![]() | 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 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 |
Hi, it has been about a month since I was added to the AfC reviewer list. I have done a couple reviews over this month and would be happy to do more. Pinging @ Primefac for review, thanks. TLA tlak 15:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you should link those two on-going AfDs...False; S0091 is not asking for anyone else to participate. Primefac ( talk) 17:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The first in light of the second suggests to me an editor who had already decided they were not going to allow yet another young person biography to get deleted by the "passionate" others who were "targeting" it.This suggests to me that you will be extended considerably less benefit of the doubt when it comes to bio articles on young people. -- asilvering ( talk) 17:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
As well, Spanish language should not be considered per WP:GNG), misapplication of WP:ENT (
the second criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER may potentially apply here...
My small point with WP:ENTERTAINER relates to comedians, vaguely, with the fact that the subject seems to make comedy videos and that the company itself posts a lot of memes) and a failure to correct the entry on Billboard Argentina in their source analysis table when pointed out to them. When I said the source highlighting script doesn't necessarily represent consensus, they said,
A good amount of them do. There is 6, and to me, 5 of them meet our requirements for significant coverage and independence.If it were up to me, that article would be deleted as spam, so naturally, I am wary when I see someone who saw no problem with it trying to join AFC/NPP but that's just my perspective. The second concern relates to this:
The nominator's peculiar passion to delete this page and the imprecise G4 rationale by an administrator (having been deleted over a year ago, with strong changes and a massive increase in sourcing, and no hoaxes) seem to reflect a common trend I've seen on Wikipedia. Young, relatively notable subjects such as Rishab Jain, Avi Schiffmann, Jenk Oz, Kevin Leyes (which has since been recreated under Leyes (singer) due to new sourcing, which is evidently the case here as well, are often a target of editors.The first in light of the second suggests to me an editor who had already decided they were not going to allow yet another young person biography to get deleted by the "passionate" others who were "targeting" it. Other AFDs mentioned indicate the same to me: an editor who has a very hard time accepting a deletion outcome, which is fine except if you intend to work AFC/NPP, where we have to put our personal philosophies second to community given inclusion guidelines. They need to consider carefully whether this was the case, and if they need to sort out their priorities.I checked a few of their reviews. And I think they should have brought Draft:Jasmin Champagne to admin attention immediately, even if they weren't sure what to do with it (which I wasn't either, but I contacted OS and it was promptly suppressed). It's hard to explain why now because TLA likely doesn't remember what it was, and I couldn't bring it up until I heard back from OS. But Primefac is an OS. I trust they will review and advise accordingly. I do not mean to recommend they should not be a reviewer, as I am unsure as to the expectations that are realistic for this project. I am sharing feedback because it looks like that's what's happening here. I am sure TLA will do fine with more experience. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "passion project" or "digital journal", sorry.so I'm guessing it was written by a minor with some personal content. Can't quite recall. If I come across something like that in the future I'll make sure to SD nom it and go to oversight. TLA tlak 15:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
an obscure 17-year-old Canadian a "mogul". TLA tlak 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed this a few times where what I consider are decent quality articles getting repeatedly rejected. I know that reviewers are not supposed to take previous reviews into consideration when reviewing a new article, but it's hard to deny that seeing say 5 rejections must surely subconsciously or consciously affect the review of a new draft submission.
