![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Hi, everybody. I was looking at the inactive bots list and thought it might be useful to resurrect one or two of ArticlesForCreationBot's tasks (I was thinking specifically of the page-moving one). We talked about this last February, but the discussion didn't get anywhere. Thoughts? Enterprisey ( talk!) 20:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Now that we have cut the backlog down to around the 400 mark we should really give it one more push to get rid of all the three an four week old and very old drafts. Ideally we should never let any submission wait for more than twenty days. To deal with the tough ones we should be calling on relevant topic specialist WikiProjects to assist. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 21:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC at WT:Drafts asking if the AfC process should be scrapped altogether, which participants of this project may be interested in. Best wishes, jcc ( tea and biscuits) 20:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
22:26, 4 January 2017 AnomieBOT III (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/World Development Foundation (G8: Broken redirect to World Development Foundation. If this bot is malfunctioning, please report it at User:AnomieBOT II
Dear Sir, 4:32, 25 November 2013 Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/World Development Foundation to World Development Foundation (Created via Articles for creation. The article has been deleted due to malfunctioning of User:AnomieBOT III/shutoff/BrokenRedirectDeleter on 22:26, 4 January 2017. Pl restore the article. Rupalisharma ( talk) 14:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Rupalisharma ( talk) 11:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, why I couldn't be registered as active reviewer in WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants? I guess I have cleared all the required criteria.
Thanks, Kathir 08:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkathir ( talk • contribs) 08:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Many of you may already know about this, but if you do not, please feel free to utilize our Resource Exchange to receive access to non-free sources. The Resource Exchange allows you to post a request for a specific journal article, excerpt of a book, or other source. Volunteers who have access to these materials through research and educational institutions are able to provide digital copies of most sources. This can be particularly helpful if you're attempting to verify the existence or content of a source in an AfC submission. I especially encourage its use when an offline or unavailable source is a reference for information that seems controversial or extraordinary. Let me know if you have any questions!
Please note that these resources are shared only for use creating or improving specific identified Wikipedia articles, and we cannot provide full book scans or excessive amounts of material beyond what is necessary to improve an article. ~ Rob13 Talk 11:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Advance news of an upcoming election for two coordinators to assume the non-official voluntary job I've been doing for 6 years. Candidates who must be New Page Reviewers (or admins), are already invited to nominate themselves (or be nominated by anyone). All autoconfirmed users will be entitled to vote. Full information is available at New Page Review Coordinators. Dates for actual voting will be announced later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewing - Election for 2 coordinators. Nomination period is now open and will run for two weeks followed by a two-week voting period.
See: NPR Coordinators for full details. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
PEGI is a European rating system. It stands for...
Pan European Game Information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8202:7200:40EB:D175:CBED:D358 ( talk) 19:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I invite you to comment on as well as to endorse my idea of article incubator. The idea is not new and details of the previous version can be found at WP:INCUBATOR. I would be glad if you enhance it with your experience. Feel free to improve upon the proposal that I have placed. Anasuya.D ( talk) 10:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I propose that a separate draft space be created apart from the mainspace of Wikipedia.We already have a Draft space, separate from main, where users' drafts can be worked on and improved. You're even posting at the project associated with this idea... I guess I'm just trying to figure out your intentions. Primefac ( talk) 13:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@ MrMoose23 and KGirlTrucker81: I had declined that request, which was undone without comment by MrMoose23. I'd like to ask for that comment here: why? ( KGirlTrucker81, since you accepted it, maybe you can explain.)
I thought the rationale I gave was valid. Specifically, the redirect target doesn't contain any hint that "Honest John" is a valid alternative name. As a WP:PEACOCK term, sourcing is particularly important. I tried to not WP:BITE anyone by encouraging the user to correct that problem and resubmit.
If I did something wrong, I'd like to understand it; at the moment I'm quite in the dark. Thank you! 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 19:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
“ | Arrived there, the alleged bribers demanded the meaning of the arrest. The magistrate, who seems to have been either too full of whiskey or badly frightened at the deed he had done, became panicky and exhibited evident symptoms of alarm. Patterson then expressed strong doubts about the respectability of the maternal ancestor of the magistrate, and again demanded what he was going tn do about it. This completed the demoralization of the Court. The magistrate fled, leaving Patterson and Hurley masters of the situation.
But this was not the end of the matter. The flying magistrate, after invoking the aid of the police and being reinforced by sundry members of that force, returned to the field, and after a little deliberation came to the conclusion that the court had been the subject of contempt, which so far as Hurley and Patterson was concerned were eminently true. A commitment was therefore at once made out and placed in the hands of But this was by no means the final act in the farce. ... |
” |
{{
ping|71.41.210.146}}
in a comment achieves the same notice effect as a message on a talk page. Much more convenient.
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Someone protected WP:AFC/R. Please put this request there, and please be ready for lots of additional requests here until the protection expires.
208.95.51.72 ( talk) 15:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC) 208.95.51.72 ( talk) 15:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys. I have totally not kept up with changes here at AFC. So way back when the edit filters were first enabled, I created Special:AbuseFilter/167 and Special:AbuseFilter/183, to catch AFC submissions without a submission template, and submissions in mainspace, respectively. The second was disabled since it became easy to identify submission to mainspace and move them elsewhere, and the first one is largely not hit anymore with submissions now going to draft space (curiously, the first filter still gets the occasional hits, so people are being directed to WT:AFC subspace from somewhere). Anyway, so here's my question! To the people who understand the current ins and outs of AFC, would these filters serve any purpose? Would updating them to the current system help at all? Or should they just be disabled? Thanks. Someguy1221 ( talk) 08:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The election is now open for voters. Voting has now begun for two NPP/NPR coordinators and will remain open until 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. All registered, confirmed editors are welcome to vote. Please vote HERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Do we have any mechanism or process for inviting review of acceptances after the fact? I've no desire to criticise or even to question an able and active reviewer, but I'm perturbed by the acceptance of Americo Makk in a state that – in my opinion – will require many, many hours of volunteer editor time to remedy. It seems to me that the page should have been left in draft space until it bore at least some faint resemblance to a Wikipedia article. But perhaps I'm just plain wrong about that. Would anyone care to take a look? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Following instructions at Wikipedia talk:Files for upload, I asked this question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, but the responding editor brushed me off, so I guess I have to come here. I hope you're more interested in helping than in telling me to bug off.
I wanted to ask for someone to upload a better resolution of a {{PD-logo}} image, File:Ss logo.png, but it was really hard to navigate the wizard because it kept trying to send me to Commons to upload there (I at first missed the "If you don't have an account, you can upload without registering" line). I eventually had to pretend that it was a non-free image and go through the whole process needlessly. Instead of asking at the start "are you autoconfirmed" and "is it free," could you instead put Wikipedia:Files for upload/Wizard/Search as the landing page, and then ask license questions only if someone's trying to upload a new image? If you try to upload a new version of the same image, copyright shouldn't be quite as much of a concern for the wizard, because the old version of the image should already have the right copyright tagging, and the new upload should have the same copyright status as what's already there. 208.95.51.115 ( talk) 13:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
requesting artical about: Alberto Sicilia-Falcon
name found from: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-06-08/entertainment/8602100945_1_centac-central-tactical-unit-underground-empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.206.197 ( talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Greetings all. I've noticed an editor who has been submitting other editors' drafts (one in particular was edited very recently), and then immediately reviewing & declining the submission. Is this the correct procedure? Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 21:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Why does /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects get so much vandalism on it? Ethanbas ( talk) 23:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please lets start a section entitled '1.Linkage between Shaivism and Buddhism, 2.Linkage between Shaivism and Confucianism, 3. Linkage between Shaivism and Christianity, 4. Linkage between Shaivisma and Islam, and 5. Linkage between Shaivism and other theoretical philosophies like Structuralism, Functionalism, Marxism,Feminism,Socialism, Capitalism etc. 202.51.88.25 ( talk) 04:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC) 202.51.88.25 ( talk) 04:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Where are the quick-fail criteria listed? Our reviewing instructions tell us "Before reading a submission in detail, check whether it meets any of the quick-fail criteria. If so, it should be declined immediately and in some cases it may be necessary to nominate the submission for speedy deletion". But "quick-fail criteria" is not linked. I think it should be. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Please save this article from being deleted I don't want to see it gone. 68.102.39.189 ( talk) 16:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there still a link somewhere for editors to create pages starting with the "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" prefix? Just wondering since this was created a few hours ago, brand new, at a "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" title. (I later moved the page.) Steel1943 ( talk) 03:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it an option to manually review articles that are submitted for review (via AFC)? I have heard it mentioned before. If so, is it welcomed by designated reviewers and higher ups (ie admins)? I want to help lower the size of the queue if at all possible. I would apply for the reviewer rights/group however I have not been here for the 90 days (I have been here for 1 month and 27 days) required to apply, but do have the edit count. If you aren't sure, could you maybe tag someone who could answer? Thanks! -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 19:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about combining AfC reviewers into the new page reviewer user right. Your comments and opinions would be welcome. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template to add an information label to AfC and non-AfC drafts. StarryGrandma ( talk) 20:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
When viewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions, the tables displaying the number of entries in each category by date stretches beyond the normal page width. Is there a better way to display this information, perhaps vertically? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 05:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm not a big editor in en.wikipedia, and I was discovering the Afc and testing it during the translation of a French article created by me this month during my working time on a Belgian NGO as "paid editor". Now I realise than lot of articles are pending for review in Afc process and I'm thinking than the Afc process is not a experienced editor like me ? Is there some one who can share his opinion on this point ? Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 13:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
What is supposed to happen to pages Which aren't in English, if they aren't submitted? Are they treated just like other drafts? Siuenti ( talk) 19:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I've imported the script for the redirect helper, but it doesn't seem to be working. What do I have to do to get it to work? Sakuura Cartelet Talk 03:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
When is the next drive scheduled? There hasn't been one for a while L3X1 (distant write) 04:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
A proposal that would create a new draft classifier template and extend G13 to non- articles for creation drafts is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template. Interested editors are welcome. Thanks, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 08:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about updating the colours in {{ AFC status}}. Your thoughts are appreciated. Primefac ( talk) 18:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
It appears that almost all of the submissions are in category P. Is it supposed to be that way? The garmine (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the correct section, but just wanted to give anyone who will see this and can't find the thread where I saw that the BBC was promoting editing Wikipedia but I just discovered that University of Victoria library staff have been encouraged to edit Wikipedia and so there may be an influx of pages created from that. -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 18:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: It is happening today by the looks of it and I posted a link back to here on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 18:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems strange how it was not protected till now. It was used today by multiple users (1 IP, 2 registered) to try and submit their drafts I believe. Anyways, I have requested indefinite protection and rolled it back to the clean version of the redirect for now. If any admin is seeing this and its not been protected till now, here is the request -
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Wikipedia:AFC
Pinging
MarnetteD who had reverted similar edits before.
Yashovardhan (
talk)
12:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) @ NeilN: Uh, nevermind! Got me scratching for sometime. I should have mentioned I am asking for the redirect to be protected! Thanks! Yashovardhan ( talk) 16:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.
Please join and participate.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
As I write this the 18, 19 and 20 days categories are empty. This gives us a "buffer" of at least 48 hours that we can concentrate on clearing out the 3 weeks, 4 weeks and very old categories. Doing so will put the AFC project back onto a "normal" timeline. Please help get this done. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 17:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
ProgrammingGeek talktome 18:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, everyone:
I made a small script that adds a link to a random AFC submission in the sidebar navigation pane. If you want to add it, it's at User:ProgrammingGeek/afc-sidebar.js.
ProgrammingGeek talktome 17:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@ TheSandDoctor: good point.
importScript('User:ProgrammingGeek/afc-sidebar.js');
I was wondering if AfC reviewers check, among other things, the images being used in drafts and userspace drafts they review. I've come across quite a number of declined AfC submissions which contain non-free images, which is something not allowed per WP:NFCC#9. Pretty much any non-free image being used in the draft namespace or the user namespace can be assumed to be in violation of WP:NFCCP, and is subject to removal. Of course, this can be done by those checking on non-free image use, but an AfC reviewer can also do it. Some editors upload images files for their drafts when it would actually be better for them to wait unitl after the draft has been moved to the aritcle mainspace because of WP:F5. Maybe information about this could be added to WP:AFCR so that reviewers are aware of the issue? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 31/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Articles for creation.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Articles for creation, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI, I cobbled together Template:Afc move yesterday for use on user pages when a submission is moved from user to draft space. Anyone welcome to use and/or improve if they find it helpful. TimothyJosephWood 14:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I have been using the AFC process to write draft articles. Whenever a draft is rejected, I have been repeatedly invited to the Teahouse. I removed the invitations over and over because I'm not a new editor. I've edited since 2005. I wonder whether a script can detect those who have been experienced editors for the time being. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
While it pains me to suggest it, do you think it's about time to update the time on the AfC Submission template to be more accurate? We have some helpees trickling into IRC with sometimes unreasonable expectations. At the very least to say "2-3 weeks, or perhaps longer"? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk
The details of an actress of Indian Movie. (Jangal Ka Bata)= Asha Irani Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). (Jangal Ka Bata)=
37.34.129.18 (
talk)
04:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I propose that the posting of discussion comments, including review comments and results, on the actual draft page, shall stop, in favour of using the corresponding discussion page.
