![]() | 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
Hi all, newbie here. I have an article pending in the AfC, and I am happy to wait patiently. I'm just curious if there is a proposed timing set forth on future backlog drives. I saw that there was quite a spectacular effort set forth in July to save the backlog. Now that it's over 1000 once more, will there be a drive fairly soon? Or will it be longer? Thanks for any info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamanderxander ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Did I do
this submission on Anthony Keyvan correctly? I googled and found enough coverage on it, and saw no fan-like tone in the article as well. So, I approved the submission. However, I wanted to add BLP-Sources tag while accepting the article, but I found no field for that then, so I put the tag later. I am not sure if I did it correctly. Please take a look into it and suggest. Thanks.
Lightbluerain❄ (
Talk |
contribs)
08:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
There's a little piece in the latest edition of The Signpost about the July backlog drive. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Just an FYI Nihara.widefy is a UPE name strongly suggests works for https://widefy.in - submitted articles such as Draft:Treymond Smith use PR sources written by "widefy" linked to https://pressroom.prlog.org/WIDEFY/# and thus to https://widefy.in/ KylieTastic ( talk) 17:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Lately, I've been noticing a user on a IP /64 range just requesting random redirects at WP:AFCRD, mostly within the field of Internet culture and YouTube, and not giving a reason for each. This is the second day in a row where I've had to decline their string of requests for this very reason. Is this the right approach for such a review, and since I notice some of this user's requests getting accepted by other users regardless, is a reason really required for creation? Jalen Folf (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Please my draft is on one week because the submission is pending. AnsrieJames9 ( talk) 06:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that this template (which handles the redirect requests and
WP:AFCRC) can automatically decline redirects (based on invalid title, target etc.). I'd like to know what the opinion would be on doing this.
Pinging @
JalenFolf who recently reviewed redirects. ―
Qwerfjkl
talk
20:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Please take a look at the activities of User:HellmuSa, I'm pretty sure a user account that's barely a couple of weeks old is not supposed to be an AFC reviewer. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 05:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
They've reviewed a couple hundred AFC submissions, which now need to be checked for spamming and corruption. MER-C 14:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Martin Urbanec objected a global lock for Olaf Kosinsky: [1]. Chaddy ( talk) 00:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Is it a good thing that brackets were added to the preloaded template? I find it less convenient when making a request, and it can confuse people so that they make requests like [2]. 64.203.186.102 ( talk) 18:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if we should change the wording of the Decline template. Many of the new editors misinterpret this as the same thing as a rejection not understanding the the difference we put on to it. Decline being we feel it's not yet ready for the main space and rejection being this is counter-intuitive to an encyclopedia or no way it's notable. I am curious to see if a softer toned message in the bold section may make a bit of a difference and encourage them to read the reason for the decline. Perhaps the bolded decline message on the top should read "USER has reviewed this as "not ready (yet?)", on DATE, due to;". I'm hoping more then anything it may encourage them to read the decline messages and hopefully click through some of the links and not feel so dejected. This could also be a third type of refusal for topics which look promising. The third type of refusal would mean altering the AFCH script. Random idea I am throwing at the wall here to see what others may think. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 18:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure, but I think that I disagree with any suggestion to change the wording of the decline message, since a decline applies to a range of submissions, ranging from Almost Accept to Almost Reject. We could split the declines further into More Encouraging and Less Encouraging, but I think that the answer is not to tweak the wording further. I think that what is more important is any comments left by the reviewer, and that reviewers should be strongly encouraged to leave at least a brief comment if the draft is worth further work. Many reviewers already do that.
In particular, on musicians, bands, albums, and songs, a comment can say that if the subject satisfies any of the musical notability criteria, please explain in an AFC comment or on the draft talk page. In other cases, similar advice can be given referring to another notability guide.
The key to it is not to try to have the templates be all things for all reviewers and all drafts, but for the reviewer to say something in addition to the wording of the template. Many reviewers already do. Many submitters don't read the comments by the reviewer, but they don't read the comments in the template either, and there is very little that we can or should do for submitters who don't try to understand what the reviewer is saying. Submitters who do think about and learn from reviewer comments often become article submitters. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I plan to promote Draft:Myxofibrosarcoma. Can somebody please remove the redirect at Myxofibrosarcoma. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 19:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
We have editors whose drafts were declined who ask why their drafts were rejected, or refer to rejection of their drafts. We also have editors who think that a draft was declined, and so is eligible for resubmission, after it was rejected. My first specific suggestion is that maybe the language of the Rejection template should be more clearly negative. In particular, the author of Draft:Lana Rhoades seems in good faith to have resubmitted it because they thought that they were permitted to resubmit it. After the draft was resubmitted after being rejected, I have nominated it for deletion, and the author seems to be in good faith puzzled as to what they did wrong, so I think that they didn't mean to be doing anything wrong. Second, the author asks why there is a blue Submit button. I do not see a Resubmit button on a rejected draft. There is a Resubmit button on a declined draft. There is an Ask for Advice button on a rejected draft. However, from the AFC tab at the top of the screen, a rejected draft has a blue Submit button as well as a yellow Comment button. I am assuming that they are referring to that button, and that they presumably used it to resubmit Draft:Lana Rhoades.
So I have two questions. First, can the standard message on a rejected draft be revised to make it clearer that resubmission is not permitted. Second, can the blue submit button be removed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This resubmission is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)). This is a serious accusation done poorly. I believe you should instead use a warning template on User talk:Mbdfar. Possibly you didn't because he is an habitual user_talk page blanker? However, preferable would be a new thread, less accusatory, at Draft talk:Lana Rhoades. And then, editor disruption issues should escalate to ANI, not MfD.
has been resubmitted without explanation or discussion. This is an unfair accusation because there has been no reasonable reviewer initiated discussions. The draft header, and the AfC templated user_talk posts are not reasonable starts to discussion. This is where the problem is, why the AfC coding. The problem is not with the DECLINE or REJECTED template wording.
Hello WikiProject Articles for creation,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
In case folks do not know, Novem Linguae has created some additional scripts for AfC and NPP reviewers. You can check them out here. Some fancy stuff. :) S0091 ( talk) 18:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, can you please accepted this draft for Jake Ejercito? AnsrieJames9 ( talk) 01:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Accepted this article, Robert McClenon AnsrieJames9 ( talk) 04:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a strange case, and I think that I am partly asking for comments and partly identifying a situation that may happen. I used Earwig's Copyvio Detector on Draft:Battle of Tifariti, and it came up with a 91.3% match, which I think is the closest match I have seen in a long time. I then looked at the source, placeandsee.com, and I saw that it says that it is copied from Wikipedia. That is, it appears to be a Wikipedia mirror. It then appears that the text in the draft was copied from the History section of Tifariti. So am I correct that what this means is that the draft is an unattributed copy from the existing Wikipedia article? Am I correct that, while that isn't exactly copyright violation, it is sort of a copyleft violation by copying from Wikipedia without proper attribution? I have Rejected the draft. Was that a reasonable response?
My assessment is that a case could be made for splitting the section about the battle from the article, but that isn't what this draft was.
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I may have seen this already and forgotten where it is. Where is there a policy or guideline that explicitly discusses divisions and subsidiaries of corporations? I thought it was in corporate notability guidelines, but I don't specifically see a guideline about divisions. We often have submissions of drafts about divisions and subsidiaries, when there is already a parent article. Sometimes the submitter is stubborn and is a paid editor. Sometimes the submitter is enthusiastic. I see a section on branches, but those are of non-profit organizations. I know that the applicable guidelines include due weight and balance. My judgment as a reviewer normally is to decline subsidiaries and divisions with either or both of 'exists' and 'mergeto'. Is there something specifically on subsidiaries and divisions of companies? I thought that there was, but I can't find it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Recently I accepted an article, tagging it with "WikiProject United States" and "WikiProject United States Government". Unfortunately, the AfC helper script created two wikiproject templates, once with "WikiProject United States" and another "WikiProject United States" supported by the WikiProject USG. I'm pretty sure this is a bug and intended behaviour should be one WikiProject template with all of the supporting WikiProjects under that template, i.e. one WPUS template with the WPUSG supported param.
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
00:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
![]()
Special event:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 01:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
A mini-drive soon might be a good idea to knock it back a bit? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we shouldn't do this, but if after 8 weeks post-backlog-finish (with 0 new entries) our backlog is 6 weeks, we're doing something wrong, because it means we are being overwhelmed; our rate of increase is almost the same as our rate of increase in February. I'm going to put this as a subsection because it's related but I don't want to derail discussion of the drive above. Primefac ( talk) 16:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding location: my original idea was it would be a template you would paste into the talk page of your draft, but that honestly seems sub-optimal. It might make more sense to have it integrated into the pending template like Enterprisey said. Perryprog ( talk) 11:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Can someone easily determine how much of the current backlog consists of new submissions, and how much of it consists of resubmissions of drafts that were declined during the backlog drive? I am not entirely sure what conclusions can be drawn from any answer to this question, but I think that quantitative questions should be asked when possible. The backlog drive would have resulted in the following dispositions of drafts pending review:
So my question is what is the mixture of the declined drafts are being resubmitted, or new drafts are being submitted? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The decline rationale for neologisms contains the word "neologisim". I'd fix it myself if I knew where those things are stored, but ... I don't. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
When a draft is accepted by an AFC reviewer using the AFC script, a redirect is left from draft space to article space. A redirect is also created if an editor who is not a reviewer moves a draft to article space, because a redirect is automatically created on a page move (unless the editor doing the move is a page mover or an administrator and has checked to suppress redirect creation, but acceptance of a draft is not one of the reasons why redirect creation should be suppressed). So the redirect will stay in draft space. I had been about to ask whether the redirect will be deleted by G13 in six months, but I have answered my own question. The criteria for speedy deletion say that redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. There are sometimes nominations to delete drafts because there is an article. They happen often enough that there is a speedy close criterion, Speedy Redirect from draft space to article space, and the resulting redirect is exempt from G13.
So the first question that I have is (again) what should be done if a draft is submitted for review and an article on the topic exists. I think that this calls for two questions. First, is the draft a subset of the article, or does the draft contain information that is not also in the article? Second, were the draft and the article written by the same editor? If the draft is a subset of the article, I think that the draft should be redirected to the article. If the draft contains additional information, the draft should be tagged to be merged into the draft. Do the other reviewers agree? If the draft and the editor were written by the same person, then I think that the reviewer should consider whether the article passes review, because too often, if the draft and the article were written by the same person, they are gaming the system to prevent draftification. In that case, if the article is not ready for article space, an AFD may be in order.
