![]() | 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
It is clear that consensus is in favour. What is not yet clear is how the consensus will be implemented. I have taken the decision to mark the discussion elements while reaching consensus as closed to allow us to concentrate on the implementation. I have left that element open. If you disagree with my marking a discussion element which I started as closed please revert my closure.
FiddleTimtrent
FaddleTalk to me
07:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
The last formal backlog drive was in 2014 Different reviewers will tell us that it had different results, but it was a period that turned a high backlog into a low one. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive speaks for itself. It is irrelevant that I topped the leader board. I have a life today and could not do that again. There were checks and balances. Points were subtracted for poor reviews, added for reviewing other folk and their reviews. I view it over-all as a good thing. Today we have a high backlog. It is in danger of exceeding the five months category. I think we have a worse problem, though, which is drafts that have not even had a first review in that five month period. How disheartening to create a draft and not even have anyone look at it. I have no idea what it takes to administer a backlog drive.There is obviously some software element to it. Assumjkng it to be technically feasible I believe we should reinstate this scheme, for more than one reason:
I'm creating a discussion section where I will make my own note of support FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
In favour
AgainstOther opinions
Technical issues
Some numbers
If we want to remove the backlog we need to do:
Better NumbersUpdated figures (still slightly high - it counts redirects, but not articles submitted multiple times in one day - but it should be much closer). To maintain the current level of submissions:
If we want to remove the backlog we need to do:
These queries show a total of 6596 reviews over the last month (220/day), which is encouraging and shows that the backlog is no longer growing on us as it once was (and actually seems to be decreasing by a good bit in the past couple days). The last week had a total of 1681 reviews (240/day), which would corroborate a recent (or continuing) increase. To do similar calculations to above for completely clearing the backlog in a month (assuming an unchanged level of submissions) could be done by:
An unrelated tidbit I noticed is that there is a significantly lower submission rate on weekends, especially on Saturdays (although how much time zones affect that I'm not sure - as it's UTC (I think), evening in the US counts as the next day). LittlePuppers ( talk) 22:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Consensus and ImplementationIt seems clear to me that we have a consensus. We need to move forwards to implementation. There seem to me to be three outstanding areas:
Start date and durationI would like to propose a start date of 1 June. With regard to duration I am not sure whether a short sharp drive of one month, or a longer drive of two months will be more effective in motivating reviewers to review more, and in motivating new reviewers to get a solid base of reviews under their belts. Arguing for two months, we will make a bigger inroad into the backlog, but arguing agaist it, keeping up motivation at drive level for more than a month can be hard. I would prefer to argue for a pair of narrowly spaced single month duration drives, perhaps a month apart. As always, opinions are welcome FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Start dateI have added headings for Start Date and Duration. The first opinions expressed on duration suggest a single month, perhaps followed after an interval by another. But no-one apart from me has offered opinions so far about start date. This date may be limited by technical issues, but opinions are important. We need not start at the start of a calendar month, for example. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Duration
Scoring systemI had not envisaged a different scoring system from the 2014 drive, but this is a good opportunity to make adjustments. Whatever scoring scheme is chosen I hope we retain the checks and balances of points to review other reviewers' reviews and negative points for poor reviews. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Here are my ideas; all numbers subject to debate and revision:
Thoughts welcome. Enterprisey ( talk!) 08:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Technical aspectsThese are beyond me, but we have two excellent volunteers to look at these with care FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Special ConsiderationsI will, first, urge reviewers to err on the side of acceptance, with certain exceptions. Remember that the guideline says to accept if there is more than a 50% chance (subjectively judged) of being kept at AFD. If the backlog drive results in a lot of AFDs, that is what will happen. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I will urge reviewers to be quick to decline any draft where there is a question about conflict of interest. If there is any question about conflict of interest, whether paid editing or anything else, it is better to send it back with a question to the submitter, who is then expected to answer the question before resubmitting. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there a script, or can one be developed, to copy AFC comments to a draft talk page? If there are previous comments, it will facilitate any subsequent reviews (or AFDs) if the comments are on the article talk page after acceptance, rather than having to find them in the history. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Consensus says yes, so what now?
I can't run this. I am travelling or otherewise incapacitated for the next few weeks, and we have far better folk than me to do it. Please let us not allow this to wither on the vine. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The WP:GA folks are working on a July backlog drive, and have set up a nice page for it. We could probably use that as inspiration for a similar page. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
|
As we move towards the middle of June, with a putative start date on 1 July, I felt that those who will implement the drive could do with a section to use to ask us questiuions and receive questions from us on the implementation, as well as briefing us on the tasks they are facing. It's obvious to us all that they cannot just wave a magic wand. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I haven't followed this talk page much during the last couple of weeks so I was going to ask about the current state of affairs. Are we still going ahead with the 1 July date? Best, Modussiccandi ( talk) 07:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Want to reduce backlog, get good articles out of purgatory, and earn barnstars? Then sign up for the July 2021 Articles for creation backlog drive? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I only learnt this morning that the drive had started, so my many reviews of the last 5 days won't count, could we not have been messaged before it started? Theroadislong ( talk) 09:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit on the fence about tagging Draft:Jose Morey with CSD G12. Acoording to earwig, it's a 71% copy of [1]. However, there is some salvageable material in there, although admittedly not a whole lot. WP:G12 says that G12 should only apply when there is no salvageable material. I've already declined it on cv grounds. Thoughts?-- 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 16:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
importScript('User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js' ); // Backlink:
User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js - Revision deletion request under 'Move'
The four-month backlog has been cleared! It had been at a few hundred drafts a few days ago, so obviously there has been a lot of work done it, probably both by a lot of reviewers and a few very busy hard-working reviewers. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
This draft is borderline and has two potential problems: the two sources are primary, and some BLP stuff such as birthdate is uncited. However this is a notability pass because they are a state legislator. Out of curiosity, if you ran across this article in the AFC queue, would you accept or decline? If decline, which reason would you give? Personally I'm leaning accept, but I would like to calibrate by hearing your answers. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 12:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Another fine milestone to check off - and another pat on the back for all those involved - be that 1 review or hundreds.... all count, all help. KylieTastic ( talk) 22:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I occasionally answer questions at the AfC help desk. Whenever I do so, I always find "questions" like, for example, this one. These "questions" are blank, and they always stem from drafts that have been rejected outright. Some patient AfC reviewer inevitably replies, but the responses are always ignored. It seems clear to me what is happening. The authors of these questions are used to seeing this template, which tells them that their draft was declined. They know that they're supposed to push the big blue button, resubmitting the draft. This regularly happens several times. So when they see this template, telling them that their draft has been rejected, they intuitively push the big blue button again, creating a blank question at the help desk. (In many cases, this is probably due to a lack of English-language proficiency.) They likely don't even know what they've done, so they certainly can't be expected to see any responses to their questions. Perhaps it would be better to get rid of the big blue button in the rejection template and replace it with a smaller link. Most people don't need to inquire at the help desk at all, and those that do will be able to find their way with a smaller link as well. I'd appreciate thoughts: it seems that minimizing accidental inquiries is a good way to ensure that the scarce time of our reviewers is directed toward people who are actually looking for help. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I don’t know if this has been bought up before, I can't find anything in the archives. When we reject a draft, the pretty pink box has a blue button which says “Ask for advice” when the user does this they are invariably told by us that “The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further” wouldn’t it be simpler for the pink rejection box to say this, rather than building up hopes of a different outcome? Theroadislong ( talk) 16:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a thread at WP:ANI that should not and probably will not amount to anything. A paid editor has complained that User:Timtrent is hounding them. This appears to me to be one of those cases where a paid editor thinks that they are a manager and that they have the privilege of supervising volunteer employees, and that they can report us to our bosses if we do not support them. There are at least two possible responses to the thread. Ignore it, or pile on the Original Poster. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
So, I encountered a draft that I now suspect is coming from a Sock IP, and I'll open an investigation, but I was curious what people's thoughts were on potential G5 articles being submitted through AFC. Looking at
WP:G5, a key phrase is "and that have no substantial edits by others
". Before I realized that this might be a G5, it seemed ready to accept, but only when I dug pretty deep into the previous G5 deletions and similar Drafts, did I actually think it might be a sock IP. Had I not dug into it and accepted the draft, that would have been a fairly "substantial edit" by someone else, making it G5 ineligible. The question now is do I pursue a G5 deletion of a topic that I feel meets the criteria of having an article just because of who created it, or should it be evaluated as if I had never known? Thoughts? -
2pou (
talk)
20:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Will another reviewer please either take a look at this draft or decide that it can wait until we deal with the three-month-old drafts? There is an odd special case that is the fault of the submitter. The submitter registered with a username that was almost identical to the name of the subject of the draft, a member of a K-pop boy band. Their draft was tagged as an autobiography, and I then declined it twice as not showing that the subject is individually notable separate from the group. The author then changed their username. I don't know whether they objected to the autobiography tag, or what preceded the name change. They have now resubmitted the draft a third time. I will sit this submission cycle out. Will someone please review it? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I've tried multiple times to use AFCH to decline Draft:Alpha Morgan but each time the save errors with the message Error while saving Draft:Alpha Morgan: "spamblacklist" - has anyone had a similar issue on other drafts? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I just improved and accepted the draft for Raina Llewellyn and then noticed that her first name as spelt in the article is actually "Rania". I tried to move the newly published article to the correct spelling but there's already an article there. Ideally I'd like to have Rania Llewellyn replaced with the article I've just improved and accepted, and the page I've published named "Raina" should be deleted. Can anyone here help with this? TIA! MurielMary ( talk) 07:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Nalas Mandir appears notable due to its historical significances as mentioned in sources, however it is created by a sock and I am not sure how to deal with this AfC submission. TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 15:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Getting the backlog down even further! Onward and downward! Calliopejen1 ( talk) 16:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Howdy everybody! Special congrats to everybody doing all the hard work in the trenches here. I had a bit of a question. As we continue our slog, we are going to run into some of our more prolific PAID users' entries (Ovedc, Quaenuncabibis, etc.). If an article is accepted into mainspace, and was either previously or post-facto tagged as COI or AUTO (problems I've run into from time to time myself), should the tags remain when the article is in mainspace? I would say "yes, of course", but I had a user come to my talk page and argued otherwise:
Hi. You left a COI template on Draft:John Vogelstein. I have removed it because prior to your posting this template I had already declared my COI on the Talk page at: [2] and on my user profile at User:Fvogelstein, thus fully complying with WP:COIEDIT. In addition, I have submitted this article on AfC rather than publishing it directly - and one the main purpose of AfC is for editors with a COI to get an independent review. This article has been very thoroughly researched. If you have any suggestions, I’d be glad to work with you. Many thanks. Fvogelstein ( talk) 23:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe it's pettiness (having those articles wear a Scarlet Letter that they were done for motives contrary to the volunteer-nature of the project) or maybe it's a CYA attempt just in case a different editor (perhaps NPP) sees something POV I don't in the text. I'd love to get people's thoughts on the matter, including @ Onel5969:, who sees things from the NPP end of the spectrum. Bkissin ( talk) 19:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I have encountered a number of cases where the main author turned out to have a conflict of interests, and in two cases, they were writing a biographical article about themselves. I know that this is generally deprecated, but if a person with a conflict of interests declares it and can show notability, my understaning is that it is not forbidden. However, I think if there is a CoI you have to be doubly scrupulous about notability issues and sourcing. This afternoon I declined Draft:Linda Waite on these grounds: she declared on her userpage that she was Linda Waite, but not on the article talk page. I would probably have declined it due to sourcing anyway. Now I encounter exactly the same thing with Draft:Joseph Rogers (neuroscientist). I was inclined to accept this one, until I noticed. How critical do you think this is? -- Doric Loon ( talk) 21:50, 18 July 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.
