Main page | Talk page |
Submissions Category — List ( sorting) | Showcase |
Participants Apply — By subject |
Reviewing instructions | Help desk |
Backlog drives |
AfC
submissions Random submission |
4+ months |
![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation redirects here. |
![]() | Articles for creation Project‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | WikiProject Articles for creation was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 24 December 2018. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
Is another backlog drive being planned? I missed the last two so I'm not sure if there was a set schedule put into place or if they occur whenever. Status has been on 3+ months for a while. C F A 💬 20:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I just ran into a software issue while submitting a draft for review. The issue stems from having to perform the Submit action twice, first without the captcha security check, then with. The problem is that a rate limit starts a timer during the first action, that triggers an error during the second action; and because of the latter, the first action must be repeated before the second is available. As a result, the only way to actually submit for review is to first Submit without captcha, then wait a minute or so before finally submitting with the captcha. This is extremely counter-intuitive. Either the rate limit should allow at least two actions in quick succession, or the captcha step should prevent editors from submitting before the timer ends (e.g. using software or warning text). -- Talky Muser ( talk) 16:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
{{subst:submit}}
on the draft page. –
SD0001 (
talk)
21:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)$wgCaptchaTriggersOnNamespace
setting. Might be worth a trial? After all, people are supposed to be adding references. If draftspace is overrun by spambots, we can always go back.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
21:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Will someone, maybe User:Novem Linguae, please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Alpharomeo12&oldid=1227618442? The message says that they have made at least ten edits over four days, and so can create articles directly. Maybe the script is counting their Commons and Simple edits, but I don't think that those edits count toward the autoconfirmed privilege in English Wikipedia. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
I have started reviewing Draft:Trivadi Sundaram Ganesan (my first review). I found some copied material, which I have removed, and declined on that basis.
Now that this material is removed, there seems little for the author to do other than resubmit so I am considering the article against other criteria. Considering it against WP:NPROF#C3 , the subject is a fellow of the National Academy of Medical Sciences. My initial thought is that this sounds less prestigious than a national academy of science (i.e. restricted to medical science), but the fellowship does seem to be only just over 1000 people, so it's quite selective. I have found it mentioned three times at AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunkara Balaparameswara Rao, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. N. Sharma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahdi Hasan), each time leading to a keep result but never on its own.
The draft certainly needs better citations, as whole sections are currently unreferenced, but before I wanted to have a clear idea about notability before moving on to that. So I'd value any opinions whether to count fellowship of National Academy of Medical Sciences is sufficient for WP:NPROF#C3. Thanks Mgp28 ( talk) 16:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I made some significant additions to Draft:2-Phenylbenzofuran, a previously declined draft, as it's within my area of interest (filling out the catalogue of chemical compounds). After these edits, I feel like the article's reached a point of acceptable quality, but I'm unsure if my edits are clouding my judgment - is it appropriate for me to accept the draft at this point, or should I wait for another reviewer to look at it? I'm asking here as this is something I anticipate happening in the future and (unless I missed it) the reviewer instructions don't provide specific guidance on acceptance of drafts that have more than minor fixes done by reviewers. Recon rabbit 15:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
If an article gets declined at AfC but then is immediately created in Mainspace (and has problems), per Caroline Leon, what is the process? Can it be automatically re-sent back to Draft/AfC or does it have to go to AfD? thanks. Aszx5000 ( talk) 12:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I constantly find that new editors misunderstand the paid-editing warning, esp. when they're writing about their employer rather than a client. I raised this on the template's talk page a few months ago, didn't get anywhere, so have opened an edit request at Template_talk:Uw-paid1#Edit_request_7_June_2024. Feel free to add your views there. (Sorry, should have mentioned this earlier but clean forgot.) Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 14:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
At Miscellany for Deletion, we sometimes see drafts that are nominated for deletion for lack of notability, or for some other reason that is applicable to articles but not to drafts. These nominations are made in good faith, but are undesirable because they bite the originator of the draft, and are a waste of time for the MFD regulars. I would sort of like to know how to minimize the number of these nominations. I have in particular wondered whether they are made by new New Page Patrol volunteers who are looking at new entries in draft space, rather than at new entries in article space. I understand that a quick check of new entries in draft space is useful to verify that they are not attack pages or vandalism, but those are among the few things that new drafts should be checked against.