Looking at: Draft:Fig_Tree_Hall,_University_of_New_South_Wales, there is an actual discussion, but contrary to all Wikipedia norms, it is being held in reverse order, going upwards, on top of the article. It is unintuitive, and needlessly dissimilar to normal content discussion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
You guys appear oblivious to being very much stuck in your rut.
AfC is seriously broke, how can you not know?), and wave around promises of how much better it will be if we do things differently. At that point that person isn't much better than a politician on the campaign trail. I am more than happy to start a dialogue regarding AFC, but not when someone comes barging in telling us we have to change or else we're wrong. In fairness, this actually started off as a reasonable question which could have opened the door for that dialogue; I'm a little disappointed it didn't happen that way. Primefac ( talk) 12:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi SmokeyJoe, please do join us in reviewing Drafts, we could use the help. Thanks! Waggie ( talk) 02:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Given some of the recent drama over reviewers not checking for copy vios, I was kinda surprised that the Earwig copy vio tool wasn't on the "reviewers tools" for the AFC Submission template. Any reason we shouldn't add this? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
User:The Earwig/copyvios.js
so that reviewers can add the script to their account.
Primefac (
talk)
12:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
User:<your username>/common.js
by adding importScript( 'User:The Earwig/copyvios.js'); //<any comment here>
- It adds a link of copyvio check on the left side tools menu.
Yashovardhan (
talk)
09:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on WT:COI that may be of interest to folks here. Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Please do check the discussion at WT:COI, since there is not much discussion here. Also edits at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning are welcome. Since there is a scam going on there is some urgency here.
I'll likely put in a one-line link to the Scam warning page tomorrow on the landing page. Maybe something like:
Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting AfC participants. See the scam warning for detailed information.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Bhiduki is the biggest village in south HARYANA.It has 52 choupals in it. IN this village two jaat gotras are available TANWAR AND CHAUHAN.Satyadev is sarpanch of Bhiduki village. It has more than 20000 of population. Peoples of this village are depended on agriculture. SIDDH BABA's Temple is famous temple in it.
After clearing over 1000 pages from the Ready for G13 list I started poking around other categories. Can we run a bot through this category /info/en/?search=Category:AfC_submissions_declined_as_a_test to delete or maybe just blank all the pages? Justification CSD G2 test pages. As far as I can find there is nothing of value in there. Nearly all are sandboxes usually with only the AdC decline or maybe a scrap of text. I'm finding ones that are G13 ready there too but they are not coming up in that category. Legacypac ( talk) 08:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I met the criteria for becoming an Afc reviewer but even after i submit my name in the Afc reviewers section, add the Afc gadget and clear the cache it still doesn't show up. can someone please help me with it. Immu 01 11:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immu 01 ( talk • contribs)
In view of the above and the frequent inappropriate additions to the list, I have started a thread here asking for some feedback. Please join the discussion, which is not a RfC. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I meant Category:Competitors at the 2017 Maccabiah Games. Not 2013. Sorry. Made a mistake. -- 2604:2000:E016:A700:4484:D7B0:8756:2C26 ( talk) 23:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
See WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Another sockfarm where User:Susana Hodge has been identified as a sockpuppet. All this account's reviews need to be checked for incorrect/unfair decisions. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
47.151.26.64 ( talk · contribs) has submitted alot of vandalism redirects. Many have been accepted. There's no proof that the Cargo ship Cason is spelled a multitude of ways that have been submitted, or the novels Madeline. It seems s/he is taking names out of a name gazetteer or baby name book and submitting them as variant spelling redirects. While this works for name articles, name lists and disambiguation pages; this does not work when the target is a Christian Prayer, a city in Nigeria, or a particular pop star. The indiscriminate requests are currently at WP:AFC/R, some have been accepted in recent days (some may already be archived), and more have been submitted awaiting processing.
-- 65.94.42.131 ( talk) 05:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I meet the criteria and would like to be added to the participants list. I cannot edit the page because it is protected. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 01:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed cases where the same subject is getting pushed multiple times. I've watched submissions that I've declined speedily re-submitted. Sometimes this is done by the same editor, sometimes by another. I've also noticed where a draft has already been deleted once if not several times. I worry that our statistics create the impression that we're getting a flood of new drafts everyday when much of that flood is a handful of editors (possible SOCKFARMs) resubmitting the same content over and over again hoping to get lucky. Beyond the fact that WMF should (in my opinion) take legal action against these ne'er-do-wells, we might try to find out how often we get drafts (sometimes under different names) submitted more than once. If we had a mechanism to label potential bad-faith subjects and editors, we could isolate the actively dangerous submitters from the naive draft submitters. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Spent a few hours over the weekend and started resurrecting HasteurBot's G13 reminding process. This goes through the Category:AfC_submissions_by_date children and looks for pages that are
to remind the page author that their page is either currently eligible or about to become eligible for CSD:G13. This is done to help remind page creators about their works that they may have forgotten about but also to show good faith that we're not wanting to delete them, but we will if no improvement is made. There is a side task that will also notify users who opt in that a page they've edited in the past has hit the above criteria so "helpers" can try and fix the problem. The interested-notifications are done such that helper gets one change on their talk page listing all the pages that were notified on in the last 24 hours(example: [4]). If you want to opt in follow the instructions at User:HasteurBot/G13 OptIn Notifications.
In a few weeks I'll start tinkering with the G13 nominating process to make sure it's working correctly prior to the pages that have been notified on start being nominated for G13. The bot has an intentional 1 month delay between the reminder that the page is in danger of being nominated for G13 and when the page actually gets nominated for G13 by the bot. Nothing prevents a user from nominating the draft for G13 earlier than the bot if the draft meets the criteria. The bot simply takes the conservative route in terms of interpreting the CSD criterion and giving the draft creator as much time as possible before starting to nominate things. Thank you. Hasteur ( talk) 13:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Since the page is protected, can someone add my to the participant list? I've been granted new page reviewer, and I'd like to use the script. Thanks, Corkythe hornetfan (ping me) 04:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
why is the daily mirror good for horse racing
Please add me to the protected list of active editors on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants Meters ( talk) 19:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that a number of "very old" submissions in the backlog are "old" in the sense that they were first submitted a long time ago, but are quite new in the sense that they had been resubmitted in the past few days. I don't claim to understand all the delicate coding in the submission templates, but it seems to boil down to not updating the ts= timestamp when resubmitting or taking the oldest value when multiple reviews are present or not updating the "by date" category once a submission has been enrolled in one. Is this pseudo-aging intentional? It makes the label on the category somewhat misleading. I would certainly like to be able to distinguish – at the categorical level – between never-before-reviewed submissions and submissions that have already been declined one or more times.
The overall impression given is that the huge and lengthy backlog is based on not enough reviewers. Without better visibility on resubmissions, the huge and lengthy backlog may be an illusion: what really happens is that new submissions are typically given an initial review within 48 hours, but articles whose fundamental issues are not being resolved get declined multiple times, exhausting the patience and good will of reviewers, and build up into what appears to be a lengthy backlog. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey all I'm back from about a year hiatus, so I'm sure there's much I've missed. My biggest concern is that my toolbars aren't showing up that I use in AfC. One being the AfC helper tool and the other one was the toolbar that's usually on the left side (I'm not sure if that was a part of the aforementioned AfC one, or seperate) that helps navigate pages waiting for review. I made sure the tool was checked in my preferences and cleared my cache. Any ideas? Sulfurboy ( talk) 17:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I generally move drafts submitted in the sandbox to draftspace. Recently I moved an article to Draft:Wipeout Omega Collection from the userspace. The author informed me today, that many of the earlier revisions of the new draftspace article is irrelevant to the current article, as the sandbox was used by him as a test page for a long time, before he wiped it clean and started on the new article. So the new draftspace has many irrelevant revisions which he would like to be removed. The simplest solution will probably be to delete the older revisions, but if anybody has better solutions, please have it implemented on the article. Jupitus Smart 12:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
There's seems to be lot of eagerness lately to delete based on WP:PROMOTIONAL. Brian_Cain has a soiled history in this regard. But I assess this latest incarnation to be ready for acceptance. Vanamonde93, the administrator that WP:SALTed this topic does not agree. Any other opinions?
Hello The criteria of 500 edits and 90 days old account, both are fulfilled by me and yet I am unable to get in the list of reviewers. Please tell me the procedure to add my name and work towards being valuable. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by KamalMahrshi ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Please make your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi...
It is nice to be in touch with you ... I would like to re publish my user page user/ykashgari...
and I would like to re publish my pre articles:
/Eng._Yasir_I._Kashgari /Eng._Yasir_I._Kashgari,_Vision_of_Saudi_Arabia_2030
and Merci ... It is nice to receive your next email soon ...
Thankfully, _________________________________________ Eng. Yasir I. Kashgari
Yasir I. Kashgari 18:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykashgari ( talk • contribs)
There are a few suggestions to improve article wizard at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard that may be of interest. Thanks. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 07:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Assuming it doesn't already exist, I feel it would be incredibly helpful if we had a list page where AfC editors who speak languages other than English could say so. A lot of the articles that I feel I cannot review at all are articles where the majority of the sources are in another language. It would be nice to be able to ping an AfC editor who is familiar with the language. Sulfurboy ( talk) 03:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
There are currently over 100 very old submissions pending. I spent 30 minutes reviewing random drafts in the backlog this morning and was able to accept 4, rejected 1. More fun than usual. ~ Kvng ( talk) 19:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) started 14 September 2017 after an announcement at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#ACTRIAL beginning today. It means that registered users without autoconfirmed accounts can no longer create mainspace pages. Some pages like Wikipedia:Articles for creation may benefit from an update. PrimeHunter ( talk) 13:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I just made toollabs:apersonbot/pending-subs, which shows a list of AfC submissions that you can filter. (Inspired by my struggles clicking "sort" on WP:AFC/S and waiting 5 minutes for it to filter.) It's a bit out of date now, because it parses {{ AFC statistics}}, but it should have updated data as soon as Earwig wakes his bot up. Enterprisey ( talk!) 07:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Template:Previously deleted draft has been
nominated for deletion. Watchers of this page are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Steel1943 (
talk)
15:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Can we change the guidance in our templates from three weeks to more like "several weeks". This is probably about the fourth or fifth time I've run into an editor who got finished, came back in 21 days, and then immediately thought something was wrong. I think we all pretty well know that three weeks is not a hard deadline. So we probably shouldn't be making it look like it is and confusing the newbies. GMG talk 10:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to make a note regarding cv-declines via AFCH. I've noticed recently editors like Chrissymad have been unchecking the "blank this draft" option when declining as cv/adding G12s, and for that I thank them. It is much faster to check the violation status of a draft when one doesn't have to find the previous revision and then scan. It also helps if it's not 100%-deletable (i.e. there's salvageable info) because it keeps the decline while allowing me to remove the offending comment.
