![]() | 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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
As stated here by both Jovanmilic97 and I, AFCH is allowing more than one decline to go through at once. Needless to say, this is unneeded, and possibly and quite unintentionally bitey. Hopefully, a fix will be in the works ASAP. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message ( talk to me) ( My edits) @ 21:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys, with respect to "state constituency" stubs by PPP0001, of which I am seeing a number come through (accepted or declined) - we are currently having a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Large_number_of_constituency_stubs_by_PPP001 about this. Feel free to pop in, might save some duplication of effort. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Enterprisey: see this edit - if a wikiproject's templates are already there, it should edit them rather than duplicating them. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 21:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects.
Phase 2 of the consultation has now begun; as such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2. All users are invited to express their views. Individual WikiProjects, user groups and other communities may also consider creating their own requests for comment; instructions are at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up. (To keep discussion in one place, please don't reply to this comment.) Jc86035 ( talk) 14:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
For those who may not already be aware. Discussion at COIN.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 05:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Ahmad Narvaw Walla - also known as MANZOOR AHMAD RATHER is BORN in MALPORA NARVAW on 14th January, 1990, the first child of Mr. Bashir Ahmad Rather, a High School Teacher. Manzoor Ahmad Rather passed his Childhood in his native Countryside, west Baramulla, the Narvaw, Jammu and Kashmir. Till the year 2001 he was admitted in a local school, Islamia Model High School Malpora, as he passed 5th Standard, his parents admitted him in a Boarding school, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Shahkote, Baramulla. He passed his 12 th standard in 2007 with Science Stream from Government Higher Secondary School Fatehgarh. In 2010 he graduated from Govt. Degree College Boys Baramulla with English Literature. He is M.A. in History and English Literature. In 2016 he submitted his M.Phil dissertation on Partition - Pain and Pathos of Women. Presently he is persuing P.hD. on the same selected topic Partition - Pain and Pathos of Women. He Visited many Cities in India for education and Research purpose, like Dehradun, Indore, Bhopal, Delhi, Hyderabad, Nagpur, Amravati, Mumbai, Punjab. During his College days in Bar. S.K. Wankhede University's College Of Education Nagpur University , He has been active in student Politics, and was the Member of Baba Saheb Ambedkar Students Organisation , Nagpur University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad Narvaw Walla ( talk • contribs)
Articles for Creation - redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for Creation
83.20.176.239 ( talk) 08:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC), I represent Monniasza
![]()
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I've made two attempts to accept Reed trio. Both times, the page gets moved to mainspace, but the browser window (I'm using Chrome 74.0.3729.169 on MacOS) hangs and the AfC template isn't removed. Any idea what's wrong? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there something like this available to track AfC backlog. We're out to about 10 weeks at this point. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Backlog is still rising. Chart is giving an "Account Suspended" error. ~ Kvng ( talk) 18:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
223.231.68.4 ( talk) 07:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Hiii I didn't find an Article about Stark Maliyk. He is an musical artist.
Spotify- https://open.spotify.com/artist/7xWYSq1Tr6z37mR9QwUdaj?si=l1Zau9dASya5WYkaMq8dyg
Google- Stark Maliyk https://g.co/kgs/7iyYXG
Just as the section header says. I noticed this when I looked at a draft that DGG accepted, and now it's done it again with this one. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message ( talk to me) ( My edits) @ 12:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
See Special:Permanentlink/899358779#Announcement:_enhanced_patrol/AFC_acceptance_logs. Please comment there. MER-C 14:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be done privately. The talk page is essentially the spoken word, visible to everybody. There is a known psychological effect on a person when discussing that person in a group context, in the open, when they are the person getting spoken about. It degrades and corrodes them, breaks down their confidence, resulting a net negative loss both to them and to us, unless they are extremly robust and that is the exception. And that is the reason and the norm in Europe and the UK to hold such a meeting like this in private. Any University Court or learned society would use that approach or professional company. It takes as much risk out of the process as possible, preserves the dignity of the person and reduces the probability of the process becoming errant. There is many examples, recent examples where the effect turned into a kind of almost drunken mess. You start with a rationale idea at the beginning and after several days its gone south.
It should be: Prepare the evidence beforehand, select 3 or 5 editors in good standing, and then do a short interview and discussion that takes no more than 4 hours in private, thereby reducing disruption to both the person and Wikipedia. Then publish the outcome and the evidence if the outcome is remove. If it is not remove, then close it with a quiet word on the talk page. It is always puzzled me from the get-go why we have not had something in place like this beforehand and that is the clearest indicator yet that Wikipedia is not a learned society. It really a kind of short-termism. scope_creep Talk 22:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
From an AfC point of view, it would be an additional new article route for content contribution from external experts.
It also acts as a quality-control mechanism for existing Wikipedia articles, complementary to Featured articles, using established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
The past few days, I've reviewed (and mostly accepted) a pile of excellent drafts. From what I can see, most of these are from OLES2129 at the University of Sydney, where I guess this is the end of the semester so all the projects are due. I'm not sure where the right place is to provide feedback, but I do want to thank the folks who ran and participated in this program.
The quality of drafts I've been reviewing is several steps better than the usual fare at WP:AfC; it has really been a pleasure to read them. It's good to know there are still people writing high-quality articles on interesting and valuable topics. As opposed to the usual deluge of self-promotion and spam. Thank you everybody for your efforts. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I recently noticed that an editor with a self-declared conflict of interest had created a page Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance on the organisation they are associated with. Per WP:COIEDIT's "[COI editors] should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly", I moved it to draftspace and told them to submit it to AfC. They objected to my edit due to a previous unrelated interaction we have had and moved it back a few days later on the grounds that "The CO[I] has not effect on the content of the page, which is merely descriptive". This is of course false as COI editors have biased judgements in determining notability of a page, and furthermore the page contains non-neutral fragments like "[CSMBR] encourages the widest international cooperation amongst scholars and students by means of its awards and travel grants" and "advocacy research [...] is incompatible with the very mission of the Centre". Would the page have been accepted were it an AfC submission? If not, can someone else move it back to draftspace? — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move. ( closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 ( talk) 00:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
– Short description on the page says "Wikipedia project page for requesting redirects and categories." Masum Reza 📞 21:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Primefac ( talk) 10:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Pre-migration discussion
|
---|
I just noticed that this talk page was, in fact, a redirect to
WT:AFC immediately before this discussion opened.
Masumrezarock100, can I suggest that you migrate this discussion to
WT:AFC as I intend to revert the removal of the redirect in line with
WP:BRD.
142.160.89.97 (
talk)
02:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
{{subst:requested move|reason=Short description on the page says "Wikipedia project page for requesting redirects and categories."|current1=Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects|new1=Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories}}
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A protected redirect, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation , needs redirect category ( rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation]]
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation]] {{Redirect category shell| {{R with history}} {{R for convenience}} }}
The {{ Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{ pp-protected}} and/or {{ pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 23:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rameshrajan Palakkad Kerala Rameshrajanp ( talk) 08:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
What's our policy about authors deleting comments from drafts? I left some negative comments on Draft:RingDNA, which were reverted in Special:Diff/901286687 before resubmitting. I've been WP:INVOLVED in this, so I'll abstain from doing anything further, beyond bringing it to people's attention here. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is awesome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgra622 ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
On two occasions in the last two days, I've used the AFC tool and selected decline, and it has posted a reject message. I'm using IE. Is this a known issue? What's going on? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 18:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
It seems that the backlog is rising back up to high levels (past 4,000). As we all continue to give our best efforts in reducing the wait times and backlog, it would make sense to bring a drive for a bit of "extra motivation". There are some AFC reviewers who are not very active and a drive could re-motivate them.
Drives have a high amount of success. At the New Page Reviewing drive, the backlog hit an all time low. Sadly, it creeped back it. Another example is the monthly GOCE drives. I have participated in several of those and it has reduced the backlog significantly.
We need to reclaim the AFC backlog and a drive may be the key to helping us manage the work better. AmericanAir88( talk) 21:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
A backlog drive proposal comes up regularly and there was a time where they were quickly knocked down for the reasons Dodger67 mentions. More recent proposals have been received more warmly. I am personally receptive to the idea. I think in recent discussion there was a suggestion to reduce some of the gamification of the drive to reduce the incentive for abuse. The drives may actually improve quality as they have a review the reviews component that we don't routinely do. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
This decline seems insane to me. Nine quality references (perhaps setting aside the dissertation) and a pretty nice summary of various features of an obscure language. Is this an accurate reflection of this project's standards lately, or is it a one-off error? (My intention is not to discuss the particular reviewer; I have no reason to believe that s/he reviews differently than anyone else.) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 01:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags), but I think the biggest hurdle would be rewording a little bit to make it more obvious that it's a Brazilian language. I wouldn't say it's necessarily a "bad" decline, but more like it's a "lazy" decline in that the issues are minor enough that a small amount of tweaking from the reviewer (as we generally know what we're doing) would be faster/get the right results (as opposed to the newbies floundering through it).
Primefac (
talk)
12:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)On further review, significant chunks of this draft have been copied from the PhD dissertation cited. I'm going to delete it. (Note that this was NOT the reason it was previously declined.) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 00:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. In the process of monitoring Category:AfC submissions with categories as part of an approved bot task, I frequently see a few pages in mainspace that still have AfC tags. I know that they get removed eventually, but I'd like to file a BRFA to automatically remove the tags if the reviewer is not still reviewing the page, under the assumption that they either forgot or the tag was added by mistake. What would others think of automatically removing the tag if the page hasn't been edited for more than 2 hours? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 16:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There are two general areas where we could be more effective:
@ Primefac:, @ Kvng: Hello, here is the proposal for the backlog drive I have planned. All comments are appreciated.
To reduce the growing backlog and ensure that users will not have to wait months for their articles to get reviewed. This backlog will also aim at ensuring our top quality standards. This will be a much more enforced drive.
We can take advantage of the {subst:WPAFCDrive} template to send a message to members of the AFC community.
Like previous drives, there will be a team of participants, analytics, and overall administration. Participants will be the main ones clearing the backlog. However, there will be regulations. Analytics will be the ones reviewing the reviews. Unlike previous years, this should not be random and should have a systematic feel to it. Administration will oversee the drive, update the leaderboard, monitor, and reward people at the end.
The previous drives benefited from the AFC Buddy tool. Sign ups can be similar. If anyone has any expertise on that, it would be such a big help. If not, any other ideas?
The leaderboard will function almost the exact same as previous.
The awards will be almost the same. Except maybe the brownie could be replaced with the minor barnstorm and the invisible could be replaced with the modest.
To ensure quality remains priority, reviews of reviews will be conducted systematically. To view how they handled it in the past, see the previous drives. As I said in the tools section, this will be determined based on if AFC Buddy will be used.
I created this proposal in hopes of reviving the backlog drives the AFC project used to host quite often. This revival will not only hopefully be better, but more accurate. The AFC backlog is growing and the sheer ratio of active users to unreviewed pages is high. A drive will create friendly competition, reward users, and hopefully jump start this project into a more active era.
Thank you. All comments are appreciated and we can all help coordinate this. AmericanAir88( talk) 20:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Jatin katiyar was a inventor of first Indian ganymede exploration julondo rover in 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diksha katiyar ( talk • contribs) 00:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 16:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I'm reviewing Draft:City Challenge Race Company. While there are issues with the content they are fixable. The main question is whether the subject is notable. Looking at the references and the media coverage, there's a fair amount but is enough of it independent - particularly intellectually independent? Much of it is press release generated, and the piece with the most coverage is an interview. I am leaning towards decline but it is borderline and I'd appreciate someone else having a look. Just try to see beyond the current content! Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I feel the current system at AFC of having a bunch of reviewers go about randomly reviewing from a set of over 4000 drafts is ludicrous and bound to keep AFC eternally backlogged. What is needed is to recruit editors with specialised subject interests to review drafts. I, for example, just reviewed a computational biology article which I randomly came across because I found it interesting, but I'd absolutely hate to review the countless bio articles I'm seeing at CAT:AFC. Many editors are likely to be interested in reviewing only certain subject areas, and the present system at AFC is un-inviting to them.
