program.

The quality of drafts I've been reviewing is several steps better than the usual fare at WP:AfC; it has really been a pleasure to read them. It's good to know there are still people writing high-quality articles on interesting and valuable topics. As opposed to the usual deluge of self-promotion and spam. Thank you everybody for your efforts. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this is way better than the usual crap. Well done, University of Sydney! PrussianOwl (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Any time there is something other than a non-notable promotion/copyvio is time for a congratulations to the author. :P Great job with these drafts, indeed.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Same here, it is always a pleasure to review and red excellent drafts from university students and University of Sydney makes the list. Thank you University of Sydney! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

COI editor bypassing AFC

I recently noticed that an editor with a self-declared conflict of interest had created a page Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance on the organisation they are associated with. Per WP:COIEDIT's "[COI editors] should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly", I moved it to draftspace and told them to submit it to AfC. They objected to my edit due to a previous unrelated interaction we have had and moved it back a few days later on the grounds that "The CO[I] has not effect on the content of the page, which is merely descriptive". This is of course false as COI editors have biased judgements in determining notability of a page, and furthermore the page contains non-neutral fragments like "[CSMBR] encourages the widest international cooperation amongst scholars and students by means of its awards and travel grants" and "advocacy research [...] is incompatible with the very mission of the Centre". Would the page have been accepted were it an AfC submission? If not, can someone else move it back to draftspace? — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Bilorv I have moved to draft space. cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 26 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move. (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects → Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories

– Short description on the page says "Wikipedia project page for requesting redirects and categories." Masum Reza^📞 21:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Primefac (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: this requested move was migrated from the talk page of the subpage that is requested to be renamed, which presently redirects to this page. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  03:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Alternative It's better just to split the function of the page in two, and create Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories as a separate page. This would allow special instructions, since creating categories have special issues. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @70.51.201.106: Thanks for your opinion on the matter but that won't be helpful much. As there are two scripts to handle redirect and category requests (one is AFC and other one is AFC/R), we have to modify the scripts if we split the main page into two pages. Unless those scripts get updated we won't be able to close requests easily. Masum Reza^📞 08:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, my alternative does involve modifying the wizard interface and related scripts. It however shouldn't be too difficult. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support – I've long found it weird that it omits categories from the title. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed subpage title makes a lot more sense than the present title that unexplainably "noincludes" categories. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  00:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Not a bad idea. Sam Sailor 07:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support as noted this also does categories to, I would also support even WP:Miscellany for creation but there is Wikipedia:Files for upload and this doesn't appear to do other things such as templates which has Wikipedia:Requested templates. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - seems reasonable. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Pre-migration discussion

Comment it would have been better to discuss this at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation, you could have accomplished this using Requested Move Multiple and defining the pages to be moved manually. That would leave the redirected talk page here, which is needed after this discussion is over anyways (so a special archival to the talk archives of the WPAFC talk page archives will be necessary when this closes) -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Yeah, it would make more sense for this to be at WT:AFC and for this talk page to redirect there. Should this discussion be moved, Masumrezarock100? I'm not sure why this talk page needs to exist at all. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Nah, I think the notices in the two most recent sections at the bottom of WT:AFC are more than sufficient. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  00:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC) I just noticed that this talk page was, in fact, a redirect to WT:AFC immediately before this discussion opened. Masumrezarock100, can I suggest that you migrate this discussion to WT:AFC as I intend to revert the removal of the redirect in line with WP:BRD. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Well I am the one who removed the redirect to place requested move template properly. Or else, RMCD bot wouln't add a tag to to WP:AFC/Redirects. Feel free to copy this discussion to WT:AFC. But if you remove this {{Requested move/dated}} template, RMCD bot will remove the move tag from it's main page. Masum Reza📞 04:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC) @Paine Ellsworth: I am going to copy this discussion to WT:AFC. But please don't remove this template from here. Nor delete this talk page until this discussion reaches consensus. Masum Reza📞 05:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC) @Masumrezarock100: I have undone your copy-paste to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, it is fine with just having the discussion here and a notification there. Best, Sam Sailor 07:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC) @Sam Sailor: Thank you. I was pretty confused myself on what to do. Masum Reza📞 07:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC) To editor Masum Reza: to be clear, this is the correct talk page for this requested move. Others here don't seem to understand the RMCD bot considerations, which just means that to have this discussion on any other talk page would result in a "malformed request". And the only way to fix it would be to transfer the move request back to this talk page. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  09:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC) @Paine Ellsworth: Yes indeed. I tried to place requested move template in WT:AFC before starting this discussion here. But it resulted in a malformed request and the move tag was placed on WP:PAFC by RMCD bot. So I removed the discussion from there. Masum Reza📞 09:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC) The RMCD bot still functions correctly if you use the correct template format. It needs to use the multimove format, which means specifying "current2" and "new2" instead of just "unnamed parameter 1" -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Sorry, don't see that option in the template documentation. How would any editor know to do this if it's not in the documentation? Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  15:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Okay, to test your instructions, which are not found either in the template documentation or at WP:RM, I followed them to the letter and with different variations. I was unable to make a requested move like this work on a different talk page, such as at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation (where I tested) using your instructions. So you must be talking about the following: Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move. That is found in the template documentation, and it works very well, even for moving just one page, but only when the first parameter is omitted or empty, |current1= and |new1= are used, and only when the talk page of the page to be moved redirects to the talk page on which the requested move is made. So back when this page redirected to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, this requested move could have been placed on that talk page using the following code: {{subst:requested move|reason=Short description on the page says "Wikipedia project page for requesting redirects and categories."|current1=Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects|new1=Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories}} That would have worked; however, it is not documented anywhere that I can find. I will document it at the template and at WP:RM, and all will hopefully agree that this discussion is important enough to keep and that this talk page should not be erased and redirected. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  01:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC) @Paine Ellsworth: This discussion is indeed important enough to keep, so now that we know how to use the RM template for this situation, I'll ask that Masumrezarock100 do so and migrate the existing discussion to WT:AFC as I intend to restore the redirect in line with WP:BRD. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC) My procedure was for manually moving the discussion as it was, without a new subst. (ie. manually rewriting the {{requested move/date}} coding. And it is not documented, since it's only for correcting mistakes in the original susbting. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC) FYI... this procedure has been added at WP:RM#Single page move on a different talk page and to the documentation page at Template:Requested move#Single page move on different talk page. Best to all! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  04:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Note: This procedure has been listed at WP:RM for requesting multiple page moves. Masum Reza📞 17:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I relisted this early since it was on a relatively-unwatched subpage, just so we can have more time for input. Primefac (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 8 June 2019

A protected redirect, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this:

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation]]

• to this:

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R with history}}
{{R for convenience}}
}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  23:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done (also reduced from FPROT to TPROT) — xaosflux ^Talk 23:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, xaosflux! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  04:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2019

Rameshrajan Palakkad Kerala Rameshrajanp (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You have not asked for any changes to be made to the page, or posed any meaningful topic for discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleting negative comments

What's our policy about authors deleting comments from drafts? I left some negative comments on Draft:RingDNA, which were reverted in Special:Diff/901286687 before resubmitting. I've been WP:INVOLVED in this, so I'll abstain from doing anything further, beyond bringing it to people's attention here. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I share your concern, and have placed {{uw-paid1}} on User talk:ThisIsZack. As it is, the draft plainly doesn't meet WP:CORP and has zero chance of being accepted, so I wouldn't worry about the comment they removed. I would let the draft wait until no draft has been waiting longer (currently about four months) then decline it, and repeat the process until the submitter gets bored and goes away. This is similar to the deny recognition approach to dealing with vandalism. Others might {{Db-g11}} the draft or reject it, but I suspect that would just lead to its rapid recreation and be a greater drain on reviewer time. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I usually re-add are old decline notices that have been removed by the editor/submitter, along with any comments that might be there. Can't think of a time when I've only added back comments that were removed, but I can see some comments (such as yours) being worth re-adding. Basically, we don't have a policy on it. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In response to the user warning, the submitter added a {{paid}} template to their user page. So I've added {{connected contributor (paid)}} to the draft's talk page. No one who has read the draft should be surprised. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is awesome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgra622 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Bug with AFC tool?

On two occasions in the last two days, I've used the AFC tool and selected decline, and it has posted a reject message. I'm using IE. Is this a known issue? What's going on? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Likely something on your end, but mostly I say that (only half in jest) because you're using IE. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Haha. Yes, I'm wasting a bit of time at work and it's the assigned default... Will try later when I'm on my home machine. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Wolfson5 reported what sounds like the same thing in February, using Microsoft Edge. If there was any resolution, I'm not aware of it. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it time for another backlog drive?

Hello everyone,

It seems that the backlog is rising back up to high levels (past 4,000). As we all continue to give our best efforts in reducing the wait times and backlog, it would make sense to bring a drive for a bit of "extra motivation". There are some AFC reviewers who are not very active and a drive could re-motivate them.

Drives have a high amount of success. At the New Page Reviewing drive, the backlog hit an all time low. Sadly, it creeped back it. Another example is the monthly GOCE drives. I have participated in several of those and it has reduced the backlog significantly.

We need to reclaim the AFC backlog and a drive may be the key to helping us manage the work better. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: Can we wait a few days, until Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 45 is (hopefully) approved? Patrolling hundreds of outstanding redirects means that new page reviewers could withstand the flood of accepted AfC drafts. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Are you saying that soon redirects will no longer have to be hand-reviewed? AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Um... the AFC backlog has absolutely nothing to do with patrolling, nor does it have to do with redirects (which are handled at WP:AFC/R). Primefac (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: yes, but new page patrollers patrol both redirects and new articles. IIRC, afc acceptances are still patrolled normally, and so the reduction in the amount of manual reviewing done my NPP in terms of current load of redirects would give more time to patrolling afc submissions. Just my $0.02, but probably not important enough to worry about DannyS712 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• In the meantime - while we await deciding on when it would take place, will it be operating under the backlog rules that are currently there? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• AmericanAir88, Nosebagbear Backlog drives were discontinued several years ago (the last one was in June 2014). It was found that they have the tendency to decrease the quality of reviews to the extent that the cleanup afterwards wastes more reviewer time and energy than the reduction in the backlog was actually worth. Inexperienced reviewers chasing the bling/prizes make too many errors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dodger67: That may be a case sometimes, but seeing the success of the GOCE drives and NPP drive should still keep the idea intact. The AFC backlog is growing. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

---

A backlog drive proposal comes up regularly and there was a time where they were quickly knocked down for the reasons Dodger67 mentions. More recent proposals have been received more warmly. I am personally receptive to the idea. I think in recent discussion there was a suggestion to reduce some of the gamification of the drive to reduce the incentive for abuse. The drives may actually improve quality as they have a review the reviews component that we don't routinely do. ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

As long as the gamification is really reduced and properly managed I'd support a new drive, but it must be substantially better than previous drives. So, how do we do it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Suggestions? AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I think a drive is great. But what i think will really help is having some sort of ability to categorize the drafts by geographic location and type of notability. I sometime look through AFC but keep stumbling on sports and musicians, both of which are out of my field of knowledge. So i think this kind of categorization would be very helpful to AFC contributors to do more checking and less jumping around. Shemtovca (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shemtovca: Sorting drafts is a suggestion that also comes up regularly. You're welcome to do this by adding Wikiproject templates to the talk pages of drafts. You may find that it is better to just skip the drafts that are not in a topic area you're comfortable with. ~Kvng (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dodger67: I think you know how this works. It starts with someone WP:VOLUNTEERing. We need a proposal for ground rules or ground rule revisions. We need someone or someones to volunteer to run the drive. ~Kvng (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kvng: Maybe Prime or someone who runs them at GOCE. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators like Primefac have plenty of other administrator stuff to do. This is on us. ~Kvng (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I have some generic ideas, but I'm four days from the end of the school year and it's rather hectic. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kvng: and @Primefac: Who do you suggest? The drive could be a simple recording system with barnstar/hall of fame rewards. Editors could post acceptances, denials, and comments. There would have to be a quality check in place before points are awarded though. It is very easy to simply deny an article and people would need to check if that denial was justified. I could help out in reviewing the denials. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: maybe you consider yourself qualified. Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Backlog_elimination_drives and see if you can mold a proposal from that that can gain consensus here. ~Kvng (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kvng: I will gladly take this on. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Standards for articles these days

This decline seems insane to me. Nine quality references (perhaps setting aside the dissertation) and a pretty nice summary of various features of an obscure language. Is this an accurate reflection of this project's standards lately, or is it a one-off error? (My intention is not to discuss the particular reviewer; I have no reason to believe that s/he reviews differently than anyone else.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That looks like a bad decline, at first glances .... ∯WBG^converse 01:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

With a little cleanup it should be acceptable. There are inline citations (just not using <ref>...</ref> tags), but I think the biggest hurdle would be rewording a little bit to make it more obvious that it's a Brazilian language. I wouldn't say it's necessarily a "bad" decline, but more like it's a "lazy" decline in that the issues are minor enough that a small amount of tweaking from the reviewer (as we generally know what we're doing) would be faster/get the right results (as opposed to the newbies floundering through it). Primefac (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If the topic is notable and there's no WP:CV, WP:BLP sourcing issue or severe WP:NPOV issue, consider doing a lazy accept, not a lazy decline. There is really no problem putting messy articles into mainspace. Keep it on your watchlist and watch the magic happen. ~Kvng (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Did you read the comments on the decline? It's far from a dismissal of the article, merely pointing out some fairly easy fixes. Particularly because they (the need for inline citations) is easily done at the outset (when the author and source refs are to hand) but damned difficult to add later. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • If all the issues are easy fixes, then the article should be accepted, and the user encouraged to help. Otherwise there is a good chance the user won't help, and six months later the article will just be deleted. And this article did have inline refs but just Harvard style rather than footnote style (not hard to fix later). Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

On further review, significant chunks of this draft have been copied from the PhD dissertation cited. I'm going to delete it. (Note that this was NOT the reason it was previously declined.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Tags in mainspace

Hi. In the process of monitoring Category:AfC submissions with categories as part of an approved bot task, I frequently see a few pages in mainspace that still have AfC tags. I know that they get removed eventually, but I'd like to file a BRFA to automatically remove the tags if the reviewer is not still reviewing the page, under the assumption that they either forgot or the tag was added by mistake. What would others think of automatically removing the tag if the page hasn't been edited for more than 2 hours? --DannyS712 (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Bad task for a bot. There are routinely articles in this category because either the creator created it directly in the article space or moved it themselves. Articles in this category should be checked, not blindly bot-removed. Primefac (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: In that case, is there any guideline about when to remove the tags? Because I've come across pages like these and I couldn't find any guidance on what to do. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Review the page. If it's clearly a draft, it shoud be moved to the draft space. If it would be cleared by NPP and/or it's suitable for article space, remove the AFC tags. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Okay, thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I do it like Primefac. But it's also necessary to check there's not a duplication--one version in mainspace and one in draft. When that happens, I keep the better. There area good number of ed program drafts right now where the student isn't bothering with submission, but leaves two versions without cleaning up. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

avoiding backlogs in the first place

There are two general areas where we could be more effective:

