Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

AfC decline messages 2

Quite a while ago, we discussed how we can make the AfC decline messages for notability clearer. The discussion about the general decline message has now been closed and the changes implemented. The logical step is to generalise this to other decline messages. Copying from our previous discussion (which was halted as the Village Pump discussion needed closure first). I think the message for ncorp and academic in particular need rewording, and they may give the wrong impression to new editors.

SNG specific decline messages

Mostly just a copy-paste, but for companies I think the standard text doesn't capture the stricter spirit of NCORP. Something like

corp

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

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject

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

I've removed the explicit mention of a separate notability guideline to save on words here. Instead, I've retargeted the links about notability, depth and independence to NCORP. (Adjusted per suggestion in discussion 16:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC))

---

The academic one also needs a rewrite, as many or even most academics meeting WP:NPROF do not meet WP:GNG.

academic

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

• meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
• or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This makes explicit that WP:NPROF is an alternative to WP:GNG, also by changing the last bit of wording. I hope this addressed the concern that our decline messages are too strict for subjects where SNGs exist. Still thinking about the wording where SNG are not on equal footing to GNG. Femke (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Current message

Per request below, the current message. Taking the prof one , the others only differ in "(see the SNG)" bit.

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

General discussion

Pinging those involved in the previous discussions @AssumeGoodWraith, 511KeV, Blaze Wolf, Primefac, TheFallenMoon, Urban Versis 32, North8000, WhatamIdoing, Rusalkii, Blueboar, S0091, and Mcguy15:, and @Novem Linguae, Kvng, and DoubleGrazing:. Femke (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Femke: What is this about again? It's been a while since I participated in the discussion (despite revisiting it recently) and I don't quite remember. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The initial discussion was about clarifying the message people get when their draft is declined for notability reasons. Many people resubmit without understanding why the draft is declined. The messages differ for a general decline (now rewritten in bullet point format), and the messages where a SNG is in play (still the old ones). I'm proposing we clarify these too, as the old message can be quite confusing. The NPROF one just says (see the guidelines for academics) after an explanation of GNG, without hinting these criteria are completely different. Femke (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Femke: Ah alright. Could you possibly add what the original message looked like for comparison (or is it already there, if so then I'm blind) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Done, see above. Femke (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I like it, because it's simplistic, but it feels a little bare. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The width of the message in a draft is a bit smaller, so it feels less bare. See f.i. Draft:Raybak Abdesselem. Femke (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I like that one a bit better IMHO. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd say this is definitely an improvement. I probably said this in the previous discussion but the bullet points help sum up what the issues are for thsoe who don't want to read a bunch. The academic one does honestly feel a little short but there's probably a reason. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I like these, they're clear, and it's easy to take in the information. The corp one could perhaps add a mention that the sources must be all of those things at once (not that it's enough if some sources are secondary but not reliable, some are reliable but not secondary, etc.), which seems to be a common misunderstanding of the GNG and, by extension, the ORGCRIT, requirement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I very much agree that this is a common confusion. I could change the second sentence to: "In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are simultaneously". Bit more wordy, but hope that's okay. A more natural but subtler change could be made to the third sentence: "Make sure you add references that meet these four criteria before resubmitting". Femke (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I like your "subtler" change, however I think it should actually be changed to say "Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting." which makes it more clear that all the criteria need to be met and not just some of them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I like that. Added to the proposal :). Femke (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think maybe just underline "all four" rather than "all four of". Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The underlining was to indicate I inserted it after my initial proposal post (only the italics is meant to be part of the actual proposal). Femke (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Certainly more clear and clean. One suggestion for the academic decline, I think it is more fitting for "qualifies for a Wikipedia article" to link to NBIO rather than GNG, given the subject is a person. S0091 (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Thanks Femke! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support especially the WP:PROF one. As an aside I have been seeing a few academics that meet notability view reviews of their books or other publications recently. Gusfriend (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Implemented, including with the NBIO link S0091 suggested. Now we'll need to come up with good wording for the other SNGs too, which have a different relationship to GNG as NPROF or NCORP. Femke (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I've just noticed these changes and wanted to thank everyone involved in making them. This is much easier to read now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Support One side note: I think that AFC is already on average stricter than NPP/AFD and we need to make sure it's friendly and not too tough so that people will go through it vs. bypassing it. I think that these new proposals do well at that. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that giving better instructions also teaches reviewers more about SNGs. The most common mistake I see people make when reviewing articles is declining people that meet NPROF or another SNG, because they're not quite familiar with those criteria. I hope—maybe in vain—that people read the banner, so that a higher percentage of submitted drafts is publishable, and that reviewers become more used to clicking accept. Femke (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Draftify things, or improve-in-situ

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Draftify things, or improve-in-situ.

It has morphed into a discussion about draftspace in general. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2022

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247 Online events: New: Alphabet run: I and J | Women in Education | Geofocus Central & Southern Asia Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Wikipedia Asian Month November Contest Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Former Wikiprojects listed in AFC acceptance

If I am accepting an article on a tropical storm, when the Accept screen prompts me for Wikiprojects and for Categories, I can select Tropical cyclones and Severe weather. This means that the acceptance script puts the templates for those projects on the talk page. However, those projects no longer exist as separate Wikiprojects, and the templates have been deleted. I see that they were deleted as per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_25#Weather_templates. The most likely explanation is that the Acceptance script is using an old list of projects, rather than either using a current list or doing any sort of query.

Would it be possible for the AFCH script maintenance team to compare their entire list of Wikiproject names against what is really in template space? Could the list that the script uses be put into a sandbox, with each name made into a template reference, and see what redlinks show up? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's the list of 1574 WikiProjects, if someone wants to dice these into groups of 100, transclude them in a sandbox, and then make a list of the ones with the word "inactive". Transcluding more than 100-200 at a time will trigger a "node count limit exceeded" template error.

Once the list of inactive WikiProjects is obtained, anyone can edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/WikiProject templates.json and delete the inactive templates. This will fix AFCH. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC) edit: Strikethrough. Can't manually edit the list because it will likely be overwritten by the bot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/WikiProject templates.json is maintained by Ahechtbot, operated by Ahecht. – SD0001 (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

As neither "Tropical cyclones" or "Severe weather" are on that list it must be using another source. KylieTastic (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@KylieTastic, Robert McClenon: The AFCH script pulls the list from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/WikiProject_templates.json, but it also caches the data indefinitely in your browser. This has already been reported as a bug back in January here but has not yet been resolved. Pinging Enterprisey. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Ahecht yup, I had just looked at the code and worked that out. Storing based on the afch version (that never changes anyway :/ ) is a bit odd, and not helpful. KylieTastic (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The indefinite expiry needs to be fixed. Anyone can contribute patches on the AFCH github repo, not just Enterprisey :D
@Robert McClenon for now you can fix this from your browser settings by clearing "cookies and other site data". – SD0001 (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I submitted a PR to the repo. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Ahecht. Thanks for the PR. Do we need to tweak the bot's algorithm a bit too? There's some inactive wikiprojects on the list. Examples: WikiProject Adele, WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement, WikiProject Aerosmith, WikiProject Ageing and culture, WikiProject Airsoft, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae I intentionally grab inactive WikiProjects but ignore defunct ones, since inactivity is considered a temporary status. If there's consensus not to grab these, the "Category:Inactive WikiProject banners" line can be removed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/WikiProject templates.json/config.json. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Re-reading Robert's original post, it looks like he was only concerned about the placement of non-existent templates, not inactive WikiProject templates. Sounds like the status quo (including inactive WikiProjects in AFCH's WikiProject list) is fine, unless others chime in. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, User:Novem Linguae is reading my concern correctly. I was complaining about the acceptance script creating template references on the article talk page to templates that do not exist, and so are displayed as red links. That's obvious, ugly, and clearly wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Collybolide

Will someone please check whether my handling of the copy-paste on Draft:Collybolide and Collybolide was correct? There had been a draft, and a redirect in article space to a related topic, the species of mushroom that produces the drug. The author of the draft then copy-pasted the draft into article space over the redirect. It doesn't look as though a history merge is needed, because the author is the only contributor. The author is bypassing AFC, but AFC was optional all the time. I redirected the draft to the article. Is it correct that a history merge was not in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct on all counts. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Requesting to be a Wikipedia REVIEWER

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.

---

User:Lucifer122

• Lucifer122 (talk · contribs · xtools · pages created · logs ^{(block • csd • prod)} · afd)

I have been in Wikipedia for year and 22 days I learned a LOT about policies. I felt peaceful writing or editing articles but I need more, I want to be part of the Wikipedia community. I want to review articles, I want to help new comers. I want to be part of Wikipedia world. Lucifer122 (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lucifer122 Reviewers must have at least 500 undeleted edits to articles, but as far as I can tell you only have 1 (and that edit wasn't constructive -- you removed citation needed tags from an article without adding citations). Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants for more information. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Ahecht: Thank You. Lucifer122 (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2022 (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.

Speaking of db-afc-move

In the thread above there was a question about deleting a redirect, which got me thinking - if you (the reviewer) intends on accepting a draft but there is a redirect, please mark it as "under review" - regardless of whether you tag the redirect with {{db-afc-move}}, {{db-move}}, ask at WP:RM/TR, or whatever other weird way there is to get a draft moved to the article space. Super-picky admins will be more likely to delete the page (and let you finish the review) if it is marked as "under review". Thanks! Primefac (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Accept Draft:Giuseppe Dell'Anno over redirect?

Tracked in github.com
Issue #243

I'm trying to accept Draft:Giuseppe Dell'Anno and the script isn't letting me because Giuseppe Dell'Anno (a redirect to the competition he won) exists. Help? --GRuban (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Redirect deleted. It's easier (for future reference) to tag the redirect with {{db-afc-move}}. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This is one of our most common questions on this talk page. We should build some kind of workflow for handling this into the AFCH helper script. Here's the ticket if anyone wants to discuss further or work on it. I think having AFCH either offer to place the {{db-afc-move}} tag, or having AFCH offer to make an entry at WP:RM/TR, would be decent solutions. I prefer the latter, but I think the former is currently more popular. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

And I prefer the former and dislike the latter ;-) Primefac (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Both options would be an improvement, but I agree with Primefac that its better to have the reviewer move the draft. Often when looking at a draft for the second time, I have some more feedback to give. The draft author may also be want to contact the reviewer with questions occasionally, and may be confused if the mover is not the reviewer. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Seconded (is thirded a word?), per Femke. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not list the redirect at WP:RM/TR. In that case, the admin who is working the Requested Move queue will delete the redirect and move the draft to the title. Most admins do not use the AFCH script, and some do not want to learn how the AFCH script works and what it does. The result will be that the article will be in article space, still tagged as in AFC, and will need to be manually cleaned up. This means that the reviewer who does the cleanup will do most but not all of the cleanup that is written into the AFCH script. Please do not list the redirect as a Requested Move. If the {{db-afc-move}} tag is used, an admin will simply delete the redirect, and the reviewer can use the AFCH script. It would be good if the Twinkle CSD options included db-afc-move, but that might be too optimistic. Remember that many admins don't use and don't understand the AFCH toolset. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to get {{Db-afc-move}} added to Twinkle, but there were some objections. Feel free to chime in here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

User:AlexeyGorshkov1978/sandbox

The creating editor has now written a lead paragraph. Good. I'm not sure how to judge the meat of the article, though, nor what eventual title it might have if accepted. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Considering becoming a reviewer

Hello! Based on the above post by a now indeff blocked user this is definitely not the right place (however I can't seem to find where the right place is so if you know of it please send me there), however I am thinking of becoming an AFC reviewer and would like to know if the people who are already AFC reviewers think I'm ready, mainly because I Don't want a repeat of my Teahouse incident where I wasn't ready to answer questions at the Teahouse and yet I did anyways. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf We see AfD and AFC as two sides of the same pancake, One cannot eat one side without eating the other. I checked your AfD record and would like to suggest that you cut your teeth there before asking to be a reviewer. I applaud your ambition, and we need more reviewers, so let me explain why.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.

This means we need to be able to made a judgement based on our experience of deletion processes. Our guideline is "Will this have a better than 50% chance of being kept in an immediate deletion process?" At present I think you are unlikely to have the experience based judgement to 'know' this, but experience discussing at AfD with policy based arguments will get you there.

No-one wants you to have a poor experience, nor does anyone want you to be turned away. Your overall edit count is healthy. You might wish to have created several more articles. Some view that as essential others do not. Might I suggest you gain the AfD experience and then apply once you are sure your grounding is first class. I hope you don't find this discouraging. We need more reviewers. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Hello Timtrent! Thank you for the feedback. I always attempt to do my best with AFD submissions in not nominating articles for deletion that fit GNG or any other notability guideline, however as you probably saw I don't always do a good job at doing so, partially because there tend to be criteria that I'm not aware of that allows it to fall under the notability guidelines, but also partially because I tend to not do so well in locating sources. I would create more articles however usually I only create articles for subjects that I have an interest in, which most of the time is video games (and usually if a video game is notable it will already have an article for it). I usually don't participate in AFDs mainly because either the AFD is out of my are of expertise/comfort or I"m just not aware of them. Again, thank you for the feedback. I will do my best to participate in the AFD process more in the future and possibly get better at correctly nominating an article for deletion. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf The useful thing about AFD is that multiple people are involved in consensus forming. AFC is one reviewer's opinion each time. We are thus under tougher scrutiny for accept/decline/reject than are our individual AfD !votes. Or, we can make a silly mistake at AfD without anyone much caring, but a silly mistake at AFC brings us and the process to the community's attention. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. I've found an article that I think might be a valid AFD candidate but I"ll ask you about it on your talk page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf most of your AfD !votes are on your own nominations - you will probably find it helpful to look at other nominations. See why they were nominated and what others have already said and then add your !vote and watch to see the outcome. Just viewing what others nominate, what is said by other and the result should teach you a lot. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually considered a !vote if it's your own nom. But thanks for the advice. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's a vote. If you look at the link to your AfD record in the first reply here, you'll see those counted as Delete (nom). -- asilvering (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Link to language version of Wikipedia when declining for not in English

When I declined Draft:Sorry Naik Lori for not being in English I entered in the helper that the draft was written in Malay. The resulting message to the editor ends with "Otherwise, you may write it in the Malay Wikipedia." The words Malay Wikipedia are linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Msa:&action=edit&redlink=1 which is a redlink. I think the correct language link is ms instead of msa. Where would this get fixed? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in templates, but I think it's because {{lang2iso|Malay}} produces msa when it should produce ms. Not sure how to fix this though. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I did a bit more digging and it looks like the problem is line 110 of Module:Language/data/ISO_639-1; it reads

["ms"] = {"Malay (macrolanguage)"},

When it should be:

["ms"] = {"Malay (macrolanguage)", "Malay"},

It's template-protected so I can't edit it though. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I created an edit request at Module talk:Language/data/ISO 639-1#Malay –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I came across a similar issue recently, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Malay. Buggered if I remember what it was, though... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

If this is about language tags for other-language-wikipedias, perhaps whatever the helper is should be using {{mw lang}} because that template uses tags and names that are specific to MediaWiki whereas {{lang2iso}} uses actual ISO 639-1, 2, 3 tgs and names:

{{mw_lang|fn=name_from_code|ms}} → Malay

{{mw_lang|fn=code_from_name|Malay}} → ms

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: 'the helper' = WP:AFCH. Pinging @Enterprisey. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I've created an edit request to implement this here. Tested in my sandbox and it appears to work. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

History Merge Warning

I have said this before and will say it again. I think that the notice that a reviewer is invited to copy onto an editor's talk page after they do a copy-paste is too mild. It basically says that we would rather you not have done that, but, don't worry, we will clean it up for you. I would like to see a level-2 or level-3 notice, either by default or optionally. I think that copy-pasting of a draft into article space is sometimes done not so much as a good-faith attempt to accept a draft but a questionable-faith effort to take over a draft. Of course, the history merge prevents that, but I would like to see something that reads like a warning. The example that I have in mind is 2022 Men's Asian Squash Team Championships, but I see it from time to time. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Would this be better served at WT:Twinkle for the request? Definitely worth noting here for reviewers, but I think the talk page posts aren’t handled here. That said, I think your points are valid. It would seem like the logo would be a Stop indicator instead of a question mark. -2pou (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Are the desired templates created yet? If not, someone should probably create them, or post a request to Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace. Having the templates created is probably step 1. Adding them to Twinkle would be step 2. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Arabic drafts

Any idea what's going on here? I've declined three drafts today (this, this, and this), all in Arabic, and from what I can tell each with the same content, yet all by different new users. (A copy of the same is also here.) I don't think there's any point in taking it to SPI as it seems innocuous for now at least; just wondering what the angle might be? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing they are all the exact same content (according to Google Translate). My guess is either an edit-a-thon or a class assignment. I have left all of them the Arabic welcome message in case they do no know English so do not understand the decline messages. S0091 (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

If it is either an edit-a-thon or a class project, then it illustrates that sometimes edit-a-thons and class projects can be stupid, and contrary to the way Wikipedia is supposed to be developed. Unfortunately, we knew that. It might be (as DoubleGrazing implies) one person creating three accounts; as they said, at this point it isn't worth SPI, as in No harm, no foul. We might not find out. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

We don't always get answers about class assignments, even when we ask the question courteously, even when the project isn't stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Become a reviewer

How do you become a reviewer? I know the criteria, and I'm kind of interested. If I qualify with the criteria, could I become one? Hurricane Chandler (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Hurricane Chandler see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants for the basics. With just 237 edits I would suggest getting more general experience and especially more at AfD, because in the end we have to judge if an article is likely to succeed if taken to AfD. Please do come back when you have more experience, we always need more reviewers. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