So, if you're declining as cv in the future, please don't blank it. Thanks. Primefac ( talk) 15:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
What's the deal with editors submitting other users' draft articles for AfC? I whole bunch of times now ( [6], [7], [8], [9]) another editor has submitted an article I have been putting together in draft space to go through AfC. Is this common practice? My impression was that draft space was for drafting articles, not specifically for putting articles through AfC, and I'm confused why my unfinished drafts keep getting tagged to go through this process. I've written enough articles to know when something is good enough to be moved over; if nothing else there's simply no need for AfC! If it's the case that editors think my drafts are good enough to go live, then I'd rather they just messaged me and asked. Sam Walton ( talk) 12:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Chris troutman [10] this edit summary deserves a comment. I've had about 3 times more editors thank me for bringing old pages to their attention than that have complained. The vast majority of the cleared pages are problematic or pointless abandoned garbage dumped in draft space. Suspected Copyvio, unreferenced BLPs, pure vandalism, SPAM, Attack pages etc. I tag the very worst with other CSD than G13 User:Legacypac/CSD_log but for the most part just don't bother with potentially arguing over another criteria when G13 is an assured delete. Legacypac ( talk) 23:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
"irrevocably agree to release your contribution"line in the Terms of Use, remember that shooting inside the tent isn't helping. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Please do we have reviewer who can verify sources in Farsi? Because some article creators just bungle many sources which did'nt directly support claim or prefered one language than English to confuse reviewers. The drafts is at Draft:Mohammad-Saleh Komeyli. It is also said their is corresponding article in Farsi Wikipedia. If none, is there any suggestion on treating article with no single source in English? Thanks everybody. – Ammarpad ( talk) 05:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been working on creating a lot of the various common name articles for the (mostly) fishes that been here for over a week, but then I noticed some requests for redirects to various Star Trek related pages. I'm not sure that they would pass through RfD so can someone else take a look at them and possibly create them if they are appropriate? Thanks, Sakura Cartelet Talk 03:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I see David Lowe has been declined. Lously references certainly, but the first ref should have been enough, as it confirms he is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. Similar in scope and prestige to the Royal Society here in the UK. He should have passed and other refs added later. scope_creep ( talk) 07:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm hardly an inclusionist but if this artist does not pass notability guidelines we need to change the guidelines. Draft:Glen_Loates Legacypac ( talk) 22:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The books are listed, but they feature his art so are likely not useful for biographical info. [11] [12] I also discover his work featured in other books [13] and check out the newspaper article where he is standing with Reagan that calls him "Canada's foremost wildlife artists" [14] and additional books are listed in the text at that link. Legacypac ( talk) 23:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This page Draft:Malaya_Akulukjuk was rejected for lacking inline citations, but I see author's names and page numbers throughout. The creator left it - likely unsure how to proceed - so it is up for G13 which is not good. Legacypac ( talk) 02:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
And here is another one. Draft:Robert_Kost_(Artist) represented in significant collections and lots of references showing notability. Legacypac ( talk) 03:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Is the advice at Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers#From sandbox to mainspace still current? I would have expected it to promote the Articles for Creation process. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to know if I am capable of being an AfC reviewer. I've recently got a notification on the AfC Script saying I'm apparently not "listed". Thanks! Xy ae na 19:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello all, I have thought about joining AFC. I was wondering if I could be helpful in the wiki project. While most (500 some) of my edits were done 10.25.2017 ( c) and mainly anti-vandalisim, I still think I could be a productive reviewer on AFC. Thanks again. Cocohead781 ( talk) 02:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes I notice that people put both the not for review template and the pending review template like in this case. Which template takes presence? I declined it, because I saw the for review template and the page had no sources, hopefully I made the right move here. Sakura Cartelet Talk 00:36, 28 October 2017 (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'm wondering if declines based on layout are valid. DGG left a message on my talk page a few moments ago and I think that in some cases it can be a valid reason to decline. We should tell newbies how to fix problems but not do it for them. Learning WP:MOS basics is important in making constructive contributors so I see no reason why an AFC decline on major structural issues should be a problem. Consensus?
Pinging @ Nick, Primefac, TonyBallioni, Legacypac, and Kudpung: as potentially interested parties.
DrStrauss talk 21:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The only reason for declining an AfC is that it would be deleted in mainspace, either by speedy for such critical problems as copyvio, or at AfD for notability.concerning, DGG. We're not here to make bog-standard articles, we're here to try and make a good encyclopedia. TonyBallioni, I know that per the guidelines it isn't but I'm asking the question, should it be? DrStrauss talk 22:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I was pinged but the discussion was closed before I got a chance to comment. I've some random (very random) musings about this to add.
There's a fine line to walk between declining an article for layout issues and declining an article because it has more significant issues such as tone, it reads like an advertisement, is a direct copyright violation or is heavily paraphrased.
I'm not so sure I agree that accepting badly written articles without trying to work with the author to improve the layout/appearance is such a good idea. The vast majority of new editors I speak to in the IRC help channel want to write good content, they want it to have the same layout as existing articles and want to get things right. How often do we see people replicate infoboxes using complex HTML syntax, for example. There's quite often a lot of dedication to trying to do things right.
I would be interested to know how many of the really badly written but otherwise acceptable articles which are accepted through AfC are being brought up to an acceptable standard by the WikiGnomes, and if so, how long it's taking. I would suggest we try to measure this over a three month period by assessing how many new AfC articles get copyedit tags, have tone or advertisement tags added, or indeed, how many have notability tags added, and then measure how long it takes for those tags to be removed.
There's the potential here to try and help new editors write better content by understanding more clearly the issues they introduce and help them avoid making edits which introduce these issues. I say this quite a lot these days about various aspects of Wikipedia, but we're always approaching the issue as experienced editors who know from memory how to add infoboxes, format references and the like, whilst not always being at all helpful at explaining (or understanding) the issues new editors encounter. I really don't think it is helpful to take a badly written page from a new user and hand it off to someone else to improve, we should be doing much more to help users fix their own pages, rather than doing it for them. I think that would be good from an editor retention viewpoint (though I do accept that's a less practical proposition when someone is writing one article about their employer or a client).
It may also be possible to better structure the improvement of newly accepted but poorly written content in a more streamlined process by providing better maintenance categorisation so our WikiGnomes can more easily find content they may want to improve and which suits their areas of expertise. I do think, for anything we improve without the involvement of the new users, it would be nice to generate some sort of easy to understand report which could go on their talk page with a basic overview of the fixes undertaken. I wonder if a bot could auto-generate such a report after maintenance tags are removed.
Nick (
talk)
09:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
At MfD, I note a continuing problem with reviewers making review comments, when declining submissions, referring to inline citations. I think this is probably almost always no-productive to counter-productive. Inline citations are not required for a start class article, so I don't think it appropriate to frequently ask for it. They are only required for content
I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions#General_standards_and_invalid_reasons_for_declining_a_submission contains appropriate advice that some reviewers are not following.
I think that for difficult cases, where the topic is unsuitable but it is hard to explain, the reviewer is tempted to start speaking to citations. The problem is that no addition of inline citations can help a draft of an unsuitable topic. It can be hard to give an objective statement as to why a draft will never be suitable, but “inline citation” is definitely not close to a meaningful explanation.
A solution i think is like my suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_60#Paid_editing.2C_Advertorials.2C_and_Reference_bombing. Ask the author to state which 2 or 3 sources best meet our inclusion criteria of reliable third party secondary source coverage directly discussing the topic. “More sources”, inline or not, do not help and just make it harder to review. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Thincat if you don’t already have the AfC tools you should get them and use them. Check out the 800+ pages in declined for lacking inline citations/footnotes [15] Legacypac ( talk) 11:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Lee F. Jackson has been declined for not having inline citations, but in the comments, Caorongjin gives additional reasons - notability, and the article being too short. This is a four times elected Dallas County Judge who served 10 yeas in the Texas House of Representatives, and spent 15 years as chancellor of the North Texas university system. There are articles in four major newspapers cited, so I don't see a notability issue. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 15:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Per related discussion above and both WP:AFCR and WP:PROF guidelines; can we lose this draft Draft:Ahmad Milad Karimi for improper tone? It has not been edited since declining and likely to remain so until deleted. I decided to accept it but since I objected to reviewer unilaterally overriding another reviewer's judgment, I brought it here for advise. – Ammarpad ( talk) 08:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money?. Regards:)
Winged Blades of Godric
On leave
07:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Can someone more tech savvy than me update Template:Ffu talk to include a level two header? I'm getting really tired of manually typing "Files for upload" every time I use this. GMG talk 12:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Under "How to get involved" I've boldly placed
This shouldn't have to be said, but it appears that it must be, e.g. User:KDS4444 asked to join as a reviewer on October 2, 2017 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. This was promptly and correctly turned down here. KDS4444 has now been banned for doing somewhat similar work at OTRS and there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_Wikipedians_be_allowed_to_use_community_granted_tools_in_exchange_for_money.3F
I'm not married to the wording or even the placement of this requirement, but it looks like we have to have this somewhere. Smallbones( smalltalk) 18:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
At the AfC help desk, we have some templates for common questions asked by users (ie help desk, reference desk, etc). I wrote a template that I think could be included, to help users whose submissions were not sourced properly to find the relevant guidelines. I'd like input as to whether I should add it it the editnotice. It's found at {{subst:User:ProgrammingGeek/afc-rs}}. Obviously, I'd move it to a subpage of WP:AFCHD if it's liked. Thanks.
Hello. It appears that your submission to
Articles for Creation was declined because it lacked
reliable sources. Please note that Wikipedia requires third-party, independent sources for an article to be considered
notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you need further help on what sources could be considered reliable, please visit the
help desk. Thank you.
Hello,
Username. It appears that your submission to
Articles for Creation was declined because it lacked
reliable sources. Please note that Wikipedia requires third-party, independent sources for an article to be considered
notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you need further help on what sources could be considered reliable, please visit the
help desk. Thank you.
ProgrammingGeek talktome 14:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that the message for acceptance has a message : "If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback." that links to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/feedback. That seems essentially a black hole because it isn't linked anywhere here as far as I can see. I do see some feedback that might be useful. I think it'd be good if this page was linked somewhere on the project page (maybe under help desk?) cos I didn't even know this was a thing until I saw that. Also that page reallly needs archival. Galobtter ( talk) 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I am doing a preliminary survey requesting about 6 Wikipedia volunteers to answer a few questions. I am posting the survey to 3 boards, and I choose to post here because I think the project here is relevant. Thanks if a couple of people could respond below.
I just created an essay and presentation at Wikipedia:Measuring conflict of interest on Wikipedia. In that page, I say that the Wikipedia community does not have good information about how often COI editing occurs or the extent to which it is a problem or benefit. I argue that the Wikipedia community needs some data on this issue.
I am not a data scientist, and I do not know how to design a valid social survey. Since this is wiki, as an amateur I am collecting some initial community thoughts as preliminary research. I want this survey data to help guide initial conversation and also to aid in asking around if anyone already has data of this sort.
Thanks, comments here please. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Finish the survey in 3 minutes? Really? I didn't realize this was "flash respond to questions". Six rather detailed questions will take most people more than three minutes to complete. Primefac ( talk) 19:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I propose this to reduce the relatively constant backlog of submissions. Declined submissions are often immediately re-submitted with little to no changes, and this process repeats. The amount of articles that are being accepted is not enough to offset the number of new submissions (because declined ones often get re-submitted).
If we could time-stamp each denial, and disable the button on the AfC template if 7ish? days have not passed yet.
Of course, it could be manually re-submitted, but few AfC users will understand this.
Please give thoughts. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek talktome 13:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
These quick resubmissions will hurt our productivity more the faster we re-review them. If you want to limit the frequency which a given draft is resubmitted and improve our ability to address the real backlog, go review submissions that have been sitting longer awaiting review and let these resubmissions wait their turn. ~ Kvng ( talk) 20:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission}}
uses the parameter |small=yes
for re-rejections, but this parameter triggers a
Lint error of type
Missing end tag, leaving a <small>
tag unclosed. For example, in
declining
Draft:Christopher Roach, this line was added:
{{AFC submission|d|ilc|u=Jnice2k3|ns=118|decliner=Atlantic306|declinets=20171023225648|small=yes|ts=20171023142638}}
{{
AFC submission}}
should be modified so as not to leave behind an unclosed <small>
tag. —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
01:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not be specific to AFC, but as it is regarding new article creation, I might as well ask here - where, if anywhere, do we recommend or direct new users creating biographies to {{ subst:Biography}}? I find the existence of an article template for only one particular type of article quite strange, and am thinking of TFD'ing it. – Train2104 ( t • c) 20:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Νew Υork City. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.
This mixed Greek/Latin redirect was requested via AFC, so I'd though I'd let you know about the RFD.
-- 70.51.45.76 ( talk) 03:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Many of you use Article Alerts to get notified of discussions (PRODs and AfD in particular). However, due to our limit resources (one bot coder), not a whole lot of work can be done on Article Alerts to expand and maintain the bot. If the coder gets run over by a bus, then it's quite possible this tool would become unavailable in the future.
There's currently a proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey for the WMF to take over the project, and make it both more robust / less likely to crash / have better support for new features. But one of the main things is that with a full team behind Article Alerts, this could also be ported to other languages!
