![]() | 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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
I have a question about how to deal with a draft which has a redirect with the same title. Draft:Jesse Duke is about a nineteenth-century editor. There is a redirect from Jesse Duke to The Dukes of Hazzard for a fictional character. However, there was previously an article about the character, which was then merged into the show and cut down to a redirect. So the question is: If the draft is to be accepted because the historical person is considered notable, is there any particular way that I need to request the history be retained? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
If WikiProject banners have already been added to the draft's talk page, the "accept" page will now have those banners already in the dropdown box. Removing them from the dropdown and then accepting the draft will remove those banners from the talk page. This also works for WikiProject Biography. Enterprisey ( talk!) 22:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been doing new page patrols, and I've seen several accepted Articles for Creation in the new pages queue. Has there been previous discussion of automatically marking these as patrolled? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 20:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
It appears User:Sonofstar is has decided to review articles. They make some helpful, but some unhelpful edits. They seem too fresh an editor to be making the best edits on new articles. Perhaps someone could mentor them? Thriley ( talk) 19:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there or could there be a template response for when no substantial changes have been made between the last time an article was declined and it being resubmitted? ( here's a recent example). I'd like to get across the points that 1. the original reason for it being declined still stands. 2. hoping for a more lenient reviewer isn't a good tactic. 3. don't do that. And I think it would be helpful to have some boilerplate text for this plus it could create a category to keep track of this and identify if anyone does this more than once in which case a different approach will be needed. -- Paul ❬ talk❭ 15:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
No significant changes since last decline. Primefac ( talk) 17:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm a new page reviewer and I'm seeing a troubling amount of articles that don't seem likely to survive AfD, for example Bay of Bengal (band). The article, as written, doesn't contain any indications of notability, no charts, no sales, no awards, no influence on other musicians, nothing.
A section just above suggested that you are accepting drafts with a 50/50 shot of getting kept at AfD. In my view, this needs to be moved to an 80 or 90% chance of surviving an AfD. Not because of workload on other editors, but because for a new editor to follow the rules and get approved, and then get their article deleted after the first new page patrol, is a huge betrayal to this new editor that will ensure that they never come back. Acceptance shouldn't be 50% acceptance, it should be acceptance period. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 06:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure about Draft:Freddie McSwain Jr.. I am leaning towards accepting it but would like another opinion on it. Eyebeller 12:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Recently I've become a little concerned that Tagishsimon's review comments are coming across as bite-y, and at Primefac's discretion I'm bringing it up here. There have also been a few comments on Tagishsimon's talk page which also bring this up at User talk:Tagishsimon § Absurd and not qualified and § Comment at Draft:CalFile by the author of one of the drafts, as well as by me and Robert McClenon, although they have not yet replied there. The two actual comments being discussed, and that I want to bring to the attention of you all, can be found here and here. Perryprog ( talk) 21:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm hoping for a bit of guidance about this submission for an academic. I'm leaning towards declining it because it doesn't meet
WP:GNG, nor does it meet
WP:NACADEMIC (online sources refer to her as an assistant professor, falling short of point 5 - The person has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)
). However, the same submitter (who is paid by EPFL) has a significant number of other articles which have passed AfC after review by a reviewer far more experienced than I:
Raffaella Buonsanti,
David Suter (biologist) and
Alexander Mathis are three examples that I would not have approved. I've been overly harsh with submissions in the past, as other Wikipedians have pointed out, and I'm not looking to make that mistake again. I've marked the article under review, and I'm hoping someone can give me their opinions on this and the other three similar articles, so that I don't mistakenly decline a worthy article.
Kohlrabi Pickle (
talk)
06:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC) CE'd comment at 06:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello - I apologize, in advance, if this isn't the correct venue for asking the following question... Is there a way to determine approximately when a submitted draft may be reviewed? I was told that it could take 3+ months, however it may happen far sooner in some cases? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Ryan (
Ryancoke2020 (
talk)
05:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC))
Firstly, I would like to state that I believe that I meet the criteria to become an AfC reviewer; however, I have no interest in becoming a reviewer full-time. Secondly, this is the draft article in question, which has been submitted to AfC: Draft:Future_State. My question: would it be OK for me to bypass the AfC process and just go ahead and publish this article myself, even though it was written and submitted to AfC by someone else? If I had written this article myself, I would have published it straightaway without going through the AfC process. I believe that it currently contains adequate information and sources, covers a notable subject, and can be expanded upon in mainspace as necessary. It has been lingering in the AfC queue since October, and covers a current event (a comic event series that is being published right now), which is why I would like to accelerate its publication. Please let me know if this is something that I can do, as I don't want to step on any toes here. Thanks. Wilkinswontkins ( talk) 16:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Primefac ( talk) 02:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I've recently become a probationary AfC participant, and I've already run into a few areas where I have questions that don't seem to be answered by the reviewing questions.
I'm likely going to have some more questions later on (and I'll probably batch them up as well), but I figured these were important enough to get out of the way quickly. (And any criticism or comments on my reviewing thus far is of course welcomed :).) Perryprog ( talk) 21:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
bio
and v
. If there are poor references then just bio
.adv
. If the page would need a fundamental rewrite, go for G11. I would also say the same for G12/copyvios - if you can leave at least two decent paragraphs after removal of the copyrighted content, decline as cv but don't tag for G12 (otherwise, go for it). Granted, if you're not sure about whether a G12 is appropriate or not, I'd rather decline a G12 and clean it up than have copyright stuff left in an article.For 3. that two paragraph metric is actually really helpful—I'm going to keep that in mind. I also assume whenever relevant, CV revdel is desirable. And that helps a lot—thank you! Perryprog ( talk) 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I wrote Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Contributing, a guide for contributing to the helper script, as part of my bid to get AFCH featured on mw:New Developers (which may get us a faster rate of bug fixes!). People here may also find it useful. Enterprisey ( talk!) 11:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
First, see Category talk:Pages with disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications#Cleanup question.
Would a template mentioned in the link be helpful?
The rationale is that some draft pages needs to customize its title. Pages in the draft namespace can use DISPLAYTITLE
like so
{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{NAMESPACE}}:desired title markup}}
and it will continue to work when it is moved to the mainspace.
However, there are also a lot of drafts in the user namespace. The problem is that DISPLAYTITLE
cannot change the title, and quite a lot of drafts are in sandboxes, meaning the title does not contain the article name at all. The solution I have come up with for now is to simply disable DISPLAYTITLE
if it is not in the article namespace.
Considering that those user pages are also drafts, I think we should unify handling of DISPLAYTITLE
of drafts with a new template proposed in the link above, similar to {{
Draft categories}}.
What do you think? – Ase1este t@lk c0ntribs 03:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
hello my name is <redacted> I work at a company call <redacted> in the US. I have being experiencing issue with aircraft a 777-300. I would like to know what are the power expectation for that particular aircraft from a GPU weather its a 129KVA or a 180KVA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.98.82 ( talk) 19:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I came across Draft:Kaely Michels-Gualtieri in the G13 deletion heap, having been abandoned after MurielMary declined it essentially for lacking online versions for the key sources appertaining to notability. It's not an area I know anything about (trapeze artist) so I'm not comfortable promoting it myself, but it seems reasonably fully sourced, just without links for verification, which don't seem to me to be necessary. The creator appears single purpose but is claiming to be good faith [7]. There's always the option of promoting the article to mainspace and then taking it to Articles for deletion to see whether the claims of notability stick. Thoughts, anyone? Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are a lot more "undated" drafts in AFC sections that the AlertBot puts out. For example here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Article_alerts#AFC. Did something change recently where a timestamp isn't being populated properly when a user submits a draft? - 2pou ( talk) 22:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
There are some situations where I will change a rejection to a decline:
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Enterprisey:, can you have the script handle "Draft-specific" categories like Category:Drafts in foreign languages different from regular categories? I had to remove that category from Draft:Yükseköğretim Kalite Kurulu since the script insisted on "de-activating" it during the "clean" process.
This is probably not the only category that needs to be "treated as a special case" by the script. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
AFCR. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 23#AFCR until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
12:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not sure what the best way to highlight this is, but I noticed that there are a few drafts, (submitted around the same time by one anon) that need the attention of someone specifically familiar with Policies and RS's on medical topics. They all relate to CoVID vaccine candidates:
They look legit and notable to me but I strongly feel like they should be reviewed by someone who knows what they are talking about. -- Paul ❬ talk❭ 10:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I have a few comments about comments made at AFD. I have at least three times seen the comment that the article that is tagged for deletion should not have been accepted through AFC. First, I would like to clarify that the criterion for acceptance is that the reviewer thinks that there is a greater than 50% chance that the article will be kept in AFD if it is nominated for AFD. Of course, the vast majority of articles that are accepted do not go through AFD because there is no real question about notability. What I am asking for may be a verification that having an occasional article nominated for AFD that a reviewer has accepted does not mean that the reviewer was wrong.
Second, I did recently see the same comment, that the article should not have been accepted, on an article that had not been accepted by AFC. The article had been move-warred. It had been in article space, and was sent back to draft space, and was then moved back to article space, which is the author's privilege, but subjects them to the likelihood of AFD. The commenter thought that the article had been accepted because of the stupid template message that says that the article was accepted, but the acceptance has not been closed out. I explained to the commenter that the problem was not with AFC, but was only a stupid template message.
Third, is there a way to increase the likelihood of a reviewer participating in the AFD, and possibly defending the acceptance, if an AFC article is nominated for deletion after being accepted?
Fourth, I think that the risk of being dumped on if an article is accepted and then nominated for deletion may be a reason why some drafts sit in the AFC queue for weeks or even months, because reviewers don't want to take a chance on a 50%.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hello. Recently, one of my "articles for creation" was accepted for creation. In the message left on my talk page, there was something that said "Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request." Does that mean that I can make articles directly from draft to article without review, and does that give me the ability to review other people's articles? I would appreciate any clarification on this. Springfield2020 ( talk) 15:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hallo, I'm not an AfC reviewer, but as a regular stub-sorter I see a random collection of stubs which have been moved to main space from AfC. I note that the instructions for reviewers include "Consider adding categories, and/or appropriate cleanup templates or stub-tags by entering the code in the relevant boxes.", but there seems no mention of DEFAULTSORT. This is something which could very usefully be added by an AfC reviewer, along with any categories, as it will ensure that "Annie Brown" files under B not A in any listings for those categories.
Could I suggest that some mention of DEFAULTSORT should be added to the reviewers instructions and/or the script used when accepting an article, to increase the proportion of articles which go into mainspace with their appropriate DEFAULTSORT when they need one? There are two main groups of articles where this is needed: (a) personal names where the filing element is not the first part of the name (as is the case for most western names, where we expect "Annie Brown" to file as "Brown, Annie" and (b) titles which start with "A", "An", "The" or foreign-language equivalents, so that "The Gambia" will file as "Gambia, The".
Some of these will at present get noticed by alert stub-sorters who notice misplaced items in the A-Z display of Category:Stubs, but not every item approved at AfC is a stub and so will pass before that next pair of eyes. Pam D 21:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
My gut says "it is disruptive, particularly if the editor is aware of the reasons they should stay," but I wanted to check with my peers before taking further action regarding this and my response to it on the editor's talk page.
Short version: The editor twice removed AFC declines and/or comments. I restored both in a single edit and left a note on his talk page saying why. He removed them both again.
So, is my gut correct, or is it off-base? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 17:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.Perryprog ( talk) 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there a tool in place to see how many AfC reviews I've done? either just a total headcount or a breakdown of how often I accept/decline (I'd be interested to see how I compare to the averages)? -- Paul ❬ talk❭ 11:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
For those unaware, there are currently six drafts in the space for the same person:
KylieTastic, Theroadislong and Davisonio have taken care of several of these drafts already. Thank you all. My thought is that this is a coordinated WP:PROMO campaign by a number of different users, especially with the hashtags used in this particular draft. While the subject might have a compelling case for WP:NPROF, I haven't seen anything in these drafts that has shown Independent GNG notability. Many of the sources are from her own website, etc. and the tone is classically promotional and reads like a youtube channel than an actual article.
Just wanted to keep other reviewers on the radar about the issue. Bkissin ( talk) 21:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
How are there 350+ drafts in the 0 day old submissions? Did someone go on a saving spree at G13? Even with all our volunteers we can't keep up with the backlog. Bkissin ( talk) 20:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I do wish there was a minimum length standard as these just water down the worth of an encyclopedia.History lesson: In the days before Encarta, there were these things called "encyclopedias." Unlike the modern encyclopedia, these usually took up several feet of shelf space. On the plus side, they did not require electricity to access. They included one-liner entries. [1] There was and may still be a thing called The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy which, while taking up much less shelf space, also includes one-liners. At one time, the entry for Earth was two words: Mostly harmless. Prior to that, it was just one word: Harmless. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
References
ALAUNA, ALAUNUS, the Celtic names of two rivers, &c., in Roman Britain. Hence the modern Allan Water, river Alyn, &c.