1. Avoid repeated submissions--about half the backlog seems to be drafts that have been here multiple times. if something is goign to be hopeless, it should be removed as soon as possible. Sometimes the draft can be speedied as hopelessly promotional;--it's very efficient; otherwise, if it has been submitted several times without improvement, MfD is necessary--it works quite efficiently also. In the other direction, if its basically acceptable, and would very probably pass AfD, there's no point in holding it up--it is more likely to be improved further in mainspace.
2. Most of the drafts in the queue for a long time are on little-known subjects where most of us don't consider ourselves competent. Ideally,we should devise a systematic way of dealing with them, but for now I can only suggest asking projects or editors article by article. Or, if there isn't anything obviously wrong & there's at least one decent reference, and it isn't promotional or copyvio, probably we should just accept it. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: I agree with these statements. If you look above, I have a drive planned out that can give a good jump start to the backlog reduction. You can also reject afc's instead of denying as well. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The OS team has an email list where, when we receive problematic tickets on OTRS, we can discuss the issue further. We used to (up until March 2018) have a "Reviewer help" board. It might be a decent idea to resurrect this board specifically for discussion potentially problematic drafts. Hell, we could even just have it show the ten oldest drafts so that we can discuss them. This would encourage discussion on those topics any one person doesn't know about (point #2 above) and might even lend itself towards the project as a collective saying "none of us know this, can we reach out to a WikiProject?" we could very easily put a counter/thread at the top of this page that says how many open discussions are on that page. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

We eliminated that separate reviewer discussion area because the discussion often drifted to more general topics overlapping with discussions happening here. There is not enough traffic here that we can't handle questions on difficult drafts here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

If we have discussions on 10 drafts, plus the 15 discussions that are currently happening here, then we end up with a very long page. Just because the board used to drift off into unrelated topics doesn't mean that it has to if we re-instate it; it would be trivial to ensure threads either stayed on-course or were removed/moved here. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Repeated submissions (#1) are not a problem IMO. We have a wide range of standards being applied by reviewers here and authors are generally inexperienced and so regularly submit ill-formed first drafts that reviewers with high standards may deem as hopeless. Please don't reject drafts on first submission. Authors deserve the opportunity to have at least two reviewers look at their draft. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that if a topic is a "no way, no how" submission then it can be rejected first-time. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether to reject drafts on the first submission depends on what they are like. Most of whaat we get is spam, and the ability to reject instead of just decline is very valuable. It's right to be more reluctant to use G11 than at NPP, but it still has its purpose.There are lots of (presumably) paid editors resubmitting unchanged a day later, apparently hoping to get a reviewer who might not be really looking--although almost all reviewers still on the list are not fooled by this. If it happens two times in a row there's no reason for further patience. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should rely on the judgement of a single reviewer, no matter how competent, to shut down a draft. Checks and balances. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@DGG:, @Kvng:, @Primefac: How do you feel about my backlog drive proposal above? AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I think hijacking a thread which seems to have been created specifically to avoid complicating an already complicated proposal/thread is in poor taste. Your proposal is complex and will require deep thought, of which I have not been able to give recently. Editors will comment when they feel able to do so, and if no one comments then chances are that no one is interested. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Backlog drive proposal

@Primefac:, @Kvng: Hello, here is the proposal for the backlog drive I have planned. All comments are appreciated.

Goal

To reduce the growing backlog and ensure that users will not have to wait months for their articles to get reviewed. This backlog will also aim at ensuring our top quality standards. This will be a much more enforced drive.

Invitation

We can take advantage of the {subst:WPAFCDrive} template to send a message to members of the AFC community.

Plan

Like previous drives, there will be a team of participants, analytics, and overall administration. Participants will be the main ones clearing the backlog. However, there will be regulations. Analytics will be the ones reviewing the reviews. Unlike previous years, this should not be random and should have a systematic feel to it. Administration will oversee the drive, update the leaderboard, monitor, and reward people at the end.

Tools

The previous drives benefited from the AFC Buddy tool. Sign ups can be similar. If anyone has any expertise on that, it would be such a big help. If not, any other ideas?

Scoring

• The scoring system is as follows with a few changes from previous:
  • 1 point is earned per review.
  • 1 point is earned per re-review on other user's drive pages.
  • A bonus point is earned when you decline a submission as a copyright violation (WP:COPYVIO), and the page is then deleted by an admin.
  • 2 points are lost when two users fail a user's review. As the review has already earned one point, this counts as a loss of one point.
  • 3 points are lost when users fail a user's review substantially meaning it was a blatant advertisement or a major copyvio. Rushed acceptances will have penalties.
  • Multiple failings of a user's review can result in elimination from the drive.

Leaderboard

The leaderboard will function almost the exact same as previous.

Awards

The awards will be almost the same. Except maybe the brownie could be replaced with the minor barnstorm and the invisible could be replaced with the modest.

Reviewing reviews "Analytics"

To ensure quality remains priority, reviews of reviews will be conducted systematically. To view how they handled it in the past, see the previous drives. As I said in the tools section, this will be determined based on if AFC Buddy will be used.

Conclusion

I created this proposal in hopes of reviving the backlog drives the AFC project used to host quite often. This revival will not only hopefully be better, but more accurate. The AFC backlog is growing and the sheer ratio of active users to unreviewed pages is high. A drive will create friendly competition, reward users, and hopefully jump start this project into a more active era.

Thank you. All comments are appreciated and we can all help coordinate this. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Proposal Discussion

• Many similar proposals (backlog or otherwse) suggest "multiple failings" but don't spell it out. This makes sense for removal of userrights, etc, but as the penalties (from being removed from the drive) are fairly small compared to the rewards (removing incorrect review passes/fails) I think we should spell it out. To avoid penalising more active reviewers (more chances to get it wrong) or an early error, I suggest the following: "Multiple failings will be defined as the higher of "3 or 7.5% of all reviews made". I realise that "7.5%" sounds a bit odd, but I think it works better than either 5 (too low) or 10 (too high). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• This needs to be simplified for two reasons. 1/ I doubt we have the manpower to design, implement and administer a complicated scoring and QC system. 2/ The scored aspect attracted some "winners" to our most recent drives. We want workers not winners. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Two comments: There should be a net loss of more than one point for a bad review, and it would be nice if this whole proposal was a bit simpler. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Jatin katiyar

Jatin katiyar was a inventor of first Indian ganymede exploration julondo rover in 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diksha katiyar (talk • contribs) 00:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Diksha katiyar, sounds like they might be notable then. If you want to write an article, please use the Article Wizard to do so after making sure you have everything you need. If you would rather request that someone else write the article, please use WP:RA. Primefac (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

July events from Women in Red!

July 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 127, 128 Check out what's happening in July at Women in Red... Virtual events: New topics: Sports / Education Geofocus: Microstates Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Initiatives we support: Atari Women University of Edinburgh 1000 Women in Religion Editor feedback: Check out the conversations regarding Sports, Sports, Sports! Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Notability second opinion

I'm reviewing Draft:City Challenge Race Company. While there are issues with the content they are fixable. The main question is whether the subject is notable. Looking at the references and the media coverage, there's a fair amount but is enough of it independent - particularly intellectually independent? Much of it is press release generated, and the piece with the most coverage is an interview. I am leaning towards decline but it is borderline and I'd appreciate someone else having a look. Just try to see beyond the current content! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NCORP is a high hurdle these days and the sources are not particularly reliable. This may have a small chance to survive AfD but is definitely below the 50% likelihood requirement. ~Kvng (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Technical solutions for eliminating backlog

I feel the current system at AFC of having a bunch of reviewers go about randomly reviewing from a set of over 4000 drafts is ludicrous and bound to keep AFC eternally backlogged. What is needed is to recruit editors with specialised subject interests to review drafts. I, for example, just reviewed a computational biology article which I randomly came across because I found it interesting, but I'd absolutely hate to review the countless bio articles I'm seeing at CAT:AFC. Many editors are likely to be interested in reviewing only certain subject areas, and the present system at AFC is un-inviting to them.

There needs to be some way of associating drafts with WikiProjects. Enterprisey already has a script for adding {{WikiProject X|class=draft}} tags to draft talk pages, but projects don't have proper means of seeing the tagged pages other than looking at the "Draft-class X articles" category or through wmflabs summary tables. And there's no way of separating the submitted ones from declined/unsubmitted ones. So this just doesn't work.

We should set up a system similar to AFD's deletion sorting for AFC. Let us say at Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Subject X. Since we cannot expect the new editors to be able to categorize the draft with an appropriate subject (because they wouldn't be using scripts, without which it would be tedious), we can have some WikiGnomes go about categorising them - same way as it happens at Deletion sorting project. The draft would be listed at the AfC sorting page, along with a snippet of the first 2-3 sentences of text, and a count of number of citations (would probably help in identifying the valid drafts). A script can be written for this purpose.

When the draft is declined (or accepted), the listing will be removed from the sorting pages by a bot. These pages can then be watched by interested editors, transcluded onto WikiProject work pages, and what not. Just having some way for categorising submitted drafts may lead to a whole lot of technical possibilities.

The crucial part of this proposal is that the sorting pages will contain only active submissions, keeping the declined listings would only result in these pages growing into unworkably large mountains. Also, the crux of this proposal is try expand the horizon of AfC reviewing to people who otherwise would only edit mainspace articles related to their subject of interest. SD0001 (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's absolutely worth facilitating reviewing by subject of interest, but don't expect such technical enhancements to tame the backlog. 80% of all drafts are biographies or companies/organizations. Perhaps 90% of them are non-notable or non-neutral promotion, and almost no one enjoys reviewing them.

Enterprisey already provides toollabs:apersonbot/pending-subs, which lists pending drafts, filterable by WikiProject(s). It would be illuminating to know how many reviewers use it. And how many potential reviewers, who say they don't review because they can't find drafts they're interested in, would review if they were aware of the tool.

Most reviewers don't review randomly (although Special:RandomInCategory/Pending AfC submissions is a long-standing selection method). I almost always work from Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old, and others work from other age categories. The Earwig offers Template:AFC statistics (currently partly broken by the size of the backlog), which has similarities with Enterprisey's list, without WikiProject filtering, but with sizes and sorting. There's also Special:NewPagesFeed, enhanced last year for AfC by MMiller (WMF) and crew. It gives a snippet of the first 175 characters of the lead, one of the features you've emphasized. It also shows predicted article class and is filterable by potential issues, such as copyvio, but is not filterable by WikiProject. Kerry Raymond, The Drover's Wife, Kb.au, and a few others at WikiProject Australia used Petscan to roll their own work list, Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Articles for Review, which despite the title is all about pending drafts. It was very effective for 4-5 months, but gradually fell into disuse.

Arguably the biggest challenge to filtering by WikiProject has been adding WikiProjects to drafts. Only 15% of pending drafts are currently tagged with a WikiProject. By concerted effort, I've been able to drive that up to 60-70% using Enterprisey's draft sorter, but haven't been able to recruit enough WikiGnomes to keep it there for more than a few weeks. There has been little interest in doing the sorting within AfC and little value attached to it. (How many "points" would a reviewer receive for tagging 100 drafts in the proposed backlog drive? Zero. There has even been push back against assigning WikiProjects as one of the final steps of draft acceptance, by editors who don't feel it's our job, or who dislike WikiProjects.) --Worldbruce (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: I can help tag drafts for wikiprojects - you make a good point. I'd also support giving something like 1 point per 5 drafts that are tagged to add that incentive --DannyS712 (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Are you looking for draft sorters? I'd be willing to help, do you have a category or something to work out of? LittlePuppers (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712, LittlePuppers, and Worldbruce: I just wrote User:SD0001/draft-sort-burst for this purpose, adding a 'burst mode' to Enterprisey's familiar draft-sorter tool. This makes the process much faster and fun. I've sorted some 50 just in the process of testing the script.

The toollabs thing looks promising, though it looks as if only the projects mentioned at User:Enterprisey/ibx-wproj-map.js are supported, which are quite few. Also, it should rather be better-advertised. SD0001 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

just to outline what we did with Australia, I used AWB over the Pending AFC submissions looking for articles with key words like Australia or state numbers to add the WikiProject Australia tag (which has to be added to the Talk page not the article so more manual work than you hope from AWB. Then we used Petscan to compile the list that was included at WikiProject Australia. I think it should be easy enough to automate a WikiProject guessing tool (one may already exist) and an automatic list compiling tool. But, as commented above, our Australian effort petered out after a number of months. I think for a mixture of reasons. A couple of us embarked on a large project to add about 1500 articles using CC-BY sources, which frankly was a much higher value activity in terms of building an encyclopaedia. And I think the rest just got tired than wading through the 80% self-promotional bios and company profiles (just because they were Australian didn’t make them any more acceptable). Therein lies the inherent problem AFC has, the limited sense of positive achievement. Sure it defends the encyclopaedia from this kind of dross but I am not sure it gives enough people satisfaction in finding the few gems within the dross. Kerry (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Worldbruce and Kerry Raymond:, its worth noting that the ORES machine learning API has a parameter for topic which gives the predicted topics for a given oldid. I ran a script to get the topic predictions for all pages currently in CAT:AFC. The results are at User:SD0001/AfC sorting. Unfortunately, these predictions are all hopelessly wrong. The topic parameter of ORES isn't presently used by any tool I'm aware of, and even the official documentation makes no mention of it. So it looks like it isn't developed yet, but maybe would be at some point of time. SD0001 (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Working

Anywhere Ali mushtaq bajwa (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Strange

I declined a submission, but the process failed to notify the article creator. The edit history shows that it did post but I'm not seeing it on the UTP. I decided to do it manually, and again, it didn't post. Any idea what's going on? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: There was an unclosed comment higher on that user's talk page. So you were posting to it, but it wasn't being rendered. Fixed now. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Strange AfC categorization for user page

Hello, good AfC folks,

I hope someone who is familiar with your templates can help me with this one. A user talk page, User talk:JC7V7DC5768/Archive 3, keeps appearing in the AfC category, Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions, and I've looked all over this archived talk page for some template or other that has placed the talk page in category Category:AfC submissions by date/24 October 2018. But I can't find anything obvious that has caused it to be confused with an AfC submission and I doubt that the editor is even aware of this miscategorization.

Could you take a look and see if anything sticks out that shouldn't be there? Lots of admins check this category for old drafts and this page looks like it can not be removed unless it is deleted which is a bad option that JC7V7DC5768 would not appreciate.

Thanks for any help you can provide! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: One of the collapsed sections contained a {{AFC submission}} template. I've wrapped it in nowiki tags for now to remove the page from AfC categories. If the indef ArbCom block is ever lifted, the user can decide whether they want to deal with it in a different way. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Better guidance

I made some tweaks to the {{AFC submission/draft}}, {{AFC submission/pending}}, {{AFC submission/helptools}} templates. I basically put copyright/NPOV/RS warnings front and center, since those are major issues that need to be addressed on nearly every submission, created a 'where to get help' section, which has the old help venues + mentions WikiProjects as another venue for help. I also added a 'look at Feature/Good' articles if you need examples of good writing to the 'How to improve the article' section.

Feel free to tweak/modify as needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a good fix. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully that'll cut down on the POV/Unsourced/Copyvio submissions. It certainly won't fix everything, but it'll address most of the issues. I wonder if there's a way to cut down on promotional biographies/company profiles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Added a sub-line about autobiographies and corporate articles in {{AFC submission/draft}}. I believe this should address the most common of AFC issues. Banner blindness will still be an issue, and low-quality COI submissions will still happen. But at least those that want to write productively will have better guidance. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Better guidance for those who want to write productively, and require guidance, is telling them to improve existing article content related to their new topic, instead of waiting for the review. They should get their feet wet mainspace editing alongside other editors, and learning about template-free talking on talk pages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

AfC submission moved into mainspace without review

Theodore Wells Pietsch II: AfC sumbission moved directly into mainspace by its creator without review (in 2011, I guess this one slipped through the cracks). Can someone take a look at it? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Finnusertop, the article needs a lot of work—proper citation formatting and copyediting for encyclopedic tone—but he appears to be sufficiently notable for an article. He has an entry in Designing Motion: Automotive Designers 1890 to 1990; was the subject of a six-month exhibition in 2011 at the Studebaker National Museum entitled Automobile Design in the Golden Age: The Career and Works of Theodore W. Pietsch II [1]; and his work was also shown in a 2009 exhibition at the Wolfsonian entitled Styled for the Road: The Art of Automobile Design, 1908-1948, (described in the New York Times here). The first reference is to Theodore W. Pietsch II (1912−1993) and the Development of Automobile Design in the Golden Age, written and self-published by his son Theodore Wells Pietsch III, but it is only used once. It would definitely survive an AfD. So not a disaster that it "slipped through". Voceditenore (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

notability vs quality

Sometimes I see the argument here where people note that pages that are declined at AFC would pass at AFD because the subject is notable. Isn't this a huge problem? If a page wouldn't get deleted at AFD, then doesn't it make logical sense that it should be passed at AFC? Hasn't AFC had a scope creep here, where reviewers are not just assessing if a subject belongs in wikipedia, but are assessing whether the editor has sufficiently made their page look nice too?