Onel5969 moved all these to draft space for lack of sourcing [3]. The creator resubmitted them with no changes; I had rejected them as still lacking sourcing [4]. The article creator has blanked their talk page [5] where the rejections were displayed and recreated the articles in main space while placing redirects on the draft space articles (eg [6]). They still lack sourcing and the single source in each article does not match the information claimed. The articles have all been reviewed as accepted at NPP (albeit tagged for sourcing). Suggestions? Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
books.google.co.uk › books
Daniel Eldredge Moore · 1960 · Snippet view ... critical constituencies , where Chinese and Malay voters were nearly balanced , shows a scrupulous concern for fairness of division . Examples include : 9Loc . cit . 1 1955 Constituency 1959 Division Wellesley North Malay Voters 5,678 375.
And
books.google.co.uk › books
Malaya · 1958 · Snippet view · More editions Malaya. L.N. 280 , ELECTIONS ORDINANCE , 1958 ORDER UNDER SECTION 6 - PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES In exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 of the ... Ordinance , 1958 , the Election Commission hereby makes the following order : 1 . ... WELLESLEY NORTH Parliamentary Constituency No.
I’ll check on others but my guess is they did exist and there are sources. Mccapra ( talk) 12:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I have started a thread at WP:ANI. The thread is not about the former electoral districts. The electoral districts are notable if verified. The lack of verification is the issue with the articles. The WP:ANI thread is about the banner that the author had on their user talk page, which said not to put any communication on their talk page. I of course became aware of the strange banner on their talk page because I was looking at the drafts and articles, but this is a case of I didn't hear that (because I have cotton in my ears). Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what to do with this one. I lean towards accepting, though the notability isn’t a sure thing. Would like consensus before making a review. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Well done everyone.
How low can we get it? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 22:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Draft:Robot Robin is about a robot built by a teenager in Bangladesh. He has certainly garnered the attention of the media - while probably half are churnalism I reckon there are probably WP:THREE. I want to decline as NN but is that valid if GNG is met? I can't see it surviving AfD. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 13:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
adv
because it's too "oh look at that, isn't it amazing!".
Primefac (
talk)
17:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The title of this thread is "Passes GNG but I just don't think it belongs". Am I correct that the real concern is that GNG is both a subjective guideline and the all-encompassing guideline for almost all subjects? So is the concern really that the draft appears to pass GNG, but that the reviewer has doubts about whether it should be in the encyclopedia? GNG says, basically, that there should be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The problem with GNG is that significant coverage is itself vague. So is the real question one of how to construe SIGCOV?
The issue in many contentious AFDs, including some that go to Deletion Review, is how to interpret significant coverage.
If so, I think that one of the main little-recognized content issues in Wikipedia is how to interpret significant coverage. I am inclined to demand a high standard of significant coverage for twenty-first century subjects where there may be either promotionalism or recentism, and to accept a lot of stuff from the nineteenth and earlier centuries. If we agree that the real issue is what is significant coverage, then we at least agree on what the real issue is, and can continue the discussion at Village Pump or Deletion Review. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I have read what User:SmokeyJoe has written about how he partly disagrees with me in complaining that the general notability guideline is vague. I have read it at least three times, and I still think either that I don't understand what he has written, or that what he has written has a good-faith circular aspect to it. He writes: "In the end, the GNG is just a predictor of whether the topic will be kept if challenged and taken to AfD." Yes. I agree, and that is what is wrong with GNG. It is a predictor of whether the topic will be kept if taken to AFD. It should be a criterion for whether the topic will be kept if taken to AFD. As a reviewer at AFC, I am asked to guess whether there is at least a 50% chance that the draft will be kept at AFD. As a participant at AFD, I am being asked to base my judgment on: What? An AFC reviewer with enough experience at AFD can usually guess what will be kept at AFD. But that means that the editors at AFD are applying a subjective standard.
SmokeyJoe says that GNG doesn't always apply. That is true, and those cases are not vague, and are sufficiently clear, but are not involved in the issue I am discussing. The vagueness about which I was complaining does not have to do with the exceptions to GNG, but with when GNG is the only guideline. Perhaps User:SmokeyJoe is saying that there are sort of unwritten rules that characterize outcomes at AFD. In fact, often these rules are recorded after the fact as outcome essays. Maybe that is a reason why some of the outcome essays should be upgraded to notability guidelines.
Have I missed something in what SmokeyJoe has written, or am I mostly correct that GNG often isn't self-explanatory because the AFD criteria are not self-explanatory and are themselves often subjective? Perhaps SmokeyJoe can re-explain what he is saying and why it does not constitute circular reasoning, or perhaps he can acknowledge that we do have a degree of circularity, which is another way of saying that the general notability criterion and significant coverage are subjective or vague. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Hoping someone can enlighten me: what's the protocol for an NPP review following acceptance at AfC? Assuming one has the tools, can the editor who has accepted an AfC also complete the NPP review? I'm guessing there have been debates over whether this should be streamlined and it was decided against? Apologies for asking questions probably already answered elsewhere, but I tried searching the archives for answers, but to no avail. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 03:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I used to not do the NPP checks and tick when I AfC accepted, but then one day someone complained about AfC-accepted articles left sitting in the unreviewed queue. I wasn't named, but felt chastised, and every since I try to remember to the the NPP things on every accept. I had worried about the NPP bias of being the AfC acceptor, of course you are going to approve because you just approved. However, this is not about independent review, but having an experienced person cast a cursory check to keep junk out of mainspace. The AfC check is actually more effort in my experience, and having put in the effort to understand the article and its references, I think I am obviously qualified to judge the page as acceptable for mainspace. I decided that leaving the new article for an independent review is not an efficient practice. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The plan for the backlog drive, based on previous backlog drives more than five years ago, included a provision for re-reviews. To the best of my knowledge, we haven't done re-reviews. We have instead did very very many many reviews. Am I correct that we didn't do re-reviews? If so, we did all right without re-reviews. If we have another backlog drive, will we fill in the provision for re-reviews, or will we decide that we did all right without them? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations and great job everyone! Further downward! Eternal Shadow Talk 01:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I have to honestly say since I started looking at the backlog a year-ish so ago I never thought the outstanding submissions would ever fall below 2,000. Many of of you have been plugging away for months (years perhaps?) just watching the numbers rise with no resolution in sight. Great teamwork and an amazing job everyone!!! S0091 ( talk) 21:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Not many days to go, but a backlog of 800 (as I write) is excellent. Everyone has done a great job so far. Let's not let up. New submissions arrive all the time
Can we empty the 2 months section? 121 as I write. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
It gets close, but keeps bouncing back. ~200 per day arrive. Whac-A-Mole gets most of them fast, some persist as being hard, but we're used to hard.
The 2 months category had 7 left last time I checked. We have to be able to clear seven. I've done about seven of those this morning, but am getting jaded. Who'll accept or decline the remaining ones in this category. Remember, >50% chance of survival means we accept. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
When someone writes a two sentence/three source meh article you expect to just decline and move on. But no, apparently from their user page and comments they are a much published person and a writer of "real" encyclopedia content, but they are too important to improve themselves or leave, but have the time to rant about how they don't have the time!. Now we've had days of rants and lies first on my user page, then AfC help desk, then the Teahouse and several others user pages. Even after having someone else do the work for them and improve the article and get it moved to main-space they still blame everyone else. But we should be scared because they have been editing for 15 years and threaten to stop... or as others would put it 878 edits including promoting yourself who cares! I have held off from responding to their blatant lies, but still it's takes time for me to shrug such things off. Which is partially why I haven't been reviewing as much recently, and don't feel inclined to do much more. Sorry to those that got dragged down into this, sorry for not helping push to 'cleared' and thanks to those than stood up for me. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk)
The 8-weeks backlog category has now been cleared. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The 7-week backlog has been cleared. I didn't do it. I was working on it, and then went to work out, and then it was gone. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The creating editor ( PembsBoi69) is discussing my decline with me on my talk page, and I see they and I will not agree. Please will other eyes look at this draft with a view to assisting the editor FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
That is as I post this.
7 weeks current maximum to get a review or a re-review.
A shedload of reviewers all dooming what they can, when they can
Teething troubles have not put us off, though have confused a few of us
Unsung hero - @ Enterprisey who gets too little public acknowledgement for their behind the scenes work and is being voted a Gold Wiki Award, a mere token of our gratitude (See drive talk page)
Heavy lifters? Have a look at the drive page. Boy have some folk worked hard!
Only done a couple? That's fine, too. Your work helps.
Will we get public accolades? Not on your life we won't. This is Wikignome stuff.
Today is the 27th. This ends on 31st. We're not going up! How low can we go?
Want to nominate a background task hero? Heck do so now, ideally on the drive talk page.
FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
If you do more than 25 Re-reviews, you get the Teamwork Barnstarhere? ― Qwerfjkl talk 10:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I've just found an interesting little hack for reading nytimes.com articles - just turn off Javascript!