There needs to be some way of associating drafts with WikiProjects. Enterprisey already has a script for adding {{WikiProject X|class=draft}} tags to draft talk pages, but projects don't have proper means of seeing the tagged pages other than looking at the "Draft-class X articles" category or through wmflabs summary tables. And there's no way of separating the submitted ones from declined/unsubmitted ones. So this just doesn't work.
We should set up a system similar to AFD's deletion sorting for AFC. Let us say at Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Subject X. Since we cannot expect the new editors to be able to categorize the draft with an appropriate subject (because they wouldn't be using scripts, without which it would be tedious), we can have some WikiGnomes go about categorising them - same way as it happens at Deletion sorting project. The draft would be listed at the AfC sorting page, along with a snippet of the first 2-3 sentences of text, and a count of number of citations (would probably help in identifying the valid drafts). A script can be written for this purpose.
When the draft is declined (or accepted), the listing will be removed from the sorting pages by a bot. These pages can then be watched by interested editors, transcluded onto WikiProject work pages, and what not. Just having some way for categorising submitted drafts may lead to a whole lot of technical possibilities.
The crucial part of this proposal is that the sorting pages will contain only active submissions, keeping the declined listings would only result in these pages growing into unworkably large mountains. Also, the crux of this proposal is try expand the horizon of AfC reviewing to people who otherwise would only edit mainspace articles related to their subject of interest. SD0001 ( talk) 19:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
just to outline what we did with Australia, I used AWB over the Pending AFC submissions looking for articles with key words like Australia or state numbers to add the WikiProject Australia tag (which has to be added to the Talk page not the article so more manual work than you hope from AWB. Then we used Petscan to compile the list that was included at WikiProject Australia. I think it should be easy enough to automate a WikiProject guessing tool (one may already exist) and an automatic list compiling tool. But, as commented above, our Australian effort petered out after a number of months. I think for a mixture of reasons. A couple of us embarked on a large project to add about 1500 articles using CC-BY sources, which frankly was a much higher value activity in terms of building an encyclopaedia. And I think the rest just got tired than wading through the 80% self-promotional bios and company profiles (just because they were Australian didn’t make them any more acceptable). Therein lies the inherent problem AFC has, the limited sense of positive achievement. Sure it defends the encyclopaedia from this kind of dross but I am not sure it gives enough people satisfaction in finding the few gems within the dross. Kerry ( talk) 03:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Anywhere Ali mushtaq bajwa ( talk) 02:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I declined a submission, but the process failed to notify the article creator. The edit history shows that it did post but I'm not seeing it on the UTP. I decided to do it manually, and again, it didn't post. Any idea what's going on? Atsme Talk 📧 21:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, good AfC folks,
I hope someone who is familiar with your templates can help me with this one. A user talk page, User talk:JC7V7DC5768/Archive 3, keeps appearing in the AfC category, Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions, and I've looked all over this archived talk page for some template or other that has placed the talk page in category Category:AfC submissions by date/24 October 2018. But I can't find anything obvious that has caused it to be confused with an AfC submission and I doubt that the editor is even aware of this miscategorization.
Could you take a look and see if anything sticks out that shouldn't be there? Lots of admins check this category for old drafts and this page looks like it can not be removed unless it is deleted which is a bad option that JC7V7DC5768 would not appreciate.
Thanks for any help you can provide! Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I made some tweaks to the {{ AFC submission/draft}}, {{ AFC submission/pending}}, {{ AFC submission/helptools}} templates. I basically put copyright/NPOV/RS warnings front and center, since those are major issues that need to be addressed on nearly every submission, created a 'where to get help' section, which has the old help venues + mentions WikiProjects as another venue for help. I also added a 'look at Feature/Good' articles if you need examples of good writing to the 'How to improve the article' section.
Feel free to tweak/modify as needed. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Theodore Wells Pietsch II: AfC sumbission moved directly into mainspace by its creator without review (in 2011, I guess this one slipped through the cracks). Can someone take a look at it? – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 11:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes I see the argument here where people note that pages that are declined at AFC would pass at AFD because the subject is notable. Isn't this a huge problem? If a page wouldn't get deleted at AFD, then doesn't it make logical sense that it should be passed at AFC? Hasn't AFC had a scope creep here, where reviewers are not just assessing if a subject belongs in wikipedia, but are assessing whether the editor has sufficiently made their page look nice too?
If a page that had 2 sources came to AFD, but was of a subject that everyone agreed was notable, then it wouldn't get deleted. But the same could happen here and the page would get declined (regardless of whether the subject was notable or not) and then if the editor gets disheartened, end up on the road to g13 deletion.
So isn't the current AFC process just ensuring that loads of notable subjects for the wiki are deleted? Gumlau ( talk) 10:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the AFCH script is not detecting existing WikiProject banners on draft talk pages. Reviewers accepting the draft have the option to add WikiProject tags, and if they choose to add tags that are already present, the tags are duplicated. Eg. [2], [3]
Per the section above, adding project tags to draft talk pages is desirable in interest of draft sorting, so this bug needs to be fixed. SD0001 ( talk) 04:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I put that in all caps because it is a serious issue. Over the last few days I have been looking into AfC more intensively than usual with a view to making the work more streamlined for reviewers.
However, I have come across numerous drafts that have been accepted and moved to mainspace that contain over 50% COPYVIO. I'm not going to provide links or diffs to name and shame the reviewers, but this must be addressed, and in way that does not intimidate the creators by having to return their articles to draft space. Drafts are created because their content needs special attention or because the provenance of the content is dubious. There is a 'Copyvio check' link in the sidebar of every page. Please use it.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
00:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
importScript('User:The Earwig/copyvios.js');
to their common.js;
or taken similar measures. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
02:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
For example, when I reviewed 100 Word Story, I marked it as belonging to {{ WikiProject Literature}}. Then, the script notified it's submitter, Crier of Ink, with the standard notice... which fails to mention that the user may be interested in joining WikiProject Literature! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
A checkbox that should probably be enabled by default :p. Could be a simple line, such as
$1
, $2
, ... $N
.Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 08:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing_instructions#Rejecting_submissions be revised to discourage reviewers from using Reject for the first review of a submission. Immediate rejection is WP:BITEY and allowing a single reviewer to torpedo a draft does not offer sufficient checks and balances on reviewers. My proposed wording is below. ~ Kvng ( talk) 20:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
If a draft has previously been declined by a different reviewer, drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia may be rejected. Rejection is appropriate for a previously declined submission if the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it were an article (i.e., deletion would not be contested if WP:PRODDED, would be an overwhelming "delete" at AfD, or clearly meet a CSD article criterion). If a draft meets one of the general CSD criteria, an appropriate CSD tag should also be added.
How do I make another wikipedia entry to submit for review? I cannot use my sandbox right now because I have another article for review. -E
Similar to
WP:DELSORT or tagging with WikiProject banners, I feel a lot of the backlog could get more efficiently addressed if there was a |field=
or |WikiProject(s)=
that could be used to 'sort/categorize' submissions in {{
AFC submission}}. These could then be leveraged to create project-specific watchlists.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
10:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Infoboxes work well in a lot of cases. For example, see this worklist I made for WP:JOURNALS, based on draft pages that transcluded Template:Infobox journal. Worklists like that can be build for certain topics. It probably will be useless for most biographies and companies, but it will let the good stuff on actual topics get reviewed more quickly. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 10:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I propose that we start a new AFC backlog elimination drive. It's been 5 years since the last drive. Pending AFC submission is still over 4000. As far as I know, nothing has changed since the start of this year. We will give out barnstars to participants. To notifiy the reviewers, we can use the mass message tool. At least this will motivate AFC reviewers to review submissions. Even if we review all of the daily submissions, the number doesn't decrease at all. 4000 submissions are what killing us. I mean it's better than nothing right. There is no harm in it. Barnstars are pretty rare these days. :) Masum Reza 📞 22:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Based on the above and other discussion of authors not understanding AfC acceptance criteria, not taking declines well and the known possibility of bad declines, I have reviewed our messaging and have some improvements to propose. In addition to the custom or canned description of the reason for the decline, the decline template offers these bullets:
This message also appears at the bottom next to the Resubmit button:
I propose the following revisions
The message appears at the bottom next to the Resubmit button:
Note that I have linked three times to a new informational page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Acceptance_criteria. Feel free to make or suggest any improvements. ~ Kvng ( talk) 20:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Ask the closer about your concern. Be polite, and do not assume that they know exactly what you have been thinking. When asked directly, they may say something that you hadn’t considered, or at least give a more detailed explanation that may prove useful. If, after discussing it with them, you think the closer was wrong, consider ...
I've seen this a couple times now but most recently with Draft:Symbolic language (literature) bu Rosguill. Someone WP:PRODs an aticle. It gets WP:DEPRODDED. Normally the next step is WP:AFD but instead the article is moved to Draft space. This does not seem like appropriate workflow. Should I be reverting these moves? ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
ETA: Here's the other example I've seen: Draft:Waripora Bangil by Boleyn ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
No is the correct and short answer to should I revert these Moving articles to draft space that are needing space to develop and that includes bio articles that may have been sitting for a decade or more with no references is now established process for more than a year. It has an ad-hoc approach but works well. Draft is good place for them to sit and develop while being out the limelight. scope_creep Talk 09:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
It looks like discussion is finished over at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#WP:NPPDRAFT_vs._AfC_acceptance_criteria. There is no consensus to change WP:NPPDRAFT. NPP reviewers assure me that these involuntary moves to Draft don't happen often but they will continue to happen. ~ Kvng ( talk) 18:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 06:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi, I've just completed my first AfC review on /info/en/?search=Draft:Julie_Rieger and wanted to get some feedback before proceeding with more (not sure if this is the best place to ask this?) Could a more experienced reviewer pls check my review and confirm everything has been done appropriately? TIA! MurielMary ( talk) 09:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Joe's Null Bot used to purge every pending draft every day to update which subcategory of Category:AfC pending submissions by age it is in (0 days, 1 day, 2 days, ..., Very old). The bot's status page says it has been down since November 2018, but the bug that brought it down has long been fixed, a proposal to replace Joe's Null Bot was denied in April 2019 because "Joe's Null Bot should be working now", and something has been doing what Joe's Null Bot did, so perhaps the status page is just out of date.
For the past two weeks or so, however, the bot either hasn't been running, or has run on only some drafts (the oldest, I think; Joe set a sanity limit on the number of pages purged per day, and the ever-increasing backlog may have blown past that). The easiest way to see the effect is to look at Category:AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago, which contains many drafts that were submitted more than a day ago, such as Draft:Josie Moon and Draft:Los Angeles Contemporary Archive, both submitted on 16 July. Edits (including null ones) will jump a draft to the correct age.
Who should we notify about this? I left a message a week ago at User talk:Joe Decker in case his bot is still the one assigned to this. But Joe edits infrequently now, and he hasn't replied yet. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 05:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
See, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts#AFC.
To make sure projects get notified, make sure to tag drafts with the relevant WikiProject banners. This will be particularly helpful if you come across a draft, but don't feel like the best person to review it.
