![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
A couple of times today I've received AFC reviews for pages I'd tagged for CSD. On investigation I find that {{ Userspace draft}} loads the page with {{ AFC submission/Substdraft}} which includes the code
<includeonly>{{subst:submit}}</includeonly>
This loads the page with
{{subst:submit}}
which, when I tag the page for CSD, or presumably ANY editor performs ANY action, becomes
{{
submit}}
I can't see this being anything other than a booby-trap for the next editor of the page after the {{ Userspace draft}} has been added. Could someone with more knowledge of what's the desired behaviour check it over please? Cabayi ( talk) 19:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
set (in the first diff you'll see it's //ref>
instead of </ref>
). Thus, there are templates inside of refs and they're not properly transcluding (there are also the {{
void}} templates there). My guess is that TW ends up transcluding the templates even though they're inside the refs, which causes you to be the "owner".User:Espresso Addict and I are interested in the daily submission counts. Last I checked the submissions did not really drop after ACTRIAL ended - even though they jumped up during ACTRIAL. Darn if I can find the link to the stats now though. Legacypac ( talk) 02:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
March only - ACTRIAL ended March 14?
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Submission rates are obviously highly variable. There is a big decline in the days before ACTRIAL ended for example - and I'd not expect most true new users to know it was running or not or when it would end. Serial new account creators might have figured out the dates. Legacypac ( talk) 02:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the submissions are new pages or counte resubmissions. Either way I expected a bigger drop on March 15 on than occured. Legacypac ( talk) 05:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
These seem to have been deleted. Could somebody restore them. I'd do it myself, but I may be missing something. Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 06:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Not that this is going to happen, but if we had a button submitters could click for "my draft is about something that pre-dates 1950" I'd just hover over that queue since the acceptance rate would be easily 5x higher for those articles. If something happened over 60 years ago and somebody is still interested in it, there's a much better chance its Notable.
I just approved Sister-books within minutes of it hitting the queue, since historical articles are generally Notable and tend to be well-written. And for whatever cultural reasons Military History articles are often really well written and cited, so anytime I see "battle of X" drafts I swoop in and have a 75% chance of just approving them right out.
*Sigh* I like the easy ones, breaks up the trend of YouTubers, garage bands, and Bitcoin startups... MatthewVanitas ( talk) 04:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi all -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a new product manager on the Community Tech team with DannyH at WMF. As Danny previously mentioned on this talk page, as part of the follow-up to ACTRIAL, the Community Tech team is going to have some bandwidth over the next couple months to take on an improvement to the AfC process. I've been following along with the conversation on this talk page and here to learn about the biggest challenges facing AfC and the ideas for improving it.
Though I’m new to this process, I’ve attempted to summarize AfC’s challenges, goals, and ideas for improvement. I hope you don’t mind that I’ve posted it as a subpage for this WikiProject. I’m sure I haven’t done a perfect job because of my lack of experience so far with AfC, but hopefully it is an improve-able starting point for a conversation. Of the ideas brought up so far on this talk page and others, some of them seem better suited for WMF to get involved with, and some are better left to other members of the AfC community. Just to set expectations, we'll have small amount of bandwidth for this, on the order of a typical Community Tech project. Keeping that in mind, I hope you can all check out the linked page above, help fill in gaps of things I’ve missed, and be part of a conversation of what sort of impact Community Tech can make during April and May.
One other note -- as Legacypac suggests, I would love to try out the AFCH script, but I am not quite yet at 500 edits (I have 244 in my personal account -- Cloud atlas). Is it possible to list me here so I can get started? MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 19:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there an easy way to add WikiProjects to a talk page of a draft? There was an article related to spaceflight that I would have approved of a month ago if I knew it existed. I like using Enterprisey's tool; but if the pages are not tagged, it loses a lot of its usefulness. I would be willing to run through and tag a bunch of pages, but I would like to have some assisted way of doing so. Anything exist already? Kees08 (Talk) 06:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
There are many football bios by User:Das osmnezz in the unreviewed list. This editor has over 700 page creations but has been placed on a restriction requiring AfC review. [1] He has User:Das_osmnezz#List_of_drafts_created which a qualified reviewer in Football could run through quickly. Legacypac ( talk) 23:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I linked the ban above. It was for poor sourcing issues not copyvio. As far as I can see he as been addressing the problems that lead to the ban. I don't do WP:FOOTY because I don't know anything about the topic. I raised it here because I'm tired of finding all these FOOTY drafts and I'm hoping someone that is comfortable with them can clear them away as a project. We don't have any fasttrack process - its all random anyway. Legacypac ( talk) 19:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The list of football drafts by this one creator not marked done has grown to 134 which is over 5% of the pending drafts. Legacypac ( talk) 08:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I've just declined a submission because I belatedly realised that the editor had double submitted it to mainspace. The capsule decline reads "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Gloria+Mark instead." but obviously the article is at Gloria Mark. This is likely to be a common problem, can someone who understands the coding help to fix? Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Reviewers seriously need to read WP:NPROF. I just happened accross the teahouse, when I saw someone asking about a draft they had on a clearly notable academic, Jan Lexell. This draft was rejected four times on notability grounds, with not a reviewer apparently knowing anything of the fact that NPROF gives notability from influence (of which was in fact described in the article) ( see this revision). This notability I was able to see from merely searching scholar.google.com, which is what I do everytime I see an academic at AfC (and what I think all reviewers should do); while people may consider mere citation looking/NPROF itself to be dubious, that article would indeed get kept by a large distance at AfD, which is what we're looking for of course; easily most professors with article with say > 500 cites would get kept, honestly (whatever you want to say about that). I think perhaps the SNGs should be higher up and explained in the reviewing instructions, especially NPROF, with its standard that doesn't require GNG.
Also this is case where the "three-strikes" could've helped, by directing it to MfD where it'd quickly be sent to mainspace; but even then, this should've been accepted in the first review - not every submitter is going to be this persistent. And so would giving a button and a nudge for the page creator to bypass the reviewers and move it themselves. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 15:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure I was complaining about this sort of thing on ANI about 5 years ago. Plus ca change. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't have time to look at it deeply right now, but on Category:Pending AfC submissions, if you click "next" it takes you to the last page, and on the last page if you click "previous" it takes you to the first. There is no way look in-between. I am experiencing this problem on multiple computers and in different browsers. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 11:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Template:WA botmark is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 10#Template:WA botmark until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the article. Daask ( talk) 21:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like to call the attention of editors here to recent discussions at the Miscellany for Deletion talk page. Sometimes AFC drafts get tagged for Miscellany for Deletion if they have been repeatedly resubmitted, or if they are completely hopeless. Drafts are the main business at MFD. A concern that has come out of the discussion of some of these drafts is that an AFC reviewer has two choices, Accept and Decline, but Decline, regardless of why the decline, contains the saccharine wording that the editor is encouraged to improve and resubmit the draft. Some of us at MFD think that this wording is responsible for some drafts being resubmitted three, five, or ten times; some of us think that resubmitting three, five, or ten times is tendentious, but we still think that it shouldn't be necessary to encourage the submitter to improve and resubmit.
I think that this is a case where the rule not to bite the newbies has become a dogma, and that the rule does more harm than good because it ties editors in knots to be sufficiently nice to fools (and some new editors, although not all, are fools), but that is only my opinion.
The consensus at MFD is that there needs to be a version of Decline that has more or less the flavor of Reject, and that encourages the editor to help us with the five million articles that we already have rather than getting one new one accepted.
What is the next step in getting the AFC decline language changed so that there is another version that doesn't encourage tendentious resubmission?
Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I really strongly oppose this. The reason being is that in the history of Wikipedia, there are hundreds, thousands of articles that were at one time rejected by other editors for not being suitable, but over time were able to become good articles. This kind of proposal, while well meaning, is simply giving far too much power to the AFC editors to reject draft articles for good based on their subjective opinions.
This isn't really what Wikipedia is supposed to be. It's not supposed to be a place where the view of one person can decide what is suitable or not. It's supposed to be a place for collaboration. It's been brought up by many people that reviewers at AFC can be bitey, and often decline drafts that have minor problems that would be better cleaned up by the community, rather than forcing new editors to submit perfect drafts. This kind of proposal would mean reviewers have more power.
How would there be any accountability here? A reviewer tells a new editor, "nah, this will never be an article, stop working on it, I'm going to delete it for you" How does that editor get checked they are doing the right thing? Worse still, what if the drafter actually can improve it, but when find out they can't resubmit, or that other reviewers are biased because of the previous "REJECT" stamp.
There already is a method for reviewing submissions, and as I mentioned, it's been criticised for being too centralised and too bitey. More policies that increase these two things aren't needed. Egaoblai ( talk) 02:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Any competent editor can tell a patently unsuitable topic when they see it.I've tried doling out such harsh advice, in a few cases and the results have been satisfactory. ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Many of the template user warnings are graded, getting stronger and more clear about consequences as they go. For example template:uw-unsourced1, [template:uw-unsourced2]], [template:uw-unsourced3]], template:uw-unsourced4
Right now there is just one Template:AFC submission/declined:
Submission declined
You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you are the author of this draft, you may request deletion by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, adding "{{ db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and saving. If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors.
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
So what if we had:
Submission declined
Please see notes at the draft and its talk page. You are encouraged to make improvements addressing those notes by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you are the author of this draft, you may request deletion by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, adding "{{ db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and saving. If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors.
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Submission declined, second time
There are remaining issues, as discussed at the draft and its talk page. You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, but please be aware that successive submissions without addressing the issues will lead to the draft eventually being deleted. If you are the author of this draft, you may request deletion by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, adding "{{ db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and saving. If you don't understand the issues, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors.
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Submission declined, third time
There are still remaining issues, as discussed at the draft and its talk page. You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, but please be aware that if you submit the draft again without addressing these concerns, the draft will be subject to deletion. If you are the author of this draft, you may request deletion by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, adding "{{ db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and saving. If you don't understand the issues, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors.
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
--Something like that? Jytdog ( talk) 22:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
-- Gryllida ( talk) 03:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
For promotional drafts, which I would define as:
That the author must supply 2 or 3 sources that are all of: independent, reliable, secondary source, and comment directly on the topic for at least two flowing sentences.
Otherwise, the page is to be deleted. I.e. “undersourced WP:CORP draft” is an explicit reason for deletion (at mfd).
2 or 3 sources, because the best 2 sources are sufficient, and WP:Reference bombing does not help, but in fact makes review extremely tedious. If the author supplies more than 3 sources, we shall take it that the first 3 are submitted to be the best, and ignore all others following.
When we agree that this is a reason for deletion, the new article instructions will be modified to state this.