So if you make use of Article Alerts and want to keep using it and see it ported to other languages, please go and support the proposal. And advertise it to the other AfC projects in other languages too to let them know this exists, otherwise they might miss out on this feature! Thanks in advance! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
There's consensus against holding backlog drives, so I think that the backlog drives page should be removed from the tabs at the top of the page. ProgrammingGeek talktome 00:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Or we could just approve stuff more quickly and be a little less fussy. We can't seem to get any streamlining between AfC and NPR passed so anything approved at AfC goes into NPR like any new article and gets reviewed/tagged/AfD'd by the much larger pool of editors. If I was a new editor - getting a message about serious backlog and a month plus delay I'd be unhappy. People expect instant gratification on the internet. Anything we can do to reduce the backlog should be considered. Legacypac ( talk) 18:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm personally ready to talk about backlog drives again. The drives we did before had a review-the-reviewer component to them and that's how we learned we had a couple bad apples. We could have more than a couple bad apples now and not be aware of it. In addition to reducing backlog, a backlog drive brings attention to the project and so can help recruit new reviewers and sustain the work we do here. ~ Kvng ( talk) 23:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi I was just wondering about policy and guidelines about an editor that is not a reviewer moving a draft article that has been declined 4 times already. I am specifically talking about Skip Prichard. This has become a bit of a drama with a WIR climbing on his high horse because I had the gall to suggest that there was a potential COI problem because the submitter got in contact with one of the subject's employees who is a very very active and prominent editor (lots and lots of hats) to help get the article through AFC. There are accusations of personal attack going on. I didn't want to get any more involved so I pinged the original reviewers on the article's talk page so they could have a look and see if the problems had been addressed and they were ok with the move taking into account the recent edits and I was accused of canvassing by the WIR. I really don't want to get any more involved than I already am so if someone could just let me know if the move is infringing any policy and if so have a look at the talk page and reply. Domdeparis ( talk) 19:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I've pinged Krystav in the first paragraph. Perhaps they'll be kind enough to drop in here and let us know what they would like to do. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey all, some of you may know that I've been keeping tabs on the active/inactive lists for the AFCH access, as well as monitoring the number of drafts being submitted and reviewed. With a marked (and steady) increase of unreviewed drafts lately, I thought I would post the October data for this project. This is in no way meant to be "shaming" or otherwise critical of the reviewers (most of which are pulled in sixteen different directions) but to potentially start a discussion about how we can tackle the backlog.
Detailed stats can be found at this page. All of the stats were compiled on 5 Nov and any +/- numbers are based on the data taken on 8 Oct.
There has been a marked increase in the number of daily AFC submissions in the last two months, likely due to ACTRIAL (the numbers for earlier this year were ~180 submissions per day), but I don't think we have an impossible hurdle to jump. If 1/10 of the AFCH users reviewed just one more draft per day, we'd start decreasing the backlog. I think that's a manageable goal, and I'll do my best to start doing just that. Primefac ( talk) 14:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I’m a willing reviewer but am inappropriately restricted from moves to mainspace. All to do with a stalker. I mark pages as likely acceptable when I find them and focus on deletion otherwise.
We could cut down the size of the backlog by CSD or MfDing hopeless pages. Cut down on the resubmissions and discourage rather than encourage users from wasting time on unacceptable topics. Legacypac ( talk) 20:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There's a VPI thread that directly concerns this project. Your input is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 24#Time to call time on the Articles For Creation. Primefac ( talk) 15:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
If there's an experienced AfC reviewer who's bored and wouldn't mind doing me a favour, I'd be open to feedback on a few of the reviews I've done thus far. Essentially, I just want to make sure I'm on the right track. Thanks in advance, -- Jack Frost ( talk) 03:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, I'm seeing articles in draft scattered here and there with lots of potential that are being declined for the wrong reasons. Example: Draft:John_Giwa-Amu
To begin, it does not fail notability - a quickie Google search brings up all kinds of RS to establish notability - BBC New Talent, British Blacklist, BBC News, The Machine (film) by Rotten Tomatoes, reviewed in Variety - and that's just a quickie I did while composing this comment. So I'm open to suggestions about the best way to get this BLP into mainstream because what we've been doing has obviously failed. Does AfC expect its reviewers to fix the copy edit/sourcing problems or do we try to encourage the article creator to do it or do we accept the article and hang it on the shoulders of NPP? If we depend on the article creator in this case, we have a COI issue because User talk:Red & Black is the production company. Another concern is that leaving these articles as is, we're opening the door to COI/paid editing and may even be tempting some of our own GF editors to contact the relative company and offer to fix the article for pay. Maybe that's a bit far-fetched and I'm being overly suspicious but maybe not based on some of the activity that's been exposed of late. Ok, so what are we as reviewers expected to do to resolve these issues? I imagine the first response is going to be for the reviewer to fix it and that's what I've been doing for the most part but I can only do so much, plus I have articles on my own list that I want to create. What are our options and expected results? Atsme 📞 📧 18:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Does AfC expect its reviewers to fix ...or do we try to encourage the article creator to do it... or do we ... hang it on the shoulders of NPP. In simple circumstances (formatting, refs, elinks, etc), option #1. In cases like this, option #2. We do not expect that a reviewer will see a borderline case and go to the extra effort of finding in-depth RS that discusses the subject and get it to an acceptable level. Some of us do it, but a lot of us just don't have the time. The times I perform an "ilc" decline are a good example of this - if the subject is clearly notable but it's a huge draft with a half-hundred references but no inline citations; I don't have the time to go through and link up every ref with every paragraph, but the creator knows the refs and will be able to sync everything much faster. It's not ideal, but it works (most of the time).
Ok, so what are we as reviewers expected to do to resolve these issues?You're expected to do whatever you feel comfortable with. See a borderline draft you're not sure about? Leave a comment or just leave it for someone else. See an issue that could be fixed in two minutes? Fix it! See a borderline notability case that might be acceptable if you can find juuuuust the right reference? If you've got the time and motivation, go for it, otherwise leave a (detailed) explanation of what more is needed (or accept it and let NPP deal with it).
To address your last point - there isn't any particular order that drafts have to be reviewed. Some people review the 0 days, some people start from the end of very old. Luck of the draw, really.
I think both pages you mention are borderline cases, and the borderline cases are the hardest because they do depend on the mood and style of the reviewer. I can think of 8 reviewers where I could tell you exactly what they would do with the Williams article based on their past accepts/declines. I can honestly see myself both declining or accepting with Williams page based on potential moods I could be in, though in writing this and looking over the sources I'd probably be sliding towards "decline". To me it's a true "50/50" call at AFD, because I can see it going either way depending on who shows up and who's interested in the general subject of jazz.
There's nothing "wrong" with nominating a page that went through AFC for deletion, and I certainly wouldn't fault you for nominating that page based on MUSICBIO concerns. Better to have multiple levels of checks (AFC, NPR, and just generally checking things) than to say "well it went through AFC so I must be crazy". Sometimes it's a judgment call, sometimes it's a mistake, sometimes other people just don't agree with you. Primefac ( talk) 16:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you create three pages? The three pages are Gran plaza outlets, Outlets at Tejon and San Francisco Premium Outlets. -- 2601:205:C100:627F:B973:4EFE:6B:4A59 ( talk) 06:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking for suggestions on moving forward with improving the project here:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#AFC_discussion_summaries_and_moving_forward Egaoblai ( talk) 08:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Considering that there is now the Page mover user right, and it can be a chore to nominate after-page move redirects for G6, would it be alright to add the option for page movers of suppressing the creation of redirects when using the AfC helper gadget? Such an option could prove useful. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I have posted an RfC that may impact this project and/or be relevant to the users who frequent this page. You can find it at WP:VPPR#RfC: Three Strikes Rule for AfC submissions and reviews. Your comments are welcome. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 09:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ AfC editintro}} is out of date (we now use "publish page" instead of "save page"), and to boot it's not used anywhere. Does anyone see a compelling reason to keep this template around, or should it go the way of the dodo and get deleted? Primefac ( talk) 13:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Ridiculously new to this, so feel free to ignore. That said, I began this today and have reviewed 8 articles. I passed one, and am working on one with the proposing editor. The other 6, I have rejected. The reasons are basically all the same: the article subjects are not notable / they are promotional advertising for businesses / they are written by the article subject, or by someone close to them / their sources are poor or worse / their structures and prose are weak; in brief, they have no place on Wikipedia. But my concern is that 5 of the 6 had already been rejected, often more than once. And the rationales for so doing were again broadly the same (see above). Unless you make it less easy than it currently is to resubmit, you don't have a hope of addressing the backlog - which will lead to attacks similar to that seen at Village Pump. With such easy resubmission, this is truly a Canute task. KJP1 ( talk) 21:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Our oldest pending submissions seem to be mostly
Not fun reviewing. I can appreciate why this pool keeps growing. ~ Kvng ( talk) 22:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
significant coverageand
independent of the subjectand
reliable sourcesare simple enough and don't require wikipedia expertise. And draft creators would have normally had to learn about them before embarking on writing their own drafts anyway. It will also be an edifying experience as going through an objective appraisal of another's work will help people better understand why their own drafts have been declined.
I have had quite a lot of success recently reducing the NPP backlog by inviting users from the List of Wikipedians by number of edits to join the project (I invited everyone in the top 1000 that met my criteria and was not already an admin or NPR). I have been keeping track of the number of reviews by those I invited, and the number of reviews is basically about the same as the amount that our backlog has reduced in the last month. This tells me that the primary issue with the NPP backlog over the last year has been the number of active participants, not necessarily any lack of initiative or lack of effort.
I realise that you guys over here have been dealing with backlog issues as well, and have a made an RfC proposal intended to help a bit (linked in a section above). I have also created a template similar to the one that I have been using for NPP that you guys can use to invite users to AfC:
Template:AfC invite. Just paste {{Subst:AfC invite}}
onto a user's talk page to drop the invite. —
Insertcleverphrasehere (
or here)
08:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I recently found myself examining some of the past activity of one former reviewer. A few months ago, for a period of two weeks they reviewed over 700 AfC submissions. The interval between successive reviews was on average a minute, sometimes less than that. Only eight drafts were accepted, the rest were declined. I've been going through the drafts that aren't about people or companies (most of the reviewed articles were about people or companies, so my conclusions do not necessarily apply to the majority of their reviews). What I keep finding is decently written, acceptably sourced drafts on notable topics that are declined most often with some boilerplate text that I struggle to see the relevance of, or occasionally with brief individually written rationales that are rather strange (e.g. the text lacks sections, or it doesn't use a particular citation style).
A few dozen of the creators of these drafts have either resubmitted them or have asked the reviewer on their talk page for further feedback. The rest, a vast majority, have made no edits anywhere on wikipedia after their draft had been declined. Judging from that reviewer's talk page archives, they were approached by experienced AfC editors on three occasions, all for minor issues, and the first major concern wasn't brought up until more than two months after they had ceased actively reviewing.
How can situations like this be prevented from occurring in future? Shouldn't there be some way of keeping an eye out for bursts of reviewing activity and taking timely action in the case of large-scale irregularities? – Uanfala (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to request a change or an addition to the Assessment rules for reviewers examining Drafts or other newly created pages which may be translations from sister projects. The underlying reason for this request is:
A couple of underlying goals I'd like to see added to the philosophy of the assessment process:
If it can be determined that a draft article under review is, or may be, a translation from a foreign wikipedia, then the review path should follow a slightly different course, imho. My recommendation:
As a result of this process, if a Draft is rejected for translation-related reasons, it may not always be the right thing to do to send it back to the editor for more work, if their command of the source language is non-existent or too poor to improve it. I would like to see the reviewer community discuss how to handle such a reject. One concern I have, is that a skilled editor could completely swamp the review process by cranking out machine translations at script speed, while the aftermath of dealing with articles one by one can only proceed at human speed. (Indeed, to some extent this is already happening, although by editors who are skipping the Afc procedure and dumping lightly edited machine translations directly into article space, which I suppose is outside the scope of Afc concerns but is happening all the same.) Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 00:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Pinging some afc participants. If you're on this list, we've either crossed paths before, probably at some lang-related thing and I thought highly of you, or you've commented lately (favorably or otherwise) on a user TP about their afc submission that may have been translated: @ Winged Blades of Godric, TonyBallioni, Galobtter, Kaldari, Justlettersandnumbers, DGG, I dream of horses, Huon, Kiteinthewind, Primefac, and Staszek Lem: Mathglot ( talk) 02:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
My views, to supplement the above:
DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 29 December 2017 (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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Hi, everybody. I was looking at the inactive bots list and thought it might be useful to resurrect one or two of ArticlesForCreationBot's tasks (I was thinking specifically of the page-moving one). We talked about this last February, but the discussion didn't get anywhere. Thoughts? Enterprisey ( talk!) 20:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Now that we have cut the backlog down to around the 400 mark we should really give it one more push to get rid of all the three an four week old and very old drafts. Ideally we should never let any submission wait for more than twenty days. To deal with the tough ones we should be calling on relevant topic specialist WikiProjects to assist. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 21:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC at WT:Drafts asking if the AfC process should be scrapped altogether, which participants of this project may be interested in. Best wishes, jcc ( tea and biscuits) 20:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
22:26, 4 January 2017 AnomieBOT III (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/World Development Foundation (G8: Broken redirect to World Development Foundation. If this bot is malfunctioning, please report it at User:AnomieBOT II
Dear Sir, 4:32, 25 November 2013 Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/World Development Foundation to World Development Foundation (Created via Articles for creation. The article has been deleted due to malfunctioning of User:AnomieBOT III/shutoff/BrokenRedirectDeleter on 22:26, 4 January 2017. Pl restore the article. Rupalisharma ( talk) 14:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Rupalisharma ( talk) 11:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, why I couldn't be registered as active reviewer in WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants? I guess I have cleared all the required criteria.