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Redirects to Template:Draft article. They were unused; this simplifies the helper script code a bit. Enterprisey ( talk!) 23:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Partizan Kuzya ( talk) 01:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It's been a while since I had an editor loose their mind over a decline - not sure why they are just attacking me as Theroadislong declined if just after. So far 14 abusive messages on my talk page from account and IP, and zero attempts to improve article. Not close to the record yet of waking up to notices of over a hundred posts (most redacted) about me... oddly that was from the same part of the world. Ah the joys of Wikipedia :/ KylieTastic ( talk) 16:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
|mindelay=
, |maxdelay=
, |maxinsultsperday=
or should I just surprise you?
|approve_price=
US$200
—
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
17:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Add WikiProject tags has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Add WikiProject tags to undo the last edit, seems to be a mistake. 74.73.230.232 ( talk) 23:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I've restored AFC templates 3 times in the last 24 hours on Draft:Imaztv.
Is there a consensus somewhere that restoring these templates doesn't count for 3RR/edit-warring purposes, or do I need to lay off for a day? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 19:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
First, I mostly agree with User:SmokeyJoe that putting those messages on the talk page would be preferable. It isn't that important where they are while the draft ia a draft. Second, what I think is more important is that there should be a way to move comments to the talk page when the draft is accepted, because some of the comments have to do with editing of the article that the draft becomes. If the title of a draft has been disambiguated, I put a comment on it saying that an entry needs to be added to the disambiguation list when the draft is accepted. That comment has to do with editing of the article, not just with whether to accept the article. Third, if comments are removed from a draft while it is in progress, the reviewer should use judgment as to whether it matters, whether the messages should be restored for future reviewers. In some cases, removing the templates may be an indication of a conflict of interest, and there are at least two ways to address that concern, by posting a question on the user talk page, and by posting a note at the conflict of interest noticeboard.
We should at least discuss moving the messages and the comments to the talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I rejected a draft, and went back about 12 hours later to check on it. I saw that the submitter had erased the rejection message from their talk page. On the one hand, they have a right to do this, because it is their user talk page, and it doesn't really matter as long as they aren't resubmitting the draft. On the other hand, is there any particular reason to expect that they did this? What is the good-faith or bad-faith explanation? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Removing tags from the draft- um, are we talking about the same thing here? IMHO all AFC templates on drafts, including past rejections, declines, and comments, are for the benefit of all editors who are working on the page while it is still a draft, so they should not be removed unless they were added in error or based on erroneous information/assumptions. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 20:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Admins hope you all are doing good , i'm new here on wikepedia i don't have too much knowledge about the rules of wikipedia , i have just started contributing on wikipedia as someday's before i went through a Draft:junaid_bhat which was declined because it was totally incomplete and there were not enough supportive url's in the draft , so while checking this draft i went through internet and collected the information regarding the mentioned person and took this draft as my first contribution on wikipedia so i started recreating this draft which is complete now and has been sent for submission : please i request you to help me to get my first work published thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakrutiprajapanti ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Enterprisey: The AFCH script de-activates the "draft-space" category Category:Drafts in foreign languages. [9] davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:12, 4 February 2021 (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.
{{ AFC comment}} has a parameter "2=note" which is almost useful. The problem is that cleaning the submission, potentially making further comments or declinig the draft, duplicates the instance with this parameter deployed.
I imagine that this is true with "1=Why" as well, though have not used that ever.
I chose not to place exmples here since the template documentation is reasonably clear.
There are two solutions. Either remove that/those parameter/s from the template (there are then small legacy deployment issues) or solve the problem wuth the duplication.
I may be the only reviewer in recent times to have attempted use of the additional parameter(s). If so I see removing them as the simplest route, small legacy issues notwithstanding. Fiddle Faddle 08:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
|2=Updated published page with this information
– of course, now it just says "Comment" rather than that. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
03:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Being unfamiliar with the helper script, I wasn't understanding the issue until I looked at Timtrent's edit history.
UTC}}
, which explains the duplication. It doesn't look like the script was updated to handle the second parameter. It shouldn't be too time-consuming to fix. Having not used this template a lot recently, I don't have a preference on whether the parameter should exist.
Enterprisey (
talk!)
09:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I find the following as an edit summary in the draft history.
Declining submission: exists - Submission is duplicated by another article already in mainspace (AFCH 0.9.1)
If this is true, shouldn't the draft be redirected to the article. See WP:SRE. What is the point of keeping the draft? If kept, it has "edit" links, inviting further editing. If redirected, it tells everyone returning, such as from memory or bookmark, where they should be looking when wanting to contribute on that topic. The above edit summary would be a good edit summary for the edit converting the draft to a redirect. Is there ever a reason to not do this when declining due to the draft duplicating an article? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
When you have been redirected ... you'll get the small redirected note, I know that's true on web-desktop. Does it also work on web-mobile and/or the various mobile native apps? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, This article was based on the steak and bj day page, which is supported by similar or less reliable sources, and has started back in time with no sources at all,and even today is based almost entirly on nonsense.It even has a link on Valentine's Day so that all 11 year olds can see that there is a holiday dedicated to ... bjs! Is this encyclopedic ? I just wanted to give a different dimension that wikipedia is not a sexist page, but I see that it is more difficult than what has been said. Now, which sources are unreliable? All of them? Newspapers that have a history of more than 100 years, known in other parts of the world are unreliable, while in other articles here are used sources that are clearly defined as unreliable by Wikipedia. Most likely they are some not suitable, I could not find help after all and English is not my native language , but what sources are unreliable ? Help may be better at times than denial, possibly due to bias we all have Georgeof1001 ( talk) 16:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
confused about the originsfor
confused about the orgasms. E Eng 12:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Is my article "encyclopedic"? Honestly, i dont know. But is S&B day?It is there, for many years, giving the wrong message to young people if you ask me.So,the only way to make it look right is to include both. GMG,Atsme and all , thanks for taking the time to contribute.English is not my native language and the effort is huge,plus i have no idea how to even write a simple sentence here, let alone to edit.GMG , there's an extension in our browser, that's how i read the sources. This is the first time that i feel wiki is a friendly environment.I mean it.Thanks. Georgeof1001 ( talk) 21:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what went wrong with my review at Draft:Multi t-RNA Synthetase Complex (MSC). Perhaps someone could fix it? DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The reviewing guidelines state "Not everyone can review potentially new articles like they can edit Wikipedia. For criteria to become a reviewer, see Participants."
While it makes sense that not everyone can deny AfC submissions, as that is unique to the AfC process, the page Wikipedia:Drafts states: "An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft." (emphasis mine)
I think it makes sense to clarify that any editor can publish a draft to mainspace, instead of requiring an AfC reviewer to do so - the AfC process does not own the draft. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 22:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I just accepted a draft which I think is likely to be sent to AFD and is likely to be Kept at AFD. The reason that I expect that is that it was previously an article, and was then cut down to a redirect. So that means that there are editors who think it should be an article, and editors who think it should be only a redirect. Yes, I did request a history merge. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
My point is that, when there was an article and there now is a redirect, that is not necessarily a reason to decline a draft. The reviewer must use judgment as to whether they think it should go back into article space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I have left a substantial comment on the draft, and have made the decision not to give it a formal review. I consider that I may have an inbuilt bias having seen it so many times in main and Draft and User space. Fiddle Faddle 13:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello editors of the WikiProject Articles for creation. I would like to ask that if you find a current event draft (An event within the last 7 days) that someone created a draft on and submitted it for Afc, please ping me or leave a message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events talk page. We would ask for the ping (to me) or talk page notice no matter if the draft is accepted or denied. We try to help editors with the current events (as that is what the WikiProject is over), so a simple notice/ping would be appreciated. Thanks, Elijahandskip ( talk) 21:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes, AfC accepting is blocked by SALT. I have just stuck my head in one example here. I think the standard process is and should be:(0) ensure WP:THREE advice is followed; (1) Ask the SALTer to de-SALT; if refused, (2) go to WP:RfUP; if that fails, (3) go to WP:DRV. In the end, the facts get decided at AfD. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Drafts that are resubmitted tendentiously are a common problem. My suggestion is that, if the subject clearly is not likely to be notable, the draft should be submitted to MFD. However, if the subject is too soon, or the main problem is COI, rather than sending the draft to MFD, we should go to WP:ANI and request a partial block on the submitter, and possibly request Extended-Confirmed Protection on the draft. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey y'all, I'm starting to get a little burnt out in AfC. While I understand the massive backlog we're working against, dealing with low quality drafts and complaints from either new page reviewers or declined users is getting tough to handle. Is there a formal process to giving up my AFC script or walking away from the project, or should I just avoid it for now and come back when ready? (Probably the latter, but I figured the former might help me against the temptation to return too soon, lol). Ping me if you need me. Bkissin ( talk) 22:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I would like the feedback of other reviewers on this particular article, Who Am I? (Pale Waves album). I think that there may have been reviewer abuse, a phrase that I am using deliberately ambiguously, because I think that I have was accused of being an abusive reviewer, but another reviewer could have reasonably thought that I was being personally attacked. The draft was created on 1 January 2021 by Srodgers1701, before the album was released. I declined it on 1 January 2021. It was then resubmitted on 3 January 2021, and I declined it again. It appears that I didn't notice on 3 January 2021 that my 1 January 2021 decline message had been removed. It was then resubmitted twice on 6 January 2021 and on 16 January 2021 and declined twice by User:AngusWOOF. Angus said on 16 January to wait until the album was released, which was scheduled for 12 February 2021. The draft was then resubmitted on 9 February 2021 with the album still scheduled for release on 12 February 2021. I declined it, again saying that it should be resubmitted after the album was released.
On 11 February 2021, Srodgers1701 removed the record of declines and resubmitted it as if it were a new draft. I then restored the record of reviews and rejected it. I said that Srodgers1701 should not resubmit the draft, because they had been gaming the system. The album would probably be notable after it was reviewed in about a day, and another draft should then be submitted by another editor. At this point, I also asked about conflict of interest. I warned that a topic-ban or partial block could be requested for further gaming of the system. The usual response to tendentious resubmission is to nominate the draft for deletion, but that would be the wrong answer with an album that would probably be notable later.
I then went to the band talk page, Talk:Pale Waves, and asked if someone would tweak the draft and resubmit it, now that the album had been released.
Srodgers1701 removed the record of declines again and resubmitted the draft again. I declined it. An IP address resubmitted it. Angus restored the AFC record, removed puffery, and said that charting should be added. I made a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard.
At this point Ss112 moved the draft into article space. Ss112 left a lengthy edit summary scolding the reviewers, in particular saying that I owed an apology to Srodgers1701, saying that Srodgers1701 was an enthusiastic editor who was simply trying to get an article about an album.
I have not apologized and do not plan to apologize. I still don't know whether Srodgers1701 is an enthusiastic editor or a COI editor. Sometimes the conflict of interest noticeboard process doesn't do anything. I think that Ss112 is an editor who has a misguided enthusiasm for scolding the reviewers. The article on the album is now in article space.
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Here are my comments (yes, I'm involved in the mess above):
Hello, sorry if this is the wrong place to post, but I'd like to get the attention of the project's administrators. I made a submission at the Afc help desk a week ago, but the query wasn't answered despite all other submissions on the day being answered. It is now archived. It was a pretty long question but there was nothing vexatious about it. Please can someone advise. Thanks. Amana22 ( talk) 16:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Y'all, please chime in at Wikipedia talk:Proposed article mergers about merging drafts into articles. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 07:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse hosts like myself answer questions from AfC submitters about the timing of the approval process, usually with something that talks about it being a pile, not a queue, and taking days to months because there are 4,000 items currently awaiting review.
Based on what I've seen and heard about at the TH, my guess is that declines/rejects tend to happen within a few days to a couple weeks, while approvals take longer, depending on the complexity of the article, online vs. offline or English vs. non-English sources, etc. I'm guessing that reviewers generally try to make a "first-pass" evaluation fairly quickly to look for common "show-stoppers", like lack of refs, poor refs, other notability issues, etc. Am I correct? Does it seem useful to tell people that? I would think that it is useful for them to know that they shouldn't have to expect to wait months just to get a decline/reject over something they could have fixed in the meanwhile if they had known.
Thoughts?
P.S.: This came to mind as I remembered the days when, as a lowly visiting student, I'd submit a
punched-card deck to be run on an IBM mainframe and wait hours for the results, only to see a single-page result as I approached the "honeycomb" (instead of a stack), telling me I typo'd an "O" for a "0" on the very first card.
—[ AlanM1 ( talk)]— 22:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
An ideal draft submission should generally be short (preferably somewhere between stub and start class), not have any duplicated references, and a fairly clear indication of what the three best sources are. Things to not worry about are usually going to be copyediting, formatting, categorizes, and so on. A lot of submitters get pretty invested in prioritizing length or detail—I wonder if perhaps an example of a very well done stub or start class article on WP:YFA would help avoid that. Perryprog ( talk) 22:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Just found out about this. Potentially interesting. Enterprisey ( talk!) 10:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hello, just check and reply me whether I am eligibility kr not for this post.
Sorry but I forget to sign Jogesh 69 ( talk) 20:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Jogesh 69
Currently, the process for a non-autoconfirmed user to submit a redirect is pretty confusing from a "this is what you need to do" standpoint. It's not prominently advertised in the same way the article wizard is, and that often leads to attempted redirect submissions from the normal AfC process instead of on AfC/R. While I do know there's some contention about whether we should just decline any submissions or manually accept them and move it into mainspace, I do think it's agreed that redirect submissions do take up more reviewer time than maybe they should.