By the way, yes, this is being written partly in response to an unpleasant MFD nomination, now withdrawn in a tiff. Since the nominator has said that he will let the draft page "rot for all eternity", he obviously is ignorant of how drafts work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks
IDK how to make article request please no ip ban — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teuf0rt ( talk • contribs) 04:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Odd to see a reviewer accept their own draft. Does AFCH not prevent it? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 20:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Please share your thoughts. -- Gryllida ( talk, e-mail) 04:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a reviewer at Afc. Created this page Draft:Global Esports. Accordingly, can I accept it myself. If I can, I would prefer someone please do it on my behalf, cause I believe it to be immoral. Gyan Know contributions? 23:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
How Long will it take from Oct. 4th for my Publishment the Town stead of Ovedio be Published as a Article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavetheTreeSBro ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Will someone please look at this draft and either accept it or decline it, or advise me whether they agree with me? My review is that it should be accepted, but I declined it three times before it was released, because it had not been released, and I want to be sure that I am not biased one way or the other. Thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I accepted Vivienne Medrano. About half an hour I checked on it and saw that it had two AFC templates still on it. It also still had AFC comments. I removed them. I also noticed that it was categorized as Draft class, and I had specifically assigned it C-class, but it also didn't have the AFC project template, and the adding of the AFC template also assigns the class (if the reviewer specifies the class in the Accept dialog). In other words, the script didn't do anything except to move the draft to article space, which is the first thing that should be done, but not the only thing.
So I think I have a question, and a request or comment for other reviewers. The request or comment is: If you think that you have accepted a draft, check on it in a little while and verify that it has finished accepting itself. Sometimes the script doesn't finish, for no obvious reason. Sometimes the reason is that the reviewer closes the window that the draft is in before the script completes. That wasn't the case this time. The question is: Does anyone know of any other causes of the script not finishing? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
This is not a request for a second or third opinion as to notability. I think that we agree that the subject is notable. The problem with the draft is one of tone. Can someone please rewrite this draft so that it isn't written to praise its subject? Wikipedia editors know that if the subject deserves praise, then a neutral description of the subject's career is sufficient praise. Can this draft be reworked? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure if this warrants any action but a new editor Nickb410 after his eleventh edit in mainspace moved a draft into mainspace and left a message on its creator Jackhughes26's talk page using the AfC accept template. On the article's talk page they added the "This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation" banner, which is misleading. See Special:Contributions/Nickb410. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Yet another attempt to create Independent Australia, using the same draft wording. I have commented on notability on the talk page. -- Pete ( talk) 16:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
A certain user created an article titled 2022 Isko Moreno presidential campaign while the draft mentioned above is in process for submission. I hope that this problem be solved and this became one of the major problems here. Thanks. NewManila2000 ( talk) 01:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Perryprog, Can I redirect it to the article that I mentioned? NewManila2000 ( talk) 08:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. NewManila2000 ( talk) 21:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I see that a draft has a title that duplicates that of an existing article, but is not the same topic. There are two usual cases, both when the topic of the draft is a person. First, there may be another person with the same name already in the encyclopedia. Second, there may be a disambiguation page because multiple people have the same name. As we know, this calls for disambiguation. So I move the draft to disambiguate the title. So far, this is basic AFC stuff, and we all know this. Then what I want to do is to request that, if the draft is accepted, it can be found be a reader typing the undisambiguated name. That means that either a hatnote is required on the primary, or an entry is required in the disambiguation list. So far, we all know this. So what I want to do is to tag the draft to say that the primary or the DAB page should be updated when the draft is accepted. Here is the issue. What I have been doing is putting an AFC comment on the draft, saying that the title has been disambiguated, and a hatnote should be added, or a line should be added to the DAB. But the problem is that, if the AFC script works correctly, the AFC comment is now removed. If I am the accepting reviewer, I remember what needs to be done. But often, someone else reviews, and accepts, and they should accept the draft if the person is notable. (Occasionally this happens with a company also, but this usually happens with people.) So the article may have been accepted, but a reader may not be able to find it until the link is inserted.
So the question is: Is there a better way to mark a draft so that it will be cross-linked when it is accepted? I don't want to put the hatnote on the primary at the time of disambiguating, unless I know that I am accepting the draft. I don't want to put an entry in a DAB page unless I know that I am accepting the draft.
What I would like to do is, at a minimum, to put a note on the talk page of the draft. Some of us have already said that we would like AFC comments either to be on the draft talk page, or to be moved to the article talk page at acceptance time. I assume that will be implemented in 2023. So another question is: Would it be appropriate to put a Cleanup tag on the draft saying that a link should be added? As I was writing this, it occurred to me that a Cleanup tag, like other Twinkle tags, survives the AFC script. Is that the right approach? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I recently got access to the AfC helper script and the permission to review articles, but I had a couple of questions. I assume that I cannot accept a draft I create, but can I edit drafts before or after I review them? For instance, can I clean up the article a little bit to remove original research, give the article a more neutral tone, or clean up the references and add archive links? What if I find a submission that does not contain references that demonstrate notability, but doing a quick Google search clearly shows that there is significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. Can I add the sources and then accept the article or should I ask the user working on the draft to do it themselves? Could I drop some sources on the talk page using Template:Refideas? I guess I'm mostly curious how involved I can get with a draft if I'm going to review it. TipsyElephant ( talk) 15:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
There is an IP user (probably the same one that does the two-sentence stub articles on former NFL players) that submits articles on Football and basketball seasons for various universities. Examples (not exhaustive):
Draft:1979–80 Rice Owls men's basketball team,
Draft:1969–70 SMU Mustangs men's basketball team,
Draft:1979–80 Brown Bears men's basketball team,
Draft:1992–93 SMU Mustangs men's basketball team,
Draft:1971–72 Penn State Nittany Lions basketball team,
Draft:1975–76 Nevada Wolf Pack men's basketball team . That is only the ones that I have declined today! I am of the opinion (and while I don't want to put words in @
KylieTastic:'s mouth or any other reviewer) and I'm not alone, that these articles are not ready for mainspace, both due to the anemic sourcing and the fact that they have little to no prose content. I frequently cite
WP:NSEASONS, which states: Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players.
Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created. At this point, all it is creating is an
an indiscriminate collection of schedules and bare bones stats without any information to explain the content they are providing. This would not be a big deal, except that non-reviewers will go in later after the drafts have been reviewed and move the drafts to mainspace anyway (with no changes), suggesting (in the diffs located
here and
here that the articles would pass AfD, and therefore, through
WP:AFCPURPOSE, should be accepted. Who is in the right here?
In the end, Wikipedia is not
WP:SRSBSNS, and it's not the biggest deal in the world. It's really frustrating and a massive slap in the face to have something you decline make it to mainspace anyway, but that is what we deal with at AfC. If the consensus is against my read of this situation, I will gladly step back from reviewing those articles and leave it for others to deal with.
Bkissin (
talk)
16:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
So... I check the participants tab and i saw that you put my name twice, I cannot request an edit so i need someone to undo that. MoonlightVector Talk page 16:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
If the Accept script partly completes, by moving the draft into article space, and does not finish:
Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
What is difference between the counts presented in the New Pages feed (with the Awaiting Review filter checked) vs. the pending submissions counts presented in the AfC status template? For example, right now the New Page feed says 1,700 but the template has 1,749. I did purge/refresh, but get the same. S0091 ( talk) 22:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I think that I am more calling attention to an occasional situation than asking for advice. See Draft:Heropanti 2 and Heropanti 2. The draft was submitted for AFC review about 24 hours ago, after having been declined previously. The obvious problem is that it is an unreleased film. It is being submitted because there is a myth that films become notable when they begin principal photography (or animation). The wording of the film notability guidelines is awkward but contributes to that myth. In fact, films normally become notable when they are released and have been reviewed. However, the less obvious problem is the more serious one, which is that the title in article space is a locked redirect to the previous film. It was locked by an administrator due to repeated resubmission by disruptive accounts that were probably sockpuppets. So a reviewer can't accept the draft, even if it were ready for acceptance. I could decline the draft, and it could probably be resubmitted, just because declined drafts of films are usually resubmitted. So I rejected the draft, and said that if the submitter wants it considered, they have three choices:
Does anyone either agree or disagree that this was what needed to be done? The situation happens from time to time with locked redirects. Persistent resubmission of declined drafts also happens from time to time, including for films in production. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I've reduced it to ECP. Salting is usually permanent "(While creation-protection is usually permanent, temporary creation protection may be applied if a page is repeatedly recreated by a single user (or sockpuppets of that user, if applicable).) but I am always happy for anyone to tweak or amend (without recourse to me) any admin action I've made if they see it differently. Woody ( talk) 10:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe wrote:
Or are you disagreeing that this film Heropanti 2 objectively passes NFF? NFF goes grey for low budget films, but I don’t think this is the case here, do you?
Heropanti 2 does not objectively pass NFF. I don't know how NFF was worded in the past. I know how it is worded now. The film is in principal photography, and there have been passing mentions of photography, and press releases stating that it is in photography. This draft or article is about an unreleased film. The film notability guideline identifies three stages in the production cycle for films:
This film page must be evaluated based on general notability of production. Category:AfC comment templates Production itself has not been notable, and has not had significant coverage. The guideline is poorly worded because some editors think that it says that films normally are notable if they are in principal photography. It does not say that. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I would appreciate any comments on Draft:Street Woman Fighter and Street Woman Fighter. There is a malformed article in article space, and a draft. I didn't evaluate the draft in detail, because of the article, and I have proposed the article for deletion. I left a comment on the draft saying that it will be evaluated when the article is deleted. An editor then asked me on my talk page why I didn't boldly copy the draft into the article (with attribution). I said that if someone else did that, it would be fine with me. The disadvantage of the PROD is of course that it takes a week, but In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Is there a third approach? Was this one reasonable way to deal with this? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, is there a policy for this project to use or leave as is the unused AFC templates from the Unused Templates Report from 452 to 490? Asking to avoid any potential major disruption as part of my task force idea to deal with the backlog of unused templates as part of WikiProject Templates. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 16:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Please I need help on how delete this draft. This Draft has been declined about 5 times if not 6 and had been rejected once. Each time it is declined, the IP removes the automated message and comments by reviewers. The article has no reference to support anything in there but they keep submitting again and again. I think the lasting solution to this is to speedily delete it, but I couldn't find any criteria (even the DB A7 somehow did not really give me what I was looking for). Please someone should take a look and do something. You can find everything I said in the edit history. -- Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Rejected this one for being a duplicate of Draft:Georgia Storm, which was also rejected. However, the submitter of those drafts commented on my talk page, and made a case for accepting it. I would like a third opinion on this draft. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed that MoonlightVector has recently made a number of questionable AfC acceptances. They have accepted Ashwin Alok, Carlo Romeo (journalist), and Gretex Corporate Services Limited, all of which are now at AfD. Loney Hutchins, another acceptance, has swathes of unsourced text without maintenance tags. I realise they have good intentions, but I wonder whether the permission to review was given to them too soon. Modussiccandi ( talk) 21:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
MoonlightVector, I'm starting this sub-section just so that the above discussions can continue without this getting lost in them. I hope that you can take the thoughts and advice given about seriously, and I would offer one more: if you cannot find a pre-made decline reason (e.g. Superseded by the comments below.