Thanks, Kathir 08:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkathir ( talk • contribs) 08:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Many of you may already know about this, but if you do not, please feel free to utilize our Resource Exchange to receive access to non-free sources. The Resource Exchange allows you to post a request for a specific journal article, excerpt of a book, or other source. Volunteers who have access to these materials through research and educational institutions are able to provide digital copies of most sources. This can be particularly helpful if you're attempting to verify the existence or content of a source in an AfC submission. I especially encourage its use when an offline or unavailable source is a reference for information that seems controversial or extraordinary. Let me know if you have any questions!
Please note that these resources are shared only for use creating or improving specific identified Wikipedia articles, and we cannot provide full book scans or excessive amounts of material beyond what is necessary to improve an article. ~ Rob13 Talk 11:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Advance news of an upcoming election for two coordinators to assume the non-official voluntary job I've been doing for 6 years. Candidates who must be New Page Reviewers (or admins), are already invited to nominate themselves (or be nominated by anyone). All autoconfirmed users will be entitled to vote. Full information is available at New Page Review Coordinators. Dates for actual voting will be announced later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewing - Election for 2 coordinators. Nomination period is now open and will run for two weeks followed by a two-week voting period.
See: NPR Coordinators for full details. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
PEGI is a European rating system. It stands for...
Pan European Game Information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8202:7200:40EB:D175:CBED:D358 ( talk) 19:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I invite you to comment on as well as to endorse my idea of article incubator. The idea is not new and details of the previous version can be found at WP:INCUBATOR. I would be glad if you enhance it with your experience. Feel free to improve upon the proposal that I have placed. Anasuya.D ( talk) 10:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I propose that a separate draft space be created apart from the mainspace of Wikipedia.We already have a Draft space, separate from main, where users' drafts can be worked on and improved. You're even posting at the project associated with this idea... I guess I'm just trying to figure out your intentions. Primefac ( talk) 13:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@ MrMoose23 and KGirlTrucker81: I had declined that request, which was undone without comment by MrMoose23. I'd like to ask for that comment here: why? ( KGirlTrucker81, since you accepted it, maybe you can explain.)
I thought the rationale I gave was valid. Specifically, the redirect target doesn't contain any hint that "Honest John" is a valid alternative name. As a WP:PEACOCK term, sourcing is particularly important. I tried to not WP:BITE anyone by encouraging the user to correct that problem and resubmit.
If I did something wrong, I'd like to understand it; at the moment I'm quite in the dark. Thank you! 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 19:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
“ | Arrived there, the alleged bribers demanded the meaning of the arrest. The magistrate, who seems to have been either too full of whiskey or badly frightened at the deed he had done, became panicky and exhibited evident symptoms of alarm. Patterson then expressed strong doubts about the respectability of the maternal ancestor of the magistrate, and again demanded what he was going tn do about it. This completed the demoralization of the Court. The magistrate fled, leaving Patterson and Hurley masters of the situation.
But this was not the end of the matter. The flying magistrate, after invoking the aid of the police and being reinforced by sundry members of that force, returned to the field, and after a little deliberation came to the conclusion that the court had been the subject of contempt, which so far as Hurley and Patterson was concerned were eminently true. A commitment was therefore at once made out and placed in the hands of But this was by no means the final act in the farce. ... |
” |
{{
ping|71.41.210.146}}
in a comment achieves the same notice effect as a message on a talk page. Much more convenient.
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Someone protected WP:AFC/R. Please put this request there, and please be ready for lots of additional requests here until the protection expires.
208.95.51.72 ( talk) 15:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC) 208.95.51.72 ( talk) 15:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys. I have totally not kept up with changes here at AFC. So way back when the edit filters were first enabled, I created Special:AbuseFilter/167 and Special:AbuseFilter/183, to catch AFC submissions without a submission template, and submissions in mainspace, respectively. The second was disabled since it became easy to identify submission to mainspace and move them elsewhere, and the first one is largely not hit anymore with submissions now going to draft space (curiously, the first filter still gets the occasional hits, so people are being directed to WT:AFC subspace from somewhere). Anyway, so here's my question! To the people who understand the current ins and outs of AFC, would these filters serve any purpose? Would updating them to the current system help at all? Or should they just be disabled? Thanks. Someguy1221 ( talk) 08:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The election is now open for voters. Voting has now begun for two NPP/NPR coordinators and will remain open until 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. All registered, confirmed editors are welcome to vote. Please vote HERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Do we have any mechanism or process for inviting review of acceptances after the fact? I've no desire to criticise or even to question an able and active reviewer, but I'm perturbed by the acceptance of Americo Makk in a state that – in my opinion – will require many, many hours of volunteer editor time to remedy. It seems to me that the page should have been left in draft space until it bore at least some faint resemblance to a Wikipedia article. But perhaps I'm just plain wrong about that. Would anyone care to take a look? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Following instructions at Wikipedia talk:Files for upload, I asked this question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, but the responding editor brushed me off, so I guess I have to come here. I hope you're more interested in helping than in telling me to bug off.
I wanted to ask for someone to upload a better resolution of a {{PD-logo}} image, File:Ss logo.png, but it was really hard to navigate the wizard because it kept trying to send me to Commons to upload there (I at first missed the "If you don't have an account, you can upload without registering" line). I eventually had to pretend that it was a non-free image and go through the whole process needlessly. Instead of asking at the start "are you autoconfirmed" and "is it free," could you instead put Wikipedia:Files for upload/Wizard/Search as the landing page, and then ask license questions only if someone's trying to upload a new image? If you try to upload a new version of the same image, copyright shouldn't be quite as much of a concern for the wizard, because the old version of the image should already have the right copyright tagging, and the new upload should have the same copyright status as what's already there. 208.95.51.115 ( talk) 13:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
requesting artical about: Alberto Sicilia-Falcon
name found from: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-06-08/entertainment/8602100945_1_centac-central-tactical-unit-underground-empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.206.197 ( talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Greetings all. I've noticed an editor who has been submitting other editors' drafts (one in particular was edited very recently), and then immediately reviewing & declining the submission. Is this the correct procedure? Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 21:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Why does /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects get so much vandalism on it? Ethanbas ( talk) 23:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please lets start a section entitled '1.Linkage between Shaivism and Buddhism, 2.Linkage between Shaivism and Confucianism, 3. Linkage between Shaivism and Christianity, 4. Linkage between Shaivisma and Islam, and 5. Linkage between Shaivism and other theoretical philosophies like Structuralism, Functionalism, Marxism,Feminism,Socialism, Capitalism etc. 202.51.88.25 ( talk) 04:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC) 202.51.88.25 ( talk) 04:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Where are the quick-fail criteria listed? Our reviewing instructions tell us "Before reading a submission in detail, check whether it meets any of the quick-fail criteria. If so, it should be declined immediately and in some cases it may be necessary to nominate the submission for speedy deletion". But "quick-fail criteria" is not linked. I think it should be. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Please save this article from being deleted I don't want to see it gone. 68.102.39.189 ( talk) 16:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there still a link somewhere for editors to create pages starting with the "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" prefix? Just wondering since this was created a few hours ago, brand new, at a "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" title. (I later moved the page.) Steel1943 ( talk) 03:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it an option to manually review articles that are submitted for review (via AFC)? I have heard it mentioned before. If so, is it welcomed by designated reviewers and higher ups (ie admins)? I want to help lower the size of the queue if at all possible. I would apply for the reviewer rights/group however I have not been here for the 90 days (I have been here for 1 month and 27 days) required to apply, but do have the edit count. If you aren't sure, could you maybe tag someone who could answer? Thanks! -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 19:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about combining AfC reviewers into the new page reviewer user right. Your comments and opinions would be welcome. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template to add an information label to AfC and non-AfC drafts. StarryGrandma ( talk) 20:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
When viewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions, the tables displaying the number of entries in each category by date stretches beyond the normal page width. Is there a better way to display this information, perhaps vertically? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 05:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm not a big editor in en.wikipedia, and I was discovering the Afc and testing it during the translation of a French article created by me this month during my working time on a Belgian NGO as "paid editor". Now I realise than lot of articles are pending for review in Afc process and I'm thinking than the Afc process is not a experienced editor like me ? Is there some one who can share his opinion on this point ? Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 13:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
What is supposed to happen to pages Which aren't in English, if they aren't submitted? Are they treated just like other drafts? Siuenti ( talk) 19:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I've imported the script for the redirect helper, but it doesn't seem to be working. What do I have to do to get it to work? Sakuura Cartelet Talk 03:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
When is the next drive scheduled? There hasn't been one for a while L3X1 (distant write) 04:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
A proposal that would create a new draft classifier template and extend G13 to non- articles for creation drafts is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template. Interested editors are welcome. Thanks, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 08:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about updating the colours in {{ AFC status}}. Your thoughts are appreciated. Primefac ( talk) 18:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
It appears that almost all of the submissions are in category P. Is it supposed to be that way? The garmine (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the correct section, but just wanted to give anyone who will see this and can't find the thread where I saw that the BBC was promoting editing Wikipedia but I just discovered that University of Victoria library staff have been encouraged to edit Wikipedia and so there may be an influx of pages created from that. -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 18:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: It is happening today by the looks of it and I posted a link back to here on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 18:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems strange how it was not protected till now. It was used today by multiple users (1 IP, 2 registered) to try and submit their drafts I believe. Anyways, I have requested indefinite protection and rolled it back to the clean version of the redirect for now. If any admin is seeing this and its not been protected till now, here is the request -
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Wikipedia:AFC
Pinging
MarnetteD who had reverted similar edits before.
Yashovardhan (
talk)
12:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) @ NeilN: Uh, nevermind! Got me scratching for sometime. I should have mentioned I am asking for the redirect to be protected! Thanks! Yashovardhan ( talk) 16:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.
Please join and participate.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
As I write this the 18, 19 and 20 days categories are empty. This gives us a "buffer" of at least 48 hours that we can concentrate on clearing out the 3 weeks, 4 weeks and very old categories. Doing so will put the AFC project back onto a "normal" timeline. Please help get this done. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 17:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
ProgrammingGeek talktome 18:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, everyone:
I made a small script that adds a link to a random AFC submission in the sidebar navigation pane. If you want to add it, it's at User:ProgrammingGeek/afc-sidebar.js.
ProgrammingGeek talktome 17:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@ TheSandDoctor: good point.
importScript('User:ProgrammingGeek/afc-sidebar.js');
I was wondering if AfC reviewers check, among other things, the images being used in drafts and userspace drafts they review. I've come across quite a number of declined AfC submissions which contain non-free images, which is something not allowed per WP:NFCC#9. Pretty much any non-free image being used in the draft namespace or the user namespace can be assumed to be in violation of WP:NFCCP, and is subject to removal. Of course, this can be done by those checking on non-free image use, but an AfC reviewer can also do it. Some editors upload images files for their drafts when it would actually be better for them to wait unitl after the draft has been moved to the aritcle mainspace because of WP:F5. Maybe information about this could be added to WP:AFCR so that reviewers are aware of the issue? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 31/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Articles for creation.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Articles for creation, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI, I cobbled together Template:Afc move yesterday for use on user pages when a submission is moved from user to draft space. Anyone welcome to use and/or improve if they find it helpful. TimothyJosephWood 14:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I have been using the AFC process to write draft articles. Whenever a draft is rejected, I have been repeatedly invited to the Teahouse. I removed the invitations over and over because I'm not a new editor. I've edited since 2005. I wonder whether a script can detect those who have been experienced editors for the time being. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
While it pains me to suggest it, do you think it's about time to update the time on the AfC Submission template to be more accurate? We have some helpees trickling into IRC with sometimes unreasonable expectations. At the very least to say "2-3 weeks, or perhaps longer"? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk
The details of an actress of Indian Movie. (Jangal Ka Bata)= Asha Irani Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). (Jangal Ka Bata)=
37.34.129.18 (
talk)
04:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I propose that the posting of discussion comments, including review comments and results, on the actual draft page, shall stop, in favour of using the corresponding discussion page.