Similar to our "unsourced AfC submission" edit filter, what would you all think of a filter that gave a notice on an attempted redirect submission that their proposal is likely better suited to be made on AfC/R, instead? See also the proposed filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § AfC redirect submissions, which would be more-or-less implemented barring consensus here. Perryprog ( talk) 18:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This all shouldn't be too hard to do with the Transcluder module or through title.getContent(), but I'm not sure if this is worth the effort, or if it would be all that helpful. Perryprog ( talk) 21:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Following the creating editor's tl;dr plea on the AFC helpdesk, I ventured into the draft, one very reasonably declined by Bkissin, and have tried to offer guidance. The reason for asking for extra eyes is that the editor has made significant efforts, and may benefit from further thoughts and assistance. An editor who has taken this huge amount of effort is one we would not wish to lose. Fiddle Faddle 10:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This WP:THREE is necessary to pass WP:GNG. WP:THREE is a personal essay and doesn't represent official policy. It was meant as a tool for authors to point reviewers at the best references. Turning it into a WP:N litmus test is more than I intended. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The draft author and I have begun a source analysis at Draft talk:Anonymous personal sex blog, with the goal of figuring out if any of the sources pass GNG. Feel free to take a look. By the way, if a scholarly article [10] talks about "sex blogging in China", but the term "anonymous personal sex blog" is not mentioned in the article, is that close enough to count for GNG, or is that WP:SYNTH? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Update: The author has stated on the draft talk page that they are writing a new draft and they plan to be more concise. They will submit it at a later date. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 10:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I have increasingly noticed a proliferation of duplicate drafts (for example, Draft:Steve Pilot and Draft:Steve-Pilot). It seems evident that this is a tactic being used by paid or COI editors to hedge their bets, using sockpuppet accounts to make multiple drafts on the same person and submitting them for approval at different times (or after an initial rejection under one title) in hopes of drawing a more favorable reviewer the next time. Is there some way that we can generate a report flagging new drafts that are suspiciously similar to existing drafts? BD2412 T 05:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
a tactic being used by paid or COI editors to hedge their bets?
The script has been updated and hopefully it's a bit faster now. It is now properly loaded from the MediaWiki namespace instead of my userspace, from which it was previously loaded (for historical reasons). Nothing else should've changed; please let me know if you experience any issues. Thanks! Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Notability_of_albums_-_at_what_time_is_an_album_notable?. Please chime in with your comments. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 00:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, AFC, there is a message saying to preserve this page because it's being used by AFC developers but it seems to only have been used in 2018-2019 and the editor who posted this message hasn't edited in several years.
Is it still of any value to AFC? Tagging Enterprisey as they did some work on this page, too. Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Anybody mind moving that back to draft space so it can go through AfC? The COI of the editor appears obvious, and well if the subject is indeed notable they need a block until identity can be verified through OTRS. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
As my username has recently been changed, can my new username please be added to the list of participants? Noah! 💬 14:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Primefac: or other admins, does Draft:Deniz Unay qualify for WP:G4 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deniz Unay? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This is what has confused me the most during my time at AfC: the last backlog drive was five years ago. Our backlog is one of the biggest and ugliest on all of Wikipedia. Many of these article writers have been waiting for almost four months. A reviewer comes at last. He declines. But the decline is unclear. The poor user asks for help at many different places, but no one can help because those places are all backlogged, too! Why not just have one? 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, just for curiosity : Do we have a reporting how long an article is being marked as "being under review" ? Came across an article which had been marked for several weeks w/o any progress or feedback and the creator was wondering what is happening - does somebody has an eye on this? CommanderWaterford ( talk) 22:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
This is partly a question and mostly an observation. Sometimes authors of drafts, or other editors who have seen the drafts, write comments in the draft that are not AFC comments, and which will therefore not be removed if the draft is accepted. Occasionally the comments are vandalic, but usually the comments are put there because the author or editor doesn't know either how AFC comments work or where talk pages are. I usually move the comments from the draft to the draft talk page with a note that they are comments that were moved. Comments about a draft are appropriate for the draft talk page, which is about how to improve the draft, unless there is something wrong with them such as being uncivil. Does anyone else sometimes encounter comments in the article body? Does anyone have a different idea about what to do with them? Robert McClenon ( talk) 09:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I will restate two ideas that are being mentioned here, both of which have previously been mentioned. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Some editors including SmokeyJoe have been repeatedly saying that AFC declines and comments should be on the talk page rather than the draft page, the back rather than the front. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I have been saying that, if AFC comments continue to be on the front of a draft, they should be moved to the talk page when the draft is accepted. They are normally not harmful or confusing and may be useful for improvement. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I will give a specific example of a type of comment that should be preserved. Sometimes the reviewer disambiguates the draft title, and they or another reviewer may add a comment that the new article (when it becomes an article) should be listed in a disambiguation list or a hatnote. I use the {{ Adddisamb}} or {{ Addhat}} templates for the purpose. Those comments need to be acted on if the draft is accepted, but they will be stripped off by the AFC accept script. Moving them to the talk page is a good idea, and moving other comments to the talk page is a small price to pay to get them moved. One complicated way to deal with this would be to have two styles of AFC comments, one of which is moved to the talk page and one of which is discarded on acceptance. That sounds like an unnecessary complication, unless someone has a reason why it is needed. So can the comments either go on the talk page or be moved to the talk page? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I have a question about a situation that has arisen a few times in the past two weeks or so. The general situation is that a draft is about a title that is a redirect in article space to another article. After review, I decide that the draft should be accepted. What should be done with the redirect? If the redirect has minimal history, it can be deleted. I can't delete the redirect, but I have the page-move privilege, and can move it and suppress the move redirect. So I move the redirect to user space, and tag it for G6, and accept the draft. The redirect then gets mopped up by an admin with a mop. That is straightforward.
However, sometimes the redirect has history. In particular, there may have previously been an article, but it was then cut down to a redirect. If so, acceptance of the draft involves assessing whether the reasons for the cut-down-redirection still apply. If so, the draft should be declined. But sometimes the facts have changed. For instance, the actor is now notable, and the redirect to one movie is no longer necessary. In that case, I still move the redirect to user space, and can still accept the draft, but I tag the article to have history merged from the redirect. So far, so good. Typically when the admin completes the history merge, they delete the redirect. So far, so good.
However, occasionally the history merge is denied due to parallel histories. But I have accepted the draft, and it is in article space. The redirect is now in my user space. What should I do with it? Can I request that it be deleted? Should I create a museum to put the redirect in? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
You said that there is an issue with Jamesdarcywiki. Yes, but the question is one that there is no procedure for asking, which is whether someone else is behind the account. If we see the user account come out of a duck egg but don't know who the duck or drake were, there is no SPI.
Why are they reference-bombed? You, SmokeyJoe, probably know that. There is a myth in Wikipedia that more references are the secret to passing notability. Are Hypnotized and Sophie and the Giants both independently notable? I don't know. I didn't review the song. It was already in article space when I reviewed the band. Is the band independently notable? I think so, which is why I accepted it.
Why is the redirect in my user space? Because I moved it from Sophie and the Giants to my user space. Why did I move it from article space to my user space? To accept the draft. The redirect was blocking my acceptance of the draft, so I moved it. If it had had only trivial history, I would have then tagged it for G6, and it would have been swept away. That is what I do with drafts that should be accepted, but a redirect is blocking the acceptance move. The alternative would be to tag the redirect and wait for it to be deleted by an admin, but that sometimes takes 24 hours, during which I am doing other things. Since the redirect had non-trivial history, I moved it to my user space, and tagged it for history merge rather than for speedy deletion. If the history merge is then completed, the history-merging admin deletes the orphaned redirect. But the history merge was declined, and the redirect is still where I put it, in my user space.
Should I leave it there until 2038? Should I tag it for G6? If so, what flavor of G6? Should I move it to the user space of a user who does not exist? Should I move it to the user space of Jamesdarcywiki, who may or may not exist? Should I move it to Museum: space? Those are the questions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, AFC,
I was wondering if you could tell what in the AFC tagging was causing some submitted drafts to be placed in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/0 days' time category? It seems like this must be a mistake because if this category was used by the AFC crew, it would already exist so there must be a mistake in the tagging. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Here is a somewhat different case where I would like another opinion. I looked at Draft:Anelasticity. I then requested a review at WikiProject Physics. A reviewer said that they didn't see anything wrong with it, but that it was so poorly written that they didn't think it was ready for acceptance. I went ahead and accepted it because it is more likely to be improved in article space than in draft space. I remember that one of the tests for AFC is whether the draft, as an article, has more than a 50% chance of being kept on AFD. In physics, my concerns would be whether the topic is notable (and I can usually see that for myself), whether the topic is within the scope of another topic or duplicated (which it is not, because there is only one sentence about anelasticity in viscoelasticity), and whether the paper is by a crackpot. And a chemist won't always recognize a crackpot physicist. So, based on the comment that it was poorly written, but otherwise had no obvious problems, I accepted it. What does anyone think? Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I have another history merge question that is quite different. There is a situation which is technically a copy-paste move, and in which some reviewers do apply a history-merge tag. An example can be seen at Draft:Carolina Hurricanes Storm Squad and Carolina Hurricanes Storm Squad, unless it can no longer be seen because of whatever. An editor created the draft, in maybe ten steps, and submitted it. The same editor then copied the draft into article space. The defining characteristic of this case is that the same editor created the draft, and then the article. When I see that, I do NOT request history merge, because there is no contention as to who wrote what, because the same editor wrote both. In the specific case, I have nominated the article for deletion, but that is a separate issue. I commonly see the same editor create a draft and then an article. I decline the article with a template notice about creating the same article in draft space and article space. I also usually do a before AFD check on the article, because very often when an editor creates two copies in draft space and article space, they are trying to game the system.
So: Is a history merge in order when the draft and the article were the work of the same editor? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It’s my own article that was originally relocated into the draft space because it had no citations at the time. I made additions to the draft and added citations. I didn’t know that moving the page was an actual thing and I didn’t want to wait 4 months for my article to finish posting so I just copied and pasted. Bentheswimmer11 ( talk) 06:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I will ask this question yet again, just to be sure that I understand the answer, because I think it is important. The example at this time is Draft:Dylan Conrique and Dylan Conrique. There was a poorly sourced article on this actress. I think that she may have a fan club. The article was then cut down to a redirect. There is now also a draft, Draft:Dylan Conrique. I will try to word this question carefully. If a draft on Conrique is submitted that satisfies biographical notability, should a history merge be done, or a page swap, or what? The draft will be declined, because it is also undersourced, and it only describes one major role, not two or more. However, the question happens often enough that I think I should get clarifying guidance, whether from User:Primefac or someone else. Would this be a history merge case, or not? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I have written an essay about fan clubs who try to publicize "their" star in Wikipedia, at Fan Clubs. I would appreciate comments. Since it is in project space, constructive improvements are welcome. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
My efforts earlier this year to get more developers working on the helper script worked, and there are currently at least 3 new developers working on various issues. (There are more, but 3 actively communicate with me.) I am now in the bizarre position of having nearly run out of easy bugs to give them. If you know of any bugs with the script, especially ones that seem relatively easy to fix or aren't already in the issue tracker, please let me know here or on my talk page. Thanks! Enterprisey ( talk!) 10:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
nocreate
to true
.How should AFC deal with the issue of multiple drafts on the identical topic? This seems to be happening increasingly lately, in response to current events or social media buzz. I'd like to spark a discussion about this here. Bullet 1 of Afc about article creation, says: "Is it already covered in an existing article?" but does not ask whether it is already covered in an existing Draft. Even if it did, I suspect that many creators of Drafts are much more familiar with Google search than they are with WP Advanced Search, and Google search does not return results from the Draft namespace.
Sometimes, multiple articles on the same topic are created almost simultaneously, in response to events in the news or trends on social media. For a current example of drafts created in response to one trending buzzword, see these four drafts: ( one, two, three, four). These were all created within the last few days, all on the same topic; two of them have been reviewed already. Multiple drafts like these need to be transparently linked in some way, to inform AFC reviewers of the others, and to prevent reviewers from needlessly duplicating effort, or from independently reviewing the same topic in multiple incarnations at the same time.
I thought of various possibilities. I'm not an AFC reviewer, so I'll just throw some ideas out here, and open this to discussion by the AFC community, to come up with some sort of approach that works best for you. Here are some:
What do you all think? Does anything need to be done at all? I think I'm in favor of #4. I'm a template writer, so if that ends up being the consensus, I can help. (I might mock something up so there's something to look at, while considering this alternative.) Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 19:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I had a thought. What if we make it the rule that the first-in-time draft will be deemed the primary draft, and any later drafts created on an identical topic will be moved to a talk space sub-page of that draft, with a note on the primary that additional content may be found on the subpage. Presumably, if the primary draft is ever approved for mainspace, all the subpages will move with it. BD2412 T 02:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
there are three recent AN threads on this exact issue. WP:AN is an awful page to browse-search things. Can you link them please? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I found Draft:Peter John Graham and Peter John Graham. It appears that, after two or three months in review, the draft was copy-pasted by a different editor into article space. I tagged it for history merge. Will someone please verify that in this case this is what history merge is for, that I did understand it correctly? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
(cut)(-and-dry -and-paste) situation
. :-p
Primefac (
talk)
20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Let's see if I have done this one right. Draft:Georgia-Lithuania relations was submitted, and articles on bilateral relations between nations are normally considered notable. There was a redirect from the title to Foreign relations of Georgia (country). (Duh. States of the US do not have foreign relations.) So I had to move the redirect out of the way to accept it, but the redirect has history. So I have swapped the former redirect into draft space and pointed it at the article. Is that correct?