Now you probably don't wont to do this browser wide, but on Chrome you can set on a per site basis: go to the site, click the padlock to the left of the address, select site settings, set Javascript to block. KylieTastic ( talk) 12:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I've just tried to review a draft, where out of the two dozen refs (way OTT, borderline bombing) half were primary, the rest were nearly all unavailable to me because of GDPR rules. What's a reviewer to do? (For those not based in Europe who don't know what I'm talking about: the EU decided to implement something called GDPR — the P stands for pain, not sure about the rest — and many US news websites responded not by complying but simply by blocking access to European visitors.) None of which has anything to do with the price of tea in China, let alone AfC backlog drives; just needed to vent. :) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I currently have Draft:Trafalgar Entertainment and Draft:'96 (soundtrack) marked as under review. For the former, the creator has not complied with four requests to disclose their status as a paid editor, and I don't think us volunteers should spend any more time reviewing the draft until they do. On the second, there is an SPI underway and I am expecting it (and other drafts by the same IP) to be deleted as G5. Am I OK using 'under review' in this way? It looks like they no longer show up in a 'AfC pending submissions by age' category once they've been marked as such. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 10:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. I was inclined to decline Draft:Rafał Brzoska, but all the references are in Polish, so they may be a better quality than I suspect. Does anyone here read Polish? -- Doric Loon ( talk) 10:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not really active as a reviewer these days but I do occasionally pop in. Earlier today I dealt with an enquiry at the help desk where I found that a reviewer had declined a draft as not complying with the minimum inline citation rule. It was an incorrect decline because all the references in the draft were proper inline citations. A while ago I took a look at more recent ILC declines and found quite a few that were clearly invald. Reviewers must ensure that they are familiar with the workflow and follow it. Of course an occasional lapse is acceptable, particularly when editorial judgement is a factor. However an inline reference is a blindingly obvious thing, and the ILC decline absolutely does not apply if there is even just one inline cite anywhere in the draft, and it applies only to BLPs. <end of rant, sorry to be a wet blanket> Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 21:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I reviewed a draft that had a {{ notability}} tag. I think that my question was whether I should pay any attention to the tag, whether I should remove the tag, and whether the tag should have been there in the first place. Generally, I think that the notability tag should not be on a draft, because doubtful notability is a reason to decline a draft, and questions about notability while the draft is still in draft space should be either in AFC comments or on the draft talk page. (If the draft satisfies notability, verifiability, and neutrality, it should be accepted. What an AFC reviewer does is to decide whether the draft passes those tests.) One possible explanation would be that the page had been in article space, and then was tagged, and then was moved to draft space. I checked the history. That wasn't the case. It appears that an editor applied the tag in draft space, perhaps in place of declining the draft; it also appears that the author then improved the draft.
By the way, I accepted the draft and removed the tag, but I wonder whether there are any general rules. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
If a reviewer accepts a draft that is a biography, that is, an article about a person, a subscreen is displayed for the entry of information about the dates and places of birth and death of the person. My primary question is what is done with this information. That is, where is the information saved? If I realize that I have forgotten to enter something or entered something incorrectly, is there a way that I can correct it? Where does it go?
I know that this also adds {{ WikiProject Biography}}, and I can add that either manually or using the Rater gadget. That isn't the question. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I think there can be no-omne who disagrees that thsi has been (is still being) a spectacular success. This means that we can and should continue to perform drives in the future when we consider iyt necessary.
What we have discovered is that the rules, in prices of being reinvented, are a little too open to interpretation. Before we run the next drive we need to reach consensus on the areas we have identified so far. I'll kick off with one that has the scope for contention.
Please add any areas where you believe consensus is required for going forwards. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
This is in two parts: How many to give and what should happen if insufficient are given:
We started with a putative 10% of reviews given is required to be the re-review target. Opinions, please:
We started with the concept, not agreed by consensnus, that points in the points based leaderboard would be capped if insufficient re-reviews were given. The end period for re-reviews was not specified. Opinions, please:
Sometimes we draftify, sometimes we AfD, sometimes we just remove the AFC artefacts. This is Backlog Drive work. Should Drive Credit be given here?
Should credit be given for Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories? ― Qwerfjkl talk 09:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I note the leaderboard on the backlog drive page says 'does not include drafts that have since been deleted'. Do we have / should we have a mechanism for recognising reviews of drafts that end in deletion? Personally I've done about 17 of those this month. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 12:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I guess that just isn't news any more! 😂
Newsflash. Zero will not be achieved... will it? New submissions arrive all the time, after all.
This is, again, a huge THANK YOU to all who have been reviewing this month, whether signed up to the Backlog Drive or not FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 06:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Down to double digits and max just 7 days, when we are also getting nearly 300 submissions a day!
And no surprise that FA is 9% of all outstanding submissions :/
Thanks to Theroadislong who i believe just cleared the over the week stuff including one I just didn't do myself as I had already declined twice.
Good work all, be it 1 or 1000+ reviews. KylieTastic ( talk) 18:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Next-to-Nothing (In Theory) at AFC!
3-month backlog at
AFC.
There are currently 2,804 pending submissions.
[
view •
purge •
update
― Qwerfjkl talk 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I've just brought it down to seven! Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I for one would deem this backlog drive a MASSIVE success. With everyone’s help, we were able to take a backlog that had been continuing to grow for who knows how long all the way down to 0 at times in just 1 month. Personally, since this backlog drive worked so effectively, I wouldn’t mind seeing another one of these implemented in the future if the backlog ever gets that big again. But again, I have to acknowledge the effort that everyone involved has put in.
Amazing job everyone! ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 04:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Could someone address the problems with Category:Pending AfC submissions (discussed here): that it doesn't always contain pending AfC submissions. ― Qwerfjkl talk 13:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
{{PAGESINCATEGORY}}
30 times. ―
Qwerfjkl
talk
07:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I am poking around on the helper script (now that the backlog here is done, and there's a backlog of issues on github. heh) and am taken to the idea of personal review logging, similarly to what we have of the review logs for the recent backlog drive, and CSD/AfD logs. I am open to suggestions on how we want the information to be presented in the AfC logs. Just a note, I don't have a set timeline on the development work as I am currently poking at a duplicated wikiproject banners issue. – robertsky ( talk) 04:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Where is there a leader board that covers the period of 1 July - 31 July? Everyone seems to know where it is, but maybe everyone is looking at their own versions of it.
So where can we see who the leaders were? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I frequently create redirects at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories, and occasionally, users use this to create articles without first drafting them, as at Zoom Cat Lawyer. Should I drafti by them, leave them, etc.?― Qwerfjkl talk 12:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
But not a lot.
New entries are coming in fast, and we have our foot off the throttle - unsurprising, last month was tiring. Even so, please can we at least eat the low hanging fruit? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Two brother-sister duo dtafts have emerged Draft:Mandar Agashe & Draft:Sheetal Agashe. Their company page also seems a bit problematic Brihans Natural Products. COI is clear because of the timing of the two drafts. Need more opinions on how to deal with all of them. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 10:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
We've done it! There are ZERO pending submissions! Pahunkat ( talk) 11:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please re-fill the pipeline? We're now falling over each other doing simultaneous multiple reviews on the few precious pending drafts! :) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
What's the best way of handling this one Draft:Cowrywise? I was going to decline it on the basis that the sourcing seems rather on the weak side, but then noticed that it was already rejected earlier, that just wasn't immediately obvious because the submitter removed the previous AfC templates. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Thought I would do a check on accepted articles to see if we have any 'issues'....
Checked from Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent for first week, checking for deleted artciles, @AfD, tagged for {{ notability}}
Checked 591 accepts and only found 15 'issues' so 2.5%
Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 16:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Same as above checked from Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent for first week, checking for deleted artciles, @AfD, tagged for {{ notability}}
620 checked and 11 'issues' 1.8%
So a lot of re-draftitying which considering an AfC reviewer has accepted seems wrong and should be either just tagged or AfDed for a full discussion.
Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 16:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
482 checked and 7 issues 1.5%
Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 17:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Obviously a big caveat that these are all fairly recent, but I think it's still a worthwhile indication. Maybe I'll do a rescan latter in the year for a fully check.
538 checked and 9 issues %1.7%
Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 16:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Very preliminary data as its not even the end of the 31st but for completeness... and I will update
171 checked and 4 issues %2.3%
Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 16:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I declined this one a couple weeks ago as lacking secondary sources, however the editor was unsure of the decline and queried me on my talk page, so I decided to bring this here for a peer review from a second opinion. Eternal Shadow Talk 20:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Someone draftified these three minor actors: Draft:Brynley Stent, Draft:Thomás Aquino (actor), Draft:Thaia Perez. One of them was an AFC accept of mine. I'd like a second opinion before I move these back to mainspace and insist on AFD, in case I am way off. I personally judge them notable because in their IMDBs, they have multi-episode roles on at least 2 TV shows, which I believe passes WP:NACTOR. Also, are there any other deal breaking problems I'm missing such as sourcing that would justify draftifying these? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 11:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- John Flint (journalist) moved to Draft:John Flint (journalist) at 10:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Dream Garden moved to Draft:Dream Garden at 10:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Tega Dominic moved to Draft:Tega Dominic at 10:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Peter Jagers moved to Draft:Peter Jagers at 10:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Tigé moved to Draft:Tigé at 10:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Brynley Stent moved to Draft:Brynley Stent at 10:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- The Daily Cpec moved to Draft:The Daily Cpec at 10:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thomás Aquino (actor) moved to Draft:Thomás Aquino (actor) at 10:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thaia Perez moved to Draft:Thaia Perez at 10:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Olowo Korodo moved to Draft:Olowo Korodo at 10:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Timothy W. Schwab moved to Draft:Timothy W. Schwab at 10:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Relative Race moved to Draft:Relative Race at 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
bador
shocking. I hope when this backlog drive completes AFC performance will improve. Thincat ( talk) 09:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Peter Jaggers qualifies multiple WP:Academic criterias and is clearly notable. Highly cited work at Google Scholar [8], elected fellow and editor of a peer reviewed journal. From the history, it seemed it was moved to draft because it didn't cite any sources. The current sources are indeed primary sources but it is not uncommon to use primary sources in case of academics to verify information and evaluate notability. So I won't say it was a bad move in context of notability at least. More sources? Yes, why not! And hence the tags of primary sources after accept. Also, should have been brought to AFD and not re-draftified. Happy to discuss more. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 16:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I have left an unusual (for me) second review, in some detail. I woudl like other eyes on this in case I am being unnecessarily picky, please. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I just had a small shock when I happened to read how few there were. Applauds and much respect to all who worked on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The previous editor User:ShravanthiRK has disclosed paid editing on their userpage, however they requested WP:U1 on 1 August. Now a new user has recreated Draft:Padma Rao Sundarji and it seems possible sockpuppetry. Can anyone please compare deleted draft [9] with recreated draft? TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 12:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
With 0 pending AfC submissions, we have now covered all possible topics and subjects in the known universe. Please feel free to disable this WikiProject at your earliest convenience. Thank you. nearlyevil 665 19:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
And Alexander wept, for there were no more Indian villages left to write stubs about...Fixed that for you :D – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Don’t worry a trillion more are coming tomorrow. CycoMa ( talk) 19:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi all,
Links:
Can I please ask an experienced reviewer check over the draft, wikify it as required, and then assess it for potential move back to articlespace?
The reason why I haven't popped this in the normal queue using the template, is I felt it was important that the wider context (the DRV discussion, especially) was considered in how it was handled, and I saw no way to confidently call that out using the normal process.