Often the initial article definitely had reason to be rejected, but over time improvements get made and in my opinion become fairly good, well written and sourced, but I feel as if the previous rejections often influence or bias the latest AfC submission. I don't want to list examples, but has anyone else had this experience, if so, what are some alternatives to AfC - that perhaps works like an AfD where there is more community consensus. Mr Vili talk 12:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
this whole discussion is a mess, and I don't want to be part of it. Speaking for us all. -- asilvering ( talk) 11:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
known only in connection with a criminal event or trial. I'm sure there are other reliable sources but requires a deep dig-up that don't hone in on the criminal case. TLA tlak 03:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
To make a long story short, IMO in practice, on average, passing AFC is a higher standard than passing NPP/AFD. I've done a lot of NPP and later a small amount of AFC review. When starting the latter it was explained that theoretically, the criteria for passing AFC is having a good chance at passing AFD. In reality, the criteria for passing at NPP/AFD is "should this topic have an article?" (and 95% of the time that is "Does the topic pass wp:notability?") and not other article quality issues. I think that the de facto requirements for passing AFC is that the article does not have any other significant quality issues. I think that this is simply human nature.....what reviewer is going to want to put their stamp of approval on an article which has significant problems even if it would pass NPP/AFD? I'm not implying that this is good or bad, I'm just noting it and noting that I think that this phenomena is relevant to some of the types of discussions that often come up. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
So, if the wp:afc passage standard is intended to be a reasonable chance of passage at AFD, why are there "decline" templates for reasons which are not a reason for deletion of an article? Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 21:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
IMO, at least at the macro level, the solution is simple. Align everything "pass/fail" related at AFC with it's stated pass/fail criteria. (e.g. instructions to reviewers, failure templates etc.) North8000 ( talk) 15:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Since we are discussing the Tristan Tate article, I would like feedback on whether what I did with that page was reasonable. As has been mentioned, the article was submitted to AFC, reasonably, and declined, reasonably. The originator then requested discussion at DRN. The author said that they wanted the draft moved into article space so that there could be a deletion discussion to obtain a rough consensus on individual notability.
DRN has not in the past been a forum for a discussion of draft declines, which are discussed at the AFC Help Desk or the Teahouse. Also, I had previously declined an earlier version of the draft, and so had become involved and would not be a neutral mediator. However, I was willing to ignore the rule that a reviewer should only accept a draft if they thought that there was a greater than 50% chance that it would be kept after AFD. I had no idea what the likelihood was that it would be kept at AFD, but I thought that it was in the interests of the encyclopedia to resolve the question of the biographical notability of Tristan Tate with an AFD. So I said that if the draft was resubmitted to AFC again, I would accept it for the purpose of enabling a deletion discussion. The originator resubmitted, and I accepted, and there was a seven-day AFD, which has now been non-admin closed as Keep. So my question is: Do other reviewers think that I reasonably applied Ignore All Rules? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I will also comment that I think that the non-administrative close was questionable because the AFD had been contentious, and the guideline says that contentious closes should be left to admins. But that is a matter either for discussion with the closer or for Deletion Review. It would have been a valid admin close, and I am very seldom inclined to criticize a non-admin close simply for being a non-admin close. But if it comes to Deletion Review, I will !vote to Overturn to Relist to allow an admin to close after another week, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
It would be good to have a subst'able response template to place on users' talk pages, when they make this mistake. It seems to be a daily occurrence that some person from India places a draft biography into WP:Articles for creation/Redirects instead of using a sandbox or draftspace. That in itself is very weird, why are so many people from India are writing bios at AFC/R? There should be a standardized response to these people to tell them to use the article wizard, draft space, or a user sandbox, instead of making an illegal request at AFC/R. Considering how common this has become recently, there should be a template response to this situation, just as we have template rejection closures at AFC/R for closing requests. -- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 07:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
This user is making some genuine efforts to write content but is just getting knocked back on Draft:Gauda conquest of Kamarup. I'm not saying this was the wrong decision but is there any way we can we be more encouraging and supportive rather than just declining the good faith submissions? I've left some suggestions on Draft talk:Gauda conquest of Kamarup — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 18:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. GeorgeBergerson ( talk) 00:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, AFC folks,
I just noticed that Shewasafairy was reecently blocked and on their talk page they have discussions with editors whose drafts they reviewed. They even kept a log, User:Shewasafairy/AfC log. But I can't find their name on the AFC Participants list. Was their name recently removed or were they never an accepted AFC reviewer? I was wondering if the drafts they looked at should be re=reviewed. However, I can see that I'm tla was recently removed from the Participants list so they were an approved reviewer but they also had a log, User:I'm tla/AfC log that I thought might be reviewed in case there was any paid editing occurring. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 11 April 2024 (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.
There's a software patch written and ready to go for this but there's some objections in the ticket. Let's hash it out here and get this patch un-stuck. How should the AFC helper script handle uncategorized drafts?
– Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:21, 9 April 2024 (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.