But the acceptance of the draft created a page-move redirect. Can I suppress redirect creation when accepting a draft using the AFCH script? (I know that I can do a move, but that requires cleanup afterwards.)
So is that how history should b ehandled in such cases? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
An editor has nominated the {{ COI}} template and two other templates for deletion. If you either use these templates in reviewing and want to keep them or encounter these templates in reviewing and dislike them or have any other opinion on them, you may participate in the Templates for Discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, is there any practical way to consolidate duplicate references? I want to review Draft:Norwich Women’s Film Weekend but the amount of duplicates in the reference section makes it hard to get a good overview of the source situation. I should have figured this out some time ago but somehow never did. Thanks, Modussiccandi ( talk) 22:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
![]()
|
--
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
20:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hey all, back from a brief respite and definitely taking on less of a massive workload here. Thanks to all our reviewers here for doing the hard work every day to get through the backlog.
In the past, drafts will come through AFC that are from WikiEd courses, or Edit-a-thons, both of which have a large number of new, inexperienced users. I'm wondering if there is a better way to strengthen the connection between our project and theirs so that new users in those projects are more aware of what we are looking for when we review articles for notability, tone and sources.
Unfortunately, the only idea I can think of is for reviewers to be available as a resource in each of these individual endeavors, which would be a massive time-sink for those involved, especially since (hopefully) we all have lives outside of WP. If anyone can think of a better solution to this, I'd love to help brainstorm. Bkissin ( talk) 16:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is even possible, but I was thinking that it would be good if something like (or actually use)
Headbombs colour highlighting script for unreliable sources (
User:Headbomb/unreliable) on every Draft page by default. Then submitters at least would see bad sources highlighted as such and it hopefully would improve submissions.
Ideally I would like to see something like implemented in main-space but then the script and source regex lists would probably need to be under admin control like the backlist is. However maybe Draft would be a good place to test the idea and I can't see any downside to this as all it does is point out consensus issues about some sources and, in Draft at least, does not impact readers. KylieTastic ( talk) 20:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
We have an article on Tom Aikens, a chef, and on Tom Aikens (restaurant). Where I got involved is that George Ho submitted a draft, Draft:Tom Aikens (restaurant). It is longer than the existing article. I reviewed the draft, but the article already exists, so I compared the draft and the article. I declined the draft as 'exists', but tagged the draft to be merged into the article. I then was pinged to the draft talk page by George Ho, who asked whether I had rejected the draft because the article exists. I tried to explain that I agree that there should be an article on the chef and a separate article on the restaurant. However, it seems that I haven't succeeded in explaining the situation. It appears that a few weeks ago, George Ho tried to redirect the restaurant article to the chef article, and was, in my opinion, correctly, reverted by The Banner. I am not sure that I understand yet, but I think that George Ho still thinks that the restaurant should not have a separate article. He also apparently thinks that I have advised him to request a history merge, which would be completely off the wall. Can someone else please take a look at the articles and at the interaction on the draft talk page, and either explain to George Ho, or explain to me what George Ho wants?
I will try to explain one more time, but it appears either that I don't understand something, or that George Ho has some mistaken impression. Thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
A new project is starting up to review really old neglected articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweep. Participants here are welcome to sign up or contribute to planning. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Yup, no argument there. And maybe this should just be a suggestion, or a reminder, or an 'I never thought of that'.
We review quite a few good drafts and we accept them. The thing is, I think the pictures used to populate a draft are part of the same job. Accept or decline, I follow the picture, almost always to Commons, and I see a great deal of very poor upload rationales and many downright lies. So O nominate them for:
And then I look at the uploader's contributions and use a Commons batch task to bulk nominate any other candidate files for one of those three things. See c:Help:VisualFileChange.js available if you have the correct status. That status may be requestedm and I think is autopatrolled.
You may see it differently. I think that we need to go all the way, whcih is not a huge amount of extra fun.
I have three deletion rationales I use for commons, found from other people's use there:
These rationales are also suitable for consideration for files on Wikipedia that have not been/will not be uploaded to Commons
So I present this to you, not in any way seeking to criticise if you disagree with me, as something we, you, may consider doing for the future. You may be doing it already. Fiddle Faddle 12:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I am thinking we should go to requiring that every article be created by a registered editor. I also think that we should require that all editors submit their first new article through the Articles for Creation process, and we should not allow them to create any other new articles until they have successfully had one proposed article created through the AfC process. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I have just reverted this review which seems to be to be totally erroneous. The editor is indeffed as abusing multiple accounts, see block log. They are a probationary reviewer here. I'm nor sure if there is an easy way to check their reviews, but this one leads me to suspect there are more. Their talk page and archive show that edotors, me included, have highlighted some issues Fiddle Faddle 13:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
It would appear that for some reason Joe's Null Bot stopped working as originally noted here at the end of January. This is turning out to be permanent and not just a glitch and the bot owner Joe Decker is not active to address. So we really need another bot to take up the job or at least someone to check if there is a new bug breaking Joe's Null Bot. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 17:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Page.purge(forcelinkupdate=True)
function seems to work.
ƒirefly (
t ·
c )
18:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)I tried to use the # to enumerate my comments. See Draft:Liara Roux. The # is not interpreted, and is reproduced as a #. Now it;s not a big deal, bit it's interesting. Fiddle Faddle 23:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
<ol><li>List item one</li><li>List item two</li></ol>
, or more concisely with {{
olist|List item one|List item two}}
.
Perryprog (
talk)
02:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This project page has full protection, so I'm unable to edit it. All of the other user rights pages listed at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions have the {{Wikipedia accounts|collapsed}} nav box located at the bottom of their pages. I would like to request an admin to place the same navbox at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants as well since it is also listed at Requests for permissions, and I think consistency, as well as navigation are important. I understand this talk page seems to be used mostly for requesting rights, but there doesn't seem to be a section presented for other requests, so I figured this was the only request option available. Thank you for your help. Huggums537 ( talk) 05:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The editor is TableSalt342 Please see this diff for the ANI discussion.
I find these outcomes to be somewhat vexing since we are grossly overloaded anyway so I believe we ought to give serious consideration to this alternative proposal. ANI consensus that AFC should become a dunmping ground for problem editors seems to be growing. We could argue that trash articles make good practuce for new reviewers, but the backlog is growing all the time anyway, and it is disheartening to watch it grow so fast. Fiddle Faddle 10:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
What other editors besides TableSalt342 and FloridaArmy are required to use AFC? FloridaArmy seems to be a different case than TableSalt342. Most of FloridaArmy's stubs are good, but many of them are junk, and there have been personal attacks. I think that some restriction was imposed on FloridaArmy as to the total number of drafts that they could have waiting for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon ( talk • contribs) 16:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
TheGs2007 ( talk · contribs) is randomly adding "#REDIRECT"s to WP:AFC/R. [13] [14] [15] S/he seems to require hand-in-hand tutoring, as asking them to follow the instructions on the page results in a "I do not know what you are saying" response.
-- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 10:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Post-finasteride syndrome was deleted after a deletion discussion in 2015, and the deletion discussion was largely about the lack of accepted medical evidence that there is a medical syndrome. It was then re-created by sockpuppets, and deleted, and then redirected to Finasteride, and the redirect was fully protected due to edit-warring by the sockpuppets. A draft was submitted about a week ago. I first tried to tag the redirect as {{ R with possibilities}}, and that didn't work because the redirect was protected. I requested that the protecting administrator downgrade the redirect to ECP, and they unprotected it, which was fine. I then reviewed the draft, and it says that there is medical controversy about whether there is a defined syndrome. That seemed like enough information to accept the draft. I accepted the draft (which was tedious for various reasons including multiple versions of capitalization of the title).
There is now a merge discussion in progress to merge it back into Finasteride.
On thinking about it, I think that I made the right decision in accepting the draft and letting the community decide. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
It would be helpful if there was a version of the Pending AfC submission page that displayed an excerpt for each article, say the first sentence of the draft. When it comes to biographies in particular, the number is overwhelming, and having an excerpt would help reviewers get more information about the subject while skimming the list. Greenman ( talk) 18:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
So, Category:AfC pending submissions by age/1 day's time and Category:AfC pending submissions by age/2 days' time were created during April 1st activity but I'm not sure where they will serve a purpose for AFC. You are already utilizing Category:AfC pending submissions by age/1 day ago and Category:AfC pending submissions by age/2 days ago so these might just be some unfunny nonsense. If they are, please tag for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 1 April 2021 (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.
Im trying to create an extremely important article on a clearly NOTABLE topic. Why havn't u all approved it yet??!? This process is RIGGED!!! Please approve Draft:Dupont Circle CVS escalator at once! Sdkb ( talk) 00:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC) April Fools!
I'm not a draft reviewer but have come across a number of images used in Draft:Thrifty-Link Hardware on Commons. These were all uploaded by the draft creator & submitter and a number of them were nominated by myself as copyright violations (and deleted and removed from article, see history) and the remaining in the draft may very well be, too. Apart from the editors history of uploading copyrighted images, claiming to be their own work, the fact that they claim to own and have taken File:Moonta SA.jpg, File:BLH Thrifty-Link Hardware & Supermarket, Beaconsfield, Tasmania.jpg and File:Farmways Kellerberrin, Kellerberrin, Western Australia.jpg all on New Years Day in 2017 in rural locations in three different states of Australia just makes me think they are copyright violations, too. What should be done with a draft full of likely copyright violations? Calistemon ( talk) 12:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
When a draft has been declined and then resubmitted, the red "Submission declined" template stays at the top of the draft, while the yellow "Review waiting" template is placed at the bottom of the draft. Could the process be changed so the yellow "Review waiting" template is posted at the top, to make it more obvious to potential reviewers that they can review it? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 20:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I would close this myself, but I am the editor who sent it to AfD and do not think I am allowed to, even as WP:IAR
The draft was accepted in what I view as an unready state, and I sent it to AfD rather than draftifying it. It happens that the major contributor has a declared COI so cannot rescue it in main space. The fair thing to do is to draftily. But this means the AfD needs to be closed. I believe this can be a non admin closure, but obviously only if you agree with my thinking.
There are no guarantees that the finished product will be acceptable as an article, but my discussions (my talk page, mainly) with the creating editor read me to believe that they need this fair chance to try to make this article succeed. Fiddle Faddle 06:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
With this update [16] uploading has been disabled for free images. Is this now the policy of English Wikipedia that account-less people are no longer allowed to request uploads of free imagery? This change means that only non-free images can be requested to be uploaded, but free images can no longer be requested to be uploaded by such users. The article wizard options no longer indicate an option for uploading of free images without an account. While you can still choose to upload a non-free image with the interface.
Wikipedia:Files for upload/Template presents 4 options, if the image is free, there are two choices, which leads to asking you to upload at Commons, or create an account at Commons. The two non-free options still go to the second step, where the removed link once also lead to. The choices at the second step remain the same as before, allowing users to request to upload a free image, but which is no longer correct, since none of the free image options on the first step lead to such a result.
Also, asking people to upload all free images onto Commons is not correct as there are several classes of images which are "free" in the jurisdiction of the United States, which cannot be uploaded onto Commons, and will be deleted on Commons, when uploaded, because they are not free in other non-US jurisdictions.
-- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 22:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
We recently discussed the situation where an article previously existed, and was then cut down to a redirect, but then a draft is written and approved. The conclusion is that the old redirect with history should be moved to draft space, and then pointed to the article. This requires a round-robin move. The most recent example to look at is Embers (James Newman song). But here is the issue. Accepting the draft from draft space always leaves a redirect behind. I can't turn off the redirect. I have to move the redirect to somewhere else, with that redirect suppressed, in order to free up the slot in draft space, in order to move the old redirect thing to draft space. Is there a way that I can turn off redirect creation on an AFC Accept?
I know that I can do a regular Move with redirect creation off to move the draft into article space. But this also turns off a lot of cleanup that is done by the script, and then the cleanup has to be done manually in article space. If I move the article into article space, is there a way that I can get the script to do cleanup after the move?
Do you understand the question well enough to at least try to answer it? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
delete-redirect
by moving the redirect moved from the article namespace into the redirect created by publishing the draft. This should replace the latter redirect with the former redirect. ~
Aseleste (
t,
e |
c,
l)
05:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Please start by looking at Draft:Uday Phadke. I'm not asking you to review it, though you are welcome to.
At the head of the text is a comment from the submitting editor. We get these sometimes. Perhaps we should get these more often, the more so if we are trying to educate as well as filter out dross.