Let me know if any questions or issues. Thanks in advance, Daniel ( talk) 23:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Daniel and other Reviewers. I will see how the article can be improved on suggested guidelines. Aaditya.Bahuguna ( talk) 06:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not really asking for advice, but am reporting on what I have done and what may happen. This draft was submitted and declined twice as being too soon. It has a long history of creation and deletion, but is a lot closer to reality than a decade ago. This is a case where I would rather let the community make the decision if there is disagreement, rather than have the more stubborn editor "win". The consensus process that is "least unsuitable" is AFD. I have declined the draft again, but have said that if they want to let the community decide, I am willing to accept it so that AFD can run. I am guessing that there is a less-than-50% of surviving AFD, but I think that this is a case where the submitter should be allowed to decide that they are ready for AFD.
I think that this may be the right way to handle some other contentious submissions where the notability is not about to change within the next one or two months. (On unreleased films and unreleased albums, I am willing to keep on declining until the work is released.)
Thoughts? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
It has been brought to my attention that the WP:AFCRC (AfC/Redirects & categories) process doesn't actually leave any user talk page messages when reviews are done. I'm not sure how we made it to this point without any, but one imagines we probably want some. I propose some simple ones (the text "Your redirect request" is a link to the request):
Thoughts? (CC Qwerfjkl) Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed much more prominently over the past few days as the AfC draft counter has gotten so low that one of the major components of new AfC drafts are mainspace articles being moved to draftspace. It seems like this is being done a lot more often than it was in the past, rather than tagging with notability or improved sources tags or simply taking an article to AfD if notability is questioned. Should we have more of a push for editors to not just draftify dozens of mainspace articles, an action that essentially makes actually dealing with the articles a "someone else's problem" problem? Silver seren C 16:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I came across this made by a non-AfC reviewer adding a AfC comment (which I think is ok, especially if it is to help establish the notability of the subject), but removing the submission template at the same time. What's the general approach to us engaging non-AfC reviewers? – robertsky ( talk) 18:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
|ts=
parameter), and should be discouraged. I would check if they qualify for becoming a reviewer, and if not advise them how to improve. ―
Qwerfjkl
talk
18:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
{{AfC comment|}}
is too much to ask. ―
Qwerfjkl
talk
21:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)This draft has been resubmitted after rejection multiple times now and clearly is not notable. I am going to submit it for deletion. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The article was moved back to draft-space due to lack of proper sourcing and WP:COI concerns. I did a search and have added WP:RS like Anandabazar Patrika, Hindustan Times, Ei Samay, Aaj Tak, ABP Ananda and Times of India now that WP:VERIFY the WP:TVCAST and WP:TVPLOT of the daily soap. Also, I have added the latest TRP ratings released by Broadcast Audience Research Council. I also tried to trim long-character descriptions as a part of clean up. I hope its ready for main-space. Thank you. 2409:4061:4E90:6621:F1AB:221D:58D8:8F2F ( talk) 20:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Stub sorting, as previously requested, has been coded and is ready for beta testing. To test this feature, uninstall the AfC helper script at Preferences → Gadgets and install User:Enterprisey/afch-dev.js (you'll have to undo those steps once the beta test is over - shouldn't be more than a few days). Once it's installed, while accepting an article, select "stub" from the "Article assessment" menu to show the new stub sorting tool, which is just a slightly modified version of User:SD0001/StubSorter. (I am grateful to SD0001 for updating his script to make this possible.) Stub templates added (and removed) there will be applied to the page when you click "Accept & publish". Please let me know if there are any issues; if none are reported, I will put this in the main script in a few days. (Don't worry, I've tested it myself too.) Enterprisey ( talk!) 07:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Check please on Draft:Arle Court park and ride - I reviewed when too tired and linked to completely the wrong guideline which I then updated 20 minutes later. But I left myself a note to double check myself after sleep. Again this morning it just looks like run of the mill local reporting for a park and ride, price/route/service changes using sections for other temporary purposes, things I could write for all our local P&Rs but I cant see have anything but local interest. However doing due diligence I searched for other "park and ride" articles and found their are a few. Some like York park and ride at least have a claim to be the 'biggest' but others like Bristol park and ride and Preston park and ride look just as run of the mill. So to be fair to the submitter NemesisAT I'm asking for a review of this one and thoughts on the topic in general. I would have thought that a local areas transport infrastructure would be notable such as Transport in Cambridge which just has two sentences for Cambridge Park & Rides 5 sites. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 10:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
We all did well.
Please can we now set some parameters for the next and subsequent drives.
Let's open this for discussion so that we are not "surprised" by a 5 month backlog again. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
This is relating to the {{
AfC submission}} template. However, I am putting here first for a broader discussion. Setting {{AFC submission|d|lang|Malay|u=Mmwth123|ns=118|decliner=Robertsky|declinets=20210818051759|ts=20210818040127}}
at
Draft:Isham Jalil returns
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Msa:&action=edit&redlink=1 rather than ms.wikipedia.org as the link to 'Malay Wikipedia'. I have checked that it seems to be translating 'Malay' to 'msa' from
Module:Language/data/ISO 639 name to code dataset. I propose a switch to a {{
AfC submission/languages}} mapping from the tables at
List of Wikipedias instead. This will account for non-standard mapping and possibly promoting closed/locked projects through their incubator wikis directly rather than at their wikipedia.org urls.
– robertsky (
talk)
05:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The submission appears to be written in Malaysian. This is the English-language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the English language. Please provide a high-quality English-language translation of your submission. Have you visited the Wikipedia home page? You can probably find a version of Wikipedia in your language.. Will a dropdown selector for languages help as well? – robertsky ( talk) 16:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a reply to SmokeyJoe's reply to me on 25 July 2021. I didn't comment at the time because I was more focused, as many of us were, on emptying certain backlog categories, and we succeeded at that better than at addressing my concerns about the general notability guideline. I had concluded: " Perhaps SmokeyJoe can re-explain what he is saying …." SmokeyJoe writes: "Perhaps SmokeyJoe can re-explain what he is saying? Perhaps Robert can ask a simpler question?" Well, sometimes the questions that need to be asked are not simple. However, I will ask one question in response to a comment in SmokeyJoe's post that we may have overlooked, that may or may not be simple, and then I will reply to the more general topic
User:SmokeyJoe stated what I thought was a major policy consideration to which no one responded, perhaps because they didn't notice, or perhaps because everyone else was busy, as I was, or perhaps because it has been so obvious to everyone except me that it was seen as a statement that the sky is blue, or perhaps because it was skipped over because it was so unexpected that no one grasped it. He wrote: "AfC reviewers should get enough experience at AfD before trying AfC".
I have never previously seen that experience at AFD is or should be a prerequisite to being an AFC reviewer. So this may be a simple question. Should experience at AFD be a prerequisite to reviewing at AFC? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
"reasonable evidence of understanding the deletion policy (experience in areas such as CSD/AfD/PROD or page curation, while not mandatory, are beneficial)"were to be changed to "...is beneficial and therefore mandatory", I'd have no issue with that. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of whether AFD experience should be a prerequisite to reviewing at MFD, I still think that there is a circular aspect to what SmokeyJoe has written. I will clarify that I think the general notability guideline is subjective because I think that significant coverage is subjective, and some contentious AFDs are contentious because there are disagreements as to what is significant coverage.
SmokeyJoe writes: " The GNG is just a predictor of the AfD result. However, many at AfD try to take the GNG as gospel. However, AfD is where the decision is made." Yes. So how should the editors at AFD make the decision? (Is that a simpler question?)
SmokeyJoe writes: " I think that AFD does not really depend on criteria, but instead depends on that nebulous concept of WP:Consensus, and on decisions being made by the people who choose to turn up." In other words, does that mean that AFD is subjective? If so, does that mean that GNG is subjective, since he says it is a reflection of what will pass AFD? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Do other editors think that experience at AFD should be a prerequisite for reviewing at AFC? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with User:Goldsztajn. I'd like to take what Robert picked up a bit further:
WP:AfC should come after WP:NPP because it is much the same thing, but with much more potential to unilaterally and unfairly bite newcomers and reject worthy content. WP:NPP should come after WP:AfD because NPP requires understanding of AfD and notability, but decisions are made unilaterally. WP:AfD is recommended fairly early, because it is a group activity, which makes learning from others easy and natural.
An oddity of AfC is that the controls and requirements are less than for NPP. I would fix this by making the NPP permission required for AfC.
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@ SmokeyJoe: In re: a large number of non-notable promotional topics where the author has tried hard to conceal the problem -- that is how I use the Reject option ("topic is not notable"). Before rejecting, I check user contributions for the draft creator, and in almost all cases he/she is a SPA. For the more blatant cases, I use CSD under G11. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a continuation of a discussion between User:DGG and User:SmokeyJoe about Rejection at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Manscaped. The draft was declined 7 times by 6 reviewers, and was then nominated for deletion by DGG. I !voted to Delete but not Salt, because in my opinion 7 declines by 6 reviewers are more than enough. SmokeyJoe voted to Keep. One of his reasons to Keep was that the draft had never been Rejected, only declined. DGG said that some editors never use Reject, only decline, and that some editors are not aware of the Reject option, and that there is no clear understanding about its proper use. I think that reviewers should be aware of the Reject option, because the button is in plain view, but I agree that there is no clear understanding about its proper use. I think that my own efforts to obtain a clear understanding about its proper use have been ignored.
I think, first, that resubmission after a rejection should be, in itself, a sufficient basis for MFD, although not the only basis. I don't think that there has been a clear statement to that effect. I think, second, that a decline does not necessarily mean that there is hope. It only means that the reviewer has not rejected the draft and thinks that it should be not be in article space. I will only reject a draft if I have a high degree of certainty that either 'n' or 'e', reject for notability, or reject as contrary to the purpose, applies. I won't reject for notability unless there has been a before AFD search, or there has been a previous AFD, or the non-notability is obvious (would be A7 in mainspace), or the submitter is clearly their own worst enemy (all too common). I very seldom reject for contrary to the purpose, because I don't know what that means. So I do sometimes reject, but seldom, and the fact that I decline a draft does not mean that there is hope, only that I did not reject it.
I don't think that Rejection should always be a precondition to MFD. I know that there is not a clear understanding about when Rejection should and should not be used.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I've created an issue on the AfC helper script's GitHub repository on potentially adding a mechanism for adding {{
AfC submission|T}}
to a draft that has no AfC-related templates. You can read my suggestion
here. Please feel free to respond with any feedback (is this even necessary, what solution would make sense for your workflow, etc.) either here or on the issue itself if you have a GitHub account.
Perryprog (
talk)
21:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
My understanding was that participants in the backlog drive were up for rewards (barnstars, etc) and indeed I kind of used them in promoting the event. I'm not seeing any rewards appearing on people's talkpages, however. Has something been forgotten? Or is COVID rotting my brain? Stuartyeates ( talk) 01:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 22:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
![]() | 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
It is clear that consensus is in favour. What is not yet clear is how the consensus will be implemented. I have taken the decision to mark the discussion elements while reaching consensus as closed to allow us to concentrate on the implementation. I have left that element open. If you disagree with my marking a discussion element which I started as closed please revert my closure.