We should start rejecting articles more frequently

As an outsider to the process I think a big issue with the AFC system is that reviewers are too afraid to wrongly reject an article. I think this leads to a backlog of stub to start quality articles in AFC which cannot get approval because they are not bad enough to reject and not good enough to approve. I think rejecting an article leads to it being improved while leaving it in AFC leads to the creator forgetting about it. So my proposal is to reject articles more in the hopes the creators will see the rejections and improve and resubmit the articles so they can be more firmly accepted Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 14:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that you mean "decline", not "reject", as rejection means resubmission is not possible. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Well... someone might even make a case for us all to reject more readily. (Not me, I'm not brave enough to poke that particular bear, but someone might.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If an editor is dedicated enough to continue working on the draft, it is somewhat of an academic difference whether it was previously declined or rejected. I don't think any reviewer is "afraid" to decline (or reject) a draft; there are just some drafts that are easier to review than others, so it's really more of a comfort and/or confidence thing. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Immanuelle I hope you do mean "decline" and not "reject" - as rejects are rather BITEY. The issue is your damned either way in the middle grey area and you will hear often from those that disagree and are sure you were 100% wrong. If you decline something in the middle grey area a lot of submitters will just be put off, so no I don't agree with decline more and assume they will improve and try again. It is supposed to be if it's better than a 50/50 chance of surviving AfD then accept - but that is not how you will be judged in reality. If you ever want to be an admin you can't make even one mistake - we had an RfA case where one bad accept seemed to pretty much kill what otherwise looked likely to succeed and not a single one of the people saying how bad the accept was took any action on the article: no speedy, no redirect, no draftify, no AfD. I'm happy to make a call on some topic areas but others not so much... there is only so much abuse from some types of editor I can take. KylieTastic (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I meant decline, didn't know there was a difference Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 17:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Decline allows them to submit again. Reject takes away the submit button, instead displaying a stop sign and a message about the topic not being suitable for Wikipedia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that having AFC decline more and become stricter would be well-received by the wider community. The current system has problems (long wait times), but we're probably stuck with it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: The problems with declining drafts are two-fold: When you decline (or reject) a draft the first thing the author does is either immediately re-nominate or they stop by your user talk to argue with you, so that's unpleasant. Second, many editors are concerned that declining a draft chases-off potential new editors. Many of the people editing today started in 2005-2007 when there were fewer rules so they inherently resent the bureaucracy necessary for this many people to collaborate. I agree that reviewers should more freely decline drafts but it's an uphill climb if you do. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I am content to climb that hill. I also accept borderline drafts. I believe we should:

• Decline (and reject) with confidence
• Accept borderline drafts with confidence

In the latter case I usually state on the talk page what I have dine and why 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle, IME problems in this area tends to lean more towards reviewers being afraid to wrongly accept a draft. If a reviewer wrongly declines they may take flack from the (presumably inexperienced) author. If they wrongly accept, they take flack from experienced NPP and AFC participants. In any case, what you really seem to be asking is that we review more frequently. I don't think anyone will argue with that request but the situation seems to be that we have too few reviewers and too many submissions to move this needle. ~Kvng (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

If they wrongly accept, they take flack from experienced NPP and AFC participants.

Criticism almost always feel shitty, especially for volunteer work. There needs to be an environment that fosters growth and helps others learn how to do better in borderline cases. One of the best ways to do this is to have an active board so that newer volunteers can look at the examples of what others have struggled with and read through what the consensus ends up being. Unfortunately posting back and forth on Wikipedia isn't always the smoothest, which is why I've found the NPP Discord to be very helpful. Members will often post a page in there for a quick discussion, others will chime in, point towards relevant policy, and a bit of a group decision will often be made. It's great for getting second opinions on questionable cases and I'm confident it helps lurkers who don't chime in on the conversation, as I've lurked and benefitted at times myself. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

NPP Discord link (AFC reviewers also welcome): https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu . For those of you unfamiliar with Discord, it is a text chat room where dozens of NPPs hang out. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I like to compare it to IRC, with TeamSpeak/Ventrilo functionality available in other channels. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng I think we need broader backs. If we accept and have a genuine belief that a draft is acceptable, the community is welcome to prove us wrong at AfD. I have an acceptance of mine at AfD at the moment. I have also sent the acceptance of another reviewer to AfD recently. They and I will each learn from the community. We may have been correct or incorrect in our actions. So what? We made a considered decision and moved the Wikipedia project forwards by doing so.

I think we need not defend our work at AfD. I choose to stay steadfastly neutral, and may or may not that comment at a deletion discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent:, I agree with you and this recognition has been useful to me on wiki and IRL. It, however, isn't something particularly easy to foster. It's a delicate balance between being dispassionate and being an asshole. It requires self awareness to maintain balance and humility to avoid defensiveness and learn from your mistakes. ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng I think we can encourage that correct attitude. Displaying assholery as a reviewer does not last long. A new reviewer should simply cut their teeth on low hanging fruit, which develops confidence, and move to the borderline stuff as their confidence grows.

No-one asks us to be correct. They ask us to use our best judgement. That 'best judgement' is affected by our real lives, so we also need to know when not to review, to know when we are going to foul up, and to pull back. That way we can use our developing confidence to get better and better.

Even so, we should never mind when someone challenges our best judgement, because we are here to learn as well as to do. We should look at a challenge to our work and consider whether it is correct. Learning from the challenege is important. It is in defending our work that the greatest danger of assholery exist. Doubling down on a poor decision is the best route to looking a total asshole. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent: if there was a reliable way to encourage this attitude, Wikipedia (and the world) would be a much easier place. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng At least on Wikipedia, I choose to have high expectations of editors. Politicians, not so much! But here, with encouragement, one can help good sense to prevail. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Category Tool

I just accepted two drafts that I want to assign to categories, and I know that there is a gadget for assigning categories. Can someone give me a pointer to how to install it? Thank you.

I normally tag drafts that I have accepted with {{improve categories}} unless the draft has been well categorized by the author (and that is an exception, given that draft authors are even less likely to know about categories than reviewers). I understand that the assignment of categories is often done by gnomes. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: are you referring to HotCat? If so, all you have to do is go to Preferences → Gadgets → Editing and enable HotCat. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Ingenuity - Yes, thank you. I already had it enabled. I just couldn't find it because I was looking for it at the top of the screen, and it is at the bottom of the screen.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

criticism

Draft:List of floppy disk controllers is being ignored for some time now.

I know a good portion of people here think wikipedia is a product to sell to an audience interested primarily in pop culture and celebrities and is besieged by people who want to appear in it, but it is also a compendium of knowledge that is accumulated over time.

Why is the aforementioned article blocked until it meets certain criteria for publication? There is no current alternative to it and it is not garbage. Does wikipedia not want to be a compendium that is accumulated over time anymore or feel ashamed of being under continuous construction? Nowakki (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Nowakki It is not being deliberately ignored. As noted on your draft, a review "may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,664 pending submissions waiting for review." The category of drafts up for review is not a queue done in order, it is a category where volunteer reviewers working on their own time pick drafts to review when they have time to do it. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

it was moved from main space into draft space in the current state it is in. it was previously declined here in a different state, but when it also was not garbage.

actually i don't mind it, as long as draft space is treated equally to old school mainspace. Nowakki (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nowakki  Declined for reasons stated. Once those are solved then it can be resubmitted for review. The draft is impenetrable. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent:. ok, so i was recently looking for accessible information on General Motors Diesel Engines of the 1940s as a person who can deal with information not being spoonfed to them and i thought it would be nice if such a list existed on wikipedia.

that and the possible future contributor is what the article caters to right now. What good does it do a layperson if there is no article at all, instead of an article in progress. Do i really have to ensure that a technical article that is of little interest to the general public and that is already accompanied by a well established general article about floppy controllers meets those specific requirements? i agree that it is desirable to arrive there in the end, but i would expect that it is sufficient if i do not stand in the way of the effort.

thank you Nowakki (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nowakki I suggest you take any questions about my review to the AFC Helpdesk, linked in the decline notice. Others will consider your request and my review and determine whether I am correct. Wikipedia needs more articles, but it does not need impenetrable and poor quality material.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.

Your role is to create material that is acceptable. So please go to it with a will. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent: what kind of education in electronics do you have? Nowakki (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nowakki let me answer on Timtrent's behalf: it matters not one whit. The purpose of the AfC is not to adjudicate in matters of subject-matter expertise. We are here to ensure that drafts meet certain key requirements for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: i do that all the time with low quality articles on wikipedia. does help arrive at a faster rate here? Nowakki (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nowakki Thank you DoubleGrazing. I was going to say that. It matters not one whit. Article quality matters. This draft fails by a long way to make the grade.

Nowakki, you have a simple choice. Maintain your ground and face this draft's stagnation, or take advice. I have little interest in either. No, that's not true. I have precisely no interest in either, unless, that is, you move this to main space again. At that point I will take a view on its content and referencing and will consider allowing the community to decide its fate. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nowakki I take issue with your statement I know a good portion of people here think wikipedia is a product to sell to an audience interested primarily in pop culture and celebrities and is besieged by people who want to appear in it, but it is also a compendium of knowledge that is accumulated over time. I believe you are mistaken and it is your frustration with what you perceive as a slight because your draft has not bee reviewed for a while.

I can tell you with clarity that your statement put me off even looking at your draft. I almost ignored it. I can also tell you that I have examined and reviewed your draft as I would any other. I believe that it has been allowed to linger because it is so impenetrable as written that it puts any reviewer off.

You have work to do here. Part of that work is in your reviewing the statement that I have quoted. It is objectionable, albeit just short of rudeness. How do I know it to be objectionable? Because I object to it. It's best not to push away those from whom you are asking for a review. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nowakki: AfC is not mandatory if you have an autoconfirmed account, which you do. If you think the article belongs in mainspace and don't want someone else to review it, simply move it there. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe They are welcome to do that. It is not suitable for mainspace as it stands, but they are welcome to do so. I predict it will be discussed at WP:AFD. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It will. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I have tagged it as Incomprehensible. It is in draft space. If it is moved into article space, then if it is taken to AFD, the participants can consider the issue of whether it can be understood. If it were in article space and was at AFD, I would say to Draftify it so that it can be rewritten. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: a few questions. wouldn't it be highly desirable for wikipedia to have a comprehensive list? i am not aware of any place where such a list can be found. question number 2: if the answer is yes, then why does it matter if the article is understandable now? it is nowhere near finished and it can be improved at any point in the future to be more palatable. if it is not suitable at this point for a layperson, it already is suitable for other contributors and to improve other articles. 158.181.80.72 (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the question? It is not ready for article space, because it is incomprehensible. I have not nominated it for deletion from draft space, and do not plan to nominate it for deletion. Being incomprehensible is not a reason for deletion of drafts. It is in draft space, and belongs in draft space. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

the question is why does wikipedia have to suck so much. i have improved many articles, but then a guy comes along and removes something that took me maybe 2 weeks to research for quality reasons. he later told me about his collection of featured articles which apparently took a few years to age accumulating input from dozens of editors. the quality of an article increases over time. but not if it is removed.

i am delighted if high quality articles exist, but i was writing about some off-brand WW2 topic that nobody cares about, and to which nobody contributed to anyway. this quality offensive is producing problems and (i quote): "article quality is all that matters". addicts are getting high on selling an encyclopedia and you can't call the cops on them. Nowakki (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nowakki, negative catch all statements such as "the question is why does wikipedia have to suck so much" are not productive or helpful, nor will they encourage editors to hear or help you out. I'm sorry you are disappointed but please read the notes added to your draft. There are many constructive notes listed there for how to improve your article. I agree with the person who declined it, in that, the article is very hard to understand. All the relevant information may be there, but Wikipedia is not an index or glossary, and the formatting of this article needs serious work.

As others have mentioned, you're welcome to move it to the main article space. With that said, it may get nominated for deletion based on its notability and based on the comments that were left on your draft. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

To tack on a bit, if you believe Wikipedia sucks which may be valid, then I suggest moving on rather than taking up the time of those editors who believe it doesn't suck or are trying to make it better. So far you have ignored the advice from various editors: here, on your talk page, WT:WikiProject Ships, WT:WikiProject Military history and WT:WikiProject Computing. Please also read WP:IDHT and understand this type of behaviour will get you blocked. What people are telling you is not gong to change whether you agree with it or not. Continuing down this path is not good for you or Wikipedia so again, best to move on. S0091 (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

well, i made a thousand edits in the past 2 months. that's how good i am for wikipedia. how easy it seems for you to say i am not good for wikipedia and may get blocked based on disagreements just goes to show how much wikipedia sucks.

i never asked for it and i get stuck into a AfC thingy, which i believe is supposed to help editors make their first articles, where the help i apparently get is: make the article better. fantastic!

nobody cares about floppy disk controllers, and those who do (and may think such a list is worth assembling) would not care about minor formatting issues. if you think otherwise, make it prettier. Nowakki (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nowakki, edit count is meaningless and provides absolutely no indication of how much a user may have contributed to Wikipedia. I have over 103,000 edits and I have contributed less than some users with fewer than 10,000 edits.

"if you think otherwise, make it prettier" - why should we? This article would take a lot of work to get it to the point of being suitable for the main space. As you yourself said, there's a lack of interested editors, which is why you've basically been the only contributor. If you want it to be a part of Wikipedia so badly then it's up to you to adhere to the standards that have been set by the community via consensus.

"i never asked for it and i get stuck into a AfC thingy" - Nobody is keeping it stuck in AfC. I will repeat myself again, you have the option to move it into article space yourself, but the community may decide it does not meet Wikipedia standards and it may be deleted as a result. See WP:AFD. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: do you know about a place where i should go with this? my concern is the accumulation of the list, not the publication. wikipedia is a place where people can freely contribute, that is why i started it here, the uncertainty that comes with the other requirements on wikipedia articles is a bummer. i don't want the maid throwing out papers that are not neatly organized on my desk. Nowakki (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry @Nowakki, I do believe there is a home for your list somewhere, but I do not have a place to recommend. I can appreciate the article and the information that it provides, and I don't think it's useless. Your effort shouldn't be wasted and I do hope you find somewhere that your list can be appreciated, as is. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nowakki Why not just take the advice you gave been given. The community here is bigger than any of us, and the community works by consensus 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Nowakki - Reviewers are advised not to bite the editors, but sometimes editors should be advised not to insult the reviewwers. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Loving the AFC Log function

I use it to check that I am managing my self imposed review target for days and months. Could it be in LIFO order, though, please? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed! While I might not view it that often, it's nice to have the log available.

From a coding standpoint it's (generally) easier to just append new entries to the end of a list. Personally, I'm more a fan of having it in descending order. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, maybe it should auto-archive every month? I'm reasonably active, just over 10 reviews per day right now, so it will not take very long to become e-nor-mous. A really active reviewer might find theirs is hu-mon-gous 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

You could probably set up an archive bot like lcs to deal with that. Primefac (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying Miszabot out on it 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That failed, perhaps because that archive bot needs to see

==Heading==

and the log has

===Heading===

I'd love some thoughts on how I might achieve it, please? Other than editing the headings, that is! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

While I personally find it much more confusing, User:ClueBot_III#Optional_parameters seems to indicate that it will allow for lower-level headings to be archived. In other words, this should work for your needs. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a voyage of discovery. I have it set up currently as:

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis

| archiveprefix =User:Timtrent/AfC log/Archives/

| format =Y/F

| age =2160

| archivebox =yes

| box-advert =yes

| numberstart =1

| maxarchsize =75000

| header ={{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minkeepthreads =0

| headerlevel =3

}}

I need to look a bit more at the archive page header. I'll report back after it has has a chance to run 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, {{Automatic archive navigator}} has a parameter |text= which should do it of only I have the rest correct 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I have failed! If anyone has any comments on the setup code I've used (or can make it work!) please look at the top of User:Timtrent/AfC log 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Archive bots usually look for signatures to figure out what to cut and paste I think. They may not work for non-chat pages. Perhaps you can just manually cut and paste once or twice a year. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You make a good point. If I had the skill I'd write one for this type of page 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I have now proved with total success that I am unable to do it with the automatic tools here thatI know about 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The Twinkle logs such as CSD, AFD, etc. all add entries to the bottom. It might be strange to deviate from the "standard" log order. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

If the archiving works then the issue is minimised.