What if there were a button for the submitter to reply to a comment, and to keep it sorted into order with the comments already places? Fiddle Faddle 17:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, User:Timtrent. I see what you are asking for. You are asking for a tool for the reviewer that will move the comment in the space that is meant to be the article body to either AFC comments or the draft talk page. I think that the reviewer would first have to select the text. The tool could then either put an AFC comment wrapper around the text, or move the text to the draft talk page. Is that what you want? Yes, it happens often enough that a tool would be good, that the submitter puts a comment to the reviewer in where the article text should be. I occasionally move the comment to the draft talk page, but that is work. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I typed in a title that has no article, according to Wikipedia. There was a message that I could request it by going to the link to the article for which this page is the talk page. But the article is about creating articles, not asking for articles to be created. Why is the link to the article request page hidden here on the talk page? 67.209.131.46 ( talk) 16:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello. What are the qualifications for becoming an AFC reviewer? Elyse's Son 09:08, 12 April 2021 (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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
I have a question about how to deal with a draft which has a redirect with the same title. Draft:Jesse Duke is about a nineteenth-century editor. There is a redirect from Jesse Duke to The Dukes of Hazzard for a fictional character. However, there was previously an article about the character, which was then merged into the show and cut down to a redirect. So the question is: If the draft is to be accepted because the historical person is considered notable, is there any particular way that I need to request the history be retained? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
If WikiProject banners have already been added to the draft's talk page, the "accept" page will now have those banners already in the dropdown box. Removing them from the dropdown and then accepting the draft will remove those banners from the talk page. This also works for WikiProject Biography. Enterprisey ( talk!) 22:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been doing new page patrols, and I've seen several accepted Articles for Creation in the new pages queue. Has there been previous discussion of automatically marking these as patrolled? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 20:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
It appears User:Sonofstar is has decided to review articles. They make some helpful, but some unhelpful edits. They seem too fresh an editor to be making the best edits on new articles. Perhaps someone could mentor them? Thriley ( talk) 19:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there or could there be a template response for when no substantial changes have been made between the last time an article was declined and it being resubmitted? ( here's a recent example). I'd like to get across the points that 1. the original reason for it being declined still stands. 2. hoping for a more lenient reviewer isn't a good tactic. 3. don't do that. And I think it would be helpful to have some boilerplate text for this plus it could create a category to keep track of this and identify if anyone does this more than once in which case a different approach will be needed. -- Paul ❬ talk❭ 15:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
No significant changes since last decline. Primefac ( talk) 17:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm a new page reviewer and I'm seeing a troubling amount of articles that don't seem likely to survive AfD, for example Bay of Bengal (band). The article, as written, doesn't contain any indications of notability, no charts, no sales, no awards, no influence on other musicians, nothing.
A section just above suggested that you are accepting drafts with a 50/50 shot of getting kept at AfD. In my view, this needs to be moved to an 80 or 90% chance of surviving an AfD. Not because of workload on other editors, but because for a new editor to follow the rules and get approved, and then get their article deleted after the first new page patrol, is a huge betrayal to this new editor that will ensure that they never come back. Acceptance shouldn't be 50% acceptance, it should be acceptance period. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 06:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure about Draft:Freddie McSwain Jr.. I am leaning towards accepting it but would like another opinion on it. Eyebeller 12:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Recently I've become a little concerned that Tagishsimon's review comments are coming across as bite-y, and at Primefac's discretion I'm bringing it up here. There have also been a few comments on Tagishsimon's talk page which also bring this up at User talk:Tagishsimon § Absurd and not qualified and § Comment at Draft:CalFile by the author of one of the drafts, as well as by me and Robert McClenon, although they have not yet replied there. The two actual comments being discussed, and that I want to bring to the attention of you all, can be found here and here. Perryprog ( talk) 21:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm hoping for a bit of guidance about this submission for an academic. I'm leaning towards declining it because it doesn't meet
WP:GNG, nor does it meet
WP:NACADEMIC (online sources refer to her as an assistant professor, falling short of point 5 - The person has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)
). However, the same submitter (who is paid by EPFL) has a significant number of other articles which have passed AfC after review by a reviewer far more experienced than I:
Raffaella Buonsanti,
David Suter (biologist) and
Alexander Mathis are three examples that I would not have approved. I've been overly harsh with submissions in the past, as other Wikipedians have pointed out, and I'm not looking to make that mistake again. I've marked the article under review, and I'm hoping someone can give me their opinions on this and the other three similar articles, so that I don't mistakenly decline a worthy article.
Kohlrabi Pickle (
talk)
06:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC) CE'd comment at 06:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello - I apologize, in advance, if this isn't the correct venue for asking the following question... Is there a way to determine approximately when a submitted draft may be reviewed? I was told that it could take 3+ months, however it may happen far sooner in some cases? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Ryan (
Ryancoke2020 (
talk)
05:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC))
Firstly, I would like to state that I believe that I meet the criteria to become an AfC reviewer; however, I have no interest in becoming a reviewer full-time. Secondly, this is the draft article in question, which has been submitted to AfC: Draft:Future_State. My question: would it be OK for me to bypass the AfC process and just go ahead and publish this article myself, even though it was written and submitted to AfC by someone else? If I had written this article myself, I would have published it straightaway without going through the AfC process. I believe that it currently contains adequate information and sources, covers a notable subject, and can be expanded upon in mainspace as necessary. It has been lingering in the AfC queue since October, and covers a current event (a comic event series that is being published right now), which is why I would like to accelerate its publication. Please let me know if this is something that I can do, as I don't want to step on any toes here. Thanks. Wilkinswontkins ( talk) 16:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Primefac ( talk) 02:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I've recently become a probationary AfC participant, and I've already run into a few areas where I have questions that don't seem to be answered by the reviewing questions.
I'm likely going to have some more questions later on (and I'll probably batch them up as well), but I figured these were important enough to get out of the way quickly. (And any criticism or comments on my reviewing thus far is of course welcomed :).) Perryprog ( talk) 21:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
bio
and v
. If there are poor references then just bio
.adv
. If the page would need a fundamental rewrite, go for G11. I would also say the same for G12/copyvios - if you can leave at least two decent paragraphs after removal of the copyrighted content, decline as cv but don't tag for G12 (otherwise, go for it). Granted, if you're not sure about whether a G12 is appropriate or not, I'd rather decline a G12 and clean it up than have copyright stuff left in an article.For 3. that two paragraph metric is actually really helpful—I'm going to keep that in mind. I also assume whenever relevant, CV revdel is desirable. And that helps a lot—thank you! Perryprog ( talk) 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I wrote Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Contributing, a guide for contributing to the helper script, as part of my bid to get AFCH featured on mw:New Developers (which may get us a faster rate of bug fixes!). People here may also find it useful. Enterprisey ( talk!) 11:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
First, see Category talk:Pages with disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications#Cleanup question.
Would a template mentioned in the link be helpful?
The rationale is that some draft pages needs to customize its title. Pages in the draft namespace can use DISPLAYTITLE
like so
{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{NAMESPACE}}:desired title markup}}
and it will continue to work when it is moved to the mainspace.
However, there are also a lot of drafts in the user namespace. The problem is that DISPLAYTITLE
cannot change the title, and quite a lot of drafts are in sandboxes, meaning the title does not contain the article name at all. The solution I have come up with for now is to simply disable DISPLAYTITLE
if it is not in the article namespace.
Considering that those user pages are also drafts, I think we should unify handling of DISPLAYTITLE
of drafts with a new template proposed in the link above, similar to {{
Draft categories}}.
What do you think? – Ase1este t@lk c0ntribs 03:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
hello my name is <redacted> I work at a company call <redacted> in the US. I have being experiencing issue with aircraft a 777-300. I would like to know what are the power expectation for that particular aircraft from a GPU weather its a 129KVA or a 180KVA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.98.82 ( talk) 19:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I came across Draft:Kaely Michels-Gualtieri in the G13 deletion heap, having been abandoned after MurielMary declined it essentially for lacking online versions for the key sources appertaining to notability. It's not an area I know anything about (trapeze artist) so I'm not comfortable promoting it myself, but it seems reasonably fully sourced, just without links for verification, which don't seem to me to be necessary. The creator appears single purpose but is claiming to be good faith [7]. There's always the option of promoting the article to mainspace and then taking it to Articles for deletion to see whether the claims of notability stick. Thoughts, anyone? Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are a lot more "undated" drafts in AFC sections that the AlertBot puts out. For example here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Article_alerts#AFC. Did something change recently where a timestamp isn't being populated properly when a user submits a draft? - 2pou ( talk) 22:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
There are some situations where I will change a rejection to a decline:
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Enterprisey:, can you have the script handle "Draft-specific" categories like Category:Drafts in foreign languages different from regular categories? I had to remove that category from Draft:Yükseköğretim Kalite Kurulu since the script insisted on "de-activating" it during the "clean" process.
This is probably not the only category that needs to be "treated as a special case" by the script. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
AFCR. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 23#AFCR until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
12:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not sure what the best way to highlight this is, but I noticed that there are a few drafts, (submitted around the same time by one anon) that need the attention of someone specifically familiar with Policies and RS's on medical topics. They all relate to CoVID vaccine candidates:
They look legit and notable to me but I strongly feel like they should be reviewed by someone who knows what they are talking about. -- Paul ❬ talk❭ 10:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I have a few comments about comments made at AFD. I have at least three times seen the comment that the article that is tagged for deletion should not have been accepted through AFC. First, I would like to clarify that the criterion for acceptance is that the reviewer thinks that there is a greater than 50% chance that the article will be kept in AFD if it is nominated for AFD. Of course, the vast majority of articles that are accepted do not go through AFD because there is no real question about notability. What I am asking for may be a verification that having an occasional article nominated for AFD that a reviewer has accepted does not mean that the reviewer was wrong.
Second, I did recently see the same comment, that the article should not have been accepted, on an article that had not been accepted by AFC. The article had been move-warred. It had been in article space, and was sent back to draft space, and was then moved back to article space, which is the author's privilege, but subjects them to the likelihood of AFD. The commenter thought that the article had been accepted because of the stupid template message that says that the article was accepted, but the acceptance has not been closed out. I explained to the commenter that the problem was not with AFC, but was only a stupid template message.
Third, is there a way to increase the likelihood of a reviewer participating in the AFD, and possibly defending the acceptance, if an AFC article is nominated for deletion after being accepted?
Fourth, I think that the risk of being dumped on if an article is accepted and then nominated for deletion may be a reason why some drafts sit in the AFC queue for weeks or even months, because reviewers don't want to take a chance on a 50%.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hello. Recently, one of my "articles for creation" was accepted for creation. In the message left on my talk page, there was something that said "Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request." Does that mean that I can make articles directly from draft to article without review, and does that give me the ability to review other people's articles? I would appreciate any clarification on this. Springfield2020 ( talk) 15:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hallo, I'm not an AfC reviewer, but as a regular stub-sorter I see a random collection of stubs which have been moved to main space from AfC. I note that the instructions for reviewers include "Consider adding categories, and/or appropriate cleanup templates or stub-tags by entering the code in the relevant boxes.", but there seems no mention of DEFAULTSORT. This is something which could very usefully be added by an AfC reviewer, along with any categories, as it will ensure that "Annie Brown" files under B not A in any listings for those categories.
Could I suggest that some mention of DEFAULTSORT should be added to the reviewers instructions and/or the script used when accepting an article, to increase the proportion of articles which go into mainspace with their appropriate DEFAULTSORT when they need one? There are two main groups of articles where this is needed: (a) personal names where the filing element is not the first part of the name (as is the case for most western names, where we expect "Annie Brown" to file as "Brown, Annie" and (b) titles which start with "A", "An", "The" or foreign-language equivalents, so that "The Gambia" will file as "Gambia, The".
Some of these will at present get noticed by alert stub-sorters who notice misplaced items in the A-Z display of Category:Stubs, but not every item approved at AfC is a stub and so will pass before that next pair of eyes. Pam D 21:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
My gut says "it is disruptive, particularly if the editor is aware of the reasons they should stay," but I wanted to check with my peers before taking further action regarding this and my response to it on the editor's talk page.
Short version: The editor twice removed AFC declines and/or comments. I restored both in a single edit and left a note on his talk page saying why. He removed them both again.
So, is my gut correct, or is it off-base? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 17:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.Perryprog ( talk) 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there a tool in place to see how many AfC reviews I've done? either just a total headcount or a breakdown of how often I accept/decline (I'd be interested to see how I compare to the averages)? -- Paul ❬ talk❭ 11:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
For those unaware, there are currently six drafts in the space for the same person:
KylieTastic, Theroadislong and Davisonio have taken care of several of these drafts already. Thank you all. My thought is that this is a coordinated WP:PROMO campaign by a number of different users, especially with the hashtags used in this particular draft. While the subject might have a compelling case for WP:NPROF, I haven't seen anything in these drafts that has shown Independent GNG notability. Many of the sources are from her own website, etc. and the tone is classically promotional and reads like a youtube channel than an actual article.
Just wanted to keep other reviewers on the radar about the issue. Bkissin ( talk) 21:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
How are there 350+ drafts in the 0 day old submissions? Did someone go on a saving spree at G13? Even with all our volunteers we can't keep up with the backlog. Bkissin ( talk) 20:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I do wish there was a minimum length standard as these just water down the worth of an encyclopedia.History lesson: In the days before Encarta, there were these things called "encyclopedias." Unlike the modern encyclopedia, these usually took up several feet of shelf space. On the plus side, they did not require electricity to access. They included one-liner entries. [1] There was and may still be a thing called The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy which, while taking up much less shelf space, also includes one-liners. At one time, the entry for Earth was two words: Mostly harmless. Prior to that, it was just one word: Harmless. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
References
ALAUNA, ALAUNUS, the Celtic names of two rivers, &c., in Roman Britain. Hence the modern Allan Water, river Alyn, &c.