So I have occasionally asked a nominator what their reason was for nominating a draft for deletion (as well as, of course, saying Keep). One of my concerns is whether clearer instructions to NPP reviewers are needed about draft space. All that is prologue. I have assumed that AFC reviewers understand draft space, and know that there are five main choices that they have with regard to drafts:
We know that drafts can be nominated for deletion at MFD, but that should only be done in rare cases, mainly for tendentious resubmission.
So, after that prologue, here is my question. There is a draft at MFD that was nominated for deletion by an AFC reviewer as crystal balling. It will be kept, but I think that its nomination was a mistake. Is this a case where an AFC reviewer didn't understand something, and where maybe clearer instructions are needed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
When an article is draftified, we typically need to manually insert the subjected template". IMO, there should be an option to add this template using the AFC script. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 13:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to raise attention to a discussion started in the Village Pump regarding potential changes to WP:COI which currently requires any paid editor (including the ones receiving grants from non-profit organizations) to go through AfC for all new articles. I thought this might be of interest to AfC reviewers, as a change of policy would substantially reduce the AfC volume.
7804j ( talk) 11:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@ North8000 said something at WT:N, in a different context, about wanting articles to have at least a bit of content (maybe a couple sentences or an image), and this has reminded me that I have a question about an item in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Step 3: Suitability, "too short".
This item in the reviewing instructions says "Too short, but could be merged into Article" and "Decline the submission as too short and suggest a suitable title for the content to be merged into (if applicable). Generally, the author should be able to do this themselves."
My question: What's too short?
Let's say that the median Wikipedia article today contains n sentences of readable prose. What's the minimum? Does it need to be 50% as long as the median? At least as long as the median? Longer than the median? Are all stubs (generally, <250 words or <10 sentences) too short? Do reviewers all use the same standard? Does anyone even know? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
merge
decline says... The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article on the same subject. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.Primefac ( talk) 00:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § {{AfC submission}}. '''[[
User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk •
contribs)
03:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Main page | Talk page |
Submissions Category — List ( sorting) | Showcase |
Participants Apply — By subject |
Reviewing instructions | Help desk |
Backlog drives |
AfC
submissions Random submission |
4+ months |
![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation redirects here. |
![]() | Articles for creation Project‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | WikiProject Articles for creation was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 24 December 2018. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
Is another backlog drive being planned? I missed the last two so I'm not sure if there was a set schedule put into place or if they occur whenever. Status has been on 3+ months for a while. C F A 💬 20:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I just ran into a software issue while submitting a draft for review. The issue stems from having to perform the Submit action twice, first without the captcha security check, then with. The problem is that a rate limit starts a timer during the first action, that triggers an error during the second action; and because of the latter, the first action must be repeated before the second is available. As a result, the only way to actually submit for review is to first Submit without captcha, then wait a minute or so before finally submitting with the captcha. This is extremely counter-intuitive. Either the rate limit should allow at least two actions in quick succession, or the captcha step should prevent editors from submitting before the timer ends (e.g. using software or warning text). -- Talky Muser ( talk) 16:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
{{subst:submit}}
on the draft page. –
SD0001 (
talk)
21:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)$wgCaptchaTriggersOnNamespace
setting. Might be worth a trial? After all, people are supposed to be adding references. If draftspace is overrun by spambots, we can always go back.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
21:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Will someone, maybe User:Novem Linguae, please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Alpharomeo12&oldid=1227618442? The message says that they have made at least ten edits over four days, and so can create articles directly. Maybe the script is counting their Commons and Simple edits, but I don't think that those edits count toward the autoconfirmed privilege in English Wikipedia. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
I have started reviewing Draft:Trivadi Sundaram Ganesan (my first review). I found some copied material, which I have removed, and declined on that basis.
Now that this material is removed, there seems little for the author to do other than resubmit so I am considering the article against other criteria. Considering it against WP:NPROF#C3 , the subject is a fellow of the National Academy of Medical Sciences. My initial thought is that this sounds less prestigious than a national academy of science (i.e. restricted to medical science), but the fellowship does seem to be only just over 1000 people, so it's quite selective. I have found it mentioned three times at AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunkara Balaparameswara Rao, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. N. Sharma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahdi Hasan), each time leading to a keep result but never on its own.