For non-promotional topics, it will remain the case that the page is not deleted until Wikipedians make the case that no suitable sources exist. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I personally prefer to ask the authors to provide references as well as metadata about the references (when and where and by whom they were written) as this is something the authors may do very easily but it may speed up the review dramatically. Rather than visiting each reference and reading it in depth because the URI does not say anything about whop the author is, the reviewer gets an opportunity to write a review comment in which he or she says which sources are primary and which are independent, and spend time evaluating independent sources and providing a review comment on that. In my opinion this is a good way to reduce the reviewing load while providing the draft author with a task that is relatively straight-forward and in their interests to accomplish. (It also teaches the draft author to care of who the author of the reference is, which is an important thing to pay attention to. (I ask via a comment, not via a draft rejection. In some cases the response to the comment is timely and useful. I am yet to evaluate the percentage of cases in which this works well - work in progress.)) -- Gryllida ( talk) 04:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Can I be added to the participants list please? I'd like to use the script to automatically review drafts. I've done some manual reviews but it's not very convenient and I regularly watch the new pages feed to review if articles should be kept or not, and sometimes the pending submissions to accept or decline drafts. I don't currently meet the requirement of having a 90-days old account but I do have more than 500 edits and requesting to be exempted from the requirements per admin discretion. Thanks. KingAnd God 14:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
One of the main criticisms that have been raised against this project is with the decline template, and how it encourages people to resubmit even if it's a garbage draft. I have created a sandbox version where the "You are encouraged to make edits..." line has been removed. Is there anything else in particular that should be changed based on the decline rationale? We can hash out which specific rationales will trigger this effect later, but mostly I want to start working on a new decline template. Primefac ( talk) 15:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The other main criticism of this project is that we have a low acceptance rate for notable subjects. If it is not easy for authors to resubmit after fixing issues, acceptance rate will go even lower. There really is no way to quickly distinguish garbage from diamond in the rough and for quality control of reviews, is good to have multiple reviewers evaluate a submission. Do not remove the resubmit button and do not delete failed submissions before they G13 expire. ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
When reviewing newly approved drafts, there are a couple of errors that are really common. In order of perceived occurrences:
Three of the four of them may be solvable with a script. Maybe we could add it to the cleanup work the bot already does? Unbold section titles, fix the punctuation around references, and add a reflist if one does not exist (and if one is needed due to inline citations being present).
Section headers we maybe could add to the tutorial somewhere, that says they should be sentence case? That is the one that I do not think a bot could easily do.
This would save some cleanup work, and then I (and others) could focus on other work like expanding citations, adding content, etc. Kees08 (Talk) 04:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Can I just quickly remind everyone not to decline articles on notable topics, particularly where there are reliable references present, for formatting reasons, please. Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
There are 869 pages in Category:AfC submissions declined as needing footnotes declined in the last six months. I've never investigated this category. Legacypac ( talk) 08:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Largely intended as an quick mechanism to respond to UPE new pages, please see Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Or_what? and a formal proposal at Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
While doing non-free content cleanup related to WP:NFCC#9, I often come across drafts/userspace drafts which contain navigation templates. While I'm aware that article categories should be disabled per WP:USERNOCAT and WP:DRAFTNOCAT, I am never sure about these templates. Can these be left as is or should they also be disabled? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I have floated an idea over at the AfC Process Improvement page that would be a rework of the current review system. Any feedback that any of you guys could provide would be welcome. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 21:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
When you decline a draft, one of the reasons in the drop-down menu is 'neo - Submission is about a neologisim not yet shown to meet notability guidelines. In the script, 'neologisim' is spelt wrong. Is should be 'neologism'. Can you please correct the typo. Thanks. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 16:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
In case anybody else doesn't know the WMF is aiming to implement ACPERM the week of April 30. See T192455 which was posted at this query I made. Jytdog ( talk) 20:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:ACREQ went live on Thursday. AfC will now see an influx of pages that have been diverted from mainspace where they were summarily deleted. Legacypac ( talk) 18:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Who is user talk:Wiki841 and why with only 100 edits are they moving inappropriate drafts to mainspace? Probably in good faith but they are not ready for this yet. Can somebody please help them? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I have several old drafts that I created. When I am done with them, do I need to submit them for review, or can I just move to mainspace/userify? Eddie891 Talk Work 12:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Having made a couple of comments on this draft, the author is asking me for help and I'm not sure on the best advice to give. In particular:
Any advice gratefully received. The exchange is on my talkpage. KJP1 ( talk) 15:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
While I'm pleased as punch that we have two "day" categories completely empty, is there any particular reason why no one seems to be patrolling from the back of the queue? We went from zero very olds to a dozen overnight, after almost a month of nothing older than 8 weeks. Primefac ( talk) 17:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
With her new book creating buzz in the market, people will search her on the internet and it would be great if encyclopedia comes up. I know she passes GNG but I think I might be a subject to COI as creator. I was wondering if any reviewer could spare some time and take a look. And if it looks good then maybe accept it? Thanks!
Dial911 (
talk)
20:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Can we build it in to the requirements of reviewers that they promptly reply to comments on their talk page from the authors whose drafts they've declined? I was just looking at User talk:ToThAc, for example. They've been reminded of this, but they didn't reply to that and I see no improvement. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Availability to respond to inquiries is part of the requirements. Most inquiries are hard to respond too because there is no real question not answered by the links in the decline. Legacypac ( talk) 17:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
[5]. Just a FYI at this time, but I have personally opposed the this request as there appears to have been no consensus for this and think this is a very bad idea. Hasteur ( talk) 02:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Similar to the recent question regarding Wiki841 by Kudpung; I would like to express my appreciation to KnowledgeChuck for his enthusiasm in moving a number of drafts to mainspace (e.g. DJ JY (artist) [6], etc.), as well as declining a variety of AfC submissions (e.g. Draft:Sidsel Kjøller Damkjær, etc.) but - since he has only 123 lifetime edits - I wonder if we might be unfairly occupying his time doing AfC reviews at this early stage in his editing tenure? Since he's planning on "going 24/7 on new page patrols" [7] it might be unreasonable to encumber him with AfC reviewing right now as well. Chetsford ( talk) 14:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello.
I have been a pretty active editor recently, and was wondering if I could be given access to the AFC Helper Script? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbhbchange ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, folks. I just declined a draft about an Australian graphic designer, commenting that, in addition to the failure to demonstrate notability, too much of the sourcing was coming from a single source. (The draft is Draft:Annette Harcus.) But something piqued my curioisty about that and so I did a little looking around. The draft's creator, User:InvisibleInAustralia has a user page that says somebody is being "represented by Jane Connory", who is the source that had been used in the Harcus draft. I also found that there is a website, invisibleinaustralia.com, that is run by one Jane Connory (see here). Perhaps this is just a big coincidence but, if not, it suggests that the person running the website is writing articles about her clients and using her own writings to show notability.
I'm not inclined to be the one person who looks through all the drafts that are likely to be submitted by this user in the near future, so I'm posting here to alert folks to the situation. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi all -- I'm posting here to follow up on my original post from 2018-04-03 about work that WMF's Community Tech team will be doing in the coming weeks to improve the tools with which AfC reviewers can prioritize their work.
Based on a lot of good discussion with the AfC community, we've settled on a plan. Please check out the project page for the details. In brief, the plan is:
Thanks to all reviewers who have so far participated in the discussion. If you have not yet had a chance to weigh in, please do -- though we have limited bandwidth over the next several weeks to work on this project, we definitely want to get this as right as possible in concert with the AfC community.
-- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 21:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I started working on AfC a few weeks ago. It's certainly an eye-opener vis-a-vis the amount of crap, but every once in a while, I find a gem of a new article and that makes my day :-)
What's the best way to find drafts to review? I'm using Special:RandomInCategory/Pending_AfC_submissions, but that doesn't work well. I get lots of things that are in that category but aren't actually drafts (example: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects). I also get lots of repeats. Is there a better way to do this? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Excellent points DGG. When G13ing I always try to tag G11 or G2 or whatever else is obviously a reason to close off the automatic refund of problematic pages. Moving to mainspace and taking to AfD is risking for a non-Admin. I've been sanctioned for even suggesting that as a possible strategy. Legacypac ( talk) 05:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I see this sentence in the introduction ". AfC works as a peer review process, where autoconfirmed users either accept and create an article submitted by an anonymous editor or decline the article because it is unsuitable for Wikipedia." - shouldn't this be at least extended confirmed as only EC users can ask for AFCH. Yes, any autoconfirmed user can just pick up a draft and then link to mainspace but this line sounds weird. -- Quek157 ( talk) 12:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Could someone else review Draft:Gulf British Academy? I have declined several times in a row and it would be good to have someone else take a look at it and perhaps explain to the author in a different way what they need to do. I left comments each time but the author deleted them. I fear MfD is the way forward for it. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 21:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I would like to thank User:Legacypac for developing the {{ NSFW}}, Not Suitable for Wikipedia, template, and would like to encourage its use as appropriate. I will note that it can be applied in either of two ways, by manual editing of a draft, or by inclusion of the template in the decline message. I think that it should address the concerns of User:SmokeyJoe about the encouragement to keep trying; at least, for an inherently optimistic enthusiastic user who doesn't understand, it sends such a mixed message with the decline wording that they might actually go to the Teahouse and be told that their submission is crud.
I have a few comments. First, I have used it a few times today, but most of the really unsuitable drafts that I encountered were eligible for G11. I would suggest that it can be slapped on a draft for which G11 has been declined but is still a candidate for A7 or A1 or whatever in mainspace.
In one case, I made a statement on the talk page, but normally I have just provided AFC comments.
I would urge that an editor who decides to delete the AFC decline comments, if they included NSFW, would leave the NSFW standing rather than stripping it too.
I haven't used NSFW on some stupid one-sentence entries, although they would get A1 or A7 or even A3, because I am not sure that the editor knew that Submit meant "Request consideration as an article". It could mean anything.
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
There is already plenty of gentle language and detailed explanations of notability in the author-facing messaging. Some authors ignore all of this. Whether done out of ignorance or anger, their prompt resubmissions are a form of trolling. You don't want to feed the {{ Bitey box}} or anything else with emotional calories to a troll. You want to let things sit in the queue and deal with them in turn. These situations are only a suck on our reviewer resources if we add energy to the situation. ~ Kvng ( talk) 12:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello all,
I was wondering if any of you guys were having problems regarding failed login attempts. I figure it's someone that I reviewed that's trying to login to my account or something. Just checking if anyone else is having this problem. Acebulf ( talk) 12:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
One of my accepts Mimi Elsa was taken to AfD, which is fine - I'm not bothered by that. User:Tapered is making interesting comments that personalize the AfD which is not so fine in my opinion. As this impacts what is expected of all AfC reviewers in terms of disclosure of our involvement, other AfC reviewers may want to weigh in on this AfD. Legacypac ( talk) 06:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
User:KingAndGod since you took the opportunity to use a single review to disparage all my reviews - the creator of that page has done numerous football pages and as a subject matter expert is better positioned to evalute adherence to WP:FOOTY. I believe that was an edge case where he was drafted to a professional club but had not yet played - as in he could qualify any day. Legacypac ( talk) 15:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
A lot of my accepted submissions do NOT go through AfD - in fact very very few get taken to AfD because I have a very good understanding of notability criteria. So whatever you "noticed" was wrong.
Second, KingAndGod's pure speculation about the creator of the football bio is way off. That user is a prolific content creator now required to use AfC because they were using poor sourcing. I started a thread on football bios higher up and you can go review the creator's talk page and archive for more details. Legacypac ( talk) 04:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes, when I am trying to approve an article that has been nominated for a long time, I cannot perform the action because a redirect exists where I am trying to put the page in mainspace. As of right now, I have to contact an admin to get it done for me.
It would be nice if
A. AfC members were granted a right that let them move pages over redirects (with a warning) or B. There was something in the AfC workflow where you could tentatively approve a page, and it went into an admin's queue to move over the redirect automatically.