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Redirects to Template:Draft article. They were unused; this simplifies the helper script code a bit. Enterprisey ( talk!) 23:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Partizan Kuzya ( talk) 01:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It's been a while since I had an editor loose their mind over a decline - not sure why they are just attacking me as Theroadislong declined if just after. So far 14 abusive messages on my talk page from account and IP, and zero attempts to improve article. Not close to the record yet of waking up to notices of over a hundred posts (most redacted) about me... oddly that was from the same part of the world. Ah the joys of Wikipedia :/ KylieTastic ( talk) 16:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
|mindelay=
, |maxdelay=
, |maxinsultsperday=
or should I just surprise you?
|approve_price=
US$200
—
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
17:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Add WikiProject tags has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Add WikiProject tags to undo the last edit, seems to be a mistake. 74.73.230.232 ( talk) 23:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I've restored AFC templates 3 times in the last 24 hours on Draft:Imaztv.
Is there a consensus somewhere that restoring these templates doesn't count for 3RR/edit-warring purposes, or do I need to lay off for a day? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 19:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
First, I mostly agree with User:SmokeyJoe that putting those messages on the talk page would be preferable. It isn't that important where they are while the draft ia a draft. Second, what I think is more important is that there should be a way to move comments to the talk page when the draft is accepted, because some of the comments have to do with editing of the article that the draft becomes. If the title of a draft has been disambiguated, I put a comment on it saying that an entry needs to be added to the disambiguation list when the draft is accepted. That comment has to do with editing of the article, not just with whether to accept the article. Third, if comments are removed from a draft while it is in progress, the reviewer should use judgment as to whether it matters, whether the messages should be restored for future reviewers. In some cases, removing the templates may be an indication of a conflict of interest, and there are at least two ways to address that concern, by posting a question on the user talk page, and by posting a note at the conflict of interest noticeboard.
We should at least discuss moving the messages and the comments to the talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I rejected a draft, and went back about 12 hours later to check on it. I saw that the submitter had erased the rejection message from their talk page. On the one hand, they have a right to do this, because it is their user talk page, and it doesn't really matter as long as they aren't resubmitting the draft. On the other hand, is there any particular reason to expect that they did this? What is the good-faith or bad-faith explanation? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Removing tags from the draft- um, are we talking about the same thing here? IMHO all AFC templates on drafts, including past rejections, declines, and comments, are for the benefit of all editors who are working on the page while it is still a draft, so they should not be removed unless they were added in error or based on erroneous information/assumptions. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 20:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Admins hope you all are doing good , i'm new here on wikepedia i don't have too much knowledge about the rules of wikipedia , i have just started contributing on wikipedia as someday's before i went through a Draft:junaid_bhat which was declined because it was totally incomplete and there were not enough supportive url's in the draft , so while checking this draft i went through internet and collected the information regarding the mentioned person and took this draft as my first contribution on wikipedia so i started recreating this draft which is complete now and has been sent for submission : please i request you to help me to get my first work published thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakrutiprajapanti ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Enterprisey: The AFCH script de-activates the "draft-space" category Category:Drafts in foreign languages. [9] davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:12, 4 February 2021 (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.
{{ AFC comment}} has a parameter "2=note" which is almost useful. The problem is that cleaning the submission, potentially making further comments or declinig the draft, duplicates the instance with this parameter deployed.
I imagine that this is true with "1=Why" as well, though have not used that ever.
I chose not to place exmples here since the template documentation is reasonably clear.
There are two solutions. Either remove that/those parameter/s from the template (there are then small legacy deployment issues) or solve the problem wuth the duplication.
I may be the only reviewer in recent times to have attempted use of the additional parameter(s). If so I see removing them as the simplest route, small legacy issues notwithstanding. Fiddle Faddle 08:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
|2=Updated published page with this information
– of course, now it just says "Comment" rather than that. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
03:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Being unfamiliar with the helper script, I wasn't understanding the issue until I looked at Timtrent's edit history.
UTC}}
, which explains the duplication. It doesn't look like the script was updated to handle the second parameter. It shouldn't be too time-consuming to fix. Having not used this template a lot recently, I don't have a preference on whether the parameter should exist.
Enterprisey (
talk!)
09:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I find the following as an edit summary in the draft history.
Declining submission: exists - Submission is duplicated by another article already in mainspace (AFCH 0.9.1)
If this is true, shouldn't the draft be redirected to the article. See WP:SRE. What is the point of keeping the draft? If kept, it has "edit" links, inviting further editing. If redirected, it tells everyone returning, such as from memory or bookmark, where they should be looking when wanting to contribute on that topic. The above edit summary would be a good edit summary for the edit converting the draft to a redirect. Is there ever a reason to not do this when declining due to the draft duplicating an article? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
When you have been redirected ... you'll get the small redirected note, I know that's true on web-desktop. Does it also work on web-mobile and/or the various mobile native apps? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, This article was based on the steak and bj day page, which is supported by similar or less reliable sources, and has started back in time with no sources at all,and even today is based almost entirly on nonsense.It even has a link on Valentine's Day so that all 11 year olds can see that there is a holiday dedicated to ... bjs! Is this encyclopedic ? I just wanted to give a different dimension that wikipedia is not a sexist page, but I see that it is more difficult than what has been said. Now, which sources are unreliable? All of them? Newspapers that have a history of more than 100 years, known in other parts of the world are unreliable, while in other articles here are used sources that are clearly defined as unreliable by Wikipedia. Most likely they are some not suitable, I could not find help after all and English is not my native language , but what sources are unreliable ? Help may be better at times than denial, possibly due to bias we all have Georgeof1001 ( talk) 16:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
confused about the originsfor
confused about the orgasms. E Eng 12:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Is my article "encyclopedic"? Honestly, i dont know. But is S&B day?It is there, for many years, giving the wrong message to young people if you ask me.So,the only way to make it look right is to include both. GMG,Atsme and all , thanks for taking the time to contribute.English is not my native language and the effort is huge,plus i have no idea how to even write a simple sentence here, let alone to edit.GMG , there's an extension in our browser, that's how i read the sources. This is the first time that i feel wiki is a friendly environment.I mean it.Thanks. Georgeof1001 ( talk) 21:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what went wrong with my review at Draft:Multi t-RNA Synthetase Complex (MSC). Perhaps someone could fix it? DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The reviewing guidelines state "Not everyone can review potentially new articles like they can edit Wikipedia. For criteria to become a reviewer, see Participants."
While it makes sense that not everyone can deny AfC submissions, as that is unique to the AfC process, the page Wikipedia:Drafts states: "An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft." (emphasis mine)
I think it makes sense to clarify that any editor can publish a draft to mainspace, instead of requiring an AfC reviewer to do so - the AfC process does not own the draft. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 22:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I just accepted a draft which I think is likely to be sent to AFD and is likely to be Kept at AFD. The reason that I expect that is that it was previously an article, and was then cut down to a redirect. So that means that there are editors who think it should be an article, and editors who think it should be only a redirect. Yes, I did request a history merge. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
My point is that, when there was an article and there now is a redirect, that is not necessarily a reason to decline a draft. The reviewer must use judgment as to whether they think it should go back into article space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I have left a substantial comment on the draft, and have made the decision not to give it a formal review. I consider that I may have an inbuilt bias having seen it so many times in main and Draft and User space. Fiddle Faddle 13:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello editors of the WikiProject Articles for creation. I would like to ask that if you find a current event draft (An event within the last 7 days) that someone created a draft on and submitted it for Afc, please ping me or leave a message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events talk page. We would ask for the ping (to me) or talk page notice no matter if the draft is accepted or denied. We try to help editors with the current events (as that is what the WikiProject is over), so a simple notice/ping would be appreciated. Thanks, Elijahandskip ( talk) 21:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes, AfC accepting is blocked by SALT. I have just stuck my head in one example here. I think the standard process is and should be:(0) ensure WP:THREE advice is followed; (1) Ask the SALTer to de-SALT; if refused, (2) go to WP:RfUP; if that fails, (3) go to WP:DRV. In the end, the facts get decided at AfD. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Drafts that are resubmitted tendentiously are a common problem. My suggestion is that, if the subject clearly is not likely to be notable, the draft should be submitted to MFD. However, if the subject is too soon, or the main problem is COI, rather than sending the draft to MFD, we should go to WP:ANI and request a partial block on the submitter, and possibly request Extended-Confirmed Protection on the draft. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey y'all, I'm starting to get a little burnt out in AfC. While I understand the massive backlog we're working against, dealing with low quality drafts and complaints from either new page reviewers or declined users is getting tough to handle. Is there a formal process to giving up my AFC script or walking away from the project, or should I just avoid it for now and come back when ready? (Probably the latter, but I figured the former might help me against the temptation to return too soon, lol). Ping me if you need me. Bkissin ( talk) 22:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I would like the feedback of other reviewers on this particular article, Who Am I? (Pale Waves album). I think that there may have been reviewer abuse, a phrase that I am using deliberately ambiguously, because I think that I have was accused of being an abusive reviewer, but another reviewer could have reasonably thought that I was being personally attacked. The draft was created on 1 January 2021 by Srodgers1701, before the album was released. I declined it on 1 January 2021. It was then resubmitted on 3 January 2021, and I declined it again. It appears that I didn't notice on 3 January 2021 that my 1 January 2021 decline message had been removed. It was then resubmitted twice on 6 January 2021 and on 16 January 2021 and declined twice by User:AngusWOOF. Angus said on 16 January to wait until the album was released, which was scheduled for 12 February 2021. The draft was then resubmitted on 9 February 2021 with the album still scheduled for release on 12 February 2021. I declined it, again saying that it should be resubmitted after the album was released.
On 11 February 2021, Srodgers1701 removed the record of declines and resubmitted it as if it were a new draft. I then restored the record of reviews and rejected it. I said that Srodgers1701 should not resubmit the draft, because they had been gaming the system. The album would probably be notable after it was reviewed in about a day, and another draft should then be submitted by another editor. At this point, I also asked about conflict of interest. I warned that a topic-ban or partial block could be requested for further gaming of the system. The usual response to tendentious resubmission is to nominate the draft for deletion, but that would be the wrong answer with an album that would probably be notable later.
I then went to the band talk page, Talk:Pale Waves, and asked if someone would tweak the draft and resubmit it, now that the album had been released.
Srodgers1701 removed the record of declines again and resubmitted the draft again. I declined it. An IP address resubmitted it. Angus restored the AFC record, removed puffery, and said that charting should be added. I made a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard.
At this point Ss112 moved the draft into article space. Ss112 left a lengthy edit summary scolding the reviewers, in particular saying that I owed an apology to Srodgers1701, saying that Srodgers1701 was an enthusiastic editor who was simply trying to get an article about an album.
I have not apologized and do not plan to apologize. I still don't know whether Srodgers1701 is an enthusiastic editor or a COI editor. Sometimes the conflict of interest noticeboard process doesn't do anything. I think that Ss112 is an editor who has a misguided enthusiasm for scolding the reviewers. The article on the album is now in article space.
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Here are my comments (yes, I'm involved in the mess above):
Hello, sorry if this is the wrong place to post, but I'd like to get the attention of the project's administrators. I made a submission at the Afc help desk a week ago, but the query wasn't answered despite all other submissions on the day being answered. It is now archived. It was a pretty long question but there was nothing vexatious about it. Please can someone advise. Thanks. Amana22 ( talk) 16:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Y'all, please chime in at Wikipedia talk:Proposed article mergers about merging drafts into articles. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 07:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse hosts like myself answer questions from AfC submitters about the timing of the approval process, usually with something that talks about it being a pile, not a queue, and taking days to months because there are 4,000 items currently awaiting review.
Based on what I've seen and heard about at the TH, my guess is that declines/rejects tend to happen within a few days to a couple weeks, while approvals take longer, depending on the complexity of the article, online vs. offline or English vs. non-English sources, etc. I'm guessing that reviewers generally try to make a "first-pass" evaluation fairly quickly to look for common "show-stoppers", like lack of refs, poor refs, other notability issues, etc. Am I correct? Does it seem useful to tell people that? I would think that it is useful for them to know that they shouldn't have to expect to wait months just to get a decline/reject over something they could have fixed in the meanwhile if they had known.
Thoughts?
P.S.: This came to mind as I remembered the days when, as a lowly visiting student, I'd submit a
punched-card deck to be run on an IBM mainframe and wait hours for the results, only to see a single-page result as I approached the "honeycomb" (instead of a stack), telling me I typo'd an "O" for a "0" on the very first card.
—[ AlanM1 ( talk)]— 22:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
An ideal draft submission should generally be short (preferably somewhere between stub and start class), not have any duplicated references, and a fairly clear indication of what the three best sources are. Things to not worry about are usually going to be copyediting, formatting, categorizes, and so on. A lot of submitters get pretty invested in prioritizing length or detail—I wonder if perhaps an example of a very well done stub or start class article on WP:YFA would help avoid that. Perryprog ( talk) 22:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Just found out about this. Potentially interesting. Enterprisey ( talk!) 10:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hello, just check and reply me whether I am eligibility kr not for this post.
Sorry but I forget to sign Jogesh 69 ( talk) 20:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Jogesh 69
Currently, the process for a non-autoconfirmed user to submit a redirect is pretty confusing from a "this is what you need to do" standpoint. It's not prominently advertised in the same way the article wizard is, and that often leads to attempted redirect submissions from the normal AfC process instead of on AfC/R. While I do know there's some contention about whether we should just decline any submissions or manually accept them and move it into mainspace, I do think it's agreed that redirect submissions do take up more reviewer time than maybe they should.