The draft certainly needs better citations, as whole sections are currently unreferenced, but before I wanted to have a clear idea about notability before moving on to that. So I'd value any opinions whether to count fellowship of National Academy of Medical Sciences is sufficient for WP:NPROF#C3. Thanks Mgp28 ( talk) 16:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I made some significant additions to Draft:2-Phenylbenzofuran, a previously declined draft, as it's within my area of interest (filling out the catalogue of chemical compounds). After these edits, I feel like the article's reached a point of acceptable quality, but I'm unsure if my edits are clouding my judgment - is it appropriate for me to accept the draft at this point, or should I wait for another reviewer to look at it? I'm asking here as this is something I anticipate happening in the future and (unless I missed it) the reviewer instructions don't provide specific guidance on acceptance of drafts that have more than minor fixes done by reviewers. Recon rabbit 15:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
If an article gets declined at AfC but then is immediately created in Mainspace (and has problems), per Caroline Leon, what is the process? Can it be automatically re-sent back to Draft/AfC or does it have to go to AfD? thanks. Aszx5000 ( talk) 12:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I constantly find that new editors misunderstand the paid-editing warning, esp. when they're writing about their employer rather than a client. I raised this on the template's talk page a few months ago, didn't get anywhere, so have opened an edit request at Template_talk:Uw-paid1#Edit_request_7_June_2024. Feel free to add your views there. (Sorry, should have mentioned this earlier but clean forgot.) Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 14:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
At Miscellany for Deletion, we sometimes see drafts that are nominated for deletion for lack of notability, or for some other reason that is applicable to articles but not to drafts. These nominations are made in good faith, but are undesirable because they bite the originator of the draft, and are a waste of time for the MFD regulars. I would sort of like to know how to minimize the number of these nominations. I have in particular wondered whether they are made by new New Page Patrol volunteers who are looking at new entries in draft space, rather than at new entries in article space. I understand that a quick check of new entries in draft space is useful to verify that they are not attack pages or vandalism, but those are among the few things that new drafts should be checked against.
So I have occasionally asked a nominator what their reason was for nominating a draft for deletion (as well as, of course, saying Keep). One of my concerns is whether clearer instructions to NPP reviewers are needed about draft space. All that is prologue. I have assumed that AFC reviewers understand draft space, and know that there are five main choices that they have with regard to drafts:
We know that drafts can be nominated for deletion at MFD, but that should only be done in rare cases, mainly for tendentious resubmission.
So, after that prologue, here is my question. There is a draft at MFD that was nominated for deletion by an AFC reviewer as crystal balling. It will be kept, but I think that its nomination was a mistake. Is this a case where an AFC reviewer didn't understand something, and where maybe clearer instructions are needed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
When an article is draftified, we typically need to manually insert the subjected template". IMO, there should be an option to add this template using the AFC script. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 13:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to raise attention to a discussion started in the Village Pump regarding potential changes to WP:COI which currently requires any paid editor (including the ones receiving grants from non-profit organizations) to go through AfC for all new articles. I thought this might be of interest to AfC reviewers, as a change of policy would substantially reduce the AfC volume.
7804j ( talk) 11:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@ North8000 said something at WT:N, in a different context, about wanting articles to have at least a bit of content (maybe a couple sentences or an image), and this has reminded me that I have a question about an item in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Step 3: Suitability, "too short".
This item in the reviewing instructions says "Too short, but could be merged into Article" and "Decline the submission as too short and suggest a suitable title for the content to be merged into (if applicable). Generally, the author should be able to do this themselves."
My question: What's too short?
Let's say that the median Wikipedia article today contains n sentences of readable prose. What's the minimum? Does it need to be 50% as long as the median? At least as long as the median? Longer than the median? Are all stubs (generally, <250 words or <10 sentences) too short? Do reviewers all use the same standard? Does anyone even know? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
merge
decline says... The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article on the same subject. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.Primefac ( talk) 00:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § {{AfC submission}}. '''[[
User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk •
contribs)
03:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)