Cheers and thanks to Hellknowz for the update. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I am ready to accept Draft:Anita Andreis but after filling in the accept information, I get no response from AFCH when I push the Accept & publish button. Anyone know what's going on here. I'm using Chrome on Windows 10. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Enterprisey: It's still doing it with the 'cleaning' button. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 10:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, it probably already exists, but I think it would be a good idea for people to patrol new drafts, a la NPP, to reduce work for AfC/G13, and nip spam/vandalism in the bud. Does there exist a place to check? PrussianOwl ( talk) 23:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The WMF has been thinking about the best ways to handle IP editing. The WMF-Community discussion is at m:Talk:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation. This is of particular concern for AfC, NPP, and others who control new content and combat vandalism. Please consider joining the discussion and weighing in with your pros and cons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 19:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I haven't been around AfC much since the introduction of the "Reject" feature in AFCH, but I am a bit disturbed by the number of rejections I am seeing recently where no explanation is given in the draft or on the author's talk page, and the edit summary is just "Rejecting submission: undefined (AFCH 0.9.1)". Some reviewers have been leaving a comment on the draft under the decline message with more info, but I think the software should require that a reason be given, especially if it is the first review and there are no previous declines. Even something as simple as "The subject of this article does not meet
Wikipedia's notability requirements" or "This appears to be a test edit" would be better than just "Submission rejected". Yes, the author may not have a valid contribution now (perhaps they misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia), but we still shouldn't be
WP:BITEing them as they may become a valid contributor in the future. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
18:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello AfC. This draft would make a good article. However, there is currently a redirect set up that sends "Geography of Brisbane" to the article for Brisbane. The information in the draft is more substantial than the section on geography in the Brisbane article and therefore merits a standalone article. In addition, the AFCH helper noted that an article with the same title was deleted 11 years ago because it was created by a banned user. However, this current draft appears to have been part of a University project. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 19:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
{{Db-move|1=Geography of Brisbane|2=To make way for AfC acceptance of [[Draft:Geography of Brisbane]]}}
--
Worldbruce (
talk)
17:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
Multiple editors have expressed concern on Dan's talk page ( permalink to thread) about excessive numbers of rejections (not declines) on drafts that could be notable; from what I have seen of the various rejections most fail WP:V (and definitely should be declined) but make claims that would seem (if verified) to meet WP:GNG or at the very least WP:CCSI. Are the editors that posted on his talk justified in their concerns? If so, should Dan be admonished, put on "one more chance" status, or removed from AFC? The last option would require them to re-apply through WP:AFC/P should they wish to continue reviewing. Primefac ( talk) 18:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I know the above discussion was closed a couple of weeks ago, but I am in a similar situation to User:Dan arndt where my work-supplied computer requires the use of Internet Explorer 11, and that browser incorrectly rejects drafts that should've been declined instead. My solution was to turn off AFCH in my preferences, and instead add the following lines to my Special:MyPage/common.js:
if ( $('<div style="color:#ffd"></div>')[0].outerHTML != '<div style="color:#ffd"></div>' ) {
mw.loader.load( '//en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Enterprisey/afch-old.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' ); // AFCH old script [[User:Enterprisey/afch-old.js]]
} else {
mw.loader.load( '//en.wikipedia.org/?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' ); // AFCH beta script [[MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js]]
}
This will detect incompatible versions of Internet Explorer and load the older pre-reject version of the script in those cases. I'm not sure if it's worth having
User:Enterprisey add a similar IE detection routine to the master script. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
18:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
You know, there's a lot of small potatoes cleanup that can/should be done upon submission. So, to make the life of reviewers more simple, I propose that whenever an article is submitted
What's the feeling on this? Should I go make a WP:BOTREQ? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
It gives little to no indication of what the link is about and you basically need to click on every one of them to figure it out to make sure it's an appropriate reference. Which of
or
is clear about what it's about without clicking on the link? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hellknowz and probably others have been WikiProject tags to pending draft talk pages. I've seen two problems with this:
Obviously this stuff can be cleaned up manually but maybe there are better ideas. ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
|class=Draft
in these tags. ~
Kvng (
talk)
14:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Just fishing for some open opinions. Thanks, Lourdes 03:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I chanced upon this draft the other day which was rejected on the basis that an article already exists in mainspace. The advice given was to merge this content into the existing article but this seems counterintuitive to me given the size of the draft compared to what is basically little more than a stub. Honestly, if I was to do a merge myself it would largely be a cut & paste job, but that would be a bad thing. Assuming the draft is otherwise ok, the most logical course (to me) would be to move the existing article to one side, move the draft into mainspace and redirect the original, perhaps reverse merging any usable content into the new article. Is that an appropriate course of action though? PC78 ( talk) 00:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I was recently added to AfC as a 2 month probationary member 1 week ago. So, from my knowledge, I will be assessed again after 2 months on my progress, and I was wondering if this process is automatic or I needed to apply again. Also, is there anything else that will help when I am reviewed again?
Second, I recently reviewed and denied Draft:Andrea Marinelli due to its lack of sources. However, the creator added new sources in Italian (that I do not speak), so can someone take a look at these sources? (I also seem to be getting 404 errors on these sources)
Thanks, Taewangkorea ( talk) 11:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Given the "Very old" category has 1.7k pages in it, would it be prudent to add a few more weekly categories until the backlog is a little more under control, and to give a bit better information about how long reviews might take? stwalkerster ( talk) 23:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I'm accepting Draft:Symphonie funèbre. When I type "classical music" into the projects box, I get, "Whoops, no WikiProjects matched in database! classical music". Yet, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music exists. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
A few days ago I rejected Draft:Amer Nejma due to a lack of WP:RS. Today, the creator added more sources and posted a message on my talk page so I took a look at the draft and I tried to accept the draft as it now met the general notability guidelines. However, the draft appears to have a past history of promotion/advertising without any sources, which resulted in the article being create-protected by an admin (the AFCH helper script showed that). What should I do in this case? Taewangkorea ( talk) 08:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I've been informed by User:Bilorv that "[the AFCH helper script's] acceptance button requires a non-existent title in the mainspace for the draft to be moved to", i.e. that an AFC reviewer cannot approve the draft before deletion of a an article or redirect in mainspace which would block the draft from being moved. (Further discussion took place at User_talk:Bilorv#Draft:Black_Christmas_(2019_film)).
WP:CSD#G6 states that "An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it." My usual workflow is to check the page which is to be moved, and relevant talk pages, and then - if I am happy to proceed - to use the "link to perform this move" link which appears as part of the speedy deletion template.
I fully accept the possibility that I'm doing things wrong :), but as an admin I'm not inclined to accept as "uncontroversial" a move to mainspace of a draft which has been rejected, nor does G6 permit me to just delete the redirect and forget about it.
I was wondering, therefore, whether it might be desirable to either: modify the script so that a draft can be approved concurrent with the issuance of the G6 request; or, tweaking the G6 message to make it clear that the requesting party is an AFC reviewer who is intent on approving the draft immediately.
Any thoughts or advice? -- kingboyk ( talk) 14:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
In the last few months when I've declined drafts on the basis of advertising, increasingly admins have quickly speedily deleted the draft and blocked the editor. My own G11s where previously I might have thought were borderline are swiftly deleted with no rejections from admins. Has anyone else detected a subtle shift away from WP:AGF and WP:BITE and a harder line on WP:PROMO? Are admins routinely monitoring recent AfC declines? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted. This is the only way to discourage people from using the WP for advertising. If the subject is actually important, someone else will create an article. Rescuing it sends the message that if your write an unacceptable article about yourself, someone will very possibly fix it for you, and therefore you might as well try to advertise here. It furthermore sends the message that if you you hire someone to write an article and they take money for doing this, and they write the usual unacceptable article such people write, then someone will fix it for you free, while the guy who wrote the bad article gets the money. DGG
Would it be possible to have input focus pre-set to the "Select Some Options" text box after clicking the decline button? That's virtually 100% of the time where I want to type next. Having the focus preset would save a mouse click. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I have recently seen a few drafts that weren't just declined but rejected on the first attempt, often without any additional comments by the reviewer. The most recent example was Draft:Paul Mwazha by Bishal Shrestha, but I've seen other reviewers do the same. I find the assertion "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." rather strong. Unless the reviewer has done some research of their own (which I'd say should be mentioned in a comment), I don't see how a first draft's subject can be concluded to not be notable. Wouldn't it make more sense to decline, give guidance on what's missing, and to only reject when it's clear that the author indeed cannot show that the subject is notable, instead of just being ignorant of the notability criteria? What's the general opinion on rejecting drafts on the first review? Huon ( talk) 21:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
What is the process when a draft is rejected, specifically Draft:OANDA then review is held review where an examination found there was no coverage, but the paid filing editor resubmitted it, and now found to be moved from rejected to declined. Surely if rejected that it is final. scope_creep Talk 22:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I was just pinged by the author of this draft, pending for 3 months. Could someone please take a look? MER-C 13:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Greetings. I am currently reviewing this draft: Draft:Hunter Avallone. The draft has many "references," but I am questioning the reliability of the LGBT-oriented websites as they are not mainstream news media. Would these be okay since there are many of these questionable websites? Thank you. William2001( talk) 23:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
How do you get rid of the draft ( Draft:The Gospel According to Lazarus)? Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I have a suspicion this originates from
WP:WIZARD or something similar. A while back I created
Special:AbuseFilter/994, and it has seen a regular supply of articles created in the template namespace. They don't appear to be malicious attempts to get around new page patrolling. Usually the template title is some combination of an existing template and the subject name, and I notice there are often userspace drafts that transclude it. So I think what is happening is they copy/paste an example article into their sandbox, then change some template in the code to the subject name (e.g. {{my article}}
), thinking that is what they're supposed to do. Then they see the red link, and recreate the content in the templatespace.
Some examples, most all of which were draft articles (side note, I realize I may have mishandled some of these by moving them to the userspace rather than draft):
I can't figure out why this keeps happening. I've asked some of the users for clarification but did not receive a reply. I need to refine the filter to reduce false positives, but we might consider at least having it show a warning. Note also the filter only looks for common markup found in articles. There might very well be many more draft articles lingering in the templatespace.
Any ideas? Thanks, — MusikAnimal talk 04:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
About 24 hours ago I accepted a draft and published it, but the page still has a maintenance tag on top - has the publishing process somehow stalled for it? Anyone able to shed some light on what's happened? TIA! The article is Sharon_Rechter MurielMary ( talk) 04:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I've reviewed /info/en/?search=Draft:Marie_Newman# and will publish it, however there is already a redirect set up for "Marie Newman" that leads here: /info/en/?search=2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Illinois#District_3 I'm not sure how to handle this! Publish with a slightly different name then move it to replace the redirect? Any thoughts? TIA. MurielMary ( talk) 02:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Few articles created from AfC are not marked as reviewed (and so listed in New pages feed), and few are auto-reviewed. Some of them which are not, are:
Plz somebody explain how does it work. Thank you.
--Gpkp
u •
t •
c
12:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA | Gpkp | |
---|---|---|
Autopatrolled? | Yes (C2R2) | Yes (C3R2) |
New Page Reviewer? | Yes (C2R3) | Yes (C3R3) |
AfC Reviewer? | Yes (C2R4) | Yes (C3R4) |
AfC acceptances getting auto-reviewed in New Pages Feed? |
No (C2R5) | Yes (C3R5) |
′Need to patrol the articles they accepted from AfC?′ ′AfC acceptances getting auto-reviewed in New Pages Feed?′ means: A draft submitted by a user which is accepted as article from AfC, either by CASSIOPEIA or Gpkp. It doesnt mean on the drafts accepted as articles by other AfC-reviewers, which are listed in New Pages Feed, and patrolled either by CASSIOPEIA or Gpkp, or waiting to get patrolled.
My query was how your acceptance from AfC isnt autopatrolled? (C2R5)
Example:
Article | AfC Reviewer | Page info as seen (as on 06:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)) in Page Curation Tool |
Note |
---|---|---|---|
Prue MacSween | User:MurielMary | ′This page was autopatrolled.′ | Created article was auto-reviewed |
Deborra Richardson | User:CASSIOPEIA | ′Marked as reviewed on 21 September 2019 by CASSIOPEIA (talk/contribs)′ | Created article was manually-reviewed |
Sprague effect | User:Gpkp | ′This page was autopatrolled.′ | Created article was auto-reviewed |
--Gpkp u • t • c 06:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Gpkp, I noticed for Sprague effect and Prue MacSween, there were these tag on the pages - [11] and [12]. Hi @ Primefac:, Maybe you would advise on this? CASSIOPEIA( talk) 12:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi, would you support changing the clock icon used in {{
AFC submission/created}} (currently
). I suggest changing the icon to
, as it is nicer, with cleaner edges and a more suited icon for a more modern Wikipedia.
{{u|
waddie96}} {
talk}
20:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
waddie96}} {
talk}
20:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Over the past 4-6 weeks, AfC reviewers have done a sterling job reducing the number of pending AfC drafts (down from 4755 to 4253) and the number of very old submissions (down from 1932 to 1323). The age of the oldest pending submissions has continued to grow, however, and now stands at five and half months.