My theory is that when people try to move a page over the redirect and find out they cannot, they just move on to another article (admittedly, I have done this sometimes, if I could not find an admin). This therefore contributes to the backlog. Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 21:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I saw a blue heading on the page which I previously reviewed and possibly can be up to scratch (not entirely reviewed before). I can't see who is reviewing in history. And it's more than 24 hrs, can someone help? -- Quek157 ( talk) 13:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Deletion_of_drafts about the deletion of drafts that are repeatedly submitted without improvement to AfC. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The project might need to check the rejected drafts of this now banned sockmaster. I've just rescued a G13 rejected by him towards the start of ACTRIAL on a very clearly notable biochemist. Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Is there any prospect of a proper “reject” option for draft reviewers? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The National ELT Accreditation Scheme. The problem is not with deletion policy. TonyBallioni's Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Deletion_of_drafts is not addressing the problem. The problem is the really hopeless saccharine decline templates that encourage the author to edit, improve and resubmit, even when it is obviously and completely unsuitable. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
We now have 500 pages over 17 days unreviewed, and a big empty gap following the 17 day mark. I'm trying to keep newer pages from going over 21 days - kind of a new maximum review time of three weeks. Keep on plugging away because we are winning the backlog. Legacypac ( talk) 07:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't Draft talk:Example redirect here instead of to User talk:Example ? -- 65.94.42.219 ( talk) 09:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Shri Ram Murti Smarak College of Engineering and Technology (SRMSCET), Unnao has been declined by multiple reviewers. Pretty much every degree granting post secendary school is notable. Why are we declining this page over and over? Legacypac ( talk) 11:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I know I've seen this done. Can somebody remind me how? KJP1 ( talk) 13:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
|small=yes
removes it, but only because that means there's a not-small template somewhere else on the page.
Primefac (
talk)
19:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Could somebody have a look at this. It's about as libellous as you can get, but which CSD can I use? KJP1 ( talk) 07:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The action column for reason=Already exists in the table in the Quick-fail section of the Reviewing instructions page should be augmented, to say something about foreign words in English titles. One problem to be aware of is multiple transliteration possibilities. Ideally, imho, language experts should be called upon anytime a title appears to contain a foreign word as part of the title, before any content review is performed, which could otherwise be a waste of time. [a] Another question, is whether a foreign title should be used, or an English one. [b] More on this at WP:UE.
(As a secondary issue: the flow-chart does not quite match the text description, with the former showing duplicate-check as part of Content review, and the latter whowing it as part of Quick-fail criteria.) HTH, Mathglot ( talk) 23:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Notes
I strip unnecessary (DAB)s and bracketed acronyms but ya if the title a French name like one I accepted recently I leave it. Someone else can move it to English creating a redirect if they feel strongly about it. Legacypac ( talk) 14:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
AFCH should allow tagging for G13 deletion for any draft with the last edit more than 6 months old, not just ones with the AfC submission template Galobtter ( pingó mió) 08:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
That would be a sweet enhancement. The big button is much easier than the radio button way down at the bottom on mobile. Legacypac ( talk) 14:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedia community has authorized discretionary sanctions and a blanket 1RR for all pages related to cryptocurrency and blockchain, broadly construed. See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. This means you can (and should!) hand out warnings and seek administrator help promptly when dealing with those who submit promotional drafts about new initial coin offerings and cryptocurrencies. MER-C 16:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been asked recently, but is there a reason why it's not made obvious to new users that if they're autoconfirmed they can move their article into mainspace by themselves? Jc86035 ( talk) 17:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I have come to favor telling people AfC is an optional process on occasion. It's not like this is secret info. If they move their crap page to mainspace other editors can apply mainspace tools like A7, AfD and PROD to it - we become unshackled from the obstructionists whole rule MfD and prevent the implementation of proper CSD criteria for drafts. Also occasionally there is a draft that is borderline notable but I'm not sure and don't want to have to defend it or sully my near perfect no deletions on my acceptance record. Legacypac ( talk) 07:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
If a user gets into AFC, concievably it's for 2 reasons: Either they're new, or they're wanting a second set of eyes to impartially review the content prior to being pushed into mainspace. Going through AFC gives the draft a little more clout (and a second person to call on to explain why it was pushed to mainspace). There's already far too much spam, one line stubs, marginally notable crap in mainspace. Getting a draft to hit a minimum of start/B-class is a great way to not increase the entropy already in mainspace. Hasteur ( talk) 00:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The only part of the rejection template that encourage resubmission says "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page" Since they evidently already know how to edit just say "If you can WP:OVERCOME the decline reason you may resubmit after fixing the identified issues." Will that satisfy User:SmokeyJoe? Legacypac ( talk) 09:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Forget teahouse and stop sending users to our talkpages for discussion. The Draft talk or our help desk is enough. I support a "request deletion" button. Legacypac ( talk) 17:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted.
- If you want more help, stop by the Articles for creation help desk or Wikipedia's live help channel.
or the reviewer's talk page
In the spirit of avoiding "saccharine encouragement to improve and resubmit" I've included a new second bullet point. However I notice that the decline notice (next to the Resubmit button) says the same thing, so I'd be fine removing it. Two bullet points just seems... tiny. Primefac ( talk) 12:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Please take off the "reviewer's talk page" part. It just fragments the discussion and often I prefer to have another reviewer look anyway. Legacypac ( talk) 14:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
When we publish an article, the redirect will be from draft to mainspace and I had to manually G6 it. This is quite a problem, can the script do a page move without leaving a redirect or we must also have page mover rights? Thanks -- Quek157 ( talk) 19:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's time to change "very old" to be 21 days plus. There is only about 230 pages 21+ days now, the need to distinguish between 6 and 8 weeks is not that great and it will save us many clicks back to the "weeks" categories after reviewing a page because we can just hit "very old" I think we can beat back the backlog soon. Legacypac ( talk) 13:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
NPP managed to really reduce its backlog recently and I'm assuming the call to arms messages ("New Page Reviewer Newsletter") sent by MediaWiki helped. Would a similar thing help for AfC? Maybe encourage some of the inactive reviewers (but active editors) to come back and do just a one or two. Now the backlog is finally back under 1000 it seams like maybe just a few dozen more people picking of a few could help a lot. If not now maybe if we get better tools, then people hopefully could focus on article they are more comfortable with, and certainly editors interested in more specialised topics could help easier with the older ones. Anyway just a thought. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 20:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it is worth the effort to presort - especially if it requires a human to do it when the human could be reviwing pages. A reviewer familiar with WP:ARTIST, WP:NMUSIC, WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:FOOTY can process most of the submissions. Make a judgement call on notability, assess WP:PROMO and check earwig under reviewer tools. If you don't feel comfortable making a call comment with your thoughts and move on. You can blast through the backlog. I don't bother gnoming and categorizing since there is an army of editors in mainspace that do that. Legacypac ( talk) 13:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Helper script does not work for me. I have activated it in Preferences > Gadgets. I use Google Chrome, ver 66.0 (32-bit) in Windows 7. My user name is approved. -- Antan O 02:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
If someone could remove the create protection on this one. Dial911 ( talk) 22:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
59.96.156.53 ( talk) 09:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have just removed Legacypac from the AFCP list. This was not a decision I make lightly, and one I genuinely would like further discussion on, but I feel that the concerns I and others have expressed on multiple occasions are falling on deaf ears and it cannot continue.
Their current talk page includes queries regarding their review speed (which earlier today was seven accepts in ten minutes), questionable redirect practices ( Special:Diff/842528746), and their archives contain more than a few requests to be more careful when reviewing drafts (in particular with respect to copyrights and bad advice). A look through the history is also worthwhile, given that some of the complaints were simply removed (which is their prerogative, but makes finding old discussions harder).
I know that Legacy is one of our highest-count reviewers, but that does not mean they are exempt from scrutiny. They repeatedly have admitted to playing fast and loose with the guidelines, including accepting articles simply for the fact that they weren't able to find a good reason to delete them as a draft (and then allowing them to be AFDd instead). There's currently a bug where sometimes a draft doesn't end up unpatrolled when it hits the article space, and I genuinely have no idea how many pages Legacy has accepted that have since not been seen by a reviewer. Either way, I know that I and multiple other users have spent an inordinate amount of time double-checking their work when we could be doing better things like giving proper reviews. They claim a very high accept-to-delete ratio but then there are AFDs like this where it is clear there was not the due diligence given and likely the high volume is masking the bad apples.
My interpretation of Legacy's actions since having their tban lifted in March is to pointedly and intentionally follow their own personal guidelines with respect to AFC submissions, flaunting or blatantly ignoring the rules just to show they can. I consider it disruptive editing, and until something is done about it I feel they should not be reviewing drafts. We might have a backlog, but that is not a reason to dump more work on other editors to clear it slightly faster. Primefac ( talk) 17:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
There is no data showing my accepts are getting deleted in any rate higher than anyone else but Primefac is willing to risk their reputation making a hasty decision without discussion with me. And who is Waggie? They never brought any concerns to me but seem free to judge.
My acceptence criteria (as I've well publicized and advocated others follow) is: 1. Is the topic notable? Preferably incontestably notable. 2. Is the material reasonably referenced? Inline referenced especially for BLPs. 3. is there a CSD that should be applied here? 4. Does it pass earwig and a common sense test for copyvio? If a page passes these four tests I accept it. If not I reject it. With a strong knowledge of applicable policy many pages can be quickly processed.
Since the person making the accusation needs to provide the evidence,or suffer any resulting consiquences, I'll wait for someone to back up the assertions here. I'm busy enjoying myself in Mexico :) Legacypac ( talk) 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll address speed. There are three reasons I can work very quickly. I've often already looked at Drafts due to previously declining or commenting on them or I've checking them over and decided to come back after thinking about them, so I can often do a series of quick accepts or declines. Secondly I'm a visual reader who has tested out at 5 times the average university student reading speed, so yes I can evaluate Drafts and sources I've never seen before more quickly than some other people. Third, others have pointed out my knowledge of CSD criteria is Admin level and accuracy on CSD is quite high so I no longer need to ponder if the page should be CSD'd or is likely to be CSD'd by someone else, I just know (which suggests I spend too much time on wikipedia).