Similar to our "unsourced AfC submission" edit filter, what would you all think of a filter that gave a notice on an attempted redirect submission that their proposal is likely better suited to be made on AfC/R, instead? See also the proposed filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § AfC redirect submissions, which would be more-or-less implemented barring consensus here. Perryprog ( talk) 18:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This all shouldn't be too hard to do with the Transcluder module or through title.getContent(), but I'm not sure if this is worth the effort, or if it would be all that helpful. Perryprog ( talk) 21:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Following the creating editor's tl;dr plea on the AFC helpdesk, I ventured into the draft, one very reasonably declined by Bkissin, and have tried to offer guidance. The reason for asking for extra eyes is that the editor has made significant efforts, and may benefit from further thoughts and assistance. An editor who has taken this huge amount of effort is one we would not wish to lose. Fiddle Faddle 10:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This WP:THREE is necessary to pass WP:GNG. WP:THREE is a personal essay and doesn't represent official policy. It was meant as a tool for authors to point reviewers at the best references. Turning it into a WP:N litmus test is more than I intended. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The draft author and I have begun a source analysis at Draft talk:Anonymous personal sex blog, with the goal of figuring out if any of the sources pass GNG. Feel free to take a look. By the way, if a scholarly article [10] talks about "sex blogging in China", but the term "anonymous personal sex blog" is not mentioned in the article, is that close enough to count for GNG, or is that WP:SYNTH? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Update: The author has stated on the draft talk page that they are writing a new draft and they plan to be more concise. They will submit it at a later date. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 10:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I have increasingly noticed a proliferation of duplicate drafts (for example, Draft:Steve Pilot and Draft:Steve-Pilot). It seems evident that this is a tactic being used by paid or COI editors to hedge their bets, using sockpuppet accounts to make multiple drafts on the same person and submitting them for approval at different times (or after an initial rejection under one title) in hopes of drawing a more favorable reviewer the next time. Is there some way that we can generate a report flagging new drafts that are suspiciously similar to existing drafts? BD2412 T 05:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
a tactic being used by paid or COI editors to hedge their bets?
The script has been updated and hopefully it's a bit faster now. It is now properly loaded from the MediaWiki namespace instead of my userspace, from which it was previously loaded (for historical reasons). Nothing else should've changed; please let me know if you experience any issues. Thanks! Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Notability_of_albums_-_at_what_time_is_an_album_notable?. Please chime in with your comments. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 00:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, AFC, there is a message saying to preserve this page because it's being used by AFC developers but it seems to only have been used in 2018-2019 and the editor who posted this message hasn't edited in several years.
Is it still of any value to AFC? Tagging Enterprisey as they did some work on this page, too. Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Anybody mind moving that back to draft space so it can go through AfC? The COI of the editor appears obvious, and well if the subject is indeed notable they need a block until identity can be verified through OTRS. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
As my username has recently been changed, can my new username please be added to the list of participants? Noah! 💬 14:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Primefac: or other admins, does Draft:Deniz Unay qualify for WP:G4 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deniz Unay? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This is what has confused me the most during my time at AfC: the last backlog drive was five years ago. Our backlog is one of the biggest and ugliest on all of Wikipedia. Many of these article writers have been waiting for almost four months. A reviewer comes at last. He declines. But the decline is unclear. The poor user asks for help at many different places, but no one can help because those places are all backlogged, too! Why not just have one? 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, just for curiosity : Do we have a reporting how long an article is being marked as "being under review" ? Came across an article which had been marked for several weeks w/o any progress or feedback and the creator was wondering what is happening - does somebody has an eye on this? CommanderWaterford ( talk) 22:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
This is partly a question and mostly an observation. Sometimes authors of drafts, or other editors who have seen the drafts, write comments in the draft that are not AFC comments, and which will therefore not be removed if the draft is accepted. Occasionally the comments are vandalic, but usually the comments are put there because the author or editor doesn't know either how AFC comments work or where talk pages are. I usually move the comments from the draft to the draft talk page with a note that they are comments that were moved. Comments about a draft are appropriate for the draft talk page, which is about how to improve the draft, unless there is something wrong with them such as being uncivil. Does anyone else sometimes encounter comments in the article body? Does anyone have a different idea about what to do with them? Robert McClenon ( talk) 09:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I will restate two ideas that are being mentioned here, both of which have previously been mentioned. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Some editors including SmokeyJoe have been repeatedly saying that AFC declines and comments should be on the talk page rather than the draft page, the back rather than the front. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I have been saying that, if AFC comments continue to be on the front of a draft, they should be moved to the talk page when the draft is accepted. They are normally not harmful or confusing and may be useful for improvement. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I will give a specific example of a type of comment that should be preserved. Sometimes the reviewer disambiguates the draft title, and they or another reviewer may add a comment that the new article (when it becomes an article) should be listed in a disambiguation list or a hatnote. I use the {{ Adddisamb}} or {{ Addhat}} templates for the purpose. Those comments need to be acted on if the draft is accepted, but they will be stripped off by the AFC accept script. Moving them to the talk page is a good idea, and moving other comments to the talk page is a small price to pay to get them moved. One complicated way to deal with this would be to have two styles of AFC comments, one of which is moved to the talk page and one of which is discarded on acceptance. That sounds like an unnecessary complication, unless someone has a reason why it is needed. So can the comments either go on the talk page or be moved to the talk page? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I have a question about a situation that has arisen a few times in the past two weeks or so. The general situation is that a draft is about a title that is a redirect in article space to another article. After review, I decide that the draft should be accepted. What should be done with the redirect? If the redirect has minimal history, it can be deleted. I can't delete the redirect, but I have the page-move privilege, and can move it and suppress the move redirect. So I move the redirect to user space, and tag it for G6, and accept the draft. The redirect then gets mopped up by an admin with a mop. That is straightforward.
However, sometimes the redirect has history. In particular, there may have previously been an article, but it was then cut down to a redirect. If so, acceptance of the draft involves assessing whether the reasons for the cut-down-redirection still apply. If so, the draft should be declined. But sometimes the facts have changed. For instance, the actor is now notable, and the redirect to one movie is no longer necessary. In that case, I still move the redirect to user space, and can still accept the draft, but I tag the article to have history merged from the redirect. So far, so good. Typically when the admin completes the history merge, they delete the redirect. So far, so good.
However, occasionally the history merge is denied due to parallel histories. But I have accepted the draft, and it is in article space. The redirect is now in my user space. What should I do with it? Can I request that it be deleted? Should I create a museum to put the redirect in? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
You said that there is an issue with Jamesdarcywiki. Yes, but the question is one that there is no procedure for asking, which is whether someone else is behind the account. If we see the user account come out of a duck egg but don't know who the duck or drake were, there is no SPI.
Why are they reference-bombed? You, SmokeyJoe, probably know that. There is a myth in Wikipedia that more references are the secret to passing notability. Are Hypnotized and Sophie and the Giants both independently notable? I don't know. I didn't review the song. It was already in article space when I reviewed the band. Is the band independently notable? I think so, which is why I accepted it.
Why is the redirect in my user space? Because I moved it from Sophie and the Giants to my user space. Why did I move it from article space to my user space? To accept the draft. The redirect was blocking my acceptance of the draft, so I moved it. If it had had only trivial history, I would have then tagged it for G6, and it would have been swept away. That is what I do with drafts that should be accepted, but a redirect is blocking the acceptance move. The alternative would be to tag the redirect and wait for it to be deleted by an admin, but that sometimes takes 24 hours, during which I am doing other things. Since the redirect had non-trivial history, I moved it to my user space, and tagged it for history merge rather than for speedy deletion. If the history merge is then completed, the history-merging admin deletes the orphaned redirect. But the history merge was declined, and the redirect is still where I put it, in my user space.
Should I leave it there until 2038? Should I tag it for G6? If so, what flavor of G6? Should I move it to the user space of a user who does not exist? Should I move it to the user space of Jamesdarcywiki, who may or may not exist? Should I move it to Museum: space? Those are the questions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, AFC,
I was wondering if you could tell what in the AFC tagging was causing some submitted drafts to be placed in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/0 days' time category? It seems like this must be a mistake because if this category was used by the AFC crew, it would already exist so there must be a mistake in the tagging. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Here is a somewhat different case where I would like another opinion. I looked at Draft:Anelasticity. I then requested a review at WikiProject Physics. A reviewer said that they didn't see anything wrong with it, but that it was so poorly written that they didn't think it was ready for acceptance. I went ahead and accepted it because it is more likely to be improved in article space than in draft space. I remember that one of the tests for AFC is whether the draft, as an article, has more than a 50% chance of being kept on AFD. In physics, my concerns would be whether the topic is notable (and I can usually see that for myself), whether the topic is within the scope of another topic or duplicated (which it is not, because there is only one sentence about anelasticity in viscoelasticity), and whether the paper is by a crackpot. And a chemist won't always recognize a crackpot physicist. So, based on the comment that it was poorly written, but otherwise had no obvious problems, I accepted it. What does anyone think? Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I have another history merge question that is quite different. There is a situation which is technically a copy-paste move, and in which some reviewers do apply a history-merge tag. An example can be seen at Draft:Carolina Hurricanes Storm Squad and Carolina Hurricanes Storm Squad, unless it can no longer be seen because of whatever. An editor created the draft, in maybe ten steps, and submitted it. The same editor then copied the draft into article space. The defining characteristic of this case is that the same editor created the draft, and then the article. When I see that, I do NOT request history merge, because there is no contention as to who wrote what, because the same editor wrote both. In the specific case, I have nominated the article for deletion, but that is a separate issue. I commonly see the same editor create a draft and then an article. I decline the article with a template notice about creating the same article in draft space and article space. I also usually do a before AFD check on the article, because very often when an editor creates two copies in draft space and article space, they are trying to game the system.
So: Is a history merge in order when the draft and the article were the work of the same editor? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It’s my own article that was originally relocated into the draft space because it had no citations at the time. I made additions to the draft and added citations. I didn’t know that moving the page was an actual thing and I didn’t want to wait 4 months for my article to finish posting so I just copied and pasted. Bentheswimmer11 ( talk) 06:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I will ask this question yet again, just to be sure that I understand the answer, because I think it is important. The example at this time is Draft:Dylan Conrique and Dylan Conrique. There was a poorly sourced article on this actress. I think that she may have a fan club. The article was then cut down to a redirect. There is now also a draft, Draft:Dylan Conrique. I will try to word this question carefully. If a draft on Conrique is submitted that satisfies biographical notability, should a history merge be done, or a page swap, or what? The draft will be declined, because it is also undersourced, and it only describes one major role, not two or more. However, the question happens often enough that I think I should get clarifying guidance, whether from User:Primefac or someone else. Would this be a history merge case, or not? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I have written an essay about fan clubs who try to publicize "their" star in Wikipedia, at Fan Clubs. I would appreciate comments. Since it is in project space, constructive improvements are welcome. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
My efforts earlier this year to get more developers working on the helper script worked, and there are currently at least 3 new developers working on various issues. (There are more, but 3 actively communicate with me.) I am now in the bizarre position of having nearly run out of easy bugs to give them. If you know of any bugs with the script, especially ones that seem relatively easy to fix or aren't already in the issue tracker, please let me know here or on my talk page. Thanks! Enterprisey ( talk!) 10:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
nocreate
to true
.How should AFC deal with the issue of multiple drafts on the identical topic? This seems to be happening increasingly lately, in response to current events or social media buzz. I'd like to spark a discussion about this here. Bullet 1 of Afc about article creation, says: "Is it already covered in an existing article?" but does not ask whether it is already covered in an existing Draft. Even if it did, I suspect that many creators of Drafts are much more familiar with Google search than they are with WP Advanced Search, and Google search does not return results from the Draft namespace.
Sometimes, multiple articles on the same topic are created almost simultaneously, in response to events in the news or trends on social media. For a current example of drafts created in response to one trending buzzword, see these four drafts: ( one, two, three, four). These were all created within the last few days, all on the same topic; two of them have been reviewed already. Multiple drafts like these need to be transparently linked in some way, to inform AFC reviewers of the others, and to prevent reviewers from needlessly duplicating effort, or from independently reviewing the same topic in multiple incarnations at the same time.
I thought of various possibilities. I'm not an AFC reviewer, so I'll just throw some ideas out here, and open this to discussion by the AFC community, to come up with some sort of approach that works best for you. Here are some:
What do you all think? Does anything need to be done at all? I think I'm in favor of #4. I'm a template writer, so if that ends up being the consensus, I can help. (I might mock something up so there's something to look at, while considering this alternative.) Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 19:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I had a thought. What if we make it the rule that the first-in-time draft will be deemed the primary draft, and any later drafts created on an identical topic will be moved to a talk space sub-page of that draft, with a note on the primary that additional content may be found on the subpage. Presumably, if the primary draft is ever approved for mainspace, all the subpages will move with it. BD2412 T 02:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
there are three recent AN threads on this exact issue. WP:AN is an awful page to browse-search things. Can you link them please? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I found Draft:Peter John Graham and Peter John Graham. It appears that, after two or three months in review, the draft was copy-pasted by a different editor into article space. I tagged it for history merge. Will someone please verify that in this case this is what history merge is for, that I did understand it correctly? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
(cut)(-and-dry -and-paste) situation
. :-p
Primefac (
talk)
20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Let's see if I have done this one right. Draft:Georgia-Lithuania relations was submitted, and articles on bilateral relations between nations are normally considered notable. There was a redirect from the title to Foreign relations of Georgia (country). (Duh. States of the US do not have foreign relations.) So I had to move the redirect out of the way to accept it, but the redirect has history. So I have swapped the former redirect into draft space and pointed it at the article. Is that correct?
But the acceptance of the draft created a page-move redirect. Can I suppress redirect creation when accepting a draft using the AFCH script? (I know that I can do a move, but that requires cleanup afterwards.)
So is that how history should b ehandled in such cases? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
An editor has nominated the {{ COI}} template and two other templates for deletion. If you either use these templates in reviewing and want to keep them or encounter these templates in reviewing and dislike them or have any other opinion on them, you may participate in the Templates for Discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, is there any practical way to consolidate duplicate references? I want to review Draft:Norwich Women’s Film Weekend but the amount of duplicates in the reference section makes it hard to get a good overview of the source situation. I should have figured this out some time ago but somehow never did. Thanks, Modussiccandi ( talk) 22:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
![]()
|
--
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
20:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hey all, back from a brief respite and definitely taking on less of a massive workload here. Thanks to all our reviewers here for doing the hard work every day to get through the backlog.
In the past, drafts will come through AFC that are from WikiEd courses, or Edit-a-thons, both of which have a large number of new, inexperienced users. I'm wondering if there is a better way to strengthen the connection between our project and theirs so that new users in those projects are more aware of what we are looking for when we review articles for notability, tone and sources.
Unfortunately, the only idea I can think of is for reviewers to be available as a resource in each of these individual endeavors, which would be a massive time-sink for those involved, especially since (hopefully) we all have lives outside of WP. If anyone can think of a better solution to this, I'd love to help brainstorm. Bkissin ( talk) 16:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is even possible, but I was thinking that it would be good if something like (or actually use)
Headbombs colour highlighting script for unreliable sources (
User:Headbomb/unreliable) on every Draft page by default. Then submitters at least would see bad sources highlighted as such and it hopefully would improve submissions.
Ideally I would like to see something like implemented in main-space but then the script and source regex lists would probably need to be under admin control like the backlist is. However maybe Draft would be a good place to test the idea and I can't see any downside to this as all it does is point out consensus issues about some sources and, in Draft at least, does not impact readers. KylieTastic ( talk) 20:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
We have an article on Tom Aikens, a chef, and on Tom Aikens (restaurant). Where I got involved is that George Ho submitted a draft, Draft:Tom Aikens (restaurant). It is longer than the existing article. I reviewed the draft, but the article already exists, so I compared the draft and the article. I declined the draft as 'exists', but tagged the draft to be merged into the article. I then was pinged to the draft talk page by George Ho, who asked whether I had rejected the draft because the article exists. I tried to explain that I agree that there should be an article on the chef and a separate article on the restaurant. However, it seems that I haven't succeeded in explaining the situation. It appears that a few weeks ago, George Ho tried to redirect the restaurant article to the chef article, and was, in my opinion, correctly, reverted by The Banner. I am not sure that I understand yet, but I think that George Ho still thinks that the restaurant should not have a separate article. He also apparently thinks that I have advised him to request a history merge, which would be completely off the wall. Can someone else please take a look at the articles and at the interaction on the draft talk page, and either explain to George Ho, or explain to me what George Ho wants?
I will try to explain one more time, but it appears either that I don't understand something, or that George Ho has some mistaken impression. Thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
A new project is starting up to review really old neglected articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweep. Participants here are welcome to sign up or contribute to planning. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Yup, no argument there. And maybe this should just be a suggestion, or a reminder, or an 'I never thought of that'.
We review quite a few good drafts and we accept them. The thing is, I think the pictures used to populate a draft are part of the same job. Accept or decline, I follow the picture, almost always to Commons, and I see a great deal of very poor upload rationales and many downright lies. So O nominate them for:
And then I look at the uploader's contributions and use a Commons batch task to bulk nominate any other candidate files for one of those three things. See c:Help:VisualFileChange.js available if you have the correct status. That status may be requestedm and I think is autopatrolled.
You may see it differently. I think that we need to go all the way, whcih is not a huge amount of extra fun.
I have three deletion rationales I use for commons, found from other people's use there:
These rationales are also suitable for consideration for files on Wikipedia that have not been/will not be uploaded to Commons
So I present this to you, not in any way seeking to criticise if you disagree with me, as something we, you, may consider doing for the future. You may be doing it already. Fiddle Faddle 12:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I am thinking we should go to requiring that every article be created by a registered editor. I also think that we should require that all editors submit their first new article through the Articles for Creation process, and we should not allow them to create any other new articles until they have successfully had one proposed article created through the AfC process. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I have just reverted this review which seems to be to be totally erroneous. The editor is indeffed as abusing multiple accounts, see block log. They are a probationary reviewer here. I'm nor sure if there is an easy way to check their reviews, but this one leads me to suspect there are more. Their talk page and archive show that edotors, me included, have highlighted some issues Fiddle Faddle 13:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
It would appear that for some reason Joe's Null Bot stopped working as originally noted here at the end of January. This is turning out to be permanent and not just a glitch and the bot owner Joe Decker is not active to address. So we really need another bot to take up the job or at least someone to check if there is a new bug breaking Joe's Null Bot. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 17:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Page.purge(forcelinkupdate=True)
function seems to work.
ƒirefly (
t ·
c )
18:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)I tried to use the # to enumerate my comments. See Draft:Liara Roux. The # is not interpreted, and is reproduced as a #. Now it;s not a big deal, bit it's interesting. Fiddle Faddle 23:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
<ol><li>List item one</li><li>List item two</li></ol>
, or more concisely with {{
olist|List item one|List item two}}
.
Perryprog (
talk)
02:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This project page has full protection, so I'm unable to edit it. All of the other user rights pages listed at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions have the {{Wikipedia accounts|collapsed}} nav box located at the bottom of their pages. I would like to request an admin to place the same navbox at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants as well since it is also listed at Requests for permissions, and I think consistency, as well as navigation are important. I understand this talk page seems to be used mostly for requesting rights, but there doesn't seem to be a section presented for other requests, so I figured this was the only request option available. Thank you for your help. Huggums537 ( talk) 05:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The editor is TableSalt342 Please see this diff for the ANI discussion.
I find these outcomes to be somewhat vexing since we are grossly overloaded anyway so I believe we ought to give serious consideration to this alternative proposal. ANI consensus that AFC should become a dunmping ground for problem editors seems to be growing. We could argue that trash articles make good practuce for new reviewers, but the backlog is growing all the time anyway, and it is disheartening to watch it grow so fast. Fiddle Faddle 10:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
What other editors besides TableSalt342 and FloridaArmy are required to use AFC? FloridaArmy seems to be a different case than TableSalt342. Most of FloridaArmy's stubs are good, but many of them are junk, and there have been personal attacks. I think that some restriction was imposed on FloridaArmy as to the total number of drafts that they could have waiting for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon ( talk • contribs) 16:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
TheGs2007 ( talk · contribs) is randomly adding "#REDIRECT"s to WP:AFC/R. [13] [14] [15] S/he seems to require hand-in-hand tutoring, as asking them to follow the instructions on the page results in a "I do not know what you are saying" response.
-- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 10:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Post-finasteride syndrome was deleted after a deletion discussion in 2015, and the deletion discussion was largely about the lack of accepted medical evidence that there is a medical syndrome. It was then re-created by sockpuppets, and deleted, and then redirected to Finasteride, and the redirect was fully protected due to edit-warring by the sockpuppets. A draft was submitted about a week ago. I first tried to tag the redirect as {{ R with possibilities}}, and that didn't work because the redirect was protected. I requested that the protecting administrator downgrade the redirect to ECP, and they unprotected it, which was fine. I then reviewed the draft, and it says that there is medical controversy about whether there is a defined syndrome. That seemed like enough information to accept the draft. I accepted the draft (which was tedious for various reasons including multiple versions of capitalization of the title).
There is now a merge discussion in progress to merge it back into Finasteride.
On thinking about it, I think that I made the right decision in accepting the draft and letting the community decide. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
It would be helpful if there was a version of the Pending AfC submission page that displayed an excerpt for each article, say the first sentence of the draft. When it comes to biographies in particular, the number is overwhelming, and having an excerpt would help reviewers get more information about the subject while skimming the list. Greenman ( talk) 18:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
So, Category:AfC pending submissions by age/1 day's time and Category:AfC pending submissions by age/2 days' time were created during April 1st activity but I'm not sure where they will serve a purpose for AFC. You are already utilizing Category:AfC pending submissions by age/1 day ago and Category:AfC pending submissions by age/2 days ago so these might just be some unfunny nonsense. If they are, please tag for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 1 April 2021 (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.
Im trying to create an extremely important article on a clearly NOTABLE topic. Why havn't u all approved it yet??!? This process is RIGGED!!! Please approve Draft:Dupont Circle CVS escalator at once! Sdkb ( talk) 00:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC) April Fools!
I'm not a draft reviewer but have come across a number of images used in Draft:Thrifty-Link Hardware on Commons. These were all uploaded by the draft creator & submitter and a number of them were nominated by myself as copyright violations (and deleted and removed from article, see history) and the remaining in the draft may very well be, too. Apart from the editors history of uploading copyrighted images, claiming to be their own work, the fact that they claim to own and have taken File:Moonta SA.jpg, File:BLH Thrifty-Link Hardware & Supermarket, Beaconsfield, Tasmania.jpg and File:Farmways Kellerberrin, Kellerberrin, Western Australia.jpg all on New Years Day in 2017 in rural locations in three different states of Australia just makes me think they are copyright violations, too. What should be done with a draft full of likely copyright violations? Calistemon ( talk) 12:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
When a draft has been declined and then resubmitted, the red "Submission declined" template stays at the top of the draft, while the yellow "Review waiting" template is placed at the bottom of the draft. Could the process be changed so the yellow "Review waiting" template is posted at the top, to make it more obvious to potential reviewers that they can review it? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 20:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I would close this myself, but I am the editor who sent it to AfD and do not think I am allowed to, even as WP:IAR
The draft was accepted in what I view as an unready state, and I sent it to AfD rather than draftifying it. It happens that the major contributor has a declared COI so cannot rescue it in main space. The fair thing to do is to draftily. But this means the AfD needs to be closed. I believe this can be a non admin closure, but obviously only if you agree with my thinking.
There are no guarantees that the finished product will be acceptable as an article, but my discussions (my talk page, mainly) with the creating editor read me to believe that they need this fair chance to try to make this article succeed. Fiddle Faddle 06:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
With this update [16] uploading has been disabled for free images. Is this now the policy of English Wikipedia that account-less people are no longer allowed to request uploads of free imagery? This change means that only non-free images can be requested to be uploaded, but free images can no longer be requested to be uploaded by such users. The article wizard options no longer indicate an option for uploading of free images without an account. While you can still choose to upload a non-free image with the interface.
Wikipedia:Files for upload/Template presents 4 options, if the image is free, there are two choices, which leads to asking you to upload at Commons, or create an account at Commons. The two non-free options still go to the second step, where the removed link once also lead to. The choices at the second step remain the same as before, allowing users to request to upload a free image, but which is no longer correct, since none of the free image options on the first step lead to such a result.
Also, asking people to upload all free images onto Commons is not correct as there are several classes of images which are "free" in the jurisdiction of the United States, which cannot be uploaded onto Commons, and will be deleted on Commons, when uploaded, because they are not free in other non-US jurisdictions.
-- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 22:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
We recently discussed the situation where an article previously existed, and was then cut down to a redirect, but then a draft is written and approved. The conclusion is that the old redirect with history should be moved to draft space, and then pointed to the article. This requires a round-robin move. The most recent example to look at is Embers (James Newman song). But here is the issue. Accepting the draft from draft space always leaves a redirect behind. I can't turn off the redirect. I have to move the redirect to somewhere else, with that redirect suppressed, in order to free up the slot in draft space, in order to move the old redirect thing to draft space. Is there a way that I can turn off redirect creation on an AFC Accept?
I know that I can do a regular Move with redirect creation off to move the draft into article space. But this also turns off a lot of cleanup that is done by the script, and then the cleanup has to be done manually in article space. If I move the article into article space, is there a way that I can get the script to do cleanup after the move?
Do you understand the question well enough to at least try to answer it? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
delete-redirect
by moving the redirect moved from the article namespace into the redirect created by publishing the draft. This should replace the latter redirect with the former redirect. ~
Aseleste (
t,
e |
c,
l)
05:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Please start by looking at Draft:Uday Phadke. I'm not asking you to review it, though you are welcome to.
At the head of the text is a comment from the submitting editor. We get these sometimes. Perhaps we should get these more often, the more so if we are trying to educate as well as filter out dross.
What if there were a button for the submitter to reply to a comment, and to keep it sorted into order with the comments already places? Fiddle Faddle 17:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, User:Timtrent. I see what you are asking for. You are asking for a tool for the reviewer that will move the comment in the space that is meant to be the article body to either AFC comments or the draft talk page. I think that the reviewer would first have to select the text. The tool could then either put an AFC comment wrapper around the text, or move the text to the draft talk page. Is that what you want? Yes, it happens often enough that a tool would be good, that the submitter puts a comment to the reviewer in where the article text should be. I occasionally move the comment to the draft talk page, but that is work. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I typed in a title that has no article, according to Wikipedia. There was a message that I could request it by going to the link to the article for which this page is the talk page. But the article is about creating articles, not asking for articles to be created. Why is the link to the article request page hidden here on the talk page? 67.209.131.46 ( talk) 16:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello. What are the qualifications for becoming an AFC reviewer? Elyse's Son 09:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)