The drafts that have been pending review the longest, if not edited by a human since submitted, will start becoming eligible for speedy deletion under G13 about two weeks from now. I don't know if any admin would delete a review-pending draft as abandoned, but would prefer not to put the question to the test. Of course it's also sad that anyone has to wait that long for a review, sometimes their first.
Unless the community sees this situation as positive (a passive way to reduce the backlog without reviewing, perhaps), please put some reviewing energy into the longest-pending drafts in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old. Many hands make light work! -- Worldbruce ( talk) 05:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Has any thought been given to draft sorting, similar to how we sort AfD nominations? I waste a lot of time looking at drafts I'm not interested or qualified to review (music, biography). I would be a lot more efficient if I could quickly find those drafts about, say, technology, science, engineering, and historical topics, where I can add more value. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Raihan Merchant has been moved from drafspace to mainspace by its author Harishassan ( talk · contribs), bypassing AfC where it had previously been declined. A Google search indicates that the author is probably paid as there is someone of that name advertising their content writing services on Upwork. The draft itself comes across as a CV, and has a promotional overtone but not to the extent that I'd tag it for deletion. Most of the references are interviews, listings or mentions - but he is a recipient of Sitara-i-Imtiaz, India's highest civilian award. Suggestions on appropriate action, if any? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm seeing quite a few new editors with questions
like these, they start articles in draftspace but can't figure out how to submit them for review because they deleted the line {{subst:AFC submission/draftnew}}<!-- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. -->
.
We have 10,000 draft articles that don't include the instructions "Click here to submit your draft for review", many of the authors just give up and the draft is then deleted in 6 months.
My suggestion is that we have a bot regularly add {{ draft}} or {{ subst:AFC draft}} onto these untagged drafts and ping the author in the edit summary, encouraging them to finish. Since some experienced editors do keep stuff in draftspace, we would want to ignore creations by experienced editors.
A spot check of untagged drafts by new editors shows that they're similar to the submitted AfC stuff, the majority is promotional, but there are also several good articles that I wouldn't want to see forgotten.
I originally posted this at at WP:BOTREQ, but it was suggested that this would need wider discussion.
– Thjarkur (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Other opinions, please. Help to review the article. Thanks. 188.81.156.141 ( talk) 21:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I see you have a backlog, and I think I meet the criteria to review. Please let me know next steps. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petepetey ( talk • contribs)
A RfC on the relationship between the AfC and NPP user rights has been posted. Editors here are invited to participate. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Please could an admin check if Draft:Magomed Magomedkerimov is substantially the same as the version deleted as a result of this AfD? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if this is workable or not, but I wanted to ask if it would be possible to implement a system where pending AFC drafts could be subsorted for related subject areas or countries, similarly to how AFD discussions are. I think this would help reduce the backlog quicker, because it would enable people to more effectively prioritize their efforts on the subjects where they have enough expertise to be useful.
For example, if I happen to come across a glaringly obvious reject that I know no responsible reviewer would ever accept, such as a page that's completely unreferenced or consists of just the word "poop", then I'll gladly reject it no matter what — but if I come across a page that looks to be at least a moderately plausible article, then I'm a lot more picky about what and who I'm actually willing to evaluate in depth. I will take on a review of such a draft if it fits into certain specific subject areas (politicians, films, music, Canadian and US but not most other countries' media, Canadian people and places, etc.) that I regularly work on as it is, so that I'm already well-versed in what our notability standards are for that class of topic and what kinds of sources need to be shown to support them — but if an article falls outside of my established areas of expertise, then I'm a lot more reluctant to weigh in at all. (For example, academics are often accepted as notable solely on the basis of their citation indexes, even if they don't actually have even one single solitary reference of the "reliable source coverage about them in newspapers and magazines and books" variety that I'm trained to look for when it comes to politicians and musicians and writers — but an academic's citation index is not a thing I even know how to evaluate (where would I find it out in the first place? how high is enough? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯), so if I land on an academic's article in the AFC queue I just put it down and back off. And when it comes to sports, ice hockey is the only one where I know enough about our notability standards to evaluate a draft BLP of an athlete — in most other sports, I'm just "nope, not even touching this".
But with the AFC queue routinely backlogged into the thousands, it's often very hard to actually find the articles I actually have the expertise to review — with the result that in actual practice, I do far less AFC reviewing than I'm theoretically willing to, just because it can be difficult to find the articles I'm actually willing to take on. But if they were subject-sorted, either through topic/country subcategories or on sortlists like the deletion sorting queue uses, I'd be a lot more willing to visit the lists or categories for my domains of expertise regularly, and get a lot more drafts dealt with one way or the other.
So would such a system be implementable at all? Bearcat ( talk) 19:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
An RFC has been created to clarify the interpertation of the CSD:G13 rule at WT:CSD. Please feel free to review and comment as you see fit. Hasteur ( talk) 12:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I recently accepted Japanese influence on Korean culture. I entered "Japan" and "Korea" into the projects box. I hadn't noticed that the talk page already existed and it was already tagged with these two projects. Not the first time I've had that happen. Would it be possible for AFCH to check for duplicates before adding projects to the talk page? Even better, parse any existing talk page and pre-fill the dialog with those projects which are already selected. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Howdy Enterprisey, the script appears to be broken as any time I try to enact changes using it, it comes back with Error info: notoken — IVORK Discuss 04:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
mw.user.options.get('csrfToken')
rather than mw.user.options.get('editToken')
, as the latter has been deprecated and removed.
SD0001 (
talk)
12:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@
Enterprisey: Script
User:Enterprisey/draft-sorter.js displays an error upon clicking Save:
Couldn't save due to error: {"error":{"code":"notoken","info":"The \"token\" parameter must be set.","*":"See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at < https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-api-announce> for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes."},"servedby":"mw1276"}
The script contains the code token: mw.user.tokens.get( 'editToken' ),
so perhaps this is another manifestation of the same underlying problem. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
16:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
It's been a little slow on this talk page but I know there has been a lot of behind-the-scenes editing because we're finally below 1000 drafts in our very old category (as of last purging it's at 0). There's still a lot of work to do to keep trimming it down, but I wanted to thank the editors who have put in the time and effort to bring us back down to a slightly-more-reasonable backlog. We've still got a ways to go to clear out that category (officially, the oldest draft at the moment is 4 mo 2 wk old), but it looks like we're headed in the right direction. Primefac ( talk) 13:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
After a user asked on my talk page about bringing BasteurBot back, I filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14 asking to resume the "remind users at 5 months that their page could soon be eligible for G13", Nominate for CSD:G13 once the page does become eligible for G13, and "Notify editors who opt in at User:HasteurBot/G13 OptIn Notifications of any page that they've ever edited will soon be in danger of G13". I am coming back here to determine if there is consensus at the request of @ Bradv:. Of note, I choose to uphold the strictest definition of G13 (absolutely no edits in the past 6 months) because "non-bot/trivial changes" is a discretionary factor that I'm more than willing to concede to other editors. Hasteur ( talk) 03:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
*opposed Do note a 6 month staled draft article would be either nominated for G13 or postponed of G13 for potential draft. Deleted G13 draft articles are those does not meet notability guidelines and admin would check the nominated drafts prior deletion. If the subject is so notable, many editor will create the article anyway and in addition G13 drafts would be get a WP:REFUND by the creator. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 03:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I am evaluating this discussion, and based on what I am seeing, I believe there is a consensus to have the bot resume it's activities. Absent a significant change in consensus, I intend to go back to the Bot request and specifically ask that the task be approved and the bot be re-flagged in no less than 24 hours. Hasteur ( talk) 14:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Good news everyone, we've released the flesh eating slugs... Wait, that's not right... Let's try again. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14 has been approved and the bot has regained it's Bot Flag. I'm re-activating the Notify script and running a batch right now. Keep in mind that we have a minimum 30 days between notification and bot nominating for G13. I'll start the BRFA for "If a page is in the notification window and it still shows as pending AFC submission, put an {{ AFC comment}} in noting that issue and encourage people to not nominate for G13 while it's AFC that's holding up the issue. Hasteur ( talk) 21:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
How does the G13 deletion process work? Does a bot nominate them for deletion that I can exclude from the page? Is it done by humans? I'm wondering because I recently received a notification that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Redirect is about to be deleted, which it probably shouldn't be. Is there anything I need to do to prevent it from being deleted, or will everyone have the sense to not let that happen? — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 17:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi AFC Project, on the WP:AFC directions page, any issues with changing the "Publishing" headline to "Submitting"? Looks like all of the other links along the process call that "submitting / submit for review" now and it would avoid any confusion with the rebranded "Publish" button on every page. — xaosflux Talk 19:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Mystery:
this revision shows the {{
AFC submission/draft}}
box at the top ("Draft article not currently submitted for review."), but
the very next edit causes it to disappear. Why is this? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
{{AFC submission/draft}}
into {{AFC submission|||ts=20191020121226|u=Gargsociology|ns=118}}
, which displays as a mustard-yellow "Review waiting, please be patient" box (now at the bottom of the draft). That is the intended and expected behaviour (well, don't really know if it's intended to be at the bottom, but it has been that way for at least five years). --
Worldbruce (
talk)
21:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission/draft}}
which should still have displayed. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Another reviewer and I have a question about moving sandboxes into draft space. We agree that moving sandboxes into draft space is the preferred procedure. The question is whether the reviewer should suppress redirect creation if they have the privilege to suppress redirect creation via the Page Mover privilege. In particular, is this a discouraged cross-namespace redirect? If the sandbox is moved, a redirect is created from user space to draft space, unless suppressed? Should it be suppressed? My understanding is that it should not, because redirects from article space to other spaces are discouraged, but that redirects from sandboxes to draft space are encouraged. Who is correct?
Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you to all the AfC reviewers your hard work! I just wanted to pop in here to remind our new and active reviewers that WP:BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, even draft space. If there is a minor providing excessive personal information in draft space, please report it to the oversight team via the private oversight email list. If there are blatant BLP violations in a draft, please remove the material as opposed to declining the draft and leaving it visible. Also, if a draft would meet the G10 speedy criteria in article space, it should also be tagged as such in draft space. Thank you, and again, huge kudos for your amazing work vetting articles! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Can someone explain the difference between a declined AfC submission and a rejected AfC submission, and whiy we have separate categories for them? Thanks, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 03:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 22:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I'd like a second opinion on Draft:The contradiction of Poetics chapters 13 and 14. See my talk for the full discussion between me and the draft writer. My opinion is that it's too essay-like and/or original research. If I'm being overly harsh I'm happy to be pursuaded otherwise, but at the moment I'm not convinced this is an encyclopedic topic. Primefac ( talk) 00:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be stalled for some reason mid-process. Hunt & Fish Club -- 2604:2000:E010:1100:201E:BDAC:2420:A798 ( talk) 09:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
In the past I have come across users that like to make pages, but fail to include WP:GNG-worthy references (and maybe only primary at best). I thought it might be good for them to learn how to create pages by moving the articles to the draft space and encourage them to learn how to identify GNG sources through AfC review, hopefully so it doesn't look like I am the one just hounding them. However, some just keep submitting the drafts without ever addressing the issues, such as Draft:Denver Rugby League International Test submitted two times after the first decline specifically asking for references from multiple sources (it had the exact same 2 sources on the first submission, with the decline comment being "Article needs more references", and those are still the only two there). The user in question has done this with several drafts. What is the best course of action for helping this user learn? Or is it just a WP:LISTEN or WP:COMPETENCE issue that needs a further intervention? Yosemiter ( talk) 22:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
An RfC here asking the community's view whether or not AfC and NPR permissions should be merged or kept separate closed after 30 full days, with a consensus to keep them separate. A new RfC will soon be published proposing that 'AfC reviewer' should become an official user right in the same way as NPR and other controlled tools for qualified users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been looking at the very oldest unreviewed submission, from early July. I'm clearing up all I can, but I cannot competently review in the field of music and other perming arts, or in sports. I'd appreciate it if someone else could deal with these. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Please could I have a second opinion on Draft:Wan Rizal Bin Wan Zakariah. I don't believe he meets WP:NACADEMIC, but might meet WP:GNG if the articles written about him can be considered independent. I get the feeling he has generated his own publicity. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Should we start another backlog drive? I notice none has been done since 2014. Taewangkorea ( talk) 23:58, 31 October 2019 (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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
As stated here by both Jovanmilic97 and I, AFCH is allowing more than one decline to go through at once. Needless to say, this is unneeded, and possibly and quite unintentionally bitey. Hopefully, a fix will be in the works ASAP. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message ( talk to me) ( My edits) @ 21:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys, with respect to "state constituency" stubs by PPP0001, of which I am seeing a number come through (accepted or declined) - we are currently having a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Large_number_of_constituency_stubs_by_PPP001 about this. Feel free to pop in, might save some duplication of effort. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Enterprisey: see this edit - if a wikiproject's templates are already there, it should edit them rather than duplicating them. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 21:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects.