Another stuck patch. Right now, AFCH will provide a "Nominate the submission for speedy deletion" check box for G12 copyright only. Would we like to expand this to include any other CSDs?
If G3 and G10 support is added, we will need to split "attack" and "van" into separate decline reasons. (Currently, "attack" is just an alias/redirect to "van". This split would be easy to do.). – Novem Linguae ( talk) 14:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure AFCH strictly needs thisand
I'm on the fencebeing mixed with
I see no reason not to add them, my current read of this discussion is "no consensus". Will close the patch and ticket as declined on Monday unless there are further comments over the weekend. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
– DreamRimmer ( talk) 16:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone ever use {{ Db-afc-move}} on articles rather than redirects? For example if there is a really good draft and a really poor article and you want to replace the mainspace article with the draft? The answer to this will determine how I write the documentation at Template:Db-afc-move/doc (which I recently edited), and may also affect the current patch I'm writing for WP:AFCH. At the moment my patch is only for tagging redirects. My concern is {{ Db-afc-move}} is a type of WP:G6, which I think is normally only used on redirects. But the "non-controversial maintenance" clause is broad enough that it could arguably be applied to articles if the deletion were completely non-controversial. If {{ Db-afc-move}} cannot be used on articles, then I guess the alternatives could be anything from a copy-paste move with attribution, to a page swap, to asking an admin to G6 it for you. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
exists
as a decline reason; I don't think we should be G6'ing articles just to move a draft over them, since as you say there are a half-dozen alternate options.
Primefac (
talk)
11:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I posted a question at VPM about copy-pastes, and am now asking here about an unexpected answer that I got. I have from time to time complained that the message that the history merge template suggests be given to the user who did the copy-paste is mealy. It doesn't say not to do copy-pastes, only that move is better. I still think that there should be a Level 2 caution, at least in cases where the reviewer thinks that the editor should have known better. However, I said that we would like to minimize the amount of work done by admins in doing history-merges. I got an answer that is, essentially, that history merges are not needed, and no admin work is needed, because either a talk page template, or a note in an edit summary, is sufficient. So my question is: Are history merges no longer required? It was always my understanding that if a reviewer encounters a draft and an article that are the same, they should check whether they have the same authors, and, if not, request a history merge. I hope that this is not considered a stupid question. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I've been watching the help page and some AFC conversations a while... one recurrent theme is that for a common type of article that they are creating (=aren't given presumed notability by an SNG) the creators don't understand that for their article the wp:notability requirement is not about the common meaning of notability, it's about having two published independent sources (sometimes one) which cover the topic of their article in depth. For somebody new to Wikipedia I don't think that they understand this from the explanations given, doubly so because the explanations are usually complicated by the (irrelevant-for-them) SNG possibilities. Would it be good to add something like this to explanations?:
North8000 ( talk) 00:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. If a draft meets the criteria for CSD (for example, for G5), should the draft be tagged and declined, or can the submission templates be removed altogether? Thanks. '''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
01:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
02:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
07:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at
WT:Drafts regarding a proposed split of
WP:Drafts. The thread is
WT:Drafts#Split into help page and guideline. Thank you.
S0091 (
talk)
17:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. A few days ago, User:Dan arndt moved an article I created to draftspace. Admittedly, I let this one fall through the cracks, and it sat for a few weeks as an unreferenced stub. I immediately objected to the move and requested that the article be moved back to mainspace per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, but, nearly 5 days later, I still haven't heard anything back. I believe I've more than established the subject's notability and intend to improve the article even further. I'd appreciate anyone who could help me out here or direct me to the right place. I've created thousands of articles in my almost 15 years of editing, including a number which I've gotten up to GA status, and I think it'd be silly to require review of the existing draft. Thanks! Rockhead126 ( talk) 20:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, apologies if the answer to this question is mentioned somewhere and I've missed it! I just wanted to check if I had to be a listed AfC participant in order to create redirects from WP:AFC/R; or if that isn't a requirement for that page. All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I've seen a few articles that cite the IANS that look like press releases, but are also in reputable newspapers. Noah 💬 19:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like Enterprisey is retiring or semi-retiring. Before he left, he gave me access to the AFC history tool, and I went ahead and made some updates. So far I've modernized the code, added a feature where the URL always contains the username now (for easier linking), and the browser forward and back buttons now keep a proper history. I'm open to more suggestions if y'all think of anything else. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 10:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
$( window ).on( 'pageshow', function () {
is the problem. I'll be back in a bit with an update. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
00:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
It works on all three browsers now. It looks better on FF for mine as most lines are single depth, but reviews on drafts with long names ( Draft:David M. Knight - American Catholic Priest, Author, Speaker, Retreat Leader, Spiritual Director) makes Chrome and Edge format the table so all the dates take two lines. Not a biggy. KylieTastic ( talk) 08:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, the wording added states that "Drafts containing copied/translated content and lacking such attribution should be speedily declined". I don't see such a statement in the Terms of Use, but I do see WP:RIA, which states that "While technically licensing violations are copyright violations, pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted. Attribution can be belatedly supplied by the methods above, using dummy edits to record new edit summaries. Such belated attribution should make clear when the relevant text entered the page. You can also identify problem articles, in particular complex cases that you cannot fix right away, by tagging the article itself with the templates
This article's
edit history is not complete. Some of the article text's edit history exists at a different location due to copying and pasting between articles. This may be a violation of the
CC BY-SA and/or
GFDL if proper attribution was not made in an edit summary or on the talk page. |
(for a single origin) and
![]() | This article's edit history is not complete. Some of the article text's edit history exists at different locations due to copying and pasting between articles. This may be a violation of the CC BY-SA and/or GFDL if proper attribution was not made in an edit summary or on the talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Merge and Wikipedia:Splitting for details of how to correctly attribute using links in the edit summaries. You can also read the " copying within Wikipedia" guideline for an overview of the issues involved. The articles from which material was copied include, |
(for articles with multiple origins)." Greenman ( talk) 08:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Speedy decline #1 has been updated to account for how to handle Drafts that are translations from other Wikipedias (permitted, but requires attribution in the edit summary) or are a copy of content from other Wikimedia projects (also permitted, with attribution). In brief: a Draft submitted for review which contains content translated or copied from other Wikimedia projects but lacks the required attribution statement in the revision history should be speedily declined as a Terms of Use/copyright violation, and a link to WP:RIA should be provided to the user in the decline message, which explains how to rectify the missing attribution so the Draft can be resubmitted. This is based on Wikimedia's Terms of Use which govern every edit at Wikipedia (a statement and link to it is given on the preview page just above the 'Publish' button every time you save an edit). The Terms of Use overrides guidelines, policy, consensus, and ArbCom, and is a hard requirement. Feel free to update the additional wording as need be. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 20:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
{{attrib needed|lang_code|title}}
and it will spit out the exact words that need to be added to satisfy the attribution requirement specified by
WP:RIA. Would that help? (P.S. No need to ping; I am subscribed.)
Mathglot (
talk)
23:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link:
Draft:Javier Zaruski
Hello. I encountered Medianextgen ( talk · contribs) at the WP:Tea house regarding their Draft, and they have followed up with questions at my Talk page, asking how to resubmit their declined AFC Draft. They believe they have now addressed the reviewer's objections, but at some point, they deleted the AFC header including the AFC reviewer improvement suggestions from the Draft. I was unsure how to proceed, and gave some ideas at my Talk, but suggested they try here in order to get the best advice. Can someone here advise? Adding DrowssapSMM. Thanks. Mathglot ( talk) 02:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Four articles, all today, all from new users, all sales-related essays. What's going on?