Looking at: Draft:Fig_Tree_Hall,_University_of_New_South_Wales, there is an actual discussion, but contrary to all Wikipedia norms, it is being held in reverse order, going upwards, on top of the article. It is unintuitive, and needlessly dissimilar to normal content discussion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
You guys appear oblivious to being very much stuck in your rut.
AfC is seriously broke, how can you not know?), and wave around promises of how much better it will be if we do things differently. At that point that person isn't much better than a politician on the campaign trail. I am more than happy to start a dialogue regarding AFC, but not when someone comes barging in telling us we have to change or else we're wrong. In fairness, this actually started off as a reasonable question which could have opened the door for that dialogue; I'm a little disappointed it didn't happen that way. Primefac ( talk) 12:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi SmokeyJoe, please do join us in reviewing Drafts, we could use the help. Thanks! Waggie ( talk) 02:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Given some of the recent drama over reviewers not checking for copy vios, I was kinda surprised that the Earwig copy vio tool wasn't on the "reviewers tools" for the AFC Submission template. Any reason we shouldn't add this? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
User:The Earwig/copyvios.js
so that reviewers can add the script to their account.
Primefac (
talk)
12:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
User:<your username>/common.js
by adding importScript( 'User:The Earwig/copyvios.js'); //<any comment here>
- It adds a link of copyvio check on the left side tools menu.
Yashovardhan (
talk)
09:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on WT:COI that may be of interest to folks here. Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Please do check the discussion at WT:COI, since there is not much discussion here. Also edits at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning are welcome. Since there is a scam going on there is some urgency here.
I'll likely put in a one-line link to the Scam warning page tomorrow on the landing page. Maybe something like:
Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting AfC participants. See the scam warning for detailed information.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Bhiduki is the biggest village in south HARYANA.It has 52 choupals in it. IN this village two jaat gotras are available TANWAR AND CHAUHAN.Satyadev is sarpanch of Bhiduki village. It has more than 20000 of population. Peoples of this village are depended on agriculture. SIDDH BABA's Temple is famous temple in it.
After clearing over 1000 pages from the Ready for G13 list I started poking around other categories. Can we run a bot through this category /info/en/?search=Category:AfC_submissions_declined_as_a_test to delete or maybe just blank all the pages? Justification CSD G2 test pages. As far as I can find there is nothing of value in there. Nearly all are sandboxes usually with only the AdC decline or maybe a scrap of text. I'm finding ones that are G13 ready there too but they are not coming up in that category. Legacypac ( talk) 08:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I met the criteria for becoming an Afc reviewer but even after i submit my name in the Afc reviewers section, add the Afc gadget and clear the cache it still doesn't show up. can someone please help me with it. Immu 01 11:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immu 01 ( talk • contribs)
In view of the above and the frequent inappropriate additions to the list, I have started a thread here asking for some feedback. Please join the discussion, which is not a RfC. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I meant Category:Competitors at the 2017 Maccabiah Games. Not 2013. Sorry. Made a mistake. -- 2604:2000:E016:A700:4484:D7B0:8756:2C26 ( talk) 23:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
See WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Another sockfarm where User:Susana Hodge has been identified as a sockpuppet. All this account's reviews need to be checked for incorrect/unfair decisions. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
47.151.26.64 ( talk · contribs) has submitted alot of vandalism redirects. Many have been accepted. There's no proof that the Cargo ship Cason is spelled a multitude of ways that have been submitted, or the novels Madeline. It seems s/he is taking names out of a name gazetteer or baby name book and submitting them as variant spelling redirects. While this works for name articles, name lists and disambiguation pages; this does not work when the target is a Christian Prayer, a city in Nigeria, or a particular pop star. The indiscriminate requests are currently at WP:AFC/R, some have been accepted in recent days (some may already be archived), and more have been submitted awaiting processing.
-- 65.94.42.131 ( talk) 05:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I meet the criteria and would like to be added to the participants list. I cannot edit the page because it is protected. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 01:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed cases where the same subject is getting pushed multiple times. I've watched submissions that I've declined speedily re-submitted. Sometimes this is done by the same editor, sometimes by another. I've also noticed where a draft has already been deleted once if not several times. I worry that our statistics create the impression that we're getting a flood of new drafts everyday when much of that flood is a handful of editors (possible SOCKFARMs) resubmitting the same content over and over again hoping to get lucky. Beyond the fact that WMF should (in my opinion) take legal action against these ne'er-do-wells, we might try to find out how often we get drafts (sometimes under different names) submitted more than once. If we had a mechanism to label potential bad-faith subjects and editors, we could isolate the actively dangerous submitters from the naive draft submitters. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Spent a few hours over the weekend and started resurrecting HasteurBot's G13 reminding process. This goes through the Category:AfC_submissions_by_date children and looks for pages that are
to remind the page author that their page is either currently eligible or about to become eligible for CSD:G13. This is done to help remind page creators about their works that they may have forgotten about but also to show good faith that we're not wanting to delete them, but we will if no improvement is made. There is a side task that will also notify users who opt in that a page they've edited in the past has hit the above criteria so "helpers" can try and fix the problem. The interested-notifications are done such that helper gets one change on their talk page listing all the pages that were notified on in the last 24 hours(example: [4]). If you want to opt in follow the instructions at User:HasteurBot/G13 OptIn Notifications.
In a few weeks I'll start tinkering with the G13 nominating process to make sure it's working correctly prior to the pages that have been notified on start being nominated for G13. The bot has an intentional 1 month delay between the reminder that the page is in danger of being nominated for G13 and when the page actually gets nominated for G13 by the bot. Nothing prevents a user from nominating the draft for G13 earlier than the bot if the draft meets the criteria. The bot simply takes the conservative route in terms of interpreting the CSD criterion and giving the draft creator as much time as possible before starting to nominate things. Thank you. Hasteur ( talk) 13:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Since the page is protected, can someone add my to the participant list? I've been granted new page reviewer, and I'd like to use the script. Thanks, Corkythe hornetfan (ping me) 04:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
why is the daily mirror good for horse racing
Please add me to the protected list of active editors on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants Meters ( talk) 19:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that a number of "very old" submissions in the backlog are "old" in the sense that they were first submitted a long time ago, but are quite new in the sense that they had been resubmitted in the past few days. I don't claim to understand all the delicate coding in the submission templates, but it seems to boil down to not updating the ts= timestamp when resubmitting or taking the oldest value when multiple reviews are present or not updating the "by date" category once a submission has been enrolled in one. Is this pseudo-aging intentional? It makes the label on the category somewhat misleading. I would certainly like to be able to distinguish – at the categorical level – between never-before-reviewed submissions and submissions that have already been declined one or more times.
The overall impression given is that the huge and lengthy backlog is based on not enough reviewers. Without better visibility on resubmissions, the huge and lengthy backlog may be an illusion: what really happens is that new submissions are typically given an initial review within 48 hours, but articles whose fundamental issues are not being resolved get declined multiple times, exhausting the patience and good will of reviewers, and build up into what appears to be a lengthy backlog. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey all I'm back from about a year hiatus, so I'm sure there's much I've missed. My biggest concern is that my toolbars aren't showing up that I use in AfC. One being the AfC helper tool and the other one was the toolbar that's usually on the left side (I'm not sure if that was a part of the aforementioned AfC one, or seperate) that helps navigate pages waiting for review. I made sure the tool was checked in my preferences and cleared my cache. Any ideas? Sulfurboy ( talk) 17:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I generally move drafts submitted in the sandbox to draftspace. Recently I moved an article to Draft:Wipeout Omega Collection from the userspace. The author informed me today, that many of the earlier revisions of the new draftspace article is irrelevant to the current article, as the sandbox was used by him as a test page for a long time, before he wiped it clean and started on the new article. So the new draftspace has many irrelevant revisions which he would like to be removed. The simplest solution will probably be to delete the older revisions, but if anybody has better solutions, please have it implemented on the article. Jupitus Smart 12:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
There's seems to be lot of eagerness lately to delete based on WP:PROMOTIONAL. Brian_Cain has a soiled history in this regard. But I assess this latest incarnation to be ready for acceptance. Vanamonde93, the administrator that WP:SALTed this topic does not agree. Any other opinions?
Hello The criteria of 500 edits and 90 days old account, both are fulfilled by me and yet I am unable to get in the list of reviewers. Please tell me the procedure to add my name and work towards being valuable. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by KamalMahrshi ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Please make your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi...
It is nice to be in touch with you ... I would like to re publish my user page user/ykashgari...
and I would like to re publish my pre articles:
/Eng._Yasir_I._Kashgari /Eng._Yasir_I._Kashgari,_Vision_of_Saudi_Arabia_2030
and Merci ... It is nice to receive your next email soon ...
Thankfully, _________________________________________ Eng. Yasir I. Kashgari
Yasir I. Kashgari 18:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykashgari ( talk • contribs)
There are a few suggestions to improve article wizard at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard that may be of interest. Thanks. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 07:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Assuming it doesn't already exist, I feel it would be incredibly helpful if we had a list page where AfC editors who speak languages other than English could say so. A lot of the articles that I feel I cannot review at all are articles where the majority of the sources are in another language. It would be nice to be able to ping an AfC editor who is familiar with the language. Sulfurboy ( talk) 03:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
There are currently over 100 very old submissions pending. I spent 30 minutes reviewing random drafts in the backlog this morning and was able to accept 4, rejected 1. More fun than usual. ~ Kvng ( talk) 19:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) started 14 September 2017 after an announcement at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#ACTRIAL beginning today. It means that registered users without autoconfirmed accounts can no longer create mainspace pages. Some pages like Wikipedia:Articles for creation may benefit from an update. PrimeHunter ( talk) 13:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I just made toollabs:apersonbot/pending-subs, which shows a list of AfC submissions that you can filter. (Inspired by my struggles clicking "sort" on WP:AFC/S and waiting 5 minutes for it to filter.) It's a bit out of date now, because it parses {{ AFC statistics}}, but it should have updated data as soon as Earwig wakes his bot up. Enterprisey ( talk!) 07:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Template:Previously deleted draft has been
nominated for deletion. Watchers of this page are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Steel1943 (
talk)
15:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Can we change the guidance in our templates from three weeks to more like "several weeks". This is probably about the fourth or fifth time I've run into an editor who got finished, came back in 21 days, and then immediately thought something was wrong. I think we all pretty well know that three weeks is not a hard deadline. So we probably shouldn't be making it look like it is and confusing the newbies. GMG talk 10:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to make a note regarding cv-declines via AFCH. I've noticed recently editors like Chrissymad have been unchecking the "blank this draft" option when declining as cv/adding G12s, and for that I thank them. It is much faster to check the violation status of a draft when one doesn't have to find the previous revision and then scan. It also helps if it's not 100%-deletable (i.e. there's salvageable info) because it keeps the decline while allowing me to remove the offending comment.