FiddleTimtrent
FaddleTalk to me
07:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
The last formal backlog drive was in 2014 Different reviewers will tell us that it had different results, but it was a period that turned a high backlog into a low one. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive speaks for itself. It is irrelevant that I topped the leader board. I have a life today and could not do that again. There were checks and balances. Points were subtracted for poor reviews, added for reviewing other folk and their reviews. I view it over-all as a good thing. Today we have a high backlog. It is in danger of exceeding the five months category. I think we have a worse problem, though, which is drafts that have not even had a first review in that five month period. How disheartening to create a draft and not even have anyone look at it. I have no idea what it takes to administer a backlog drive.There is obviously some software element to it. Assumjkng it to be technically feasible I believe we should reinstate this scheme, for more than one reason:
I'm creating a discussion section where I will make my own note of support FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
In favour
AgainstOther opinions
Technical issues
Some numbers
If we want to remove the backlog we need to do:
Better NumbersUpdated figures (still slightly high - it counts redirects, but not articles submitted multiple times in one day - but it should be much closer). To maintain the current level of submissions:
If we want to remove the backlog we need to do:
These queries show a total of 6596 reviews over the last month (220/day), which is encouraging and shows that the backlog is no longer growing on us as it once was (and actually seems to be decreasing by a good bit in the past couple days). The last week had a total of 1681 reviews (240/day), which would corroborate a recent (or continuing) increase. To do similar calculations to above for completely clearing the backlog in a month (assuming an unchanged level of submissions) could be done by:
An unrelated tidbit I noticed is that there is a significantly lower submission rate on weekends, especially on Saturdays (although how much time zones affect that I'm not sure - as it's UTC (I think), evening in the US counts as the next day). LittlePuppers ( talk) 22:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Consensus and ImplementationIt seems clear to me that we have a consensus. We need to move forwards to implementation. There seem to me to be three outstanding areas:
Start date and durationI would like to propose a start date of 1 June. With regard to duration I am not sure whether a short sharp drive of one month, or a longer drive of two months will be more effective in motivating reviewers to review more, and in motivating new reviewers to get a solid base of reviews under their belts. Arguing for two months, we will make a bigger inroad into the backlog, but arguing agaist it, keeping up motivation at drive level for more than a month can be hard. I would prefer to argue for a pair of narrowly spaced single month duration drives, perhaps a month apart. As always, opinions are welcome FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Start dateI have added headings for Start Date and Duration. The first opinions expressed on duration suggest a single month, perhaps followed after an interval by another. But no-one apart from me has offered opinions so far about start date. This date may be limited by technical issues, but opinions are important. We need not start at the start of a calendar month, for example. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Duration
Scoring systemI had not envisaged a different scoring system from the 2014 drive, but this is a good opportunity to make adjustments. Whatever scoring scheme is chosen I hope we retain the checks and balances of points to review other reviewers' reviews and negative points for poor reviews. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Here are my ideas; all numbers subject to debate and revision:
Thoughts welcome. Enterprisey ( talk!) 08:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Technical aspectsThese are beyond me, but we have two excellent volunteers to look at these with care FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Special ConsiderationsI will, first, urge reviewers to err on the side of acceptance, with certain exceptions. Remember that the guideline says to accept if there is more than a 50% chance (subjectively judged) of being kept at AFD. If the backlog drive results in a lot of AFDs, that is what will happen. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I will urge reviewers to be quick to decline any draft where there is a question about conflict of interest. If there is any question about conflict of interest, whether paid editing or anything else, it is better to send it back with a question to the submitter, who is then expected to answer the question before resubmitting. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there a script, or can one be developed, to copy AFC comments to a draft talk page? If there are previous comments, it will facilitate any subsequent reviews (or AFDs) if the comments are on the article talk page after acceptance, rather than having to find them in the history. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Consensus says yes, so what now?
I can't run this. I am travelling or otherewise incapacitated for the next few weeks, and we have far better folk than me to do it. Please let us not allow this to wither on the vine. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The WP:GA folks are working on a July backlog drive, and have set up a nice page for it. We could probably use that as inspiration for a similar page. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
|
As we move towards the middle of June, with a putative start date on 1 July, I felt that those who will implement the drive could do with a section to use to ask us questiuions and receive questions from us on the implementation, as well as briefing us on the tasks they are facing. It's obvious to us all that they cannot just wave a magic wand. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I haven't followed this talk page much during the last couple of weeks so I was going to ask about the current state of affairs. Are we still going ahead with the 1 July date? Best, Modussiccandi ( talk) 07:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Want to reduce backlog, get good articles out of purgatory, and earn barnstars? Then sign up for the July 2021 Articles for creation backlog drive? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I only learnt this morning that the drive had started, so my many reviews of the last 5 days won't count, could we not have been messaged before it started? Theroadislong ( talk) 09:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit on the fence about tagging Draft:Jose Morey with CSD G12. Acoording to earwig, it's a 71% copy of [1]. However, there is some salvageable material in there, although admittedly not a whole lot. WP:G12 says that G12 should only apply when there is no salvageable material. I've already declined it on cv grounds. Thoughts?-- 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 16:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
importScript('User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js' ); // Backlink:
User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js - Revision deletion request under 'Move'
The four-month backlog has been cleared! It had been at a few hundred drafts a few days ago, so obviously there has been a lot of work done it, probably both by a lot of reviewers and a few very busy hard-working reviewers. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
This draft is borderline and has two potential problems: the two sources are primary, and some BLP stuff such as birthdate is uncited. However this is a notability pass because they are a state legislator. Out of curiosity, if you ran across this article in the AFC queue, would you accept or decline? If decline, which reason would you give? Personally I'm leaning accept, but I would like to calibrate by hearing your answers. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 12:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Another fine milestone to check off - and another pat on the back for all those involved - be that 1 review or hundreds.... all count, all help. KylieTastic ( talk) 22:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I occasionally answer questions at the AfC help desk. Whenever I do so, I always find "questions" like, for example, this one. These "questions" are blank, and they always stem from drafts that have been rejected outright. Some patient AfC reviewer inevitably replies, but the responses are always ignored. It seems clear to me what is happening. The authors of these questions are used to seeing this template, which tells them that their draft was declined. They know that they're supposed to push the big blue button, resubmitting the draft. This regularly happens several times. So when they see this template, telling them that their draft has been rejected, they intuitively push the big blue button again, creating a blank question at the help desk. (In many cases, this is probably due to a lack of English-language proficiency.) They likely don't even know what they've done, so they certainly can't be expected to see any responses to their questions. Perhaps it would be better to get rid of the big blue button in the rejection template and replace it with a smaller link. Most people don't need to inquire at the help desk at all, and those that do will be able to find their way with a smaller link as well. I'd appreciate thoughts: it seems that minimizing accidental inquiries is a good way to ensure that the scarce time of our reviewers is directed toward people who are actually looking for help. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I don’t know if this has been bought up before, I can't find anything in the archives. When we reject a draft, the pretty pink box has a blue button which says “Ask for advice” when the user does this they are invariably told by us that “The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further” wouldn’t it be simpler for the pink rejection box to say this, rather than building up hopes of a different outcome? Theroadislong ( talk) 16:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a thread at WP:ANI that should not and probably will not amount to anything. A paid editor has complained that User:Timtrent is hounding them. This appears to me to be one of those cases where a paid editor thinks that they are a manager and that they have the privilege of supervising volunteer employees, and that they can report us to our bosses if we do not support them. There are at least two possible responses to the thread. Ignore it, or pile on the Original Poster. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
So, I encountered a draft that I now suspect is coming from a Sock IP, and I'll open an investigation, but I was curious what people's thoughts were on potential G5 articles being submitted through AFC. Looking at
WP:G5, a key phrase is "and that have no substantial edits by others
". Before I realized that this might be a G5, it seemed ready to accept, but only when I dug pretty deep into the previous G5 deletions and similar Drafts, did I actually think it might be a sock IP. Had I not dug into it and accepted the draft, that would have been a fairly "substantial edit" by someone else, making it G5 ineligible. The question now is do I pursue a G5 deletion of a topic that I feel meets the criteria of having an article just because of who created it, or should it be evaluated as if I had never known? Thoughts? -
2pou (
talk)
20:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Will another reviewer please either take a look at this draft or decide that it can wait until we deal with the three-month-old drafts? There is an odd special case that is the fault of the submitter. The submitter registered with a username that was almost identical to the name of the subject of the draft, a member of a K-pop boy band. Their draft was tagged as an autobiography, and I then declined it twice as not showing that the subject is individually notable separate from the group. The author then changed their username. I don't know whether they objected to the autobiography tag, or what preceded the name change. They have now resubmitted the draft a third time. I will sit this submission cycle out. Will someone please review it? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I've tried multiple times to use AFCH to decline Draft:Alpha Morgan but each time the save errors with the message Error while saving Draft:Alpha Morgan: "spamblacklist" - has anyone had a similar issue on other drafts? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I just improved and accepted the draft for Raina Llewellyn and then noticed that her first name as spelt in the article is actually "Rania". I tried to move the newly published article to the correct spelling but there's already an article there. Ideally I'd like to have Rania Llewellyn replaced with the article I've just improved and accepted, and the page I've published named "Raina" should be deleted. Can anyone here help with this? TIA! MurielMary ( talk) 07:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Nalas Mandir appears notable due to its historical significances as mentioned in sources, however it is created by a sock and I am not sure how to deal with this AfC submission. TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 15:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Getting the backlog down even further! Onward and downward! Calliopejen1 ( talk) 16:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Howdy everybody! Special congrats to everybody doing all the hard work in the trenches here. I had a bit of a question. As we continue our slog, we are going to run into some of our more prolific PAID users' entries (Ovedc, Quaenuncabibis, etc.). If an article is accepted into mainspace, and was either previously or post-facto tagged as COI or AUTO (problems I've run into from time to time myself), should the tags remain when the article is in mainspace? I would say "yes, of course", but I had a user come to my talk page and argued otherwise:
Hi. You left a COI template on Draft:John Vogelstein. I have removed it because prior to your posting this template I had already declared my COI on the Talk page at: [2] and on my user profile at User:Fvogelstein, thus fully complying with WP:COIEDIT. In addition, I have submitted this article on AfC rather than publishing it directly - and one the main purpose of AfC is for editors with a COI to get an independent review. This article has been very thoroughly researched. If you have any suggestions, I’d be glad to work with you. Many thanks. Fvogelstein ( talk) 23:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe it's pettiness (having those articles wear a Scarlet Letter that they were done for motives contrary to the volunteer-nature of the project) or maybe it's a CYA attempt just in case a different editor (perhaps NPP) sees something POV I don't in the text. I'd love to get people's thoughts on the matter, including @ Onel5969:, who sees things from the NPP end of the spectrum. Bkissin ( talk) 19:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I have encountered a number of cases where the main author turned out to have a conflict of interests, and in two cases, they were writing a biographical article about themselves. I know that this is generally deprecated, but if a person with a conflict of interests declares it and can show notability, my understaning is that it is not forbidden. However, I think if there is a CoI you have to be doubly scrupulous about notability issues and sourcing. This afternoon I declined Draft:Linda Waite on these grounds: she declared on her userpage that she was Linda Waite, but not on the article talk page. I would probably have declined it due to sourcing anyway. Now I encounter exactly the same thing with Draft:Joseph Rogers (neuroscientist). I was inclined to accept this one, until I noticed. How critical do you think this is? -- Doric Loon ( talk) 21:50, 18 July 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.