Waggie has made some very unfortunate allegations above. I'd like to know IF Waggie gets access to offline sources to evaluate them? Are reviewers supposed to check offline sources before we accept a page that by all accounts appears good? I tend to WP:AGF and give the page creator the benefit of the doubt that they accurately reflected sources when I see scholarly effort sourced carefully to actual books. Legacypac ( talk) 13:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
. I understand that no one has a 100% accuracy rate at AfD, although I'm fairly certain that none of the drafts I've accepted have gone to AfD or been CSDd (I've have to dig to check).just looked a little boastful to the casual reader. But you might want to bear in mind a little phrase that we have in France "Il n'y a que ceux qui ne travaillent pas qui ne font jamais d'erreurs" which loosely translated means those that are the most productive have the greatest chance of making mistakes. Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
---
User:KylieTastic calculated above 1.4% of my last 1000 accepts have been deleted. User:Primefac/AFCStats#Post-acceptance_statistics shows 3.6 to 7.6% deletion over various months. As the largest contributor to accepts (but only over the last several months) my personal survival percentages appear to be improving the overall AfC stats. If my survival rate is too low than experienced AfC reviewers willing to compare track records should discuss a reasonable survival rate. Anyone who does not have a bunch of accepts to compare against is just armchair quarterbacking and should step up and show us how to do AfC correctly. Legacypac ( talk) 17:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
In a related event Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jay_Gambetta concerning a page User:Waggie complains about my accept on here - they just proved they don't know much about what will or will not pass AfD. Perhaps their AfC tools need to be removed User:Primefac as there is a clear competance issue here. Legacypac ( talk) 23:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
how many admins are here already , this is ANI in all but name only IMO Quek157 ( talk) 10:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is the place to bring this up, because I am already discussing it with User:Legacypac, and I prefer to keep discussions centralized, but there is mention above of having a higher than normal rate of acceptances taken to AFD and deleted, and I have an issue, that I think is a serious problem, with User:Legacypac saying that drafts should sometimes be accepted in order to be taken to AFD and deleted. In my opinion, accepting a draft for the purpose of requesting its deletion is completely wrong. I haven't actually seen Legacypac do this, only say that this should sometimes be done. If they have actually done this, it is problematic, although I won't say that it warrants de-AFC-ing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I note someone declined this journal draft last year. Journals with impact factors, even very low ones, are generally considered notable. There's some advice at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), and if in doubt, you can ask for an opinion at Wikiproject Academic Journals. Thanks, Espresso Addict ( talk) 10:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
At the beginning of May I had the intention of starting a "spring cleaning review" thread on this board asking for editors to email me any concerns regarding active AFC reviewers. I would evaluate these concerns and if enough (or significant) complaints were levied against one user I would bring it up here for further discussion. However, real life and other more pressing on-wiki issues kept me from doing so, and a recently closed thread about one editor's reviewing has made me think that at the very least that system would be a good starting point for future "review of reviewers".
At the moment the only "review" process for a reviewer is when they are on probation - so far a handful of editors have successfully passed, and a half-dozen are currently in probation. After a month threads about probationary reviewers are started so they can receive feedback on their editing; when the probation is over if there are no further issues they'll be considered in good standing.
Should this review process be extended to all reviewers? I know starting a review thread on every reviewer would be overly excessive. Should we go with an "anonymous reporting" system like the one I described in my opening paragraph? Should we not even review reviewers at all?
In the interest of keeping things on topic, well, please keep things on-topic. This is not a re-litigation of any previous threads (though they can obviously be referenced), but sniping at other users will be reverted. This thread isn't about reviewing anyone in particular, but rather about determining some "best practices" regarding our project. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 14:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
We know users get frustrated when they wait - they post on our talkpages, teahouse, help desk etc. I love the idea of a "it's unclear" like KyleTastic suggested. However our present decline templates basically say there is not enough sources to establish...
Where it's just not a clear cut case or the creator is arguing with AFC advice I've been occasionally telling editors that AfC is an optional process, and they are free to move the page themselves. That way I don't get accused of accepting a bad page and it's their risk. As long as the editor is AC they don't need AfC anyway. Maybe that should be a "Decline" template that removes the page from AFC? After all optional goes both ways. The AfC project/reviewer should have the option to decline/refuse to review a Draft and chuck it out of the AfC system. Legacypac ( talk) 18:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I give up, can someone continue.started in mainspace marked by me g11, deleted for advertising, upon request restored by deleting admin who move it to draft. now that guy wanted it back to main and ask me to move it, can I ? can someone else take over this. Quek157 ( talk) 09:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I've been looking through various lists of unassessed articles recently, and I stumbled across 6th Machine Gun Battalion (United States Marine Corps), which is listed as unassessed by the project; however, it is assessed, as A-class, incluing in your Wikiproject template. Looking at this, it looks like your template doesn't support A-class. Should I change the assessment to B-class (only for your project), will someone fix that, or what? LittlePuppers ( talk) 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm requesting a third opinion on Draft:Daniel Liam Glyn. Do you think he is notable enough? L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 02:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and also an IP
suggested that that AFCH put decline and AFC comment templates at the bottom. What would you think about that?
L293D (
☎ •
✎)
12:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
If there is a different place where this discussion should be held, please advise me. I think that the principal objective of Articles for Creation is to support Draft space as a temporary place where pages can be worked on with the eventual objective of promoting them into article space. At the same time, I think that some pages in draft space, although they may be submitted once or repeatedly for review, will never be suitable for article space. We can probably agree on that.
I think that drafts should be moved (promoted) to article space when they are ready for article space, and that is usually defined as meaning that they will probably survive an AFD discussion, or, better yet, that they won’t get taken to AFD.
My question is: Should drafts ever be moved to article space when they are not ready for article space, in order to face CSD or AFD? Maybe I have misunderstood, but I have read at least one editor as sometimes saying that drafts should be moved to article space in order to have a deletion discussion. I personally think that is a terrible idea, and that draft space is a better place for questionable pages than article space. I am aware that there are unresolved disagreements about when drafts should be deleted, but I personally don’t see that they should ever be moved to article space unless the reason is that they belong in article space.
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I've been applying a standard of "almost certain to avoid AfD" only because I have enemies that want to remove my ability to edit. Even then I recently lost an accept at AfD on an Order of Canada receipient that meets WP:ANYBIO #1. On the flip side I've failed to get pages I think are total crap deleted at AfD. I support the stated "likely to survive AfD" standard. AfC should try to help editors but some don't want or will not accept help and should experience mainspace rules. Some pages we just can't predict what will happen if taken to AfD and that is ok. We should not be a block against truly debatable pages being tested in mainspace. We should facilitate the inclusion of the good and stop the clearly unsuitable pages as best we can, but not try to be one person AfD decision makers. Legacypac ( talk) 03:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
One of the last things we should ever be doing is encouraging AFC draft submitters to move the page into mainspace themselves without a review. Sure, it's technologically possible for them to do so, but it defeats the entire purpose of having AFC at all and is not an option we should be telling people is on the menu — anybody who thinks they're actually allowed to do that is just going to do it even if the page is nowhere near mainspace-acceptable. Bearcat ( talk) 00:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Yah happy days. Now let's cut it somemore. Legacypac ( talk) 13:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Is anybody else having problems with the AFCH script sometimes failing to actually do anything when you click on the "Accept", "Decline" or "Comment" buttons on a pending draft? Or is it just my computer being difficult for no apparent reason? Bearcat ( talk) 00:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please create Food Network Star (Season 14), as that is an upcoming series being aired on the Food Network in the United States and Canada - ( 101.98.104.241 ( talk) 10:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC))
@ Legacypac, DGG, and Northamerica1000: I've never nominated an article that has been accepted at AfC for deletion but I think that's about to change, unless I've missed something? On what basis do Westcliff School of Skills and Clifton College (Botswana) meet WP:NCORP, and how did we come to accept the latter given the obvious WP:PROMO? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 18:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
![]()
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 06:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
can anyone help me out to create vj lokesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniyavelliangiri ( talk • contribs) 07:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to think User:Primefac for having the dignity, grace, and courtesy to reverse the decision to remove User:Legacypac from the list of AFC reviewers. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I still have serious concerns about Legacypac's frivolous attitude that questionable drafts should be moved to article space for AFD. That has nothing to do with the removal, which has correctly been reversed, but I am still deeply concerned by Legacypac's attitude, but think that they should be back reviewing (and they are). Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I still want to see a rewording of the decline template. That has nothing to do with whether Legacypac should be a reviewer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I haven't yet reviewed Legacypac's complicated history. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Primefac. You reconsidered your actions for the wiser and better course. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
By Wikipedia standards there was also a lot of compassion and respect shown by and to other AfC project members in that discussion. Thanks everyone and of course that includes you too Primefac. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I want to open a new question. Why do we decline submitted draft articles on the basis that what is submitted is a redirect?. Why do we not simply move them to the proper part of the project for considering redirects? Declining it discourages a good faith contributor on the basis of not understanding an arbitrary technical separation in the way we've set up a complicated process--it accomplished nothing positive. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This has been around forever and declined 5 times. However reviewers say it is really close. Can this be passd to mainspace to test it? We should not be holding back pages that are likely ok. Legacypac ( talk) 21:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I know we discussed something like this in 2014, it's possible I've missed other discussions since.
I see the reviewing guidelines as contradicting themselves in at least one situation. Here's a key example, that I tried to explain to a confused long-term non-AfC aware editor recently.
In one place, we write: "Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace."
In another, we have, both in our workflow diagram, and alluded to in other places, a suggestion that drafts should be declined for failing MINREF.
These two bits of advice give different results for an article that *could*, but does not currently, have in-line citations for quotes of controversial material, but for which such citations could be found. Working years at AFD I have never seen an article deleted for MINREF when such references weren't in-line, but where known to the discussion participants.
I've been largely working to the workflow diagram, which seems to be in line the 2014 discussion, but is there a more recent consensus on how to resolve this? -- joe decker talk 22:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After repeated abuses by editors, admins, usage of the "Promising Draft", deletion nominations that are closed on the flimsiest of arguments, I'm leaving wikipedia permanantly. Thank Calliopejen and Esspresso Addict for driving the wedge in. This means effectively immediately HasteurBot's G13 maintenance is stopping. Hasteur ( talk) 16:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Moving on from this issues above....lets just take a moment to say well done to all those who have kept on bashing at the backlog and got it back to a more sensible size, and a not so depressing wait message for new submissions. Beverages of choice for everyone who's been reviewing recently. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 15:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Context: When reviewing pages, I often come across a draft I like but which I think needs some work before it can be accepted. If I do not have time to do the work, I sometimes bookmark the page to come back to later. Sometimes the page is accepted before I get back to it, sometimes it is still a draft and I can improve it and then accept it myself, and sometimes it has been rejected. My question is about this last case. Dilemma: When a draft has been rejected and I would like to improve the page and move it to the main space, what is the best practice? First, obviously, I should go ahead and improve the page. At that point, I do not think I need to leave the draft and wait for the original editor to make any edits they wish and submit it themselves. So there are three options: 1) I could resubmit it to AfC and let someone else review it, 2) I could resubmit it to AfC and then accept it myself, or 3) I could simply move the article to the mainspace. I generally perform 2, although when I want a second opinion I do 1. Application: A number of abandoned drafts were recently posted at WT:WIR, any of which I might like to develop. As a reviewer, I could and likely would simply perform 2. Is there any reason I should do 1 instead? Any user could go ahead and perform 3 - risking AfD but doing so in a way that avoids notifying people who watch the new AfC list. This strikes me as in poor form for a AfC reviewer to do, but I don't see any reason the article should be automatically reverted to draft in such a case. If done and noticed, should such an article be posted to the new AfC list? Smmurphy( Talk) 10:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I regularly submit drafts I find and immediately accept them. I come across them in stale userspace, G13 eligible list, and other places. The creator gets a nice message and it makes the move easier. I see no conflict of interest at all because I did not write the draft and I have no conflict of interest with any topic on the site. Occasionally I also submit pages but don't accept them myself because I'd like a second opinion or it's a math topic or something that needs different expertise.