So, if you're declining as cv in the future, please don't blank it. Thanks. Primefac ( talk) 15:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
What's the deal with editors submitting other users' draft articles for AfC? I whole bunch of times now ( [6], [7], [8], [9]) another editor has submitted an article I have been putting together in draft space to go through AfC. Is this common practice? My impression was that draft space was for drafting articles, not specifically for putting articles through AfC, and I'm confused why my unfinished drafts keep getting tagged to go through this process. I've written enough articles to know when something is good enough to be moved over; if nothing else there's simply no need for AfC! If it's the case that editors think my drafts are good enough to go live, then I'd rather they just messaged me and asked. Sam Walton ( talk) 12:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Chris troutman [10] this edit summary deserves a comment. I've had about 3 times more editors thank me for bringing old pages to their attention than that have complained. The vast majority of the cleared pages are problematic or pointless abandoned garbage dumped in draft space. Suspected Copyvio, unreferenced BLPs, pure vandalism, SPAM, Attack pages etc. I tag the very worst with other CSD than G13 User:Legacypac/CSD_log but for the most part just don't bother with potentially arguing over another criteria when G13 is an assured delete. Legacypac ( talk) 23:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
"irrevocably agree to release your contribution"line in the Terms of Use, remember that shooting inside the tent isn't helping. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Please do we have reviewer who can verify sources in Farsi? Because some article creators just bungle many sources which did'nt directly support claim or prefered one language than English to confuse reviewers. The drafts is at Draft:Mohammad-Saleh Komeyli. It is also said their is corresponding article in Farsi Wikipedia. If none, is there any suggestion on treating article with no single source in English? Thanks everybody. – Ammarpad ( talk) 05:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been working on creating a lot of the various common name articles for the (mostly) fishes that been here for over a week, but then I noticed some requests for redirects to various Star Trek related pages. I'm not sure that they would pass through RfD so can someone else take a look at them and possibly create them if they are appropriate? Thanks, Sakura Cartelet Talk 03:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I see David Lowe has been declined. Lously references certainly, but the first ref should have been enough, as it confirms he is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. Similar in scope and prestige to the Royal Society here in the UK. He should have passed and other refs added later. scope_creep ( talk) 07:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm hardly an inclusionist but if this artist does not pass notability guidelines we need to change the guidelines. Draft:Glen_Loates Legacypac ( talk) 22:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The books are listed, but they feature his art so are likely not useful for biographical info. [11] [12] I also discover his work featured in other books [13] and check out the newspaper article where he is standing with Reagan that calls him "Canada's foremost wildlife artists" [14] and additional books are listed in the text at that link. Legacypac ( talk) 23:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This page Draft:Malaya_Akulukjuk was rejected for lacking inline citations, but I see author's names and page numbers throughout. The creator left it - likely unsure how to proceed - so it is up for G13 which is not good. Legacypac ( talk) 02:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
And here is another one. Draft:Robert_Kost_(Artist) represented in significant collections and lots of references showing notability. Legacypac ( talk) 03:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Is the advice at Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers#From sandbox to mainspace still current? I would have expected it to promote the Articles for Creation process. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to know if I am capable of being an AfC reviewer. I've recently got a notification on the AfC Script saying I'm apparently not "listed". Thanks! Xy ae na 19:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello all, I have thought about joining AFC. I was wondering if I could be helpful in the wiki project. While most (500 some) of my edits were done 10.25.2017 ( c) and mainly anti-vandalisim, I still think I could be a productive reviewer on AFC. Thanks again. Cocohead781 ( talk) 02:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes I notice that people put both the not for review template and the pending review template like in this case. Which template takes presence? I declined it, because I saw the for review template and the page had no sources, hopefully I made the right move here. Sakura Cartelet Talk 00:36, 28 October 2017 (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'm wondering if declines based on layout are valid. DGG left a message on my talk page a few moments ago and I think that in some cases it can be a valid reason to decline. We should tell newbies how to fix problems but not do it for them. Learning WP:MOS basics is important in making constructive contributors so I see no reason why an AFC decline on major structural issues should be a problem. Consensus?
Pinging @ Nick, Primefac, TonyBallioni, Legacypac, and Kudpung: as potentially interested parties.
DrStrauss talk 21:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The only reason for declining an AfC is that it would be deleted in mainspace, either by speedy for such critical problems as copyvio, or at AfD for notability.concerning, DGG. We're not here to make bog-standard articles, we're here to try and make a good encyclopedia. TonyBallioni, I know that per the guidelines it isn't but I'm asking the question, should it be? DrStrauss talk 22:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I was pinged but the discussion was closed before I got a chance to comment. I've some random (very random) musings about this to add.
There's a fine line to walk between declining an article for layout issues and declining an article because it has more significant issues such as tone, it reads like an advertisement, is a direct copyright violation or is heavily paraphrased.
I'm not so sure I agree that accepting badly written articles without trying to work with the author to improve the layout/appearance is such a good idea. The vast majority of new editors I speak to in the IRC help channel want to write good content, they want it to have the same layout as existing articles and want to get things right. How often do we see people replicate infoboxes using complex HTML syntax, for example. There's quite often a lot of dedication to trying to do things right.
I would be interested to know how many of the really badly written but otherwise acceptable articles which are accepted through AfC are being brought up to an acceptable standard by the WikiGnomes, and if so, how long it's taking. I would suggest we try to measure this over a three month period by assessing how many new AfC articles get copyedit tags, have tone or advertisement tags added, or indeed, how many have notability tags added, and then measure how long it takes for those tags to be removed.
There's the potential here to try and help new editors write better content by understanding more clearly the issues they introduce and help them avoid making edits which introduce these issues. I say this quite a lot these days about various aspects of Wikipedia, but we're always approaching the issue as experienced editors who know from memory how to add infoboxes, format references and the like, whilst not always being at all helpful at explaining (or understanding) the issues new editors encounter. I really don't think it is helpful to take a badly written page from a new user and hand it off to someone else to improve, we should be doing much more to help users fix their own pages, rather than doing it for them. I think that would be good from an editor retention viewpoint (though I do accept that's a less practical proposition when someone is writing one article about their employer or a client).
It may also be possible to better structure the improvement of newly accepted but poorly written content in a more streamlined process by providing better maintenance categorisation so our WikiGnomes can more easily find content they may want to improve and which suits their areas of expertise. I do think, for anything we improve without the involvement of the new users, it would be nice to generate some sort of easy to understand report which could go on their talk page with a basic overview of the fixes undertaken. I wonder if a bot could auto-generate such a report after maintenance tags are removed.
Nick (
talk)
09:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
At MfD, I note a continuing problem with reviewers making review comments, when declining submissions, referring to inline citations. I think this is probably almost always no-productive to counter-productive. Inline citations are not required for a start class article, so I don't think it appropriate to frequently ask for it. They are only required for content
I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions#General_standards_and_invalid_reasons_for_declining_a_submission contains appropriate advice that some reviewers are not following.
I think that for difficult cases, where the topic is unsuitable but it is hard to explain, the reviewer is tempted to start speaking to citations. The problem is that no addition of inline citations can help a draft of an unsuitable topic. It can be hard to give an objective statement as to why a draft will never be suitable, but “inline citation” is definitely not close to a meaningful explanation.
A solution i think is like my suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_60#Paid_editing.2C_Advertorials.2C_and_Reference_bombing. Ask the author to state which 2 or 3 sources best meet our inclusion criteria of reliable third party secondary source coverage directly discussing the topic. “More sources”, inline or not, do not help and just make it harder to review. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Thincat if you don’t already have the AfC tools you should get them and use them. Check out the 800+ pages in declined for lacking inline citations/footnotes [15] Legacypac ( talk) 11:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Lee F. Jackson has been declined for not having inline citations, but in the comments, Caorongjin gives additional reasons - notability, and the article being too short. This is a four times elected Dallas County Judge who served 10 yeas in the Texas House of Representatives, and spent 15 years as chancellor of the North Texas university system. There are articles in four major newspapers cited, so I don't see a notability issue. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 15:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Per related discussion above and both WP:AFCR and WP:PROF guidelines; can we lose this draft Draft:Ahmad Milad Karimi for improper tone? It has not been edited since declining and likely to remain so until deleted. I decided to accept it but since I objected to reviewer unilaterally overriding another reviewer's judgment, I brought it here for advise. – Ammarpad ( talk) 08:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money?. Regards:)
Winged Blades of Godric
On leave
07:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Can someone more tech savvy than me update Template:Ffu talk to include a level two header? I'm getting really tired of manually typing "Files for upload" every time I use this. GMG talk 12:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Under "How to get involved" I've boldly placed
This shouldn't have to be said, but it appears that it must be, e.g. User:KDS4444 asked to join as a reviewer on October 2, 2017 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. This was promptly and correctly turned down here. KDS4444 has now been banned for doing somewhat similar work at OTRS and there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_Wikipedians_be_allowed_to_use_community_granted_tools_in_exchange_for_money.3F
I'm not married to the wording or even the placement of this requirement, but it looks like we have to have this somewhere. Smallbones( smalltalk) 18:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
At the AfC help desk, we have some templates for common questions asked by users (ie help desk, reference desk, etc). I wrote a template that I think could be included, to help users whose submissions were not sourced properly to find the relevant guidelines. I'd like input as to whether I should add it it the editnotice. It's found at {{subst:User:ProgrammingGeek/afc-rs}}. Obviously, I'd move it to a subpage of WP:AFCHD if it's liked. Thanks.
Hello. It appears that your submission to
Articles for Creation was declined because it lacked
reliable sources. Please note that Wikipedia requires third-party, independent sources for an article to be considered
notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you need further help on what sources could be considered reliable, please visit the
help desk. Thank you.
Hello,
Username. It appears that your submission to
Articles for Creation was declined because it lacked
reliable sources. Please note that Wikipedia requires third-party, independent sources for an article to be considered
notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you need further help on what sources could be considered reliable, please visit the
help desk. Thank you.
ProgrammingGeek talktome 14:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that the message for acceptance has a message : "If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback." that links to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/feedback. That seems essentially a black hole because it isn't linked anywhere here as far as I can see. I do see some feedback that might be useful. I think it'd be good if this page was linked somewhere on the project page (maybe under help desk?) cos I didn't even know this was a thing until I saw that. Also that page reallly needs archival. Galobtter ( talk) 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I am doing a preliminary survey requesting about 6 Wikipedia volunteers to answer a few questions. I am posting the survey to 3 boards, and I choose to post here because I think the project here is relevant. Thanks if a couple of people could respond below.
I just created an essay and presentation at Wikipedia:Measuring conflict of interest on Wikipedia. In that page, I say that the Wikipedia community does not have good information about how often COI editing occurs or the extent to which it is a problem or benefit. I argue that the Wikipedia community needs some data on this issue.
I am not a data scientist, and I do not know how to design a valid social survey. Since this is wiki, as an amateur I am collecting some initial community thoughts as preliminary research. I want this survey data to help guide initial conversation and also to aid in asking around if anyone already has data of this sort.
Thanks, comments here please. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Finish the survey in 3 minutes? Really? I didn't realize this was "flash respond to questions". Six rather detailed questions will take most people more than three minutes to complete. Primefac ( talk) 19:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I propose this to reduce the relatively constant backlog of submissions. Declined submissions are often immediately re-submitted with little to no changes, and this process repeats. The amount of articles that are being accepted is not enough to offset the number of new submissions (because declined ones often get re-submitted).
If we could time-stamp each denial, and disable the button on the AfC template if 7ish? days have not passed yet.
Of course, it could be manually re-submitted, but few AfC users will understand this.
Please give thoughts. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek talktome 13:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
These quick resubmissions will hurt our productivity more the faster we re-review them. If you want to limit the frequency which a given draft is resubmitted and improve our ability to address the real backlog, go review submissions that have been sitting longer awaiting review and let these resubmissions wait their turn. ~ Kvng ( talk) 20:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission}}
uses the parameter |small=yes
for re-rejections, but this parameter triggers a
Lint error of type
Missing end tag, leaving a <small>
tag unclosed. For example, in
declining
Draft:Christopher Roach, this line was added:
{{AFC submission|d|ilc|u=Jnice2k3|ns=118|decliner=Atlantic306|declinets=20171023225648|small=yes|ts=20171023142638}}
{{
AFC submission}}
should be modified so as not to leave behind an unclosed <small>
tag. —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
01:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not be specific to AFC, but as it is regarding new article creation, I might as well ask here - where, if anywhere, do we recommend or direct new users creating biographies to {{ subst:Biography}}? I find the existence of an article template for only one particular type of article quite strange, and am thinking of TFD'ing it. – Train2104 ( t • c) 20:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Νew Υork City. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.
This mixed Greek/Latin redirect was requested via AFC, so I'd though I'd let you know about the RFD.
-- 70.51.45.76 ( talk) 03:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Many of you use Article Alerts to get notified of discussions (PRODs and AfD in particular). However, due to our limit resources (one bot coder), not a whole lot of work can be done on Article Alerts to expand and maintain the bot. If the coder gets run over by a bus, then it's quite possible this tool would become unavailable in the future.
There's currently a proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey for the WMF to take over the project, and make it both more robust / less likely to crash / have better support for new features. But one of the main things is that with a full team behind Article Alerts, this could also be ported to other languages!