Phase 2 of the consultation has now begun; as such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2. All users are invited to express their views. Individual WikiProjects, user groups and other communities may also consider creating their own requests for comment; instructions are at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up. (To keep discussion in one place, please don't reply to this comment.) Jc86035 ( talk) 14:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
For those who may not already be aware. Discussion at COIN.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 05:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Ahmad Narvaw Walla - also known as MANZOOR AHMAD RATHER is BORN in MALPORA NARVAW on 14th January, 1990, the first child of Mr. Bashir Ahmad Rather, a High School Teacher. Manzoor Ahmad Rather passed his Childhood in his native Countryside, west Baramulla, the Narvaw, Jammu and Kashmir. Till the year 2001 he was admitted in a local school, Islamia Model High School Malpora, as he passed 5th Standard, his parents admitted him in a Boarding school, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Shahkote, Baramulla. He passed his 12 th standard in 2007 with Science Stream from Government Higher Secondary School Fatehgarh. In 2010 he graduated from Govt. Degree College Boys Baramulla with English Literature. He is M.A. in History and English Literature. In 2016 he submitted his M.Phil dissertation on Partition - Pain and Pathos of Women. Presently he is persuing P.hD. on the same selected topic Partition - Pain and Pathos of Women. He Visited many Cities in India for education and Research purpose, like Dehradun, Indore, Bhopal, Delhi, Hyderabad, Nagpur, Amravati, Mumbai, Punjab. During his College days in Bar. S.K. Wankhede University's College Of Education Nagpur University , He has been active in student Politics, and was the Member of Baba Saheb Ambedkar Students Organisation , Nagpur University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad Narvaw Walla ( talk • contribs)
Articles for Creation - redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for Creation
83.20.176.239 ( talk) 08:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC), I represent Monniasza
![]()
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I've made two attempts to accept Reed trio. Both times, the page gets moved to mainspace, but the browser window (I'm using Chrome 74.0.3729.169 on MacOS) hangs and the AfC template isn't removed. Any idea what's wrong? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there something like this available to track AfC backlog. We're out to about 10 weeks at this point. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Backlog is still rising. Chart is giving an "Account Suspended" error. ~ Kvng ( talk) 18:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
223.231.68.4 ( talk) 07:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Hiii I didn't find an Article about Stark Maliyk. He is an musical artist.
Spotify- https://open.spotify.com/artist/7xWYSq1Tr6z37mR9QwUdaj?si=l1Zau9dASya5WYkaMq8dyg
Google- Stark Maliyk https://g.co/kgs/7iyYXG
Just as the section header says. I noticed this when I looked at a draft that DGG accepted, and now it's done it again with this one. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message ( talk to me) ( My edits) @ 12:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
See Special:Permanentlink/899358779#Announcement:_enhanced_patrol/AFC_acceptance_logs. Please comment there. MER-C 14:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be done privately. The talk page is essentially the spoken word, visible to everybody. There is a known psychological effect on a person when discussing that person in a group context, in the open, when they are the person getting spoken about. It degrades and corrodes them, breaks down their confidence, resulting a net negative loss both to them and to us, unless they are extremly robust and that is the exception. And that is the reason and the norm in Europe and the UK to hold such a meeting like this in private. Any University Court or learned society would use that approach or professional company. It takes as much risk out of the process as possible, preserves the dignity of the person and reduces the probability of the process becoming errant. There is many examples, recent examples where the effect turned into a kind of almost drunken mess. You start with a rationale idea at the beginning and after several days its gone south.
It should be: Prepare the evidence beforehand, select 3 or 5 editors in good standing, and then do a short interview and discussion that takes no more than 4 hours in private, thereby reducing disruption to both the person and Wikipedia. Then publish the outcome and the evidence if the outcome is remove. If it is not remove, then close it with a quiet word on the talk page. It is always puzzled me from the get-go why we have not had something in place like this beforehand and that is the clearest indicator yet that Wikipedia is not a learned society. It really a kind of short-termism. scope_creep Talk 22:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
From an AfC point of view, it would be an additional new article route for content contribution from external experts.
It also acts as a quality-control mechanism for existing Wikipedia articles, complementary to Featured articles, using established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
The past few days, I've reviewed (and mostly accepted) a pile of excellent drafts. From what I can see, most of these are from OLES2129 at the University of Sydney, where I guess this is the end of the semester so all the projects are due. I'm not sure where the right place is to provide feedback, but I do want to thank the folks who ran and participated in this program.
The quality of drafts I've been reviewing is several steps better than the usual fare at WP:AfC; it has really been a pleasure to read them. It's good to know there are still people writing high-quality articles on interesting and valuable topics. As opposed to the usual deluge of self-promotion and spam. Thank you everybody for your efforts. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I recently noticed that an editor with a self-declared conflict of interest had created a page Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance on the organisation they are associated with. Per WP:COIEDIT's "[COI editors] should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly", I moved it to draftspace and told them to submit it to AfC. They objected to my edit due to a previous unrelated interaction we have had and moved it back a few days later on the grounds that "The CO[I] has not effect on the content of the page, which is merely descriptive". This is of course false as COI editors have biased judgements in determining notability of a page, and furthermore the page contains non-neutral fragments like "[CSMBR] encourages the widest international cooperation amongst scholars and students by means of its awards and travel grants" and "advocacy research [...] is incompatible with the very mission of the Centre". Would the page have been accepted were it an AfC submission? If not, can someone else move it back to draftspace? — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move. ( closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 ( talk) 00:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
– Short description on the page says "Wikipedia project page for requesting redirects and categories." Masum Reza 📞 21:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Primefac ( talk) 10:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Pre-migration discussion
|
---|
I just noticed that this talk page was, in fact, a redirect to
WT:AFC immediately before this discussion opened.
Masumrezarock100, can I suggest that you migrate this discussion to
WT:AFC as I intend to revert the removal of the redirect in line with
WP:BRD.
142.160.89.97 (
talk)
02:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
{{subst:requested move|reason=Short description on the page says "Wikipedia project page for requesting redirects and categories."|current1=Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects|new1=Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories}}
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A protected redirect, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation , needs redirect category ( rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation]]
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation]] {{Redirect category shell| {{R with history}} {{R for convenience}} }}
The {{ Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{ pp-protected}} and/or {{ pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 23:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rameshrajan Palakkad Kerala Rameshrajanp ( talk) 08:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
What's our policy about authors deleting comments from drafts? I left some negative comments on Draft:RingDNA, which were reverted in Special:Diff/901286687 before resubmitting. I've been WP:INVOLVED in this, so I'll abstain from doing anything further, beyond bringing it to people's attention here. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is awesome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgra622 ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
On two occasions in the last two days, I've used the AFC tool and selected decline, and it has posted a reject message. I'm using IE. Is this a known issue? What's going on? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 18:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
It seems that the backlog is rising back up to high levels (past 4,000). As we all continue to give our best efforts in reducing the wait times and backlog, it would make sense to bring a drive for a bit of "extra motivation". There are some AFC reviewers who are not very active and a drive could re-motivate them.
Drives have a high amount of success. At the New Page Reviewing drive, the backlog hit an all time low. Sadly, it creeped back it. Another example is the monthly GOCE drives. I have participated in several of those and it has reduced the backlog significantly.
We need to reclaim the AFC backlog and a drive may be the key to helping us manage the work better. AmericanAir88( talk) 21:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
A backlog drive proposal comes up regularly and there was a time where they were quickly knocked down for the reasons Dodger67 mentions. More recent proposals have been received more warmly. I am personally receptive to the idea. I think in recent discussion there was a suggestion to reduce some of the gamification of the drive to reduce the incentive for abuse. The drives may actually improve quality as they have a review the reviews component that we don't routinely do. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
This decline seems insane to me. Nine quality references (perhaps setting aside the dissertation) and a pretty nice summary of various features of an obscure language. Is this an accurate reflection of this project's standards lately, or is it a one-off error? (My intention is not to discuss the particular reviewer; I have no reason to believe that s/he reviews differently than anyone else.) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 01:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags), but I think the biggest hurdle would be rewording a little bit to make it more obvious that it's a Brazilian language. I wouldn't say it's necessarily a "bad" decline, but more like it's a "lazy" decline in that the issues are minor enough that a small amount of tweaking from the reviewer (as we generally know what we're doing) would be faster/get the right results (as opposed to the newbies floundering through it).
Primefac (
talk)
12:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)On further review, significant chunks of this draft have been copied from the PhD dissertation cited. I'm going to delete it. (Note that this was NOT the reason it was previously declined.) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 00:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. In the process of monitoring Category:AfC submissions with categories as part of an approved bot task, I frequently see a few pages in mainspace that still have AfC tags. I know that they get removed eventually, but I'd like to file a BRFA to automatically remove the tags if the reviewer is not still reviewing the page, under the assumption that they either forgot or the tag was added by mistake. What would others think of automatically removing the tag if the page hasn't been edited for more than 2 hours? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 16:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There are two general areas where we could be more effective:
@ Primefac:, @ Kvng: Hello, here is the proposal for the backlog drive I have planned. All comments are appreciated.
To reduce the growing backlog and ensure that users will not have to wait months for their articles to get reviewed. This backlog will also aim at ensuring our top quality standards. This will be a much more enforced drive.
We can take advantage of the {subst:WPAFCDrive} template to send a message to members of the AFC community.
Like previous drives, there will be a team of participants, analytics, and overall administration. Participants will be the main ones clearing the backlog. However, there will be regulations. Analytics will be the ones reviewing the reviews. Unlike previous years, this should not be random and should have a systematic feel to it. Administration will oversee the drive, update the leaderboard, monitor, and reward people at the end.
The previous drives benefited from the AFC Buddy tool. Sign ups can be similar. If anyone has any expertise on that, it would be such a big help. If not, any other ideas?
The leaderboard will function almost the exact same as previous.
The awards will be almost the same. Except maybe the brownie could be replaced with the minor barnstorm and the invisible could be replaced with the modest.
To ensure quality remains priority, reviews of reviews will be conducted systematically. To view how they handled it in the past, see the previous drives. As I said in the tools section, this will be determined based on if AFC Buddy will be used.
I created this proposal in hopes of reviving the backlog drives the AFC project used to host quite often. This revival will not only hopefully be better, but more accurate. The AFC backlog is growing and the sheer ratio of active users to unreviewed pages is high. A drive will create friendly competition, reward users, and hopefully jump start this project into a more active era.
Thank you. All comments are appreciated and we can all help coordinate this. AmericanAir88( talk) 20:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Jatin katiyar was a inventor of first Indian ganymede exploration julondo rover in 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diksha katiyar ( talk • contribs) 00:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 16:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I'm reviewing Draft:City Challenge Race Company. While there are issues with the content they are fixable. The main question is whether the subject is notable. Looking at the references and the media coverage, there's a fair amount but is enough of it independent - particularly intellectually independent? Much of it is press release generated, and the piece with the most coverage is an interview. I am leaning towards decline but it is borderline and I'd appreciate someone else having a look. Just try to see beyond the current content! Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I feel the current system at AFC of having a bunch of reviewers go about randomly reviewing from a set of over 4000 drafts is ludicrous and bound to keep AFC eternally backlogged. What is needed is to recruit editors with specialised subject interests to review drafts. I, for example, just reviewed a computational biology article which I randomly came across because I found it interesting, but I'd absolutely hate to review the countless bio articles I'm seeing at CAT:AFC. Many editors are likely to be interested in reviewing only certain subject areas, and the present system at AFC is un-inviting to them.