Primefac (
talk)
09:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
nn
, film
, essay
, etc) you should not decline the draft. If you can agree to that, I see no reason why we cannot treat the problems above as a learning experience and give a second chance for productive reviewing. Does this sound acceptable?
Primefac (
talk) 07:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Recently, a new user said in a chat room that they couldn't figure out how to submit a draft once it's written. Indeed, the interface does not currently show anything related to submitting a draft while reading or editing it. Another editor noted that they frequently field IRC help desk queries about this. I think we should make it obvious how to submit a draft. The user said (this was on Discord, by the way; the thread called "draft submit workflow" under #general) they would expect to see a "submit" button in a "banner at the top of the [draft] that says 'this is a draft. here's what you need to do' or something". Based on that, I have made an unprofessional mockup. The status will be shown using JavaScript for all Draft-namespace pages. Unsubmitted pages will have a "Submit" button that will immediately submit the draft, without having to go through the current dreadful subst:void-based interface. (With appropriate checks to verify that the draft's author is submitting it, etc.) Thoughts? Enterprisey ( talk!) 08:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Innisfree987 ( talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Some of you may want to comment on or participate in the discussion of this article. I reviewed and accepted four drafts of Marvel Cinematic Universe characters. This was not straightforward for two reasons. First, all of the titles already were redirects to the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe characters. Second, two of the redirects had non-trivial history because they had been expanded into articles and then cut down to redirects. So the redirects had to be moved to make way for the drafts. If they had trivial history, they had to be tagged for deletion. If they had non-trivial history, a round-robin move had to be done to put the history in draft space pointing to the article. So far, so good. I thought I had accomplished something. Then I was asked to move Pietro Maximoff back to draft space. I was asked to move it back because it did not comply with a guideline that I had not been aware of, the MCU character guideline. I have declined to move it back, I had two reasons for declining to move it back. First, moving it back to draft space, after the round-robin move, would be complicated and difficult. Second, I am not sure whether that would be a correct action. I said that I thought that an AFD might be in order instead. I have started discussion at the article talk page, Talk: Pietro Maximoff (Marvel Cinematic Universe). This is a situation that may be of interest to other AFC reviewers. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
I've been taking a IBAN from dealing with one of our more prolific submitters (for my own sanity). Is there anyone who has been dealing with their submissions who I can ping or tag when they submit more? Bkissin ( talk) 16:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
In accepting some of FA's drafts, I had two of them fail to complete the script, after the draft was moved to article space but before anything else happened, such as removal of the AFC log, or updating the WikiProjects. This has very seldom happened to me in the past , but twice happened in quick succession. This makes me think that it is caused by some sort of noise, maybe in my router, maybe on the Wikipedia servers, more likely in the Internet between my router and the server. I think that, if this happens again, I will decide that something is too busy, and stop editing Wikipedia, and do something else. Just an observation. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Folks!! Could somebody please get rid of this redirect. I would like to remove this Manuel B. García Álvarez back to draftspace, where it can be worked on. It's afc script from moving it back. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 21:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Looking for a 2nd opinion. Would you guys accept or decline these? Professors with h-index of 30. Multiple sources but they are not good sources: problems with independence, self-publish, etc. Draft:James E. Owen. Draft:Zvi Lotker. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 11:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Does it make sense to say these articles are in the top 2% of articles accepted? User talk:203.213.77.100 They are pretty short, and a lot of the text is identical between the articles. — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 18:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
No, I just asked here to bring this to the attention of more experienced people. I don't think their ratings are reasonable, but I also don't have enough experience to tell them what the ratings should be. — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 18:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Draft Title | comment text |
---|---|
Draft:Rishi_Raj | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:TheFork | Declining submission: adv - Submission reads like an advertisement ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Michael_Thomas_White | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:The_Awesome_II | Declining submission: v - Submission is improperly sourced ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Alan_Singh | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Jayanti_Ramayya_Pantulu | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Te_Anau_Time | Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Castle_of_Purity_(criminal_case) | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Aai_Majhi_Kalubai | Declining submission: ilc - Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Bahjat_Yahya | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and adv - Submission reads like an advertisement ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Khushali_Kumar | Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Noah_Wolf | Declining submission: adv - Submission reads like an advertisement ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Anirban_Mitra | Declining submission: nn - Submission is about a topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines (be more specific if possible) ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Miraheze | Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone and v - Submission is improperly sourced ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Jada_Kumaran | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and ilc - Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:KnoBee_Social_India_Private_Limited | Declining submission: corp - Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Birajai_Temple | Declining submission: adv - Submission reads like an advertisement and npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Biological_Inequity | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Mehdi_Hassani | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Smile_(Benjamin_Ingrosso_song) | Declining submission: music - Submission is about a musician or musical work not yet shown to meet notability guidelines ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Mirzapur_(soundtrack) | Declining submission: cv - Submission is a copyright violation ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Anu_Gupta | Declining submission: cv - Submission is a copyright violation ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Kalki_Jayanti | Declining submission: nn - Submission is about a topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines (be more specific if possible) ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Emily_Austin_(Television_Personality) | Declining submission: cv - Submission is a copyright violation ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:K._Bhavani_Shankar | Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Gaurav_(filmmaker) | Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Kartikay_Saini | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and adv - Submission reads like an advertisement ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Annaatthe_(soundtrack) | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Pankaj_S_Sharma | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and adv - Submission reads like an advertisement ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Crisis_(2021_Drama) | Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Major_Powell_(disambiguation) | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Janath_Sri_Vidanage | Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone and v - Submission is improperly sourced ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Abbas_Yusuf | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and This subject does not match WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN? ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:British_and_Romanian_Royal_Families | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Lixus:_The_“Temples_quarter” | Declining submission: mergeto - Submission should be merged into an existing article ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Buddhist_Recovery_Network | Declining submission: nn - Submission is about a topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines (be more specific if possible) ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Coonong,_New_South_Wales | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Sydney_International_School_of_Technology_and_Commerce | Declining submission: corp - Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and v - Submission is improperly sourced ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Goolgumbla,_New_South_Wales | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Star_Wars_(2013_comic_book) | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Tindeanda,_New_South_Wales | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Singoramba,_New_South_Wales | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Pelora,_New_South_Wales | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Pregnancy-related_anxiety | Declining submission: essay - Submission reads like an essay ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:The_Underground,_New_York_City | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Shakeel_Ahmed_(scientist) | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Since the ORES tool and the Rater gadget are mentioned above, I have a question. I often omit the assignment of a rating to an article when accepting it because I will then finish the acceptance by using the Rater gadget to assign the WikiProjects and the ratings (Stub, Start, Class C). (I am another reviewer who never assigns Class B to a new article. Class C is very good for a new article, and a WikiProject can reassess.) The gadget tells me what rating has the highest percentage. But how do I see the other percentages? If it says 45% Start, for instance, what does it say about Stub or Class C? How do I view the percentages? (If I can't view them, then I recognize that as a limitation of the tool.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I have been AFC reviewing for quite a few months now, and I think I am familiar with the reviewing methods, so I think I am ready to be put on the "active reviewer" list. May you please move my name there? Thanks! Félix An ( talk) 22:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Primefac: We are talking about reducing the current backlog and a user who has been in the project for "some months" only reviewed 28 drafts and now asking to be an active reviewer. While joining this project, many of us stated that we are joining to help "reduce the backlog", but instead, it keeps increasing despite many participants. Well I guess it's fine. -- Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, good day! Can someone check if drafts like Draft:2022 Muntinlupa local elections and Draft:2022 Makati local elections are qualified for article space? Thanks. NewManila2000 ( talk) 03:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed a tendency recently to see WP:A7 / WP:G11 (or both!) candidates turn up at CAT:CSD, that started off in draft space, then were unilaterally moved to mainspace, bypassing the AfC process. These include Larry Kosilla, Paul Maheke and Big Sailor Baby in just the last ten minutes. I assume these are all trying to get around the WP:ACPERM limit that makes it much harder for spam to get into the mainspace. Is there any way of yanking page move permissions so this doesn't happen? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I have had this happen a couple times on other drafts. When I try to review the only options are Submit or Comment but it is in submitted status. What is the issue? S0091 ( talk) 21:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Please examine Special:Contributions/Mira_Tageldin and in particular the editor's talk page where they "appear" to be accepting their own drafts. Obviously they are not using the script. They seem highly prolific for an editor with such a short time here, and hit the ground sprinting rather than running FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
KMUOS refers to the 'Kateb Maktub' project I am apart of as a translation student at the University of Sharjah. The goal of the project is to increase the number of articles published about Arab authors, and the course grade depends on the status of the article (whether or not it gets published). The reason I use this hashtag is to make it easier for my guide to find the articles I posted in relation to this project.
I was looking to accept Draft:Tubbo as it has the sourcing to pass GNG, but Tubbo already exists in mainspace as a redirect. I tagged the page for G6 speedy deletion as normal, but the request was denied with the given reasoning that the Draft had already been declined twice, before the current sourcing was added. What's the proper course of action here? Devonian Wombat ( talk) 07:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The edit history shows it to have had an unusual sequence of moves. It is part of project #KMUOS (see above). I've become more involved than I would wish, so I would ask for a reviewer to take it at face value. The Arabic references may be machine translated. I have not inspected what appears to be enhanced referencing.
Previously in main space I reduced this to a stub by removing all elements with no references, and was unable to find notability, so issues a PROD. That does not mean there is no notability now. The creating editor has a propensity for using archived references when the websites archived are live. This has, knowingly for unknowingly obfuscated primary sources. I have not checked for this and am leaving the draft alone now FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
When I decline a submission from an IP, the talk page message is delivered to User talk:Null. No idea why, although it seems to be affecting others as well. Has the script been changed recently? Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
u=null
; seems to have been from
this submission by
User:SD0001/AFC-submit-wizard.js. Paging Dr.