So if you make use of Article Alerts and want to keep using it and see it ported to other languages, please go and support the proposal. And advertise it to the other AfC projects in other languages too to let them know this exists, otherwise they might miss out on this feature! Thanks in advance! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
There's consensus against holding backlog drives, so I think that the backlog drives page should be removed from the tabs at the top of the page. ProgrammingGeek talktome 00:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Or we could just approve stuff more quickly and be a little less fussy. We can't seem to get any streamlining between AfC and NPR passed so anything approved at AfC goes into NPR like any new article and gets reviewed/tagged/AfD'd by the much larger pool of editors. If I was a new editor - getting a message about serious backlog and a month plus delay I'd be unhappy. People expect instant gratification on the internet. Anything we can do to reduce the backlog should be considered. Legacypac ( talk) 18:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm personally ready to talk about backlog drives again. The drives we did before had a review-the-reviewer component to them and that's how we learned we had a couple bad apples. We could have more than a couple bad apples now and not be aware of it. In addition to reducing backlog, a backlog drive brings attention to the project and so can help recruit new reviewers and sustain the work we do here. ~ Kvng ( talk) 23:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi I was just wondering about policy and guidelines about an editor that is not a reviewer moving a draft article that has been declined 4 times already. I am specifically talking about Skip Prichard. This has become a bit of a drama with a WIR climbing on his high horse because I had the gall to suggest that there was a potential COI problem because the submitter got in contact with one of the subject's employees who is a very very active and prominent editor (lots and lots of hats) to help get the article through AFC. There are accusations of personal attack going on. I didn't want to get any more involved so I pinged the original reviewers on the article's talk page so they could have a look and see if the problems had been addressed and they were ok with the move taking into account the recent edits and I was accused of canvassing by the WIR. I really don't want to get any more involved than I already am so if someone could just let me know if the move is infringing any policy and if so have a look at the talk page and reply. Domdeparis ( talk) 19:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I've pinged Krystav in the first paragraph. Perhaps they'll be kind enough to drop in here and let us know what they would like to do. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey all, some of you may know that I've been keeping tabs on the active/inactive lists for the AFCH access, as well as monitoring the number of drafts being submitted and reviewed. With a marked (and steady) increase of unreviewed drafts lately, I thought I would post the October data for this project. This is in no way meant to be "shaming" or otherwise critical of the reviewers (most of which are pulled in sixteen different directions) but to potentially start a discussion about how we can tackle the backlog.
Detailed stats can be found at this page. All of the stats were compiled on 5 Nov and any +/- numbers are based on the data taken on 8 Oct.
There has been a marked increase in the number of daily AFC submissions in the last two months, likely due to ACTRIAL (the numbers for earlier this year were ~180 submissions per day), but I don't think we have an impossible hurdle to jump. If 1/10 of the AFCH users reviewed just one more draft per day, we'd start decreasing the backlog. I think that's a manageable goal, and I'll do my best to start doing just that. Primefac ( talk) 14:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I’m a willing reviewer but am inappropriately restricted from moves to mainspace. All to do with a stalker. I mark pages as likely acceptable when I find them and focus on deletion otherwise.
We could cut down the size of the backlog by CSD or MfDing hopeless pages. Cut down on the resubmissions and discourage rather than encourage users from wasting time on unacceptable topics. Legacypac ( talk) 20:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There's a VPI thread that directly concerns this project. Your input is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 24#Time to call time on the Articles For Creation. Primefac ( talk) 15:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
If there's an experienced AfC reviewer who's bored and wouldn't mind doing me a favour, I'd be open to feedback on a few of the reviews I've done thus far. Essentially, I just want to make sure I'm on the right track. Thanks in advance, -- Jack Frost ( talk) 03:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, I'm seeing articles in draft scattered here and there with lots of potential that are being declined for the wrong reasons. Example: Draft:John_Giwa-Amu
To begin, it does not fail notability - a quickie Google search brings up all kinds of RS to establish notability - BBC New Talent, British Blacklist, BBC News, The Machine (film) by Rotten Tomatoes, reviewed in Variety - and that's just a quickie I did while composing this comment. So I'm open to suggestions about the best way to get this BLP into mainstream because what we've been doing has obviously failed. Does AfC expect its reviewers to fix the copy edit/sourcing problems or do we try to encourage the article creator to do it or do we accept the article and hang it on the shoulders of NPP? If we depend on the article creator in this case, we have a COI issue because User talk:Red & Black is the production company. Another concern is that leaving these articles as is, we're opening the door to COI/paid editing and may even be tempting some of our own GF editors to contact the relative company and offer to fix the article for pay. Maybe that's a bit far-fetched and I'm being overly suspicious but maybe not based on some of the activity that's been exposed of late. Ok, so what are we as reviewers expected to do to resolve these issues? I imagine the first response is going to be for the reviewer to fix it and that's what I've been doing for the most part but I can only do so much, plus I have articles on my own list that I want to create. What are our options and expected results? Atsme 📞 📧 18:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Does AfC expect its reviewers to fix ...or do we try to encourage the article creator to do it... or do we ... hang it on the shoulders of NPP. In simple circumstances (formatting, refs, elinks, etc), option #1. In cases like this, option #2. We do not expect that a reviewer will see a borderline case and go to the extra effort of finding in-depth RS that discusses the subject and get it to an acceptable level. Some of us do it, but a lot of us just don't have the time. The times I perform an "ilc" decline are a good example of this - if the subject is clearly notable but it's a huge draft with a half-hundred references but no inline citations; I don't have the time to go through and link up every ref with every paragraph, but the creator knows the refs and will be able to sync everything much faster. It's not ideal, but it works (most of the time).
Ok, so what are we as reviewers expected to do to resolve these issues?You're expected to do whatever you feel comfortable with. See a borderline draft you're not sure about? Leave a comment or just leave it for someone else. See an issue that could be fixed in two minutes? Fix it! See a borderline notability case that might be acceptable if you can find juuuuust the right reference? If you've got the time and motivation, go for it, otherwise leave a (detailed) explanation of what more is needed (or accept it and let NPP deal with it).
To address your last point - there isn't any particular order that drafts have to be reviewed. Some people review the 0 days, some people start from the end of very old. Luck of the draw, really.
I think both pages you mention are borderline cases, and the borderline cases are the hardest because they do depend on the mood and style of the reviewer. I can think of 8 reviewers where I could tell you exactly what they would do with the Williams article based on their past accepts/declines. I can honestly see myself both declining or accepting with Williams page based on potential moods I could be in, though in writing this and looking over the sources I'd probably be sliding towards "decline". To me it's a true "50/50" call at AFD, because I can see it going either way depending on who shows up and who's interested in the general subject of jazz.
There's nothing "wrong" with nominating a page that went through AFC for deletion, and I certainly wouldn't fault you for nominating that page based on MUSICBIO concerns. Better to have multiple levels of checks (AFC, NPR, and just generally checking things) than to say "well it went through AFC so I must be crazy". Sometimes it's a judgment call, sometimes it's a mistake, sometimes other people just don't agree with you. Primefac ( talk) 16:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you create three pages? The three pages are Gran plaza outlets, Outlets at Tejon and San Francisco Premium Outlets. -- 2601:205:C100:627F:B973:4EFE:6B:4A59 ( talk) 06:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking for suggestions on moving forward with improving the project here:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#AFC_discussion_summaries_and_moving_forward Egaoblai ( talk) 08:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Considering that there is now the Page mover user right, and it can be a chore to nominate after-page move redirects for G6, would it be alright to add the option for page movers of suppressing the creation of redirects when using the AfC helper gadget? Such an option could prove useful. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I have posted an RfC that may impact this project and/or be relevant to the users who frequent this page. You can find it at WP:VPPR#RfC: Three Strikes Rule for AfC submissions and reviews. Your comments are welcome. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 09:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ AfC editintro}} is out of date (we now use "publish page" instead of "save page"), and to boot it's not used anywhere. Does anyone see a compelling reason to keep this template around, or should it go the way of the dodo and get deleted? Primefac ( talk) 13:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Ridiculously new to this, so feel free to ignore. That said, I began this today and have reviewed 8 articles. I passed one, and am working on one with the proposing editor. The other 6, I have rejected. The reasons are basically all the same: the article subjects are not notable / they are promotional advertising for businesses / they are written by the article subject, or by someone close to them / their sources are poor or worse / their structures and prose are weak; in brief, they have no place on Wikipedia. But my concern is that 5 of the 6 had already been rejected, often more than once. And the rationales for so doing were again broadly the same (see above). Unless you make it less easy than it currently is to resubmit, you don't have a hope of addressing the backlog - which will lead to attacks similar to that seen at Village Pump. With such easy resubmission, this is truly a Canute task. KJP1 ( talk) 21:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Our oldest pending submissions seem to be mostly
Not fun reviewing. I can appreciate why this pool keeps growing. ~ Kvng ( talk) 22:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
significant coverageand
independent of the subjectand
reliable sourcesare simple enough and don't require wikipedia expertise. And draft creators would have normally had to learn about them before embarking on writing their own drafts anyway. It will also be an edifying experience as going through an objective appraisal of another's work will help people better understand why their own drafts have been declined.
I have had quite a lot of success recently reducing the NPP backlog by inviting users from the List of Wikipedians by number of edits to join the project (I invited everyone in the top 1000 that met my criteria and was not already an admin or NPR). I have been keeping track of the number of reviews by those I invited, and the number of reviews is basically about the same as the amount that our backlog has reduced in the last month. This tells me that the primary issue with the NPP backlog over the last year has been the number of active participants, not necessarily any lack of initiative or lack of effort.
I realise that you guys over here have been dealing with backlog issues as well, and have a made an RfC proposal intended to help a bit (linked in a section above). I have also created a template similar to the one that I have been using for NPP that you guys can use to invite users to AfC:
Template:AfC invite. Just paste {{Subst:AfC invite}}
onto a user's talk page to drop the invite. —
Insertcleverphrasehere (
or here)
08:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I recently found myself examining some of the past activity of one former reviewer. A few months ago, for a period of two weeks they reviewed over 700 AfC submissions. The interval between successive reviews was on average a minute, sometimes less than that. Only eight drafts were accepted, the rest were declined. I've been going through the drafts that aren't about people or companies (most of the reviewed articles were about people or companies, so my conclusions do not necessarily apply to the majority of their reviews). What I keep finding is decently written, acceptably sourced drafts on notable topics that are declined most often with some boilerplate text that I struggle to see the relevance of, or occasionally with brief individually written rationales that are rather strange (e.g. the text lacks sections, or it doesn't use a particular citation style).
A few dozen of the creators of these drafts have either resubmitted them or have asked the reviewer on their talk page for further feedback. The rest, a vast majority, have made no edits anywhere on wikipedia after their draft had been declined. Judging from that reviewer's talk page archives, they were approached by experienced AfC editors on three occasions, all for minor issues, and the first major concern wasn't brought up until more than two months after they had ceased actively reviewing.
How can situations like this be prevented from occurring in future? Shouldn't there be some way of keeping an eye out for bursts of reviewing activity and taking timely action in the case of large-scale irregularities? – Uanfala (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to request a change or an addition to the Assessment rules for reviewers examining Drafts or other newly created pages which may be translations from sister projects. The underlying reason for this request is:
A couple of underlying goals I'd like to see added to the philosophy of the assessment process:
If it can be determined that a draft article under review is, or may be, a translation from a foreign wikipedia, then the review path should follow a slightly different course, imho. My recommendation:
As a result of this process, if a Draft is rejected for translation-related reasons, it may not always be the right thing to do to send it back to the editor for more work, if their command of the source language is non-existent or too poor to improve it. I would like to see the reviewer community discuss how to handle such a reject. One concern I have, is that a skilled editor could completely swamp the review process by cranking out machine translations at script speed, while the aftermath of dealing with articles one by one can only proceed at human speed. (Indeed, to some extent this is already happening, although by editors who are skipping the Afc procedure and dumping lightly edited machine translations directly into article space, which I suppose is outside the scope of Afc concerns but is happening all the same.) Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 00:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Pinging some afc participants. If you're on this list, we've either crossed paths before, probably at some lang-related thing and I thought highly of you, or you've commented lately (favorably or otherwise) on a user TP about their afc submission that may have been translated: @ Winged Blades of Godric, TonyBallioni, Galobtter, Kaldari, Justlettersandnumbers, DGG, I dream of horses, Huon, Kiteinthewind, Primefac, and Staszek Lem: Mathglot ( talk) 02:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
My views, to supplement the above:
DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)