Onel5969 moved all these to draft space for lack of sourcing [3]. The creator resubmitted them with no changes; I had rejected them as still lacking sourcing [4]. The article creator has blanked their talk page [5] where the rejections were displayed and recreated the articles in main space while placing redirects on the draft space articles (eg [6]). They still lack sourcing and the single source in each article does not match the information claimed. The articles have all been reviewed as accepted at NPP (albeit tagged for sourcing). Suggestions? Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
books.google.co.uk › books
Daniel Eldredge Moore · 1960 · Snippet view ... critical constituencies , where Chinese and Malay voters were nearly balanced , shows a scrupulous concern for fairness of division . Examples include : 9Loc . cit . 1 1955 Constituency 1959 Division Wellesley North Malay Voters 5,678 375.
And
books.google.co.uk › books
Malaya · 1958 · Snippet view · More editions Malaya. L.N. 280 , ELECTIONS ORDINANCE , 1958 ORDER UNDER SECTION 6 - PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES In exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 of the ... Ordinance , 1958 , the Election Commission hereby makes the following order : 1 . ... WELLESLEY NORTH Parliamentary Constituency No.
I’ll check on others but my guess is they did exist and there are sources. Mccapra ( talk) 12:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I have started a thread at WP:ANI. The thread is not about the former electoral districts. The electoral districts are notable if verified. The lack of verification is the issue with the articles. The WP:ANI thread is about the banner that the author had on their user talk page, which said not to put any communication on their talk page. I of course became aware of the strange banner on their talk page because I was looking at the drafts and articles, but this is a case of I didn't hear that (because I have cotton in my ears). Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what to do with this one. I lean towards accepting, though the notability isn’t a sure thing. Would like consensus before making a review. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Well done everyone.
How low can we get it? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 22:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Draft:Robot Robin is about a robot built by a teenager in Bangladesh. He has certainly garnered the attention of the media - while probably half are churnalism I reckon there are probably WP:THREE. I want to decline as NN but is that valid if GNG is met? I can't see it surviving AfD. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 13:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
adv
because it's too "oh look at that, isn't it amazing!".
Primefac (
talk)
17:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The title of this thread is "Passes GNG but I just don't think it belongs". Am I correct that the real concern is that GNG is both a subjective guideline and the all-encompassing guideline for almost all subjects? So is the concern really that the draft appears to pass GNG, but that the reviewer has doubts about whether it should be in the encyclopedia? GNG says, basically, that there should be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The problem with GNG is that significant coverage is itself vague. So is the real question one of how to construe SIGCOV?
The issue in many contentious AFDs, including some that go to Deletion Review, is how to interpret significant coverage.
If so, I think that one of the main little-recognized content issues in Wikipedia is how to interpret significant coverage. I am inclined to demand a high standard of significant coverage for twenty-first century subjects where there may be either promotionalism or recentism, and to accept a lot of stuff from the nineteenth and earlier centuries. If we agree that the real issue is what is significant coverage, then we at least agree on what the real issue is, and can continue the discussion at Village Pump or Deletion Review. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I have read what User:SmokeyJoe has written about how he partly disagrees with me in complaining that the general notability guideline is vague. I have read it at least three times, and I still think either that I don't understand what he has written, or that what he has written has a good-faith circular aspect to it. He writes: "In the end, the GNG is just a predictor of whether the topic will be kept if challenged and taken to AfD." Yes. I agree, and that is what is wrong with GNG. It is a predictor of whether the topic will be kept if taken to AFD. It should be a criterion for whether the topic will be kept if taken to AFD. As a reviewer at AFC, I am asked to guess whether there is at least a 50% chance that the draft will be kept at AFD. As a participant at AFD, I am being asked to base my judgment on: What? An AFC reviewer with enough experience at AFD can usually guess what will be kept at AFD. But that means that the editors at AFD are applying a subjective standard.
SmokeyJoe says that GNG doesn't always apply. That is true, and those cases are not vague, and are sufficiently clear, but are not involved in the issue I am discussing. The vagueness about which I was complaining does not have to do with the exceptions to GNG, but with when GNG is the only guideline. Perhaps User:SmokeyJoe is saying that there are sort of unwritten rules that characterize outcomes at AFD. In fact, often these rules are recorded after the fact as outcome essays. Maybe that is a reason why some of the outcome essays should be upgraded to notability guidelines.
Have I missed something in what SmokeyJoe has written, or am I mostly correct that GNG often isn't self-explanatory because the AFD criteria are not self-explanatory and are themselves often subjective? Perhaps SmokeyJoe can re-explain what he is saying and why it does not constitute circular reasoning, or perhaps he can acknowledge that we do have a degree of circularity, which is another way of saying that the general notability criterion and significant coverage are subjective or vague. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Hoping someone can enlighten me: what's the protocol for an NPP review following acceptance at AfC? Assuming one has the tools, can the editor who has accepted an AfC also complete the NPP review? I'm guessing there have been debates over whether this should be streamlined and it was decided against? Apologies for asking questions probably already answered elsewhere, but I tried searching the archives for answers, but to no avail. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 03:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I used to not do the NPP checks and tick when I AfC accepted, but then one day someone complained about AfC-accepted articles left sitting in the unreviewed queue. I wasn't named, but felt chastised, and every since I try to remember to the the NPP things on every accept. I had worried about the NPP bias of being the AfC acceptor, of course you are going to approve because you just approved. However, this is not about independent review, but having an experienced person cast a cursory check to keep junk out of mainspace. The AfC check is actually more effort in my experience, and having put in the effort to understand the article and its references, I think I am obviously qualified to judge the page as acceptable for mainspace. I decided that leaving the new article for an independent review is not an efficient practice. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The plan for the backlog drive, based on previous backlog drives more than five years ago, included a provision for re-reviews. To the best of my knowledge, we haven't done re-reviews. We have instead did very very many many reviews. Am I correct that we didn't do re-reviews? If so, we did all right without re-reviews. If we have another backlog drive, will we fill in the provision for re-reviews, or will we decide that we did all right without them? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations and great job everyone! Further downward! Eternal Shadow Talk 01:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I have to honestly say since I started looking at the backlog a year-ish so ago I never thought the outstanding submissions would ever fall below 2,000. Many of of you have been plugging away for months (years perhaps?) just watching the numbers rise with no resolution in sight. Great teamwork and an amazing job everyone!!! S0091 ( talk) 21:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Not many days to go, but a backlog of 800 (as I write) is excellent. Everyone has done a great job so far. Let's not let up. New submissions arrive all the time
Can we empty the 2 months section? 121 as I write. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
It gets close, but keeps bouncing back. ~200 per day arrive. Whac-A-Mole gets most of them fast, some persist as being hard, but we're used to hard.
The 2 months category had 7 left last time I checked. We have to be able to clear seven. I've done about seven of those this morning, but am getting jaded. Who'll accept or decline the remaining ones in this category. Remember, >50% chance of survival means we accept. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
When someone writes a two sentence/three source meh article you expect to just decline and move on. But no, apparently from their user page and comments they are a much published person and a writer of "real" encyclopedia content, but they are too important to improve themselves or leave, but have the time to rant about how they don't have the time!. Now we've had days of rants and lies first on my user page, then AfC help desk, then the Teahouse and several others user pages. Even after having someone else do the work for them and improve the article and get it moved to main-space they still blame everyone else. But we should be scared because they have been editing for 15 years and threaten to stop... or as others would put it 878 edits including promoting yourself who cares! I have held off from responding to their blatant lies, but still it's takes time for me to shrug such things off. Which is partially why I haven't been reviewing as much recently, and don't feel inclined to do much more. Sorry to those that got dragged down into this, sorry for not helping push to 'cleared' and thanks to those than stood up for me. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk)
The 8-weeks backlog category has now been cleared. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The 7-week backlog has been cleared. I didn't do it. I was working on it, and then went to work out, and then it was gone. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The creating editor ( PembsBoi69) is discussing my decline with me on my talk page, and I see they and I will not agree. Please will other eyes look at this draft with a view to assisting the editor FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
That is as I post this.
7 weeks current maximum to get a review or a re-review.
A shedload of reviewers all dooming what they can, when they can
Teething troubles have not put us off, though have confused a few of us
Unsung hero - @ Enterprisey who gets too little public acknowledgement for their behind the scenes work and is being voted a Gold Wiki Award, a mere token of our gratitude (See drive talk page)
Heavy lifters? Have a look at the drive page. Boy have some folk worked hard!
Only done a couple? That's fine, too. Your work helps.
Will we get public accolades? Not on your life we won't. This is Wikignome stuff.
Today is the 27th. This ends on 31st. We're not going up! How low can we go?
Want to nominate a background task hero? Heck do so now, ideally on the drive talk page.
FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
If you do more than 25 Re-reviews, you get the Teamwork Barnstarhere? ― Qwerfjkl talk 10:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I've just found an interesting little hack for reading nytimes.com articles - just turn off Javascript!