There needs to be some way of associating drafts with WikiProjects. Enterprisey already has a script for adding {{WikiProject X|class=draft}} tags to draft talk pages, but projects don't have proper means of seeing the tagged pages other than looking at the "Draft-class X articles" category or through wmflabs summary tables. And there's no way of separating the submitted ones from declined/unsubmitted ones. So this just doesn't work.
We should set up a system similar to AFD's deletion sorting for AFC. Let us say at Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Subject X. Since we cannot expect the new editors to be able to categorize the draft with an appropriate subject (because they wouldn't be using scripts, without which it would be tedious), we can have some WikiGnomes go about categorising them - same way as it happens at Deletion sorting project. The draft would be listed at the AfC sorting page, along with a snippet of the first 2-3 sentences of text, and a count of number of citations (would probably help in identifying the valid drafts). A script can be written for this purpose.
When the draft is declined (or accepted), the listing will be removed from the sorting pages by a bot. These pages can then be watched by interested editors, transcluded onto WikiProject work pages, and what not. Just having some way for categorising submitted drafts may lead to a whole lot of technical possibilities.
The crucial part of this proposal is that the sorting pages will contain only active submissions, keeping the declined listings would only result in these pages growing into unworkably large mountains. Also, the crux of this proposal is try expand the horizon of AfC reviewing to people who otherwise would only edit mainspace articles related to their subject of interest. SD0001 ( talk) 19:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
just to outline what we did with Australia, I used AWB over the Pending AFC submissions looking for articles with key words like Australia or state numbers to add the WikiProject Australia tag (which has to be added to the Talk page not the article so more manual work than you hope from AWB. Then we used Petscan to compile the list that was included at WikiProject Australia. I think it should be easy enough to automate a WikiProject guessing tool (one may already exist) and an automatic list compiling tool. But, as commented above, our Australian effort petered out after a number of months. I think for a mixture of reasons. A couple of us embarked on a large project to add about 1500 articles using CC-BY sources, which frankly was a much higher value activity in terms of building an encyclopaedia. And I think the rest just got tired than wading through the 80% self-promotional bios and company profiles (just because they were Australian didn’t make them any more acceptable). Therein lies the inherent problem AFC has, the limited sense of positive achievement. Sure it defends the encyclopaedia from this kind of dross but I am not sure it gives enough people satisfaction in finding the few gems within the dross. Kerry ( talk) 03:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Anywhere Ali mushtaq bajwa ( talk) 02:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I declined a submission, but the process failed to notify the article creator. The edit history shows that it did post but I'm not seeing it on the UTP. I decided to do it manually, and again, it didn't post. Any idea what's going on? Atsme Talk 📧 21:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, good AfC folks,
I hope someone who is familiar with your templates can help me with this one. A user talk page, User talk:JC7V7DC5768/Archive 3, keeps appearing in the AfC category, Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions, and I've looked all over this archived talk page for some template or other that has placed the talk page in category Category:AfC submissions by date/24 October 2018. But I can't find anything obvious that has caused it to be confused with an AfC submission and I doubt that the editor is even aware of this miscategorization.
Could you take a look and see if anything sticks out that shouldn't be there? Lots of admins check this category for old drafts and this page looks like it can not be removed unless it is deleted which is a bad option that JC7V7DC5768 would not appreciate.
Thanks for any help you can provide! Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I made some tweaks to the {{ AFC submission/draft}}, {{ AFC submission/pending}}, {{ AFC submission/helptools}} templates. I basically put copyright/NPOV/RS warnings front and center, since those are major issues that need to be addressed on nearly every submission, created a 'where to get help' section, which has the old help venues + mentions WikiProjects as another venue for help. I also added a 'look at Feature/Good' articles if you need examples of good writing to the 'How to improve the article' section.
Feel free to tweak/modify as needed. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Theodore Wells Pietsch II: AfC sumbission moved directly into mainspace by its creator without review (in 2011, I guess this one slipped through the cracks). Can someone take a look at it? – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 11:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes I see the argument here where people note that pages that are declined at AFC would pass at AFD because the subject is notable. Isn't this a huge problem? If a page wouldn't get deleted at AFD, then doesn't it make logical sense that it should be passed at AFC? Hasn't AFC had a scope creep here, where reviewers are not just assessing if a subject belongs in wikipedia, but are assessing whether the editor has sufficiently made their page look nice too?
If a page that had 2 sources came to AFD, but was of a subject that everyone agreed was notable, then it wouldn't get deleted. But the same could happen here and the page would get declined (regardless of whether the subject was notable or not) and then if the editor gets disheartened, end up on the road to g13 deletion.
So isn't the current AFC process just ensuring that loads of notable subjects for the wiki are deleted? Gumlau ( talk) 10:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the AFCH script is not detecting existing WikiProject banners on draft talk pages. Reviewers accepting the draft have the option to add WikiProject tags, and if they choose to add tags that are already present, the tags are duplicated. Eg. [2], [3]
Per the section above, adding project tags to draft talk pages is desirable in interest of draft sorting, so this bug needs to be fixed. SD0001 ( talk) 04:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I put that in all caps because it is a serious issue. Over the last few days I have been looking into AfC more intensively than usual with a view to making the work more streamlined for reviewers.
However, I have come across numerous drafts that have been accepted and moved to mainspace that contain over 50% COPYVIO. I'm not going to provide links or diffs to name and shame the reviewers, but this must be addressed, and in way that does not intimidate the creators by having to return their articles to draft space. Drafts are created because their content needs special attention or because the provenance of the content is dubious. There is a 'Copyvio check' link in the sidebar of every page. Please use it.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
00:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
importScript('User:The Earwig/copyvios.js');
to their common.js;
or taken similar measures. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
02:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
For example, when I reviewed 100 Word Story, I marked it as belonging to {{ WikiProject Literature}}. Then, the script notified it's submitter, Crier of Ink, with the standard notice... which fails to mention that the user may be interested in joining WikiProject Literature! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
A checkbox that should probably be enabled by default :p. Could be a simple line, such as
$1
, $2
, ... $N
.Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 08:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing_instructions#Rejecting_submissions be revised to discourage reviewers from using Reject for the first review of a submission. Immediate rejection is WP:BITEY and allowing a single reviewer to torpedo a draft does not offer sufficient checks and balances on reviewers. My proposed wording is below. ~ Kvng ( talk) 20:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
If a draft has previously been declined by a different reviewer, drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia may be rejected. Rejection is appropriate for a previously declined submission if the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it were an article (i.e., deletion would not be contested if WP:PRODDED, would be an overwhelming "delete" at AfD, or clearly meet a CSD article criterion). If a draft meets one of the general CSD criteria, an appropriate CSD tag should also be added.
How do I make another wikipedia entry to submit for review? I cannot use my sandbox right now because I have another article for review. -E
Similar to
WP:DELSORT or tagging with WikiProject banners, I feel a lot of the backlog could get more efficiently addressed if there was a |field=
or |WikiProject(s)=
that could be used to 'sort/categorize' submissions in {{
AFC submission}}. These could then be leveraged to create project-specific watchlists.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
10:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Infoboxes work well in a lot of cases. For example, see this worklist I made for WP:JOURNALS, based on draft pages that transcluded Template:Infobox journal. Worklists like that can be build for certain topics. It probably will be useless for most biographies and companies, but it will let the good stuff on actual topics get reviewed more quickly. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 10:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I propose that we start a new AFC backlog elimination drive. It's been 5 years since the last drive. Pending AFC submission is still over 4000. As far as I know, nothing has changed since the start of this year. We will give out barnstars to participants. To notifiy the reviewers, we can use the mass message tool. At least this will motivate AFC reviewers to review submissions. Even if we review all of the daily submissions, the number doesn't decrease at all. 4000 submissions are what killing us. I mean it's better than nothing right. There is no harm in it. Barnstars are pretty rare these days. :) Masum Reza 📞 22:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Based on the above and other discussion of authors not understanding AfC acceptance criteria, not taking declines well and the known possibility of bad declines, I have reviewed our messaging and have some improvements to propose. In addition to the custom or canned description of the reason for the decline, the decline template offers these bullets:
This message also appears at the bottom next to the Resubmit button:
I propose the following revisions
The message appears at the bottom next to the Resubmit button:
Note that I have linked three times to a new informational page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Acceptance_criteria. Feel free to make or suggest any improvements. ~ Kvng ( talk) 20:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Ask the closer about your concern. Be polite, and do not assume that they know exactly what you have been thinking. When asked directly, they may say something that you hadn’t considered, or at least give a more detailed explanation that may prove useful. If, after discussing it with them, you think the closer was wrong, consider ...
I've seen this a couple times now but most recently with Draft:Symbolic language (literature) bu Rosguill. Someone WP:PRODs an aticle. It gets WP:DEPRODDED. Normally the next step is WP:AFD but instead the article is moved to Draft space. This does not seem like appropriate workflow. Should I be reverting these moves? ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
ETA: Here's the other example I've seen: Draft:Waripora Bangil by Boleyn ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
No is the correct and short answer to should I revert these Moving articles to draft space that are needing space to develop and that includes bio articles that may have been sitting for a decade or more with no references is now established process for more than a year. It has an ad-hoc approach but works well. Draft is good place for them to sit and develop while being out the limelight. scope_creep Talk 09:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
It looks like discussion is finished over at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#WP:NPPDRAFT_vs._AfC_acceptance_criteria. There is no consensus to change WP:NPPDRAFT. NPP reviewers assure me that these involuntary moves to Draft don't happen often but they will continue to happen. ~ Kvng ( talk) 18:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 06:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi, I've just completed my first AfC review on /info/en/?search=Draft:Julie_Rieger and wanted to get some feedback before proceeding with more (not sure if this is the best place to ask this?) Could a more experienced reviewer pls check my review and confirm everything has been done appropriately? TIA! MurielMary ( talk) 09:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Joe's Null Bot used to purge every pending draft every day to update which subcategory of Category:AfC pending submissions by age it is in (0 days, 1 day, 2 days, ..., Very old). The bot's status page says it has been down since November 2018, but the bug that brought it down has long been fixed, a proposal to replace Joe's Null Bot was denied in April 2019 because "Joe's Null Bot should be working now", and something has been doing what Joe's Null Bot did, so perhaps the status page is just out of date.
For the past two weeks or so, however, the bot either hasn't been running, or has run on only some drafts (the oldest, I think; Joe set a sanity limit on the number of pages purged per day, and the ever-increasing backlog may have blown past that). The easiest way to see the effect is to look at Category:AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago, which contains many drafts that were submitted more than a day ago, such as Draft:Josie Moon and Draft:Los Angeles Contemporary Archive, both submitted on 16 July. Edits (including null ones) will jump a draft to the correct age.
Who should we notify about this? I left a message a week ago at User talk:Joe Decker in case his bot is still the one assigned to this. But Joe edits infrequently now, and he hasn't replied yet. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 05:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
See, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts#AFC.
To make sure projects get notified, make sure to tag drafts with the relevant WikiProject banners. This will be particularly helpful if you come across a draft, but don't feel like the best person to review it.
Cheers and thanks to Hellknowz for the update. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I am ready to accept Draft:Anita Andreis but after filling in the accept information, I get no response from AFCH when I push the Accept & publish button. Anyone know what's going on here. I'm using Chrome on Windows 10. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Enterprisey: It's still doing it with the 'cleaning' button. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 10:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, it probably already exists, but I think it would be a good idea for people to patrol new drafts, a la NPP, to reduce work for AfC/G13, and nip spam/vandalism in the bud. Does there exist a place to check? PrussianOwl ( talk) 23:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The WMF has been thinking about the best ways to handle IP editing. The WMF-Community discussion is at m:Talk:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation. This is of particular concern for AfC, NPP, and others who control new content and combat vandalism. Please consider joining the discussion and weighing in with your pros and cons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 19:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I haven't been around AfC much since the introduction of the "Reject" feature in AFCH, but I am a bit disturbed by the number of rejections I am seeing recently where no explanation is given in the draft or on the author's talk page, and the edit summary is just "Rejecting submission: undefined (AFCH 0.9.1)". Some reviewers have been leaving a comment on the draft under the decline message with more info, but I think the software should require that a reason be given, especially if it is the first review and there are no previous declines. Even something as simple as "The subject of this article does not meet
Wikipedia's notability requirements" or "This appears to be a test edit" would be better than just "Submission rejected". Yes, the author may not have a valid contribution now (perhaps they misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia), but we still shouldn't be
WP:BITEing them as they may become a valid contributor in the future. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
18:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello AfC. This draft would make a good article. However, there is currently a redirect set up that sends "Geography of Brisbane" to the article for Brisbane. The information in the draft is more substantial than the section on geography in the Brisbane article and therefore merits a standalone article. In addition, the AFCH helper noted that an article with the same title was deleted 11 years ago because it was created by a banned user. However, this current draft appears to have been part of a University project. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 19:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
{{Db-move|1=Geography of Brisbane|2=To make way for AfC acceptance of [[Draft:Geography of Brisbane]]}}
--
Worldbruce (
talk)
17:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
Multiple editors have expressed concern on Dan's talk page ( permalink to thread) about excessive numbers of rejections (not declines) on drafts that could be notable; from what I have seen of the various rejections most fail WP:V (and definitely should be declined) but make claims that would seem (if verified) to meet WP:GNG or at the very least WP:CCSI. Are the editors that posted on his talk justified in their concerns? If so, should Dan be admonished, put on "one more chance" status, or removed from AFC? The last option would require them to re-apply through WP:AFC/P should they wish to continue reviewing. Primefac ( talk) 18:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I know the above discussion was closed a couple of weeks ago, but I am in a similar situation to User:Dan arndt where my work-supplied computer requires the use of Internet Explorer 11, and that browser incorrectly rejects drafts that should've been declined instead. My solution was to turn off AFCH in my preferences, and instead add the following lines to my Special:MyPage/common.js:
if ( $('<div style="color:#ffd"></div>')[0].outerHTML != '<div style="color:#ffd"></div>' ) {
mw.loader.load( '//en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Enterprisey/afch-old.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' ); // AFCH old script [[User:Enterprisey/afch-old.js]]
} else {
mw.loader.load( '//en.wikipedia.org/?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' ); // AFCH beta script [[MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js]]
}
This will detect incompatible versions of Internet Explorer and load the older pre-reject version of the script in those cases. I'm not sure if it's worth having
User:Enterprisey add a similar IE detection routine to the master script. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
18:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
You know, there's a lot of small potatoes cleanup that can/should be done upon submission. So, to make the life of reviewers more simple, I propose that whenever an article is submitted
What's the feeling on this? Should I go make a WP:BOTREQ? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
It gives little to no indication of what the link is about and you basically need to click on every one of them to figure it out to make sure it's an appropriate reference. Which of
or
is clear about what it's about without clicking on the link? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hellknowz and probably others have been WikiProject tags to pending draft talk pages. I've seen two problems with this:
Obviously this stuff can be cleaned up manually but maybe there are better ideas. ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
|class=Draft
in these tags. ~
Kvng (
talk)
14:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Just fishing for some open opinions. Thanks, Lourdes 03:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I chanced upon this draft the other day which was rejected on the basis that an article already exists in mainspace. The advice given was to merge this content into the existing article but this seems counterintuitive to me given the size of the draft compared to what is basically little more than a stub. Honestly, if I was to do a merge myself it would largely be a cut & paste job, but that would be a bad thing. Assuming the draft is otherwise ok, the most logical course (to me) would be to move the existing article to one side, move the draft into mainspace and redirect the original, perhaps reverse merging any usable content into the new article. Is that an appropriate course of action though? PC78 ( talk) 00:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I was recently added to AfC as a 2 month probationary member 1 week ago. So, from my knowledge, I will be assessed again after 2 months on my progress, and I was wondering if this process is automatic or I needed to apply again. Also, is there anything else that will help when I am reviewed again?
Second, I recently reviewed and denied Draft:Andrea Marinelli due to its lack of sources. However, the creator added new sources in Italian (that I do not speak), so can someone take a look at these sources? (I also seem to be getting 404 errors on these sources)
Thanks, Taewangkorea ( talk) 11:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Given the "Very old" category has 1.7k pages in it, would it be prudent to add a few more weekly categories until the backlog is a little more under control, and to give a bit better information about how long reviews might take? stwalkerster ( talk) 23:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I'm accepting Draft:Symphonie funèbre. When I type "classical music" into the projects box, I get, "Whoops, no WikiProjects matched in database! classical music". Yet, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music exists. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
A few days ago I rejected Draft:Amer Nejma due to a lack of WP:RS. Today, the creator added more sources and posted a message on my talk page so I took a look at the draft and I tried to accept the draft as it now met the general notability guidelines. However, the draft appears to have a past history of promotion/advertising without any sources, which resulted in the article being create-protected by an admin (the AFCH helper script showed that). What should I do in this case? Taewangkorea ( talk) 08:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I've been informed by User:Bilorv that "[the AFCH helper script's] acceptance button requires a non-existent title in the mainspace for the draft to be moved to", i.e. that an AFC reviewer cannot approve the draft before deletion of a an article or redirect in mainspace which would block the draft from being moved. (Further discussion took place at User_talk:Bilorv#Draft:Black_Christmas_(2019_film)).
WP:CSD#G6 states that "An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it." My usual workflow is to check the page which is to be moved, and relevant talk pages, and then - if I am happy to proceed - to use the "link to perform this move" link which appears as part of the speedy deletion template.
I fully accept the possibility that I'm doing things wrong :), but as an admin I'm not inclined to accept as "uncontroversial" a move to mainspace of a draft which has been rejected, nor does G6 permit me to just delete the redirect and forget about it.
I was wondering, therefore, whether it might be desirable to either: modify the script so that a draft can be approved concurrent with the issuance of the G6 request; or, tweaking the G6 message to make it clear that the requesting party is an AFC reviewer who is intent on approving the draft immediately.
Any thoughts or advice? -- kingboyk ( talk) 14:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
In the last few months when I've declined drafts on the basis of advertising, increasingly admins have quickly speedily deleted the draft and blocked the editor. My own G11s where previously I might have thought were borderline are swiftly deleted with no rejections from admins. Has anyone else detected a subtle shift away from WP:AGF and WP:BITE and a harder line on WP:PROMO? Are admins routinely monitoring recent AfC declines? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted. This is the only way to discourage people from using the WP for advertising. If the subject is actually important, someone else will create an article. Rescuing it sends the message that if your write an unacceptable article about yourself, someone will very possibly fix it for you, and therefore you might as well try to advertise here. It furthermore sends the message that if you you hire someone to write an article and they take money for doing this, and they write the usual unacceptable article such people write, then someone will fix it for you free, while the guy who wrote the bad article gets the money. DGG
Would it be possible to have input focus pre-set to the "Select Some Options" text box after clicking the decline button? That's virtually 100% of the time where I want to type next. Having the focus preset would save a mouse click. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I have recently seen a few drafts that weren't just declined but rejected on the first attempt, often without any additional comments by the reviewer. The most recent example was Draft:Paul Mwazha by Bishal Shrestha, but I've seen other reviewers do the same. I find the assertion "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." rather strong. Unless the reviewer has done some research of their own (which I'd say should be mentioned in a comment), I don't see how a first draft's subject can be concluded to not be notable. Wouldn't it make more sense to decline, give guidance on what's missing, and to only reject when it's clear that the author indeed cannot show that the subject is notable, instead of just being ignorant of the notability criteria? What's the general opinion on rejecting drafts on the first review? Huon ( talk) 21:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
What is the process when a draft is rejected, specifically Draft:OANDA then review is held review where an examination found there was no coverage, but the paid filing editor resubmitted it, and now found to be moved from rejected to declined. Surely if rejected that it is final. scope_creep Talk 22:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I was just pinged by the author of this draft, pending for 3 months. Could someone please take a look? MER-C 13:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Greetings. I am currently reviewing this draft: Draft:Hunter Avallone. The draft has many "references," but I am questioning the reliability of the LGBT-oriented websites as they are not mainstream news media. Would these be okay since there are many of these questionable websites? Thank you. William2001( talk) 23:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
How do you get rid of the draft ( Draft:The Gospel According to Lazarus)? Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I have a suspicion this originates from
WP:WIZARD or something similar. A while back I created
Special:AbuseFilter/994, and it has seen a regular supply of articles created in the template namespace. They don't appear to be malicious attempts to get around new page patrolling. Usually the template title is some combination of an existing template and the subject name, and I notice there are often userspace drafts that transclude it. So I think what is happening is they copy/paste an example article into their sandbox, then change some template in the code to the subject name (e.g. {{my article}}
), thinking that is what they're supposed to do. Then they see the red link, and recreate the content in the templatespace.
Some examples, most all of which were draft articles (side note, I realize I may have mishandled some of these by moving them to the userspace rather than draft):
I can't figure out why this keeps happening. I've asked some of the users for clarification but did not receive a reply. I need to refine the filter to reduce false positives, but we might consider at least having it show a warning. Note also the filter only looks for common markup found in articles. There might very well be many more draft articles lingering in the templatespace.
Any ideas? Thanks, — MusikAnimal talk 04:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
About 24 hours ago I accepted a draft and published it, but the page still has a maintenance tag on top - has the publishing process somehow stalled for it? Anyone able to shed some light on what's happened? TIA! The article is Sharon_Rechter MurielMary ( talk) 04:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I've reviewed /info/en/?search=Draft:Marie_Newman# and will publish it, however there is already a redirect set up for "Marie Newman" that leads here: /info/en/?search=2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Illinois#District_3 I'm not sure how to handle this! Publish with a slightly different name then move it to replace the redirect? Any thoughts? TIA. MurielMary ( talk) 02:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Few articles created from AfC are not marked as reviewed (and so listed in New pages feed), and few are auto-reviewed. Some of them which are not, are:
Plz somebody explain how does it work. Thank you.
--Gpkp
u •
t •
c
12:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA | Gpkp | |
---|---|---|
Autopatrolled? | Yes (C2R2) | Yes (C3R2) |
New Page Reviewer? | Yes (C2R3) | Yes (C3R3) |
AfC Reviewer? | Yes (C2R4) | Yes (C3R4) |
AfC acceptances getting auto-reviewed in New Pages Feed? |
No (C2R5) | Yes (C3R5) |
′Need to patrol the articles they accepted from AfC?′ ′AfC acceptances getting auto-reviewed in New Pages Feed?′ means: A draft submitted by a user which is accepted as article from AfC, either by CASSIOPEIA or Gpkp. It doesnt mean on the drafts accepted as articles by other AfC-reviewers, which are listed in New Pages Feed, and patrolled either by CASSIOPEIA or Gpkp, or waiting to get patrolled.
My query was how your acceptance from AfC isnt autopatrolled? (C2R5)
Example:
Article | AfC Reviewer | Page info as seen (as on 06:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)) in Page Curation Tool |
Note |
---|---|---|---|
Prue MacSween | User:MurielMary | ′This page was autopatrolled.′ | Created article was auto-reviewed |
Deborra Richardson | User:CASSIOPEIA | ′Marked as reviewed on 21 September 2019 by CASSIOPEIA (talk/contribs)′ | Created article was manually-reviewed |
Sprague effect | User:Gpkp | ′This page was autopatrolled.′ | Created article was auto-reviewed |
--Gpkp u • t • c 06:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Gpkp, I noticed for Sprague effect and Prue MacSween, there were these tag on the pages - [11] and [12]. Hi @ Primefac:, Maybe you would advise on this? CASSIOPEIA( talk) 12:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi, would you support changing the clock icon used in {{
AFC submission/created}} (currently
). I suggest changing the icon to
, as it is nicer, with cleaner edges and a more suited icon for a more modern Wikipedia.
{{u|
waddie96}} {
talk}
20:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
waddie96}} {
talk}
20:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Over the past 4-6 weeks, AfC reviewers have done a sterling job reducing the number of pending AfC drafts (down from 4755 to 4253) and the number of very old submissions (down from 1932 to 1323). The age of the oldest pending submissions has continued to grow, however, and now stands at five and half months.
The drafts that have been pending review the longest, if not edited by a human since submitted, will start becoming eligible for speedy deletion under G13 about two weeks from now. I don't know if any admin would delete a review-pending draft as abandoned, but would prefer not to put the question to the test. Of course it's also sad that anyone has to wait that long for a review, sometimes their first.
Unless the community sees this situation as positive (a passive way to reduce the backlog without reviewing, perhaps), please put some reviewing energy into the longest-pending drafts in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old. Many hands make light work! -- Worldbruce ( talk) 05:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Has any thought been given to draft sorting, similar to how we sort AfD nominations? I waste a lot of time looking at drafts I'm not interested or qualified to review (music, biography). I would be a lot more efficient if I could quickly find those drafts about, say, technology, science, engineering, and historical topics, where I can add more value. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Raihan Merchant has been moved from drafspace to mainspace by its author Harishassan ( talk · contribs), bypassing AfC where it had previously been declined. A Google search indicates that the author is probably paid as there is someone of that name advertising their content writing services on Upwork. The draft itself comes across as a CV, and has a promotional overtone but not to the extent that I'd tag it for deletion. Most of the references are interviews, listings or mentions - but he is a recipient of Sitara-i-Imtiaz, India's highest civilian award. Suggestions on appropriate action, if any? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm seeing quite a few new editors with questions
like these, they start articles in draftspace but can't figure out how to submit them for review because they deleted the line {{subst:AFC submission/draftnew}}<!-- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. -->
.
We have 10,000 draft articles that don't include the instructions "Click here to submit your draft for review", many of the authors just give up and the draft is then deleted in 6 months.
My suggestion is that we have a bot regularly add {{ draft}} or {{ subst:AFC draft}} onto these untagged drafts and ping the author in the edit summary, encouraging them to finish. Since some experienced editors do keep stuff in draftspace, we would want to ignore creations by experienced editors.
A spot check of untagged drafts by new editors shows that they're similar to the submitted AfC stuff, the majority is promotional, but there are also several good articles that I wouldn't want to see forgotten.
I originally posted this at at WP:BOTREQ, but it was suggested that this would need wider discussion.
– Thjarkur (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Other opinions, please. Help to review the article. Thanks. 188.81.156.141 ( talk) 21:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I see you have a backlog, and I think I meet the criteria to review. Please let me know next steps. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petepetey ( talk • contribs)
A RfC on the relationship between the AfC and NPP user rights has been posted. Editors here are invited to participate. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Please could an admin check if Draft:Magomed Magomedkerimov is substantially the same as the version deleted as a result of this AfD? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if this is workable or not, but I wanted to ask if it would be possible to implement a system where pending AFC drafts could be subsorted for related subject areas or countries, similarly to how AFD discussions are. I think this would help reduce the backlog quicker, because it would enable people to more effectively prioritize their efforts on the subjects where they have enough expertise to be useful.
For example, if I happen to come across a glaringly obvious reject that I know no responsible reviewer would ever accept, such as a page that's completely unreferenced or consists of just the word "poop", then I'll gladly reject it no matter what — but if I come across a page that looks to be at least a moderately plausible article, then I'm a lot more picky about what and who I'm actually willing to evaluate in depth. I will take on a review of such a draft if it fits into certain specific subject areas (politicians, films, music, Canadian and US but not most other countries' media, Canadian people and places, etc.) that I regularly work on as it is, so that I'm already well-versed in what our notability standards are for that class of topic and what kinds of sources need to be shown to support them — but if an article falls outside of my established areas of expertise, then I'm a lot more reluctant to weigh in at all. (For example, academics are often accepted as notable solely on the basis of their citation indexes, even if they don't actually have even one single solitary reference of the "reliable source coverage about them in newspapers and magazines and books" variety that I'm trained to look for when it comes to politicians and musicians and writers — but an academic's citation index is not a thing I even know how to evaluate (where would I find it out in the first place? how high is enough? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯), so if I land on an academic's article in the AFC queue I just put it down and back off. And when it comes to sports, ice hockey is the only one where I know enough about our notability standards to evaluate a draft BLP of an athlete — in most other sports, I'm just "nope, not even touching this".
But with the AFC queue routinely backlogged into the thousands, it's often very hard to actually find the articles I actually have the expertise to review — with the result that in actual practice, I do far less AFC reviewing than I'm theoretically willing to, just because it can be difficult to find the articles I'm actually willing to take on. But if they were subject-sorted, either through topic/country subcategories or on sortlists like the deletion sorting queue uses, I'd be a lot more willing to visit the lists or categories for my domains of expertise regularly, and get a lot more drafts dealt with one way or the other.
So would such a system be implementable at all? Bearcat ( talk) 19:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
An RFC has been created to clarify the interpertation of the CSD:G13 rule at WT:CSD. Please feel free to review and comment as you see fit. Hasteur ( talk) 12:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I recently accepted Japanese influence on Korean culture. I entered "Japan" and "Korea" into the projects box. I hadn't noticed that the talk page already existed and it was already tagged with these two projects. Not the first time I've had that happen. Would it be possible for AFCH to check for duplicates before adding projects to the talk page? Even better, parse any existing talk page and pre-fill the dialog with those projects which are already selected. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Howdy Enterprisey, the script appears to be broken as any time I try to enact changes using it, it comes back with Error info: notoken — IVORK Discuss 04:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
mw.user.options.get('csrfToken')
rather than mw.user.options.get('editToken')
, as the latter has been deprecated and removed.
SD0001 (
talk)
12:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@
Enterprisey: Script
User:Enterprisey/draft-sorter.js displays an error upon clicking Save:
Couldn't save due to error: {"error":{"code":"notoken","info":"The \"token\" parameter must be set.","*":"See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at < https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-api-announce> for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes."},"servedby":"mw1276"}
The script contains the code token: mw.user.tokens.get( 'editToken' ),
so perhaps this is another manifestation of the same underlying problem. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
16:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
It's been a little slow on this talk page but I know there has been a lot of behind-the-scenes editing because we're finally below 1000 drafts in our very old category (as of last purging it's at 0). There's still a lot of work to do to keep trimming it down, but I wanted to thank the editors who have put in the time and effort to bring us back down to a slightly-more-reasonable backlog. We've still got a ways to go to clear out that category (officially, the oldest draft at the moment is 4 mo 2 wk old), but it looks like we're headed in the right direction. Primefac ( talk) 13:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
After a user asked on my talk page about bringing BasteurBot back, I filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14 asking to resume the "remind users at 5 months that their page could soon be eligible for G13", Nominate for CSD:G13 once the page does become eligible for G13, and "Notify editors who opt in at User:HasteurBot/G13 OptIn Notifications of any page that they've ever edited will soon be in danger of G13". I am coming back here to determine if there is consensus at the request of @ Bradv:. Of note, I choose to uphold the strictest definition of G13 (absolutely no edits in the past 6 months) because "non-bot/trivial changes" is a discretionary factor that I'm more than willing to concede to other editors. Hasteur ( talk) 03:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
*opposed Do note a 6 month staled draft article would be either nominated for G13 or postponed of G13 for potential draft. Deleted G13 draft articles are those does not meet notability guidelines and admin would check the nominated drafts prior deletion. If the subject is so notable, many editor will create the article anyway and in addition G13 drafts would be get a WP:REFUND by the creator. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 03:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I am evaluating this discussion, and based on what I am seeing, I believe there is a consensus to have the bot resume it's activities. Absent a significant change in consensus, I intend to go back to the Bot request and specifically ask that the task be approved and the bot be re-flagged in no less than 24 hours. Hasteur ( talk) 14:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Good news everyone, we've released the flesh eating slugs... Wait, that's not right... Let's try again. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14 has been approved and the bot has regained it's Bot Flag. I'm re-activating the Notify script and running a batch right now. Keep in mind that we have a minimum 30 days between notification and bot nominating for G13. I'll start the BRFA for "If a page is in the notification window and it still shows as pending AFC submission, put an {{ AFC comment}} in noting that issue and encourage people to not nominate for G13 while it's AFC that's holding up the issue. Hasteur ( talk) 21:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
How does the G13 deletion process work? Does a bot nominate them for deletion that I can exclude from the page? Is it done by humans? I'm wondering because I recently received a notification that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Redirect is about to be deleted, which it probably shouldn't be. Is there anything I need to do to prevent it from being deleted, or will everyone have the sense to not let that happen? — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 17:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi AFC Project, on the WP:AFC directions page, any issues with changing the "Publishing" headline to "Submitting"? Looks like all of the other links along the process call that "submitting / submit for review" now and it would avoid any confusion with the rebranded "Publish" button on every page. — xaosflux Talk 19:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Mystery:
this revision shows the {{
AFC submission/draft}}
box at the top ("Draft article not currently submitted for review."), but
the very next edit causes it to disappear. Why is this? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
{{AFC submission/draft}}
into {{AFC submission|||ts=20191020121226|u=Gargsociology|ns=118}}
, which displays as a mustard-yellow "Review waiting, please be patient" box (now at the bottom of the draft). That is the intended and expected behaviour (well, don't really know if it's intended to be at the bottom, but it has been that way for at least five years). --
Worldbruce (
talk)
21:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission/draft}}
which should still have displayed. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Another reviewer and I have a question about moving sandboxes into draft space. We agree that moving sandboxes into draft space is the preferred procedure. The question is whether the reviewer should suppress redirect creation if they have the privilege to suppress redirect creation via the Page Mover privilege. In particular, is this a discouraged cross-namespace redirect? If the sandbox is moved, a redirect is created from user space to draft space, unless suppressed? Should it be suppressed? My understanding is that it should not, because redirects from article space to other spaces are discouraged, but that redirects from sandboxes to draft space are encouraged. Who is correct?
Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you to all the AfC reviewers your hard work! I just wanted to pop in here to remind our new and active reviewers that WP:BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, even draft space. If there is a minor providing excessive personal information in draft space, please report it to the oversight team via the private oversight email list. If there are blatant BLP violations in a draft, please remove the material as opposed to declining the draft and leaving it visible. Also, if a draft would meet the G10 speedy criteria in article space, it should also be tagged as such in draft space. Thank you, and again, huge kudos for your amazing work vetting articles! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Can someone explain the difference between a declined AfC submission and a rejected AfC submission, and whiy we have separate categories for them? Thanks, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 03:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 22:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I'd like a second opinion on Draft:The contradiction of Poetics chapters 13 and 14. See my talk for the full discussion between me and the draft writer. My opinion is that it's too essay-like and/or original research. If I'm being overly harsh I'm happy to be pursuaded otherwise, but at the moment I'm not convinced this is an encyclopedic topic. Primefac ( talk) 00:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be stalled for some reason mid-process. Hunt & Fish Club -- 2604:2000:E010:1100:201E:BDAC:2420:A798 ( talk) 09:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
In the past I have come across users that like to make pages, but fail to include WP:GNG-worthy references (and maybe only primary at best). I thought it might be good for them to learn how to create pages by moving the articles to the draft space and encourage them to learn how to identify GNG sources through AfC review, hopefully so it doesn't look like I am the one just hounding them. However, some just keep submitting the drafts without ever addressing the issues, such as Draft:Denver Rugby League International Test submitted two times after the first decline specifically asking for references from multiple sources (it had the exact same 2 sources on the first submission, with the decline comment being "Article needs more references", and those are still the only two there). The user in question has done this with several drafts. What is the best course of action for helping this user learn? Or is it just a WP:LISTEN or WP:COMPETENCE issue that needs a further intervention? Yosemiter ( talk) 22:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
An RfC here asking the community's view whether or not AfC and NPR permissions should be merged or kept separate closed after 30 full days, with a consensus to keep them separate. A new RfC will soon be published proposing that 'AfC reviewer' should become an official user right in the same way as NPR and other controlled tools for qualified users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been looking at the very oldest unreviewed submission, from early July. I'm clearing up all I can, but I cannot competently review in the field of music and other perming arts, or in sports. I'd appreciate it if someone else could deal with these. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Please could I have a second opinion on Draft:Wan Rizal Bin Wan Zakariah. I don't believe he meets WP:NACADEMIC, but might meet WP:GNG if the articles written about him can be considered independent. I get the feeling he has generated his own publicity. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Should we start another backlog drive? I notice none has been done since 2014. Taewangkorea ( talk) 23:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)