SD0001. (I'll take a look too.)
Enterprisey (
talk!)
07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
mw.config.get('wgUserName')
and you have to query meta=userinfo instead. I can avoid a big patch to AFC-submit-wizard by having AFCH ignore u=null
, so I'll do that. I have also
patched AFC-submit-wizard to put the empty string as the u
parameter instead of "null", which AFCH should behave normally on.
Enterprisey (
talk!)
07:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
mw.user.getName()
doesn't work for them. Nevertheless in this case, turns out it's simple enough to get the userinfo by clubbing it with another API call
[17]
Articles are appearing in mainspace, but without AFC artefacts being removed. Not all will be of suitable quality. NPP ought to notice them though FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
With the queue now at over two months I think we need to look at bringing it down to four weeks. While it was fun hitting zero submissions it can be argued that such fast turnaround gives no real time for thought by submitting editors.
A mini drive would aim to hit four weeks backlog and then close. Or that is what I am proposing. It is for you to discuss this.
I have seen a really pleasant number of new names accepting and declining drafts. I propose that the top ten of reviewers from the July 2021 drive stand aside from being participants. They may continue to review, but do not get any drive credits. I chose ten as the cut off point, I suggest we discuss this. My objective in proposing this is to allow newer reviewers to get more and better experience.
Do I/we/you need to set up headings for "support" "oppose" etc or can we do This more simply? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
There are at least three interacting backlogs of quality control reviews in the English Wikipedia, that need to be considered as aspects of the need for quality control:
At least one of the proposals for dealing with the backlog is really a shift from one backlog to another. In particular, one editor says that the cause of the AFC backlog is that too many articles are being draftified, and that they should be either tagged or sent to AFD. That is a plausible argument, but would shift them from NPP to AFD rather than from NPP to AFC. The disadvantage to moving articles into the AFD closure backlog is that it either requires administrators to delete, or involves non-admin closes to Keep, which isn't the answer if the articles shouldn't be kept. Many of the AFC reviewers are also NPP reviewers, and many of the NPP reviewers are also AFC reviewers, so that we can look at those two backlogs as two branches of one flooded river. (Maybe the AFD backlog then is an artificial lake that the flood can be diverted into.) An AFC backlog drive may increase the NPP backlog, and also diverts volunteer time from other areas of volunteer work. An NPP backlog drive may increase the AFC backlog, and also diverts volunteer time from other areas of volunteer work.
I don't have an answer, other than to note that we should understand the interaction of these backlogs. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. Firstly I'm not a reviewer so I don't know that much about the process, but I did notice that nowhere in the reviewing instructions does it say it might be a good idea to check the talk page before accepting. It wouldn't be the first time that there is relevant discussion there about the article. A recent example is Talk:Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022, where I opposed moving it to mainspace per WP:TOOSOON – a few days later it was accepted anyway. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 21:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The original topic of this thread was that reviewers should check the talk page for any comments. Without discussing the history of any article, I think that the instructions should say that reviewers should check the talk page of a draft. Sometimes there are comments there, which is really at least as good a place for comments as the AFC comments on the front of the draft. Sometimes a reviewer puts comments on the draft talk page rather than in AFC comments so that they will survive the acceptance script. So I think that the reviewing instructions should say to check the talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
<moved from above, tangential thread>
Now that it's been over a year since the initial discussion, I finally got around to writing down some documentation at WP:AFCSW, and kinking out the bugs in the code.
The choices for the "most appropriate category" can be adjusted from Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/AfC topic map.json. This aspect is based on Calliopejen1's idea (though I've taken the liberty to tweak some of the choices) which should be useful.
More details are available at WP:AFCSW. Please give it a whirl and post any feedback or bug reports here. Links:
We could then look into replacing the existing links to the subst:void preload with this tool. – SD0001 ( talk) 19:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Please be aware that not all topics qualify for a Wikipedia article. With some exceptions, most articles require three top notch sources with multiple paragraphs of detail about the subject. Newspapers, books, and academic journal articles are usually good. Blogs, company websites, and personal websites are not acceptable. You should not spend a lot of effort writing an article until you have discovered and included these sources.Planting this seed early could eliminate a round or two of declines. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 18:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Anwar Shah Orakzai Muftinadeem ( talk) 06:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Often {{Reflist}} is omitted from drafts. Is it desirable for the script to check for the presence of two things:
If not present, could it insert them? It's obviously technically feasible ?@ Enterprisey? The question is, is it desirable? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
In teahouse there was a discussion about creating your first article. I emphasised reading AfD to understand notability as the failure rate is high. But I didn't know how many failed on AfC
Is there a stat? Wakelamp d[@-@]b ( talk) 09:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Once after a draft is declined for copyvio reason using the AFCH script, the decline banner dosent display the actual website-link where the content is copied from. There is a field: ′Original URLs (one per line)′ , but it dosent display after reviewing. Any solution? --Gpkp u • t • c 14:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
cv-cleaned
should still work as well. Additionally, it should be showing the URL if the user has provided that value (see
Draft:Jeff Burger). If things aren't showing up as they should, it's a script issue, not a template issue.
Primefac (
talk)
08:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Multiple drafts with multiple names, from multiple creating editors. UPE (0.9 probability) See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnx4566789. Please add evidence as you find it FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I see some drafts with what appear to be notable titles go through the G13 sieve, and I wonder whose 'fault' it is. I think, sometimes, what did I do wrong?
Do we have any figures, indeed are figures useful, on:
I recognise that these are intersection sets. I think the information may be useful to inform our thinking on the acceptance threshold. When I was a new reviewer I thought I was doing Wikipedia a service by raising the bar. I see now, that I was doing the reverse, probably putting useful new editors off.
I think we all need to consider our personal thinking on this. I'm not looking to reach any form of consensus. I'm looking, instead, at getting us to look at our own thinking, and becoming even better at what we do. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I was hoping for another set of eyes on this, because I'm not sure that my reading of WP:WEBCRIT is correct. I was reviewing this draft and while only one-source meets WP:GNG in my eyes, I'm wondering about some of the other referencing. Many of the references are other sites (mostly reliable sources) reporting on stories broken or originally reported in The Mac Observer. WP:WEBCRIT says that the subject might be notable if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Do those type stories fall under this category? If not, what is that section of WP:WEBCRIT referring to? ThadeusOfNazereth Talk to Me! 02:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Template:Don't know has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
This is a file license template.
--
65.92.246.43 (
talk)
03:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Innisfree987 ( talk) 00:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I have noticed this self aggrandising trend, which I see as deceptive. Is there a way of modifying the user talk page acceptance template to detect whether the signature is from a genuine AFC reviewer? It might then state some form of red error message instead of a deceptive "My article has been accepted" template FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Please all be aware of the determination to get this online. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ankit yadav 529 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I reviewed Draft:Big Mouse (2022 tvN), and declined it as too soon. The submitter replied to me, on their talk page: "There are a lot of Korean series pages and they have not been deleted!! Some of them may be released after 10 months !!!" I haven't researched the number of future Korean television programs, so I don't know whether the programs to which the submitter refers are in draft space or in article space. If they are in article space, which would not surprise me, then they are cases where Other Stuff Exists that will probably be deleted if nominated for deletion. I am guessing that they are in article space, were created directly in article space (which is the privilege of any autoconfirmed editor), and either are waiting for New Page Review, were sloppily accepted by New Page Review, or were put in by an editor who has the autopatrolled privilege, and so should know better. I am not asking for advice, but I am calling this matter to the attention of AFC reviewers, many of whom are also New Page reviewers. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This draft illustrates a situation that I occasionally see, which is a good-faith error about Articles for Creation by an editor who is working to improve the encyclopedia (which is what we are here for). The draft appears to be a substantial expansion of the existing Start-class article. Saw sam sai. I had to decline the draft because AFC is not a mechanism to submit improved articles, only new ones. Does anyone have any ideas on what advice to give to the submitter of the draft to simplify the job of improving the article? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I am not really asking for advice in this thread, and am not really providing advice in this thread. The main question here is what we should tell submitters about how to discuss a decline that they disagree with, and I am mentioning it here because I provided one answer as to what is not the place to discuss an AFC decline. A draft, Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer), was submitted, and was declined. The submitter then went to DRN, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I declined the DRN case request because there hadn't been discussion between the originator IntDesign and the AFC reviewer Loksmythe, and also because the Teahouse and the AFC Help Desk are forums for discussion of AFC declines. Does anyone have any other comments on how an originator should try to discuss with a reviewer? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I would have declined the draft if I had been the reviewer, but that is not the question. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I was reviewing Draft:Automoliini and I noticed that it was autogenerated from iNaturalist's "Create this page on Wikipedia!" template. It's a great outreach effort in theory but it's encouraging people to create drafts citing only iNaturalist, which is a user-generated source. Is there anything that can be done about that? I've declined the draft for now but I've seen one or two others made from this same template already. Rusalkii ( talk) 21:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I created a page for Snyk It was earmarked for speedy deletion but this has since been removed and now has a tag on it that it reads like an advertisement. I'd like someone to take a look at the page and let me know their opinion. Is it notable enough? Does it read like an advertisement? The reason I put the funding in there is that its valuation as a 8 billion dollar company is what makes it notable. I didn't want to include other stuff for fear of it reading like an advertisement. So if someone could please advise, I appreciate it. Thank you MaskedSinger ( talk) 15:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Over the past couple days, I have seen a couple decent drafts on Chinese dishes ( Draft:Shanghai-style Salad and Draft:Sampan Congee (Boat Congee)). Valereee, who I defer to on the notability of such articles, brought up an interesting point. Both articles have been edited by multiple users of whom the draft is their only edit. I'm starting to hear quacking, but it very well could be a WikiEd project. Could a couple of you take a look at the drafts and see if we're being crazy or not? Thanks in advance. Bkissin ( talk) 15:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Howdy. I'm working on my CiteHighlighter user script. I added a feature today that highlights URLs orange if they contain suspicious words, such as "blog" and "preprint". Are there any other words I should add? I think AFC could offer some good ideas from the PR/self promotion angle, e.g. "innovative". – Novem Linguae ( talk) 01:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Please fix the link tagged portal as it links to a non-existent page in the grading scheme. That page was moved and deleted. Username006 ( talk) 16:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
Hi all, newbie here. I have an article pending in the AfC, and I am happy to wait patiently. I'm just curious if there is a proposed timing set forth on future backlog drives. I saw that there was quite a spectacular effort set forth in July to save the backlog. Now that it's over 1000 once more, will there be a drive fairly soon? Or will it be longer? Thanks for any info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamanderxander ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Did I do
this submission on Anthony Keyvan correctly? I googled and found enough coverage on it, and saw no fan-like tone in the article as well. So, I approved the submission. However, I wanted to add BLP-Sources tag while accepting the article, but I found no field for that then, so I put the tag later. I am not sure if I did it correctly. Please take a look into it and suggest. Thanks.