Now you probably don't wont to do this browser wide, but on Chrome you can set on a per site basis: go to the site, click the padlock to the left of the address, select site settings, set Javascript to block. KylieTastic ( talk) 12:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I've just tried to review a draft, where out of the two dozen refs (way OTT, borderline bombing) half were primary, the rest were nearly all unavailable to me because of GDPR rules. What's a reviewer to do? (For those not based in Europe who don't know what I'm talking about: the EU decided to implement something called GDPR — the P stands for pain, not sure about the rest — and many US news websites responded not by complying but simply by blocking access to European visitors.) None of which has anything to do with the price of tea in China, let alone AfC backlog drives; just needed to vent. :) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I currently have Draft:Trafalgar Entertainment and Draft:'96 (soundtrack) marked as under review. For the former, the creator has not complied with four requests to disclose their status as a paid editor, and I don't think us volunteers should spend any more time reviewing the draft until they do. On the second, there is an SPI underway and I am expecting it (and other drafts by the same IP) to be deleted as G5. Am I OK using 'under review' in this way? It looks like they no longer show up in a 'AfC pending submissions by age' category once they've been marked as such. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 10:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. I was inclined to decline Draft:Rafał Brzoska, but all the references are in Polish, so they may be a better quality than I suspect. Does anyone here read Polish? -- Doric Loon ( talk) 10:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not really active as a reviewer these days but I do occasionally pop in. Earlier today I dealt with an enquiry at the help desk where I found that a reviewer had declined a draft as not complying with the minimum inline citation rule. It was an incorrect decline because all the references in the draft were proper inline citations. A while ago I took a look at more recent ILC declines and found quite a few that were clearly invald. Reviewers must ensure that they are familiar with the workflow and follow it. Of course an occasional lapse is acceptable, particularly when editorial judgement is a factor. However an inline reference is a blindingly obvious thing, and the ILC decline absolutely does not apply if there is even just one inline cite anywhere in the draft, and it applies only to BLPs. <end of rant, sorry to be a wet blanket> Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 21:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I reviewed a draft that had a {{ notability}} tag. I think that my question was whether I should pay any attention to the tag, whether I should remove the tag, and whether the tag should have been there in the first place. Generally, I think that the notability tag should not be on a draft, because doubtful notability is a reason to decline a draft, and questions about notability while the draft is still in draft space should be either in AFC comments or on the draft talk page. (If the draft satisfies notability, verifiability, and neutrality, it should be accepted. What an AFC reviewer does is to decide whether the draft passes those tests.) One possible explanation would be that the page had been in article space, and then was tagged, and then was moved to draft space. I checked the history. That wasn't the case. It appears that an editor applied the tag in draft space, perhaps in place of declining the draft; it also appears that the author then improved the draft.
By the way, I accepted the draft and removed the tag, but I wonder whether there are any general rules. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
If a reviewer accepts a draft that is a biography, that is, an article about a person, a subscreen is displayed for the entry of information about the dates and places of birth and death of the person. My primary question is what is done with this information. That is, where is the information saved? If I realize that I have forgotten to enter something or entered something incorrectly, is there a way that I can correct it? Where does it go?
I know that this also adds {{ WikiProject Biography}}, and I can add that either manually or using the Rater gadget. That isn't the question. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I think there can be no-omne who disagrees that thsi has been (is still being) a spectacular success. This means that we can and should continue to perform drives in the future when we consider iyt necessary.
What we have discovered is that the rules, in prices of being reinvented, are a little too open to interpretation. Before we run the next drive we need to reach consensus on the areas we have identified so far. I'll kick off with one that has the scope for contention.
Please add any areas where you believe consensus is required for going forwards. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
This is in two parts: How many to give and what should happen if insufficient are given:
We started with a putative 10% of reviews given is required to be the re-review target. Opinions, please:
We started with the concept, not agreed by consensnus, that points in the points based leaderboard would be capped if insufficient re-reviews were given. The end period for re-reviews was not specified. Opinions, please:
Sometimes we draftify, sometimes we AfD, sometimes we just remove the AFC artefacts. This is Backlog Drive work. Should Drive Credit be given here?
Should credit be given for Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories? ― Qwerfjkl talk 09:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I note the leaderboard on the backlog drive page says 'does not include drafts that have since been deleted'. Do we have / should we have a mechanism for recognising reviews of drafts that end in deletion? Personally I've done about 17 of those this month. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 12:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I guess that just isn't news any more! 😂
Newsflash. Zero will not be achieved... will it? New submissions arrive all the time, after all.
This is, again, a huge THANK YOU to all who have been reviewing this month, whether signed up to the Backlog Drive or not FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 06:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Down to double digits and max just 7 days, when we are also getting nearly 300 submissions a day!
And no surprise that FA is 9% of all outstanding submissions :/
Thanks to Theroadislong who i believe just cleared the over the week stuff including one I just didn't do myself as I had already declined twice.
Good work all, be it 1 or 1000+ reviews. KylieTastic ( talk) 18:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Next-to-Nothing (In Theory) at AFC!
3-month backlog at
AFC.
There are currently 2,804 pending submissions.
[
view •
purge •
update
― Qwerfjkl talk 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I've just brought it down to seven! Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I for one would deem this backlog drive a MASSIVE success. With everyone’s help, we were able to take a backlog that had been continuing to grow for who knows how long all the way down to 0 at times in just 1 month. Personally, since this backlog drive worked so effectively, I wouldn’t mind seeing another one of these implemented in the future if the backlog ever gets that big again. But again, I have to acknowledge the effort that everyone involved has put in.
Amazing job everyone! ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 04:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Could someone address the problems with Category:Pending AfC submissions (discussed here): that it doesn't always contain pending AfC submissions. ― Qwerfjkl talk 13:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
{{PAGESINCATEGORY}}
30 times. ―
Qwerfjkl
talk
07:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I am poking around on the helper script (now that the backlog here is done, and there's a backlog of issues on github. heh) and am taken to the idea of personal review logging, similarly to what we have of the review logs for the recent backlog drive, and CSD/AfD logs. I am open to suggestions on how we want the information to be presented in the AfC logs. Just a note, I don't have a set timeline on the development work as I am currently poking at a duplicated wikiproject banners issue. – robertsky ( talk) 04:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Where is there a leader board that covers the period of 1 July - 31 July? Everyone seems to know where it is, but maybe everyone is looking at their own versions of it.
So where can we see who the leaders were? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I frequently create redirects at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories, and occasionally, users use this to create articles without first drafting them, as at Zoom Cat Lawyer. Should I drafti by them, leave them, etc.?― Qwerfjkl talk 12:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
But not a lot.
New entries are coming in fast, and we have our foot off the throttle - unsurprising, last month was tiring. Even so, please can we at least eat the low hanging fruit? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Two brother-sister duo dtafts have emerged Draft:Mandar Agashe & Draft:Sheetal Agashe. Their company page also seems a bit problematic Brihans Natural Products. COI is clear because of the timing of the two drafts. Need more opinions on how to deal with all of them. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 10:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
We've done it! There are ZERO pending submissions! Pahunkat ( talk) 11:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please re-fill the pipeline? We're now falling over each other doing simultaneous multiple reviews on the few precious pending drafts! :) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
What's the best way of handling this one Draft:Cowrywise? I was going to decline it on the basis that the sourcing seems rather on the weak side, but then noticed that it was already rejected earlier, that just wasn't immediately obvious because the submitter removed the previous AfC templates. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Thought I would do a check on accepted articles to see if we have any 'issues'....
Checked from Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent for first week, checking for deleted artciles, @AfD, tagged for {{ notability}}
Checked 591 accepts and only found 15 'issues' so 2.5%
Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 16:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Same as above checked from Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent for first week, checking for deleted artciles, @AfD, tagged for {{ notability}}
620 checked and 11 'issues' 1.8%
So a lot of re-draftitying which considering an AfC reviewer has accepted seems wrong and should be either just tagged or AfDed for a full discussion.
Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 16:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
482 checked and 7 issues 1.5%
Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 17:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Obviously a big caveat that these are all fairly recent, but I think it's still a worthwhile indication. Maybe I'll do a rescan latter in the year for a fully check.
538 checked and 9 issues %1.7%
Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 16:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Very preliminary data as its not even the end of the 31st but for completeness... and I will update
171 checked and 4 issues %2.3%
Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 16:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I declined this one a couple weeks ago as lacking secondary sources, however the editor was unsure of the decline and queried me on my talk page, so I decided to bring this here for a peer review from a second opinion. Eternal Shadow Talk 20:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Someone draftified these three minor actors: Draft:Brynley Stent, Draft:Thomás Aquino (actor), Draft:Thaia Perez. One of them was an AFC accept of mine. I'd like a second opinion before I move these back to mainspace and insist on AFD, in case I am way off. I personally judge them notable because in their IMDBs, they have multi-episode roles on at least 2 TV shows, which I believe passes WP:NACTOR. Also, are there any other deal breaking problems I'm missing such as sourcing that would justify draftifying these? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 11:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- John Flint (journalist) moved to Draft:John Flint (journalist) at 10:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Dream Garden moved to Draft:Dream Garden at 10:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Tega Dominic moved to Draft:Tega Dominic at 10:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Peter Jagers moved to Draft:Peter Jagers at 10:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Tigé moved to Draft:Tigé at 10:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Brynley Stent moved to Draft:Brynley Stent at 10:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- The Daily Cpec moved to Draft:The Daily Cpec at 10:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thomás Aquino (actor) moved to Draft:Thomás Aquino (actor) at 10:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thaia Perez moved to Draft:Thaia Perez at 10:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Olowo Korodo moved to Draft:Olowo Korodo at 10:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Timothy W. Schwab moved to Draft:Timothy W. Schwab at 10:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Relative Race moved to Draft:Relative Race at 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
bador
shocking. I hope when this backlog drive completes AFC performance will improve. Thincat ( talk) 09:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Peter Jaggers qualifies multiple WP:Academic criterias and is clearly notable. Highly cited work at Google Scholar [8], elected fellow and editor of a peer reviewed journal. From the history, it seemed it was moved to draft because it didn't cite any sources. The current sources are indeed primary sources but it is not uncommon to use primary sources in case of academics to verify information and evaluate notability. So I won't say it was a bad move in context of notability at least. More sources? Yes, why not! And hence the tags of primary sources after accept. Also, should have been brought to AFD and not re-draftified. Happy to discuss more. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 16:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I have left an unusual (for me) second review, in some detail. I woudl like other eyes on this in case I am being unnecessarily picky, please. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I just had a small shock when I happened to read how few there were. Applauds and much respect to all who worked on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The previous editor User:ShravanthiRK has disclosed paid editing on their userpage, however they requested WP:U1 on 1 August. Now a new user has recreated Draft:Padma Rao Sundarji and it seems possible sockpuppetry. Can anyone please compare deleted draft [9] with recreated draft? TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 12:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
With 0 pending AfC submissions, we have now covered all possible topics and subjects in the known universe. Please feel free to disable this WikiProject at your earliest convenience. Thank you. nearlyevil 665 19:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
And Alexander wept, for there were no more Indian villages left to write stubs about...Fixed that for you :D – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Don’t worry a trillion more are coming tomorrow. CycoMa ( talk) 19:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi all,
Links:
Can I please ask an experienced reviewer check over the draft, wikify it as required, and then assess it for potential move back to articlespace?
The reason why I haven't popped this in the normal queue using the template, is I felt it was important that the wider context (the DRV discussion, especially) was considered in how it was handled, and I saw no way to confidently call that out using the normal process.