I often see reasons to break long established practices, though 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent, Cluebot doesn't care about signatures, it looks at the page history to determine when to archive threads. My CSD log is archived by Cluebot. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl Thank you. I obviously need to tinker with my code. I grabbed mine from the Cluebot pages, but must have misunderstood something. I'll compare mine and yours. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It is likely to be the |age= parameter. I failed to read that the examples are set for 90 days. I'll drop that back 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl I'm close! It hasn't done quite what I expected, but it HAS archived! ANy chance you might take a look, please? User:Timtrent/AfC log is the place 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent, I think I can see the problem. It's treating the section as a comment, so it doesn't care when the section is titled. That's why instead of using
| format =Y/F, I used |format=Y - it'll probably be slighlyt off around new year, but it'll be accurate most of the time - it's less obvious. You could also just use numbered archives. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl Thanks, I'll change that 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Lighting Up the Stars

I am requesting that another reviewer take a look at this draft and verify that they agree with (or disagree with) my judgment. It was in draft, and then an article was created in mainspace. It appears that, unlike many cases where a title exists in both draft and article space, two editors independently wrote the draft and the article. The section headings are different. So it looks to me as though this is not a history merge case, but a case for a conventional merge, so that I have declined the draft and tagged the article and the draft for merge. Does anyone agree or disagree? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with that assessment. Primefac (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

REFUND reviewer

As a frequest REFUNDer, I sometimes see drafts I've REFUNDed have a quick edit made, clearly not addressing any of the issues previously stated by a reviewer, and then submitted for review. This seems like a waste of a proper reviewer's time. As a non-participant in this project, can I quick-review these kinds of submissions to decline them with a comment stating that the previous issues have not been addressed? Can I just revert the submission? Or is there another option, besides just leaving it to y'all? Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the two drafts from today that spurred me to ask this are Draft:Jaime Claudio Villamil and Draft:Patrik Syversen, but I've seen others in the past. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi UtherSRG yes it is annoying when that happens and I think I can speak for most that we would be happy for you deal with these. As an admin you can add yourself to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants so you can enable and use the AFCH tool in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets "Yet Another AFC Helper Script" and/or just revert the submission. Using the tool is probably quicker as you can decline and leave a comment and notice the submitter all in one go. Any help to reduce pointless submission is always appreciated. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic! - UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Aegis Sonix

I adopted (and somewhat improved) the above mentioned draft and moved it in the article name space. As the draft was declined rejected before, I leave here this courtesy notice. Pavlor (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pavlor thanks for improving the draft! S0091 (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Please start this page

Draft:Jafar_Ahmadi

https://www.instagram.com/tv/B-Oq1I0AaNT/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CH7gzgzpa2L/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

"park jii" (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"park jii", I have formatted (but not changed the content of) your message just to make it a bit easier to read. The page has already been started, so all that is left is to submit it for review. I have added a draft template to the top, so all you need to do (if you feel the page is in an acceptable state) is to click the "Submit your draft for review!" link in the grey box. Primefac (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Wording of the "adv" decline

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The above text is from the adv decline message as it currently reads. I just had a helpee in the IRC channel very confused, because they felt their sourcing was perfectly fine, and it occurred to me that the vast majority of the decline message is talking about reliable sources and verifiability, with only the first sentence (and half of the second) really talking about it being an advertisement. Should we tweak the wording of this decline to give more of a focus on the promotional/advert nature of a declined draft? Primefac (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

For example, do we need the sentence starting with "This is important so..."? The issue isn't notability, it's NPOV, so it seems a bit unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should tweak it; I also think that notice makes it sound more about sources than POV, and I've answered a few helpdesk questions to that effect, so yours clearly wasn't an isolated incident. I would delink the "independent, reliable, published sources" so it doesn't stand out so much, and remove the "This is important...".

We also get a lot of comments along the lines of "but I wasn't trying to sell anything, I was only [wanting to tell the world about this business, etc.]". So if that notice is to be tweaked, maybe a sentence addressing this point could be added (with a link to a suitable guideline)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

In addition, maybe for first sentence "....to read like an advertisement or to raise awareness about a topic..." (link to WP:Advocacy)? S0091 (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Good call. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

If I were a COI author, I would also struggle with this one. Not because of the wording of the decline message but because the criteria behind it is so subjective and because it is just difficult for a COI editor to see and achieve NPOV. COI editors are expressly directed to AfC and I assume we're supposed to somehow help them produce an NPOV draft. We should appreciate that this is a tall order. ~Kvng (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and to be honest I see a lot of drafts on IRC that were declined as adv where I genuinely couldn't tell you why it was declined that way. That's a different issue, of course, but I think if we make the decline comment more clear it might encourages reviewers to pick the best reason (and not just use adv because there is a COI or similar). Primefac (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I feel like NPOV is when the tone is wrong, and advertisements are a subset of NPOV where the tone is too positive. Perhaps we should rewrite this criteria to something like This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. The correct tone for a Wikipedia article is factual and dispassionate. It should not state opinions as fact, attempt to convince the reader of something, or be overly positive. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. Feedback welcome. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I like this version. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Why not, if all else is good, put {{NPOV}}, {{COI}} or {{advert}} tags on these and accept them? It is not particularly likely the author is going to be able to address these issues. If we want to see these drafts developed, mainspace is the place where it can happen. ~Kvng (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

But wouldn't that just pass the buck to NPP (or in the case of autopatrolled reviewers, not even that, unless one un-patrols the article after accepting)? NPP will then either have to delete or draftify (wondering why AfC let content like that into the mainspace in the first place), or possibly worse, they will just mark it as patrolled and leave those tags on... and now we have released this content into the wild, with a chance it may never be improved.

Or are we saying as a policy statement that we will simply lower the bar on what is acceptable content in terms of POV/COI/advert? Which seems to me kind of a biggie. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It "passes the buck" to the community to improve these articles. Improving articles is what we're here to do. There is no quality bar that needs to be cleared to accept an article. You will not find a lot of guidance in the policy pages about what constitutes delete-worthy WP:COI, WP:NPOV or WP:PROMO issues so reviewers here tend establish their own personal thresholds. The "adv" decline is most closely associated with this behavior. ~Kvng (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not in favour of accepting adverts! I suggest adding text along the lines of "Note that conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia.", as I often find myself manually adding this pointer, and almost always in the case of adverts. Greenman (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

If you decline these, you need to be convinced that they would WP:LIKELY be deleted if accepted. It is actually rare for these to be deleted because it is usually not too difficult to improve them to address the issues. ~Kvng (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Automatically rejecting drafts being tagged for CSD?

Oftentimes I find myself having to edit problematic drafts multiple times because they submit it for review sometimes after I tag the draft. Would a bot that automatically rejects/declines these drafts be desirable? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Another option is since many CSDs are added by Twinkle that it is set to remove/decline the submission. KylieTastic (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I like this idea. If there is support, I'll make a Twinkle ticket. One edge case would be someone incorrectly CSD tagging a draft, causing an unsubmit, then the CSD is declined, leaving the draft unsubmitted. But that probably doesn't happen that often. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  It does, actually, so I would prefer to not automatically un-submit anything with a CSD tag on it. If it gets deleted, problem solved, and if not the CSD tag can be removed as normal. Primefac (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe a better option, if possible, would be if {{AFC submission/pending}} could check if the page is in a CSD category and not add to the Category:Pending AfC submissions etc. That way it is either deleted or re-appears in the queue later if the CSD is declined. Not sure if possible as it would need to have already parsed the CSD and added the cats before {{AFC submission/pending}} is parsed. So probably either not possible or not worth the effort. KylieTastic (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  G13 should be exempted from this. Some submitted pages are getting g13 deleted without a review. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes definitely - but there really should be no submitted pages getting to G13 stage. It's been a long time since we had unreviewed articles reach 5 months let alone 6. If a editor has submitted and no one has reviewed that's not really abandoned just a break down in the review process. I hope in reality if the article had a chance of surviving AfD the admin would accept/move to mainspace rather than just delete as G13 abandoned. KylieTastic (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  I can categorically guarantee that a submitted draft has never been G13'd. I assume you mean an unsubmitted page, but that can happen for any of a dozen reasons, including "figuring out this isn't a worthwhile topic". Primefac (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  When I am dealing with problematic drafts discovered using Huggle, they appear right after the draft gets created, which is before they even submit the draft most of the times. If the draft is already submitted when CSD-ing, then this should be an interaction/workflow where I reject using AFCH first and then AFCH would open up the twinkle CSD window for me. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  I guess I am still not seeing why a draft that is being CSD'd also needs to be declined; it will be deleted soon enough, so why waste an edit? Primefac (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sometimes it can be a few hours before it is deleted so I'd say it was more a waste of multiple reviewers time opening it to review and finding its a CSD. So I decline to both take of the list and sometimes to give more feedback. KylieTastic (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  I do it to get the draft out of the queue so other reviewers do not waste time looking at it. Admittedly, "it's six of one, half dozen of the other" but I am already there so more often than not, I reject it as well. S0091 (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Nine out of ten times that is the case, sure, but I just had a G11 request declined on the basis that it wasn't 'pure spam'. Which isn't me trying to argue that a CSD'd draft needs to be automatically rejected (personally, I don't think this is a major issue, and I'm happy to do the decline/rejection manually), only to make the point that a CSD request doesn't necessarily always result in an actual deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Fair points (re: all of the above). Other than G10, G11, and G12, are there any page types that get regularly tagged for speedy deletion? We used to have an option to add G10 to pages (I genuinely can't find where that disappeared, though it was somewhere around 2018), so re-adding that and maybe a G11 option for adv declines would be... reasonable? Primefac (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  I would add G3 (vandalism/hoax). While not as common, still common enough in my experience. S0091 (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'd support adding a "mark this for speedy deletion" checkbox to AFCH for adv (G11), vand/hoax/joke (G3), and attack (G10). Attack is currently mixed in with vandalism though so we'd probably want to separate that one out into its own decline criteria. I think we already have one for cv (G12). We have some tickets on GitHub related to this idea: [1][2][3] –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sigh, I hate to be the grumpy old git, but I disagree with G3 - so what if it's a joke or hoax? It's in the draft space. I think G10, G11, and G12 are the only three that fit into this category of "I want to decline but I also want to speedy delete" that could use a tickbox (though I still personally feel that adding in a G11 option will cause over-use, despite the current consensus feeling otherwise). Anything else can be dealt with by G13 or MFD. Primefac (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, but you are a "grumpy old git". :) Nah, I see what you are saying but I really do not see a difference in the AfC tool allowing CSD vs. CSD in general. I mean the tool is not issue, the editor's judgement is the issue. Its tricky (efficient workflow vs. abuse) and maybe why only G12 had the CSD tickbox to begin with (legal issue) because drafts that are promo/hoax/vandalism are highly unlikely to be seen by anyone, except by that everybody wiki that scrapes drafts. That leaves us with the BLP type violations, especially G10, which are rightfully the most concern. S0091 (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Request from Hatchens

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The reviews have never been in question. The editor was CU BLocked. Checking more at their request is very close to a WP:PROXYING request. Their block is subject to any normal appeal process, but this work (below) is a time sink. There are comments on their talk page here that have strong relevance 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

---

For those that don't remember Hatchens was an AfC reviewer that was blocked by Joe Roe earlier this year - 22 May 2022.

They have requested on their user talk page this request that we review the remaining 21 unreviewed from this review before they go to ArbCom.

I did say in an email reply to them that I thought that we had concluded no real issues with that review and it would be the off-wiki evidence the admins saw that was convincing that would be the main issue. However I also said that if they posted the request on their talk page I would post the request here so people were aware. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

For ease of updating (if we determine it is necessary), I have included those 21 entries below. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

So, we're checking these articles to see if we would accept them/if they were accepted correctly? Or did you want us to check the article's current status (deleted/redirected/etc.) Bkissin (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• Bkissin firstly this is a request only for Hatchens possible benefit, not like the first time when it was checking for the project. In fact these were not reviewed as we found no issues in the rest. However anyone who wants to help it would be just to see if there is any indication of dubious accepts or evidence in the accepts with regard to possible "undisclosed paid editing" (which was the block reason). Also none are deleted or redirected. KylieTastic (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest most strongly that this is a time sink and that we ignore it, and close this thread. There has never been a problem this their reviews. The problem is expressed succinctly in their block, which is a CU block. Please see also this diff on User talk:Hatchens for further information. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Considering the latest admin comments on their talk page probably wise - also as the actual queue appears to be growing again that should be a more important goal - reviewing the final 10 will make no difference to the result of any appeal. KylieTastic (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

parsed from this on Sun 22 May 2022 17:05 UTC

Date Accepted	Article Name	Deleted?	Redirect	Notes
2022-03-24	Habib Afkari			Checked fine.
2021-06-29	Suriya Evans-Pritchard Jayanti
2021-05-16	Edith Hester McDonald-Brown
2021-05-01	Lester B. Pearson Civic Centre
2021-04-23	Kaushik Roy
2021-03-17	Constitutional Council (Cambodia)
2021-03-15	ICGS Vishwast
2021-03-14	Iosif Gikhman			Checked fine.
2021-03-08	Lawrence Vambe			Checked fine.
2021-03-04	Manila Solar City			Checked Fine
2021-02-26	Houston Hogg			Checked Fine
2021-02-13	Charlotte Templeton
2021-02-06	Oaks Hotel			Checked Needs improvement but fine
2021-02-06	Nichols House (Ponchatoula, Louisiana)			Checked Needs improvement but fine
2021-01-22	Tauride Garden			Checked needs additional citations but fine.
2021-01-11	Mario Guarnacci			Checked maybe a couple more citations, but fine.
2021-01-07	Defense industry of South Korea
2021-01-03	Rostov Kremlin			Checked Sources need improving but otherwise fine.
2021-01-03	Maalaala Mo Kaya (season 29)
2021-01-03	Wide Range Intelligence Test
2020-11-29	Miacomet Golf Course			Checked fine, could use sources outside the local area

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.

Draft:Lana Rhoades - new eyes, please

I am asked by Elli on my talk page to revisit my decline. On the basis that I may be incorrect in choosing not to do so, please may I have new eyes on this. My sole concern is to be fair both to the draft and to the request on my talk page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Just noting here that I requested this page be moved to mainspace via G6ing the redirect in mainspace (would move myself if I could), so we will see if an admin does that first or thinks it needs to be reviewed at AfC (which I don't think is necessary, though an accept would certainly help). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elli I have commented on the draft with my thoughts. I agree with @Timtrent on this one. S0091 (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Elli - I have previously rejected the draft twice and submitted it to MFD once. However, having read the main added source, I am willing to accept the draft without any opinion as to whether it will survive a fifth AFD. I will comment that this is a self-inflicted injury by the ultras, who have brought suspicion on the topic. I have read the Playboy article, and it is my opinion that it and other coverage satisfy general notability. Do you want the draft accepted to take your chances on an AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I would appreciate that. Also to be clear, I personally do not care much about the subject herself, either as a fan or as a disliker, but I don't want an article with acceptable sourcing on a notable topic to linger in draftspace because no one could bother to get it published. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I respect your opinion as I respect the opinions expressed by everyone so far. That I disagree with you is unimportant. Please do what I was unwilling to do, and accept the draft. You have stated a decent enough basis for doing so. I do not believe that it stands a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process, but the community will decide that.

I will take no part in any deletion process this time around.

@Elli, assuming it gets deleted, do you think that will be the end of it, or do you think this will be like the mythical Lernaean Hydra? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's likely that the amount of coverage of her will increase further with time given that she is still somewhat active outside of the porn industry, so that if the article doesn't survive AfD, it will eventually come back with even stronger sourcing. I think that the article will survive AfD and the drama around this will die down, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elli I do think that CSD would be inappropriate for it. I suggest you challenge CSD, which I am certain will be proposed. Were I total any part in the (inevitable?) deletion process, that would be my route. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I could not imagine it would be successfully CSD'd. There is no CSD criterion the article meets. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elli You say no one could bother to get it published, which does not endear your cause to anyone. Reviewers "bother" a great deal, hence this thread. Please consider the effect your words may have on those from whom you wish to receive help. Either the subject is notable or it is not. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I didn't mean it in terms of reviewers, I meant it in terms of non-reviewers shepherding it through the review process. Sorry if that came off as critical of AfC reviewers, that isn't what I meant at all! Elli (talk | contribs) 01:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I have accepted the draft, without an opinion as to whether it should be in article space, but it is now in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

More generally, I think that this article belongs to a class of articles where the reviewer should ask the submitter whether the submitter understands that the article is likely to be nominated for deletion, and the reviewer does not need to make the usual assessment of whether the article will survive AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red December 2022

WiR Women who died in 2022 Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250 Online events: New: Alphabet run K & L | Geofocus Southeast Asia | Women who died in 2022 Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Climate Change collaboration runs 1 December 2022 - 31 January 2023 Tip of the month: Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name, like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Bkissin's reviewing

I attempted to raise concerns with Bkissin's AfC reviewing on their talk page. Their response was to, and I'm not making this up, immediately demand an IBAN, and claim my message today and a previous inquiry in July are persistent attempts at harassment. In light of this, and the fact that they refuse to answer any talk page messages, accepted literal copyvio last month, and were previously cautioned about ignoring talk page messages, I do not believe they are fit to remain an AfC reviewer. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings Perhaps you need to review WP:AFCPURPOSE which states “The purpose of reviewing is to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted.” that's all we do here, not all accepted articles are perfect. Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so accepting copyvio and refusing to accept any criticism is no problem? Well, I was wrong to assume AfC had any real meaning. My bad. I'll just blindly accept everything like Bkissin does, and if anyone complains, immediately demand an IBAN. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• (ec) I think "demand" is a bit of an exaggeration in describing what they asked. It may also be an exaggeration to describe your comments as "harassment"(though I haven't examined the entire situation). People can make mistakes, it doesn't mean they should be kicked out of reviewing. If you have grievances with a user's general conduct, WP:ANI) is the proper venue. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe you can understand how it would be upsetting to falsely be accused of harassment? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  Trainsandotherthings yes I do not consider your two messages as "harassment" per se, but I also do not consider "Have a awesome day and let's just agree on an interaction ban, huh?" to be a "demand". You exaggerate with "refuse to answer any talk page messages" when they answered 50% of yours, and the previous archive page has 21 responses. I agree there is a tendency to non response, but many posts on their talk page do not require a response, many are just request to re-review etc. You say they "were warned about accepting unattributed translations" when it was not a warning but just being informed and frankly I doubt I would have noticed. Is this the "accepted literal copyvio last month"? If so not noticing one translation copyvio in all their reviews is not unreasonable. I would guess it's this tendency to over state issues that they took as harassment. When reviewing anyone's work it is important to take a wider look... You bring up issues with two poorly sourced (but no claim not actually notable) and one missed translated copy vio: If this was out of a dozen reviews that would not be good, but parsing this I find 626 reviews with 21 deletions (this year) which contains a number of G5's so no acceptance issue. Yes I would not have accepted those two you highlighted, but if notable then acceptance and tagging would have been acceptable to many. I would agree that Bkissin should try to respond to more to talk page posts but advise maybe have a few copy-paste answers for the repetitive "please review" etc helps a lot. The problems highlighted in 626 reviews this year do not remotely justify the claim "I'll just blindly accept everything like Bkissin does" and do not indicate any big issue and I expect this is down to the difference between the two factions where some demand we only accept good articles and others that we should accept anything that passes notability (regardless of sources or state). Regards KylieTastic (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  I am not expecting perfection out of anyone. I'm nowhere near perfect and do not expect that from anyone else. That doesn't excuse the quite frankly needlessly inflammatory reply from Bkissin. I do not appreciate the implication that I somehow own a topic area or that I'm trying to bully or harass Bkissin; that's total fiction. Perhaps Bkissin could have replied with "the article in question didn't have good sourcing, but I found xyz sources online and determined the subject is notable" and that would have been the end of it. As mentioned below, reviewers are expected to reply to questions about their reviews. By any reasonable measure, Bkissin is not complying with that guideline, and has indicated they will continue to ignore it. So, why should they be allowed to continue reviewing? I may not have as much reviewing experience, but I know that I should reply to any reasonable inquiry about my reviewing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I would note that reviewer guidelines specify that reviewers must have "a willingness and ability to respond in a timely manner to questions about their reviews.". I mean, the way I read it - you cannot review something and then not reply/fix/explain if someone asks about it. Is this not true in practice? —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 16:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I interpret that statement the same way as you, @Hellknowz. -2pou (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Point of note: Most of the messages on User talk:Bkissin at the moment are not signed where not signed (but are now) so not archived, so 39 of the 47 are very old. Also the oldest post asks for a review of Draft:Neisse_Tower_(Görlitz) which appears unanswered but Bkissin reviewed as accepted which I would count as a positive response. KylieTastic (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

RE: refuse to answer any talk page messages, As stated above, a look through their most recent archive shows a decent response rate to legitimate perusals. It is quite rare for a reviewer to respond to requests for review/re-review, as this tends to be a pet-peeve of a lot of reviewers. Curbon7 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional reject reasons?

Novem Linguae opened a ticket on Github a few days ago about adding a custom/additional reject reasons to AFCH. Is there consensus to add this? If so, what reason(s) should be added? The current reject reasons are:

• This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.
• This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The ticket is to enable the "custom" reason for reject. "Custom" is currently only enabled for decline. I don't have an opinion either way, I opened the ticket at someone else's suggestion. Feel free to chime in. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Support - I have occasionally wanted a reason other than the two allowed. A custom option will have advantages and no disadvantages. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Support provided the effort to reward ratio is reasonable, since I suspect it will be little used. We may offer comments when we reject, so the facility is kind of there aleady 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

After reading Primefac's comments below, I am modifying my opinion to Oppose 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Neutral I'm pretty sure I've once or twice felt that neither of the current options quite fits, but I can't remember when or why; all I can say is that at least 9 times out of 10 when I reject, it's for one or the other of the existing reasons. Therefore I'd classify this as nice to have, but not urgently needed. (It would potentially be open to abuse, along the lines of "rejected because I didn't like it", etc., but I guess that can be dealt with if or when it happens.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I am leaning towards opposing this - when rejection was introduced as an option it was with the idea that this was for very specific reasons, and there was a fair amount of concern that we would overly-reject things if we allowed too broad of reject reasons. As I said on the github ticket, if there is an often-used reason that should be added as a third (or fourth) reject reason, I wouldn't be opposed to that, but just adding a generic comments box (to me) feels like it will open up the door for potentially improper rejections. I do recognise consensus can change over time, though, so I am not at a "bold !vote" point yet. Primefac (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time due to no proper rationale has been given for adding 'other' as a reject reason. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• AngusWOOF, would you like to elaborate on your rationale? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  As discussed on my talk page User_talk:AngusWOOF#Boilerplate_text_for_Draft_refusals, the editors find that the "is not notable" or "contrary to purpose of Wikipedia" isn't sufficient to cover the reasons for rejection. It's to cover cases such as: 1) where the subject or event will probably be notable at a certain time, like with {{Film draft notice}} especially for (year) in (subject/team/season/election) or upcoming shows 2) The subject is probably notable but there are too many tendentious resubmissions when it's still not ready. Kind of like the final warning, that if resubmitted (undone) then it's going to MFD. 3) Editors want a "gentler" rejection for their WP:TOOSOON person. The third case it would be good to offer a custom reason that doesn't discourage them from contributing anymore. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I would argue that in your case #1 the draft should not be rejected, #2 isn't going to be solved by a rejection, and I feel like #3 is what I'm looking for for an alternate set of hard-coded values. Primefac (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  @AngusWOOF It is very rare that a draft is deleted at MfD. A number of the same editors seem to weigh in on any draft submitted there with a zeal to retain the draft regardless of the merits of the argument to delete it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, this got off to a shaky start, opening a Github ticket before a consensus discussion was even started, and starting this discussion without a clear presentation of the underlying rationale. To any closer: please note how several !votes were made before the case was even presented.

If I had gotten here in time, I would have started the section by explaining that the use case is for articles on actors, or drafts thereof, specifically actors with one really well-known role (in this case Draft:Raegan Revord). The current wording only allows us to say "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". In the specific case when the only thing holding back the article is WP:NACTOR and its requirement for "more than one" - that is two - significant roles in notable works, the current wording is much less helpful and welcoming than if it was possible to note the specific reason why the draft was denied: because NACTOR requires us to wait for that second role. Rejecting people's work with a boilerplate "not notable" message might be technically correct, but to new-ish Wikipedians it comes across as needlessly inflammatory and combative. I feel a more nuanced message will help editors understand there's nothing wrong with their articles, it's just that actors don't get pages until their second roles. The proper response to having your draft denied is just to wait, not to get angry because you're told your subject is "not sufficiently notable" and not waste energy trying to find out where the article isn't good enough. To that end, it would be very very helpful if editors could be told it is specifically NACTOR requirements that aren't met. We would avoid cases like this one where the draft is repeatedly resubmitted, over and over again. To me, the reason for this wasted energy is obviously because it is far from obvious how actors (unlike most other groups of people) are required to do something notable 'twice', so to speak. CapnZapp (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether or not an actor can be notable with only one well-known role, there is nothing to stop the reviewer adding "a more nuanced message" in the Elaborate on your reject reason box, or even posting a message on the creator's talk page. I don't think that is enough grounds to add more reject reasons. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

CapnZapp, I really wish you wouldn't start every discussion with inflammatory comments designed to piss everyone off before you've even started. If [you] had gotten here in time you would have received the same reply as what has already been stated above, though the threading would have likely been a bit different.

To address the substance of your perceived issue, we cannot (and thus do not) have a decline reason for every SNG that is out there, mainly because it would make the decline dropdown box rather long and unwieldy. The best we can do is have a bio decline and have the reviewer leave a comment about NACTOR or similar. Similar if the page is being rejected. Primefac (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I really don't see why you are antagonistic here. Unless I have misunderstood you, you are not opposed to the idea that draft reviewers should not simply deny draft with boilerplate text when specifying things like "here NACTOR is in effect, your submission is entirely fine except fewer than two roles have been established, and so is rejected for the time being", or somesuch language, is so much friendlier and more helpful.

And suddenly - we are in agreement! (Or we would be if you didn't foul the discussion climate with hyperbolic accusations such as "start every discussion with inflammatory comments" which really isn't conducive to AGF)

(I did not start this initiative. I am not a draft reviewer. If somebody told me draft reviewers already had the power to "elaborate on your reject reason box" this endeavor would likely already be settled, to everybody's satisfaction. I am just a regular user that brought up the issue on a user talk, and suddenly see a formal discussion being developed - without setting it up properly. In order for the discussion not to capsize, I decided to explain the background. I did not intend to piss anyone off.)

Have a nice day CapnZapp (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose we already have a significant problem with improper/invalid declines, opening the door to bad rejects would just compound the issue. A rejection should be based on narrow/strict reasons because it is meant to be a final "away with this rubbish!" Thus it must objectively actually be "rubbish", which the current two reject reasons already fully cover. Conversely if a reviewer cannot justify a rejection with either of the current reasons, it does not qualify for rejection. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

[W]e already have a significant problem with improper/invalid declines seems to me quite a statement, but that's probably for another thread. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The article in question is most assuredly not rubbish. It simply is about an actress with only one notable role. The draft is perfectly fine in every other regard. A rejection should not scare new contributors away, or piss them off. CapnZapp (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Support additional specific criterion: I'm not sure there is a need for a custom reject reason (I don't feel very strongly about it either way), but I have thought more than once that it would be helpful if there was a "duplicate" rejection in addition to the two decline reasons "another draft about the same topic exists", and "an article about the topic already exists". As it is, there is one decline reason saying Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia., and one saying This appears to be a duplicate of another submission which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one., but since they are declines, the usual decline notice with the text You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved. is also placed on the submitter's user talk page. I think this is contradictory and a bit confusing in many cases. Also, I don't really agree that a rejection always implies that it's rubbish, especially when the topic is in fact notable and the draft isn't awful. --bonadea contributions talk 10:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

If the topic is in fact notable and the draft isn't awful, why would we be rejecting it? The reviewing instructions say Drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia should be rejected. Rejection is appropriate when you genuinely believe the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it were an article (i.e., the page would be an overwhelming "delete" at AfD, or clearly meet a CSD article criterion). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Because the subject is an actress, subject to the highly specific notability requirements of WP:NACTOR. Saying Raegan Revord is "not sufficiently notable" is much less helpful and friendly than explaining your draft was rejected because of this specific two-role minimum requirement, but is fine otherwise, and if/when she gains a second role, your draft will likely be accepted. CapnZapp (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: I think you've missed my point. Rejection is reserved for drafts that are entirely unsuitable and would surely be deleted at AfD, so should not apply in the 'fine otherwise' scenario you're describing. Decline is the way to go, with an explanation in the text box. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI: the review action that started this whole shebang actually is "Submission rejected", not merely "Submission declined": [4] I do believe AngusWOOF has explained his though process, though. CapnZapp (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello again. Maybe it's time to note that the impetus for this discussion is resolved by: there already appears to be a way to add custom text to a submission rejected. In other words, and more specifically: when you decline an actor draft solely because only one significant role in a notable work, not two or more has been established (i.e. everything else about the draft is of acceptable quality), say so and don't rely merely on "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". If this seems acceptable, that removes at least the initial cause for the github request = the discussion on Woof's talk that I started. (You are of course free to keep discussing; just wanted to get that out in the open). Regards CapnZapp (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: in response to If the topic is in fact notable and the draft isn't awful, why would we be rejecting it? I may have been unclear – I was only talking about situations where the draft is about the exact same topic as an existing article or another draft that is waiting to be reviewed. In that situation, asking the draft creator to revise and resubmit (like we do now) is not all that helpful, and rejecting because the topic is not notable or unsuitable would be incorrect. This isn't a very common situation, most drafts that are dups of articles or other drafts have other problems as well, and I might be in the minority, to have reacted to this in the past. --bonadea contributions talk 14:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC) =

• Consensus seems to be slightly against implementing this. I have closed the ticket as wontfix. Thanks for your input. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional decline reasoning?

This is a follow-up to #Additional reject reasons? above.

I propose a change to the instructions regarding declining submissions.

In "Reviewing Workflow", "Step 2: Notability and verifiability", subheader "Subject-specific notability guidelines", table "Notability guidelines":

Add a new table entry for Entertainers:

Notability guidelines

Subject	Guideline shortcut	Action
Entertainers (actors, celebrities, etc.)	WP:NACTOR	Decline the submission as about a generally non-notable subject Do explain if you are declining the submission solely because of NACTOR

Alternatively, add a new specific decline reason (much like "Decline the submission as about a non-notable academic" is distinct from the generic response, except make it more clear how Wikipedia could consider an "in" actor that is clearly having success (plenty of gossip/interviews/etc) with a significant role in a notable film to still not be notable enough. (The answer, btw, is, simplified, "because we require TWO such roles"). You might prefer this suggestion if you don't like having additional instructions to just this notability guideline.

The example from previous discussion: Draft:Raegan Revord, an actress with one big mainstream role plus a scattering of minor roles, but not a SECOND significant role in a notable work (not yet anyway). A situation that has persisted for nearly six(!) years. Declining this draft with the text "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" is profoundly unhelpful when the sole decline reason is the specific requirements of NACTOR, she easily passes all general notability tests (GNG, BIO) by a wide margin. As evidenced by that draft page's history, previous declines/refusals have caused a flurry of "improvements" that all ran into WP:AMOUNT - effort that led to nothing, effort I believe could have been avoided if only the decliner would explain "until she gets her second role, the draft stays a draft".

Of course, the boilerplate text is perfectly fine when a draft have multiple major issues. Here I am talking about the specific case where NACTOR is the sole hangup.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It's plainly bonkers to be declining a draft multiple times at AfC that sails over the WP:GNG threshold. If this is happening, then AfC is still as broken as ever. The existing 'basic' criteria is quite clear "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below", for example. Sionk (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about, User: Sionk. Hope that's okay. CapnZapp (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sionk is saying that the draft should not have been declined or rejected in the first place, thereby making AfC "still as broken as ever". Primefac (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

That would certainly be one resolution. CapnZapp (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. As CapnZapp previously recognised ("Maybe it's time to note that the impetus for this discussion is resolved by: there already appears to be a way to add custom text"), there is no need for this because there is a text box where the reviewer can and should write a custom message to expand on the reason for the decline to supplement the generic reason. That is what should happen here. Most reviewers know this, and would naturally do so, in this case probably pointing the draft's author to WP:NOT YET (actors). To create more decline reasons for niche circumstances like this would make the list unworkable. For example, someone would presumably soon be asking for a specific decline reason for someone who almost met criteria 5 of WP:MUSICBIO but has only released one album on a major record label, when the criteria requires two. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  Hello Curb Safe Charmer. As you can see on Draft: Raegan Revord, multiple reviewers have repeatedly failed to find whatever knobs and levers that must be operated for this advice to materialize in the decline/reject template text. I think NACTOR is sufficiently specialized that the boilerplate text is actively harmful, and that a specific mention in the instructions might be warranted. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  Also, per User:AngusWOOF you actually can't supply the extra text, except to "move the extra text afterwards to the top" (not sure what that means): [5] CapnZapp (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  I believe Angus is referring to adding text to the reject notice itself. You can always add a comment when you decline or reject a draft. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Unreviewed drafts about to go stale

Hi, and hope you're well. What are the best ways to deal with drafts that improperly transclude the Submit template that have never been reviewed before and will go stale in a month or two? Thanks, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Fix the template and submit them ourselves to give them a review chance? Seems only fair. Silverseren^C 01:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The above, and please make sure you submit with a fresh timestamp (i.e. "the time you fix it") so it doesn't immediately end up in the "very old" category. Primefac (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

As a note, though, none of the pages you have linked to are transcluding {{submit}}, so whether it is a failed attempt at submission or just a weird artefact of the Visual Editor is an exercise best left to the one looking at the page. The improperly-submitted-drafts category is Category:AfC pending submissions without an age. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

For example, Draft:Zhang Jiangzhou actually was submitted, and the last edit to the page was actually a decline, so removing the {{subst:submit}} would only serve to reset the G13 counter. Primefac (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup. All three drafts of the query contain a non-wiki’d variant of the template, something like <nowiki>{{submit}}</nowiki>.

In fact, looking at the source code of Template:AfC submission/submit, I suspect transcluding the template is impossible (it will cause an error at page save). Is that really necessary? The typical method would just be to add {{always substitute}} and wait for AnomieBOT to do its job (it might be necessary to add it to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster_force, too). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Transcluding the template is perfectly possible. It gives {{submit}}. The reason it is not auto-subst is because it needs the values to be hard-coded, including the submitter's name (we can't have AnomieBOT getting decline messages, can we?). Primefac (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Point taken about the submitter’s name and the subst impossibility (I would have thought it can be done with some WP:MAGIC, but did not find how, so I trust you had a look).

Transcluding does not prevent you from saving the page, but the resulting error text is hard to miss: [removed. the template was indeed bot-substituted, see below. To see what I mean, type in {{submit}} and hit preview.16:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)]

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tigraan, @Primefac, it looks like the bot correctly substitutes the template (e.g. Special:Diff/1123217135). User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force isn't necessary because there are currently no transclusions. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This is what the transcluding the template produces:
— Qwerfjkltalk 17:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The plot thickens! AnomieBOT did substitute my (unintended) test above in Special:Diff/1123178943, and was smart enough to know which parameters to add (including u=Tigraan). Both Template:AfC submission/submit and Template:submit appear in Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted, but Template:AfC submission/submit does not have that category at the bottom of its page (?!).

I don’t know what’s going on (but I guess it’s not super-important either - sorry for derailing the thread). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tigraan, the documentation page has the line

<includeonly>{{Sandbox other||[[Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted]]}}</includeonly>

— Qwerfjkltalk 17:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

So transclusions seem to be fine, and the main problem is wikimarkup like <nowiki>{{subst:submit}}</nowiki>. Manually watching for those in draft space seems straightforward. Not so sure about userspace drafts because user subpages can contain normal links to Template:Submit that are not AfC submissions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352, searching insource:"<nowiki>{{subst:submit}}</nowiki>" in the User: and Draft: namespace works — Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to restate my earlier request, please don't just remove them because they are there - no point in resetting a G13 to remove a link. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of G13, which of these userspace drafts qualify under pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in [...] Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template? User:Kippell/sandbox, for example, would unambiguously qualify for G13 if it were in draftspace. Thanks for answering my questions! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

If they were in the draft space they would qualify simply because they were in the draft space. Since they were never officially submitted, only those pages properly submitted (and subsequently declined) would be G13 eligible. Primefac (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Got it; thanks for explaining. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The above being said, if anyone wants to take responsibility for the various "unsubmitted" drafts in the user space linked above (i.e. the ones that appear to have never been properly submitted in the first place) I see no issue with doing a proper {{subst:submit}} on them to get them into the pipeline (or just accept them if they're good to go). Primefac (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:AfC redirect error § Requested move 1 December 2022

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:AfC redirect error § Requested move 1 December 2022. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 04:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Watchlist: Group results by page feature

Perhaps this is commonly known and I was the last to find it, but on your watchlist page, clicking the cog where you can set how many results to show and for how many days also has a really useful option labelled "Group results by page" which I presume is off by default. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You might also be one of the first to see something being rolled out - I do not have this option on my watchlist (edit: I am using the non-JS watchlist... explains that). Primefac (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

FloridaArmy state legislator articles

Any chance we could give them an exception to allow creating only state legislator articles directly in mainspace? They do a lot of Reconstruction-era southern state reps and I haven't yet seen one that wasn't a WP:NPOL rubber stamp. It's a clear line that might save us and FA some time and effort. Rusalkii (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It is beyond our powers, as FA has a TBAN for creating articles directly in mainspace. Curbon7 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The ban came from an ANI discussion so FA would need to make the proposal there to have it modified. A few weeks ago I went through all their pending drafts and accepted the vast majority of politicians, then left them a note suggesting they pursue amending the AfC restriction of having only 25 pending drafts at a time, given they are consistently over that anyway, if not also the NPP restriction. So far, they have yet to take any action. S0091 (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I've had this conversation with them periodically. A synopsis of my conversations is that they fear making things worse for themselves.

I almost always find I can accept their drafts, though I push some back to them, with custom rationales 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I've had a mixed hit rate on some of their drafts, I wouldn't lobby for removing the ban entirely, but reviewing the state legislator articles is just a waste of our time. Oh well, if they don't want to they don't want to, I wouldn't really feel like dealing with ANI either if I could at all avoid it. Rusalkii (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:JT Session - odd error message

I Picked this up from "Very Old Submissions" and declined it. There is a weird error message:

[[Category:AfC submissions by date/Error: Invalid time.|JT Session]]

I can't work out where it comes from so am unable to solve it. Thoughts, please? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it's unrelated to you or the AFC helper script. The creator of the draft messed up the timestamp in the template {{AfC submission}}. 2022-12-33 is not a valid date. I'll go ahead and fix it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Well above my pay grade, that one! Thank you 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"Moving notable, pending Drafts to Article space"

What do we think of the stated objective of this user User:Ravi_shreevastava? I know AfC isn't a mandatory requirement, and all, but to me this sounds like it could create some confusion at least. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Does he mean "pending" specifically in the sense that the draft has been submitted? BD2412 T 13:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, but that's what happened with Draft:Alexandr Wang at least (subsequently moved back by 331dot). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The user doesn't yet have the knowledge to do what they state; they don't have a single edit to the main encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

One of their first actions was to attempt to move a draft of a previously deleted subject to mainspace, which I find hard to believe was coincidental. BD2412 T 13:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that as well; it's not easy to find a draft in general unless you already know it exists. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

...AfC isn't a mandatory requirement... which unfortunately means we can't really do anything about it. If they are moving pages improperly, then a move ban can be sought. If they start impersonating (or otherwise implying they are) an AFC reviewer, then ANI can deal with it. Otherwise... I just hope they don't screw anyone over by moving something that isn't yet ready to the article space. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The user in question has been blocked as a sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajesh56om) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 11:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Are AfC ratings for forever?

I tried to find this answer but couldn't so I am asking all of you...

When an AfC is accepted and rated upot its initial acceptance, does that initial rating stay on the article's talk page forever? LIke it's rated as Start-Class or as a Stub but now its clearly not...

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The ratings can be changed by anyone at any time, though it seems like only certain people bother to do so. I feel like some WikiProjects have one or two people that try to ensure they're filled out, and some WikiProjects where nobody seems to care. There have been cases when I clear out a rating of an article I wrote where it clearly needs an update, hoping someone impartial might rate it, but then it just sits. Some people that update ratings will update it for every WikiProject banner so its consistent, but then some might only update the WikiProject they care about. All in all... It doesn't stay forever, but it only changes if someone feels strongly enough to notice in the first place, and then bother to update. -2pou (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok....it's just that when I look at the template on this article's talk page, it gives the oldid & the person who accepted the article so if I change just the rating then does it look like the acceptor gave the article the new rating? I mean the template goes like this right now:

This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

This article was accepted from this draft on 10 October 2022 by reviewer [Reviewer's name].

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Shearonink: the acceptance note ("This article was accepted...") stays as it is, showing who and when originally accepted it. Subsequently changing the ratings doesn't affect that.

And going back to your original question, the ratings can and should change as the article evolves. Something may start out as a stub and eventually reach GA, and the ratings of course need to reflect this. (Whether they always do, is another matter.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That all makes sense. I just didn't want to touch the template if it was supposed to somehow stay as a timeline/historical record... Shearonink (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If an audit trail is required, that can always be found in the page history. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Do we need article ratings?

I'm going to split this off from the above, because it's related but still a new subject - do we actually need to have AFC-specific article ratings? Our grading scheme is pretty bog-standard, and no one is going to go to an article's talk page and ask us how to improve an already-accepted article. Additionally, I highly doubt that anyone in this project (and I am more than happy to be proven wrong) is going through (for example) Category:Start-Class AfC articles and working on improving them - there's just no connection between most of those pages; you would seriously have to be a jack of trades to attempt it. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No, we do not, and they should be dispensed with. BD2412 T 15:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Grading scheme seems to be a duplicate of Wikipedia:Content assessment. Should we redirect the page to avoid duplication? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It depends, I suppose, on if we plan on creating a unique project-specific group of ratings, if we are fine with just the bog standard, or if we decide that we are not going to have assessments for this project. If we reject option 3, then I would say option 2 is a good idea. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so; I've sometimes wondered why that's even there.

If we are to rate AfC acceptances somehow, I'd rather do it on the degree of confidence the reviewer has in the article, to distinguish the borderline ("barely better than 50:50 chance of surviving an AfD") cases from the rock-solid ones. This might encourage more of the borderline ones to be accepted (per some of the comments in the 'Backlog' thread below), as it would give the reviewer the chance to make the point that they've accepted it knowing it is borderline. This could also be useful feedback for the creator, especially if accompanied by additional comments and/or data points on why it was considered borderline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea; it's not like we'd be the only ones with non-standard grades; if we could come up with some sort of "confidence scale" it would still work within the coding framework (i.e. I wouldn't have to entirely re-write the template) while giving actually-useful information for anyone looking at the banner. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Low quality "state legislator" drafts

I realise I have accepted hundreds of these in the past from FA, but Draft:Jean Rogers Wallin clearly fails WP:NPOLITICIAN FA argues that as a state legislator they pass the criteria, but the criteria doesn’t say this? Theroadislong (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. The New Hampshire House of Representatives is a legislative body at the state level, and I believe it's members therefore do pass NPOL. This has been the understanding at a previous AfD of a similar article from FloridaArmy.

The draft is pretty lackluster though, and can probably be better written and fleshed out. But it should still be accepted on NPOL basis. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

There is the potential of a lot of those from New Hampshire, which has the largest subnational English speaking legislature(and the fourth biggest legislature of any kind). 331dot (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

One of my GAs, Betty Hall, never held an office higher than New Hampshire state rep. There is potential in all. Curbon7 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, NPOL covers "state/province–wide office, or... members of legislative bodies at those levels" (i.e. members of state-wide legislative bodies). Perhaps it shouldn't, but the presumption is that sources will eventually be found for people who get elected to state legislative offices. BD2412 T 15:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:NPOLITICIAN could be made clearer in that case, stating that all state legislators are deemed notable? Theroadislong (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

So, I have just accepted these from FA, Jennie Spindler Walsh, Violet P. Boede and Lester Vonderachmidt all were state legislators, though they are such poor quality, it feels wrong. Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Jennie Spindler Walsh is in the category "living people" and also listed as having a birth date of 1890... Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes the quality is always poor and I see no reason why reviewers should have to improve them. Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Such is one of my many problems with FA's edits. The articles are technically notable as members of state legislatures, but the quality is poor to say the least. They are often written as sentence fragments showing that a person existed with very little prose to flow-through the article. Additionally, (and this is not entirely the fault of FA), the sourcing is not great. Some of this (with Reconstruction-Era politicians of color) can be intentionally vague, but I remember getting nasty-grams from NPP and others about hoax articles or woefully unsourced cases around NPOL, so I err more on the side that for historical politicians, there should be a record of them in a source that is connected to the Legislature. It wouldn't hurt to have in-depth coverage from other sources as well, but with historical figures, that is sometimes asking too much. But in the end it doesn't matter what we do, because FA will continue to resubmit articles like that regardless of quality or notability and cast aspersions against anyone who suggests otherwise. Bkissin (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If you are not comfortable accepting these articles, don't accept them. But if they are not likely to be deleted, as is the case here, please do not decline them; leave them in the queue for brave reviewers to deal with. ~Kvng (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

My biggest issue with accepting FA drafts is the amount of elbow grease I have to put in; I often spend at least 10 minutes on one draft post-accept between creating their requested redirects, linking to and from other articles, improving categories, WikiProject banners, and copyediting/cleanup. Curbon7 (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I no longer spend time on them, I accept them as they are warts and all. Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

People should be careful not to accept without validation. Although notable I have found and fixed several serious factual errors. Such as a rep that it said was also a Senator when they weren't; A few dates taken from the source date not the event date (including DOD); Mixing up the dates served in one role with the time spent in the legislator; Mixing up different people with the same name; etc. Sometimes it's just sloppy source reading, other times it's poor sources with unclear or conflicting data. KylieTastic (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I already avoid addressing those articles (they are easy to spot) and I just provide thoughts and prayers to those who decide to deal with them. Bkissin (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

And as we've seen from the recent drafts by MoviesandTelevisionFan, secondary sources can often be found (at least for modern political figures). Bkissin (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Backlog

We have 3000+ drafts in the backlog. Time for a new backlog drive? Happy to be a coordinator! TY MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! During the last backlog drive there were re-reviews—are we interested in doing that again? It seems like a good way for less experienced reviewers to get feedback. I'm also able to be a coordinator if needed. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 02:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Have you ever coordinated before? I have not.

We either will need to do a longer than usual drive to factor in the Christmas break, then again, many people do not celebrate and those that do may still edit during their holidays?

The 2013 backlog drive went for 60 days from 1 December till end of Jan.

We could do mid December to mid Feb?

The following could be in place:

Scoring:

• Reviews get 1 point.

• Reviews of drafts that had been waiting more than 30 days instead get 1.5 points.
• Reviews of accepted submissions that are deleted during the backlog people = a deduction of X points, -10 or more perhaps? To discourage accepting articles that do not meet guidelines.

Reviews that otherwise fail a re-review get deducted 1 point (incorrectly declined articles do not damage Wikipedia as they can easily be resubmitted, but once accepted, an article usually must go through AFD)

• Re-review gets 1 point
• Bonus of 3 points for improving a draft that would have clearly been declined and then accepting it. (You must manually list these in a "Bonus" level-2 section.)

Re-reviews:

• For any disagreements, go to the backlog drive talk page.
• It is recommended that each participant have had at least 10% of their reviews (or 3 reviews, whichever is more) re-reviewed.
• It is recommended that each participant have conducted a number of re-reviews greater than 10% of their number of reviews.

Awards

• 1 review - Cookie/Brownie etc - to thank for participation
• 10 - Invisible Barnstar (Reduced from 50 reviews, it will encourage more editors to get involved and easily achieve perhaps their first barnstar)
• And the rest of awards can follow the last backlog drive.

MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I would subtract more for incorrect declines, I think those are incredibly discouraging to editors and the common complaint I see about AfC in other parts of the project is that we're stricter than e.g. NPP. But that's a nitpick, and I appreciate you offering to coordinate! Rusalkii (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ingenuity what counts as an “indirect” decline is often unclear. That’s subjective. However my criteria for a bad acceptance is when the community have voted to remove it at AFD. So in essence, a “bad accept” resulting in points loss would only occur if a group of fellow colleagues on Wikipedia came to a deletion consensus. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect* MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

If you want to penalise for both incorrect accepts and declines including -10 if deleted at AfD then you’re going to stop many from dealing with much of the grey area that makes up the backlog. Yes we don't want to encourage bad reviews to get points but also we don't want to discourage good faith attempts at judging that 50/50 chance of surviving at AfD. AfC already has enough negativity from others who like to criticise every review they disagree with. Reviewers should not be expected to be perfect and there are even very experienced editors who make wrong choices now and then. The fact that most AfDs have a mix of opinions rather than SNOWs shows there often is not a clear right or wrong. KylieTastic (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroadislong (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Certainly shouldn't penalize incorrect acceptances. Nothing wrong with giving a draft the benefit of the doubt and leaving it for the larger community to do a deeper dive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slywriter (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just copy the last backlog drive's point system, re-review system, etc. Then we don't have to do any extra thinking, update any pages, update any bots, etc. The last backlog drive seemed to work well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There was a lot of burn out after the last drive, though. It might be better to split it into to multiple, shorter backlog drives (just a thought). — Qwerfjkltalk 21:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I propose a two week or no more than a month drive with some of the more active reviewers not participating in the "competition" so newer/traditionally less active reviewers have better chance at getting awards. I think this was proposed some time back and folks seemed amendable to the idea. S0091 (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

A two week drive is an excellent idea. Longer meant we got to zero, and re-reviewed almost instantly on resubmissions. While that sounds great it created an unfair expectation for post drive review time.

I'm ambivalent about excluding experienced reviewers, but we might choose to hold back ourselves on an individual basis. However the primary purpose is to nuke the backlog. A side benefit is getng new reviewers up to speed. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Would 500 reviews or Top 5%, 100 Reviews or Top 25% for the barnstars balance things out better? Numbers made up, but can look at last drive to come up with real ones. Slywriter (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd concur with the -1 for incorrect decline and more for incorrect accept. However, not -10, as AfC's accept criteria is deliberately designed to be somewhat generous. Perhaps -5? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No. -1 for both is fine. A greater penalty for an incorrect acceptance sounds good but our criteria are to accept if we believe the draft has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. All that happens with an incorrect acceptance is that (eg) AfD decides.

We seem be discussing the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. All we really need to decide is yes/no and duration 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Support drive and prefer two weeks but also fine with a month. Also appreciate @MaxnaCarta volunteering to organize it. S0091 (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This has been up for a few days now and no one has opposed having a backlog drive. Several people have expressed interest in having a shorter drive of a couple weeks instead of 1-2 months. Does the first couple weeks of January work for everyone? If so, I can set up a page for the drive. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Two weeks beginning January sounds good, I presume as last years winner, I can still review but just not join the drive? Theroadislong (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there a consensus here to exclude people? I don't think we should exclude people, personally. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I should have phased that better. I did not intend a mandatory exclusion of anyone. That would introduce a mess (i.e. what criteria to use, etc.). I really just meant it as a suggestion for folks to consider but of course it should be open to any AfC reviewer who wants to participate so feel free to ignore that "proposal" entirely. S0091 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

No one should have any reason to oppose. Even if participation is low it will still encourage progress on the backlog. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I've created a page for the drive at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/January 2023 Backlog Drive. Feel free to tweak the awards/scoring system/etc. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I don't know if this is something usually done during backlog drives, but would it be worth sending out a massmessage to all the reviewers to notify people? echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Getting notified about AFC submission I never contributed to.

Well, this is interesting. I was out and about earlier when I received a notification telling me my submission to AfC Draft:Friends 4 Life had just been declined. Usually this would be normal, obviously, except I never edited the page. I never created it, I never submitted it and I never edited it. I did attempt to fix the Invalid Time error while viewing it earlier, but discarded the edit as I had to leave my computer for a bit. So, is this something that's happened before, or is this some mysterious bug?

Courtesy ping to reviewer of the article, and consequently the sender of the notification, @Dan arndt. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC).

@EchidnaLives: that is so weird - I undertook the review of the AfC using the automated reviewer tool as I have done millions of times before, so I have no idea why the Bot randomly selected you as the author of the draft. In saying that it has occasionally happened to me but only when I redirected the title of the draft and the Bot then identifies me as the author. I'm at a lost as to why the Bot picked you, EchidnaLives, my apologies but it was outside my control. Dan arndt (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Oddly enough, EchidnaLives, the IP user who created that draft listed you as the submitter: see the "u=EchidnaLives" parameter here. Not sure what was going on there...maybe the IP copied the wikitext from some other draft you were involved with? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

That may be the answer, although I haven't submitted any drafts, just had one sitting around, so they probably wouldn't of directly copied it. I'll just leave a note on the IP's talk page and see if they reply. Thanks for your quick replies. echidnaLives - talk - edits 07:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@EchidnaLives: I know what it feels like when it appears like you've been accused of something that you have little or no involvement in. Hopefully no harm done. Like your pseudonym btw.. Dan arndt (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dan arndt Thanks! No harm done at all, and I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with your reviewing. Just thought it was a little weird, especially since I had looked at and almost edited the same draft earlier. echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Explain declines

I often notice that several reviewers in a row will decline a draft with the same template, with no explanation. It makes sense to do that the first time, but if they've resubmitted with the same issues, the template clearly isn't enough. You don't need to write them a whole essay, but I try to at least give a couple pointers ("look for reviews of the books" or "X source doesn't work because it's a blog post" or "please don't resubmit until all sections have citations"). Rusalkii (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I try to give feedback, but honestly the amount of effort I give into a decline is the same effort the editor has made in addressing the concerns. When it comes to obvious corporate puffery being submitted again and again in an attempt to get it accepted without addressing the concerns or asking for help, meh. But certainly if it’s an article with potential every AFC editor should be assisting newbies get promising drafts in. That said, again, some just keep submitting and ignore all comments. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Make templates, use them, save yourself time and effort, but absolutely add comments to assist the user. Robert M has a ton of them, I have one I use on almost every decline, and I'm sure other reviewers have a set of standard responses they shortcut to make things easier (see for example Category:AfC comment templates). While I do agree that we should not be wasting time on tendentious resubmissions etc, every draft should have at least one comment from someone as to why it was declined, or what needs to be done to improve it. I will be honest, there are some adv declines where the reviewer has left no other instruction, and when a helpee comes into IRC I genuinely can't tell them why it was declined (i.e. the language isn't that bad). I think the BLP declines are a bit more thorough so they might not need all that much extra, but the more help we can give in our declines the more likely it is to a) retain that user, and b) have them submit an actually acceptable draft. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting that category Primefac! I will take a look at those for my own explanatory purposes! Bkissin (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

If obvious corporate puffery is being submitted again and again, we should either try to work with them to improve it or tell them to stop resubmitting, declining it over and over again with the same message is a waste of both our time and theirs. It is frustrating, yeah, I don't really like spending a lot of time on the obvious paid editing fluff, but I try to e.g. copy and paste a couple of the more egregious examples so they at least understand what I'm reacting to. Rusalkii (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Arabid slavery is a challenge

The creating editor is quite feisty about it. Another editor put the hoax banner at the top and submitted it for review! Since I viewed that as ludicrous I declined it.