If a page that had 2 sources came to AFD, but was of a subject that everyone agreed was notable, then it wouldn't get deleted. But the same could happen here and the page would get declined (regardless of whether the subject was notable or not) and then if the editor gets disheartened, end up on the road to g13 deletion.

So isn't the current AFC process just ensuring that loads of notable subjects for the wiki are deleted? Gumlau (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Gumlau, I think you may possibly be misunderstanding the purpose of AfC. Unlike WP:NPP which is operated by accredited reviewers whose main job is to summarily decide whether an article should be kept or (with final review by an administraitr) deleted, at AfC articles are not sent to AfD, but are either kept, in which case they come under review at NPR, or declined and returned to the author with or without tips for improvement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, If I was unclear, know that articles from AFC don't go to AFD. My main point seems to be that AFC is fundamentally a poor thing. It can't be fixed. The whole point of a wiki is colloborative effort. AFC, by its very structural design, creates a system (or gauntlet) where pages are usually met with one reviewer, who ends up making the call whether the page is valid or not.

I know that people are going to get defensive about this, because they've done a lot of good work. They have, there are loads of great AFC reviewers who offer great advice. This isn't about them, it's about a system that means even if there is 1% of reviewers who reject new pages on spurious grounds unrelated to notability, they are doing untold damage not just to the Wiki, but to the human knowledge project, as many notable pages are being rejected and then eventually getting flushed down to g13 in an opaque process. How many article drafts are going through this and how many eyes get to see them before this happens?

I also feel there's a certain amount of trickery involved with the draft page. Users who create a draft are given a template with a big button saying "submit your draft for review". They may not realise that they can simply move their draft directly to mainspace. I'm a teacher who has taught wikipedia editing course and I would never tell my students to submit anything to AFC, because it goes against the entire priciple of what a wiki should be and of course it takes far too long.

I can see only two solutions here: 1) open up AFC reviewing so anyone can view and comment on draft submissions, 2) close down AFC Gumlau (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Gumlau, that is not quite accurate. Only users whose accounts are confirmed can create articles in mainspace. Their articles then go directly to the New Page Review feed where the reviewers mainly exercise a binary decision: Keep, or tag for deletion. Only occasionally do they move articles to draft. The AfC process was created many years ago when it was decided not to allow creation of new pages by IP users . AfC may not be perfect, but generally it serves its purpose, and somewhat better since we introduced a method of preventing totally inexperienced users from reviewing the drafts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't serve the purpose of the encyclopedia, because it puts executive power in the hands of single users who can dismiss new articles unilaterally. This is not what a wiki is about. The New page review is much better, because in most cases, a questionable page will at least face a group decision in daylight about it's suitability for inclusion. This allows for arguments to be heard and people may even change their minds(!) about notability, etc.

Most worryingly is the accusations that notable subjects at AFC are being rejected because of style problems or lack of citations. This goes against the long standing Wikipedia institution of the stub article. Would a stub article pass at AFC?

Perhaps we could include a button on the draft template that alongside the "submit your draft" for review, gives the option for drafters (who are confirmed users) to move their draft directly into mainspace when it's ready. Currently when a user creates a draft, an infobox appears on the draft, but it only tells the user to submit to AFC, it doesn't inform them that they can move their draft directly to mainspace. This is an information gap that needs resolving.Gumlau (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Gumlau, at New Page Review, the decision to keep or delete an article is made by a single reviewer. There is a fail-safe in that the actual deletion is made by an admin. Incorrect tagging for deletion can happen, but it is rare. A stub will pass at AfD if sufficient sources are provided to establish notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so maybe I'm mistaken here. My impression was that at NPR, reviewers could tag a page for deletion, and unless it was a speedy, this would mean it would go through a community discussion (where people oppose or support the deletion). Gumlau (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gumlau: - AfC will naturally decline/reject more than NPP would (though NPP sometimes draftifies non-sourced content). This is heavily because AfC drafts have to already show their notability, while AfD has to look for it. This is a required trade-off to let us fulfill our requirements without being (even more!) overwhelmed. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good (or adequate, at least). Dissolving/slowing AfC would lead to various editors not being able to submit at all, and just moving the rejected articles to elsewhere in Wikipedia to handle. Conservative reviewers is indeed an issue. I'd say the judgement lies more in what is viewed as an "ok" source (as vs a good one). It's a case of "do I feel I could defend this article at AfD". Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Gumlau has a point, and the valid point component goes to WP:DUD. He also alludes to the view that AfC reviewers are sometimes too conservative in approving acceptable new topics, usually being too harsh on writing quality or referencing technical aspects.

The biggest benefit of AFC and draftspace is wayling inept spammers. An important benefit of AfC is providing a process for WP:COI editors. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I naturally can't dispute that SmokeyJoe. AfC reviewers are not subject to the same scrutiny as New Page Patrollers, and it's common knowledge that they do not all apply the same criteria. Unlike NPP, they have no proper tutorial or guidelines. A2soup, consider promoting WP:DUD from essay to advice page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

AFC acceptance criteria is well documented and really the only area open to interpretation is the WP:NPOV requirement. I do frequently see reviewers rejecting drafts for reasons not in the criteria. I assume they are emboldened to do this because AFCH includes some canned options to do so; also nobody ever got in trouble with other editors for erroring towards decline in their reviews; there's the two-party inclusionist/deletionist predisposition of editors; and it does take a bit of WP:BOLDness and significant experience to accept a low-quality draft on a notable subject from a WP:SPA contributor and then defend that action at AFD. So that's where we are and we're all WP:VOLUNTEERS so need to give each other room to do our thing. Until recently, authors could always resubmit their drafts for a second opinion on a bad decline. With the introduction of the Reject option for reviewers this check is perhaps weaker but I have been reassured that the intent is not to use Reject for a first review. I hope this is still the practice. ~Kvng (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the decline result should link to the “well documented“(?) AfC acceptance criteria. This will put the author in a much better position should they need are argue against a bad decline. Bad declines, bad accepts, as well as bad submissions, should all be accepted as standard occurrences. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

There is an inherent tolerance bias because bad accepts are seen by many (at NPP and in mainspace) and bad declines are often seen by just the reviewer and the author. It would be nice if all mistakes were equally tolerated but, structurally, this is not the case.

I don't think linking to reviewing instructions will be helpful to authors. What we probably need is a separate write up on "What to do if you don't agree with this decline." I can volunteer to put that together. ~Kvng (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that reviewing instructions does not meet my idea of "well documented". I think a much simplified and concise "AfC acceptance criteria" could be a good idea.

what do you know :) ! Someone just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Acceptance criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think "What to do if you don't agree with this decline" is independently a good idea. I see you have started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Decline_message_improvements below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

AFCH script needs update

I noticed that the AFCH script is not detecting existing WikiProject banners on draft talk pages. Reviewers accepting the draft have the option to add WikiProject tags, and if they choose to add tags that are already present, the tags are duplicated. Eg. [2], [3]

Per the section above, adding project tags to draft talk pages is desirable in interest of draft sorting, so this bug needs to be fixed. SD0001 (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Will look into it. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS

I put that in all caps because it is a serious issue. Over the last few days I have been looking into AfC more intensively than usual with a view to making the work more streamlined for reviewers.
However, I have come across numerous drafts that have been accepted and moved to mainspace that contain over 50% COPYVIO. I'm not going to provide links or diffs to name and shame the reviewers, but this must be addressed, and in way that does not intimidate the creators by having to return their articles to draft space. Drafts are created because their content needs special attention or because the provenance of the content is dubious. There is a 'Copyvio check' link in the sidebar of every page. Please use it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Reviewers will only have a 'Copyvio check' link in their sidebar if they have added importScript('User:The Earwig/copyvios.js'); to their common.js; or taken similar measures. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

A CV check is the first thing any reviewer should be doing, before even reading the opening sentence. Click the copyvio check link, let it run in the background, and then read through the draft. Yes, people will miss things, but that excuse only works for so long. Please take the time to check. Primefac (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

If it's the first thing they should do, then the instructions should make it clear that's the first thing they should do. And it should be added to the tools. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It's the first thing in the reviewing flowchart, but you do make a good point so I've rearranged it to be the first thing in the quick fail section. Primefac (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

If these had been made in mainspace, would the copyvio bots have detected them? If so, perhaps those bots could be asked to run on submitted drafts. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Do we have copyvio bots? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting in the instructions that it can run while flicking through the other quick-fail criteria - I suspect people who know better don't do it because of the minor, but repetitive, agro, when actually it doesn't cause any Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

If you use Special:NewPagesFeed to select drafts to review, they are pre-flagged in the list if there is a suspected CV issue. ~Kvng (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, apparently not the ones that I remember, Headbomb. User:EarwigBot and User:CorenSearchBot used to do this and template drafts and articles with suspected copyvios, but neither does that anymore. There are a slew of other copyvio bots I'm not familiar with, but I don't think any of them template the page itself, just report it somewhere. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: I suggest you make a WP:BOTREQ for people to take over these bots if the original maintainers aren't around. Or that someone develops similar bots if the code isn't available. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

AFC script: Invite people to Wikiprojects upon successful submissions

For example, when I reviewed 100 Word Story, I marked it as belonging to {{WikiProject Literature}}. Then, the script notified it's submitter, Crier of Ink, with the standard notice... which fails to mention that the user may be interested in joining WikiProject Literature! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Going to @Enterprisey: on this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Any comment? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's a really good idea! While I'm fixing up other stuff, I'll look into adding a checkbox or something. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

A checkbox that should probably be enabled by default :p. Could be a simple line, such as

• Consider joining one or more WikiProjects, which are collaborations of editors which aim to improve specific topic area within Wikipedia. For example, you may be interested in joining $1, $2, ... $N.
• Consider joining one or more WikiProjects, which are collaborations of editors which aim to improve specific topic area within Wikipedia. For example, you may be interested in joining WikiProject Academic Journals and/or WikiProject Literature.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No rejecting on first review

I'd like to propose that Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing_instructions#Rejecting_submissions be revised to discourage reviewers from using Reject for the first review of a submission. Immediate rejection is WP:BITEY and allowing a single reviewer to torpedo a draft does not offer sufficient checks and balances on reviewers. My proposed wording is below. ~Kvng (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

If a draft has previously been declined by a different reviewer, drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia may be rejected. Rejection is appropriate for a previously declined submission if the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it were an article (i.e., deletion would not be contested if WP:PRODDED, would be an overwhelming "delete" at AfD, or clearly meet a CSD article criterion). If a draft meets one of the general CSD criteria, an appropriate CSD tag should also be added.

• I'm currently unsure about this on the notability front. I'll need to think about that. However there are clear articles that are against the purpose of wikipedia, and in many cases we'd just end up with them coming round again. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think coming around again once is not a problem. The problem that Reject was trying to solve was not a repeated submission but repeated resubmissions. ~Kvng (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Rejecting on first review is appropriate for vanity autobiographies, things obviously made up, and obviously non-notable YouTube sensations based only on YouTube and similar links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Can these cases be handled with CSD? ~Kvng (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Read WT:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A11_and_drafts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a "no" ~Kvng (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• It does not seem to be a good idea to discourage reviewers from giving the correct answer when it is appropriate to do so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

adding another wikipedia entry

How do I make another wikipedia entry to submit for review? I cannot use my sandbox right now because I have another article for review. -E

@Elizabethorr02: Please remember to WP:SIGN your posts, and in future direct general questions to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, the Wikipedia:Help desk, or the Wikipedia:Teahouse. The page you are reading is where experienced Articles for creation (AfC) reviewers discuss among themselves how to keep AfC running.

You have many options. In this case, someone has moved your sandbox to Draft:Seeds of Time (film) so that you may start a new entry at User:Elizabethorr02/sandbox. In general, you may create as many sandboxes in your user space as you need, see Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. You may also draft pages directly in Draft: space, see Wikipedia:Drafts. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Idea: field

Similar to WP:DELSORT or tagging with WikiProject banners, I feel a lot of the backlog could get more efficiently addressed if there was a |field= or |WikiProject(s)= that could be used to 'sort/categorize' submissions in {{AFC submission}}. These could then be leveraged to create project-specific watchlists. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I've also made a feature request to support AFC at WP:AALERTS/FR. Please comment there. If this gets implemented, people could just tag drafts with WikiProject banners, and that would 'request' a reviewer, cutting down on the backlogs, and significantly improving review time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

See #Technical solutions for eliminating backlog for something similar. You could use draft-sort-burst to add project tags to draft talk pages, and then see them via toollabs:apersonbot/pending-subs, though the latter isn't fully developed and the former doesn't integrate nicely with AFCH helper (see #AFCH script needs update).

For article alerts to work, the draft has to be identifiable with a WikiProject first, right? The major obstacle is forming the WikiProject associations. SD0001 (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, right now for them to work at WP:AALERTS, it would have to be coded into the bot first. But after that's done, then yes, this would mostly be based on WikiProject tagging. There are other ways to pick up things, but this would be the most reliable one. So if someone comes accross an article, about say something like an academic journal and they don't feel qualified to review it (or know there are better people to review it than them), they could tag it with {{WikiProject Journals}} and that would let WP Journals know there's a journal-related draft ready for review. I don't stroll drafts for journal articles, but whenever someone posts a notice at WT:JOURNALS it's a very quick thing for me (and others) to review.

Likewise if there was a delsort-like listings of new drafts in need of review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

There is already some support for project watchlists to see new drafts coming in along with new articles. User:InceptionBot uses search rules to associate articles with projects and updates lists of new articles (including drafts) for projects which have "New Article" displays on their main page. An example is User:AlexNewArtBot/AstroSearchResult. The list of such pages is at User:AlexNewArtBot. I don't know how much project editors follow up on this, or if they know how to review. Some education fo project editors may be needed. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding pending drafts to article alerts is a good idea, but there should be some outreach to WikiProjects explaining the new section and what they can do with the information. Is that something you could undertake, SD0001? There's a recruiting template, {{WPAFCInvite}}, and a welcome template {{AfC welcome}}, but they're dated, and have created friction in the past. Common complaints have been (1) TLDR - that getting involved at AfC to review some modest number of drafts related to their project is too complicated and takes too long - they've lost interest before they've finished wandering the link forest, and (2) that the sign up process is convoluted, slow, and insulting when we're asking them to help us. Better communication could improve potential reviewers' understanding and perceptions of the process.

The outreach might vary depending on the type of WikiProject, how many drafts have been tagged with that project, and how aggressively we want to recruit reviewers from that project. I suggest recruiting aggressively from a small number of not-too-busy projects at first (Albums, Chemistry, and Spain, for example). AfC wants qualified new reviewers, but wouldn't like to be inundated with them all at once. Then use feedback from the first group to refine outreach to the next group of WikiProjects.

The percentage of pending drafts tagged with a WikiProject (or sorted by other identifying characteristics, like infoboxes) has been pushed from 15% to 40% over the past month. For now I'm willing to keep increasing that if having sorted drafts draws good new reviewers to the project. In the longer term, sorting would need to be delegated to WikiProjects using AlexNewArtBot to monitor new drafts, or perhaps automated by making ORES smarter. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Infoboxes work well in a lot of cases. For example, see this worklist I made for WP:JOURNALS, based on draft pages that transcluded Template:Infobox journal. Worklists like that can be build for certain topics. It probably will be useless for most biographies and companies, but it will let the good stuff on actual topics get reviewed more quickly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll also note that drafts with such infobox could get picked up by WP:AALERTS if their subscription has an infobox listed. For example {{WikiProject Magazines}} is matched with {{Infobox magazine}}. At the moment, only one infobox can be specified, so it isn't really possible to just match loosely-related infoboxes. The safest way will always remain banner tagging, because that will always get picked up, and if you see the banner, you know it will be picked up. Every other method will be less reliable, not from a technical perspective, but rather from a lack of guarantee that WikiProject Dog is subscribed via Infobox Dog. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Backlog elimination drive

I propose that we start a new AFC backlog elimination drive. It's been 5 years since the last drive. Pending AFC submission is still over 4000. As far as I know, nothing has changed since the start of this year. We will give out barnstars to participants. To notifiy the reviewers, we can use the mass message tool. At least this will motivate AFC reviewers to review submissions. Even if we review all of the daily submissions, the number doesn't decrease at all. 4000 submissions are what killing us. I mean it's better than nothing right. There is no harm in it. Barnstars are pretty rare these days. :) Masum Reza^📞 22:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This was discussed a few weeks ago. The discussion has been archived here and here. We need a proposal and probably also someone(s) to volunteer to run the drive. ~Kvng (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

We have plenty of AFC reviewers both active and inactive alike. We can inform all of them at once of the drive using MMS tool.Masum Reza^📞 08:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I could also look into running scoring and such. I was gonna gripe about not having the AFCBuddy source code, but then I realized Excirial actually did send it to me late last year. Calibrating scoring to discourage rushed reviews and encourage re-reviews is always a tough challenge, so I encourage a backlog drive proposal to have pretty specific scoring suggestions (as a base for discussion). Anyway, not a bad idea at all, provided that's addressed. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully we can get WP:AALERTS in on the action before the drive and have a "If you don't feel comfortable reviewing this yourself, add WikiProject Banners on the talk page to ask those WikiProjects to review the draft" kind of step. Tagging drafts could be done at a much much lower effort from AFC participants than reviewing individual articles, and would attract quality reviewers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

There is some recent discussion among NPP reviewers about a backlog drive over there. Perhaps some coordination is in order. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

We need to either co-ordinate and enable a combined score, or co-ordinate to make sure we don't go at the same time and hinder each other Nosebagbear (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Good idea. I agree with the former. Masum Reza^📞 10:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Messaging

1. There is probably not going to be a backlog drive at NPR any time soon. Reviewers are coping (slowly).
2. An up to date mass message mailing list of some 300 or so active AfC reviewers exists at Wikipedia:Wikiproject articles for creation/active users mailing list
3. Only admins or authorised users can use the mass message system.
4. History has shown (at NPP) that backlog drives often result in sloppy reviewing.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I didn't know about the last one. But I don't think we will encounter any problems because AFC participants are better than NPR reviewers. They have more experience. Masum Reza^📞 13:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100 Please remain objective or don't comment at all. Wikipedia is a serious project. Keep your aspersions to yourself., NPR is an official function, AfC is not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• The middle of summer in the northern hemisphere is probably not the best time to run a backlog drive. Let's wait a few months to see if this is still required. – bradv🍁 14:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• To be honest, I am concerned of older drafts. There was that time when AFC submissions were instantly reviewed. But now, if someone submits a draft, there is a high chance that it will be reviewed after two month or so. Even now we have plenty of very old submissions. Delay causes newbies to be discouraged. They think, "who cares about AFC, it is gonna take a lot of time anyway"(Though I am not a mind reader). This affects NPP process indirectly. For example, a lot of AFD discussions are established via NPP process. New auto-confirmed editors creates articles in mainspace. And most of the time, those are deleted via speedy deletion or PROD. NP patrollers just tag articles for deletion of maintenance, and very few of them takes their time to improve those articles. From what I've learned, very few new page authors understands the meaning behind those tags. Via AFC process, we guide new users and teach them how to create good articles (I am not talking about GAs). Masum Reza^📞 19:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Also I think, G13 nominations are good example of this situation. Some page authors becomes lazy as they wait for their submissions to be reviewed. And once some AFC reviewer declines those drafts, most of them give up their hope that their article will be published. They think, I waited for so long and you just declined it.

Note - Some of those above words are just my personal opinions. Though I think it might be the case that they think that way. Masum Reza^📞 19:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Didn't I just propose this a month ago? Anyway, I will assist in any means necessary. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes you did, and I linked to those stalled discussions (here and here) for everyone's reference in the first reply above. ~Kvng (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Decline message improvements

Based on the above and other discussion of authors not understanding AfC acceptance criteria, not taking declines well and the known possibility of bad declines, I have reviewed our messaging and have some improvements to propose. In addition to the custom or canned description of the reason for the decline, the decline template offers these bullets:

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted.
• If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.
• Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.

This message also appears at the bottom next to the Resubmit button:

• Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again.

I propose the following revisions

• Please understand our acceptance criteria and the specific the reason your submission was declined before editing your draft to resolve the issues.
• After reviewing your decline and our acceptance criteria, if you believe your draft should not have been declined, you may resubmit for another review.
• If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.
• Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.

The message appears at the bottom next to the Resubmit button:

• Please note that if this draft has not been improved to meet our acceptance criteria, it will be declined again and potentially deleted.

Note that I have linked three times to a new informational page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Acceptance_criteria. Feel free to make or suggest any improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Two things immediately jump out - we should not use "rejected" now that "rejected" has its own meaning. Second, we absolutely should not tell them to simply resubmit without making changes, because regardless of whether it was a bad review they'll just resubmit and hope to game the system. No real opinions on the rest. Primefac (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I have replaced "reject" with "decline" throughout.

How should authors handle what they think is a bad review? It is a common question. ~Kvng (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

In general, for a bad decision, like a bad XfD or RM close, the usual Wikipedia-cultural norm is to politely ask the closer. The text at WP:RENOM has been complimented for good tone (read "closer" as synonymous with "AfC reviewer"):

Ask the closer about your concern. Be polite, and do not assume that they know exactly what you have been thinking. When asked directly, they may say something that you hadn’t considered, or at least give a more detailed explanation that may prove useful. If, after discussing it with them, you think the closer was wrong, consider ...

We don't have a forum for disputed AfC reviews, except for this talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. I suggest pointing authors seeking to make a formal complaint to here, until there are lots of them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: - the AfC HelpDesk gets lots of these, and it's as good a place as any. I've probably agreed and accepted 5 of them and have queried the original closer on a few other close ones. In terms of controversial reviews, it generally seems like the talk page is used for ones that the reviewer themselves are unsure about. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk is serving this function. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

So maybe we can combine the 2nd and 3rd bullets to read: ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• After reviewing the decline notice on your draft and our acceptance criteria, if you believe your draft should not have been declined or need extra help, please contact your reviewer on their talk page, ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.

Suggest "your decline" -> "your declined draft" -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Decline notice is what should be reviewed. I have added some words above to clarify. ~Kvng (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there any more discussion necessary here or shall I implement these changes? ~Kvng (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Move to Draft space as an alternative to deletion

I've seen this a couple times now but most recently with Draft:Symbolic language (literature) bu Rosguill. Someone WP:PRODs an aticle. It gets WP:DEPRODDED. Normally the next step is WP:AFD but instead the article is moved to Draft space. This does not seem like appropriate workflow. Should I be reverting these moves? ~Kvng (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

ETA: Here's the other example I've seen: Draft:Waripora Bangil by Boleyn ~Kvng (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Kvng, normally I'd agree with you as far as procedure, but in the case of Draft:Symbolic language (literature), I honestly think the article would be kept at AfD, but as written it was nowhere near acceptable for mainspace (plus the initial editor showed good faith engagement and seemed quite likely to come back to improve the article). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Boleyn:@Rosguill: can you elaborate on what you mean by not being acceptable for mainspace? Your move comment says, "Needs more than just a dictionary definition, incubate in draftspace." WP:DICDEF is a problem if there is no possibility of expansion. I assume you believe there is a possibility of expansion because you acknowledge it would not be deleted and you presumably sent it to Draft to be expanded.

I don't see anything on the draft's talk page. What made you think the author would participate here at at AfC? And specifically what lead you to believe AfC is the best place for this to occur? ~Kvng (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Kvng, I'm assuming you meant to ping me here...this article was created alongside a half dozen other "Symbolic language (X)" articles, all of them suffering from the same problems, and all of which were nominated for PROD by the same editor (IIRC). They did a good job improving Symbolic language (engineering) after I engaged them on their talk page, and also added several sources to Symbolic language (art), although I haven't double checked to make sure that article is OR-free. For (literature), however, I was unable to find anything in a google scholar search, although I suspect that introductory english texts for high schoolers or university intro-classes will have information. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the background information. ~Kvng (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kvng, if you look at WP:NPPDRAFT, that'll give you a clear idea of what we're following. Of course, the creator needs to be informed and can work on it in draftspace and move it back at the click of a button. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Boleyn: It looks like the button click you're talking about is the AfC submit button. That sends the draft into a 2+ month wait followed by the gauntlet of AfC review. WP:NPPDRAFT indicates that articles, "far from sufficiently developed or sourced for publication" are eligible to be moved. This is pretty vague. Rosguill was concerned about poor sourcing which is generally not a valid WP:DEL-REASON but apparently is enough to get an article taken out back and then likely quietly disposed of under G13 6 months later. Like, I said at the beginning, this does not seem like appropriate workflow. My feeling is that if the article under development can't be killed off by CSD or PROD I would conclude it has at least a 50% chance of surviving AfD and so should remain in mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Kvng, AFC is one option to get it back to mainspace, another is to move it themselves if they have the right or editors quite regularly directly ask the person who draftified it to restore it. They also can, and often do, just copy and paste it to mainspace, which isn't necessarily a problem if the quality's OK, and it'll still go through NPP, but would be immediately in the mainspace. The creator is always notified and so has six months to work on it, plus others do monitor drafts. They are often not works in progress, unfortunately, but finished with. If you want a discussion about this, the NPP page would probably be best, as this isn't directly to do with AFC, and you might get a wider pool of involved editors. I do see your point, there are definite good arguments both ways, but we do have to have some standards for admission. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No is the correct and short answer to should I revert these Moving articles to draft space that are needing space to develop and that includes bio articles that may have been sitting for a decade or more with no references is now established process for more than a year. It has an ad-hoc approach but works well. Draft is good place for them to sit and develop while being out the limelight. scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Do you have any information or details to back your assertion that moving to Draft works well? ~Kvng (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about moves to Draft at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#WP:NPPDRAFT. ~Kvng (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

And I would suggest that WT:NPP/R would gain more eyeballs. But since I'm here I would register my opposition to the idea of getting rid of draftify as an option for new page patrol. I think its scope and use as currently defined in policy is appropriate. I"m not watching here so please ping me if you want me to see it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion has been restarted at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#WP:NPPDRAFT_vs._AfC_acceptance_criteria ~Kvng (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Kvng, your opening statement is not quite accurate. We do not have to provide you with details to back your assertion that moving to Draft does not work well. The onus is on you to provide very substantial and well documented evidence that it does not. Otherwise this discussion is moot and merely a solution looking for a problem.

Draft is not, and never was intended as, an alternative to deletion, nor conversely, was it intended through its G13 to be a backdoor route to deletion. The deletion policy clearly outlines the possible alternatives, in the subtle manner that reminds us that Wikipedia is generally more inclusionist than deletionist. A PROD is a simple but effective route to deletion where the lack of content and/or inclusion criteria does not need a grand debate at AfD, but allows the creator just 7 days to meet requiremenbts. DePRODing and moving to Draft is not an option for authorised New Page Reviewers,but dePRODing, blanking, and redirecting is, provided the article is not a totally disallowed or toxic content.

Articles are rarely sent to AfD from NPP, because reviewers are (suppposedly) skilled enough to know if an article can be deleted, or kept, while articles that are not fit for mainspace but are otherwise legitimately encyclopedic and show promise are sent by New Page Reviewers to Draft. That's the whole idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

I would be interested in observing the fate of articles in Draft space. I do have some information that is somewhere between anecdotal and scientific survey.

• I am an active WP:AFC reviewer so I do have a lot of Draft space articles on my watchlist due to having commented or declined them in the past. As you might expect it is common for authors to abandon them. It is also extremely uncommon for other authors/editors to pick them up and improve them.
• I am an active members of WP:DEPROD and WP:DEORPHAN and so have a lot of marginal mainspace articles on my watchlist too. Most of these survive and many of them are eventually improved, at least marginally.

Does anyone have any suggestions or tools for tracking the fate of Draft space articles, especially those that were moved there by someone other than the author? ~Kvng (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like discussion is finished over at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#WP:NPPDRAFT_vs._AfC_acceptance_criteria. There is no consensus to change WP:NPPDRAFT. NPP reviewers assure me that these involuntary moves to Draft don't happen often but they will continue to happen. ~Kvng (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 at Women in Red

August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131 Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red... Virtual events: New: Film+Stage / Indigenous women / Millennial countries Continuing: Sports (through August 31st) / Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: August's Indigenous Women event and the REDress Project Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

First time reviewer checking in

Hi, I've just completed my first AfC review on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Julie_Rieger and wanted to get some feedback before proceeding with more (not sure if this is the best place to ask this?) Could a more experienced reviewer pls check my review and confirm everything has been done appropriately? TIA! MurielMary (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@MurielMary: - this is fine for that - I'll take a look now. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@MurielMary: - so the primary call was fine, notability wasn't met. There was already a COI tag on the talk page, and one of the purposes of AfC is the editors with a COI to make articles, so further pointing out is unneeded. Obviously special focus on checking that any PaidCOI has declared properly is important.

I would also say that the article was advertorial, particularly with the use of external links in the prose text (some with the arrows, others given are pure URLs in the author section). They'd have to be removed if the draft was passed. There's also some phrasing issues. Nothing non-fixable.

I've no idea if you did or didn't do the following, so I'm just including it for completeness - apologies if unneeded! With someone like Rieger who is both businesswoman and an Author, as well as the general GNG check, make sure to check for alternate routes to notability like WP:AUTHOR.

It can be worth giving a couple of lines of specific fixing advice to the creator, especially if you think the draft could actually make a decent article. For example, the editor might actually find it easier to find a couple of book reviews, along with letting them know about external links issues.

That all said, looks good - no shying away from the tough drafts on your first review which is great - I was much more of a coward! Nosebagbear (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to have a look and provide feedback, much appreciated and very useful! MurielMary (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Young submissions are not aging through the pending categories

Joe's Null Bot used to purge every pending draft every day to update which subcategory of Category:AfC pending submissions by age it is in (0 days, 1 day, 2 days, ..., Very old). The bot's status page says it has been down since November 2018, but the bug that brought it down has long been fixed, a proposal to replace Joe's Null Bot was denied in April 2019 because "Joe's Null Bot should be working now", and something has been doing what Joe's Null Bot did, so perhaps the status page is just out of date.

For the past two weeks or so, however, the bot either hasn't been running, or has run on only some drafts (the oldest, I think; Joe set a sanity limit on the number of pages purged per day, and the ever-increasing backlog may have blown past that). The easiest way to see the effect is to look at Category:AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago, which contains many drafts that were submitted more than a day ago, such as Draft:Josie Moon and Draft:Los Angeles Contemporary Archive, both submitted on 16 July. Edits (including null ones) will jump a draft to the correct age.

Who should we notify about this? I left a message a week ago at User talk:Joe Decker in case his bot is still the one assigned to this. But Joe edits infrequently now, and he hasn't replied yet. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:AALERTS now supports WP:AFC

See, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts#AFC.

To make sure projects get notified, make sure to tag drafts with the relevant WikiProject banners. This will be particularly helpful if you come across a draft, but don't feel like the best person to review it.

Cheers and thanks to Hellknowz for the update. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Note that this is new, and there may be some kink in the processing. If you notice something weird, please report it at WP:AALERTS/BUGS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

AFCH and Draft:Anita Andreis

I am ready to accept Draft:Anita Andreis but after filling in the accept information, I get no response from AFCH when I push the Accept & publish button. Anyone know what's going on here. I'm using Chrome on Windows 10. ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I hate to give the "standard IT help" reply, but have you tried on a different browser and/or clearing your cache? Primefac (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Tried on both FF and Chromebook, neither did anything. As an alternate question of things not working, is there anyone who has been able to accept a draft? This many users across two pages makes me think it's an error with AFCH itself. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It could be just a network error. Probably HTTP 201. Masum Reza^📞 15:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm seeing this problem with Draft:Pan Kim. Tried clearing cache and purge too. I can mark the draft under review or add comments, but not do the Accept & Publish. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Enterprisey. Masum Reza^📞 16:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• I am having the same problem trying to accept. The button is not working. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Same at Draft:Journal_of_Singularities Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• I put a temporary fix in place while I actually resolve this. (Apparently they changed the MediaWiki API.) Let me know if any further issues arise. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Enterprisey: Draft:Journal_of_Singularities gave me this upon acceptance. This happened a few times before, and things basically crash and I need to do the rest manually. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Likewise, asking to clean Draft:American_Political_Thought equally gives me that error. I'm using Firefox 68.0.1 64-bit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

    Headbomb, alright, I think I found the issue. Seems to be working on my end, too. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

    • Still getting timeouts when I mark things for review. [4]. This seems to be a necessary step to be able to approve a declined draft. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

      Ok, timeouts should be gone. Absolutely no idea why my hack works. Will continue investigating. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

      • @Enterprisey: A weird thing happened with the cleaning. [5]. And the timeouts are indeed gone! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
        • I did have to cleanup this and this after the accepting. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

          Yeah, there's a regex that dislikes your signature for some reason (specifically, the final closing curly brace "}"). Continuing to look into it. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

          Alright, disgusting fix in place for everyone. Will look into a long-term fix. (For posterity: this regex, as the comment above it suggests, hates templates that contain single curly braces.) Enterprisey (talk!) 08:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: It's still doing it with the 'cleaning' button. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright, should be fixed for that case. Enterprisey (talk!) 10:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, thank you very much for all the bug reports! Enterprisey (talk!) 10:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: If you want more, there's always the Wikiproject banner mess! Likewise for duplicate categories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Enterprisey. I have successfully accepted Draft:Anita Andreis. ~Kvng (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry to sneak in here @Enterprisey:, but you mentioned other bug reports. Have you had any luck with the "declines turning to rejects" that caused the discussion above (you know, in your copious free time ;)? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, I did look into it, but I was unable to reproduce the bug on Firefox or Chrome. (Will try on Edge, though, but I have less experience making stuff work there.) If anyone could give me a reliable way to make a decline happen in the place of a reject or vice versa that would be immensely helpful. I will of course keep trying to reproduce it myself. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Enterprisey:, btw, things never reload automatically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Enterprisey:, also 'cleaning' should do this [6]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Special:NewPages for drafts

Hey, it probably already exists, but I think it would be a good idea for people to patrol new drafts, a la NPP, to reduce work for AfC/G13, and nip spam/vandalism in the bud. Does there exist a place to check? PrussianOwl (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@PrussianOwl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages?namespace=118wpFormIdentifier=newpagesform --DannyS712 (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• @PrussianOwl and DannyS712:, Significant development was carried out earlier this year by WMF devs in very close collaboration with a team of en.Wiki AfC and NPP users to greatly improve both processes.

All drafts are displayed in the dynamic list at Special:NewPagesFeed. Select 'Articles for Creation' and then from 'Set filters' choose from the multiple options which kind of drafts you would like to review. All AfC reviewers are encouraged to use this feed. There is a link to it in 'Tools' in the sidebar menu. See 'New Pages Feed'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You can also filter (sorta) by subject areas and other useful categories at toollabs:apersonbot/pending-subs. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't mean submitted drafts. I mean newly created drafts, is there anything to show those? PrussianOwl (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@PrussianOwl: CopyPatrol does what you describe. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Really? I tried it and couldn't get it to do that. PrussianOwl (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@PrussianOwl: Open the tool. Select "Drafts only" at the top. Click the "Submit" button without providing any search string. As of this instant, you should get 3 results, one of which is Draft:Arrow Award, a draft that has never been submitted for review. If you select "All cases" instead of the default "Open cases", you should get even more results, including ones that not only have never been submitted, but that have no draft templates, such as Draft:Jwalshik Wilford and Draft:Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Sound Effects, Foley, Dialogue and ADR for Animated Feature Film. Was that what you were looking for? --Worldbruce (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Thanks! PrussianOwl (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

IP masking

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:BITEy

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)

Draft: Geography of Brisbane, existing redirect

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)

Reviewer not responding to concerns

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.

---

• Dan arndt (talk · contribs · xtools · pages created · logs ^{(block • csd • prod)} · afd)

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 submission

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. [7], [8], 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: [9], [10] ? 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

• http://www.arabstates.undp.org/content/rbas/en/home/ourwork/SyriaCrisis/in_depth.html

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)

Multiple WikiProject tags

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)

Should we consider changing the AfC Reviewer thing to a bit?

Just fishing for some open opinions. Thanks, Lourdes 03:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What would that solve? Especially if that makes getting involved in AFC review even harder, with a growing backlog of now nearly 4700 articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, not every change needs to have a problem to solve :) It's just a perspective. Currently, when editors apply and their request gets approved, an administrator manually adds them to a page. Nobody knows that an editor is an AfC reviewer, unless they see the page where their name is added. I would believe having this as a bit would not only allow ease of process, but would allow other editors to both note who is an AfC reviewer (and maybe thus help in reaching out to them) and also to get interested in applying to be an AfC reviewer. Thoughts? Lourdes 05:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

More bits available for hat collecting? Yippee! SD0001 (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@SD0001: - I've just treated it like a Tea cosy and a de-facto hat, and thus suitable for collecting ;) Nosebagbear (talk)

If there's a technical reason, like a script which automatically checks the user's flags, then I could see it as useful. But the main script already checks the user list (and it's not like anything is stopping someone from technically changing pages without a flag). If the script's author(s) want to use a flag instead and there's some good reasons for it, then it sounds good. But I don't think there's any other real (read: hat collecting) reason for the flag that I can think of. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

In fact, if we want to make it easier to get involved, we could have script permissions for every autopatrol/pagemover/sysop/crat/other suitably 'high' trust type of person. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Domestic Violence in South Korea

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)

That doesn't necessarily have to be done by the author does it, so long as proper attribution is given? There is no guarantee that the author will return and it would be shame to lose what appears to be a decent article, or at least a better one than the one we have now. I'm not convinced that this would be better than just moving the pages around though. PC78 (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have much expertise in this area but I don't let that stop me. I guess you could do the copy-paste yourself then request a history merge using the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves § Instructions for tagging a page for history merging. ~Kvng (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A twofold question

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)

Update: The author presented some additional qualifying refs on the draft talk page and so I resubmitted it on their behalf and have accepted it. ~Kvng (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Add more dated categories?

Given the "Very old" category has 1.7k pages in it, would it be prudent to add a few more weekly categories until the backlog is a little more under control, and to give a bit better information about how long reviews might take? stwalkerster (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 at Women in Red

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135 Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red... Online events: New: Law / Military history / Writers / Geofocus: defunct countries Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Missing articles about notable women by "nationality" vs. "country of citizenship" Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Classical music not in database?

I'm accepting Draft:Symphonie funèbre. When I type "classical music" into the projects box, I get, "Whoops, no WikiProjects matched in database! classical music". Yet, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music exists. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

And, just typing "music" auto-completes to Chrisian Music, instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Music is an umbrella project, so it doesn't have a WikiProject banner, and doesn't allow articles to be tagged as "of interest" to them. Articles should only be associated with more specific music projects like WikiProject Classical music. I've asked Enterprisey to add WikiProject Classical music and a few others to the AFCH choices, at their convenience. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Amer Nejma

A few days ago I rejected Draft:Amer Nejma due to a lack of WP:RS. Today, the creator added more sources and posted a message on my talk page so I took a look at the draft and I tried to accept the draft as it now met the general notability guidelines. However, the draft appears to have a past history of promotion/advertising without any sources, which resulted in the article being create-protected by an admin (the AFCH helper script showed that). What should I do in this case? Taewangkorea (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• The draft at its current state has some issues with grammar/organization but it is not promotional. Taewangkorea (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Just a drive-by comment, but looking at it, I'm not sure it passes GNG or MUSICBIO yet. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources are independent and reliable, so I've declined it as non-notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Worldbruce I would have thought that sources 1,3, and 4 on the article (Thrive Global, The Further, Vizaca) would demonstrate notability but would they not? Taewangkorea (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

See my decline comment on the draft. #1 (Thrive Global) is written "by Sarah Olray, PR & Media Expert at Olray Media Inc". #3 is a press release. #4 is an obscure company (not on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, not cited anywhere else in Wikipedia, nor cited by any reliable source) that says "We are team of global writers, entrepreneurs and marketers" and describes its purpose as "to showcase their talent, give them outreach, connecting them with the right audience and promote their businesses worldwide". The author is identified only as "Vizaca Contributors", but one of the top Google search results for the company is Sarah Olray over on Thrive Global boasting "Since the start of my career, I have been in Content Marketing and have proven record by featuring businesses, products and technology on various news outlets like Forbes, entrepreneur.com, vizaca.com, ..." Forbes sites by contributors (rather than Forbes staff) are notoriously worthless blogs, and vizaca.com is similarly promotional. P.S. If you were trying to notify me, the syntax you used didn't work. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The reason it didn't work is because they didn't sign their comment in the same edit, rather it was an edit. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Worldbruce:Ok. Thank you for that. I should have taken a closer look at the sources. (I am also unfamiliar in general with music-related areas, so it would probably be a wise idea for me to review areas I am more familiar with.) Taewangkorea (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

AFCH helper script and G6 nominations

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)

Bump, to save from the jaws of the archiving bot. --kingboyk (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobody? User:AngusWOOF, as you have a G6 up right now to move an unapproved draft to mainspace? --kingboyk (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Less tolerance for promo editors recently?

In the last few months when I've declined drafts on the basis of advertising, increasingly admins have quickly speedily deleted the draft and blocked the editor. My own G11s where previously I might have thought were borderline are swiftly deleted with no rejections from admins. Has anyone else detected a subtle shift away from WP:AGF and WP:BITE and a harder line on WP:PROMO? Are admins routinely monitoring recent AfC declines? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Curb Safe Charmer Greetings. Promotion articles (draft or in NPP) and content violate the WP:COPYVIO can be tagged for CSD and will be deleted for they violate the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and I dont consider as WP:BITE. Thanks CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Given that such a high proportion of our rejects are thinly veiled promo, what should reviewers' role be in this? Should the 'written like an advertisement' reject option in the AfC helper display a 'nominate this article for deletion?' option in the same way that it does when selecting CV as the decline reason? And shouldn't the script default the nominate for deletion to 'yes' by default for CV drafts? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is a shift. I radically delete promotional pages or drafts. There is no need to treat deliberate promotionalists with kid gloves. They are not here to build an encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said the shift was unreasonable, but I'd be firmly against adding it as a suggested standard option. Unlike CV where you usually remove enough of a draft to make it cease being self-standing, we often get enough promo to warrant declining without going into the "exclusively promotional". Nosebagbear (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted. This is the only way to discourage people from using the WP for advertising. If the subject is actually important, someone else will create an article. Rescuing it sends the message that if your write an unacceptable article about yourself, someone will very possibly fix it for you, and therefore you might as well try to advertise here. It furthermore sends the message that if you you hire someone to write an article and they take money for doing this, and they write the usual unacceptable article such people write, then someone will fix it for you free, while the guy who wrote the bad article gets the money. DGG

• And that echoes my opinion entirely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• I share the same thoughts with DGG and Kudpung here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

My opinion about what policy ought to be does not make policy.

If I had been giving this as a practical suggestion of policy wording instead of advocacy for what our general position ought to be, there would have been a number of qualifiers. What I wrote was advocacy, and, like all advocacy, not necessarily to be taken literally. Though I certainly think it is better to delete than fix most promotionalism. the nature of promotionalism is not clear cut.

1/ In a sense, even a NPOV article about a product or person or idea or organization will necessarily to some extent have a promotional effect.

2/ The prevalence of promotionalism on Wikipedia -- and in the world in general--is so great, that even those intended in good faith to write a npov article can sound promotional . Many new editors whose articles are marked as promotional reply that they are simply writing in the manner they see here. About 90% of these are simply promotional editors trying to make excuses for themselves, and my reply to them is usually some variant of ::::there are hundreds of thousands of promotional articles on Wikipedia accepted when standards were lower that have not yet been removed. The least we can do is not add to them.

but the other 10% are sincere editors making efforts to write an honest Wikipedia article. Ive made incorrect accusations of coi editing, and so have others; good checkusers have even made incorrect judgments of promotional sockpuppettry. There's a particularly unfortunate example of just this sort of error of mine at the bottom of my user talk page right now that I will have to deal with.

Tho promotional articles should be deleted, they should not all be deleted by speedy. Deletion policy remains that CSD G11 applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. However, many of us, including myself, have increasingly been interpreting this much less restrictively--tho I intend to continue my broad interpretation, I may possibly sometimes have gone a little futher than the community would support. it's not the place of admins to stretch community standards in their admin actions, as distinct from when they argue for what the standards should be.

Even more, AfC does not make the standard for either promotionalism or notability or any other part of WP:NOT. It's our role here just to make the judgment for whether the community would or would not be likely to accept the article. The are further screens--Kudpung and I have been fairly successful in making sure that all AfC acceptance still go to NPP. The place for a broad interpretations should be as community decisions at XfD, where any good arguement is acceptable if the community supports it. We need to make more use of MfD. (and, as mentioned, of blocking as "purely promotional account". I agree we do not do this enough. My experience is that it sends an unmistakable message, more so than just deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that excellent summary, DGG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• I can concede further use of MfDs to handle instances, particularly of resubmitted rejections for promo. I assume that DGG, when he said "Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted.", meant any draft created by a promo editor, otherwise we've reached real axe-spanking territory. I liked the immediately above summary, though as I said above, I plan to stick with my firmer interpretation. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Promotional articles are fundamentally unsalvageable. It's not a matter of the specific language used, it's the fact that they exist. Imagine all the possible topics that might get written about. From those, select the subset which are topics people want to promote to their own advantage (advertising a business, vanity, whatever). If these articles get written, and eventually edited (i.e. WP:BOGOF) to get rid of the flowery language and make them pass WP:GNG, then what we end up with is an encyclopedia of well-written advertisements. We worry about selection bias. Well, this too is selection bias; it's selecting for those topics which advance somebody's personal interests. We seem to lose sight of that when dealing with WP:G11 cases. It's also the main reason I generally refuse to help people when they ask, "What do I need to make my page acceptable?" If the page is promotional, the only correct answer is, "There's nothing you can do; it's fundamentally not acceptable and no amount of editing will change that". -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I assume this is more advocacy. It is definitely not policy nor is it current sentiment at AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed my opinion. I wish more people shared that opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith and Kvng:, I wholly endorse Roy's comments. Who says this is not the sentiment at AfD? AfD is a terribly imperfect system. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

IME WP:IMPERFECT is still persuasive in deletion discussions. Discussions mostly focus on WP:N. WP:ATD suggestions are open-mindedly considered. I haven't seen a WP:TNT proposal prevail. Admittedly my AfD participation is spotty, selective and imperfect. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Pre-set focus?

Would it be possible to have input focus pre-set to the "Select Some Options" text box after clicking the decline button? That's virtually 100% of the time where I want to type next. Having the focus preset would save a mouse click. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Rejecting first attempts

I have recently seen a few drafts that weren't just declined but rejected on the first attempt, often without any additional comments by the reviewer. The most recent example was Draft:Paul Mwazha by Bishal Shrestha, but I've seen other reviewers do the same. I find the assertion "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." rather strong. Unless the reviewer has done some research of their own (which I'd say should be mentioned in a comment), I don't see how a first draft's subject can be concluded to not be notable. Wouldn't it make more sense to decline, give guidance on what's missing, and to only reject when it's clear that the author indeed cannot show that the subject is notable, instead of just being ignorant of the notability criteria? What's the general opinion on rejecting drafts on the first review? Huon (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Huon: Thanks for bring this up Huon. I rejected the draft since it was a complete gibberish during this submission and no notability of the article was found howsoever. I checked online for any references I could get for the article and could only find some which mentioned 'he turned 100', which isn't enough at all to have an article on that ground. I, on a second thought, think that it would have been better if I left some comments while rejecting the submission. But given that the article was totally not notable (and more of , I thought it would have been understandable. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think that rejection should have been used on that page, which provides references and is absolutely not "gibberish", merely poorly written and formatted. I do think that rejection should be used in some cases after a first submission—those cases where there simply aren't any reliable sources. In these cases I do always make a quick check for reliable sources online and if I find a single one then I switch to "decline". Of course, care should be taken where we might reasonably expect sources to exist in a non-English language. — Bilorv (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've previously proposed that reject should never happen on a first review. There was not a lot of support for this proposal. I do think current guidelines for use of reject need to be tightened but, based on previous discussion here, it seems many reviewers like carrying a big hammer. @Huon: where is it that you come across rejected drafts? Since they can't be resubmitted, there's a lot less less reviewing of the reviewer for rejects. ~Kvng (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm frequentl y in the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel. Sometimes people whose drafts were rejected find their way there and ask for advice. Huon (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there any way to search for rejected drafts? ~Kvng (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

See Category:Rejected AfC submissions StarryGrandma (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think it is really handy and it saves time. Although your are under no compunction to do any research outside what is available in references, often people do it to determine if the article is notable. Classic articles that get rejected first go are bands that are not notable. They're very easy to check but there are types e.g CEO's of very small companies, social media influencers with no fans and so on. For that reason alone was the reason it created in the first place. Going back to decline would waste a fantastic amount of time. More so as it is going to disappoint more folk when the article is pushed into Afd. scope_creep^Talk 23:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• I am of the opinion that drafts should not be rejected on first submit. If a draft is so bad that rejection on first submit appears to be warranted, deletion is probably better. At least in that case the draft author is likely to recieve a notice explaining what happened and why. The rejection system was created to provide an alternate method for dealing with re-submitted bad drafts, and is currently designed with that in mind. Rejections don't give much detail to the author in their notices and are quite a blunt tool indeed. There is no deadline, and I'm not opposed by any means to rejection on the second submission. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Rejected draft

What is the process when a draft is rejected, specifically Draft:OANDA then review is held review where an examination found there was no coverage, but the paid filing editor resubmitted it, and now found to be moved from rejected to declined. Surely if rejected that it is final. scope_creep^Talk 22:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:MfD. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Generally, MFD, as said. I have, on a couple of occasions, declined a resubmitted rejected resolution - as there were changes that made me feel that the "irrevocable" status no longer was accurate. It might be worth checking with @AngusWOOF: that they don't hold that point of view. Obviously that discussion can be had on MfD if needed, but it seems better if we give the latest reviewer some latitude on their judgements (once confirmed). Nosebagbear (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I gave the editor feedback on what needs to be in the article before reconsidering, namely that the balance of articles should be presented not just the positive glowing press. It will still have the COI or UDP tag regardless unless an editor can really scrub it for neutrality. Also, it is the editor that "resubmitted" the article despite the stop sign, asking for another editor to review, of which I volunteered. If you feel it should be rejected with no hope of improvement, we can go there with MFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This was discussed here. I don't believe there was consensus that this was a good reject. More discussion is apparently required. I've watchlisted the draft and will try to chime in wherever this lands. ~Kvng (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Review requested on Draft:Veronica Monet

I was just pinged by the author of this draft, pending for 3 months. Could someone please take a look? MER-C 13:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

For anyone reading, this was reviewed by another user, but currently facing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Monet Nosebagbear (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Are multiple interest-specific websites enough for notability?

Greetings. I am currently reviewing this draft: Draft:Hunter Avallone. The draft has many "references," but I am questioning the reliability of the LGBT-oriented websites as they are not mainstream news media. Would these be okay since there are many of these questionable websites? Thank you. William2001^(talk) 23:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I know that the YouTube videos are neither reliable nor independent. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 23:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Article already (rightfully) exists

How do you get rid of the draft (Draft:The Gospel According to Lazarus)? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cf, where does the article already exist? Thanks, Lourdes 08:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The Gospel According to Lazarus (novel). Thincat (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No, no, no. Please do not delete drafts because the article exists. Please redirect the draft to the article. This is what is done if the draft is accepted via AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes and Robert McClenon: I've restored and redirected it, hope you don't mind. I think the original creator has already found the mainspace version, but still, disappearing drafts with no notification to the creator or submitter isn't ideal. – Joe (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Joe Roe. Abandoned drafts are deleted in six months. Accepted drafts can be kept until 2038 as redirects. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Articles created in template namespace

I have a suspicion this originates from WP:WIZARD or something similar. A while back I created Special:AbuseFilter/994, and it has seen a regular supply of articles created in the template namespace. They don't appear to be malicious attempts to get around new page patrolling. Usually the template title is some combination of an existing template and the subject name, and I notice there are often userspace drafts that transclude it. So I think what is happening is they copy/paste an example article into their sandbox, then change some template in the code to the subject name (e.g. {{my article}}), thinking that is what they're supposed to do. Then they see the red link, and recreate the content in the templatespace.

Some examples, most all of which were draft articles (side note, I realize I may have mishandled some of these by moving them to the userspace rather than draft):

• Template:Use mongolia — probably from them changing the presupplied {{User sandbox}} wikitext.
• Template:Melvis Glez / sandbox — notice the transclusion at Special:PermaLink/909983288.
• Template:Infobox Tennis Player — from Special:Permalink/910777151
• Template:User Micheal Peres — looks like the title was derived from one of the userbox templates.
• Template:Infobox musical artist ==
• Template:Infobox Chargé d'Affaires
• Template:Travel2Ooty — a bizarre example where the article content was placed in the TemplateData (see Special:PermaLink/916472246)
• Template:Please leave this line alone (nigerss) — looks like an embedded comment from the preloaded text of an AfC submission.

I can't figure out why this keeps happening. I've asked some of the users for clarification but did not receive a reply. I need to refine the filter to reduce false positives, but we might consider at least having it show a warning. Note also the filter only looks for common markup found in articles. There might very well be many more draft articles lingering in the templatespace.

Any ideas? Thanks, — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I also think this can be put down to basic cluelessness. It needs to be followed up though, so showing a warning should be considered. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think you are right, but I do not know how to combat that; we cannot change the code itself to avoid the redlinks to "templates" when someone makes a typo, but at the same time there's no way to make a fool-proof way of article creation. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Template" can be read as synonymous with "draft". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe: Wow, I did not think of that! You might be on to something. We could add a message shown just for new users at MediaWiki:Newarticletext, that briefly explains what templates are, and instruct them to go to WP:WIZARD or WP:DRAFTS instead. How does that sound? We did something similar for the article namespace back before ACTRIAL happened. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Article stalled in process?

About 24 hours ago I accepted a draft and published it, but the page still has a maintenance tag on top - has the publishing process somehow stalled for it? Anyone able to shed some light on what's happened? TIA! The article is Sharon_Rechter MurielMary (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

MurielMary, this is a known bug where AFCH doesn't complete the process of removing the submission template etc. Doesn't happen often, which is probably why we've never really been able to track down what's causing the issue (I personally think it's the user closing out of the window too soon, but it could also be a browser- or server-side issue). It will just have to be removed manually. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, thanks for the reply. Yes I wondered afterwards if I had clicked refresh/reload too soon i.e. while the process was still in progress. I'll tidy it up manually. Thanks! MurielMary (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Publishing when there is already a redirect page of that name

I've reviewed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marie_Newman# and will publish it, however there is already a redirect set up for "Marie Newman" that leads here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Illinois#District_3 I'm not sure how to handle this! Publish with a slightly different name then move it to replace the redirect? Any thoughts? TIA. MurielMary (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

MurielMary, you should G6 the redirect with {{db-move}}, indicating that there's a draft waiting for approval. Primefac (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding articles created from AfC

Hello. Few articles created from AfC are not marked as reviewed (and so listed in New pages feed), and few are auto-reviewed. Some of them which are not, are:

• Ian McBryde (South Australian politician)
• George Sparnon
• Ken Price (South Australian)
• Thomas C. Katsouleas
• Purple Rose Theatre Company (Michigan theatre)
   :(as on 11:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC))

Plz somebody explain how does it work. Thank you.
--Gpkp [u • t • c] 12:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gpkp: - drafts accepted by AfC aren't automatically patrolled by NPP. Most reviewers are also patrollers - some patrol anything they accept through AfC; others do not. It's a bit of an ideological divide that's been hashed out before without any firm consensus.

AfC-reviewed articles almost always get patrolled quickly, but there are occasional exceptions. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Nosebagbear:, As I myself being an AfC reviewer (with New Page Reviewer flag from past few days), didnt had to review the articles which I created from AfC, as they were autopatrolled (as I had flag: autopatrolled). But you can see this article created from AfC: Deborra Richardson. Its accepted by reviewer who has flag: autopatrolled (plz check here on their flags), but still had to review it manually (As per the ′Page Info′ seen in Page Curation tool in article). Or is there any issue with the AfC Helper Script?
--Gpkp [u • t • c] 13:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear:, you have mentioned ′drafts accepted by AfC aren't automatically patrolled by NPP′. And also it is true that drafts accepted by AfC are automatically patrolled if the concerned AfC reviewer has Autopatrolled flag. (You can check below example I mentioned in discussion with User:CASSIOPEIA). By the way would you plz reply to my previous post? Thank you. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gpkp: - sorry, I didn't have a crystal clear answer and wasn't sure the question was specifically for me - I'd hoped another had an answer. Because it's the first I've heard of users with the same userights (both autopatrolled) getting different responses, I've no idea if it's a problem with AFC helper or some other aspect Nosebagbear (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Nosebagbear:. Plz dont feel sorry. I pinged you because you showed early interest in resolving my query. Thanks --Gpkp [u • t • c] 14:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Hi Gpkp, Greetings. You have autopatrolled user right, which means you can create article via new page instead of AfC. I reviewed your article as the article was in the pool of AfC reveiw pool. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @CASSIOPEIA:, But which article you are mentioning that you reviewed? Is it Deborra Richardson? I didnt submit anything to AfC...
--Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gpkp, Deborra Richardson. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA:, Neither the draft nor the article of Deborra Richardson did I create. But it was User:Srcollier94, who submitted the Deborra Richardson-draft to AfC. Also, Its totally a different subject on which I was having a critical conversation, if you follow this thread closely. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA:, You can see these two threads for more info: thread1, thread2. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gpkp Oh yes, you are right it is Srcollier94. However, I dont quite get what you meant above "Its accepted by reviewer who has flag: autopatrolled (plz check here on their flags), but still had to review it manually (As per the ′Page Info′ seen in Page Curation tool in article). " CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA:, I just didnt mention your username there.
By the way, ever wonder how this is occurring in AfC? You having autopatrolled flag, need to manually review an article (which you passed from AfC draftspace) when its usually not so? I never had to get the 'AfC-created-article' reviewed as I had autopatrolled flag. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Gpkp, When I create an article, I do it via NPP. I am a reviewer/patroller for both AfC and NPP for such I review articles in both AfC and NPP. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA:, With ′Autopatrolled′ flag you dont have to review any article. ′Autopatrolled′ flag means Auto - patrolled; meaning Auto reviewed (on articles which you create directly or via passing in AfC). You can see it here: Wikipedia:Autopatrolled, where it states as: ′...in order to reduce the workload of New Page Patrol.′
On articles created by other users its legit that you are patrolling/reviewing their articles. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 17:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way its day over here. I will continue by tomorrow. Thank you @CASSIOPEIA:. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 17:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Gpkp I know the I "auto patroll" articles that I create. What I meant was I review other editors' articles in AfC and NPP. We both say the same thing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

See @CASSIOPEIA:, I can explain you in below way:

• C=Coloumn | R=Row

	CASSIOPEIA	Gpkp
Autopatrolled?	Yes (C2R2)	Yes (C3R2)
New Page Reviewer?	Yes (C2R3)	Yes (C3R3)
AfC Reviewer?	Yes (C2R4)	Yes (C3R4)
Need to patrol the articles they accepted from AfC? AfC acceptances getting auto-reviewed in New Pages Feed?	No (C2R5)	Yes (C3R5)

′Need to patrol the articles they accepted from AfC?′ ′AfC acceptances getting auto-reviewed in New Pages Feed?′ means: A draft submitted by a user which is accepted as article from AfC, either by CASSIOPEIA or Gpkp. It doesnt mean on the drafts accepted as articles by other AfC-reviewers, which are listed in New Pages Feed, and patrolled either by CASSIOPEIA or Gpkp, or waiting to get patrolled.

My query was how your acceptance from AfC isnt autopatrolled? (C2R5)

Example:

Article	AfC Reviewer	Page info as seen (as on 06:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)) in Page Curation Tool	Note
Prue MacSween	User:MurielMary	′This page was autopatrolled.′	Created article was auto-reviewed
Deborra Richardson	User:CASSIOPEIA	′Marked as reviewed on 21 September 2019 by CASSIOPEIA (talk/contribs)′	Created article was manually-reviewed
Sprague effect	User:Gpkp	′This page was autopatrolled.′	Created article was auto-reviewed

--Gpkp [u • t • c] 06:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• I believe that I am responsible for these. I prefer to not NPReview my AfC acceptances. Should I? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe:, Please dont worry, you are not responsible for anything mentioned in this thread; and also not (to anything wrongful) in AfC or NPR (hopefully). My whole query in this thread was just to know whether there is anything wrong in AFCH script, Autopatrolled flag or any other script.
By the way it seems that its optional choice of the AfC reviewer (with NPR flag) to review their AfC acceptances, as mentioned in the above reply of Nosebagbear, as:
′Most reviewers are also patrollers - some patrol... ...others do not. It's a bit of an ideological divide that's been hashed out before without any firm consensus.′
In my past experience I've seen other reviewers ′Unreview′ ing any NPR-acceptances if issues found. Thank you.
--Gpkp [u • t • c] 15:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Gpkp, I noticed for Sprague effect and Prue MacSween, there were these tag on the pages - [11] and [12]. Hi @Primefac:, Maybe you would advise on this? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That tag was there in Deborra Richardson too. Rev | May be its because of a possible bug in AFCH script, as mentioned in the succeeding thread's reply of User:Primefac. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 14:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Primefac Thanks for the reply. Since I am here, just to confirm which I think I read it somewhere that a draft article has been reviewed/patrolled by an editor who holds both AFC and NPP reviewer/patroller right will automatically treated as reviewed of a NPP and the article is placed in the mainspace. An editor who holds only AfC reviewer right, the articles they have reviewed will be place in NPP reviewing pool by other NPP reviewer prior the article will be placed in the mainspace. Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am aware AFCH has nothing to do with patrolling/NPR duties, and it's entirely dependent on whether the reviewer is autopatrolled or an NPR; accepted articles reviewed by those not in either of those two categories will need to be patrolled by an NPR. Primefac (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, One thing I like to bring to your concern that the tags which you mentioned in your earlier reply 1, 2, (and in my reply :3), are necessary basic tags which are required to be used to, for the drafts to get submitted to AfC. Without those tags the AfC banner wont appear in the draft.

Primefac, Thank you for clearing it out. But how CASSIOPEIA's AfC-accecptances not getting auto-reviewed/patrolled in New Pages Feed? (Provided User:CASSIOPEIA has flags: Autopatrolled and NPR) The situation is more strange now as you've mentioned in your previous reply that it has got nothing to do with AFCH script?
--Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, Thank you for reply. That confirmed my understanding that after an draft article get reviewed by an an editor who holds only the AfD reviewer user right, will still need to be reviewed by a NPP reviewer prior the article to be placed in main space. Another question - My understanding is that articles created by editors who hold NPP reviewer user right would still need to be reviewed by other NNP reviewer. If my understanding is incorrect, then pls advise. Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140 Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red... Online events: New: STEM / Fashion / Geofocus: landlocked countries / Stub Contest Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Women vice Chancellors in Top 200 universities Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Change clock icon in {{AFC submission/created}}

Hi, would you support changing the clock icon used in {{AFC submission/created}} (currently ). I suggest changing the icon to , as it is nicer, with cleaner edges and a more suited icon for a more modern Wikipedia. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 20:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Previously discussed, in a template-protected edit request, at Template talk:AFC submission#Better clock picture

• Support as nom. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 20:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the icon suggest looks better.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 21:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Very old reviewing backlog approaching G13: A call to arms

Over the past 4-6 weeks, AfC reviewers have done a sterling job reducing the number of pending AfC drafts (down from 4755 to 4253) and the number of very old submissions (down from 1932 to 1323). The age of the oldest pending submissions has continued to grow, however, and now stands at five and half months.

The drafts that have been pending review the longest, if not edited by a human since submitted, will start becoming eligible for speedy deletion under G13 about two weeks from now. I don't know if any admin would delete a review-pending draft as abandoned, but would prefer not to put the question to the test. Of course it's also sad that anyone has to wait that long for a review, sometimes their first.

Unless the community sees this situation as positive (a passive way to reduce the backlog without reviewing, perhaps), please put some reviewing energy into the longest-pending drafts in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old. Many hands make light work! --Worldbruce (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Worldbruce: - an excellent point, I'll make sure to do my bit. I'm also going to drop a bit on WP:AN to specifically ask Admins NOT to execute G13s on AfC drafts. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft sorting?

Has any thought been given to draft sorting, similar to how we sort AfD nominations? I waste a lot of time looking at drafts I'm not interested or qualified to review (music, biography). I would be a lot more efficient if I could quickly find those drafts about, say, technology, science, engineering, and historical topics, where I can add more value. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Over 50% of drafts, and over 75% of drafts 5 weeks old and older, are sorted. The predominant method is by WikiProject. If a reviewer is interested in history, for example, they can go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts and see the 27 military history drafts awaiting review.

An alternative sorting method, less used now that pending drafts are shown in article alerts, uses a combination of infobox templates and WikiProjects. One can view the pending submissions table and filter by, for example, Military history. Some differences are to be expected because the methods are different, but I can't immediately account for why this method shows only 19 military history drafts right now.

A significant limitation of sorting is that at the animal shelter there are many volunteers to walk the dogs, but none to muck out the kennels. All help is appreciated, but the most helpful reviewers are those who are willing to "take one for the team" and review drafts no one wants to review (like the biographies and company/organization articles that make up 60% of all drafts). --Worldbruce (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Raihan Merchant

Hi. Raihan Merchant has been moved from drafspace to mainspace by its author Harishassan (talk · contribs), bypassing AfC where it had previously been declined. A Google search indicates that the author is probably paid as there is someone of that name advertising their content writing services on Upwork. The draft itself comes across as a CV, and has a promotional overtone but not to the extent that I'd tag it for deletion. Most of the references are interviews, listings or mentions - but he is a recipient of Sitara-i-Imtiaz, India's highest civilian award. Suggestions on appropriate action, if any? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Kicking it to Draft and declining seems a reasonable first step. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Could we have a bot tag untagged drafts with submission instructions?

I'm seeing quite a few new editors with questions like these, they start articles in draftspace but can't figure out how to submit them for review because they deleted the line {{subst:AFC submission/draftnew}}<!-- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. -->.

We have 10,000 draft articles that don't include the instructions "Click here to submit your draft for review", many of the authors just give up and the draft is then deleted in 6 months.

My suggestion is that we have a bot regularly add {{draft}} or {{subst:AFC draft}} onto these untagged drafts and ping the author in the edit summary, encouraging them to finish. Since some experienced editors do keep stuff in draftspace, we would want to ignore creations by experienced editors.

A spot check of untagged drafts by new editors shows that they're similar to the submitted AfC stuff, the majority is promotional, but there are also several good articles that I wouldn't want to see forgotten.

I originally posted this at at WP:BOTREQ, but it was suggested that this would need wider discussion.

– Thjarkur (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

People have objected to tagging drafts as drafts in the past because they feel that tagging drafts as drafts is offensive / crufty. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Tagging creations by experienced editors would be crufty, but I can't think of other solutions for how to handle creations by newbies. Those who use VisualEditor are completely lost, and there's no indication that their submission attempts don't work. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Concur with Þjarkur, but Template:Draft article#Default output text needs to be brought in line with ACREQ. The template infers that a draft must be submitted to AfC. This is not so. Any autoconfirmed user can move their draft to mainspace whereupon it will be reviewed at NPR. Perhaps Primefac knows more. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure of a concise way to say "please submit this for review at AFC, unless you're confident that it meets our policies in which case you're welcome to move it yourself" but I can see that there might be a little too much emphasis on "requiring" AFC. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support the proposal, but I think a better thin to do as well is to auto-welcome registered users who write a draft. The user example here looks to have discovered the {{helpme}} template, which is pretty impressive. Many won’t. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Rando thought - could we do an edit notice? That way (technically speaking) every Draft would "get the notice" but it wouldn't require what some view as bitey or unnecessary tagging of every draft. It could give 2-3 bullet points about the key Draft features (submitting, reviewing, and "moving if you want to do it yourself" for example). Primefac (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  Might be helpful. Editnotices are almost invisible for those who use VisualEditor (at least I never notice them, they're a tiny popup in the corner) and VisualEditor doesn't allow for subst:-ing. Explaining the process and pointing people who have trouble submitting to the helpdesk would still be good. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Royal and Venerable Confraternity of the Most Blessed Sacrament of Mafra

Other opinions, please. Help to review the article. Thanks.188.81.156.141 (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking to become a AfC Reviewer

I see you have a backlog, and I think I meet the criteria to review. Please let me know next steps. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petepetey (talk • contribs)

You need to request permission at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, in order to have access to the tool. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC

A RfC on the relationship between the AfC and NPP user rights has been posted. Editors here are invited to participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Magomed Magomedkerimov

Please could an admin check if Draft:Magomed Magomedkerimov is substantially the same as the version deleted as a result of this AfD? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

​Not an admin, but it seems not. Here's the last archived version from archive.org - https://web.archive.org/web/20190625041057/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magomed_Magomedkerimov ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer, the deleted page is a single-sentence substub. I'd mostly check to make sure the issues from the AFD have been met. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Question

I don't know if this is workable or not, but I wanted to ask if it would be possible to implement a system where pending AFC drafts could be subsorted for related subject areas or countries, similarly to how AFD discussions are. I think this would help reduce the backlog quicker, because it would enable people to more effectively prioritize their efforts on the subjects where they have enough expertise to be useful.

For example, if I happen to come across a glaringly obvious reject that I know no responsible reviewer would ever accept, such as a page that's completely unreferenced or consists of just the word "poop", then I'll gladly reject it no matter what — but if I come across a page that looks to be at least a moderately plausible article, then I'm a lot more picky about what and who I'm actually willing to evaluate in depth. I will take on a review of such a draft if it fits into certain specific subject areas (politicians, films, music, Canadian and US but not most other countries' media, Canadian people and places, etc.) that I regularly work on as it is, so that I'm already well-versed in what our notability standards are for that class of topic and what kinds of sources need to be shown to support them — but if an article falls outside of my established areas of expertise, then I'm a lot more reluctant to weigh in at all. (For example, academics are often accepted as notable solely on the basis of their citation indexes, even if they don't actually have even one single solitary reference of the "reliable source coverage about them in newspapers and magazines and books" variety that I'm trained to look for when it comes to politicians and musicians and writers — but an academic's citation index is not a thing I even know how to evaluate (where would I find it out in the first place? how high is enough? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯), so if I land on an academic's article in the AFC queue I just put it down and back off. And when it comes to sports, ice hockey is the only one where I know enough about our notability standards to evaluate a draft BLP of an athlete — in most other sports, I'm just "nope, not even touching this".

But with the AFC queue routinely backlogged into the thousands, it's often very hard to actually find the articles I actually have the expertise to review — with the result that in actual practice, I do far less AFC reviewing than I'm theoretically willing to, just because it can be difficult to find the articles I'm actually willing to take on. But if they were subject-sorted, either through topic/country subcategories or on sortlists like the deletion sorting queue uses, I'd be a lot more willing to visit the lists or categories for my domains of expertise regularly, and get a lot more drafts dealt with one way or the other.

So would such a system be implementable at all? Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Have you tried finding drafts using the method described above, in #Draft sorting? Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Article alerts list many pending drafts to choose from. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: I think @Bearcat: is requesting a more convenient method than article alerts - that is, something that only lists AFC submissions and nothing else. In the meanwhile Template:Draft article has a "subject" parameter that splits the glut of drafts by several categories. ミラP 19:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Ideally a more robust system would be preferable — especially since there's stuff still in the queue that's already expired off the new article alert timelines and/or stuff that doesn't need to be looked at because it's already been accepted or rejected without being removed from the lists — but the new article alert pages are definitely a somewhat helpful workaround in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of new article alerts, InceptionBot inspects new articles and generates lists for projects based on provided parameters. These lists aren't limited to articles with projects listed on the talk page and include drafts. See User:AlexNewArtBot for the currently supported lists and User:AlexNewArtBot/CanadaSearchResult for an example. I find these lists quite useful for the sciences. The lists only go back a couple of weeks though, so won't help for older drafts. But they don't require that drafts be categorized by a person. Though an editor could subject-sort from those lists if they can't deal with an article immediately. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

An RfC the project may be interested in

An RFC has been created to clarify the interpertation of the CSD:G13 rule at WT:CSD. Please feel free to review and comment as you see fit. Hasteur (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

AFCH should de-duplicate projects

I recently accepted Japanese influence on Korean culture. I entered "Japan" and "Korea" into the projects box. I hadn't noticed that the talk page already existed and it was already tagged with these two projects. Not the first time I've had that happen. Would it be possible for AFCH to check for duplicates before adding projects to the talk page? Even better, parse any existing talk page and pre-fill the dialog with those projects which are already selected. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been requested a few times over the years, and it's on the list of updates. I do like the latter suggestion, though, given that AFCH reads the existing cats listed - auto-filling in the existing WikiProject templates would be a nice addition. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

We’ve also talked about stopping the practice of adding WikiProject tags. WikiProject tagging should be left to the WikiProject. If they are not active or interested enough to participate in claiming new topics, why would anyone think the article would get some benefit from being tagged for the WikiProject? I can see arguments on both sides, but am most strongly concerned by the creation of an appearance of WikiProject interest when there is, in fact, none. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. An article on (for example) a black hole is in the purview of WP:AST because it is an astronomy topic, not because they "want" it. How would a project even know the article exists if we don't tag it, especially if it's a smaller project that might not have the time or resources to keep an eye on recent changes, AFC itself, etc? Primefac (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Tagging drafts with projects seems like a good idea to me. One problem I can see is I'm not always sure I've put something into the right projects. But, I assume if I've mis-assigned something, the folks who run that project will figure that out and fix it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

AFC/R script seemingly broken

Howdy Enterprisey, the script appears to be broken as any time I try to enact changes using it, it comes back with Error info: notoken — IVORK _Discuss 04:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: line 1153 of User:EnterpriseyBot/AFCRHS.js needs updating to use mw.user.options.get('csrfToken') rather than mw.user.options.get('editToken'), as the latter has been deprecated and removed. SD0001 (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Enterprisey (talk!) 16:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Script User:Enterprisey/draft-sorter.js displays an error upon clicking Save:

Couldn't save due to error: {"error":{"code":"notoken","info":"The \"token\" parameter must be set.","*":"See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-api-announce> for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes."},"servedby":"mw1276"}

The script contains the code token: mw.user.tokens.get( 'editToken' ), so perhaps this is another manifestation of the same underlying problem. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and so do 212 other user scripts. I've opened a thread at WP:IANB about the issue. SD0001 (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Sub-1000

It's been a little slow on this talk page but I know there has been a lot of behind-the-scenes editing because we're finally below 1000 drafts in our very old category (as of last purging it's at 0). There's still a lot of work to do to keep trimming it down, but I wanted to thank the editors who have put in the time and effort to bring us back down to a slightly-more-reasonable backlog. We've still got a ways to go to clear out that category (officially, the oldest draft at the moment is 4 mo 2 wk old), but it looks like we're headed in the right direction. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Bring HasteurBot back?

After a user asked on my talk page about bringing BasteurBot back, I filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14 asking to resume the "remind users at 5 months that their page could soon be eligible for G13", Nominate for CSD:G13 once the page does become eligible for G13, and "Notify editors who opt in at User:HasteurBot/G13 OptIn Notifications of any page that they've ever edited will soon be in danger of G13". I am coming back here to determine if there is consensus at the request of @Bradv:. Of note, I choose to uphold the strictest definition of G13 (absolutely no edits in the past 6 months) because "non-bot/trivial changes" is a discretionary factor that I'm more than willing to concede to other editors. Hasteur (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Support This is badly needed. Some admins are mass-deleting G13 drafts without reading them or issuing an advance notification to the creator. This is harmful to the project. Hasteurbot does the job better, by providing notifications before the deletion takes place. SD0001 (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

*opposed Do note a 6 month staled draft article would be either nominated for G13 or postponed of G13 for potential draft. Deleted G13 draft articles are those does not meet notability guidelines and admin would check the nominated drafts prior deletion. If the subject is so notable, many editor will create the article anyway and in addition G13 drafts would be get a WP:REFUND by the creator. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• • @CASSIOPEIA: with respect, your justification for your oppose is so confused as to suggest you haven't read the CSD:G13 rule. I do concede that some G13 nominations both by the bot and by humans may meet notability, however G13 does not deal with notability. It only looks at the time from the last edit (or non substantial edit). I remind you that notability is not supposed to be tested as a CSD criteria on draft space. Hasteur (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Hasteur I am not confused. I merely stated if a draft is deleted via G13, it always can be REFUND by creator. And if the creator does not ask for refund and other editor can create a page for the subject and if the subject is notable enough, it will be published in mainspace. No all abandoned darft need to be G13, they can also be postponing G13. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • CASSIOPEIA, while you are correct that a draft deleted via G13 may be restored via REFUND, many novice editors do not know that, and no one automatically notifies them. Why do you object to a bot notifying editors that pages they created will be eligible for G13 in a month? It might induce soem to resume work and actually produce fini9shed drafts that cam become articles. And for those where it has no such effect, what is the harm? It doesn't delay G13 deletion at all. I do not understand the basis of your objection to such a bot. I wish you would explain further. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • DESiegel Greetings. An automatic message indications "If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code and "REFUND" link' is sent out to creator on their talkpage when a G13 tag on the draft page. So they know they can either continues to work on the draft or if the article is deleted, they can get a REFUND. - example HERE 1. When the draft has been deleted and if the creator click on the draft link or search for the draft name it will lead them to the daft page where by the "REFUND" message could be found again. - see HERE-2 CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • CASSIOPEIA My understanhding is that such notices are often, but not always sent. If a user manually places the G13 template, no notice is sent unless the nominating editor sends one manually. If Twinkle is used, a notice is sent by default, but a parameter settignn on Twinkle can prevent this. But in any case, you seem to be overlooking the factor of time. The notices you speak of are sent whrn the actual G13 template is applied to the page. From that point, the actual deletion will oftne happen in minutes to hours. A person who does not log min to Wikipedia every day is very likely to find the page already deleted. Yes REFUND is available (although it can be declined) but that is an additional step which I think many new editors do not understanhd and find offputting. Compared to this, a month's warning, during which period the editor, if he or she so chooses, can just start editing again, seems more likely to motivate at least some proportion of editors to resume work. But in any case, you did not answer my question: what harm will such notifications do? Even if one assumes that the notifications by the suggested bot are redundant, what is wrong with them? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
        • DESiegel From my experience, an automatic message is sent to creator if tag with CSD via Twinkle. There are a number of places as pointed out where creator would get a refund. If a refund is not granted by admin, admin would have the reasons (they could view the draft content and my understanding is usually is promotion/copyvio draft or other issues). It is not harm to delay the G13, however, it is not all staled drafts over 6 months is automatically G13, on average, we have over 1K staled drafts in our system and tagger needs to go through each draft to see if it should be tagged with G13 which will be checked by admin prior deletion for admin could decline G13 if the G13 doesnt apply to the draft, or proposing G13 for potential draft or moved to mainspace or accepted the draft (by reviewer) if subject pass notability guidelines. Secondly, for those drafts have submitted by creators and declined, reviewers have indicated what is needed/what is missing/ why it is declined and for a creator does not want to do what is needed or nothing could be one since the subject is not notable (in many cases) which means 6 months frame is a enough for the eligibility of G13. In AfC we dont go through AfD and usually decline if a subject has not show meeting the notability guideliens and allow 6 months to improve the article, in addition, autoconfirmed editor can always move the draft to main space in regardless the subject notability is met and we have to go through either PROP or AfD for such articles. The current system, allow many different venues, AfC help desk for creator to seek help, Refund, auto message on the draft of what is needed after a decline, message on creator talk page after a decline, reviewers comments on draft page, REFUND, a 6 month time before eligibility for G13 or proposing G13, move to main space for autoconfirmed editor, for creators to work on the drafts and an extra month's warning would do anything different? I doubt so, even those editors granted REFUND of their articles do not work on the draft, as from my experience, as many the subjects does not pass notability guidelines for many creators edited in Wikipedia with single purposes, crating an article of the subject who they know that is not notable, (by the time G13 is tagged, many creators have long gone from Wikipedia) and a second G13 would be tagged again after 6 months. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• I would very much prefeer to have the bot back, and to have most G13 noms made by the bhot, if possible. Strongly support. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Noting that the bot will uphold the strictest definition of G13 and not address drafts that are in userspace. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hasteur which is just what it did before, correct? Yes I would favor thst. Whether manual noms of other pages would continue is a separate issue, the bot would not prevent such noms. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

That is correct, I'm just wanting to make sure that expectations are set appropriately. Feel free to comment at the Bot task. Hasteur (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I am evaluating this discussion, and based on what I am seeing, I believe there is a consensus to have the bot resume it's activities. Absent a significant change in consensus, I intend to go back to the Bot request and specifically ask that the task be approved and the bot be re-flagged in no less than 24 hours. Hasteur (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support This bot provided a valuable service as it triggers our contributors into action. Otherwise they are triggered to action when the page is nominated for, or deleted, and it is probably too late, and makes more human work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This will avoid new editors needing to negotiate WP:REFUND. Anything that prompts more editor activity is good. ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - an essential feature of AfC and the draft management process. Per Graeme Bartlett: 'a valuable service as it triggers our contributors into action'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Good news everyone, we've released the flesh eating slugs... Wait, that's not right... Let's try again. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14 has been approved and the bot has regained it's Bot Flag. I'm re-activating the Notify script and running a batch right now. Keep in mind that we have a minimum 30 days between notification and bot nominating for G13. I'll start the BRFA for "If a page is in the notification window and it still shows as pending AFC submission, put an {{AFC comment}} in noting that issue and encourage people to not nominate for G13 while it's AFC that's holding up the issue. Hasteur (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I have now added a request to undo the latest edit to your bot's user page, knowing that your bot has been reactivated, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#User:HasteurBot. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: Please dont. Read WP:UP#PROTECT for reasoning why. Hasteur (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hasteur, I believe the intention was to flip the bit from "retired" to "active", which has been done here. The post needed to be made there due to the page protections. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

G13 deletions process

How does the G13 deletion process work? Does a bot nominate them for deletion that I can exclude from the page? Is it done by humans? I'm wondering because I recently received a notification that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Redirect is about to be deleted, which it probably shouldn't be. Is there anything I need to do to prevent it from being deleted, or will everyone have the sense to not let that happen? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The bot hunts for pages based on Category:AfC submissions by date and subcategories thereof. Your page was listed, but not in any of my exclusions. I've put it in and converted that talk page to a redirect to this Talk as that's where the WP page redirects to. Hasteur (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Publishing vs Submitting

Hi AFC Project, on the WP:AFC directions page, any issues with changing the "Publishing" headline to "Submitting"? Looks like all of the other links along the process call that "submitting / submit for review" now and it would avoid any confusion with the rebranded "Publish" button on every page. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: None from my prespective, though I might say "Submit for review". Hasteur (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Updated at Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Box that disappears

Mystery: this revision shows the {{AFC submission/draft}} box at the top ("Draft article not currently submitted for review."), but the very next edit causes it to disappear. Why is this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: That's a head scratcher, but the draft was submitted. Hasteur (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Author Gargsociology clicked the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button in the grey "Draft article not currently submitted for review" box at the top of the draft. That action transformed {{AFC submission/draft}} into {{AFC submission|||ts=20191020121226|u=Gargsociology|ns=118}}, which displays as a mustard-yellow "Review waiting, please be patient" box (now at the bottom of the draft). That is the intended and expected behaviour (well, don't really know if it's intended to be at the bottom, but it has been that way for at least five years). --Worldbruce (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes a box (headed "Review waiting, please be patient.") was added at the bottom, but that edit did not remove the {{AFC submission/draft}} which should still have displayed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The grey unsubmitted box is designed to disappear if there is a pending submission template. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirect Suppression

Another reviewer and I have a question about moving sandboxes into draft space. We agree that moving sandboxes into draft space is the preferred procedure. The question is whether the reviewer should suppress redirect creation if they have the privilege to suppress redirect creation via the Page Mover privilege. In particular, is this a discouraged cross-namespace redirect? If the sandbox is moved, a redirect is created from user space to draft space, unless suppressed? Should it be suppressed? My understanding is that it should not, because redirects from article space to other spaces are discouraged, but that redirects from sandboxes to draft space are encouraged. Who is correct?

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The redirect should be kept IMO, so the user is taken to "their" draft when they go to the page they made it in their userspace. They can do whatever they want with the redirect afterwards (including deletion via U1). Iffy★Chat -- 22:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no reason to suppress the creation of a redirect, either when it is moved from a user sandbox or when it's moved from Draft to Article space. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

And an alternative route to the same answer... All the Redirect suppression criteria correspond to the CSDs which would apply to the redirect created by the move. WP:PMRC#6 / WP:R2 only applies to redirects from mainspace. No other suppression criterion comes anywhere near to it. Cabayi (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

BLP reminder

Firstly, thank you to all the AfC reviewers your hard work! I just wanted to pop in here to remind our new and active reviewers that WP:BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, even draft space. If there is a minor providing excessive personal information in draft space, please report it to the oversight team via the private oversight email list. If there are blatant BLP violations in a draft, please remove the material as opposed to declining the draft and leaving it visible. Also, if a draft would meet the G10 speedy criteria in article space, it should also be tagged as such in draft space. Thank you, and again, huge kudos for your amazing work vetting articles! -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Note, I just had to oversight a draft that made claims that a named 16-year old was a pedophile that had been declined with the comment "Fails WP:ANYBIO - lacks any references or sources". Under Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions, this should have been a quick fail, tagged as G10 and blanked. @Primefac: and @Kudpung:, I know you are both quite active here, is there a better venue to remind reviewers to be extra mindful of BLP and privacy issues when reviewing AfC submissions? -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ponyo and Primefac: not yet but I am working on it and it will be out soon - probably before the end of the month. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, it is very much appreciated! -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Question

Can someone explain the difference between a declined AfC submission and a rejected AfC submission, and whiy we have separate categories for them? Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The notice on a draft that has been declined advises how to improve the draft, and has a "Resubmit" button that makes resubmission easy. The notice on a draft that has been rejected has neither of those things, but does have an "Ask for advice" button that can be used to post a question to the AfC Help Desk. There's a paragraph near the end of the instructions to reviewers about when to reject instead of decline. In practice, there's about one rejection for every nine declines. We have separate categories because declined is different from rejected, but if your questions is more existential, someone else can better explain why the option of rejection was introduced. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

UnitedStatesianm in a nutshell, declined drafts are ones for which there might be some potential - a glimmer of hope that with some improvement they may get accepted on the premise that it should theoretically pass NPR thuds survive an AfD. Rejection is for drafts that don't stand a chance of ever becoming an encyclopedic article - we shouldn't need to explain what that means, the line is pretty bright but in general (but not always) it concerns articles that would be speedy deleted, or if an exact CSD criterion does not match, PRODed. Thus familiarity with WP:DELETION is a prerequisite for AfC Reviewers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both, that clears it up. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019 at Women in Red

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143 Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red... Online events: New: Librarians / Leaders / Geofocus: Asian Women Month Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

2O on a draft

I'd like a second opinion on Draft:The contradiction of Poetics chapters 13 and 14. See my talk for the full discussion between me and the draft writer. My opinion is that it's too essay-like and/or original research. If I'm being overly harsh I'm happy to be pursuaded otherwise, but at the moment I'm not convinced this is an encyclopedic topic. Primefac (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The topic itself is probably encyclopedic - anything about ancient Greek philosophy and philology generally is. However, I do agree that this looks very much like a homework assignment or a term paper. Such works are not necessarily WP:OR but are often merely a synthesis of the source material. That said, if the topic has been discussed in the media, as claimed, or in academic journals, why are there no clickable links? I think rejection is appropriate, but a shame for the creator who might have put a lot of work into it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I hope you mean decline, not reject.

@Primefac: Essay and original research are not strong reasons to decline. The lead does not seem to have these issues. If you can't abide by the body, lop it off and accept just the lead as a stub. ~Kvng (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did indeed mean decline. However, Kvng, I certainly support any notion that essay and original research are sufficient reasons to decline. Please bear in mind that while AfC has a softer approach to new articles than NPR, it is nevertheless not an article hospital like ARS. Nor, BTW, is it BOGOFKudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not super-inclined to approve a one-sentence stub when I'm cutting out 90% of the draft, because I know after it's approved that content will just be added back in. And sure, it's not a strong reason to decline, but it sure as heck is one. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There is not a strong case to delete so there is not a strong case to decline. The essay and OR concerns are things we want to fix in articles new and old. Loping off long-winded material may be a quick improvement. Worrying about whether the stuff gets restored is overthinking IMO. AfC is not a comprehensive content review. We have a simple accept/decline decision to make here. ~Kvng (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Stalled

This seems to be stalled for some reason mid-process. Hunt & Fish Club --2604:2000:E010:1100:201E:BDAC:2420:A798 (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not stalled, it just got moved by a non-AFC member into the article space, and they didn't finish cleaning it up manually. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Resubmits without addressing issues

In the past I have come across users that like to make pages, but fail to include WP:GNG-worthy references (and maybe only primary at best). I thought it might be good for them to learn how to create pages by moving the articles to the draft space and encourage them to learn how to identify GNG sources through AfC review, hopefully so it doesn't look like I am the one just hounding them. However, some just keep submitting the drafts without ever addressing the issues, such as Draft:Denver Rugby League International Test submitted two times after the first decline specifically asking for references from multiple sources (it had the exact same 2 sources on the first submission, with the decline comment being "Article needs more references", and those are still the only two there). The user in question has done this with several drafts. What is the best course of action for helping this user learn? Or is it just a WP:LISTEN or WP:COMPETENCE issue that needs a further intervention? Yosemiter (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Repeated submissions without indication that there is an attempt at improvement is grounds for nominating the page for deletion at MfD. I think the ALLCAPS you're looking for is WP:TE.

As far as the actual page goes, this sort of even does not merit its own draft or article; generally only major tours themselves receive articles (e.g. 2018 Baskerville Shield), and this isn't one of them. Primefac (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

My main concern is whether or not the user is abusing AfC. That particular draft may ultimately fail the GNG, but I am not sure on all their drafts do, which is why I have not straight rejected or taken them to deletion procedures. I guess I am looking for advice on how to handle the editor, whether it is a better method to teach or going to ANI or similar for TE/IDHT/CIR behavior. Yosemiter (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Teaching is obviously the best idea as a start - it's very possible that they think that the page is notable and just don't realize (or want to realize) that's the case. I'd rather have someone who learns from their mistakes and improves on them than someone who thinks they're doing the right thing when they're not. We should definitely not just assume they're incompetent from the start. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

AfC permission to remain independent of NPR

An RfC here asking the community's view whether or not AfC and NPR permissions should be merged or kept separate closed after 30 full days, with a consensus to keep them separate. A new RfC will soon be published proposing that 'AfC reviewer' should become an official user right in the same way as NPR and other controlled tools for qualified users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

the very oldest

I've been looking at the very oldest unreviewed submission, from early July. I'm clearing up all I can, but I cannot competently review in the field of music and other perming arts, or in sports. I'd appreciate it if someone else could deal with these. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion

Please could I have a second opinion on Draft:Wan Rizal Bin Wan Zakariah. I don't believe he meets WP:NACADEMIC, but might meet WP:GNG if the articles written about him can be considered independent. I get the feeling he has generated his own publicity. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any WP:INDEPENDENT sources cited. Decline. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Drive?

Should we start another backlog drive? I notice none has been done since 2014. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Perennial proposal. We're getting there. Very old was <1000 for a little bit, we just need to keep it up. Primefac (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, the last 2 backlog drives were at roughly 2000 and 2750 submissions, respectively. Obviously the criteria have changed, but where exactly would we be considering a drive at this point? hewhoamareismyself 02:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)