Lightbluerain❄ (
Talk |
contribs)
08:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
There's a little piece in the latest edition of The Signpost about the July backlog drive. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Just an FYI Nihara.widefy is a UPE name strongly suggests works for https://widefy.in - submitted articles such as Draft:Treymond Smith use PR sources written by "widefy" linked to https://pressroom.prlog.org/WIDEFY/# and thus to https://widefy.in/ KylieTastic ( talk) 17:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Lately, I've been noticing a user on a IP /64 range just requesting random redirects at WP:AFCRD, mostly within the field of Internet culture and YouTube, and not giving a reason for each. This is the second day in a row where I've had to decline their string of requests for this very reason. Is this the right approach for such a review, and since I notice some of this user's requests getting accepted by other users regardless, is a reason really required for creation? Jalen Folf (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Please my draft is on one week because the submission is pending. AnsrieJames9 ( talk) 06:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that this template (which handles the redirect requests and
WP:AFCRC) can automatically decline redirects (based on invalid title, target etc.). I'd like to know what the opinion would be on doing this.
Pinging @
JalenFolf who recently reviewed redirects. ―
Qwerfjkl
talk
20:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Please take a look at the activities of User:HellmuSa, I'm pretty sure a user account that's barely a couple of weeks old is not supposed to be an AFC reviewer. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 05:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
They've reviewed a couple hundred AFC submissions, which now need to be checked for spamming and corruption. MER-C 14:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Martin Urbanec objected a global lock for Olaf Kosinsky: [1]. Chaddy ( talk) 00:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Is it a good thing that brackets were added to the preloaded template? I find it less convenient when making a request, and it can confuse people so that they make requests like [2]. 64.203.186.102 ( talk) 18:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if we should change the wording of the Decline template. Many of the new editors misinterpret this as the same thing as a rejection not understanding the the difference we put on to it. Decline being we feel it's not yet ready for the main space and rejection being this is counter-intuitive to an encyclopedia or no way it's notable. I am curious to see if a softer toned message in the bold section may make a bit of a difference and encourage them to read the reason for the decline. Perhaps the bolded decline message on the top should read "USER has reviewed this as "not ready (yet?)", on DATE, due to;". I'm hoping more then anything it may encourage them to read the decline messages and hopefully click through some of the links and not feel so dejected. This could also be a third type of refusal for topics which look promising. The third type of refusal would mean altering the AFCH script. Random idea I am throwing at the wall here to see what others may think. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 18:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure, but I think that I disagree with any suggestion to change the wording of the decline message, since a decline applies to a range of submissions, ranging from Almost Accept to Almost Reject. We could split the declines further into More Encouraging and Less Encouraging, but I think that the answer is not to tweak the wording further. I think that what is more important is any comments left by the reviewer, and that reviewers should be strongly encouraged to leave at least a brief comment if the draft is worth further work. Many reviewers already do that.
In particular, on musicians, bands, albums, and songs, a comment can say that if the subject satisfies any of the musical notability criteria, please explain in an AFC comment or on the draft talk page. In other cases, similar advice can be given referring to another notability guide.
The key to it is not to try to have the templates be all things for all reviewers and all drafts, but for the reviewer to say something in addition to the wording of the template. Many reviewers already do. Many submitters don't read the comments by the reviewer, but they don't read the comments in the template either, and there is very little that we can or should do for submitters who don't try to understand what the reviewer is saying. Submitters who do think about and learn from reviewer comments often become article submitters. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I plan to promote Draft:Myxofibrosarcoma. Can somebody please remove the redirect at Myxofibrosarcoma. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 19:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
We have editors whose drafts were declined who ask why their drafts were rejected, or refer to rejection of their drafts. We also have editors who think that a draft was declined, and so is eligible for resubmission, after it was rejected. My first specific suggestion is that maybe the language of the Rejection template should be more clearly negative. In particular, the author of Draft:Lana Rhoades seems in good faith to have resubmitted it because they thought that they were permitted to resubmit it. After the draft was resubmitted after being rejected, I have nominated it for deletion, and the author seems to be in good faith puzzled as to what they did wrong, so I think that they didn't mean to be doing anything wrong. Second, the author asks why there is a blue Submit button. I do not see a Resubmit button on a rejected draft. There is a Resubmit button on a declined draft. There is an Ask for Advice button on a rejected draft. However, from the AFC tab at the top of the screen, a rejected draft has a blue Submit button as well as a yellow Comment button. I am assuming that they are referring to that button, and that they presumably used it to resubmit Draft:Lana Rhoades.
So I have two questions. First, can the standard message on a rejected draft be revised to make it clearer that resubmission is not permitted. Second, can the blue submit button be removed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This resubmission is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)). This is a serious accusation done poorly. I believe you should instead use a warning template on User talk:Mbdfar. Possibly you didn't because he is an habitual user_talk page blanker? However, preferable would be a new thread, less accusatory, at Draft talk:Lana Rhoades. And then, editor disruption issues should escalate to ANI, not MfD.
has been resubmitted without explanation or discussion. This is an unfair accusation because there has been no reasonable reviewer initiated discussions. The draft header, and the AfC templated user_talk posts are not reasonable starts to discussion. This is where the problem is, why the AfC coding. The problem is not with the DECLINE or REJECTED template wording.
Hello WikiProject Articles for creation,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
In case folks do not know, Novem Linguae has created some additional scripts for AfC and NPP reviewers. You can check them out here. Some fancy stuff. :) S0091 ( talk) 18:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, can you please accepted this draft for Jake Ejercito? AnsrieJames9 ( talk) 01:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Accepted this article, Robert McClenon AnsrieJames9 ( talk) 04:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a strange case, and I think that I am partly asking for comments and partly identifying a situation that may happen. I used Earwig's Copyvio Detector on Draft:Battle of Tifariti, and it came up with a 91.3% match, which I think is the closest match I have seen in a long time. I then looked at the source, placeandsee.com, and I saw that it says that it is copied from Wikipedia. That is, it appears to be a Wikipedia mirror. It then appears that the text in the draft was copied from the History section of Tifariti. So am I correct that what this means is that the draft is an unattributed copy from the existing Wikipedia article? Am I correct that, while that isn't exactly copyright violation, it is sort of a copyleft violation by copying from Wikipedia without proper attribution? I have Rejected the draft. Was that a reasonable response?
My assessment is that a case could be made for splitting the section about the battle from the article, but that isn't what this draft was.
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I may have seen this already and forgotten where it is. Where is there a policy or guideline that explicitly discusses divisions and subsidiaries of corporations? I thought it was in corporate notability guidelines, but I don't specifically see a guideline about divisions. We often have submissions of drafts about divisions and subsidiaries, when there is already a parent article. Sometimes the submitter is stubborn and is a paid editor. Sometimes the submitter is enthusiastic. I see a section on branches, but those are of non-profit organizations. I know that the applicable guidelines include due weight and balance. My judgment as a reviewer normally is to decline subsidiaries and divisions with either or both of 'exists' and 'mergeto'. Is there something specifically on subsidiaries and divisions of companies? I thought that there was, but I can't find it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Recently I accepted an article, tagging it with "WikiProject United States" and "WikiProject United States Government". Unfortunately, the AfC helper script created two wikiproject templates, once with "WikiProject United States" and another "WikiProject United States" supported by the WikiProject USG. I'm pretty sure this is a bug and intended behaviour should be one WikiProject template with all of the supporting WikiProjects under that template, i.e. one WPUS template with the WPUSG supported param.
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
00:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
![]()
Special event:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 01:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
A mini-drive soon might be a good idea to knock it back a bit? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we shouldn't do this, but if after 8 weeks post-backlog-finish (with 0 new entries) our backlog is 6 weeks, we're doing something wrong, because it means we are being overwhelmed; our rate of increase is almost the same as our rate of increase in February. I'm going to put this as a subsection because it's related but I don't want to derail discussion of the drive above. Primefac ( talk) 16:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding location: my original idea was it would be a template you would paste into the talk page of your draft, but that honestly seems sub-optimal. It might make more sense to have it integrated into the pending template like Enterprisey said. Perryprog ( talk) 11:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Can someone easily determine how much of the current backlog consists of new submissions, and how much of it consists of resubmissions of drafts that were declined during the backlog drive? I am not entirely sure what conclusions can be drawn from any answer to this question, but I think that quantitative questions should be asked when possible. The backlog drive would have resulted in the following dispositions of drafts pending review:
So my question is what is the mixture of the declined drafts are being resubmitted, or new drafts are being submitted? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The decline rationale for neologisms contains the word "neologisim". I'd fix it myself if I knew where those things are stored, but ... I don't. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
When a draft is accepted by an AFC reviewer using the AFC script, a redirect is left from draft space to article space. A redirect is also created if an editor who is not a reviewer moves a draft to article space, because a redirect is automatically created on a page move (unless the editor doing the move is a page mover or an administrator and has checked to suppress redirect creation, but acceptance of a draft is not one of the reasons why redirect creation should be suppressed). So the redirect will stay in draft space. I had been about to ask whether the redirect will be deleted by G13 in six months, but I have answered my own question. The criteria for speedy deletion say that redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. There are sometimes nominations to delete drafts because there is an article. They happen often enough that there is a speedy close criterion, Speedy Redirect from draft space to article space, and the resulting redirect is exempt from G13.
So the first question that I have is (again) what should be done if a draft is submitted for review and an article on the topic exists. I think that this calls for two questions. First, is the draft a subset of the article, or does the draft contain information that is not also in the article? Second, were the draft and the article written by the same editor? If the draft is a subset of the article, I think that the draft should be redirected to the article. If the draft contains additional information, the draft should be tagged to be merged into the draft. Do the other reviewers agree? If the draft and the editor were written by the same person, then I think that the reviewer should consider whether the article passes review, because too often, if the draft and the article were written by the same person, they are gaming the system to prevent draftification. In that case, if the article is not ready for article space, an AFD may be in order.
By the way, yes, this is being written partly in response to an unpleasant MFD nomination, now withdrawn in a tiff. Since the nominator has said that he will let the draft page "rot for all eternity", he obviously is ignorant of how drafts work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks
IDK how to make article request please no ip ban — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teuf0rt ( talk • contribs) 04:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Odd to see a reviewer accept their own draft. Does AFCH not prevent it? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 20:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Please share your thoughts. -- Gryllida ( talk, e-mail) 04:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a reviewer at Afc. Created this page Draft:Global Esports. Accordingly, can I accept it myself. If I can, I would prefer someone please do it on my behalf, cause I believe it to be immoral. Gyan Know contributions? 23:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
How Long will it take from Oct. 4th for my Publishment the Town stead of Ovedio be Published as a Article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavetheTreeSBro ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Will someone please look at this draft and either accept it or decline it, or advise me whether they agree with me? My review is that it should be accepted, but I declined it three times before it was released, because it had not been released, and I want to be sure that I am not biased one way or the other. Thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I accepted Vivienne Medrano. About half an hour I checked on it and saw that it had two AFC templates still on it. It also still had AFC comments. I removed them. I also noticed that it was categorized as Draft class, and I had specifically assigned it C-class, but it also didn't have the AFC project template, and the adding of the AFC template also assigns the class (if the reviewer specifies the class in the Accept dialog). In other words, the script didn't do anything except to move the draft to article space, which is the first thing that should be done, but not the only thing.
So I think I have a question, and a request or comment for other reviewers. The request or comment is: If you think that you have accepted a draft, check on it in a little while and verify that it has finished accepting itself. Sometimes the script doesn't finish, for no obvious reason. Sometimes the reason is that the reviewer closes the window that the draft is in before the script completes. That wasn't the case this time. The question is: Does anyone know of any other causes of the script not finishing? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
This is not a request for a second or third opinion as to notability. I think that we agree that the subject is notable. The problem with the draft is one of tone. Can someone please rewrite this draft so that it isn't written to praise its subject? Wikipedia editors know that if the subject deserves praise, then a neutral description of the subject's career is sufficient praise. Can this draft be reworked? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure if this warrants any action but a new editor Nickb410 after his eleventh edit in mainspace moved a draft into mainspace and left a message on its creator Jackhughes26's talk page using the AfC accept template. On the article's talk page they added the "This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation" banner, which is misleading. See Special:Contributions/Nickb410. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Yet another attempt to create Independent Australia, using the same draft wording. I have commented on notability on the talk page. -- Pete ( talk) 16:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
A certain user created an article titled 2022 Isko Moreno presidential campaign while the draft mentioned above is in process for submission. I hope that this problem be solved and this became one of the major problems here. Thanks. NewManila2000 ( talk) 01:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Perryprog, Can I redirect it to the article that I mentioned? NewManila2000 ( talk) 08:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. NewManila2000 ( talk) 21:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I see that a draft has a title that duplicates that of an existing article, but is not the same topic. There are two usual cases, both when the topic of the draft is a person. First, there may be another person with the same name already in the encyclopedia. Second, there may be a disambiguation page because multiple people have the same name. As we know, this calls for disambiguation. So I move the draft to disambiguate the title. So far, this is basic AFC stuff, and we all know this. Then what I want to do is to request that, if the draft is accepted, it can be found be a reader typing the undisambiguated name. That means that either a hatnote is required on the primary, or an entry is required in the disambiguation list. So far, we all know this. So what I want to do is to tag the draft to say that the primary or the DAB page should be updated when the draft is accepted. Here is the issue. What I have been doing is putting an AFC comment on the draft, saying that the title has been disambiguated, and a hatnote should be added, or a line should be added to the DAB. But the problem is that, if the AFC script works correctly, the AFC comment is now removed. If I am the accepting reviewer, I remember what needs to be done. But often, someone else reviews, and accepts, and they should accept the draft if the person is notable. (Occasionally this happens with a company also, but this usually happens with people.) So the article may have been accepted, but a reader may not be able to find it until the link is inserted.
So the question is: Is there a better way to mark a draft so that it will be cross-linked when it is accepted? I don't want to put the hatnote on the primary at the time of disambiguating, unless I know that I am accepting the draft. I don't want to put an entry in a DAB page unless I know that I am accepting the draft.
What I would like to do is, at a minimum, to put a note on the talk page of the draft. Some of us have already said that we would like AFC comments either to be on the draft talk page, or to be moved to the article talk page at acceptance time. I assume that will be implemented in 2023. So another question is: Would it be appropriate to put a Cleanup tag on the draft saying that a link should be added? As I was writing this, it occurred to me that a Cleanup tag, like other Twinkle tags, survives the AFC script. Is that the right approach? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I recently got access to the AfC helper script and the permission to review articles, but I had a couple of questions. I assume that I cannot accept a draft I create, but can I edit drafts before or after I review them? For instance, can I clean up the article a little bit to remove original research, give the article a more neutral tone, or clean up the references and add archive links? What if I find a submission that does not contain references that demonstrate notability, but doing a quick Google search clearly shows that there is significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. Can I add the sources and then accept the article or should I ask the user working on the draft to do it themselves? Could I drop some sources on the talk page using Template:Refideas? I guess I'm mostly curious how involved I can get with a draft if I'm going to review it. TipsyElephant ( talk) 15:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
There is an IP user (probably the same one that does the two-sentence stub articles on former NFL players) that submits articles on Football and basketball seasons for various universities. Examples (not exhaustive):
Draft:1979–80 Rice Owls men's basketball team,
Draft:1969–70 SMU Mustangs men's basketball team,
Draft:1979–80 Brown Bears men's basketball team,
Draft:1992–93 SMU Mustangs men's basketball team,
Draft:1971–72 Penn State Nittany Lions basketball team,
Draft:1975–76 Nevada Wolf Pack men's basketball team . That is only the ones that I have declined today! I am of the opinion (and while I don't want to put words in @
KylieTastic:'s mouth or any other reviewer) and I'm not alone, that these articles are not ready for mainspace, both due to the anemic sourcing and the fact that they have little to no prose content. I frequently cite
WP:NSEASONS, which states: Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players.
Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created. At this point, all it is creating is an
an indiscriminate collection of schedules and bare bones stats without any information to explain the content they are providing. This would not be a big deal, except that non-reviewers will go in later after the drafts have been reviewed and move the drafts to mainspace anyway (with no changes), suggesting (in the diffs located
here and
here that the articles would pass AfD, and therefore, through
WP:AFCPURPOSE, should be accepted. Who is in the right here?
In the end, Wikipedia is not
WP:SRSBSNS, and it's not the biggest deal in the world. It's really frustrating and a massive slap in the face to have something you decline make it to mainspace anyway, but that is what we deal with at AfC. If the consensus is against my read of this situation, I will gladly step back from reviewing those articles and leave it for others to deal with.
Bkissin (
talk)
16:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
So... I check the participants tab and i saw that you put my name twice, I cannot request an edit so i need someone to undo that. MoonlightVector Talk page 16:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
If the Accept script partly completes, by moving the draft into article space, and does not finish:
Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
What is difference between the counts presented in the New Pages feed (with the Awaiting Review filter checked) vs. the pending submissions counts presented in the AfC status template? For example, right now the New Page feed says 1,700 but the template has 1,749. I did purge/refresh, but get the same. S0091 ( talk) 22:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I think that I am more calling attention to an occasional situation than asking for advice. See Draft:Heropanti 2 and Heropanti 2. The draft was submitted for AFC review about 24 hours ago, after having been declined previously. The obvious problem is that it is an unreleased film. It is being submitted because there is a myth that films become notable when they begin principal photography (or animation). The wording of the film notability guidelines is awkward but contributes to that myth. In fact, films normally become notable when they are released and have been reviewed. However, the less obvious problem is the more serious one, which is that the title in article space is a locked redirect to the previous film. It was locked by an administrator due to repeated resubmission by disruptive accounts that were probably sockpuppets. So a reviewer can't accept the draft, even if it were ready for acceptance. I could decline the draft, and it could probably be resubmitted, just because declined drafts of films are usually resubmitted. So I rejected the draft, and said that if the submitter wants it considered, they have three choices:
Does anyone either agree or disagree that this was what needed to be done? The situation happens from time to time with locked redirects. Persistent resubmission of declined drafts also happens from time to time, including for films in production. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I've reduced it to ECP. Salting is usually permanent "(While creation-protection is usually permanent, temporary creation protection may be applied if a page is repeatedly recreated by a single user (or sockpuppets of that user, if applicable).) but I am always happy for anyone to tweak or amend (without recourse to me) any admin action I've made if they see it differently. Woody ( talk) 10:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe wrote:
Or are you disagreeing that this film Heropanti 2 objectively passes NFF? NFF goes grey for low budget films, but I don’t think this is the case here, do you?
Heropanti 2 does not objectively pass NFF. I don't know how NFF was worded in the past. I know how it is worded now. The film is in principal photography, and there have been passing mentions of photography, and press releases stating that it is in photography. This draft or article is about an unreleased film. The film notability guideline identifies three stages in the production cycle for films:
This film page must be evaluated based on general notability of production. Category:AfC comment templates Production itself has not been notable, and has not had significant coverage. The guideline is poorly worded because some editors think that it says that films normally are notable if they are in principal photography. It does not say that. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I would appreciate any comments on Draft:Street Woman Fighter and Street Woman Fighter. There is a malformed article in article space, and a draft. I didn't evaluate the draft in detail, because of the article, and I have proposed the article for deletion. I left a comment on the draft saying that it will be evaluated when the article is deleted. An editor then asked me on my talk page why I didn't boldly copy the draft into the article (with attribution). I said that if someone else did that, it would be fine with me. The disadvantage of the PROD is of course that it takes a week, but In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Is there a third approach? Was this one reasonable way to deal with this? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, is there a policy for this project to use or leave as is the unused AFC templates from the Unused Templates Report from 452 to 490? Asking to avoid any potential major disruption as part of my task force idea to deal with the backlog of unused templates as part of WikiProject Templates. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 16:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Please I need help on how delete this draft. This Draft has been declined about 5 times if not 6 and had been rejected once. Each time it is declined, the IP removes the automated message and comments by reviewers. The article has no reference to support anything in there but they keep submitting again and again. I think the lasting solution to this is to speedily delete it, but I couldn't find any criteria (even the DB A7 somehow did not really give me what I was looking for). Please someone should take a look and do something. You can find everything I said in the edit history. -- Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Rejected this one for being a duplicate of Draft:Georgia Storm, which was also rejected. However, the submitter of those drafts commented on my talk page, and made a case for accepting it. I would like a third opinion on this draft. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed that MoonlightVector has recently made a number of questionable AfC acceptances. They have accepted Ashwin Alok, Carlo Romeo (journalist), and Gretex Corporate Services Limited, all of which are now at AfD. Loney Hutchins, another acceptance, has swathes of unsourced text without maintenance tags. I realise they have good intentions, but I wonder whether the permission to review was given to them too soon. Modussiccandi ( talk) 21:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
MoonlightVector, I'm starting this sub-section just so that the above discussions can continue without this getting lost in them. I hope that you can take the thoughts and advice given about seriously, and I would offer one more: if you cannot find a pre-made decline reason (e.g. Superseded by the comments below.
Primefac (
talk)
09:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
nn
, film
, essay
, etc) you should not decline the draft. If you can agree to that, I see no reason why we cannot treat the problems above as a learning experience and give a second chance for productive reviewing. Does this sound acceptable?
Primefac (
talk) 07:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Recently, a new user said in a chat room that they couldn't figure out how to submit a draft once it's written. Indeed, the interface does not currently show anything related to submitting a draft while reading or editing it. Another editor noted that they frequently field IRC help desk queries about this. I think we should make it obvious how to submit a draft. The user said (this was on Discord, by the way; the thread called "draft submit workflow" under #general) they would expect to see a "submit" button in a "banner at the top of the [draft] that says 'this is a draft. here's what you need to do' or something". Based on that, I have made an unprofessional mockup. The status will be shown using JavaScript for all Draft-namespace pages. Unsubmitted pages will have a "Submit" button that will immediately submit the draft, without having to go through the current dreadful subst:void-based interface. (With appropriate checks to verify that the draft's author is submitting it, etc.) Thoughts? Enterprisey ( talk!) 08:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Innisfree987 ( talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Some of you may want to comment on or participate in the discussion of this article. I reviewed and accepted four drafts of Marvel Cinematic Universe characters. This was not straightforward for two reasons. First, all of the titles already were redirects to the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe characters. Second, two of the redirects had non-trivial history because they had been expanded into articles and then cut down to redirects. So the redirects had to be moved to make way for the drafts. If they had trivial history, they had to be tagged for deletion. If they had non-trivial history, a round-robin move had to be done to put the history in draft space pointing to the article. So far, so good. I thought I had accomplished something. Then I was asked to move Pietro Maximoff back to draft space. I was asked to move it back because it did not comply with a guideline that I had not been aware of, the MCU character guideline. I have declined to move it back, I had two reasons for declining to move it back. First, moving it back to draft space, after the round-robin move, would be complicated and difficult. Second, I am not sure whether that would be a correct action. I said that I thought that an AFD might be in order instead. I have started discussion at the article talk page, Talk: Pietro Maximoff (Marvel Cinematic Universe). This is a situation that may be of interest to other AFC reviewers. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
I've been taking a IBAN from dealing with one of our more prolific submitters (for my own sanity). Is there anyone who has been dealing with their submissions who I can ping or tag when they submit more? Bkissin ( talk) 16:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
In accepting some of FA's drafts, I had two of them fail to complete the script, after the draft was moved to article space but before anything else happened, such as removal of the AFC log, or updating the WikiProjects. This has very seldom happened to me in the past , but twice happened in quick succession. This makes me think that it is caused by some sort of noise, maybe in my router, maybe on the Wikipedia servers, more likely in the Internet between my router and the server. I think that, if this happens again, I will decide that something is too busy, and stop editing Wikipedia, and do something else. Just an observation. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Folks!! Could somebody please get rid of this redirect. I would like to remove this Manuel B. García Álvarez back to draftspace, where it can be worked on. It's afc script from moving it back. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 21:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Looking for a 2nd opinion. Would you guys accept or decline these? Professors with h-index of 30. Multiple sources but they are not good sources: problems with independence, self-publish, etc. Draft:James E. Owen. Draft:Zvi Lotker. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 11:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Does it make sense to say these articles are in the top 2% of articles accepted? User talk:203.213.77.100 They are pretty short, and a lot of the text is identical between the articles. — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 18:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
No, I just asked here to bring this to the attention of more experienced people. I don't think their ratings are reasonable, but I also don't have enough experience to tell them what the ratings should be. — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 18:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Draft Title | comment text |
---|---|
Draft:Rishi_Raj | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:TheFork | Declining submission: adv - Submission reads like an advertisement ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Michael_Thomas_White | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:The_Awesome_II | Declining submission: v - Submission is improperly sourced ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Alan_Singh | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Jayanti_Ramayya_Pantulu | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Te_Anau_Time | Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Castle_of_Purity_(criminal_case) | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Aai_Majhi_Kalubai | Declining submission: ilc - Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Bahjat_Yahya | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and adv - Submission reads like an advertisement ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Khushali_Kumar | Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Noah_Wolf | Declining submission: adv - Submission reads like an advertisement ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Anirban_Mitra | Declining submission: nn - Submission is about a topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines (be more specific if possible) ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Miraheze | Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone and v - Submission is improperly sourced ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Jada_Kumaran | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and ilc - Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:KnoBee_Social_India_Private_Limited | Declining submission: corp - Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Birajai_Temple | Declining submission: adv - Submission reads like an advertisement and npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Biological_Inequity | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Mehdi_Hassani | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Smile_(Benjamin_Ingrosso_song) | Declining submission: music - Submission is about a musician or musical work not yet shown to meet notability guidelines ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Mirzapur_(soundtrack) | Declining submission: cv - Submission is a copyright violation ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Anu_Gupta | Declining submission: cv - Submission is a copyright violation ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Kalki_Jayanti | Declining submission: nn - Submission is about a topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines (be more specific if possible) ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Emily_Austin_(Television_Personality) | Declining submission: cv - Submission is a copyright violation ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:K._Bhavani_Shankar | Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Gaurav_(filmmaker) | Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Kartikay_Saini | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and adv - Submission reads like an advertisement ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Annaatthe_(soundtrack) | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Pankaj_S_Sharma | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and adv - Submission reads like an advertisement ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Crisis_(2021_Drama) | Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Major_Powell_(disambiguation) | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Janath_Sri_Vidanage | Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone and v - Submission is improperly sourced ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Abbas_Yusuf | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and This subject does not match WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN? ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:British_and_Romanian_Royal_Families | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Lixus:_The_“Temples_quarter” | Declining submission: mergeto - Submission should be merged into an existing article ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Buddhist_Recovery_Network | Declining submission: nn - Submission is about a topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines (be more specific if possible) ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Coonong,_New_South_Wales | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Sydney_International_School_of_Technology_and_Commerce | Declining submission: corp - Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and v - Submission is improperly sourced ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Goolgumbla,_New_South_Wales | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Star_Wars_(2013_comic_book) | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Tindeanda,_New_South_Wales | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Singoramba,_New_South_Wales | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Pelora,_New_South_Wales | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Pregnancy-related_anxiety | Declining submission: essay - Submission reads like an essay ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:The_Underground,_New_York_City | Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Draft:Shakeel_Ahmed_(scientist) | Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission ( AFCH 0.9.1) |
Since the ORES tool and the Rater gadget are mentioned above, I have a question. I often omit the assignment of a rating to an article when accepting it because I will then finish the acceptance by using the Rater gadget to assign the WikiProjects and the ratings (Stub, Start, Class C). (I am another reviewer who never assigns Class B to a new article. Class C is very good for a new article, and a WikiProject can reassess.) The gadget tells me what rating has the highest percentage. But how do I see the other percentages? If it says 45% Start, for instance, what does it say about Stub or Class C? How do I view the percentages? (If I can't view them, then I recognize that as a limitation of the tool.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I have been AFC reviewing for quite a few months now, and I think I am familiar with the reviewing methods, so I think I am ready to be put on the "active reviewer" list. May you please move my name there? Thanks! Félix An ( talk) 22:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Primefac: We are talking about reducing the current backlog and a user who has been in the project for "some months" only reviewed 28 drafts and now asking to be an active reviewer. While joining this project, many of us stated that we are joining to help "reduce the backlog", but instead, it keeps increasing despite many participants. Well I guess it's fine. -- Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, good day! Can someone check if drafts like Draft:2022 Muntinlupa local elections and Draft:2022 Makati local elections are qualified for article space? Thanks. NewManila2000 ( talk) 03:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed a tendency recently to see WP:A7 / WP:G11 (or both!) candidates turn up at CAT:CSD, that started off in draft space, then were unilaterally moved to mainspace, bypassing the AfC process. These include Larry Kosilla, Paul Maheke and Big Sailor Baby in just the last ten minutes. I assume these are all trying to get around the WP:ACPERM limit that makes it much harder for spam to get into the mainspace. Is there any way of yanking page move permissions so this doesn't happen? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I have had this happen a couple times on other drafts. When I try to review the only options are Submit or Comment but it is in submitted status. What is the issue? S0091 ( talk) 21:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Please examine Special:Contributions/Mira_Tageldin and in particular the editor's talk page where they "appear" to be accepting their own drafts. Obviously they are not using the script. They seem highly prolific for an editor with such a short time here, and hit the ground sprinting rather than running FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
KMUOS refers to the 'Kateb Maktub' project I am apart of as a translation student at the University of Sharjah. The goal of the project is to increase the number of articles published about Arab authors, and the course grade depends on the status of the article (whether or not it gets published). The reason I use this hashtag is to make it easier for my guide to find the articles I posted in relation to this project.
I was looking to accept Draft:Tubbo as it has the sourcing to pass GNG, but Tubbo already exists in mainspace as a redirect. I tagged the page for G6 speedy deletion as normal, but the request was denied with the given reasoning that the Draft had already been declined twice, before the current sourcing was added. What's the proper course of action here? Devonian Wombat ( talk) 07:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The edit history shows it to have had an unusual sequence of moves. It is part of project #KMUOS (see above). I've become more involved than I would wish, so I would ask for a reviewer to take it at face value. The Arabic references may be machine translated. I have not inspected what appears to be enhanced referencing.
Previously in main space I reduced this to a stub by removing all elements with no references, and was unable to find notability, so issues a PROD. That does not mean there is no notability now. The creating editor has a propensity for using archived references when the websites archived are live. This has, knowingly for unknowingly obfuscated primary sources. I have not checked for this and am leaving the draft alone now FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
When I decline a submission from an IP, the talk page message is delivered to User talk:Null. No idea why, although it seems to be affecting others as well. Has the script been changed recently? Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
u=null
; seems to have been from
this submission by
User:SD0001/AFC-submit-wizard.js. Paging Dr.
SD0001. (I'll take a look too.)
Enterprisey (
talk!)
07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
mw.config.get('wgUserName')
and you have to query meta=userinfo instead. I can avoid a big patch to AFC-submit-wizard by having AFCH ignore u=null
, so I'll do that. I have also
patched AFC-submit-wizard to put the empty string as the u
parameter instead of "null", which AFCH should behave normally on.
Enterprisey (
talk!)
07:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
mw.user.getName()
doesn't work for them. Nevertheless in this case, turns out it's simple enough to get the userinfo by clubbing it with another API call
[17]
Articles are appearing in mainspace, but without AFC artefacts being removed. Not all will be of suitable quality. NPP ought to notice them though FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
With the queue now at over two months I think we need to look at bringing it down to four weeks. While it was fun hitting zero submissions it can be argued that such fast turnaround gives no real time for thought by submitting editors.
A mini drive would aim to hit four weeks backlog and then close. Or that is what I am proposing. It is for you to discuss this.
I have seen a really pleasant number of new names accepting and declining drafts. I propose that the top ten of reviewers from the July 2021 drive stand aside from being participants. They may continue to review, but do not get any drive credits. I chose ten as the cut off point, I suggest we discuss this. My objective in proposing this is to allow newer reviewers to get more and better experience.
Do I/we/you need to set up headings for "support" "oppose" etc or can we do This more simply? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
There are at least three interacting backlogs of quality control reviews in the English Wikipedia, that need to be considered as aspects of the need for quality control:
At least one of the proposals for dealing with the backlog is really a shift from one backlog to another. In particular, one editor says that the cause of the AFC backlog is that too many articles are being draftified, and that they should be either tagged or sent to AFD. That is a plausible argument, but would shift them from NPP to AFD rather than from NPP to AFC. The disadvantage to moving articles into the AFD closure backlog is that it either requires administrators to delete, or involves non-admin closes to Keep, which isn't the answer if the articles shouldn't be kept. Many of the AFC reviewers are also NPP reviewers, and many of the NPP reviewers are also AFC reviewers, so that we can look at those two backlogs as two branches of one flooded river. (Maybe the AFD backlog then is an artificial lake that the flood can be diverted into.) An AFC backlog drive may increase the NPP backlog, and also diverts volunteer time from other areas of volunteer work. An NPP backlog drive may increase the AFC backlog, and also diverts volunteer time from other areas of volunteer work.
I don't have an answer, other than to note that we should understand the interaction of these backlogs. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. Firstly I'm not a reviewer so I don't know that much about the process, but I did notice that nowhere in the reviewing instructions does it say it might be a good idea to check the talk page before accepting. It wouldn't be the first time that there is relevant discussion there about the article. A recent example is Talk:Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022, where I opposed moving it to mainspace per WP:TOOSOON – a few days later it was accepted anyway. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 21:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The original topic of this thread was that reviewers should check the talk page for any comments. Without discussing the history of any article, I think that the instructions should say that reviewers should check the talk page of a draft. Sometimes there are comments there, which is really at least as good a place for comments as the AFC comments on the front of the draft. Sometimes a reviewer puts comments on the draft talk page rather than in AFC comments so that they will survive the acceptance script. So I think that the reviewing instructions should say to check the talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
<moved from above, tangential thread>
Now that it's been over a year since the initial discussion, I finally got around to writing down some documentation at WP:AFCSW, and kinking out the bugs in the code.
The choices for the "most appropriate category" can be adjusted from Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/AfC topic map.json. This aspect is based on Calliopejen1's idea (though I've taken the liberty to tweak some of the choices) which should be useful.
More details are available at WP:AFCSW. Please give it a whirl and post any feedback or bug reports here. Links:
We could then look into replacing the existing links to the subst:void preload with this tool. – SD0001 ( talk) 19:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Please be aware that not all topics qualify for a Wikipedia article. With some exceptions, most articles require three top notch sources with multiple paragraphs of detail about the subject. Newspapers, books, and academic journal articles are usually good. Blogs, company websites, and personal websites are not acceptable. You should not spend a lot of effort writing an article until you have discovered and included these sources.Planting this seed early could eliminate a round or two of declines. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 18:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Anwar Shah Orakzai Muftinadeem ( talk) 06:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Often {{Reflist}} is omitted from drafts. Is it desirable for the script to check for the presence of two things:
If not present, could it insert them? It's obviously technically feasible ?@ Enterprisey? The question is, is it desirable? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
In teahouse there was a discussion about creating your first article. I emphasised reading AfD to understand notability as the failure rate is high. But I didn't know how many failed on AfC
Is there a stat? Wakelamp d[@-@]b ( talk) 09:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Once after a draft is declined for copyvio reason using the AFCH script, the decline banner dosent display the actual website-link where the content is copied from. There is a field: ′Original URLs (one per line)′ , but it dosent display after reviewing. Any solution? --Gpkp u • t • c 14:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
cv-cleaned
should still work as well. Additionally, it should be showing the URL if the user has provided that value (see
Draft:Jeff Burger). If things aren't showing up as they should, it's a script issue, not a template issue.
Primefac (
talk)
08:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Multiple drafts with multiple names, from multiple creating editors. UPE (0.9 probability) See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnx4566789. Please add evidence as you find it FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I see some drafts with what appear to be notable titles go through the G13 sieve, and I wonder whose 'fault' it is. I think, sometimes, what did I do wrong?
Do we have any figures, indeed are figures useful, on:
I recognise that these are intersection sets. I think the information may be useful to inform our thinking on the acceptance threshold. When I was a new reviewer I thought I was doing Wikipedia a service by raising the bar. I see now, that I was doing the reverse, probably putting useful new editors off.
I think we all need to consider our personal thinking on this. I'm not looking to reach any form of consensus. I'm looking, instead, at getting us to look at our own thinking, and becoming even better at what we do. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I was hoping for another set of eyes on this, because I'm not sure that my reading of WP:WEBCRIT is correct. I was reviewing this draft and while only one-source meets WP:GNG in my eyes, I'm wondering about some of the other referencing. Many of the references are other sites (mostly reliable sources) reporting on stories broken or originally reported in The Mac Observer. WP:WEBCRIT says that the subject might be notable if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Do those type stories fall under this category? If not, what is that section of WP:WEBCRIT referring to? ThadeusOfNazereth Talk to Me! 02:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Template:Don't know has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
This is a file license template.
--
65.92.246.43 (
talk)
03:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Innisfree987 ( talk) 00:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I have noticed this self aggrandising trend, which I see as deceptive. Is there a way of modifying the user talk page acceptance template to detect whether the signature is from a genuine AFC reviewer? It might then state some form of red error message instead of a deceptive "My article has been accepted" template FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Please all be aware of the determination to get this online. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ankit yadav 529 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I reviewed Draft:Big Mouse (2022 tvN), and declined it as too soon. The submitter replied to me, on their talk page: "There are a lot of Korean series pages and they have not been deleted!! Some of them may be released after 10 months !!!" I haven't researched the number of future Korean television programs, so I don't know whether the programs to which the submitter refers are in draft space or in article space. If they are in article space, which would not surprise me, then they are cases where Other Stuff Exists that will probably be deleted if nominated for deletion. I am guessing that they are in article space, were created directly in article space (which is the privilege of any autoconfirmed editor), and either are waiting for New Page Review, were sloppily accepted by New Page Review, or were put in by an editor who has the autopatrolled privilege, and so should know better. I am not asking for advice, but I am calling this matter to the attention of AFC reviewers, many of whom are also New Page reviewers. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This draft illustrates a situation that I occasionally see, which is a good-faith error about Articles for Creation by an editor who is working to improve the encyclopedia (which is what we are here for). The draft appears to be a substantial expansion of the existing Start-class article. Saw sam sai. I had to decline the draft because AFC is not a mechanism to submit improved articles, only new ones. Does anyone have any ideas on what advice to give to the submitter of the draft to simplify the job of improving the article? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I am not really asking for advice in this thread, and am not really providing advice in this thread. The main question here is what we should tell submitters about how to discuss a decline that they disagree with, and I am mentioning it here because I provided one answer as to what is not the place to discuss an AFC decline. A draft, Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer), was submitted, and was declined. The submitter then went to DRN, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I declined the DRN case request because there hadn't been discussion between the originator IntDesign and the AFC reviewer Loksmythe, and also because the Teahouse and the AFC Help Desk are forums for discussion of AFC declines. Does anyone have any other comments on how an originator should try to discuss with a reviewer? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I would have declined the draft if I had been the reviewer, but that is not the question. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I was reviewing Draft:Automoliini and I noticed that it was autogenerated from iNaturalist's "Create this page on Wikipedia!" template. It's a great outreach effort in theory but it's encouraging people to create drafts citing only iNaturalist, which is a user-generated source. Is there anything that can be done about that? I've declined the draft for now but I've seen one or two others made from this same template already. Rusalkii ( talk) 21:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I created a page for Snyk It was earmarked for speedy deletion but this has since been removed and now has a tag on it that it reads like an advertisement. I'd like someone to take a look at the page and let me know their opinion. Is it notable enough? Does it read like an advertisement? The reason I put the funding in there is that its valuation as a 8 billion dollar company is what makes it notable. I didn't want to include other stuff for fear of it reading like an advertisement. So if someone could please advise, I appreciate it. Thank you MaskedSinger ( talk) 15:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Over the past couple days, I have seen a couple decent drafts on Chinese dishes ( Draft:Shanghai-style Salad and Draft:Sampan Congee (Boat Congee)). Valereee, who I defer to on the notability of such articles, brought up an interesting point. Both articles have been edited by multiple users of whom the draft is their only edit. I'm starting to hear quacking, but it very well could be a WikiEd project. Could a couple of you take a look at the drafts and see if we're being crazy or not? Thanks in advance. Bkissin ( talk) 15:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Howdy. I'm working on my CiteHighlighter user script. I added a feature today that highlights URLs orange if they contain suspicious words, such as "blog" and "preprint". Are there any other words I should add? I think AFC could offer some good ideas from the PR/self promotion angle, e.g. "innovative". – Novem Linguae ( talk) 01:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Please fix the link tagged portal as it links to a non-existent page in the grading scheme. That page was moved and deleted. Username006 ( talk) 16:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)