When and if it is submitted for review again it will require a careful eye. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

This passed across my desk the other day, and I was tempted to MFD it - it's clearly nonsense. It's not even like the Irish slaves myth (which actually has references). Primefac (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac The creating editor is heavily invested in it. See WP:COIN. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, which is what I gathered from my brief interaction with them on IRC. If their trajectory stays as it is they are doomed to failure, and I don't know if it can be corrected. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac Judging by COIN and their talk page it cannot. I hate it when enthusiasm is so misdirected that they end up in a huge mess regardless of the merits or otherwise of their editing work. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The achieved indef blocks here and (independently) on Commons. That is just something that happened.

Do we leave the draft to wither on the G13 vine, or ought it to head for MfD? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Moot point now, it was deleted as a hoax (via WP:G3). Had it not, I would have suggested just leaving it, since it was not actively harmful. Primefac (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Accepting over a redirect

Can someone remind me how to accept an article when there's a redirect in the way? The draft in question is the extremely obviously notable Antonio Bruni, which has been languishing since August (possibly for this reason). -- asilvering (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Asilvering use {{db-afc-move|1=page to be moved}} on the page to be deleted if it has no history worth saving. Otherwise you will need to ask an admin to perform a history merge. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Mcmatter - I partly disagree. If the redirect has history, a history merge is seldom what is needed. What is normally done is a round-robin page swap by a page mover, who will move the former redirect into the draft position, and change it into a redirect to the article. This is less difficult to understand by looking at an example where it has actually been done. User:Primefac - Is there a case where history merge should be requesting when accepting a draft when there is a redirect with history? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Only if it was a copy/paste pagemove. The existence of a page in another location, written by someone else, is not reason enough for a histmerge. Primefac (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mcmatter, I though page movers could move pages over redirects, but the AfC helper script doesn't seem to allow this. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Page movers can move a page without creating a redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett, page movers have the flag delete-redirect (move pages over existing single revision redirects regardless of target) (WP:Page movers). — Qwerfjkltalk 10:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

January Backlog Drive

There will be a two-week backlog drive from January 1 to 14, 2023. To sign up, add your username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/January 2023 Backlog Drive/Participants. Our goal is to eliminate the backlog, or significantly reduce it. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Enjoy! I plan to be AFK for precisely that period, so hope to come back to an under-control list of AfC submissions :) Greenman (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Disagreeing with acceptance

I just saw on my watch list that a draft which I'd previously declined was accepted. Curious as I am, I went to see, and although it has certainly been improved since I saw it, it remains IMO badly referenced with little or no evidence of notability. What should I do?

1. Take this up with the accepting reviewer
2. Initiate deletion (probably AfD rather than speedy, in this case)
3. Redraftify
4. Tag it for notability and refimprove, and move on (NB: it was autopatrolled, so NPP won't pick it up)
5. Learn to mind my own business!

What's the right answer here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I would say discussing it with the accepting reviewer would be the first step. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, first query the reviewer. Definitely not Redraftify. Another option if you want another editors opinion is to un-patrol so NPP will pick up (but I would also tag per concerns). Regards KylieTastic (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Definitely add it to the NPP queue (I do this even when I accept something myself), which is like... and alternate option for #4. I don't really see #1 as doing much, other than maybe getting a further explanation for why it was accepted (I mean, maybe you missed something?). If you still think it's unacceptable, regardless of whether you do #1, then sure, #2/AFD is the way to go. Re-drafting should be avoided. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, all. The reviewer agrees that on further consideration this probably shouldn't have been accepted. Un-patrolling it and leaving it for another patroller to deal with seems a bit, well, spineless, other than perhaps in order to get a second (third) opinion. I reckon I'll just take it to AfD at some point, see what the collective wisdom makes of it. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough re: patrol, I wasn't thinking that you are a NPR already so it would be a bit like passing the buck. In that case, your #4 (which is what you'd do if you were patrolling as usual) would be a reasonable thing to do, assuming you don't AFD it. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Paid offers for circumventing the AfC process

Since becoming an AfC reviewer, I've received a fair number of COI off-wiki requests for assistance with getting a draft article published, both paid and unpaid. Today's was by someone claiming to be an agent for a soccer player whose article I declined. I may publish these in my userspace at some point. But I'm becoming concerned about how frequently this occurs for others, and whether on occasion other reviewers have been or may be tempted. Any comments from others on possible ways to minimise this risk to the project? Does anything need to be done - perhaps the current guidelines about paid editing are sufficient? Shall we require/request that reviewers make these requests public? Add text to the decline notice? Or to the talk page of the article in question? Take action against users making these requests (if they're identifiable)? Greenman (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

A lot to unpack there. I've received a fair number... requests for assistance with getting a draft article published - that's pretty normal, depending on your workflow. Nothing wrong with giving advice to folks, even if like your soccer player they are an agent and being paid (it's not like you're going to be the one improving it, after all). We've had issues in the past with AFC reviewers being paid for reviews, and later getting removed from the project for it, but I don't think there's any way to "minimise this risk to the project". One could argue there is always a risk, as on the whole we have thousands of drafts to be reviewed, and it's almost inevitable a handful will be pushed through due to UPE. I wouldn't worry about it.

As for publishing them as some sort of weird scarlet letter - there are dozens of threads here and on WP:AN about paid editing firms and trying to "unmask" them, but I don't think we've ever successfully linked (on-wiki) one of these cold-caller emails to any specific account. In other words, save the bytes and don't bother. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I've been doing this for a long time and have never had a paid off-wiki request as far as I remember - but I would have just deleted as spam and moved on as soon as the purpose was clear. However I don't "Allow emails from brand-new users" and have no links to any external presence so not easy to access. If I was approached as it's against what Wikipedia is and why I do this I would not be tempted ever. If it was a subject I was very interested in thought the article should exist I may help if asked to assist, as soon as money was offered I would not touch out of principle. KylieTastic (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how frequently it occurs with direct queries, but it is a common job request on Upwork. - Bilby (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I know it happens and many editors have written paid articles without disclosure before. I know AfC reviewers are approached too. I know there's job postings for this. There are many shady companies that offer paid Internet presence/promotion, among that getting a Wikipedia article. For example, it's really bad for Indian cinema and celebrities, there are socks and UPE galore. It's been going on forever and it's not likely to stop any time soon, but I also don't think there's any real remedy in addition to everything already being done. Personally, I have never received any such messages, although I do not review much either. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Never been offered money. Never been sent an unsolicited (or solicited!) dicpic on SM. Even the Nigerian princes have stopped offering me their lucrative deals. I must be doing something wrong. Hey ho. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Same here. PLUS, I only have three unread emails in my inbox... Primefac (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2023

Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 Online events: New: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run M & N | Geofocus East Asia Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2022 See also: Editing For Effie collaboration with the Smithsonian, January 8 & 9 (global event) Tip of the month: De-orphan and incorporate an article into Wikipedia using the Find Link tool Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Articles

Hello,

The last few weeks I have been getting messages regarding submitted articles getting declined. The problem is I never submitted these articles. I wanted to point this out because getting these messages is frustrating, especially given I have submitted two articles, one of which was recently accepted. Thanks. 2600:4040:941D:7100:2C54:5463:8202:769D (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you getting these under an account? Your current IP has no contributions; you might be seeing messages for others if you use a dynamic IP. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Please create this page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jafar_%22The_punisher%22_Ahmadi Nalon22 (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nalon22 I have submitted it on your behalf. Please wait for it to be reviewed, where it will either be declined or accepted. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC).

Many thanks Nalon22 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The new Draftify script

Please refer to the latest NPP newsletter (linked and above) for details.

I like it very much. It allows a far better human interface to tailoring the message that goes to the editor whose work is moved. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, @Timtrent; seems like a major improvement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please create this page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Masoud_%22The_silent_assassin%22_Minaei Nalon22 (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nalon22: this is not the place to request article creations, this forum is for administrative discussions only. If you have questions about a pending draft, please put them to the AfC help desk. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Nalon22 (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2023

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: WP:SNOW close as not moved. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for creation → Wikipedia:Articles for Creation

– Per the page itself, Articles for Creation is the correct capitalization. A redirect to the uncapitalized title can be retained. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 05:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support for consistency, and as a lot of things already have it capitalised like this. However, noting that this would be quite a bit or work, and could possibly would not be worth it. echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are approximately 4,856 pages with the current capitalization in their titles, and I really struggle to see how moving that many pages would be worth it. Standardizing capitalization in mainspace (where MOS:CAPS applies) is one thing, but doing it in projectspace is quite another, I think. (And regardless, if we really want consistent capitalization, it'd be easier to just use the lowercase version, which wouldn't require any moves at all.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:AT. Our house style is sentence case and it reduces cognitive load to use this style consistently. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above, and also noting that every noticeboard and forum with an all-cap or split-cap acronym is written in sentence case (WP:RFA, WP:AN, WP:XFD, etc). I have been BOLD and changed the opening sentence of WP:AFC to more appropriately match the page title; if this proposal succeeds I will happily change it back. Primefac (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as pure busywork 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not seeing a benefit to this. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS; per matching (all?) others such as WP:Articles for deletion, WP:Miscellany for deletion, WP:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Articles for improvement, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, etc; So if this was going to be done all other similar projects would have to be done so this would have to be a wider RfC. KylieTastic (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2023 (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.

Draft:Academic corporate relations possible class project

If you look at the edit history this has the characteristics of a collaborative class project. Probably. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello WikiProject Articles for creation,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 03:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello WikiProject Articles for creation,

New Page Review queue December 2022

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

January Backlog Drive is on now!

The January backlog drive is taking place over the next two weeks, until January 14. Click here to sign up:

Join the drive

For more information, see the drive page. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we might need a recruitment drive... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I think a lot of reviewers especially non-active reviewers would not see this so would not know it was on. Last time we notified the Wikipedia:Wikiproject articles for creation/active users mailing list - but this has not been kept up to date, also we had one of those watchlist notices. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Also more generally, if an occasional reviewer happens to come to the AfD project pages, they could be forgiven for missing the fact that a drive is on. Not least, as the top of WP:WPAFC/BD expressly states that "There is no backlog drive currently running". A small thing, perhaps, but still. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Template subst:WPAFCDrive might be helpful for manually inviting active reviewers to the drive. Also, I've added a notification at the main page that could help in recruiting more participants. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 08:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I am choosing not to join this drive. I support it. I want to let our newer reviewers have a really good crack at this. It won't stop me from reviewing, though! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We are making progress, but it seems doubtful we'll make a huge dent in the backlog in two weeks with the number of participants that have signed up and the way the graph looks so far. How about extending it to the end of the month? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Good marketing could help increase participation in the drive too. Did we do an WP:MMS yet? Should we look into a watchlist notice? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge, a notice was not sent out (MMS or otherwise). S0091 (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Madhab Chandra Jena - possible UPE, definite sockpuppetry

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omkrishnajena. The latest (alleged) sock has disregarded advice and made the draft worse. Who knew that was possible? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

NPP Discord

All AFC folks are cordially invited to join the NPP Discord. Discord is chat room software that lets you instant message other folks, in this case other NPP and AFC folks. It can be really good for community building. Since we have a backlog drive going on right now, it might be fun to hang out in the chat room and talk about AFC and draft stuff. Hope to see you there :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I have dipped my toe into the water. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll just be a curmudgeon and sit over here on IRC... Primefac (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Prime still giving editors his ICQ id :). Seriously though, download an app, click a link, get a chatroom a lot like IRC. Promise it's not that scary, I successfully made the transition and love it's style nowadays. Slywriter (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It's less "scary" and more "one more thing that I need to keep track of". Primefac (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Big fan of using Discord to discuss notability of pages. I think it's helped many of us improve by being able to have a more casual and real time discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Help

I've been asked to review Draft:Jolyne Cujoh. I gave it a big look and noticed it managed to pass any notability guidelines taught by the manual of style and the weight is enough to make the article stand out. However, I never reviewed drafts in my entire career and I'm kinda lost. How exactly do I accept this draft? Tintor2 (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Tintor2: maybe you could just tell them you're not an AfC reviewer, and ask them to wait until someone gets around to reviewing the draft? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to be an AfC reviewer to use the AfC script. Curbon7 (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

(I've accepted this draft, it's waiting for an admin to take the CSD.) Rusalkii (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: @Lovelyquirks1: So I need a qualification to pass it? It's already in good for a B class article based on all the comments I made and how he revised everything. Can the user grab the redirect of Cujoh and then move the draft on his/her own? Based on my experience with creating character articles, I'm pretty sure it passes notability guidelines.Tintor2 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Normally I'd say just move it. Anyone can move a draft to mainspace, you don't need to be an AFC reviewer. But this one is tricky because there's a redirect in the way, and it's a WP:BLAR, so there's some page history there that might be worth preserving. Our normal procedure is to WP:G6 the redirect or to round robin page move the redirect and the draft, but you may want to get a second opinion because of the redirect history. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No, you don't need a 'qualification' (beyond the usual provisos); I was suggesting a way-out if you didn't want to review it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are free to move the article to mainspace directly, but as Novem Linguae says you will need assistance with dealing with the redirect currently in mainspace (as would an AfC reviewer in your position). — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

AFCH script question

Tracked in github.com
Issue #252

Hi, just a question on the script. When you review an article, it gives you the opportunity to go to another article:

• A random submission; or
• A "Zero-day" submisison.

Should this be changed to help the backlog by, instead of one which has been created less than 24 hrs ago, to go to one of the oldest drafts awaiting a review? There's over 500 which are 2+ months old! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a decent idea to me. Ticket created. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

For historical context, the script used to give a link to a "random Very old submission". However, this particular cat used to be populated by "anything older than 8 weeks" so it sort of made sense at the time. When the cats were split into more granular options, "Very old" became "only things >6mo old", which meant it was perennially empty and thus removed from the script. I believe re-adding some version of this has always been in the cards, but it never made it onto the git. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

That would lose the advantages of getting to articles while the editor is still around and can be educated on how to edit and improve them. Most editors are long gone by the time one gets to months old articles, and any improvements to make the article acceptable for mainspace have to be done by the reviewing editor. Backlog people know to look at everything anyway.. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding the backlog as an option rather than replacing going to new articles is a great idea. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Per your reply, that would be a good idea; not replacing it, but adding it as a new option. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Re-reviews

This is semi-related to an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/January 2023 Backlog Drive regarding leaving comments on a participant's reviewer log (pinging Primefac, TheAafi, and Theroadislong). I've had a go at re-reviewing a reviewer's review log. Mostly looks good but I found Draft:Khidmat Guzar, Just Gammat, and Draft:Thomas Vadakkemulanjanal that I'm not sure. (My comments about the reviews: 1) IMO routine plot summaries per MOS:FILMPLOT is okay and not a big WP:V concern for TV shows, though the draft topic is non-notable IMHO; 2) a decline for draft now accepted with three newspaper reviews at the time of the review and probably passes GNG/NFILM#1, the decline should at least IMO be explained; 3) the statement that many sections are unsourced appears to be not the case, though there are other significant issues, such as that sources might not be RS/independent, refbomb, and the many external links is contrary to policy.)

Should I add a comment in the participant's review log directly regarding those reviews or discuss first with them or at their UTP or here (I've pinged LordVoldemort728 if the latter is better)? Also, if my rationales (I've explained below briefly in small text) are invalid do reply. Thank you for your assistance and help! VickKiang (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@VickKiang, I feel if the review is a "blatant fail", it should directly be mentioned on the log, the way I did here concerning Mir Zahid Harawi. However, if there is a merit to discussions with the previous reviewer, I won't say this is anything bad. If declines need explanation (and those can be even valid), discussions with the reviewer are worth but if reviews are completely fail, just format the log. If the discussions incline against the reviewers logic, it is a fail, in my opinion. Looking forward to opinion of other expert reviewers. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I would leave the AFC log for the bots and the drives (i.e. only do the "fail review"-type notes); if anyone has a concern with any particular review, it should be discussed either on the page's talk or the user's talk. Primefac (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, looks like the backlog drive instructions has been modified to read To re-review a submission, go to a participant's review log, and under the review in question add the wikitext #: Fail reasoning... Fail can be replaced with either Pass or Invalid. If a review is marked as fail or invalid, it will not be counted when calculating leaderboard scores. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:V regarding plot sections

Apologies for another message here. I'd like to clarify that if a plot or synoposis section has no refs, does it fail WP:V and should be declined accordingly? This is in relation to Draft:Truckbhar Swapna (courtesy ping TheChunky) I came across while visting WP:RSN; and Draft:Khidmat Guzar. From my point of view, MOS:FILMPLOT states that Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source but cautions As Wikipedia's policy on primary sources says, "... a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge ... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Further, WP:V requires inline citations for four types of material, which IMHO routine plot (or cast listings) do not fall under this category. Do you think my view is potentially too lenient or contrary to established practice? Would appreciate some discussion and feedback here. Many thanks and also a thank you for reviewers who reviewed the articles aforementioned above! VickKiang (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

As you quote yourself, basic plot descriptions need no secondary source, so no, it would not fail V for a unsourced synopsis. In this particular case, declining a draft because of a single sentence that is also a synopsis is a bad decline and should probably be reversed.

• As a general note to any reviewers here, if you start a decline with "probably notable but..." and the rest of the sentence doesn't discuss fundamental issues with the entire draft, just stop there and either fix the problem or remove it, and then accept the draft. We are not looking for perfect, and if "some claims are unsourced" is the only thing keeping it from being accepted, it should be accepted without those claims (gnomes can re-add it later).

So yes, plots in general should not cause consternation upon review. Primefac (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed comment. I have also accepted Pindadaan which was declined for similar reasons. Do let me know if I made any mistakes. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Triple review!

I've seen a lot of double reviews (review clashes) but Draft:Juhovýchodná univerzita just got the first triple I've noticed. KylieTastic (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Moving drafts and issuing AfC notices

User Alanwrick1 moved one of their drafts, Farah El Zahed, into the main space. Fair enough, although whether it's ready for that, I'm not sure. But for some reason they then issued themselves an AfC acceptance notice. Odd. This was shortly afterwards followed by moving Draft:Fouad Fakhouri (which I've since moved back because it had a number of issues, not least significant copyvio), and again issuing the creator with an AfC notice. I've queried this practice, and maybe that'll be the end of it, but I'm posting here as a heads-up just in case not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Came across them earlier due to some oddities moving Maya Saroya to the talk space... they might be just trying to help out (your talk page note will hopefully answer that) but my cynical concern is that they are either UPE or agenda-pushing. Primefac (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

My spidey sense is going off with them on Draft:Gehad Hamdy since that and the mainspace version have been a sock magnet. Nothing more concrete (yet?) but I share @Primefac's cynical concern Star Mississippi 04:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Use non-english welcomes when declining an article for not being in Enlgish

Tracked in github.com
Issue #253

Hello! This is an idea I just had, but wouldn't it be useful if, when an article is declined for not being in English and the language it's written in is provided, the user also received a non-english welcome for the language? This is just something I thought of since if the user doesn't write their draft in English, then they might not understand English either, therefore not understanding why their article was declined since when an article is declined for not being in English, the decline reason is still written in English, while the non-English welcome template is written in both English and the language that was selected (see User talk:Anda Negura to understand what I"m referring to) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Good idea - and support it fully - but if you don't speak another language (and, say, don't trust Google translate enough!!) would there be a template/script or translation tool for this? Genuine question... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Google translate may be a poor translation, but as long as you select a good size of text the language detection is pretty good. As we can't expect reviewers to be extraordinary polyglots google translate is the best choice than just adding no language. KylieTastic (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Well currently Twinkle has a set of non-English welcomes for various languages (and I'm fairly sure there are more than what Twinkle has, don't remember where they are at the moment, all the ones Twinkle uses are in Category:Non-English welcome messages) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:WELCOME-FOREIGN for a list of languages that currently have the translated Welcome message along with the English one (note that it says that any language with a Wikipedia can be added to the list with a proper translate) 20:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You learn something new every day, as they say! Thanks Blaze Wolf! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

No problem! Hence why I brought this up, it would be fairly easy to implement since the templates are already created (with more languages being easy to add with proper translation) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea. I think I saw a decline by KylieTastic recently which was proof of concept. My concern is localization. There's a lot of languages, and without a bot to translate it, you are basically relying on folks to self-translate. Bkissin (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes Bkissin I do this manually already - I think goggle translate is good enough if there is an api that can do this in the tool. KylieTastic (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@KylieTastic, there is an API for Google Translate (https://cloud.google.com/translate/) but it's not free. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Finally! Something useful we can use all of that excess donation money on! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Decent idea. I created a ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Letts of London

There's a draft in the system, Draft:Letts of London, which I declined earlier for lack of notability, which the creator didn't like one bit. They first came to my talk page to complain, and after I told them to take it to the HD instead, they've been going around badmouthing me (so much so that I'm minded to take this to ANI soon). Anyway, just flagging up that they insist on removing earlier AfC tags and comments from the draft, so if you come across this you may want to look into the edit history to get the full picture. (As for me, I think I've had enough of this now, and will remove the draft from my watch list.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Just had a look through, and it seems it probably passes WP:NCOMPANY - and is somewhat well-written (if a bit stop-start; there's got to be a proper word for that!), but I'd be hesitant to accept if the IP then comes back to go "I told you so" or similar.

From what I can see, although their contributions to this draft are okay (on the whole - apart from removing AfC comments), their attitude to being told it could be better is, at the very least, abrasive. Like, say, the owners of almost any restaurant on Kitchen Nightmares... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, the sourcing must have improved considerably, then; when I reviewed it, the sources were mostly if not entirely primary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've accepted it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussions about AfC at Jimbo's talk page

Quick FYI - there are discussions about AfC at User talk:Jimbo Wales about AfC. S0091 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

FloridaArmy is corrosive to Wikipedia and I condemn anyone who gives them credence. At some point, FloridaArmy needs to be community banned for flouting the community's consensus while claiming in response that it is the community who is biased. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I've commented on Jimbo's page. And yes, FA is not the example anyone should be relying on for whether AfC is flawed. The community is free to clarify notability standards at any time, which would be binding on AfC. Slywriter (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This is now at ANI as reading through the previous thread on Jimbo's I take offense to being accused of white supermacy. Slywriter (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not the first time that FA has accused someone who disagrees with their style of being a white supremacist. Hopefully this finally leads to a ban. Bkissin (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

So, Chris troutman, are you saying that Lou Swarz is a bad article? Theresa Pulszky? Susie Sutton? Zita Moulton? Artie Belle McGinty? Henrietta Loveless? Ethelyn Gibson? All articles I worked on alongside FloridaArmy. Sorry for being someone you "condemn". But my every interaction with AfC has been a negative one. With reviewers blatantly flouting and ignoring the claimed rules and requirements of AfC itself. Silverseren^C 04:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1033763342 is Ethlyn Gibson before your involvement. It has potential, but reviewer is correct that notability is not established.

Which leads to what I think is a bigger issue that Draft space is viewed poorly by the community. It should be a goldmine of ideas, not a wasteland of future G5s. Slywriter (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Bronwyn Law-Viljoen, Tharun Moorthy, Mahnaz Malik, Richard Burge. How were any of those failing requirements at time of draft submission? These are my interactions with AfC and I find AfC distinctly wanting. Silverseren^C 05:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree that the community view of draft space is very poor. Draftifying an article is viewed very negatively by many users, when it should be looked at as an area to work on and improve content that's not quite ready for the main space yet. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like an obvious consequence of having a timelimit to me; from my perspective as writer drafting an article in userspace seems strictly better, since it can molder there for a while as I move on to other projects and then come back to it later. ....which reminds me of a pending article I've had for almost a year, I should wrap that one up. Rusalkii (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now started, and upon reflection discarded, several comments both here and on the Jimbo talk page. Just wanted to say 'noted', and thanks (I think) for the heads-up. I'll take the pooch for a walk instead, and will check back later unless the lynch mob gets us first. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm having my own difficulties forming a cogent comment on all of this. This is Wikipedia, not WP:SRSBSNS, but my opinions on FA, their articles and their continued competence on this website are nothing new. I decided long ago to avoid their drafts to keep my own blood pressure in check, leaving it to reviewers with more patience. Obviously we have new reviewers right now because of the drive who are unaware of how to work with FA and their drafts, which is why this issue has reared its head again. Unless prompted for my opinions on a CBAN, I will step away from this issue and focus on improving content. Bkissin (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I get the "I think", @DoubleGrazing, seeing the ANI discussion. I had only noticed User talk:Jimbo Wales#About our process for approving at AfC, did not fully read through it (still haven't) but, yeah, clearly more to it than I knew at the time. I rarely even look at Jimbo's talk page but was burning some time waiting for my car to be repaired. S0091 (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the main take-away from this is that Draft: space is regarded positively by some and not by others, and that the views tend to be highly polarised. Those views n]may reach a consensus, and Wikipedia is bound by that unless a further future consensus is formed.

What should we do to raise the perception and profile of Draft: space? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems some do view AfC as a net-positive, a way of ensuring some degree of quality control, which might mean fewer articles being published, but they're arguably of a higher standard overall.

Others see it as a net-negative, and perhaps prefer to prioritise quantity over quality, to some extent at least. I guess the parallel would be a book publisher who turns down some manuscripts and works with only those that they see as meeting their idea of some 'standard', vs. self-publishing that allows anyone to publish anything they want, warts and all, and leaves it for the market to decide which ones flourish and which die a death.

It's probably too much to hope that article creators would see AfC as anything but an obstacle in their way, but I would have thought that those who take part in AfDs, let alone admins who have to deal with the never-ending speedy requests, blocking COI editors, etc. would appreciate what we do. Having seen some of the comments today, I'm not so sure, though. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I wrote down my thoughts on drafts/AFC during the last village pump debate about draftificaiton: User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Thoughts on draftspace. Comments welcome here or on the essay talk page. Like many things, draftspace is not perfect, and seems to be a tradeoff between a couple pros and a couple cons. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This page will need to be disambiguated to be accepted...

I've seen this on a few pages now, especially from Robert McClenon - thank you! I was wondering whether it was worth setting up some sort of semi-active bot to post this comment. I don't think it would be too hard work to set up, would save reviewers time to pre-warn them, and would also save other reviewers time and energy to check this and post it. Plus, being a bot, it would have a good chance of being able to reach all the pages which need it. Any thoughts? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Mattdaviesfsic - I don't see the need, and am not sure what a bot would do. I add the notation with a template, {{adddisamb}} if the name of the draft is the same as the name of a disambiguation page, or {{addhat}} if the name is that of an existing article. Any reviewer who has reviewed the draft and is satisfied to accept it knows how to disambiguate a draft. (Disambiguation is one of the technical features of Wikipedia that an editor has to learn very soon.) I am not sure what a bot would do or how it would be helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Robert - it's clearly not something I delve into that often! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Robert, why don't you just move the page to the dab'd title while it's still in the draft space? If Example is a dab, and we have a Draft:Example that "will need to be disambiguated" to Example (type) when it's accepted, why not just move it to Draft:Example (type) in the meantime? Primefac (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Tagging drafts with Template:afc submission/draft

I've started the trial of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 15, for tagging untagged drafts with {{afc submission/draft}}. You can see the edits at Special:Contributions/Qwerfjkl (bot). — Qwerfjkltalk 20:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This is great, I'm glad someone will be adding the tag to pages missing it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl one change I would make is not to add to completely blank pages such as with this. That just seems odd to me :/ KylieTastic (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but will note that the redlink was blanked by the creator (no other edits other than Kylie's decline) so I G7'd it. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@KylieTastic, I've updated the code accordingly. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

One thing to consider is not re-adding the template when it is removed. For example, at Draft:List of LaRusso cast, the bot added the template six times after being reverted. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there ever a good reason not to have the submission template in the draft space? The only situation I can think of is experienced users who are using draft space to work on something but plan on moving it when ready instead of submitting via AfC. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It could just be someone preference, but often it indicates to me an editor who may need to be watched or is trying to use draft-space as a webhost. They are removing declines as well on this and others and generally not looking constructive. KylieTastic (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ingenuity, I'm fairly sure if you add {{bots|deny=Qwerfjkl (bot)}} the bot won't edit; I'm unwilling to check the history if the editor is just being disruptive. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe the point is that the bot is doing it in the first place. Sure, that will fix this draft, but what about the next one? And the next? Primefac (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac, I can't think of a valid reason that a non-autoconfirmed editor would have to get rid of this template. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If you want what will actually happen, the bot will keep on adding the template until the editor gives up. It doesn't seem that problematic.
If this is a major problem, however, I can change the code so it doesn't reëdit pages. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand the point of why this bot exists: people create drafts and don't realise they have to submit them in order for them to be moved out of draft space, so they linger and then the creator wonders why their draft got deleted six months later. However, if someone is removing the /draft template, then (much like user talk warnings) we should probably assume that they know about this aspect, and therefore should not edit war with them and force the /draft template to be on the page. In other words, there is no requirement for the /draft tag to be on there, so a user doesn't need a "valid reason" to remove it. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac, fair enough. The bot should no longer add the template more than once (counting only drafts tagged since now). — Qwerfjkltalk 15:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

See, for example, Draft:Império Alviverde (history). — Qwerfjkltalk 10:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The January backlog drive is now over!

In the past two weeks, we've gone from over 3,700 pending submissions to under 1,800, the lowest point since late 2021.

The top five reviewers were:

• Mattdaviesfsic, with 1022.5 points
• TheChunky, with 593.5 points
• KylieTastic, with 447 points
• Pichemist, with 290 points
• Theroadislong, with 286 points

A full list of participants is available here. Thank you to everyone for participating! Barnstars will be distributed shortly. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You sure were quick distributing those barnstars. Great job. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Congratulation as the current backlog drive draws to an end. What have we learned?

We are sub 2,000 drafts awaiting review. As a separate metric we are sub 3 months elapsed time for a review. The two week period feels to be just about right. Hitting zero last time was a two edged sword.

I feel that the anticipated elapsed time for a review is more important than the hard number of drafts waiting review. Category:AfC pending submissions by age/2 months ago is probably fuller than any of us might wish, and Category:AfC pending submissions by age/8 weeks ago is poised to refill it. Might we skew the scoring scheme still further towards rewarding reviews of older drafts, a smidgen more? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I will keep chipping away, but I do think the two week duration of the drive was arbitrary and should have been a month. Is it too late to extend it and see us get the wait for review get down to under two weeks? Curb Safe Charmer (talk)

@Curb Safe Charmer, it's because there was a lot of burn out after the last drive, causing a large increase in the backlog. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer I chose a duration of two weeks because several people expressed interest in a shorter drive (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_52#Backlog). I don't really mind either way, but hopefully this way we can avoid burnout, like what happened with the last drive. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

If anything, it should be "a month" to allow for a two-week period of re-reviews; in the last three weeks I have overturned a good half-dozen reviews, but since I am not part of the drive I did not necessarily know if the person was a part of the competition so didn't feel the need to update their AFC log. Some folks will need their contribs re-reviewed, though, and building that into the backlog drive timeline is probably a good thing. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The drive was the last 2 weeks and half a dozen in 4985 reviews done by all in the period also does not sound bad to me. As you had me worried about bad quality I looked at your edits for reversals during the drive. The first 2010 Men's European Water Polo Championship Qualifiers to be fair I would class very borderline and have seen both accepts and (re)dratifications of similar, so opinion over policy IMHO. Two others with confusing use of ilc when lots of ils I agree, but it appears to just be a misunderstanding that "all non-trivial claims require citations" rather than realising they could have tagged as "citation needed" or removed the unsourced claims. From the talk page discussion it appears their was a mistake, discussion, acceptance and learning. What is worrying is possible similar later issue and generally I would advise against declining for ILC unless it's the majority of claims. This still comes down to a single reviewers understanding of ILC (which has come up before here) and would not appear to be backlog related per se. KylieTastic (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

half a dozen in 4985 reviews done by all in the period also does not sound bad to me - I am genuinely surprised you are assuming that I checked all of those reviews. I overturned those reviews because of helpees on IRC that were not comprehending their decline reason (not just disagreeing with it). The fact that I overturned almost every one of the reviews that helpees were asking about is what troubles me more than anything. But hey, if everyone here is happy with how things are going, I'm not going to be a stick in the mud about it. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised you interpreted that as me thinking you reviewed them all! At most I would have though you may spot check a couple more of any reviewer you had concerns about. If it had been a dozen or more reviews needed to be reverted after coming up on IRC then I'd agree, but I find 3 to not be statistically valid. I'm not everyone and I do think a more formal re-review process like we did last time would have been better - last time I think we had a week (~25%) review time and an expected 10% re-review rate (I think 5% would be better to avoid burnout as it's needed but meh work). I'm also slightly worried that there was an issue, due to the slightly lower acceptance rate, but I noticed more crap submitted over the holidays so maybe not. I also thing ilc should be removed as a fundamental reason from AFHC, people can use v/bio and add as comment if required. KylieTastic (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

So moved. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It should be fairly simple to change the scoring system; maybe not for this drive, but potentially for future ones. Right now any review of a draft older than 30 days is worth 1.5 points. In the future we could weight several month old drafts higher, for example 1 point for 0 days up to 2-3 for a 3+ month old submission. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Newsletter

@Curb Safe Charmer suggested a regular AfC newsletter in the above section, I'm pulling it out in its own to get more visibility. I'd be happy to help with a project like that, it seems like a MVP would be pretty quick and easy - general news update on things like backlog drives or significant discussions, quick technical update on new AFCH features or userscripts, maybe a backlog graph like NPP has. Might also be nice to call out new and/or particularly active reviewers somehow, though quarterly that list would probably get too long. Rusalkii (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Note

[6] SN54129 16:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you still exist. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Resubmission of Rejected Drafts

I hope that this topic hasn't become one that should be avoided here simply because it is repetitive. I just encountered another draft that was resubmitted after being Rejected. I am not sure that we (the reviewers) have done enough to establish that rejection is not the same as decline, and does not mean, "Feel free to resubmit when you personally think it is a good time to resubmit." Maybe the wording on a Rejection needs to be expanded to say something about not resubmitting. The draft in question is Draft:Air Jordan (film), but this question applies to any rejected and resubmitted draft. Sometimes drafts that have been rejected and resubmitted are deleted. Deletion is one way of saying that the draft should not be resubmitted, but it isn't always on the mark. Sometimes the draft shouldn't be deleted, because the topic is too soon, but might be notable in the future, either an unreleased film or an up-and-coming entertainer. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

In this specific case, I reported the editor to WP:ANI, and other editors also reported that the editor in question had a bad attitude, and the editor said something to the effect that they only comply with rules that they want to comply with, and not the rule against edit-warring, and the end result was an indef. However, I would still appreciate comments on what to do about resubmission after rejection. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

what to do about resubmission after rejection. This may not come up often enough to need a formal protocol. Options that come to mind are undo the submission, reject it again, send to MFD, or ignore it (letting a second reviewer independently review it in case the original reject was improper). These are just some back of envelope thoughts. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Novem Linguae - I am coming to the conclusion that sometimes sending it to ANI is a less bad answer than sending it to MFD. Some of the cases that I encounter are too soon persistent submissions by editors who may be ultras. In those cases, I would rather not delete the draft, but sanction the disruptive submitter. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's not fight drama with drama. Just let these sit in the queue and decline them every 3-4 months. ~Kvng (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Remove ilc as a default decline reason

Probably the #1 misused decline reason I have seen over the last, well, ever, is ilc, meant for when there are not a sufficient number of inline citations. I genuinely can't remember who said it when I first got involved in AFC (either Huon or DGG, most likely) but ilc should not be used unless the draft is acceptable in every other way. Personally (and it's been said a few times over the years) I feel that it should only be used in extremely rare cirucmstances. Interestingly, in 2012 we voted to remove it but it's still here. So, I guess we're circling back around to it.

Should we remove ilc as a default decline reason? Primefac (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) support - Damn you type quicker than me, just proposed the same. I agree - As has just come up again (and has come up before) the ilc decline has been too often mis-interpreted/mis-used. I think it's the one I disagree with most often and it also appears to confuse the recipient of the decline. I don't think I have used for years, for me either it's a fail for v and/or bio, or the claims in question should be marked or removed, or I maybe just {{More citations needed}} before acceptance. I would suggest WP:MINREF should be linked in the comment as required such as we do with WP:NACTOR or WP:NBOOKS, WP:NSCHOOLS etc... KylieTastic (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I suspect most of us are using this decline reason in addition to another, probably notability. A quick look at Category:AfC submissions declined as needing footnotes suggests this is so. I wonder if there's any easy way to further analyse the declines in this category? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• I'm kind of torn on this-- on one hand, it can be a useful decline reason, especially when paired with another (notability, for example). On the other hand, it's often misused, since only a few types of statements are required by policy to have inline citations. One solution could be adjusting the bio decline reason to include something along the lines of All contentious claims about biographies of living people are required to have an inline citation. For instructions on how to do this, see referencing for beginners. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  I've dumped out the category items into a list at User:Curb Safe Charmer/ilc - feel free to do some assessments if anyone is so inclined! I was interested to see Theroadislong use ilc and tell the author of Draft:ABHILDEV K that "each and every statement of fact requires a citation" which contradicts WP:MINREF. Another interesting case in point was this draft which has references but they are such a mess that I think using ilc as the only reason is justified. It is too much work for a reviewer to clean up the article to make head or tail of it, so putting the onus on the author to do the cleanup work is a way of establishing whether the author is a serious editor or a timewaster. Comments welcome on any better ways of dealing with this scenario. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry if I have miss-used this decline assessment? WP:BLP states that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation and paid for Draft:ABHILDEV K had zero inline citations and no evidence of being notable. Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  I would argue that bio would take precedence over ilc, since there are no good references. Primefac (talk)

  See, the Kaur page is what I would view as a reasonable use of ilc - there is a pretty good indication of notability, but as you say it is unreasonable for the reviewer to make sure everything is properly sourced; moving those references inline would alleviate a lot of WP:V concerns. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  I looked through my AFC log (thanks @Rusalkii!) and the only draft I declined solely for ILC is this one. Was this good use of ILC? S0091 (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  Theroadislong is not incorrect. The BLP policy states Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. (emphasis is in the policy) so theoretically any claim without an in-line citation can be challenged. I have at times used the same/similar verbiage as TRIS because what can be challenged is very broad and difficult to explain all the intricacies especially to a new editor. S0091 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  There's a risk of exceeding what AFC is here to do if we apply a standard at or beyond GA at the very first filter for a new editor's efforts, and challenging everything is contrary to WP:BLUE; WP:LIKELY is a more useful guideline in my opinion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  That is my point about explaining all the intricacies. I generally would not decline a draft because there is some unsourced content, BLP or otherwise, if it largely meets notability and core policies but when a BLP either has little or no in-line citations I may advise all claims need to have them without getting in all the details because "technically" anything without an in-line citation can be challenged/removed (bolstered also by WP:BURDEN). S0091 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we SHOULD challenge likely paid for/conflict of interest editing and autobiographies, I wouldn't do this with all AFCs. Theroadislong (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that the real question is not whether we should decline company listings and autobiographies, but whether we should have ILC available as a reason to decline the autobiographies. I use ILC on unsourced BLPs. If I don't have ILC, I will use BIO or V or both. So my first thought is that we don't need ILC, but I will think more about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

One solution could be adjusting the bio decline reason. The bio decline reason is fundamentally about notability though. It may not be very organized to turn bio into a decline reason that calls out both notability and inline citations. In my mind, one decline reason per issue would be ideal. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Probably guilty of misuse at some point, but generally I've used ilc when there are references for some material but the personal section on a bio is unreferenced. On non-blp, I'd use improperly sourced and then comment on what section looks like it could be OR or otherwise needs an inline for verifiability. Most often novel science theories that trying to determine whether it is notable or Wikipedia is the attempt to make notable.

Tl;Dr Comments can easily replace if we remove as option, since that's how non-blp would be handled. Slywriter (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The best time to provide inline citations to content is when that content is first added. I have had to rewrite entire articles before because the original author had not provided inline citations, and it was effectively impossible to go back and figure out what referred to what. Especially when the vast majority of AfC submissions are about barely notables/paid content, I think it is more than reasonable to expect that drafters put a reasonable number of inline citations to help reviewers gauge the draft's acceptability. I think having a distinct category from the bio decline is important, especially if the true issue in a draft is that it has controversial statements that demand sourcing under policy. Making a more nuanced bio decline is not going to help anyone because our drafters hardly read the declines they're given, let alone if they were made longer. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Compromise Add additional guidance to the reviewing instructions, similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Verifiability. If I understand the issue correctly, the concern is not that ilc is used but when ilc is the only reason. Maybe something like only use ilc when content about a BLP has no or minimal inline citations and/or if the uncited material is likely to be challenged, which includes COI/Paid editing and possible contentious material? This is clunky so needs improvement but hopefully gets the idea across. S0091 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  That would be a reasonable thing to do, but I worry that anyone who has already been reviewing for more than a week will not be looking at the guidance. That being said, of course, I'm fine sending out a mass message reminding folks that ilc should only be used sparingly. Primefac (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the removal of ilc as a decline reason, but I support S0091's alternative of better guidance, together with Primefac's suggestion of a mass message to existing reviewers. Perhaps we should have an AfC newsletter like the one the NPP folks have? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I like the idea of a regular newsletter (quarterly-ish?). I don't think many reviewers know about the new AfC log option or even that the AfC script has preferences. If I recall correctly, the last time a mass message was sent there was an uptick in reviews. S0091 (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  A regular newsletter would be very useful and I'd be happy to help with such a project. Rusalkii (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think I usually use ilc when a BLP has general references but no inline citations. Would be good to be very precise about when we're supposed to use this. Perhaps by adding a list of acceptable uses at WP:AFCR. I think "reviewers should use it less, but use your best judgement" isn't as good a solution as "you may use it as often as you want, but it has to be for these clear, exact situations listed at X". In my opinion, the decline reasons should be fairly binary: it either meets the decline criteria or it doesn't. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: I have never knowingly used ILC in the AFCH script, though I am not a fan of non inline citations. I will usually deploy a comment, often in a custom decline reason, if I feel the need to request an improvement in this area. I had not even noticed the ILC decline reason, or I don't think I have. I suppose this means I am neutral. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support the removal. I have been guilty in the past of using ilc where v would have been the right way to go. Given how few reviewers seem to use it (I've stopped using it altogether), I don't think we'd lose an important AfC tool. So my support is essentially per KylieTastic. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal. I don't think I've seen a single case where a draft should be declined for not having inline citations and also shouldn't be declined for not having enough citations, period. If there's something completely egregious we can use a custom decline reason for it, the built-ins are just going to encourage overuse as per Kylie. Rusalkii (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
• I've done some more thinking about this and I'm going to oppose the removal. There are often times where people submit biographies with paragraphs of text and a bunch of links at the bottom. It shouldn't be the reviewer's job to figure out which claims are backed up by which sources. Reviewers should be careful, however, to not use this decline reason where it is not appropriate. As others suggested, we could potentially create a newsletter to inform reviewers. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - This issue can be addressed once the article is in mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Surely we should be declining BLPs that fail WP:MINREF, not moving them into mainspace? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. Seems like ilc was written specifically to enforce WP:MINREF #4. The wording of ilc is Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements. So I think the assumption is that a BLP must contain at least one inline citation, and should be declined with ilc if it does not. I guess that is what we are evaluating here. Is this "all BLPs must contain at least one inline citation" idea correct? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Been watching this debate with a side eye, not really got an opinion either way. But if a BLP has no inline citations, then surely it fails WP:GNG, because then it has no demonstration of "significant" coverage, surely? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  According to WP:AFCSTANDARDS, WP:GENREFs rather than inline citations are usually fine. GNG could be passed using GENREFs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  It depends on what content is not cited in-line because policy includes "likely to be challenged". I would argue claims that support notability fit "likely". Sometimes its obvious which sources are supporting those claims and sometimes not, especially if there are several sources. Same for "contentious material". To @CaptainEek's point, this leaves the reviewer having to figure it out rather than pushing back to the creator. S0091 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Files for upload script

Hey all. I like to help out at WP:FFU as it rarely gets attention, but it seems that the script that helps reviewers (FFUHelper) has stopped working. I initially thought this was a Vector 2022 thing, but it looks like it's the same in 2010 Vector as well. I would contact the script creator @BrandonXLF but it looks like they're mostly inactive these days.

Is anyone else having a similar issue? FFU is really annoying without it and I'm pretty sure there isn't an alternative. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Give this a try: User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/FFUHelper.js. Let me know if you find any more bugs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Just tested it and it seems to work great! Thanks! echidnaLives sock - talk - edits 07:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlatypusLives (talk • contribs)

Just an FYI I've updated my script and fixed a few other bugs as well. – BrandonXLF (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Redirects with History, again

I would appreciate a look at Nedeljko Čabrinović and Draft: Nedeljko Čabrinović and a comment on how I should have accepted the draft. There had previously been an article on the subject, which was then cut down to a redirect to Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which I believe is sometimes called blank and redirect. The cutdown was unilateral. A draft was then submitted, and I asked for discussion, and there was what I thought was rough consensus that it should be accepted. I did what I understood was the preferred approach, and swapped the redirect with history and the draft, so that the draft was in article space, and the old history and the BLAR were in draft space, and pointed the redirect from draft space to article space. I was criticized for having moved the history into draft space, and I asked what I should have done instead. My question was answered on my talk page at User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Page_moves. So it appears that there is a different viewpoint, which is that the history should kept in article space if possible.

I am also asking about the statement that it is best to get an administrator to do a proper HISTMERGE. I thought I had been told that history merge should be done after copy-paste moves, but not in other situations such as acceptance of drafts when there is history.

It appears that there are at least two different viewpoints, both about acceptance of a draft when there is a redirect with history, and about history merges. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, if the history isn't related to the page (as it is in a copy & paste move), then I think a histmerge isn't needed. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red in February 2023

Women in Red Feb 2023, Vol 9, Iss 2, Nos 251, 252, 255, 256, 257, 259 Online events: New: Alphabet run O & P | Black women | Justice | Folklore Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Tip of the month: Explore Wikipedia for all variations of the woman's name (birth name, married name, re-married name, pen name, nickname) Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Backlog drive progress

Eyeballing the graph, we are now back down to about our post-previous-backlog-drive equilibrium, after a pretty steep increase the past couple of weeks! Contributing to that pretty downwards line on the graph we have @Pichemist, @DoubleGrazing, @LordVoldemort728, @TheChunky, @EchidnaLives and @Theroadislong all with over 100 reviews already, and 27 participants with at least one review. Rusalkii (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The team may be small but it is mighty! Keep it up! S0091 (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

We got below 2,500 today! Rusalkii (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Backlog is the lowest it's been at for over a year! Rusalkii (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Under 2,000! Rusalkii (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't get too excited, I am seeing a huge number of potentially dodgy declines (based on a rather large influx of people asking for help on IRC). Primefac (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That's disappointing to hear :/ - unfortunately I have not had the time to keep an eye on issues this time and all I have is basic stats but the 18.2% accept rate is down on last time when I think it was low 20s (I looked and could not find the data). Oddly it started] strong with 29.5% accepts on day one, but the last two days @12% is unusual. KylieTastic (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

91% decline rate will do that when you're doing 300+ reviews in a week. Primefac (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

An individuals accept rate figures do not necessarily correlate to quality, as people target different things. We have some that work on just some types of articles and sometimes have a high rate of acceptance. My accept rate has dropped to 2.1% this last week, but I've mostly only had time to to front of queue quick checking for junk, spam, copy-vio, attack pages, etc... I watchlist ones to come back to that I think are accepts but I need the time to read properly . More important are the actual issues being reported. If we could do accept/decline rates for 0 day; first week; and over a week that I feel would show a clearer correlation. KylieTastic (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily saying that their declines are wrong per se, just that they're near the top of the leaderboard with a ton of reviews and most of them declines. Primefac (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I think a couple of the really prolific reviewers are new and being way stricter than necessary, I tried to talk to them when I see a dodgy decline coming back around but it might be good to do some more systematic re-review. I hadn't looked at the overall decline rate, though, that's concerning. Rusalkii (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Unfortunately we are seeing the same post backlog low review rate with the backlog climbing quickly again. Although the max age is still much improved, with concerns over review quality suffering in backlog drives it makes these less appealing. I think if we do another we need to pre advertise more to get more reviewers and to do more re-reviews and checking more like to 2021 drive with a defined re-review time post the main drive (at least a week). What we could really do with is more reviewers, more active ones and more wiki project involvement. We need 250-300 daily reviews to keep up with submissions - we have 250 active reviewers (+ admins and 43 Probationary members). So ideally people would be doing about 1 review/day, but currently only about 50 reviews do 30+ - maybe a quarterly or bi-annual newsletter would help keep the less active a bit more active. KylieTastic (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  I ran the numbers last week, and I would probably say it's about half that; a good number of our "active" users have only done 1-2 reviews in the last six months, much less 1 per day. This isn't to shame anyone (hell I think I've only done a handful this year) just point out that what we consider to be "active" should be considered more of "who is not inactive". Primefac (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Rape chant

This draft is one I have moved back to Draft space, with the rationale "Conscious of WP:NOTCENSORED this needs more time in Draft to develop a fuller view. The topic seems to be notable and even important, but is presented sensationally. There is, for example no need to link irrelevant prior alumni with the instances of are chant. I have returned the article to Draft on that basis." also expressed in my subsequent decline.

I am wholly unconcerned with the unsavoury nature of the phenomenon recorded. I am very much more concerned with article quality. I am simply recording it here because I suspect that it may return to mainspace soon, at the hand of the creating editor. AFC reviewers are likely to see this first and may be the ones to decide whether it is sufficiently well rounded to avoid AfD. NPP will likely handle it after that. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Good call. The issue for me is that you can have any number of journalists say some people did a thing, like make a Hole in one. Notability comes from analysis of the topic. Otherwise we're letting the media drive a neologism. If we wait for secondary sources we can get actual sources about the phenomenon, not just cases where it was observed. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chris troutman The creating editor might find that comment beneficial. Would you consider adding it as an AFC comment, modified where you feel appropriate? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: It seems the author moved it back into mainspace, so I nom'd for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I will recommend draftification there, I think 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chris troutman  Done. Good nomination. Annoying that it was necessary. I was trying to advise them and was not in time. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Category links

Tracked in github.com
Issue #256

Tracked in github.com
Issue #257

I've noticed for a while now that the WP:AFCH helper script automatically adds a colon to category links on drafts to suppress categorization. It's a good idea in theory, but the script gets things wrong all the time. Take this diff as an example: the first batch of categories are already being suppressed by {{Draft categories}}, and therefore should have been ignored, while the second batch are categories containing drafts and should have been ignored as well. Please modify the script's code to grant an exception to these two types of categories, or just get rid of the functionality outright. I've had to revert automatic de-categorization on drafts declined by AfC reviewers countless times over the past year. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Enterprisey, who is listed as the script's maintainer on WP:AFCH. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I created some GitHub tickets for you. This is usually a good first step to schedule work for volunteer software developers. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Please create this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Masoud_%22The_Silent_Assassin%22_Minaei Jackson kaga (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Jakson kaga, that page has already been created. If you are wanting to have it reviewed, please add {{subst:submit}} to the page to submit it for review. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

2024 Republican Party presidential primaries

According to Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries, 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries is "of interest to" WikiProject Articles for creation. While I understand that AfC was once involved with accepting the article, that was more than two years ago. Is the WikiProject tag on Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries still relevant for historic purposes, or can it be removed? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The WikiProject AFC tags should probably remain indefinitely. I don't think there's any precedent to remove them. They indicate that the article came from AFC, and who the reviewer was. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)