There is an army of NPP and other editors that watch new pages, followed by topic editors that get summoned when their page is linked or via wikiprojects. They can fiddle with the categories, fix formating, wikilink, fill in empty sections (I'll add "empty section" sometimes) and do other things. There is a very limited number of AfC reviewers so we should do our thing and not feel bad leaving work for others who do their thing. Legacypac ( talk) 14:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
A couple of times today I've received AFC reviews for pages I'd tagged for CSD. On investigation I find that {{ Userspace draft}} loads the page with {{ AFC submission/Substdraft}} which includes the code
<includeonly>{{subst:submit}}</includeonly>
This loads the page with
{{subst:submit}}
which, when I tag the page for CSD, or presumably ANY editor performs ANY action, becomes
{{
submit}}
I can't see this being anything other than a booby-trap for the next editor of the page after the {{ Userspace draft}} has been added. Could someone with more knowledge of what's the desired behaviour check it over please? Cabayi ( talk) 19:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
set (in the first diff you'll see it's //ref>
instead of </ref>
). Thus, there are templates inside of refs and they're not properly transcluding (there are also the {{
void}} templates there). My guess is that TW ends up transcluding the templates even though they're inside the refs, which causes you to be the "owner".User:Espresso Addict and I are interested in the daily submission counts. Last I checked the submissions did not really drop after ACTRIAL ended - even though they jumped up during ACTRIAL. Darn if I can find the link to the stats now though. Legacypac ( talk) 02:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
March only - ACTRIAL ended March 14?
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Submission rates are obviously highly variable. There is a big decline in the days before ACTRIAL ended for example - and I'd not expect most true new users to know it was running or not or when it would end. Serial new account creators might have figured out the dates. Legacypac ( talk) 02:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the submissions are new pages or counte resubmissions. Either way I expected a bigger drop on March 15 on than occured. Legacypac ( talk) 05:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
These seem to have been deleted. Could somebody restore them. I'd do it myself, but I may be missing something. Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 06:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Not that this is going to happen, but if we had a button submitters could click for "my draft is about something that pre-dates 1950" I'd just hover over that queue since the acceptance rate would be easily 5x higher for those articles. If something happened over 60 years ago and somebody is still interested in it, there's a much better chance its Notable.
I just approved Sister-books within minutes of it hitting the queue, since historical articles are generally Notable and tend to be well-written. And for whatever cultural reasons Military History articles are often really well written and cited, so anytime I see "battle of X" drafts I swoop in and have a 75% chance of just approving them right out.
*Sigh* I like the easy ones, breaks up the trend of YouTubers, garage bands, and Bitcoin startups... MatthewVanitas ( talk) 04:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi all -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a new product manager on the Community Tech team with DannyH at WMF. As Danny previously mentioned on this talk page, as part of the follow-up to ACTRIAL, the Community Tech team is going to have some bandwidth over the next couple months to take on an improvement to the AfC process. I've been following along with the conversation on this talk page and here to learn about the biggest challenges facing AfC and the ideas for improving it.
Though I’m new to this process, I’ve attempted to summarize AfC’s challenges, goals, and ideas for improvement. I hope you don’t mind that I’ve posted it as a subpage for this WikiProject. I’m sure I haven’t done a perfect job because of my lack of experience so far with AfC, but hopefully it is an improve-able starting point for a conversation. Of the ideas brought up so far on this talk page and others, some of them seem better suited for WMF to get involved with, and some are better left to other members of the AfC community. Just to set expectations, we'll have small amount of bandwidth for this, on the order of a typical Community Tech project. Keeping that in mind, I hope you can all check out the linked page above, help fill in gaps of things I’ve missed, and be part of a conversation of what sort of impact Community Tech can make during April and May.
One other note -- as Legacypac suggests, I would love to try out the AFCH script, but I am not quite yet at 500 edits (I have 244 in my personal account -- Cloud atlas). Is it possible to list me here so I can get started? MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 19:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there an easy way to add WikiProjects to a talk page of a draft? There was an article related to spaceflight that I would have approved of a month ago if I knew it existed. I like using Enterprisey's tool; but if the pages are not tagged, it loses a lot of its usefulness. I would be willing to run through and tag a bunch of pages, but I would like to have some assisted way of doing so. Anything exist already? Kees08 (Talk) 06:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
There are many football bios by User:Das osmnezz in the unreviewed list. This editor has over 700 page creations but has been placed on a restriction requiring AfC review. [1] He has User:Das_osmnezz#List_of_drafts_created which a qualified reviewer in Football could run through quickly. Legacypac ( talk) 23:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I linked the ban above. It was for poor sourcing issues not copyvio. As far as I can see he as been addressing the problems that lead to the ban. I don't do WP:FOOTY because I don't know anything about the topic. I raised it here because I'm tired of finding all these FOOTY drafts and I'm hoping someone that is comfortable with them can clear them away as a project. We don't have any fasttrack process - its all random anyway. Legacypac ( talk) 19:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The list of football drafts by this one creator not marked done has grown to 134 which is over 5% of the pending drafts. Legacypac ( talk) 08:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I've just declined a submission because I belatedly realised that the editor had double submitted it to mainspace. The capsule decline reads "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Gloria+Mark instead." but obviously the article is at Gloria Mark. This is likely to be a common problem, can someone who understands the coding help to fix? Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Reviewers seriously need to read WP:NPROF. I just happened accross the teahouse, when I saw someone asking about a draft they had on a clearly notable academic, Jan Lexell. This draft was rejected four times on notability grounds, with not a reviewer apparently knowing anything of the fact that NPROF gives notability from influence (of which was in fact described in the article) ( see this revision). This notability I was able to see from merely searching scholar.google.com, which is what I do everytime I see an academic at AfC (and what I think all reviewers should do); while people may consider mere citation looking/NPROF itself to be dubious, that article would indeed get kept by a large distance at AfD, which is what we're looking for of course; easily most professors with article with say > 500 cites would get kept, honestly (whatever you want to say about that). I think perhaps the SNGs should be higher up and explained in the reviewing instructions, especially NPROF, with its standard that doesn't require GNG.
Also this is case where the "three-strikes" could've helped, by directing it to MfD where it'd quickly be sent to mainspace; but even then, this should've been accepted in the first review - not every submitter is going to be this persistent. And so would giving a button and a nudge for the page creator to bypass the reviewers and move it themselves. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 15:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure I was complaining about this sort of thing on ANI about 5 years ago. Plus ca change. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't have time to look at it deeply right now, but on Category:Pending AfC submissions, if you click "next" it takes you to the last page, and on the last page if you click "previous" it takes you to the first. There is no way look in-between. I am experiencing this problem on multiple computers and in different browsers. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 11:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Template:WA botmark is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 10#Template:WA botmark until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the article. Daask ( talk) 21:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like to call the attention of editors here to recent discussions at the Miscellany for Deletion talk page. Sometimes AFC drafts get tagged for Miscellany for Deletion if they have been repeatedly resubmitted, or if they are completely hopeless. Drafts are the main business at MFD. A concern that has come out of the discussion of some of these drafts is that an AFC reviewer has two choices, Accept and Decline, but Decline, regardless of why the decline, contains the saccharine wording that the editor is encouraged to improve and resubmit the draft. Some of us at MFD think that this wording is responsible for some drafts being resubmitted three, five, or ten times; some of us think that resubmitting three, five, or ten times is tendentious, but we still think that it shouldn't be necessary to encourage the submitter to improve and resubmit.
I think that this is a case where the rule not to bite the newbies has become a dogma, and that the rule does more harm than good because it ties editors in knots to be sufficiently nice to fools (and some new editors, although not all, are fools), but that is only my opinion.
The consensus at MFD is that there needs to be a version of Decline that has more or less the flavor of Reject, and that encourages the editor to help us with the five million articles that we already have rather than getting one new one accepted.
What is the next step in getting the AFC decline language changed so that there is another version that doesn't encourage tendentious resubmission?
Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I really strongly oppose this. The reason being is that in the history of Wikipedia, there are hundreds, thousands of articles that were at one time rejected by other editors for not being suitable, but over time were able to become good articles. This kind of proposal, while well meaning, is simply giving far too much power to the AFC editors to reject draft articles for good based on their subjective opinions.
This isn't really what Wikipedia is supposed to be. It's not supposed to be a place where the view of one person can decide what is suitable or not. It's supposed to be a place for collaboration. It's been brought up by many people that reviewers at AFC can be bitey, and often decline drafts that have minor problems that would be better cleaned up by the community, rather than forcing new editors to submit perfect drafts. This kind of proposal would mean reviewers have more power.
How would there be any accountability here? A reviewer tells a new editor, "nah, this will never be an article, stop working on it, I'm going to delete it for you" How does that editor get checked they are doing the right thing? Worse still, what if the drafter actually can improve it, but when find out they can't resubmit, or that other reviewers are biased because of the previous "REJECT" stamp.
There already is a method for reviewing submissions, and as I mentioned, it's been criticised for being too centralised and too bitey. More policies that increase these two things aren't needed. Egaoblai ( talk) 02:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Any competent editor can tell a patently unsuitable topic when they see it.I've tried doling out such harsh advice, in a few cases and the results have been satisfactory. ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Many of the template user warnings are graded, getting stronger and more clear about consequences as they go. For example template:uw-unsourced1, [template:uw-unsourced2]], [template:uw-unsourced3]], template:uw-unsourced4
Right now there is just one Template:AFC submission/declined:
Submission declined
You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you are the author of this draft, you may request deletion by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, adding "{{ db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and saving. If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors.
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
So what if we had:
Submission declined
Please see notes at the draft and its talk page. You are encouraged to make improvements addressing those notes by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you are the author of this draft, you may request deletion by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, adding "{{ db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and saving. If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors.
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Submission declined, second time
There are remaining issues, as discussed at the draft and its talk page. You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, but please be aware that successive submissions without addressing the issues will lead to the draft eventually being deleted. If you are the author of this draft, you may request deletion by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, adding "{{ db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and saving. If you don't understand the issues, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors.
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Submission declined, third time
There are still remaining issues, as discussed at the draft and its talk page. You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, but please be aware that if you submit the draft again without addressing these concerns, the draft will be subject to deletion. If you are the author of this draft, you may request deletion by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, adding "{{ db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and saving. If you don't understand the issues, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors.
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
--Something like that? Jytdog ( talk) 22:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
-- Gryllida ( talk) 03:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
For promotional drafts, which I would define as:
That the author must supply 2 or 3 sources that are all of: independent, reliable, secondary source, and comment directly on the topic for at least two flowing sentences.
Otherwise, the page is to be deleted. I.e. “undersourced WP:CORP draft” is an explicit reason for deletion (at mfd).
2 or 3 sources, because the best 2 sources are sufficient, and WP:Reference bombing does not help, but in fact makes review extremely tedious. If the author supplies more than 3 sources, we shall take it that the first 3 are submitted to be the best, and ignore all others following.
When we agree that this is a reason for deletion, the new article instructions will be modified to state this.