Let me know if any questions or issues. Thanks in advance, Daniel ( talk) 23:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Daniel and other Reviewers. I will see how the article can be improved on suggested guidelines. Aaditya.Bahuguna ( talk) 06:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not really asking for advice, but am reporting on what I have done and what may happen. This draft was submitted and declined twice as being too soon. It has a long history of creation and deletion, but is a lot closer to reality than a decade ago. This is a case where I would rather let the community make the decision if there is disagreement, rather than have the more stubborn editor "win". The consensus process that is "least unsuitable" is AFD. I have declined the draft again, but have said that if they want to let the community decide, I am willing to accept it so that AFD can run. I am guessing that there is a less-than-50% of surviving AFD, but I think that this is a case where the submitter should be allowed to decide that they are ready for AFD.
I think that this may be the right way to handle some other contentious submissions where the notability is not about to change within the next one or two months. (On unreleased films and unreleased albums, I am willing to keep on declining until the work is released.)
Thoughts? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
It has been brought to my attention that the WP:AFCRC (AfC/Redirects & categories) process doesn't actually leave any user talk page messages when reviews are done. I'm not sure how we made it to this point without any, but one imagines we probably want some. I propose some simple ones (the text "Your redirect request" is a link to the request):
Thoughts? (CC Qwerfjkl) Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed much more prominently over the past few days as the AfC draft counter has gotten so low that one of the major components of new AfC drafts are mainspace articles being moved to draftspace. It seems like this is being done a lot more often than it was in the past, rather than tagging with notability or improved sources tags or simply taking an article to AfD if notability is questioned. Should we have more of a push for editors to not just draftify dozens of mainspace articles, an action that essentially makes actually dealing with the articles a "someone else's problem" problem? Silver seren C 16:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I came across this made by a non-AfC reviewer adding a AfC comment (which I think is ok, especially if it is to help establish the notability of the subject), but removing the submission template at the same time. What's the general approach to us engaging non-AfC reviewers? – robertsky ( talk) 18:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
|ts=
parameter), and should be discouraged. I would check if they qualify for becoming a reviewer, and if not advise them how to improve. ―
Qwerfjkl
talk
18:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
{{AfC comment|}}
is too much to ask. ―
Qwerfjkl
talk
21:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)This draft has been resubmitted after rejection multiple times now and clearly is not notable. I am going to submit it for deletion. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The article was moved back to draft-space due to lack of proper sourcing and WP:COI concerns. I did a search and have added WP:RS like Anandabazar Patrika, Hindustan Times, Ei Samay, Aaj Tak, ABP Ananda and Times of India now that WP:VERIFY the WP:TVCAST and WP:TVPLOT of the daily soap. Also, I have added the latest TRP ratings released by Broadcast Audience Research Council. I also tried to trim long-character descriptions as a part of clean up. I hope its ready for main-space. Thank you. 2409:4061:4E90:6621:F1AB:221D:58D8:8F2F ( talk) 20:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Stub sorting, as previously requested, has been coded and is ready for beta testing. To test this feature, uninstall the AfC helper script at Preferences → Gadgets and install User:Enterprisey/afch-dev.js (you'll have to undo those steps once the beta test is over - shouldn't be more than a few days). Once it's installed, while accepting an article, select "stub" from the "Article assessment" menu to show the new stub sorting tool, which is just a slightly modified version of User:SD0001/StubSorter. (I am grateful to SD0001 for updating his script to make this possible.) Stub templates added (and removed) there will be applied to the page when you click "Accept & publish". Please let me know if there are any issues; if none are reported, I will put this in the main script in a few days. (Don't worry, I've tested it myself too.) Enterprisey ( talk!) 07:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Check please on Draft:Arle Court park and ride - I reviewed when too tired and linked to completely the wrong guideline which I then updated 20 minutes later. But I left myself a note to double check myself after sleep. Again this morning it just looks like run of the mill local reporting for a park and ride, price/route/service changes using sections for other temporary purposes, things I could write for all our local P&Rs but I cant see have anything but local interest. However doing due diligence I searched for other "park and ride" articles and found their are a few. Some like York park and ride at least have a claim to be the 'biggest' but others like Bristol park and ride and Preston park and ride look just as run of the mill. So to be fair to the submitter NemesisAT I'm asking for a review of this one and thoughts on the topic in general. I would have thought that a local areas transport infrastructure would be notable such as Transport in Cambridge which just has two sentences for Cambridge Park & Rides 5 sites. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 10:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
We all did well.
Please can we now set some parameters for the next and subsequent drives.
Let's open this for discussion so that we are not "surprised" by a 5 month backlog again. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
This is relating to the {{
AfC submission}} template. However, I am putting here first for a broader discussion. Setting {{AFC submission|d|lang|Malay|u=Mmwth123|ns=118|decliner=Robertsky|declinets=20210818051759|ts=20210818040127}}
at
Draft:Isham Jalil returns
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Msa:&action=edit&redlink=1 rather than ms.wikipedia.org as the link to 'Malay Wikipedia'. I have checked that it seems to be translating 'Malay' to 'msa' from
Module:Language/data/ISO 639 name to code dataset. I propose a switch to a {{
AfC submission/languages}} mapping from the tables at
List of Wikipedias instead. This will account for non-standard mapping and possibly promoting closed/locked projects through their incubator wikis directly rather than at their wikipedia.org urls.
– robertsky (
talk)
05:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The submission appears to be written in Malaysian. This is the English-language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the English language. Please provide a high-quality English-language translation of your submission. Have you visited the Wikipedia home page? You can probably find a version of Wikipedia in your language.. Will a dropdown selector for languages help as well? – robertsky ( talk) 16:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a reply to SmokeyJoe's reply to me on 25 July 2021. I didn't comment at the time because I was more focused, as many of us were, on emptying certain backlog categories, and we succeeded at that better than at addressing my concerns about the general notability guideline. I had concluded: " Perhaps SmokeyJoe can re-explain what he is saying …." SmokeyJoe writes: "Perhaps SmokeyJoe can re-explain what he is saying? Perhaps Robert can ask a simpler question?" Well, sometimes the questions that need to be asked are not simple. However, I will ask one question in response to a comment in SmokeyJoe's post that we may have overlooked, that may or may not be simple, and then I will reply to the more general topic
User:SmokeyJoe stated what I thought was a major policy consideration to which no one responded, perhaps because they didn't notice, or perhaps because everyone else was busy, as I was, or perhaps because it has been so obvious to everyone except me that it was seen as a statement that the sky is blue, or perhaps because it was skipped over because it was so unexpected that no one grasped it. He wrote: "AfC reviewers should get enough experience at AfD before trying AfC".
I have never previously seen that experience at AFD is or should be a prerequisite to being an AFC reviewer. So this may be a simple question. Should experience at AFD be a prerequisite to reviewing at AFC? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
"reasonable evidence of understanding the deletion policy (experience in areas such as CSD/AfD/PROD or page curation, while not mandatory, are beneficial)"were to be changed to "...is beneficial and therefore mandatory", I'd have no issue with that. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of whether AFD experience should be a prerequisite to reviewing at MFD, I still think that there is a circular aspect to what SmokeyJoe has written. I will clarify that I think the general notability guideline is subjective because I think that significant coverage is subjective, and some contentious AFDs are contentious because there are disagreements as to what is significant coverage.
SmokeyJoe writes: " The GNG is just a predictor of the AfD result. However, many at AfD try to take the GNG as gospel. However, AfD is where the decision is made." Yes. So how should the editors at AFD make the decision? (Is that a simpler question?)
SmokeyJoe writes: " I think that AFD does not really depend on criteria, but instead depends on that nebulous concept of WP:Consensus, and on decisions being made by the people who choose to turn up." In other words, does that mean that AFD is subjective? If so, does that mean that GNG is subjective, since he says it is a reflection of what will pass AFD? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Do other editors think that experience at AFD should be a prerequisite for reviewing at AFC? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with User:Goldsztajn. I'd like to take what Robert picked up a bit further:
WP:AfC should come after WP:NPP because it is much the same thing, but with much more potential to unilaterally and unfairly bite newcomers and reject worthy content. WP:NPP should come after WP:AfD because NPP requires understanding of AfD and notability, but decisions are made unilaterally. WP:AfD is recommended fairly early, because it is a group activity, which makes learning from others easy and natural.
An oddity of AfC is that the controls and requirements are less than for NPP. I would fix this by making the NPP permission required for AfC.
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@ SmokeyJoe: In re: a large number of non-notable promotional topics where the author has tried hard to conceal the problem -- that is how I use the Reject option ("topic is not notable"). Before rejecting, I check user contributions for the draft creator, and in almost all cases he/she is a SPA. For the more blatant cases, I use CSD under G11. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a continuation of a discussion between User:DGG and User:SmokeyJoe about Rejection at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Manscaped. The draft was declined 7 times by 6 reviewers, and was then nominated for deletion by DGG. I !voted to Delete but not Salt, because in my opinion 7 declines by 6 reviewers are more than enough. SmokeyJoe voted to Keep. One of his reasons to Keep was that the draft had never been Rejected, only declined. DGG said that some editors never use Reject, only decline, and that some editors are not aware of the Reject option, and that there is no clear understanding about its proper use. I think that reviewers should be aware of the Reject option, because the button is in plain view, but I agree that there is no clear understanding about its proper use. I think that my own efforts to obtain a clear understanding about its proper use have been ignored.
I think, first, that resubmission after a rejection should be, in itself, a sufficient basis for MFD, although not the only basis. I don't think that there has been a clear statement to that effect. I think, second, that a decline does not necessarily mean that there is hope. It only means that the reviewer has not rejected the draft and thinks that it should be not be in article space. I will only reject a draft if I have a high degree of certainty that either 'n' or 'e', reject for notability, or reject as contrary to the purpose, applies. I won't reject for notability unless there has been a before AFD search, or there has been a previous AFD, or the non-notability is obvious (would be A7 in mainspace), or the submitter is clearly their own worst enemy (all too common). I very seldom reject for contrary to the purpose, because I don't know what that means. So I do sometimes reject, but seldom, and the fact that I decline a draft does not mean that there is hope, only that I did not reject it.
I don't think that Rejection should always be a precondition to MFD. I know that there is not a clear understanding about when Rejection should and should not be used.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I've created an issue on the AfC helper script's GitHub repository on potentially adding a mechanism for adding {{
AfC submission|T}}
to a draft that has no AfC-related templates. You can read my suggestion
here. Please feel free to respond with any feedback (is this even necessary, what solution would make sense for your workflow, etc.) either here or on the issue itself if you have a GitHub account.
Perryprog (
talk)
21:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
My understanding was that participants in the backlog drive were up for rewards (barnstars, etc) and indeed I kind of used them in promoting the event. I'm not seeing any rewards appearing on people's talkpages, however. Has something been forgotten? Or is COVID rotting my brain? Stuartyeates ( talk) 01:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 22:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging