![]() | 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 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 |
A user had submitted a draft in their sandbox, so I moved it into the draft space Draft:Deepak Hegde as per usual. What I didn't realise at the time was that the user had cut & paste moved the draft from another user space page into the sandbox, where they had previously developed other content. So when I moved the sandbox, all that old edit history of the sandbox got moved with it, and now the pending Draft:Deepak Hegde has a history going back ten years! The user is quite reasonably asking questions, but I don't know how to answer them. Any advice? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 05:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I just tried declining Draft:2026 Israeli legislative election and suggesting it be merged to Next Israeli legislative election, but for whatever reason AFCH doesn't like the article and it freezes after I click decline. I've tried having a hunt around and can't seem to find anything about what might be going on, has anyone else had something similar or know how to get around it? Turnagra ( talk) 21:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
No new articles have been added to Wikipedia:AfC sorting since 25 May. Usually it comes back in a short while, but it's been 5 days now, and I can't see any discussion about it. Anyone know what's up, or point me to a discussion? Greenman ( talk) 14:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
When declining a draft, you can decline per "nn", which says "topic not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". Now to me this either means:
Now maybe "nn" just means that the sources do not meet the standard, and therefore "v" just means there are zero sources at all though the subject is notable. ...but is it not also true that drafts cannot be declined for simply having no citations?
Speaking of rejecting... Why does rejecting a draft because it's not notable, just put a notice there? Shouldn't it be tagged for deletion? Except there are no CSD for notability...
Thank you - Ap m h 01:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
nn
and reject for n
give the same rationale, just with different levels of finality.v
or nn
. Now that I think about it further, though, you can have a well-sourced draft that does not demonstrate notability, for example for a sportsperson where the references are all (reliable) stats pages and brief mentions from match reports.Two reviewers have requested removal of unreliable sources from Draft:Max Thrasher. This is a valid critique but their presence cluttering things is not a reason to decline a draft IMO. You may consider it generous for reviewers to point out all the ways that an author can improve a draft but the extra advice often it leads them to beleive that if they make these improvements (perhaps ignoring other suggestions or the main decline reason), the draft will be accepted. It would be best to focus on the deficiencies that are an actual obstacle to acceptance. Let's not make AfC feel like any more of gauntlet than it needs to be. Once the draft is accepted let the suggestions flow freely. ~ Kvng ( talk) 13:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
are not reliable and cannot be used(emphasis mine). I hope you appreciate this is strong wording and would likely lead the author to believe that this needs to be addressed before acceptance. The other reviewer seems to have interpreted it that way.
we should foremost be focusing on valid decline reasons- on this point I am absolutely in agreement, and I will gladly revert any invalid decline (even my own) if necessary. Primefac ( talk) 14:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
In reviewing Draft:Zeal (album), I read the Background paragraph, and it reads like it was copied from a blurb. (I had disambiguated the title, but that isn't the subject of this question.) I used the Earwig copyvio detector, and it says that there is a 10% chance of copyvio, and doesn't flag the paragraph in question. I looked briefly at the sources, and I didn't see that paragraph in any of them (and the copyvio detector checked them). However, it reads like it was copied from a blurb. I have declined the draft as not satisfying musical notability, which was easy, and have commented that the paragraph is non-neutral, but I still have a question. What do I do if a paragraph reads like it was copied, but I can't find where it was copied from? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying to put together a list of common sourcing mistakes, so instead of telling people "no, add good sources" I can point them to something a little more substantive without overwhelming them with our entire notability guidelines. Thoughts on User:Rusalkii/AfC source guidance? Rusalkii ( talk) 04:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Drafts § Standard practice and consensus for that. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
14:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Category:Pending AfC submissions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Missing an "S" at "2 days ago" 80.215.173.105 ( talk) 13:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
As I write this, the number of AfC submissions has reached over 4,200; over half have been waiting for more than a month, and more than 500 have been waiting over three months. AfC has gotten lots of criticism, in large part due to its long wait times. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I've come up with a few ideas. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on them, and any other ideas you have.
— Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
— Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
— Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I think giving AFC rights to NPPs automatically sounds really promising. Let's say we have an AFC backlog drive. By making it easier for NPPs to jump in without having to apply and get approved, it could help attract more reviewers. And it'd be super easy to code into AFCH.
Drafts that are obvious declines or obvious accepts get through quickly. It's the borderline ones that linger, waiting for a reviewer to click through the 20 mediocre, foreign language, or offline sources provided, evaluating each for GNG. I'm not sure what the fix is, but that seems like the part of the process we should think about optimizing somehow. If we graphed it out, I'll bet reading sources is what takes the most reviewer time and brainpower. Solutions that focus around this somehow could be helpful.
I feel the GNG guideline itself is kept intentionally vague, which makes it hard to teach to newer editors. It is possible to write it with more detail, but people don't, and a difficult process of reverse engineering is used by experienced editors to master its nuances. Worth a try teaching what we can about notability via the wizard though. Even just putting an emphasis on "3 newspapers or books with 3 paragraphs of detail about the subject" could perhaps be the difference between a draft writer ref bombing a bunch of unusable sources, and a draft writer adding 3 top quality sources that make the article an easy pass. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
"If a reviewer is unsure about a draft, they often skip over it, leaving it for someone else" - This is a huge time waster. I am guilty of this and I know most reviewers are as well. That is how some drafts make it way down in the queue. I am not sure if writing new code would solve the problem, but if there is ANY solution to help notify reviewers what has/hasn't been done, it would save a lot of time.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
|cv_check=
or something).
Primefac (
talk)
15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)We could potentially let all users with the new page reviewer right review AfC submissions.Seems like there's no objections. Primefac, are you OK if I patch this into AFCH? You do all the AFC perm stuff, so wanted to check with you first. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 09:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I would like to see the user have to tick of that they believe the submission passes the basics before they can hit submit: i.e. "I believe this subject is notable per WP:NN ✅", "I have included references for the content ✅", "This article is in English ✅", "It is written in a neutral tone and is not promotional ✅", "It does not include copyright violations ✅" etc. KylieTastic ( talk) 15:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Is there potential for warning editors for repeatedly ignoring these checkboxes, if implemented?Draftspace is optional. And it'd be hard to prove that they are purposely ignoring the check boxes. For example, what if they simply do not understand notability well enough to make a determination? I think it would be best to WP:AGF. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 16:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Another idea: Generally, the most time consuming drafts for me are those with sources in a non-English language and also most often those I end being unsure about. Can we create categories for these maybe or some other tagging mechanism to call attention to them so a willing reviewer who is competent with the language can easily find them? S0091 ( talk) 14:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Yet another idea: Add an additional review for style/formatting/etc issues... the things the gnomes would work on if the draft were in the article space. It keeps irking me whenever I see a draft get accepted that I can easily tag with a handful of cleanup issues or that have poorly structured English grammar, etc. Have an optional pre-review to get those issues straightened out by folks who are not interested in or do not have the capability to perform the "real" review. Output of this process would be a cleaner draft that is ready for the review and, possibly, automatically submitted for it. This could even involve the language/technical issues listed above by S0091. I envision the "click to submit" button split into two separate buttons: one for a technical/cleanup "pre"review ("I want to present the best case to the reviewers"), and one for the current "I think it's article ready". Neither is required, as the current review is generally optional, but a strongly but kindly worded recommendation to have the pre-review done even for articles that are not going to go through the more formal review would be really helpful. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey there! I recently became an AfC reviewer and am looking for some support to come to a decision on this draft. After a couple of comments outlining issues, the draft creator has put in some work and gotten the draft to a decent spot. However, by the previous comments on the submission, it seems both of the major contributors to the draft have declared a conflict of interest with the article's subject, and I was wondering how I would manage that situation. This also seems like a borderline case in terms of whether the subject is actually notable. I'd appreciate any help! — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 19:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
If I am reviewing a draft of a biography of a living person, and it has no references, and refers to criminal charges against the subject, I know that I should decline it. Is there anything else that I should do? BLPs in draft or user space with no references are sometimes deleted at MFD, but those are usually drafts that have existed for a while and do not appear to be about to be sourced. Sending a draft to MFD because it has been submitted without references just seems like the wrong thing to do.
Oh yes. It's Draft:Douglas D. Grant. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, too lazy to search myself, so asking instead... Is there a tool that will open with one click all the sources cited as references (each in a separate tab, obvs)? Specifically, open all the external links found in the 'References' section, but nowhere else. Especially with refbombed drafts, it would be great to click on that magic button, go and get a cup of coffee, and come back to all the 73 sources being open and ready for inspection. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 05:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, forgive my ignorance, how does one keep track of articles one has accepted/declined, is there a link? (I'm new to this, and have done a couple), thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could have a category for unsourced AFC submissions to provide quick assistance to the page creators to inform them about WP:RS. Is this possible? - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
<ref
, and if not found, adds it to a category. That module is called by
Template:AfC submission, so that's probably a good spot for it. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
20:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Thought you'd be amused by this...
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (Dear Wikipedia Moderators,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed removal of the page dedicated to introducing the renowned Iranian director. This page serves as an invaluable resource for individuals seeking information about the director's significant contributions to the film industry, cultural heritage, and artistic achievements. Removing this page would not only be a disservice to the director but also to the users of your platform who rely on accurate and comprehensive content. First and foremost, the director in question has made remarkable contributions to the Iranian film industry, which is globally recognized for its artistic and storytelling prowess. Their body of work has garnered critical acclaim, not only within Iran but also on the international stage, and has helped shape the cultural landscape of Iranian cinema. By removing this page, you would be erasing an essential piece of Iranian film history and depriving users of an opportunity to learn about and appreciate this director's remarkable achievements. Furthermore, maintaining a diverse range of content on your platform is essential for fostering inclusivity, promoting cultural understanding, and celebrating the achievements of individuals from different backgrounds. By allowing the page to remain, you are sending a message that you value and support the diverse voices and perspectives that contribute to the enrichment of your platform. Removing this page would not only be a loss for the Iranian community but for the broader global audience who are interested in exploring and understanding different cinematic traditions. I understand that content moderation is necessary to ensure the quality and reliability of information on your platform. However, it is crucial to exercise discretion and consider the importance of cultural and artistic representation when making decisions about content removal. In this case, the page dedicated to the famous Iranian director fulfills those criteria and should be retained to provide an educational and informative resource for users. I urge you to reconsider the removal of the page introducing the famous Iranian director. By doing so, you would demonstrate a commitment to diversity, cultural preservation, and the promotion of global cinematic heritage. I believe it is essential to support platforms that value inclusivity and foster a deeper appreciation for the arts and cultural achievements. Thank you for taking the time to review this appeal. I trust that you will make a decision that upholds the values of your platform and respects the importance of diverse cultural representation. Sincerely,
[Kayer Advertising Agency]) --Kayeragency (talk) 9:43 am, Today (UTC+1)Reply
— Draft talk:Mehdi Salmanzade
You could play WP:ARGUMENTSTOAVOID bingo with that! Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Articles for creation,
Backlog
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Came across this bunch of drafts, some submitted, some not, some already declined:
A quick glance suggests they're probably not notable, at least some of them aren't, possibly all. I could just decline the ones that have been submitted, but ideally (IMO) these would be merged into a single draft, which might then also have enough notability to pass review. Any thoughts on the best way of dealing with these (individually or collectively)? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 09:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Well done to the reviewer(s) who have been clearing out the "4 months" cat and to all active reviewers for finally stopping the ever increasing backlog size. KylieTastic ( talk) 10:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Do AFC reviewers need to look outside the draft for sources, e.g. Google searches, when determining notability? We're having a discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination/Draft newsletter#AfC and wanted to get some clarification. Thank you. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 09:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I have a general question about AFC reviewing and, to be honest, I might have asked it here before. But fate has brought me back to this page to read over another discussion so I'll pose the question here again.
The context is that I spend quite a lot of the day dealing with expiring CSD G13 drafts. So, I see sometimes a hundred drafts a day that have been declined. I like to post a notification to the draft creator's talk page if a draft is deleted for inactivity and so I see a lot of user talk pages of new and inexperienced editors. I think in 90% of the cases, I see a talk page post when a draft is declined and, sometimes, very helpful comments on what the problems with the draft were and what might be done about them. Sometimes the comments are vague, cliche and not very useful but that's not my question. It's that the other 10% of the time, there is no communication on the draft creator's user talk page about the fact that the submitted draft is declined. No notice, no decline rationale, no communication at all. I thought this cross-posting would be automatic with the AFC software program you all use but is this a matter of choice for the reviewer? There is one reviewer in particular who doesn't inform editors about draft declines but I don't think they are the only one. I would think that a draft creator should be notified whether or not a draft is accepted or declined just for the reassurance that, yes, drafts do get reviewed!
The reason I bring this up is because I delete these G13 drafts and after the drafts are deleted, these talk page messages are the only information the editor has about their old draft and why it was declined. Unless they have a copy in a sandbox, these messags could be the only reference they have to their work. It could make a difference between whether or not the editor asks for the draft to be restored at WP:REFUND so is there a way to make these notifications automatic? I can't see that this notification process has any downside and unless it takes some time to do this cross-posting, I don't know why any AFC reviewer would fail to post these notices. Since I'm not an AFC reviewer, I'd appreciate any insight you can provide into the process and what I might be missing. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I am waiting for my new username to be added so that I can use AFCHS. Meanwhile, can someone unmark Draft:Tinker Bell (Disney character) as under review and move the page? Thanks, Ca talk to me! 04:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
{{AFC submission|r|
to {{AFC submission||
. Hope that helps. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
11:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)From their log (thanks Novem), I kicked these back into the queue for more eyes. 100% IAR, but there are enough questions about their understanding of the various policies that they need another set of eyes. They may eventually be declined, but their reasons didn't gel:
Anyone else have more time? I need to go offline for a bit. This subthread could probably move to WT:AFC Star Mississippi 00:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
This submission is not suitable for Wikipediais my favourite). Yes, I can see that there's a reasonable concern that the article could be a WP:POVFORK, but that's the kind of thing that needs to be decided by consensus at AfD, not used as an excuse for individual editors to block creation in mainspace; clearly going far beyond the basic standard AfC is supposed to apply. – Joe ( talk) 09:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.A reject really does mean end of the road but only a very small percentage are rejected (3.9% in the past month). S0091 ( talk) 15:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
While a lot of feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback can be a bit bland, The Nookster left a couple of interesting comments today: 1, 2.
Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 15:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Is it possible to make the AFCH script automatically subscribe reviewers to the Talk page section that it writes on a user's page when we review an article? I don't want to put the user's talk page on my watchlist, but I want to be sure that messages written by the submitting editor don't go ignored. I missed one of these just recently here [1]. I'm sure that new editors are more likely to reply on their own talk pages than come to the reviewer's, so there must be many people out there wondering why they never hear back from us. -- asilvering ( talk) 22:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Can someone who understands how the Template:AfC statistics bot works figure out how to remove the deleted article "Free Stefan Philip" from the list? It looks like we're actually under 4 months right now, but this one is stuck there for some reason. -- asilvering ( talk) 03:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
What should I do when a user asks me on my talk page ( see here) for me to review their draft? Is this acceptable, or is asking on a user's talk page discouraged? Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 20:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
This draft is about to hit four months next week - can anyone with Chinese ability review this? It's a real doozy; wandering English and clearly incorporates a lot of material from an interview with the subject. I've pulled out a bunch of superfluous or unhelpful citations, but there's lots left. It would be easy to decline this for use of unreliable sources (facebook, etc), but I don't want to get an editor's hopes up and make them waste a bunch of their time trying to fix the thing if there's no real case for notability here. -- asilvering ( talk) 01:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone. There are some talk pages which have two different {{ WPAFC}} banners on them, e.g. Talk:14 regions of Constantinople. We are wondering if both are needed, or if it would be better to consolidate into one. Please reply at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Detecting duplicate banners, thank you — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 18:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Scope creep has been critical of my accepting Light-induced fluorescence transient claiming that I should be reviewing article quality and checking for spammy sources. The subject appears to be notable and the text doesn't have glaring WP:NPOV issues. I judge it to have at least a 50% chance of surviving at AfD. Is it wrong to accept such submissions? What would be the justification for declining it? ~ Kvng ( talk) 13:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
If anyone wants to know what a neural network does when asked to invent a major novel series and ensuing IP about feral squirrels, you're in luck! Here it is. Enjoy? -- asilvering ( talk) 21:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I had accepted several of these after checking for copyright violations against the other language versions and open access references. However now I suspect they are copy vios from "The Oxford Companion to Italian Literature" but I dont have access. I noticed the source does show the first sentence that is a match on some. The first I accepted and check more on was Girolamo Frachetta and does not have the issue, but for ones such as Girolamo Brusoni the lead is a direct if short copy. Carpimaps, asilvering and gobonobo have also accepted some. Does anyone have access to "The Oxford Companion to Italian Literature"? Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 08:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
There have been a lot of "Battle of" articles recently and it turns out there are a lot of socks - so just a heads up to treat "Battle of" articles with suspicion (also some possible copy vios)
So far the socks we've found are Yesverg1699, Krasius1090, Shockwave82838366, Bloop 91, Patriotic afghan, Mrwiki1220 and Indianforc3378 - Not sure if these are all related. I noticed some issues and Drmies has been playing whac-a-sock with these.
Note currently there are 10 pending out of ~120 in draft. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 16:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
![]()
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Wikipedia:Welcoming committee—among other things—maintains a set of a set of welcome templates aimed at new users. Many of these templates include a list of helpful links. A proposal to drop the link to Help:Your first article from welcome templates has been opened; your feedback would be welcome at WT:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#Proposal: drop 'first article' link from all templates. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 21:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I mistakenly draftified an article that had already been draftified once before. It is Draft:Shaka Ilembe. Since it had already been moved from article space to draft space and back to article space, I should have nominated it for deletion and specified draftification as the preferred action. I am assuming that I should leave it in draft space, and it will probably be moved back into article space yet again? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Slay Anything, in article namespace, is a TV series episode, currently a redirect to the series' season. Draft:Slay Anything is a draft about the episode, and it seems fine. But I can't approve it because the name is taken by the redirect. I tagged the redirect with {{Db-afc-move|Draft:Slay Anything}} to make way for the article, but it was declined because "Removing CSD tag, this draft hasn't been reviewed yet, much less approved". So how do I deal with it? Cambalachero ( talk) 13:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
and it often has not only not been reviewed by an AFC reviewer, it hasn't been approved!- as has been noted before, a reviewer cannot accept a draft in any way until the mainspace redirect has been deleted by an admin. If the user is not an AfC reviewer, that is a different matter, and I'm personally happy with said CSDs being declined in that instance. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 05:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I actually check to see that the editor who posts the CSD tag is an AFC reviewer a reviewer is- so what happened this time? Cambalachero is listed at WP:AFC/P and also they are Autopatrolled have Pending changes reviewers, they also have 21 GAs and 2 FAs so it's difficult to see how the request could not have been taken as being from a trusted reviewer.
I want the draft to be main space ready before I move it into the main space of the project- {{ Db-afc-move}} is asking for the admin to Please delete this page and allow the draft reviewer to move the draft. As has been explained before this is so the AFCH tool we use can do everything else in one go: remove the junk AfC tags etc, check the short description, add/check projects and categories, add AfC project template to the articles talk page, leave an approved message for the submitter, log at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent (which other I know use as a place to check on new approvals), log to the reviewers "AfC log" is set. By wanting to move yourself you are skipping all these processes. Maybe if you did a few reviews (at least one accept and one decline) to see how AFCH works for yourself?
most AFC reviewers have drafts prepared for main space, if you are seeing that I would assume it was non AfC reviewers. Also if someone does this and removed the AfC tags etc and the admin just deletes the redirect as the request says then we have a big issue if the requester forgets as it has been removed for the pending submission and may not be picked up for 6 months.
Done. If this issue shows up so frequently, perhaps we should have something about it in
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Known issues
Cambalachero (
talk)
19:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
super-picky" admins).
If the instructions are clear enough, the "In the event that it is not deleted..." would not be needed. But if we change the wording of a speedy deletion template, shouldn't we notify this somewhere? Cambalachero ( talk) 02:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I have been a probationary member for AfC reviewing for over a year now. I was wondering if I could get reviewed and put as a regular active reviewer, rather than probationary. I'm putting this on the main talk page rather than the participant requests page because I am not requesting access to the actual AFCH script. Thanks, Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ ( talk / contribs) 16:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Articles for creation,
The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.
Reminders:
Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § Prevent non-AfC reviewer from declining or accepting AfC submission. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
07:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Spurred by the CENT-listed conversation linked a few section up, a few of us have been working on a rewrite at User:Houseblaster/YFA draft. It's not quite ready yet, but as it's geared towards AfC acceptance, I thought the kind volunteers here may have some insights into how it should look at release. Folly Mox ( talk) 13:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Cricketer microstubs. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
16:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I was in the process of accepting this but there was a redirect in the way and I requested and I assume an admin deleted it but by then I was distracted. Before I could accept, it looks like jmcgnh came through and cleared my review in progress (without contacting me), declined the draft and suggested the content could be merged into List of battery sizes#Cylindrical lithium-ion rechargeable battery or Lithium-ion battery (the former is where 18650 battery previously and currently redirects).
This type of battery is widely used in applications ranging from laptops to electric cars. The subject meets WP:GNG and there's not a WP:NOT issue so I don't see policy reason why it should not have its own article. I appreciate that editors who work on List of battery sizes#Cylindrical lithium-ion rechargeable battery and Lithium-ion battery may not think that a separate article is the best way to cover a topic. I don't think that's a question we need to get in to at AfC. Let's not make our accept criteria any more complicated than it needs to be. If it turns out separate article is unwanted by consensus, a WP:MERGE can always be done after the draft is accepted.
Anyone else have thoughts? Is there an administrator willing to delete the 18650 battery redirect so this draft can be accepted? ~ Kvng ( talk) 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
These dimensions can vary by a millimeter or more.
I reviewed a draft on a title that had previously had an article, but the article was then merged into a parent article as closed in an AFD. The draft appears to be the same as the merged-deleted version of the article. I Rejected the draft as Not Notable. Was this a correct or reasonable action? I don't normally Reject a draft on the first submission, but it would have been subject to G4 if it were moved into mainspace. By the way, it is Draft:Gideon (Legends of Tomorrow). Was Rejection a reasonable way to deal with what appears to be a submission that will not survive AFD (because it didn't survive AFD)? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Just curious to know what sanctions are available for drafts that are rapidly resubmitted without improvement. Draft:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 was returned to draft space following an AfD, there still aren't any independent reliable sources about the event being added, but as soon as the draft is declined it is immediately resubmitted. Judging by previous similar articles, this event only attracted any wider notice in the couple of weeks before the event (which is in December 2023). Sionk ( talk) 22:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I have a similar problem with Draft:Stellina (TV series), but this one is not a future event that will happen and get more attention and editors in the future. It's an animated series, the only info is the trivial one (plot, characters, episodes, credits, etc), and the only spurces are IMDB-like databases, pages with user-made content, and youtube clips from the series. There have been 6 rejections for lack of notability, 2 of them today, and each time the user simply resubmits with minimal and inconsequential changes (such as the plot description) or even with no changes at all. Cambalachero ( talk) 13:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap! |
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I brought up an unrelated concern about this page at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Draft:Example and G13, and that discussion led to me taking a closer look at the page as a whole, and... well, I don't think it's a good example of what a draft should look like.
The things I immediately pointed out over there was the lack of sections (the only heading it currently has is for References), despite being rather long, and the lack of references (just a single reference after the first sentence). I feel like this gives a bad precedent for any new editor who stumbles upon the page – in general, drafts should have sections, and every paragraph should ideally have a source.
There's also no image, which strikes me as weird, because there's an image on the similar User:Example; having a (free) image is also useful for your draft.
I also note there's no AFC banner, which feels like it should be included, given the leading text of "This is an example draft created via the Articles for creation process.". We should display how to submit your article to AFC here if this is an example draft for the AFC process (though to prevent accidental submissions, maybe just make it so clicking the "submit your draft for review" button does nothing?).
Does this look problematic to anyone else? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I noticed a lot of Nepalese politicians with IPs in the 182.50.66.* range creating many with several accepts. However many of these were previously deleted as created by a sock Anup Rajbanshi and there puppets. They appear to be notable as real politicians that pass WP:NPOL but look highly likely to have created by a sock. If they were created by an account I would report as another sock, but not sure what to do and I see we have a few more already in the !queue. KylieTastic ( talk) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I am making another request for a feature for the AFCH script that I have requested before. When a draft is accepted, the AFC comments should be moved to the article talk page rather than erased. Sometimes the comments contain information that may be of subsequent interest. Sometimes the AFC comments indicate an action that should be taken by the accepting reviewer, such as the {{ adddisamb}} template, which says that an entry needs to be made in the disambiguation page. I have requested this feature in the past, and was told to be patient, and I think I have been patient. I was reminded when I checked on the status of a draft that I had tagged with {{ adddisamb}}, and saw that it had been accepted, but was not listed in the disambiguation page. Of course, I added an entry to the disambiguation page, but this could happen again. Can this feature be implemented? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
As Primefac says, many AFC comments are not really worth copying to the talk page. But some AFC comments give information as to what should be done when the article is accepted. Is there some way that these comments can be tagged or displayed in such a way that the accepting reviewer will be reminded of them? I am in particular thinking of my notation that the article should be added to a disambiguation page, {{ adddisamb}}. Some submitters, especially FloridaArmy, put comments in the article itself telling the accepting reviewer what redirects should be created. That at least ensures that the comments do not get swallowed, but instructions about an article should not really be in the article. Should the reviewer use tags for those instructions, since tags can be removed with two clicks? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I have just reviewed an article that has been created both in draft space and in article space at the same time. Well, that is common enough, and is annoying, and is sometimes done in bad faith to prevent the article from being moved back to draft space, but here is the issue. The article (both copies) say only what the company says about itself. I would normally decline a draft like this with {{ compsays}}. Since it is also in article space, I thought that I would send it to AFD. But on reading the references, the first two are independent significant secondary coverage. I think that the company probably passes corporate notability, but the text of the article doesn't explain to the reader why the company is notable. The ordinary reader is not expected to read the references. They are required, but the article should speak for itself. I will not be nominating the article for deletion. But should I tag the article as needing improvement? If so, with what tag? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Abductive ...left this message on my talk page...
Please return Syneilesis intermedia (Hayata) Kitam to draftspace. It is a synonym of Syneilesis hayatae ( per PoWO), and it has a malformed title; if it was an accepted species, it should be just Syneilesis intermedia. Thanks, Abductive ( reasoning) 05:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
so I did per [2], however [3] indicated it was an accepted name...so should I move the draftspace title to Draft:Syneilesis intermedia (and eventually then add a redirect from Syneilesis hayatae) once its in main space, thank you -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 16:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I have just reviewed a draft that was obviously written by a sports journalist, but the copyvio detector does not find the source. I have declined the draft with a custom decline. I think it was copied from a publication. If I were certain that it was written for Wikipedia in this style, I might accept it and tag it for cleanup-rewrite, but I think it was copied. Are there any other ideas, either about this draft or about this situation? By the way, it is Draft:2022 Seoul ePrix. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm almost certain I recall the top-of-page {{ Draft}} template including a notification something like, "A page with the name Foo Bar already exists as an article in main space" or some such. But I'm not seeing it now, at Draft:Banja Luka (article present at Banja Luka). Anyone have an idea why not? Good-faith editor User:Боки just wasted his time creating this draft, which could have been avoided had the alert message been displayed in the header. Mathglot ( talk) 23:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I have bring this draft here because I didnot know how to deal this type of content. In my opinion this a possible autobiography as it is created by User:Princechhetri321. Where, I have declined this draft as notability and self-promotion. Fade258 ( talk) 08:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
This is a notable book, so the draft should be accepted, but there's a redirect with history at the target location. What are (non-admin) reviewers supposed to do in this situation? I looked at histmerge but that looks like it's for merging history after someone has already done a copy-paste move. Are we supposed to make the copy-paste move ourselves and then tag it for histmerge? Or are we supposed to do something else...? asilvering ( talk) 04:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Or are we supposed to do something else?is a round-robin move, which puts the old redirect with history in the draft position. The answer to
If anyone knows a better way, let me know.sometimes is a round-robin move, which requires the Page Mover right. User:Novem Linguae - Was the history in mainspace substantial? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I am reviewing a draft, Draft:Kirchhoff graph, and have requested a review at WikiProject Mathematics. I have a question about what is conflict of interest. The author of the draft cites six academic papers and publications of which he is an author. I know that this isn't original research because the papers and publications were peer-reviewed. The upside is that the author appears to be a subject matter expert. So is this considered conflict of interest? If so, is there any special caution, other than that he is already using AFC? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, the history merge tag is much misunderstood. I just reviewed a draft which was the same as an article on the same subject, and the draft was tagged to be hist-merged into the article. In looking at the history, I see that the draft and the article were created by the same author, and that the author tagged the draft for history merge after also creating the article. I assume that this is good-faith confusion as to what history merge is for, and have reverted the application of the history-merge tag. Should I do anything else, such as explaining to the author why they were mistaken? Is there an explanatory essay to link to about mistaken history merge? By the way, it is Draft:Scrimmage (band). I don't think that the article should be in article space, but that is a different issue. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I got a talk page comment by an editor whose draft I declined. They're new and have only written this one draft, but the message feels very "off" (link:
[4]). Example sentence: Thank you once again for your thoughtful feedback and reviewing the draft and for highlighting Wikipedia's notability guidelines in detail. It's clear that your primary concern is ensuring that the content meets the platform's stringent standards for inclusion, a goal I share entirely.
Does this quack for anybody? I can't help but suspect a UPE sockfarm. @
Hoary, you also interacted with this editor recently, thoughts? --
asilvering (
talk)
23:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Under different usernames, I work on developing Wikipedia pages for UK reality TV stars and their related ventures.and a follow up of
Also, to provide more context, my comment about "different usernames" doesn't mean I control these accounts. Instead, I assist in creating content within a community of fellow celebrity enthusiasts who then create the pages. This approach ensures that we don't violate the rules against sockpuppetry.So they're clearly aware of the rules and seem to be trying to skirt them. I'm not sure whether your one is part of this group, but they could very well be and still show as negative on an IP check. Turnagra ( talk) 22:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
FYI {{ Article wizard/AdBox}} has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.25.80 ( talk) 04:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
![]()
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This gives an overview of various citation tools out there, many related to source assessment, copyright, and deadlinks. I figured many of you would get something out of this. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 06:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
An odd one: User:Ashgreer92/sandbox. Looks AI-generated to me, also has a copyvio, and the referencing is a mess, to put it mildly. Also, it's the second one this morning I've seen with the AfC tags on the bottom like that, with a header that says "Request review at WP:AFC". What do you suppose is behind all this? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I would like another opinion on my handling of this draft. She is known for one event, which is that she is charged with the Killing of Jorge Torres. I declined the draft with the instruction to resubmit it after the trial if she is convicted. Also, if an article becomes in order (if she is convicted), it will be necessary to disambiguate her article from that of Sarah Boone, inventor of an improved ironing board. Is the correct approach to wait until the trial? If she is not convicted, then any information about her can be included in the article about Torres, but only very carefully. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Apologies if this is a known issue, but I've been annoyed for a while that
AFCH (seemingly) only adds the quality assessment (Stub, Start, C etc.) to the AFC WikiProject banner when it should apply across all WikiProjects. With refactoring taking place, it seems possible for the tool to instead create a {{
WikiProject banner shell}} around all WikiProjects and use the class
parameter there. —
Bilorv (
talk)
12:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Apologies if this is a known issue, but I've been annoyed for a while that AFCH (seemingly) only adds the quality assessment (Stub, Start, C etc.) to the AFC WikiProject banner when it should apply across all WikiProjects.After some testing, it looks like AFCH adds the rating to any banners that the user picks on the accept screen, but not to any banners that were already on the talk page. I created a bug for that here.
With refactoring taking place, it seems possible for the tool to instead create a {{ WikiProject banner shell}} around all WikiProjectsI found a ticket for this here. It's been open since 2016. Any JavaScript developers up for writing some patches? I'll review and deploy them.
and use the class parameter thereI added a comment to the ticket linked in the previous paragraph. Hope it helps. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 09:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
...modelled after the other existing notability tags. Thanks to my constant perusal of pages covering the fields in question discussed, I hereby propose to whoever's maintaining it as we speak...
Summary | Message |
---|---|
book - Submission is about a book or novel not yet shown to meet notability guidelines | This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of books). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. |
tv - Submission is about a television program or episode not yet shown to meet notability guidelines | This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of television content). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. |
At this writing, book- and novel-related drafts fall under the standard "nn" code, while TV-related pages are lumped in together with those on films (no wonder a split may be a given; cf. this recent CFD for "Draft articles on comics and anime", which I must disclose I gave my say to). Any more thoughts? -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Since we are on this topic, do we need a specific decline message for NEVENT? I seem to come across drafts about events often enough and decline using nn but add a comment referring them to WP:NEVENT. S0091 ( talk) 14:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I've created a ticket with the exact steps needed to code this up. If anyone wants to create the patch and edit the template, I'll be happy to review the patch. Make sure to test your patch on testwiki using the instructions here. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I would've loved to suggest a catch-all alternative based on WP:NMEDIA, but even that's a notability essay leading us to a foregone conclusion. Sadly, until/unless they're official guidelines (or someone else can offer me already valid ones), TV programs and other media are respectively fated to fall under the film and NN categories. Anyway, thanks for the feedback! -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Alright, tonight I made all the technical changes necessary to add "book" and "event" decline reasons to AFCH. I chose the standard text used for other specific decline reasons such as "film". The exact decline wording can be viewed at Template:AfC submission/comments/doc.
Are there any objections to this before I start merging and deploying stuff? Is everybody OK with adding both book and film? Is everybody OK with copying and tweaking film's wording? If we want to change the wording, I suggest we do it in a step 2 so as not to hold up things and in case the wording changes don't achieve consensus. I imagine there is implicit consensus for existing wording such as the one for film. I will deploy this in a day or two if there are no objections. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 10:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I've been involved in guiding the creator of Draft:Lizzy Rose in the creation of the proto-article. It seems to me that the draft is now in a fit condition to move to mainspace. Do I just move it, or is there a process to go through? Mjroots ( talk) 15:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This is an issue that I sometimes encounter. This draft reads very much as if it was copied from a book, but the copyvio detector finds an unlikely match, and what it matches is really just the identifying information about the subject. One of the sources is a book (referenced four times), and I am guessing that the draft is largely from the book. The text reads like it could have been copied from a book written in the twenty-first century. (I have sometimes seen drafts that read like they were copied from books written in the nineteenth century.) On the one hand, if the subject is mentioned in a book written in the eighteenth century, and in another book written in the twenty-first century, he is biographically notable. However, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. At this point, I have only disambiguated the draft, and have not accepted or declined it. What should I do, or what should we as the subcommunity of reviewers do? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I have drafted an article and want it to become a Wikipedia article.
This article has source, category and title.
Draft:List of governors of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province شامادورا ( talk) 01:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
How I can add ref while writing or aditing an article? Baloch Durzada ( talk) 03:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
<ref>
, and then information about your source (such as the URL if it's a website), and then </ref>
, like this: <ref>https://example.com/referencing.html</ref>
. A fancier way which will provide more information about your source is to click the pencil icon (in the top right when you're editing your draft), click "visual editor", and then click the icon that looks like a pair of quotation marks. That will guide you into making a more complete reference, putting in things like the title of the website and the date.Hey Enterprisey. I'm an interface admin now so could theoretically do AFCH deploys. Just wanted to check with you and see what you think about that. Would be useful for hotfixes, urgent patches, or maybe myself or another wikimedia-gadgets Member gets a burst of energy and does a bunch of code reviews. I notice Primefac monitors the repo closely and is basically the decision maker about which tickets are allowed to proceed, so I will continue following their lead there. Thanks a lot. Looking forward to your feedback. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Am I permitted a "Good Grief!"?
It must be time for a (way overdue) Backlog Drive, surely? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The assessment discussion above reminded me that I started a discussion about our need to even have ratings for pages. There was no opposition but it also wasn't anything what I would consider a quorum (one in favour, one proposing an alternate option). So, I figured we should revisit it. Article assessments are generally an ongoing measure of a page's quality, but after the initial acceptance this project doesn't really have anything to do with an article (in other words, whether a page ever makes GA or FA isn't as a result of this project's involvement). I've transcluded the original discussion below.
Original discussion (
link)
|
---|
I'm going to split this off from the above, because it's related but still a new subject - do we actually need to have AFC-specific article ratings? Our grading scheme is pretty bog-standard, and no one is going to go to an article's talk page and ask us how to improve an already-accepted article. Additionally, I highly doubt that anyone in this project (and I am more than happy to be proven wrong) is going through (for example) Category:Start-Class AfC articles and working on improving them - there's just no connection between most of those pages; you would seriously have to be a jack of trades to attempt it. Primefac ( talk) 15:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
|
If there is no opposition to my idea then I will modify {{ WPAFC}} to no longer display article assessment ratings. Primefac ( talk) 09:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Last month I declined Draft:Resistance Committee (Ukraine) for not having enough independent sources. (It looked like this at the time.) The editor has been improving it since, but in the meantime someone else translated the article from Catalan wikipedia, straight into mainspace, here: Resistance Committee (Ukraine). (They did not attribute the translation.) The draft currently at AfC is much better. What now? -- asilvering ( talk) 22:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
If anyone's looking for what might be a quick draft to review, this is one.
In terms of structure, veracity, notability, etc. this article should be ready.
The only reason that I have submitted it first for review is that I have not really written new articles on people whose primary notability are criminal activity. Therefore, I want a second opinion as to whether the article meets WP:NPV, since I am unsure what the balance is for individuals who are primarily-known for unsavory activities. My caution is also due to the fact that one of them is the father of a high-profile incumbent politician, and I want to be sure that I don't create a problematic article on a relative to such a figure.
I would greatly appreciate if you would give your attention to this draft. SecretName101 ( talk) 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I should ask this question somewhere else. If so, where is the best place to ask this question? I am reviewing a draft, Draft:Tao Jiang, and there is currently a redirect from Tao Jiang to Jiang Tao, which is a disambiguation page. I am inferring that Jiang is the family name, so that Jiang Tao is the Eastern name order, and that the subject of the draft is in North America and so uses Western name order. So my first question is whether there is a hatnote template to put on the draft page that says that this is a Westernized Chinese name. Also, if the draft is accepted, should his name be listed in the disambiguation list in Western order, along with the other names in Eastern order? Is there a standard explanation to put in the disambiguation page itself? Maybe this is all spelled out in the MOS or in guidelines about disambiguation. If so, where? Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure it must be possible to generate a dataset on AfC submissions, the amount of time they spend in the queue, and maybe some other metadata (like what ORES topic they were sorted into or whether they were added to wikiprojects). I'd like to be able to run some analyses on the data. I'm curious, for example, to know what the "drop off" rates are for reviews - we know a lot of drafts are reviewed on the same day they're submitted, but if your draft hasn't been reviewed before the 2-day or 2-week mark, how long are you likely to wait? Beyond simple curiosity, I think it would be useful information to provide to draft writers alongside the overall queue length figure. Many people look at it and think "it takes four months", but we could probably add a helpful statement like "80% of drafts are reviewed within the first two weeks" to that. I'm not sure how to generate this data though. In general I'm not very familiar with the "backend" of Wikipedia. Can anyone give me some pointers? -- asilvering ( talk) 02:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
We were discussing a draft on the NPP discord server when someone who is not an AFC reviewer noticed some issues in that draft and asked us whether a non-AFC reviewer can comment on a draft or not. Then someone told us about a policy that says that non-AFCs are strongly cautioned from reviewing AfC submissions. So, my question is whether a non-AFC reviewer can suggest issues in drafts. Pinging @ Hey man im josh, @ Illusion Flame, @ User:Sohom Datta 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-AFCs are strictly prohibited from reviewing AfC submissions
PLEASE NOTE: Editors whose usernames are not on the list are strongly cautioned not to review AfC submissions.on the WP:AFCP page. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Seeing this in the draft above AFC comments
Am unable to find in the source of the draft. Ideas, please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This draft article subject is very much in the news today, as there are many, many articles being written about his ten year suspension. If it could be promoted, that would aid interested readers I expect. Draft:Peter Foley (snowboarding) 2603:7000:2101:AA00:E546:F1A7:700B:B46E ( talk) 18:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Bernie Ashman (astrologer) is a rather peculiar draft in that it is being paid for, but the editor (User:Metalegtrix) is not the author of the content. It contains ridiculous trumpery like "Ashman's professional life has been committed to empowering people to find their own spiritual, psychological, and creative insights through better understanding the energy under which they were born." and “ Ashman’s work is defined by helping people find greater love, harmony, and happiness by shifting these past life energies" Who ever is writing this garbage has zero understanding of neutral tone, but there is also the problem of it being written by a “third party editor”. Any thoughts anyone? Theroadislong ( talk) 07:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Very often filled with fluff and clutter, we need to pay a little more attention to this cat. We should look for disputed draftificatons before choosing the action to take. Draftifying is not always correct- WP:DRAFTIFY, and AfD is not always correct. Sometimes submission tag removal is all that is needed. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
This could impact the expectations at AfC for articles on journals. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
A change to the Article wizard has been proposed. Please join in the conversation. Primefac ( talk) 11:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
(Pinging Ravensfire and Netherzone.) Draft:L.N (artist), Draft:Laxmi Narayan Maharana (artist), Draft:Arun Sahu Artist, Draft:Narayan Maharana, Draft:Narayan Maharana (artist), Draft:Dilip Maharana, Draft:Laxmi Narayan Maharana (actor) and perhaps others besides are all about the same person: young, not obviously notable, but, it seems, intensively promoted. They're created and maintained (and sometimes blanked) by names among the large and growing population of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tinkubhoi. This marketing campaign can waste a reviewer's time (just as Draft:L.N (artist) wasted mine before I realized that it was just one of many).
I'm inclined to delete and salt the lot. My second preference would be to identify the oldest among them, to convert the others to redirects to this, and to protect the redirects. And either way, to search for more thereafter. Comments? -- Hoary ( talk) 02:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
This has again had the redir removed, placing the draft back in the pool. What's the process for dealing with this? Is it just waiting for another standard review, or should some sort of discussion be opened up? It seems that unless this issue is dealt with conclusively, some IP or another will rock up and start the loop again. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 09:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I wrote this before I saw this post which is on the same topic, and so am putting my thoughts and questions under the earlier post.
When should a reviewer redirect a draft to an article? I am asking this partly in response to a particular case where I think that the redirecting of a draft to a related article was a good-faith error.
We know that when a draft is accepted as an article, a redirect is left behind in draft space, and should be left there. That isn't the question. Sometimes when there are both a draft and an article on the same topic, an editor, in good faith, nominates the draft for deletion at MFD. The draft is then speedily redirected to the article. Some the originator creates both a draft and an article. If so, I think that the draft should first be declined, which puts a message on the originator's talk page, and then the reviewer should redirect the draft to the article. I think that it is a good idea to put a message on the talk page of the author of the draft.
I agree that redirecting is usually in order when a submitter has created multiple copies with slightly different titles.
The specific case that I have in mind has to do with an existing article on a company, and a draft on an affiliated company. While I was reviewing the draft, another reviewer redirected the draft to the article on the related company. I think that was a good-faith error by the reviewer, because that doesn't make it easy for the submitter to ask for another review to consider that maybe a separate article is warranted.
So my general question is when is it appropriate to redirect a draft to an existing article? We know that one case is when the draft and the article are almost the same.
By the way, the case in point was Draft:Gearbox Publishing, which was redirected to Gearbox Software. I have only listed the detailed case because I am more looking for general answers than a review of one action. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Up above @ Timtrent proposed a backlog drive but it didn't get many responses. Is anyone opposed to doing a backlog drive in September? S0091 ( talk) 16:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Editor | AfC reviews | NPP reviews |
---|---|---|
Actualcpscm | 19 | 15 |
DreamRimmer | 27 | 256 |
Fancy Refrigerator | 13 | 29 |
Hey man im josh | 67 | 5,155 |
Jamiebuba | 87 | 10 |
Ozzie10aaaa | 26 | 218 |
Schminnte | 29 | 196 |
SunDawn | 36 | 846 |
Taking Out The Trash | 43 | 38 |
Umakant Bhalerao | 76 | 139 |
Personally I would be more inclined to review AfC nominations if it didn't seem that most of what I was reviewing had already been rejected before and the issues weren't resolved. Is there some feed option where you are only shown first-time nominations or some automated screening for those most likely to pass a review? Then I would feel I was actually doing something to improve the encyclopedia rather than helping out COI/paid editors. ( t · c) buidhe 17:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, if anyone has interest in reviewing Draft:Scottish Castles Restoration Projects, please do have a look. I'm flagging it here because it's a not-uncomplicated draft that's been through a particularly drawn-out AfC experience already and don't think it should sit for another four months. Original submission was in February, declined as essay-like in June. The article is on a broadly notable topic, and has now seen considerable editing by two previously uninvolved editors. I was the previous decline so I don't think I should be reviewing this. If anyone's got an article in similar straights, I'll happily be the fresh eyes on that one, just let me know! -- asilvering ( talk) 17:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I've been reviewing AfC for a week now, and would appreciate some feedback on if I've followed all the specific assessment process, especially for my couple of accepts. Qcne (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
slim down the Science Objective section to only a paragraph to summarise it, which IMO does not relate to WP:AFCPURPOSE. However, I agree that the Earth's Ambipolar Electric Field subsection is not that relevant and concede that if Qcne's decline rationale is intending to say something similar to your proposal, that is definitely reasonable. But IMO the decline reasoning was unclear, though other editors may have a different view; and I am certainly not saying this is a major problem. VickKiang (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Even more challenging than that, many of them are low hanging fruit, easy to accept or decline.
I would like to commend the oldest category to our attention. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that Draft:Roland Jacquard was created by a sockpuppet, as it was G5 speedied just 12 days ago and was created by an IP with their first edit seven days after that. Normally I would just decline, but like a fool I made substantial edits to the draft in order to get it ready for mainspace before checking to see if it had been deleted previously, and now I'm not sure if it qualifies for speedy deletion anymore. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 22:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm proposing adding a section warning against WP:Overcite to Help:Referencing for beginners. What do other AFC reviewers think? Newystats ( talk) 21:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm a new page reviewer (albeit on a time limited probation and still learning); regarding the page at Draft:Daniel Seavey, please do not submit it for deletion as of yet, as I've requested a history merge back into Daniel Seavey due to the draft page's edit history dating back to 2015 and its former status as an article. Please leave this situation for an admin to handle. More details and the centralised discussion can be found at Talk:Daniel Seavey#Feedback from New Page Review process. Thank you, Fork99 ( talk) 01:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
No.
Is Primefac too strict with acceptance criteria?
No.
Do enough well qualified reviewers apply?
No.
That leads me to wonder how we might attract more without letting questionable candidates through. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Members/participants of this WikiProject are invited to discuss at an ANI discussion involving @ OlifanofmrTennant's conduct as an AfC reviewer. Fork99 ( talk) 09:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Using https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/ I have just been through the oldest 45 or so reviews, all of those logged on 25 August 2023. I agree with some, have reverted some, have accepted some that were declined or rejected, and have not found any acceptances that I would quarrel with.
Review deficiencies found in the earliest have not been repeated as experience has grown.
Overall, I have found the later of "first day" reviews to be within the margin of error we anticipate with a new reviewer, and the earliest to be those with the nit picking (etc) referred to above in their self criticism, and to be outside the margin of error.
I'm heading for my bed now, and will, if no-one else has done so, pick up some more tomorrow. If you have done so, please let us know which dates you have handled. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:55, 3 September 2023 (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 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 |
A user had submitted a draft in their sandbox, so I moved it into the draft space Draft:Deepak Hegde as per usual. What I didn't realise at the time was that the user had cut & paste moved the draft from another user space page into the sandbox, where they had previously developed other content. So when I moved the sandbox, all that old edit history of the sandbox got moved with it, and now the pending Draft:Deepak Hegde has a history going back ten years! The user is quite reasonably asking questions, but I don't know how to answer them. Any advice? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 05:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I just tried declining Draft:2026 Israeli legislative election and suggesting it be merged to Next Israeli legislative election, but for whatever reason AFCH doesn't like the article and it freezes after I click decline. I've tried having a hunt around and can't seem to find anything about what might be going on, has anyone else had something similar or know how to get around it? Turnagra ( talk) 21:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
No new articles have been added to Wikipedia:AfC sorting since 25 May. Usually it comes back in a short while, but it's been 5 days now, and I can't see any discussion about it. Anyone know what's up, or point me to a discussion? Greenman ( talk) 14:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
When declining a draft, you can decline per "nn", which says "topic not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". Now to me this either means:
Now maybe "nn" just means that the sources do not meet the standard, and therefore "v" just means there are zero sources at all though the subject is notable. ...but is it not also true that drafts cannot be declined for simply having no citations?
Speaking of rejecting... Why does rejecting a draft because it's not notable, just put a notice there? Shouldn't it be tagged for deletion? Except there are no CSD for notability...
Thank you - Ap m h 01:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
nn
and reject for n
give the same rationale, just with different levels of finality.v
or nn
. Now that I think about it further, though, you can have a well-sourced draft that does not demonstrate notability, for example for a sportsperson where the references are all (reliable) stats pages and brief mentions from match reports.Two reviewers have requested removal of unreliable sources from Draft:Max Thrasher. This is a valid critique but their presence cluttering things is not a reason to decline a draft IMO. You may consider it generous for reviewers to point out all the ways that an author can improve a draft but the extra advice often it leads them to beleive that if they make these improvements (perhaps ignoring other suggestions or the main decline reason), the draft will be accepted. It would be best to focus on the deficiencies that are an actual obstacle to acceptance. Let's not make AfC feel like any more of gauntlet than it needs to be. Once the draft is accepted let the suggestions flow freely. ~ Kvng ( talk) 13:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
are not reliable and cannot be used(emphasis mine). I hope you appreciate this is strong wording and would likely lead the author to believe that this needs to be addressed before acceptance. The other reviewer seems to have interpreted it that way.
we should foremost be focusing on valid decline reasons- on this point I am absolutely in agreement, and I will gladly revert any invalid decline (even my own) if necessary. Primefac ( talk) 14:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
In reviewing Draft:Zeal (album), I read the Background paragraph, and it reads like it was copied from a blurb. (I had disambiguated the title, but that isn't the subject of this question.) I used the Earwig copyvio detector, and it says that there is a 10% chance of copyvio, and doesn't flag the paragraph in question. I looked briefly at the sources, and I didn't see that paragraph in any of them (and the copyvio detector checked them). However, it reads like it was copied from a blurb. I have declined the draft as not satisfying musical notability, which was easy, and have commented that the paragraph is non-neutral, but I still have a question. What do I do if a paragraph reads like it was copied, but I can't find where it was copied from? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying to put together a list of common sourcing mistakes, so instead of telling people "no, add good sources" I can point them to something a little more substantive without overwhelming them with our entire notability guidelines. Thoughts on User:Rusalkii/AfC source guidance? Rusalkii ( talk) 04:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Drafts § Standard practice and consensus for that. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
14:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Category:Pending AfC submissions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Missing an "S" at "2 days ago" 80.215.173.105 ( talk) 13:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
As I write this, the number of AfC submissions has reached over 4,200; over half have been waiting for more than a month, and more than 500 have been waiting over three months. AfC has gotten lots of criticism, in large part due to its long wait times. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I've come up with a few ideas. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on them, and any other ideas you have.
— Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
— Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
— Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I think giving AFC rights to NPPs automatically sounds really promising. Let's say we have an AFC backlog drive. By making it easier for NPPs to jump in without having to apply and get approved, it could help attract more reviewers. And it'd be super easy to code into AFCH.
Drafts that are obvious declines or obvious accepts get through quickly. It's the borderline ones that linger, waiting for a reviewer to click through the 20 mediocre, foreign language, or offline sources provided, evaluating each for GNG. I'm not sure what the fix is, but that seems like the part of the process we should think about optimizing somehow. If we graphed it out, I'll bet reading sources is what takes the most reviewer time and brainpower. Solutions that focus around this somehow could be helpful.
I feel the GNG guideline itself is kept intentionally vague, which makes it hard to teach to newer editors. It is possible to write it with more detail, but people don't, and a difficult process of reverse engineering is used by experienced editors to master its nuances. Worth a try teaching what we can about notability via the wizard though. Even just putting an emphasis on "3 newspapers or books with 3 paragraphs of detail about the subject" could perhaps be the difference between a draft writer ref bombing a bunch of unusable sources, and a draft writer adding 3 top quality sources that make the article an easy pass. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
"If a reviewer is unsure about a draft, they often skip over it, leaving it for someone else" - This is a huge time waster. I am guilty of this and I know most reviewers are as well. That is how some drafts make it way down in the queue. I am not sure if writing new code would solve the problem, but if there is ANY solution to help notify reviewers what has/hasn't been done, it would save a lot of time.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
|cv_check=
or something).
Primefac (
talk)
15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)We could potentially let all users with the new page reviewer right review AfC submissions.Seems like there's no objections. Primefac, are you OK if I patch this into AFCH? You do all the AFC perm stuff, so wanted to check with you first. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 09:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I would like to see the user have to tick of that they believe the submission passes the basics before they can hit submit: i.e. "I believe this subject is notable per WP:NN ✅", "I have included references for the content ✅", "This article is in English ✅", "It is written in a neutral tone and is not promotional ✅", "It does not include copyright violations ✅" etc. KylieTastic ( talk) 15:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Is there potential for warning editors for repeatedly ignoring these checkboxes, if implemented?Draftspace is optional. And it'd be hard to prove that they are purposely ignoring the check boxes. For example, what if they simply do not understand notability well enough to make a determination? I think it would be best to WP:AGF. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 16:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Another idea: Generally, the most time consuming drafts for me are those with sources in a non-English language and also most often those I end being unsure about. Can we create categories for these maybe or some other tagging mechanism to call attention to them so a willing reviewer who is competent with the language can easily find them? S0091 ( talk) 14:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Yet another idea: Add an additional review for style/formatting/etc issues... the things the gnomes would work on if the draft were in the article space. It keeps irking me whenever I see a draft get accepted that I can easily tag with a handful of cleanup issues or that have poorly structured English grammar, etc. Have an optional pre-review to get those issues straightened out by folks who are not interested in or do not have the capability to perform the "real" review. Output of this process would be a cleaner draft that is ready for the review and, possibly, automatically submitted for it. This could even involve the language/technical issues listed above by S0091. I envision the "click to submit" button split into two separate buttons: one for a technical/cleanup "pre"review ("I want to present the best case to the reviewers"), and one for the current "I think it's article ready". Neither is required, as the current review is generally optional, but a strongly but kindly worded recommendation to have the pre-review done even for articles that are not going to go through the more formal review would be really helpful. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey there! I recently became an AfC reviewer and am looking for some support to come to a decision on this draft. After a couple of comments outlining issues, the draft creator has put in some work and gotten the draft to a decent spot. However, by the previous comments on the submission, it seems both of the major contributors to the draft have declared a conflict of interest with the article's subject, and I was wondering how I would manage that situation. This also seems like a borderline case in terms of whether the subject is actually notable. I'd appreciate any help! — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 19:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
If I am reviewing a draft of a biography of a living person, and it has no references, and refers to criminal charges against the subject, I know that I should decline it. Is there anything else that I should do? BLPs in draft or user space with no references are sometimes deleted at MFD, but those are usually drafts that have existed for a while and do not appear to be about to be sourced. Sending a draft to MFD because it has been submitted without references just seems like the wrong thing to do.
Oh yes. It's Draft:Douglas D. Grant. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, too lazy to search myself, so asking instead... Is there a tool that will open with one click all the sources cited as references (each in a separate tab, obvs)? Specifically, open all the external links found in the 'References' section, but nowhere else. Especially with refbombed drafts, it would be great to click on that magic button, go and get a cup of coffee, and come back to all the 73 sources being open and ready for inspection. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 05:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, forgive my ignorance, how does one keep track of articles one has accepted/declined, is there a link? (I'm new to this, and have done a couple), thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could have a category for unsourced AFC submissions to provide quick assistance to the page creators to inform them about WP:RS. Is this possible? - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
<ref
, and if not found, adds it to a category. That module is called by
Template:AfC submission, so that's probably a good spot for it. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
20:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Thought you'd be amused by this...
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (Dear Wikipedia Moderators,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed removal of the page dedicated to introducing the renowned Iranian director. This page serves as an invaluable resource for individuals seeking information about the director's significant contributions to the film industry, cultural heritage, and artistic achievements. Removing this page would not only be a disservice to the director but also to the users of your platform who rely on accurate and comprehensive content. First and foremost, the director in question has made remarkable contributions to the Iranian film industry, which is globally recognized for its artistic and storytelling prowess. Their body of work has garnered critical acclaim, not only within Iran but also on the international stage, and has helped shape the cultural landscape of Iranian cinema. By removing this page, you would be erasing an essential piece of Iranian film history and depriving users of an opportunity to learn about and appreciate this director's remarkable achievements. Furthermore, maintaining a diverse range of content on your platform is essential for fostering inclusivity, promoting cultural understanding, and celebrating the achievements of individuals from different backgrounds. By allowing the page to remain, you are sending a message that you value and support the diverse voices and perspectives that contribute to the enrichment of your platform. Removing this page would not only be a loss for the Iranian community but for the broader global audience who are interested in exploring and understanding different cinematic traditions. I understand that content moderation is necessary to ensure the quality and reliability of information on your platform. However, it is crucial to exercise discretion and consider the importance of cultural and artistic representation when making decisions about content removal. In this case, the page dedicated to the famous Iranian director fulfills those criteria and should be retained to provide an educational and informative resource for users. I urge you to reconsider the removal of the page introducing the famous Iranian director. By doing so, you would demonstrate a commitment to diversity, cultural preservation, and the promotion of global cinematic heritage. I believe it is essential to support platforms that value inclusivity and foster a deeper appreciation for the arts and cultural achievements. Thank you for taking the time to review this appeal. I trust that you will make a decision that upholds the values of your platform and respects the importance of diverse cultural representation. Sincerely,
[Kayer Advertising Agency]) --Kayeragency (talk) 9:43 am, Today (UTC+1)Reply
— Draft talk:Mehdi Salmanzade
You could play WP:ARGUMENTSTOAVOID bingo with that! Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Articles for creation,
Backlog
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Came across this bunch of drafts, some submitted, some not, some already declined:
A quick glance suggests they're probably not notable, at least some of them aren't, possibly all. I could just decline the ones that have been submitted, but ideally (IMO) these would be merged into a single draft, which might then also have enough notability to pass review. Any thoughts on the best way of dealing with these (individually or collectively)? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 09:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Well done to the reviewer(s) who have been clearing out the "4 months" cat and to all active reviewers for finally stopping the ever increasing backlog size. KylieTastic ( talk) 10:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Do AFC reviewers need to look outside the draft for sources, e.g. Google searches, when determining notability? We're having a discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination/Draft newsletter#AfC and wanted to get some clarification. Thank you. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 09:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I have a general question about AFC reviewing and, to be honest, I might have asked it here before. But fate has brought me back to this page to read over another discussion so I'll pose the question here again.
The context is that I spend quite a lot of the day dealing with expiring CSD G13 drafts. So, I see sometimes a hundred drafts a day that have been declined. I like to post a notification to the draft creator's talk page if a draft is deleted for inactivity and so I see a lot of user talk pages of new and inexperienced editors. I think in 90% of the cases, I see a talk page post when a draft is declined and, sometimes, very helpful comments on what the problems with the draft were and what might be done about them. Sometimes the comments are vague, cliche and not very useful but that's not my question. It's that the other 10% of the time, there is no communication on the draft creator's user talk page about the fact that the submitted draft is declined. No notice, no decline rationale, no communication at all. I thought this cross-posting would be automatic with the AFC software program you all use but is this a matter of choice for the reviewer? There is one reviewer in particular who doesn't inform editors about draft declines but I don't think they are the only one. I would think that a draft creator should be notified whether or not a draft is accepted or declined just for the reassurance that, yes, drafts do get reviewed!
The reason I bring this up is because I delete these G13 drafts and after the drafts are deleted, these talk page messages are the only information the editor has about their old draft and why it was declined. Unless they have a copy in a sandbox, these messags could be the only reference they have to their work. It could make a difference between whether or not the editor asks for the draft to be restored at WP:REFUND so is there a way to make these notifications automatic? I can't see that this notification process has any downside and unless it takes some time to do this cross-posting, I don't know why any AFC reviewer would fail to post these notices. Since I'm not an AFC reviewer, I'd appreciate any insight you can provide into the process and what I might be missing. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I am waiting for my new username to be added so that I can use AFCHS. Meanwhile, can someone unmark Draft:Tinker Bell (Disney character) as under review and move the page? Thanks, Ca talk to me! 04:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
{{AFC submission|r|
to {{AFC submission||
. Hope that helps. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
11:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)From their log (thanks Novem), I kicked these back into the queue for more eyes. 100% IAR, but there are enough questions about their understanding of the various policies that they need another set of eyes. They may eventually be declined, but their reasons didn't gel:
Anyone else have more time? I need to go offline for a bit. This subthread could probably move to WT:AFC Star Mississippi 00:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
This submission is not suitable for Wikipediais my favourite). Yes, I can see that there's a reasonable concern that the article could be a WP:POVFORK, but that's the kind of thing that needs to be decided by consensus at AfD, not used as an excuse for individual editors to block creation in mainspace; clearly going far beyond the basic standard AfC is supposed to apply. – Joe ( talk) 09:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.A reject really does mean end of the road but only a very small percentage are rejected (3.9% in the past month). S0091 ( talk) 15:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
While a lot of feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback can be a bit bland, The Nookster left a couple of interesting comments today: 1, 2.
Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 15:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Is it possible to make the AFCH script automatically subscribe reviewers to the Talk page section that it writes on a user's page when we review an article? I don't want to put the user's talk page on my watchlist, but I want to be sure that messages written by the submitting editor don't go ignored. I missed one of these just recently here [1]. I'm sure that new editors are more likely to reply on their own talk pages than come to the reviewer's, so there must be many people out there wondering why they never hear back from us. -- asilvering ( talk) 22:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Can someone who understands how the Template:AfC statistics bot works figure out how to remove the deleted article "Free Stefan Philip" from the list? It looks like we're actually under 4 months right now, but this one is stuck there for some reason. -- asilvering ( talk) 03:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
What should I do when a user asks me on my talk page ( see here) for me to review their draft? Is this acceptable, or is asking on a user's talk page discouraged? Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 20:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
This draft is about to hit four months next week - can anyone with Chinese ability review this? It's a real doozy; wandering English and clearly incorporates a lot of material from an interview with the subject. I've pulled out a bunch of superfluous or unhelpful citations, but there's lots left. It would be easy to decline this for use of unreliable sources (facebook, etc), but I don't want to get an editor's hopes up and make them waste a bunch of their time trying to fix the thing if there's no real case for notability here. -- asilvering ( talk) 01:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone. There are some talk pages which have two different {{ WPAFC}} banners on them, e.g. Talk:14 regions of Constantinople. We are wondering if both are needed, or if it would be better to consolidate into one. Please reply at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Detecting duplicate banners, thank you — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 18:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Scope creep has been critical of my accepting Light-induced fluorescence transient claiming that I should be reviewing article quality and checking for spammy sources. The subject appears to be notable and the text doesn't have glaring WP:NPOV issues. I judge it to have at least a 50% chance of surviving at AfD. Is it wrong to accept such submissions? What would be the justification for declining it? ~ Kvng ( talk) 13:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
If anyone wants to know what a neural network does when asked to invent a major novel series and ensuing IP about feral squirrels, you're in luck! Here it is. Enjoy? -- asilvering ( talk) 21:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I had accepted several of these after checking for copyright violations against the other language versions and open access references. However now I suspect they are copy vios from "The Oxford Companion to Italian Literature" but I dont have access. I noticed the source does show the first sentence that is a match on some. The first I accepted and check more on was Girolamo Frachetta and does not have the issue, but for ones such as Girolamo Brusoni the lead is a direct if short copy. Carpimaps, asilvering and gobonobo have also accepted some. Does anyone have access to "The Oxford Companion to Italian Literature"? Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 08:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
There have been a lot of "Battle of" articles recently and it turns out there are a lot of socks - so just a heads up to treat "Battle of" articles with suspicion (also some possible copy vios)
So far the socks we've found are Yesverg1699, Krasius1090, Shockwave82838366, Bloop 91, Patriotic afghan, Mrwiki1220 and Indianforc3378 - Not sure if these are all related. I noticed some issues and Drmies has been playing whac-a-sock with these.
Note currently there are 10 pending out of ~120 in draft. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 16:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
![]()
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Wikipedia:Welcoming committee—among other things—maintains a set of a set of welcome templates aimed at new users. Many of these templates include a list of helpful links. A proposal to drop the link to Help:Your first article from welcome templates has been opened; your feedback would be welcome at WT:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#Proposal: drop 'first article' link from all templates. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 21:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I mistakenly draftified an article that had already been draftified once before. It is Draft:Shaka Ilembe. Since it had already been moved from article space to draft space and back to article space, I should have nominated it for deletion and specified draftification as the preferred action. I am assuming that I should leave it in draft space, and it will probably be moved back into article space yet again? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Slay Anything, in article namespace, is a TV series episode, currently a redirect to the series' season. Draft:Slay Anything is a draft about the episode, and it seems fine. But I can't approve it because the name is taken by the redirect. I tagged the redirect with {{Db-afc-move|Draft:Slay Anything}} to make way for the article, but it was declined because "Removing CSD tag, this draft hasn't been reviewed yet, much less approved". So how do I deal with it? Cambalachero ( talk) 13:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
and it often has not only not been reviewed by an AFC reviewer, it hasn't been approved!- as has been noted before, a reviewer cannot accept a draft in any way until the mainspace redirect has been deleted by an admin. If the user is not an AfC reviewer, that is a different matter, and I'm personally happy with said CSDs being declined in that instance. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 05:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I actually check to see that the editor who posts the CSD tag is an AFC reviewer a reviewer is- so what happened this time? Cambalachero is listed at WP:AFC/P and also they are Autopatrolled have Pending changes reviewers, they also have 21 GAs and 2 FAs so it's difficult to see how the request could not have been taken as being from a trusted reviewer.
I want the draft to be main space ready before I move it into the main space of the project- {{ Db-afc-move}} is asking for the admin to Please delete this page and allow the draft reviewer to move the draft. As has been explained before this is so the AFCH tool we use can do everything else in one go: remove the junk AfC tags etc, check the short description, add/check projects and categories, add AfC project template to the articles talk page, leave an approved message for the submitter, log at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent (which other I know use as a place to check on new approvals), log to the reviewers "AfC log" is set. By wanting to move yourself you are skipping all these processes. Maybe if you did a few reviews (at least one accept and one decline) to see how AFCH works for yourself?
most AFC reviewers have drafts prepared for main space, if you are seeing that I would assume it was non AfC reviewers. Also if someone does this and removed the AfC tags etc and the admin just deletes the redirect as the request says then we have a big issue if the requester forgets as it has been removed for the pending submission and may not be picked up for 6 months.
Done. If this issue shows up so frequently, perhaps we should have something about it in
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Known issues
Cambalachero (
talk)
19:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
super-picky" admins).
If the instructions are clear enough, the "In the event that it is not deleted..." would not be needed. But if we change the wording of a speedy deletion template, shouldn't we notify this somewhere? Cambalachero ( talk) 02:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I have been a probationary member for AfC reviewing for over a year now. I was wondering if I could get reviewed and put as a regular active reviewer, rather than probationary. I'm putting this on the main talk page rather than the participant requests page because I am not requesting access to the actual AFCH script. Thanks, Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ ( talk / contribs) 16:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Articles for creation,
The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.
Reminders:
Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § Prevent non-AfC reviewer from declining or accepting AfC submission. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
07:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Spurred by the CENT-listed conversation linked a few section up, a few of us have been working on a rewrite at User:Houseblaster/YFA draft. It's not quite ready yet, but as it's geared towards AfC acceptance, I thought the kind volunteers here may have some insights into how it should look at release. Folly Mox ( talk) 13:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Cricketer microstubs. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
16:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I was in the process of accepting this but there was a redirect in the way and I requested and I assume an admin deleted it but by then I was distracted. Before I could accept, it looks like jmcgnh came through and cleared my review in progress (without contacting me), declined the draft and suggested the content could be merged into List of battery sizes#Cylindrical lithium-ion rechargeable battery or Lithium-ion battery (the former is where 18650 battery previously and currently redirects).
This type of battery is widely used in applications ranging from laptops to electric cars. The subject meets WP:GNG and there's not a WP:NOT issue so I don't see policy reason why it should not have its own article. I appreciate that editors who work on List of battery sizes#Cylindrical lithium-ion rechargeable battery and Lithium-ion battery may not think that a separate article is the best way to cover a topic. I don't think that's a question we need to get in to at AfC. Let's not make our accept criteria any more complicated than it needs to be. If it turns out separate article is unwanted by consensus, a WP:MERGE can always be done after the draft is accepted.
Anyone else have thoughts? Is there an administrator willing to delete the 18650 battery redirect so this draft can be accepted? ~ Kvng ( talk) 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
These dimensions can vary by a millimeter or more.
I reviewed a draft on a title that had previously had an article, but the article was then merged into a parent article as closed in an AFD. The draft appears to be the same as the merged-deleted version of the article. I Rejected the draft as Not Notable. Was this a correct or reasonable action? I don't normally Reject a draft on the first submission, but it would have been subject to G4 if it were moved into mainspace. By the way, it is Draft:Gideon (Legends of Tomorrow). Was Rejection a reasonable way to deal with what appears to be a submission that will not survive AFD (because it didn't survive AFD)? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Just curious to know what sanctions are available for drafts that are rapidly resubmitted without improvement. Draft:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 was returned to draft space following an AfD, there still aren't any independent reliable sources about the event being added, but as soon as the draft is declined it is immediately resubmitted. Judging by previous similar articles, this event only attracted any wider notice in the couple of weeks before the event (which is in December 2023). Sionk ( talk) 22:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I have a similar problem with Draft:Stellina (TV series), but this one is not a future event that will happen and get more attention and editors in the future. It's an animated series, the only info is the trivial one (plot, characters, episodes, credits, etc), and the only spurces are IMDB-like databases, pages with user-made content, and youtube clips from the series. There have been 6 rejections for lack of notability, 2 of them today, and each time the user simply resubmits with minimal and inconsequential changes (such as the plot description) or even with no changes at all. Cambalachero ( talk) 13:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap! |
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I brought up an unrelated concern about this page at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Draft:Example and G13, and that discussion led to me taking a closer look at the page as a whole, and... well, I don't think it's a good example of what a draft should look like.
The things I immediately pointed out over there was the lack of sections (the only heading it currently has is for References), despite being rather long, and the lack of references (just a single reference after the first sentence). I feel like this gives a bad precedent for any new editor who stumbles upon the page – in general, drafts should have sections, and every paragraph should ideally have a source.
There's also no image, which strikes me as weird, because there's an image on the similar User:Example; having a (free) image is also useful for your draft.
I also note there's no AFC banner, which feels like it should be included, given the leading text of "This is an example draft created via the Articles for creation process.". We should display how to submit your article to AFC here if this is an example draft for the AFC process (though to prevent accidental submissions, maybe just make it so clicking the "submit your draft for review" button does nothing?).
Does this look problematic to anyone else? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I noticed a lot of Nepalese politicians with IPs in the 182.50.66.* range creating many with several accepts. However many of these were previously deleted as created by a sock Anup Rajbanshi and there puppets. They appear to be notable as real politicians that pass WP:NPOL but look highly likely to have created by a sock. If they were created by an account I would report as another sock, but not sure what to do and I see we have a few more already in the !queue. KylieTastic ( talk) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I am making another request for a feature for the AFCH script that I have requested before. When a draft is accepted, the AFC comments should be moved to the article talk page rather than erased. Sometimes the comments contain information that may be of subsequent interest. Sometimes the AFC comments indicate an action that should be taken by the accepting reviewer, such as the {{ adddisamb}} template, which says that an entry needs to be made in the disambiguation page. I have requested this feature in the past, and was told to be patient, and I think I have been patient. I was reminded when I checked on the status of a draft that I had tagged with {{ adddisamb}}, and saw that it had been accepted, but was not listed in the disambiguation page. Of course, I added an entry to the disambiguation page, but this could happen again. Can this feature be implemented? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
As Primefac says, many AFC comments are not really worth copying to the talk page. But some AFC comments give information as to what should be done when the article is accepted. Is there some way that these comments can be tagged or displayed in such a way that the accepting reviewer will be reminded of them? I am in particular thinking of my notation that the article should be added to a disambiguation page, {{ adddisamb}}. Some submitters, especially FloridaArmy, put comments in the article itself telling the accepting reviewer what redirects should be created. That at least ensures that the comments do not get swallowed, but instructions about an article should not really be in the article. Should the reviewer use tags for those instructions, since tags can be removed with two clicks? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I have just reviewed an article that has been created both in draft space and in article space at the same time. Well, that is common enough, and is annoying, and is sometimes done in bad faith to prevent the article from being moved back to draft space, but here is the issue. The article (both copies) say only what the company says about itself. I would normally decline a draft like this with {{ compsays}}. Since it is also in article space, I thought that I would send it to AFD. But on reading the references, the first two are independent significant secondary coverage. I think that the company probably passes corporate notability, but the text of the article doesn't explain to the reader why the company is notable. The ordinary reader is not expected to read the references. They are required, but the article should speak for itself. I will not be nominating the article for deletion. But should I tag the article as needing improvement? If so, with what tag? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Abductive ...left this message on my talk page...
Please return Syneilesis intermedia (Hayata) Kitam to draftspace. It is a synonym of Syneilesis hayatae ( per PoWO), and it has a malformed title; if it was an accepted species, it should be just Syneilesis intermedia. Thanks, Abductive ( reasoning) 05:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
so I did per [2], however [3] indicated it was an accepted name...so should I move the draftspace title to Draft:Syneilesis intermedia (and eventually then add a redirect from Syneilesis hayatae) once its in main space, thank you -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 16:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I have just reviewed a draft that was obviously written by a sports journalist, but the copyvio detector does not find the source. I have declined the draft with a custom decline. I think it was copied from a publication. If I were certain that it was written for Wikipedia in this style, I might accept it and tag it for cleanup-rewrite, but I think it was copied. Are there any other ideas, either about this draft or about this situation? By the way, it is Draft:2022 Seoul ePrix. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm almost certain I recall the top-of-page {{ Draft}} template including a notification something like, "A page with the name Foo Bar already exists as an article in main space" or some such. But I'm not seeing it now, at Draft:Banja Luka (article present at Banja Luka). Anyone have an idea why not? Good-faith editor User:Боки just wasted his time creating this draft, which could have been avoided had the alert message been displayed in the header. Mathglot ( talk) 23:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I have bring this draft here because I didnot know how to deal this type of content. In my opinion this a possible autobiography as it is created by User:Princechhetri321. Where, I have declined this draft as notability and self-promotion. Fade258 ( talk) 08:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
This is a notable book, so the draft should be accepted, but there's a redirect with history at the target location. What are (non-admin) reviewers supposed to do in this situation? I looked at histmerge but that looks like it's for merging history after someone has already done a copy-paste move. Are we supposed to make the copy-paste move ourselves and then tag it for histmerge? Or are we supposed to do something else...? asilvering ( talk) 04:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Or are we supposed to do something else?is a round-robin move, which puts the old redirect with history in the draft position. The answer to
If anyone knows a better way, let me know.sometimes is a round-robin move, which requires the Page Mover right. User:Novem Linguae - Was the history in mainspace substantial? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I am reviewing a draft, Draft:Kirchhoff graph, and have requested a review at WikiProject Mathematics. I have a question about what is conflict of interest. The author of the draft cites six academic papers and publications of which he is an author. I know that this isn't original research because the papers and publications were peer-reviewed. The upside is that the author appears to be a subject matter expert. So is this considered conflict of interest? If so, is there any special caution, other than that he is already using AFC? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, the history merge tag is much misunderstood. I just reviewed a draft which was the same as an article on the same subject, and the draft was tagged to be hist-merged into the article. In looking at the history, I see that the draft and the article were created by the same author, and that the author tagged the draft for history merge after also creating the article. I assume that this is good-faith confusion as to what history merge is for, and have reverted the application of the history-merge tag. Should I do anything else, such as explaining to the author why they were mistaken? Is there an explanatory essay to link to about mistaken history merge? By the way, it is Draft:Scrimmage (band). I don't think that the article should be in article space, but that is a different issue. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I got a talk page comment by an editor whose draft I declined. They're new and have only written this one draft, but the message feels very "off" (link:
[4]). Example sentence: Thank you once again for your thoughtful feedback and reviewing the draft and for highlighting Wikipedia's notability guidelines in detail. It's clear that your primary concern is ensuring that the content meets the platform's stringent standards for inclusion, a goal I share entirely.
Does this quack for anybody? I can't help but suspect a UPE sockfarm. @
Hoary, you also interacted with this editor recently, thoughts? --
asilvering (
talk)
23:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Under different usernames, I work on developing Wikipedia pages for UK reality TV stars and their related ventures.and a follow up of
Also, to provide more context, my comment about "different usernames" doesn't mean I control these accounts. Instead, I assist in creating content within a community of fellow celebrity enthusiasts who then create the pages. This approach ensures that we don't violate the rules against sockpuppetry.So they're clearly aware of the rules and seem to be trying to skirt them. I'm not sure whether your one is part of this group, but they could very well be and still show as negative on an IP check. Turnagra ( talk) 22:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
FYI {{ Article wizard/AdBox}} has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.25.80 ( talk) 04:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
![]()
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This gives an overview of various citation tools out there, many related to source assessment, copyright, and deadlinks. I figured many of you would get something out of this. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 06:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
An odd one: User:Ashgreer92/sandbox. Looks AI-generated to me, also has a copyvio, and the referencing is a mess, to put it mildly. Also, it's the second one this morning I've seen with the AfC tags on the bottom like that, with a header that says "Request review at WP:AFC". What do you suppose is behind all this? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I would like another opinion on my handling of this draft. She is known for one event, which is that she is charged with the Killing of Jorge Torres. I declined the draft with the instruction to resubmit it after the trial if she is convicted. Also, if an article becomes in order (if she is convicted), it will be necessary to disambiguate her article from that of Sarah Boone, inventor of an improved ironing board. Is the correct approach to wait until the trial? If she is not convicted, then any information about her can be included in the article about Torres, but only very carefully. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Apologies if this is a known issue, but I've been annoyed for a while that
AFCH (seemingly) only adds the quality assessment (Stub, Start, C etc.) to the AFC WikiProject banner when it should apply across all WikiProjects. With refactoring taking place, it seems possible for the tool to instead create a {{
WikiProject banner shell}} around all WikiProjects and use the class
parameter there. —
Bilorv (
talk)
12:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Apologies if this is a known issue, but I've been annoyed for a while that AFCH (seemingly) only adds the quality assessment (Stub, Start, C etc.) to the AFC WikiProject banner when it should apply across all WikiProjects.After some testing, it looks like AFCH adds the rating to any banners that the user picks on the accept screen, but not to any banners that were already on the talk page. I created a bug for that here.
With refactoring taking place, it seems possible for the tool to instead create a {{ WikiProject banner shell}} around all WikiProjectsI found a ticket for this here. It's been open since 2016. Any JavaScript developers up for writing some patches? I'll review and deploy them.
and use the class parameter thereI added a comment to the ticket linked in the previous paragraph. Hope it helps. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 09:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
...modelled after the other existing notability tags. Thanks to my constant perusal of pages covering the fields in question discussed, I hereby propose to whoever's maintaining it as we speak...
Summary | Message |
---|---|
book - Submission is about a book or novel not yet shown to meet notability guidelines | This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of books). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. |
tv - Submission is about a television program or episode not yet shown to meet notability guidelines | This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of television content). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. |
At this writing, book- and novel-related drafts fall under the standard "nn" code, while TV-related pages are lumped in together with those on films (no wonder a split may be a given; cf. this recent CFD for "Draft articles on comics and anime", which I must disclose I gave my say to). Any more thoughts? -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Since we are on this topic, do we need a specific decline message for NEVENT? I seem to come across drafts about events often enough and decline using nn but add a comment referring them to WP:NEVENT. S0091 ( talk) 14:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I've created a ticket with the exact steps needed to code this up. If anyone wants to create the patch and edit the template, I'll be happy to review the patch. Make sure to test your patch on testwiki using the instructions here. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I would've loved to suggest a catch-all alternative based on WP:NMEDIA, but even that's a notability essay leading us to a foregone conclusion. Sadly, until/unless they're official guidelines (or someone else can offer me already valid ones), TV programs and other media are respectively fated to fall under the film and NN categories. Anyway, thanks for the feedback! -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Alright, tonight I made all the technical changes necessary to add "book" and "event" decline reasons to AFCH. I chose the standard text used for other specific decline reasons such as "film". The exact decline wording can be viewed at Template:AfC submission/comments/doc.
Are there any objections to this before I start merging and deploying stuff? Is everybody OK with adding both book and film? Is everybody OK with copying and tweaking film's wording? If we want to change the wording, I suggest we do it in a step 2 so as not to hold up things and in case the wording changes don't achieve consensus. I imagine there is implicit consensus for existing wording such as the one for film. I will deploy this in a day or two if there are no objections. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 10:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I've been involved in guiding the creator of Draft:Lizzy Rose in the creation of the proto-article. It seems to me that the draft is now in a fit condition to move to mainspace. Do I just move it, or is there a process to go through? Mjroots ( talk) 15:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This is an issue that I sometimes encounter. This draft reads very much as if it was copied from a book, but the copyvio detector finds an unlikely match, and what it matches is really just the identifying information about the subject. One of the sources is a book (referenced four times), and I am guessing that the draft is largely from the book. The text reads like it could have been copied from a book written in the twenty-first century. (I have sometimes seen drafts that read like they were copied from books written in the nineteenth century.) On the one hand, if the subject is mentioned in a book written in the eighteenth century, and in another book written in the twenty-first century, he is biographically notable. However, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. At this point, I have only disambiguated the draft, and have not accepted or declined it. What should I do, or what should we as the subcommunity of reviewers do? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I have drafted an article and want it to become a Wikipedia article.
This article has source, category and title.
Draft:List of governors of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province شامادورا ( talk) 01:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
How I can add ref while writing or aditing an article? Baloch Durzada ( talk) 03:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
<ref>
, and then information about your source (such as the URL if it's a website), and then </ref>
, like this: <ref>https://example.com/referencing.html</ref>
. A fancier way which will provide more information about your source is to click the pencil icon (in the top right when you're editing your draft), click "visual editor", and then click the icon that looks like a pair of quotation marks. That will guide you into making a more complete reference, putting in things like the title of the website and the date.Hey Enterprisey. I'm an interface admin now so could theoretically do AFCH deploys. Just wanted to check with you and see what you think about that. Would be useful for hotfixes, urgent patches, or maybe myself or another wikimedia-gadgets Member gets a burst of energy and does a bunch of code reviews. I notice Primefac monitors the repo closely and is basically the decision maker about which tickets are allowed to proceed, so I will continue following their lead there. Thanks a lot. Looking forward to your feedback. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Am I permitted a "Good Grief!"?
It must be time for a (way overdue) Backlog Drive, surely? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The assessment discussion above reminded me that I started a discussion about our need to even have ratings for pages. There was no opposition but it also wasn't anything what I would consider a quorum (one in favour, one proposing an alternate option). So, I figured we should revisit it. Article assessments are generally an ongoing measure of a page's quality, but after the initial acceptance this project doesn't really have anything to do with an article (in other words, whether a page ever makes GA or FA isn't as a result of this project's involvement). I've transcluded the original discussion below.
Original discussion (
link)
|
---|
I'm going to split this off from the above, because it's related but still a new subject - do we actually need to have AFC-specific article ratings? Our grading scheme is pretty bog-standard, and no one is going to go to an article's talk page and ask us how to improve an already-accepted article. Additionally, I highly doubt that anyone in this project (and I am more than happy to be proven wrong) is going through (for example) Category:Start-Class AfC articles and working on improving them - there's just no connection between most of those pages; you would seriously have to be a jack of trades to attempt it. Primefac ( talk) 15:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
|
If there is no opposition to my idea then I will modify {{ WPAFC}} to no longer display article assessment ratings. Primefac ( talk) 09:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Last month I declined Draft:Resistance Committee (Ukraine) for not having enough independent sources. (It looked like this at the time.) The editor has been improving it since, but in the meantime someone else translated the article from Catalan wikipedia, straight into mainspace, here: Resistance Committee (Ukraine). (They did not attribute the translation.) The draft currently at AfC is much better. What now? -- asilvering ( talk) 22:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
If anyone's looking for what might be a quick draft to review, this is one.
In terms of structure, veracity, notability, etc. this article should be ready.
The only reason that I have submitted it first for review is that I have not really written new articles on people whose primary notability are criminal activity. Therefore, I want a second opinion as to whether the article meets WP:NPV, since I am unsure what the balance is for individuals who are primarily-known for unsavory activities. My caution is also due to the fact that one of them is the father of a high-profile incumbent politician, and I want to be sure that I don't create a problematic article on a relative to such a figure.
I would greatly appreciate if you would give your attention to this draft. SecretName101 ( talk) 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I should ask this question somewhere else. If so, where is the best place to ask this question? I am reviewing a draft, Draft:Tao Jiang, and there is currently a redirect from Tao Jiang to Jiang Tao, which is a disambiguation page. I am inferring that Jiang is the family name, so that Jiang Tao is the Eastern name order, and that the subject of the draft is in North America and so uses Western name order. So my first question is whether there is a hatnote template to put on the draft page that says that this is a Westernized Chinese name. Also, if the draft is accepted, should his name be listed in the disambiguation list in Western order, along with the other names in Eastern order? Is there a standard explanation to put in the disambiguation page itself? Maybe this is all spelled out in the MOS or in guidelines about disambiguation. If so, where? Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure it must be possible to generate a dataset on AfC submissions, the amount of time they spend in the queue, and maybe some other metadata (like what ORES topic they were sorted into or whether they were added to wikiprojects). I'd like to be able to run some analyses on the data. I'm curious, for example, to know what the "drop off" rates are for reviews - we know a lot of drafts are reviewed on the same day they're submitted, but if your draft hasn't been reviewed before the 2-day or 2-week mark, how long are you likely to wait? Beyond simple curiosity, I think it would be useful information to provide to draft writers alongside the overall queue length figure. Many people look at it and think "it takes four months", but we could probably add a helpful statement like "80% of drafts are reviewed within the first two weeks" to that. I'm not sure how to generate this data though. In general I'm not very familiar with the "backend" of Wikipedia. Can anyone give me some pointers? -- asilvering ( talk) 02:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
We were discussing a draft on the NPP discord server when someone who is not an AFC reviewer noticed some issues in that draft and asked us whether a non-AFC reviewer can comment on a draft or not. Then someone told us about a policy that says that non-AFCs are strongly cautioned from reviewing AfC submissions. So, my question is whether a non-AFC reviewer can suggest issues in drafts. Pinging @ Hey man im josh, @ Illusion Flame, @ User:Sohom Datta 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-AFCs are strictly prohibited from reviewing AfC submissions
PLEASE NOTE: Editors whose usernames are not on the list are strongly cautioned not to review AfC submissions.on the WP:AFCP page. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Seeing this in the draft above AFC comments
Am unable to find in the source of the draft. Ideas, please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This draft article subject is very much in the news today, as there are many, many articles being written about his ten year suspension. If it could be promoted, that would aid interested readers I expect. Draft:Peter Foley (snowboarding) 2603:7000:2101:AA00:E546:F1A7:700B:B46E ( talk) 18:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Bernie Ashman (astrologer) is a rather peculiar draft in that it is being paid for, but the editor (User:Metalegtrix) is not the author of the content. It contains ridiculous trumpery like "Ashman's professional life has been committed to empowering people to find their own spiritual, psychological, and creative insights through better understanding the energy under which they were born." and “ Ashman’s work is defined by helping people find greater love, harmony, and happiness by shifting these past life energies" Who ever is writing this garbage has zero understanding of neutral tone, but there is also the problem of it being written by a “third party editor”. Any thoughts anyone? Theroadislong ( talk) 07:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Very often filled with fluff and clutter, we need to pay a little more attention to this cat. We should look for disputed draftificatons before choosing the action to take. Draftifying is not always correct- WP:DRAFTIFY, and AfD is not always correct. Sometimes submission tag removal is all that is needed. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
This could impact the expectations at AfC for articles on journals. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
A change to the Article wizard has been proposed. Please join in the conversation. Primefac ( talk) 11:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
(Pinging Ravensfire and Netherzone.) Draft:L.N (artist), Draft:Laxmi Narayan Maharana (artist), Draft:Arun Sahu Artist, Draft:Narayan Maharana, Draft:Narayan Maharana (artist), Draft:Dilip Maharana, Draft:Laxmi Narayan Maharana (actor) and perhaps others besides are all about the same person: young, not obviously notable, but, it seems, intensively promoted. They're created and maintained (and sometimes blanked) by names among the large and growing population of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tinkubhoi. This marketing campaign can waste a reviewer's time (just as Draft:L.N (artist) wasted mine before I realized that it was just one of many).
I'm inclined to delete and salt the lot. My second preference would be to identify the oldest among them, to convert the others to redirects to this, and to protect the redirects. And either way, to search for more thereafter. Comments? -- Hoary ( talk) 02:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
This has again had the redir removed, placing the draft back in the pool. What's the process for dealing with this? Is it just waiting for another standard review, or should some sort of discussion be opened up? It seems that unless this issue is dealt with conclusively, some IP or another will rock up and start the loop again. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 09:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I wrote this before I saw this post which is on the same topic, and so am putting my thoughts and questions under the earlier post.
When should a reviewer redirect a draft to an article? I am asking this partly in response to a particular case where I think that the redirecting of a draft to a related article was a good-faith error.
We know that when a draft is accepted as an article, a redirect is left behind in draft space, and should be left there. That isn't the question. Sometimes when there are both a draft and an article on the same topic, an editor, in good faith, nominates the draft for deletion at MFD. The draft is then speedily redirected to the article. Some the originator creates both a draft and an article. If so, I think that the draft should first be declined, which puts a message on the originator's talk page, and then the reviewer should redirect the draft to the article. I think that it is a good idea to put a message on the talk page of the author of the draft.
I agree that redirecting is usually in order when a submitter has created multiple copies with slightly different titles.
The specific case that I have in mind has to do with an existing article on a company, and a draft on an affiliated company. While I was reviewing the draft, another reviewer redirected the draft to the article on the related company. I think that was a good-faith error by the reviewer, because that doesn't make it easy for the submitter to ask for another review to consider that maybe a separate article is warranted.
So my general question is when is it appropriate to redirect a draft to an existing article? We know that one case is when the draft and the article are almost the same.
By the way, the case in point was Draft:Gearbox Publishing, which was redirected to Gearbox Software. I have only listed the detailed case because I am more looking for general answers than a review of one action. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Up above @ Timtrent proposed a backlog drive but it didn't get many responses. Is anyone opposed to doing a backlog drive in September? S0091 ( talk) 16:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Editor | AfC reviews | NPP reviews |
---|---|---|
Actualcpscm | 19 | 15 |
DreamRimmer | 27 | 256 |
Fancy Refrigerator | 13 | 29 |
Hey man im josh | 67 | 5,155 |
Jamiebuba | 87 | 10 |
Ozzie10aaaa | 26 | 218 |
Schminnte | 29 | 196 |
SunDawn | 36 | 846 |
Taking Out The Trash | 43 | 38 |
Umakant Bhalerao | 76 | 139 |
Personally I would be more inclined to review AfC nominations if it didn't seem that most of what I was reviewing had already been rejected before and the issues weren't resolved. Is there some feed option where you are only shown first-time nominations or some automated screening for those most likely to pass a review? Then I would feel I was actually doing something to improve the encyclopedia rather than helping out COI/paid editors. ( t · c) buidhe 17:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, if anyone has interest in reviewing Draft:Scottish Castles Restoration Projects, please do have a look. I'm flagging it here because it's a not-uncomplicated draft that's been through a particularly drawn-out AfC experience already and don't think it should sit for another four months. Original submission was in February, declined as essay-like in June. The article is on a broadly notable topic, and has now seen considerable editing by two previously uninvolved editors. I was the previous decline so I don't think I should be reviewing this. If anyone's got an article in similar straights, I'll happily be the fresh eyes on that one, just let me know! -- asilvering ( talk) 17:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I've been reviewing AfC for a week now, and would appreciate some feedback on if I've followed all the specific assessment process, especially for my couple of accepts. Qcne (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
slim down the Science Objective section to only a paragraph to summarise it, which IMO does not relate to WP:AFCPURPOSE. However, I agree that the Earth's Ambipolar Electric Field subsection is not that relevant and concede that if Qcne's decline rationale is intending to say something similar to your proposal, that is definitely reasonable. But IMO the decline reasoning was unclear, though other editors may have a different view; and I am certainly not saying this is a major problem. VickKiang (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Even more challenging than that, many of them are low hanging fruit, easy to accept or decline.
I would like to commend the oldest category to our attention. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that Draft:Roland Jacquard was created by a sockpuppet, as it was G5 speedied just 12 days ago and was created by an IP with their first edit seven days after that. Normally I would just decline, but like a fool I made substantial edits to the draft in order to get it ready for mainspace before checking to see if it had been deleted previously, and now I'm not sure if it qualifies for speedy deletion anymore. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 22:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm proposing adding a section warning against WP:Overcite to Help:Referencing for beginners. What do other AFC reviewers think? Newystats ( talk) 21:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm a new page reviewer (albeit on a time limited probation and still learning); regarding the page at Draft:Daniel Seavey, please do not submit it for deletion as of yet, as I've requested a history merge back into Daniel Seavey due to the draft page's edit history dating back to 2015 and its former status as an article. Please leave this situation for an admin to handle. More details and the centralised discussion can be found at Talk:Daniel Seavey#Feedback from New Page Review process. Thank you, Fork99 ( talk) 01:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
No.
Is Primefac too strict with acceptance criteria?
No.
Do enough well qualified reviewers apply?
No.
That leads me to wonder how we might attract more without letting questionable candidates through. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Members/participants of this WikiProject are invited to discuss at an ANI discussion involving @ OlifanofmrTennant's conduct as an AfC reviewer. Fork99 ( talk) 09:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Using https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/ I have just been through the oldest 45 or so reviews, all of those logged on 25 August 2023. I agree with some, have reverted some, have accepted some that were declined or rejected, and have not found any acceptances that I would quarrel with.
Review deficiencies found in the earliest have not been repeated as experience has grown.
Overall, I have found the later of "first day" reviews to be within the margin of error we anticipate with a new reviewer, and the earliest to be those with the nit picking (etc) referred to above in their self criticism, and to be outside the margin of error.
I'm heading for my bed now, and will, if no-one else has done so, pick up some more tomorrow. If you have done so, please let us know which dates you have handled. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)