For non-promotional topics, it will remain the case that the page is not deleted until Wikipedians make the case that no suitable sources exist. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I personally prefer to ask the authors to provide references as well as metadata about the references (when and where and by whom they were written) as this is something the authors may do very easily but it may speed up the review dramatically. Rather than visiting each reference and reading it in depth because the URI does not say anything about whop the author is, the reviewer gets an opportunity to write a review comment in which he or she says which sources are primary and which are independent, and spend time evaluating independent sources and providing a review comment on that. In my opinion this is a good way to reduce the reviewing load while providing the draft author with a task that is relatively straight-forward and in their interests to accomplish. (It also teaches the draft author to care of who the author of the reference is, which is an important thing to pay attention to. (I ask via a comment, not via a draft rejection. In some cases the response to the comment is timely and useful. I am yet to evaluate the percentage of cases in which this works well - work in progress.)) -- Gryllida ( talk) 04:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Can I be added to the participants list please? I'd like to use the script to automatically review drafts. I've done some manual reviews but it's not very convenient and I regularly watch the new pages feed to review if articles should be kept or not, and sometimes the pending submissions to accept or decline drafts. I don't currently meet the requirement of having a 90-days old account but I do have more than 500 edits and requesting to be exempted from the requirements per admin discretion. Thanks. KingAnd God 14:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
One of the main criticisms that have been raised against this project is with the decline template, and how it encourages people to resubmit even if it's a garbage draft. I have created a sandbox version where the "You are encouraged to make edits..." line has been removed. Is there anything else in particular that should be changed based on the decline rationale? We can hash out which specific rationales will trigger this effect later, but mostly I want to start working on a new decline template. Primefac ( talk) 15:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The other main criticism of this project is that we have a low acceptance rate for notable subjects. If it is not easy for authors to resubmit after fixing issues, acceptance rate will go even lower. There really is no way to quickly distinguish garbage from diamond in the rough and for quality control of reviews, is good to have multiple reviewers evaluate a submission. Do not remove the resubmit button and do not delete failed submissions before they G13 expire. ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
When reviewing newly approved drafts, there are a couple of errors that are really common. In order of perceived occurrences:
Three of the four of them may be solvable with a script. Maybe we could add it to the cleanup work the bot already does? Unbold section titles, fix the punctuation around references, and add a reflist if one does not exist (and if one is needed due to inline citations being present).
Section headers we maybe could add to the tutorial somewhere, that says they should be sentence case? That is the one that I do not think a bot could easily do.
This would save some cleanup work, and then I (and others) could focus on other work like expanding citations, adding content, etc. Kees08 (Talk) 04:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Can I just quickly remind everyone not to decline articles on notable topics, particularly where there are reliable references present, for formatting reasons, please. Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
There are 869 pages in Category:AfC submissions declined as needing footnotes declined in the last six months. I've never investigated this category. Legacypac ( talk) 08:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Largely intended as an quick mechanism to respond to UPE new pages, please see Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Or_what? and a formal proposal at Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
While doing non-free content cleanup related to WP:NFCC#9, I often come across drafts/userspace drafts which contain navigation templates. While I'm aware that article categories should be disabled per WP:USERNOCAT and WP:DRAFTNOCAT, I am never sure about these templates. Can these be left as is or should they also be disabled? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I have floated an idea over at the AfC Process Improvement page that would be a rework of the current review system. Any feedback that any of you guys could provide would be welcome. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 21:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
When you decline a draft, one of the reasons in the drop-down menu is 'neo - Submission is about a neologisim not yet shown to meet notability guidelines. In the script, 'neologisim' is spelt wrong. Is should be 'neologism'. Can you please correct the typo. Thanks. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 16:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
In case anybody else doesn't know the WMF is aiming to implement ACPERM the week of April 30. See T192455 which was posted at this query I made. Jytdog ( talk) 20:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:ACREQ went live on Thursday. AfC will now see an influx of pages that have been diverted from mainspace where they were summarily deleted. Legacypac ( talk) 18:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Who is user talk:Wiki841 and why with only 100 edits are they moving inappropriate drafts to mainspace? Probably in good faith but they are not ready for this yet. Can somebody please help them? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I have several old drafts that I created. When I am done with them, do I need to submit them for review, or can I just move to mainspace/userify? Eddie891 Talk Work 12:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Having made a couple of comments on this draft, the author is asking me for help and I'm not sure on the best advice to give. In particular:
Any advice gratefully received. The exchange is on my talkpage. KJP1 ( talk) 15:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
While I'm pleased as punch that we have two "day" categories completely empty, is there any particular reason why no one seems to be patrolling from the back of the queue? We went from zero very olds to a dozen overnight, after almost a month of nothing older than 8 weeks. Primefac ( talk) 17:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
With her new book creating buzz in the market, people will search her on the internet and it would be great if encyclopedia comes up. I know she passes GNG but I think I might be a subject to COI as creator. I was wondering if any reviewer could spare some time and take a look. And if it looks good then maybe accept it? Thanks!
Dial911 (
talk)
20:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Can we build it in to the requirements of reviewers that they promptly reply to comments on their talk page from the authors whose drafts they've declined? I was just looking at User talk:ToThAc, for example. They've been reminded of this, but they didn't reply to that and I see no improvement. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Availability to respond to inquiries is part of the requirements. Most inquiries are hard to respond too because there is no real question not answered by the links in the decline. Legacypac ( talk) 17:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
[5]. Just a FYI at this time, but I have personally opposed the this request as there appears to have been no consensus for this and think this is a very bad idea. Hasteur ( talk) 02:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Similar to the recent question regarding Wiki841 by Kudpung; I would like to express my appreciation to KnowledgeChuck for his enthusiasm in moving a number of drafts to mainspace (e.g. DJ JY (artist) [6], etc.), as well as declining a variety of AfC submissions (e.g. Draft:Sidsel Kjøller Damkjær, etc.) but - since he has only 123 lifetime edits - I wonder if we might be unfairly occupying his time doing AfC reviews at this early stage in his editing tenure? Since he's planning on "going 24/7 on new page patrols" [7] it might be unreasonable to encumber him with AfC reviewing right now as well. Chetsford ( talk) 14:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello.
I have been a pretty active editor recently, and was wondering if I could be given access to the AFC Helper Script? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbhbchange ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, folks. I just declined a draft about an Australian graphic designer, commenting that, in addition to the failure to demonstrate notability, too much of the sourcing was coming from a single source. (The draft is Draft:Annette Harcus.) But something piqued my curioisty about that and so I did a little looking around. The draft's creator, User:InvisibleInAustralia has a user page that says somebody is being "represented by Jane Connory", who is the source that had been used in the Harcus draft. I also found that there is a website, invisibleinaustralia.com, that is run by one Jane Connory (see here). Perhaps this is just a big coincidence but, if not, it suggests that the person running the website is writing articles about her clients and using her own writings to show notability.
I'm not inclined to be the one person who looks through all the drafts that are likely to be submitted by this user in the near future, so I'm posting here to alert folks to the situation. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi all -- I'm posting here to follow up on my original post from 2018-04-03 about work that WMF's Community Tech team will be doing in the coming weeks to improve the tools with which AfC reviewers can prioritize their work.
Based on a lot of good discussion with the AfC community, we've settled on a plan. Please check out the project page for the details. In brief, the plan is:
Thanks to all reviewers who have so far participated in the discussion. If you have not yet had a chance to weigh in, please do -- though we have limited bandwidth over the next several weeks to work on this project, we definitely want to get this as right as possible in concert with the AfC community.
-- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 21:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I started working on AfC a few weeks ago. It's certainly an eye-opener vis-a-vis the amount of crap, but every once in a while, I find a gem of a new article and that makes my day :-)
What's the best way to find drafts to review? I'm using Special:RandomInCategory/Pending_AfC_submissions, but that doesn't work well. I get lots of things that are in that category but aren't actually drafts (example: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects). I also get lots of repeats. Is there a better way to do this? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Excellent points DGG. When G13ing I always try to tag G11 or G2 or whatever else is obviously a reason to close off the automatic refund of problematic pages. Moving to mainspace and taking to AfD is risking for a non-Admin. I've been sanctioned for even suggesting that as a possible strategy. Legacypac ( talk) 05:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I see this sentence in the introduction ". AfC works as a peer review process, where autoconfirmed users either accept and create an article submitted by an anonymous editor or decline the article because it is unsuitable for Wikipedia." - shouldn't this be at least extended confirmed as only EC users can ask for AFCH. Yes, any autoconfirmed user can just pick up a draft and then link to mainspace but this line sounds weird. -- Quek157 ( talk) 12:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Could someone else review Draft:Gulf British Academy? I have declined several times in a row and it would be good to have someone else take a look at it and perhaps explain to the author in a different way what they need to do. I left comments each time but the author deleted them. I fear MfD is the way forward for it. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 21:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I would like to thank User:Legacypac for developing the {{ NSFW}}, Not Suitable for Wikipedia, template, and would like to encourage its use as appropriate. I will note that it can be applied in either of two ways, by manual editing of a draft, or by inclusion of the template in the decline message. I think that it should address the concerns of User:SmokeyJoe about the encouragement to keep trying; at least, for an inherently optimistic enthusiastic user who doesn't understand, it sends such a mixed message with the decline wording that they might actually go to the Teahouse and be told that their submission is crud.
I have a few comments. First, I have used it a few times today, but most of the really unsuitable drafts that I encountered were eligible for G11. I would suggest that it can be slapped on a draft for which G11 has been declined but is still a candidate for A7 or A1 or whatever in mainspace.
In one case, I made a statement on the talk page, but normally I have just provided AFC comments.
I would urge that an editor who decides to delete the AFC decline comments, if they included NSFW, would leave the NSFW standing rather than stripping it too.
I haven't used NSFW on some stupid one-sentence entries, although they would get A1 or A7 or even A3, because I am not sure that the editor knew that Submit meant "Request consideration as an article". It could mean anything.
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
There is already plenty of gentle language and detailed explanations of notability in the author-facing messaging. Some authors ignore all of this. Whether done out of ignorance or anger, their prompt resubmissions are a form of trolling. You don't want to feed the {{ Bitey box}} or anything else with emotional calories to a troll. You want to let things sit in the queue and deal with them in turn. These situations are only a suck on our reviewer resources if we add energy to the situation. ~ Kvng ( talk) 12:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello all,
I was wondering if any of you guys were having problems regarding failed login attempts. I figure it's someone that I reviewed that's trying to login to my account or something. Just checking if anyone else is having this problem. Acebulf ( talk) 12:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
One of my accepts Mimi Elsa was taken to AfD, which is fine - I'm not bothered by that. User:Tapered is making interesting comments that personalize the AfD which is not so fine in my opinion. As this impacts what is expected of all AfC reviewers in terms of disclosure of our involvement, other AfC reviewers may want to weigh in on this AfD. Legacypac ( talk) 06:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
User:KingAndGod since you took the opportunity to use a single review to disparage all my reviews - the creator of that page has done numerous football pages and as a subject matter expert is better positioned to evalute adherence to WP:FOOTY. I believe that was an edge case where he was drafted to a professional club but had not yet played - as in he could qualify any day. Legacypac ( talk) 15:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
A lot of my accepted submissions do NOT go through AfD - in fact very very few get taken to AfD because I have a very good understanding of notability criteria. So whatever you "noticed" was wrong.
Second, KingAndGod's pure speculation about the creator of the football bio is way off. That user is a prolific content creator now required to use AfC because they were using poor sourcing. I started a thread on football bios higher up and you can go review the creator's talk page and archive for more details. Legacypac ( talk) 04:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes, when I am trying to approve an article that has been nominated for a long time, I cannot perform the action because a redirect exists where I am trying to put the page in mainspace. As of right now, I have to contact an admin to get it done for me.
It would be nice if
A. AfC members were granted a right that let them move pages over redirects (with a warning) or B. There was something in the AfC workflow where you could tentatively approve a page, and it went into an admin's queue to move over the redirect automatically.
My theory is that when people try to move a page over the redirect and find out they cannot, they just move on to another article (admittedly, I have done this sometimes, if I could not find an admin). This therefore contributes to the backlog. Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 21:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I saw a blue heading on the page which I previously reviewed and possibly can be up to scratch (not entirely reviewed before). I can't see who is reviewing in history. And it's more than 24 hrs, can someone help? -- Quek157 ( talk) 13:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Deletion_of_drafts about the deletion of drafts that are repeatedly submitted without improvement to AfC. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The project might need to check the rejected drafts of this now banned sockmaster. I've just rescued a G13 rejected by him towards the start of ACTRIAL on a very clearly notable biochemist. Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Is there any prospect of a proper “reject” option for draft reviewers? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The National ELT Accreditation Scheme. The problem is not with deletion policy. TonyBallioni's Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Deletion_of_drafts is not addressing the problem. The problem is the really hopeless saccharine decline templates that encourage the author to edit, improve and resubmit, even when it is obviously and completely unsuitable. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
We now have 500 pages over 17 days unreviewed, and a big empty gap following the 17 day mark. I'm trying to keep newer pages from going over 21 days - kind of a new maximum review time of three weeks. Keep on plugging away because we are winning the backlog. Legacypac ( talk) 07:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't Draft talk:Example redirect here instead of to User talk:Example ? -- 65.94.42.219 ( talk) 09:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Shri Ram Murti Smarak College of Engineering and Technology (SRMSCET), Unnao has been declined by multiple reviewers. Pretty much every degree granting post secendary school is notable. Why are we declining this page over and over? Legacypac ( talk) 11:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I know I've seen this done. Can somebody remind me how? KJP1 ( talk) 13:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
|small=yes
removes it, but only because that means there's a not-small template somewhere else on the page.
Primefac (
talk)
19:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Could somebody have a look at this. It's about as libellous as you can get, but which CSD can I use? KJP1 ( talk) 07:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The action column for reason=Already exists in the table in the Quick-fail section of the Reviewing instructions page should be augmented, to say something about foreign words in English titles. One problem to be aware of is multiple transliteration possibilities. Ideally, imho, language experts should be called upon anytime a title appears to contain a foreign word as part of the title, before any content review is performed, which could otherwise be a waste of time. [a] Another question, is whether a foreign title should be used, or an English one. [b] More on this at WP:UE.
(As a secondary issue: the flow-chart does not quite match the text description, with the former showing duplicate-check as part of Content review, and the latter whowing it as part of Quick-fail criteria.) HTH, Mathglot ( talk) 23:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Notes
I strip unnecessary (DAB)s and bracketed acronyms but ya if the title a French name like one I accepted recently I leave it. Someone else can move it to English creating a redirect if they feel strongly about it. Legacypac ( talk) 14:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
AFCH should allow tagging for G13 deletion for any draft with the last edit more than 6 months old, not just ones with the AfC submission template Galobtter ( pingó mió) 08:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
That would be a sweet enhancement. The big button is much easier than the radio button way down at the bottom on mobile. Legacypac ( talk) 14:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedia community has authorized discretionary sanctions and a blanket 1RR for all pages related to cryptocurrency and blockchain, broadly construed. See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. This means you can (and should!) hand out warnings and seek administrator help promptly when dealing with those who submit promotional drafts about new initial coin offerings and cryptocurrencies. MER-C 16:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been asked recently, but is there a reason why it's not made obvious to new users that if they're autoconfirmed they can move their article into mainspace by themselves? Jc86035 ( talk) 17:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I have come to favor telling people AfC is an optional process on occasion. It's not like this is secret info. If they move their crap page to mainspace other editors can apply mainspace tools like A7, AfD and PROD to it - we become unshackled from the obstructionists whole rule MfD and prevent the implementation of proper CSD criteria for drafts. Also occasionally there is a draft that is borderline notable but I'm not sure and don't want to have to defend it or sully my near perfect no deletions on my acceptance record. Legacypac ( talk) 07:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
If a user gets into AFC, concievably it's for 2 reasons: Either they're new, or they're wanting a second set of eyes to impartially review the content prior to being pushed into mainspace. Going through AFC gives the draft a little more clout (and a second person to call on to explain why it was pushed to mainspace). There's already far too much spam, one line stubs, marginally notable crap in mainspace. Getting a draft to hit a minimum of start/B-class is a great way to not increase the entropy already in mainspace. Hasteur ( talk) 00:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The only part of the rejection template that encourage resubmission says "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page" Since they evidently already know how to edit just say "If you can WP:OVERCOME the decline reason you may resubmit after fixing the identified issues." Will that satisfy User:SmokeyJoe? Legacypac ( talk) 09:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Forget teahouse and stop sending users to our talkpages for discussion. The Draft talk or our help desk is enough. I support a "request deletion" button. Legacypac ( talk) 17:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted.
- If you want more help, stop by the Articles for creation help desk or Wikipedia's live help channel.
or the reviewer's talk page
In the spirit of avoiding "saccharine encouragement to improve and resubmit" I've included a new second bullet point. However I notice that the decline notice (next to the Resubmit button) says the same thing, so I'd be fine removing it. Two bullet points just seems... tiny. Primefac ( talk) 12:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Please take off the "reviewer's talk page" part. It just fragments the discussion and often I prefer to have another reviewer look anyway. Legacypac ( talk) 14:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
When we publish an article, the redirect will be from draft to mainspace and I had to manually G6 it. This is quite a problem, can the script do a page move without leaving a redirect or we must also have page mover rights? Thanks -- Quek157 ( talk) 19:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's time to change "very old" to be 21 days plus. There is only about 230 pages 21+ days now, the need to distinguish between 6 and 8 weeks is not that great and it will save us many clicks back to the "weeks" categories after reviewing a page because we can just hit "very old" I think we can beat back the backlog soon. Legacypac ( talk) 13:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
NPP managed to really reduce its backlog recently and I'm assuming the call to arms messages ("New Page Reviewer Newsletter") sent by MediaWiki helped. Would a similar thing help for AfC? Maybe encourage some of the inactive reviewers (but active editors) to come back and do just a one or two. Now the backlog is finally back under 1000 it seams like maybe just a few dozen more people picking of a few could help a lot. If not now maybe if we get better tools, then people hopefully could focus on article they are more comfortable with, and certainly editors interested in more specialised topics could help easier with the older ones. Anyway just a thought. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 20:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it is worth the effort to presort - especially if it requires a human to do it when the human could be reviwing pages. A reviewer familiar with WP:ARTIST, WP:NMUSIC, WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:FOOTY can process most of the submissions. Make a judgement call on notability, assess WP:PROMO and check earwig under reviewer tools. If you don't feel comfortable making a call comment with your thoughts and move on. You can blast through the backlog. I don't bother gnoming and categorizing since there is an army of editors in mainspace that do that. Legacypac ( talk) 13:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Helper script does not work for me. I have activated it in Preferences > Gadgets. I use Google Chrome, ver 66.0 (32-bit) in Windows 7. My user name is approved. -- Antan O 02:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
If someone could remove the create protection on this one. Dial911 ( talk) 22:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
59.96.156.53 ( talk) 09:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have just removed Legacypac from the AFCP list. This was not a decision I make lightly, and one I genuinely would like further discussion on, but I feel that the concerns I and others have expressed on multiple occasions are falling on deaf ears and it cannot continue.
Their current talk page includes queries regarding their review speed (which earlier today was seven accepts in ten minutes), questionable redirect practices ( Special:Diff/842528746), and their archives contain more than a few requests to be more careful when reviewing drafts (in particular with respect to copyrights and bad advice). A look through the history is also worthwhile, given that some of the complaints were simply removed (which is their prerogative, but makes finding old discussions harder).
I know that Legacy is one of our highest-count reviewers, but that does not mean they are exempt from scrutiny. They repeatedly have admitted to playing fast and loose with the guidelines, including accepting articles simply for the fact that they weren't able to find a good reason to delete them as a draft (and then allowing them to be AFDd instead). There's currently a bug where sometimes a draft doesn't end up unpatrolled when it hits the article space, and I genuinely have no idea how many pages Legacy has accepted that have since not been seen by a reviewer. Either way, I know that I and multiple other users have spent an inordinate amount of time double-checking their work when we could be doing better things like giving proper reviews. They claim a very high accept-to-delete ratio but then there are AFDs like this where it is clear there was not the due diligence given and likely the high volume is masking the bad apples.
My interpretation of Legacy's actions since having their tban lifted in March is to pointedly and intentionally follow their own personal guidelines with respect to AFC submissions, flaunting or blatantly ignoring the rules just to show they can. I consider it disruptive editing, and until something is done about it I feel they should not be reviewing drafts. We might have a backlog, but that is not a reason to dump more work on other editors to clear it slightly faster. Primefac ( talk) 17:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
There is no data showing my accepts are getting deleted in any rate higher than anyone else but Primefac is willing to risk their reputation making a hasty decision without discussion with me. And who is Waggie? They never brought any concerns to me but seem free to judge.
My acceptence criteria (as I've well publicized and advocated others follow) is: 1. Is the topic notable? Preferably incontestably notable. 2. Is the material reasonably referenced? Inline referenced especially for BLPs. 3. is there a CSD that should be applied here? 4. Does it pass earwig and a common sense test for copyvio? If a page passes these four tests I accept it. If not I reject it. With a strong knowledge of applicable policy many pages can be quickly processed.
Since the person making the accusation needs to provide the evidence,or suffer any resulting consiquences, I'll wait for someone to back up the assertions here. I'm busy enjoying myself in Mexico :) Legacypac ( talk) 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll address speed. There are three reasons I can work very quickly. I've often already looked at Drafts due to previously declining or commenting on them or I've checking them over and decided to come back after thinking about them, so I can often do a series of quick accepts or declines. Secondly I'm a visual reader who has tested out at 5 times the average university student reading speed, so yes I can evaluate Drafts and sources I've never seen before more quickly than some other people. Third, others have pointed out my knowledge of CSD criteria is Admin level and accuracy on CSD is quite high so I no longer need to ponder if the page should be CSD'd or is likely to be CSD'd by someone else, I just know (which suggests I spend too much time on wikipedia).
Waggie has made some very unfortunate allegations above. I'd like to know IF Waggie gets access to offline sources to evaluate them? Are reviewers supposed to check offline sources before we accept a page that by all accounts appears good? I tend to WP:AGF and give the page creator the benefit of the doubt that they accurately reflected sources when I see scholarly effort sourced carefully to actual books. Legacypac ( talk) 13:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
. I understand that no one has a 100% accuracy rate at AfD, although I'm fairly certain that none of the drafts I've accepted have gone to AfD or been CSDd (I've have to dig to check).just looked a little boastful to the casual reader. But you might want to bear in mind a little phrase that we have in France "Il n'y a que ceux qui ne travaillent pas qui ne font jamais d'erreurs" which loosely translated means those that are the most productive have the greatest chance of making mistakes. Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
---
User:KylieTastic calculated above 1.4% of my last 1000 accepts have been deleted. User:Primefac/AFCStats#Post-acceptance_statistics shows 3.6 to 7.6% deletion over various months. As the largest contributor to accepts (but only over the last several months) my personal survival percentages appear to be improving the overall AfC stats. If my survival rate is too low than experienced AfC reviewers willing to compare track records should discuss a reasonable survival rate. Anyone who does not have a bunch of accepts to compare against is just armchair quarterbacking and should step up and show us how to do AfC correctly. Legacypac ( talk) 17:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
In a related event Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jay_Gambetta concerning a page User:Waggie complains about my accept on here - they just proved they don't know much about what will or will not pass AfD. Perhaps their AfC tools need to be removed User:Primefac as there is a clear competance issue here. Legacypac ( talk) 23:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
how many admins are here already , this is ANI in all but name only IMO Quek157 ( talk) 10:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is the place to bring this up, because I am already discussing it with User:Legacypac, and I prefer to keep discussions centralized, but there is mention above of having a higher than normal rate of acceptances taken to AFD and deleted, and I have an issue, that I think is a serious problem, with User:Legacypac saying that drafts should sometimes be accepted in order to be taken to AFD and deleted. In my opinion, accepting a draft for the purpose of requesting its deletion is completely wrong. I haven't actually seen Legacypac do this, only say that this should sometimes be done. If they have actually done this, it is problematic, although I won't say that it warrants de-AFC-ing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I note someone declined this journal draft last year. Journals with impact factors, even very low ones, are generally considered notable. There's some advice at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), and if in doubt, you can ask for an opinion at Wikiproject Academic Journals. Thanks, Espresso Addict ( talk) 10:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
At the beginning of May I had the intention of starting a "spring cleaning review" thread on this board asking for editors to email me any concerns regarding active AFC reviewers. I would evaluate these concerns and if enough (or significant) complaints were levied against one user I would bring it up here for further discussion. However, real life and other more pressing on-wiki issues kept me from doing so, and a recently closed thread about one editor's reviewing has made me think that at the very least that system would be a good starting point for future "review of reviewers".
At the moment the only "review" process for a reviewer is when they are on probation - so far a handful of editors have successfully passed, and a half-dozen are currently in probation. After a month threads about probationary reviewers are started so they can receive feedback on their editing; when the probation is over if there are no further issues they'll be considered in good standing.
Should this review process be extended to all reviewers? I know starting a review thread on every reviewer would be overly excessive. Should we go with an "anonymous reporting" system like the one I described in my opening paragraph? Should we not even review reviewers at all?
In the interest of keeping things on topic, well, please keep things on-topic. This is not a re-litigation of any previous threads (though they can obviously be referenced), but sniping at other users will be reverted. This thread isn't about reviewing anyone in particular, but rather about determining some "best practices" regarding our project. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 14:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
We know users get frustrated when they wait - they post on our talkpages, teahouse, help desk etc. I love the idea of a "it's unclear" like KyleTastic suggested. However our present decline templates basically say there is not enough sources to establish...
Where it's just not a clear cut case or the creator is arguing with AFC advice I've been occasionally telling editors that AfC is an optional process, and they are free to move the page themselves. That way I don't get accused of accepting a bad page and it's their risk. As long as the editor is AC they don't need AfC anyway. Maybe that should be a "Decline" template that removes the page from AFC? After all optional goes both ways. The AfC project/reviewer should have the option to decline/refuse to review a Draft and chuck it out of the AfC system. Legacypac ( talk) 18:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I give up, can someone continue.started in mainspace marked by me g11, deleted for advertising, upon request restored by deleting admin who move it to draft. now that guy wanted it back to main and ask me to move it, can I ? can someone else take over this. Quek157 ( talk) 09:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I've been looking through various lists of unassessed articles recently, and I stumbled across 6th Machine Gun Battalion (United States Marine Corps), which is listed as unassessed by the project; however, it is assessed, as A-class, incluing in your Wikiproject template. Looking at this, it looks like your template doesn't support A-class. Should I change the assessment to B-class (only for your project), will someone fix that, or what? LittlePuppers ( talk) 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm requesting a third opinion on Draft:Daniel Liam Glyn. Do you think he is notable enough? L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 02:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and also an IP
suggested that that AFCH put decline and AFC comment templates at the bottom. What would you think about that?
L293D (
☎ •
✎)
12:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
If there is a different place where this discussion should be held, please advise me. I think that the principal objective of Articles for Creation is to support Draft space as a temporary place where pages can be worked on with the eventual objective of promoting them into article space. At the same time, I think that some pages in draft space, although they may be submitted once or repeatedly for review, will never be suitable for article space. We can probably agree on that.
I think that drafts should be moved (promoted) to article space when they are ready for article space, and that is usually defined as meaning that they will probably survive an AFD discussion, or, better yet, that they won’t get taken to AFD.
My question is: Should drafts ever be moved to article space when they are not ready for article space, in order to face CSD or AFD? Maybe I have misunderstood, but I have read at least one editor as sometimes saying that drafts should be moved to article space in order to have a deletion discussion. I personally think that is a terrible idea, and that draft space is a better place for questionable pages than article space. I am aware that there are unresolved disagreements about when drafts should be deleted, but I personally don’t see that they should ever be moved to article space unless the reason is that they belong in article space.
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I've been applying a standard of "almost certain to avoid AfD" only because I have enemies that want to remove my ability to edit. Even then I recently lost an accept at AfD on an Order of Canada receipient that meets WP:ANYBIO #1. On the flip side I've failed to get pages I think are total crap deleted at AfD. I support the stated "likely to survive AfD" standard. AfC should try to help editors but some don't want or will not accept help and should experience mainspace rules. Some pages we just can't predict what will happen if taken to AfD and that is ok. We should not be a block against truly debatable pages being tested in mainspace. We should facilitate the inclusion of the good and stop the clearly unsuitable pages as best we can, but not try to be one person AfD decision makers. Legacypac ( talk) 03:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
One of the last things we should ever be doing is encouraging AFC draft submitters to move the page into mainspace themselves without a review. Sure, it's technologically possible for them to do so, but it defeats the entire purpose of having AFC at all and is not an option we should be telling people is on the menu — anybody who thinks they're actually allowed to do that is just going to do it even if the page is nowhere near mainspace-acceptable. Bearcat ( talk) 00:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Yah happy days. Now let's cut it somemore. Legacypac ( talk) 13:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Is anybody else having problems with the AFCH script sometimes failing to actually do anything when you click on the "Accept", "Decline" or "Comment" buttons on a pending draft? Or is it just my computer being difficult for no apparent reason? Bearcat ( talk) 00:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please create Food Network Star (Season 14), as that is an upcoming series being aired on the Food Network in the United States and Canada - ( 101.98.104.241 ( talk) 10:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC))
@ Legacypac, DGG, and Northamerica1000: I've never nominated an article that has been accepted at AfC for deletion but I think that's about to change, unless I've missed something? On what basis do Westcliff School of Skills and Clifton College (Botswana) meet WP:NCORP, and how did we come to accept the latter given the obvious WP:PROMO? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 18:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
![]()
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 06:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
can anyone help me out to create vj lokesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniyavelliangiri ( talk • contribs) 07:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to think User:Primefac for having the dignity, grace, and courtesy to reverse the decision to remove User:Legacypac from the list of AFC reviewers. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I still have serious concerns about Legacypac's frivolous attitude that questionable drafts should be moved to article space for AFD. That has nothing to do with the removal, which has correctly been reversed, but I am still deeply concerned by Legacypac's attitude, but think that they should be back reviewing (and they are). Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I still want to see a rewording of the decline template. That has nothing to do with whether Legacypac should be a reviewer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I haven't yet reviewed Legacypac's complicated history. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Primefac. You reconsidered your actions for the wiser and better course. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
By Wikipedia standards there was also a lot of compassion and respect shown by and to other AfC project members in that discussion. Thanks everyone and of course that includes you too Primefac. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I want to open a new question. Why do we decline submitted draft articles on the basis that what is submitted is a redirect?. Why do we not simply move them to the proper part of the project for considering redirects? Declining it discourages a good faith contributor on the basis of not understanding an arbitrary technical separation in the way we've set up a complicated process--it accomplished nothing positive. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This has been around forever and declined 5 times. However reviewers say it is really close. Can this be passd to mainspace to test it? We should not be holding back pages that are likely ok. Legacypac ( talk) 21:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I know we discussed something like this in 2014, it's possible I've missed other discussions since.
I see the reviewing guidelines as contradicting themselves in at least one situation. Here's a key example, that I tried to explain to a confused long-term non-AfC aware editor recently.
In one place, we write: "Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace."
In another, we have, both in our workflow diagram, and alluded to in other places, a suggestion that drafts should be declined for failing MINREF.
These two bits of advice give different results for an article that *could*, but does not currently, have in-line citations for quotes of controversial material, but for which such citations could be found. Working years at AFD I have never seen an article deleted for MINREF when such references weren't in-line, but where known to the discussion participants.
I've been largely working to the workflow diagram, which seems to be in line the 2014 discussion, but is there a more recent consensus on how to resolve this? -- joe decker talk 22:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After repeated abuses by editors, admins, usage of the "Promising Draft", deletion nominations that are closed on the flimsiest of arguments, I'm leaving wikipedia permanantly. Thank Calliopejen and Esspresso Addict for driving the wedge in. This means effectively immediately HasteurBot's G13 maintenance is stopping. Hasteur ( talk) 16:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Moving on from this issues above....lets just take a moment to say well done to all those who have kept on bashing at the backlog and got it back to a more sensible size, and a not so depressing wait message for new submissions. Beverages of choice for everyone who's been reviewing recently. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 15:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Context: When reviewing pages, I often come across a draft I like but which I think needs some work before it can be accepted. If I do not have time to do the work, I sometimes bookmark the page to come back to later. Sometimes the page is accepted before I get back to it, sometimes it is still a draft and I can improve it and then accept it myself, and sometimes it has been rejected. My question is about this last case. Dilemma: When a draft has been rejected and I would like to improve the page and move it to the main space, what is the best practice? First, obviously, I should go ahead and improve the page. At that point, I do not think I need to leave the draft and wait for the original editor to make any edits they wish and submit it themselves. So there are three options: 1) I could resubmit it to AfC and let someone else review it, 2) I could resubmit it to AfC and then accept it myself, or 3) I could simply move the article to the mainspace. I generally perform 2, although when I want a second opinion I do 1. Application: A number of abandoned drafts were recently posted at WT:WIR, any of which I might like to develop. As a reviewer, I could and likely would simply perform 2. Is there any reason I should do 1 instead? Any user could go ahead and perform 3 - risking AfD but doing so in a way that avoids notifying people who watch the new AfC list. This strikes me as in poor form for a AfC reviewer to do, but I don't see any reason the article should be automatically reverted to draft in such a case. If done and noticed, should such an article be posted to the new AfC list? Smmurphy( Talk) 10:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I regularly submit drafts I find and immediately accept them. I come across them in stale userspace, G13 eligible list, and other places. The creator gets a nice message and it makes the move easier. I see no conflict of interest at all because I did not write the draft and I have no conflict of interest with any topic on the site. Occasionally I also submit pages but don't accept them myself because I'd like a second opinion or it's a math topic or something that needs different expertise.
There is an army of NPP and other editors that watch new pages, followed by topic editors that get summoned when their page is linked or via wikiprojects. They can fiddle with the categories, fix formating, wikilink, fill in empty sections (I'll add "empty section" sometimes) and do other things. There is a very limited number of AfC reviewers so we should do our thing and not feel bad leaving work for others who do their thing. Legacypac ( talk) 14:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)