Qcne (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has come up before but I've noticed that whenever I try to provide a decline reason, my comments doesn't seem to show up. Maybe there's something off with my signature wikicode? @ Novem Linguae: — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 10:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Myself and other editors at WikiProject Television have noticed that a few AFC reviewers have been accepting a few subpar submissions that don't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (television) and Manual of Style/Television#Article Splitting. You can see the relevant discussions here and here. These are essentially creating an unnecessary SPINOUT and duplication of information that already exists elsewhere. Additionally, it takes time on our part to clean these up when they could've just been rejected to begin with. General consensus is that season articles require extensive information in areas of production, casting, reception, and other areas, to establish that the season is notable outside of the series as a whole. Similar to other topics on Wikipedia, notability for seasons are not automatically inherited from that of the parent article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Note that Draft:CSI: Vegas season 1, Draft:CSI: Vegas season 2 and Draft:CSI: Vegas season 3 have been updated and resubmitted if you want to take a look. KylieTastic ( talk) 14:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I deployed a small update to the AFC helper script tonight. The two main things in this deploy are 1) there is now a check box to copy over comments to the talk page, and 2) better autofill of a person's name in the DEFAULTSORT box on the accept screen. I have a bunch more in the pipeline. Will keep you posted. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Howdy folks. I'm excited to announce I've written AFC helper script patches for several frequently requested tickets. You can visit the patches and check out the screenshots to make sure you like them. If you're a techie (cc SD0001), you can click on the "Files changed" tab to see the code I wrote and review it. I plan to merge and deploy these patches on Monday.
So far I've cleared out the queue of other people's patches, cleared out the queue of tickets marked easy, and am about halfway through clearing out the high priority (frequently requested) queue. Will probably work on AFCH for another week to finish clearing out the high priority queue, then switch to a new project. There is no shortage of programming stuff to work on in the movement.
Anyway, I hope y'all like these patches. If you want me to adjust anything, let me know before Monday. Thank you. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 18:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Comments are invited on my draftification of this article which I believe was prematurely and erroneously moved to main space by a non-reviewer (no harm in their status, it is simply a statement of fact).
If consensus says I am in error please return the draft to mainspace. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Since User:Captbloodrock has been blocked for sockpuppetry, they should probably be removed from the list of probationary members. jlwoodwa ( talk) 04:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Back in the end of 2023, we had a spike of submissions from Taiwanese, which resulted in a number of discussions here, 1, 2, 3, 4. The project administrators are presenting their experience organising the activity in 2.5 hours time at meta:ESEAP Conference 2024 for a lightning session (15 minutes)! The session will be livestreamed (and likely subsequently uploaded to commons). Do tune in at YouTube at May 11, 2024, 8:00 UTC. ( conference timetable).
Sorry for the short notice, I have been up at my neck with various commitments. Pinging the following reviewers who had participated in the previous conversations here for awareness: @ GoingBatty, @ Novem Linguae, @ S0091, @ Asilvering, @ North8000. I will present for the lightning talk as part of the audience, but may end up participate in the QnA or sharing my experience as one of the AfC reviewers having dealt with this project as well (who knows?). – robertsky ( talk) 05:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
For the last few days, when I try to add a comment using AFCH, I get an 'edit conflict' error message for no obvious reason. I think this has (so far at least) only happened when I try to do that straight after I've just done a decline/reject, but I'm not sure; will keep an eye on it. Reloading the page and relaunching AFCH resolves the issue, so it's no biggie, just a bit annoying. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a description above, from a few weeks ago, of a situation where the AFCH script detects an edit conflict with itself. I consider that situation to be neither a bug nor a feature, but something in between, a harmless oddity. I have, at least twice recently, encountered a slightly different edit conflict, also the result of the edit conflict detection feature, which is surprising, but is a case of two things working correctly, and so is a feature. If I view the list of submitted pages in user space, I may see a few user sandboxes that have been submitted for review. What I do is to see if there is an obvious title, which there will be if the sandbox has a proper lede sentence. If so, I move the sandbox page to draft space, with the appropriate title. Then I give the draft a quick review for any obvious fails, such as no references. If so, I decline, or occasionally reject, the draft, with the appropriate code, and one or more templates, such as {{ seefoot}}. Sometimes the script gives me an error message saying that there was an edit conflict. A look at the history may show that a bot, usually RichBot, has edited the draft. RichBot has removed a template that is not used in draft space. This is unexpected, unless one is expecting it, but is entirely correct, because the bot is checking new draft pages, including new draft pages created by moving, and the bot is fast, because it is a bot. The edit conflict detector is also completely correct, because otherwise the script would be overwriting the edit by the bot, and therefore re-inserting the {{ User sandbox}} template that is not valid in draft space.
So, if you see this behavior when reviewing a sandbox, it is entirely correct. Thank you, User:Novem Linguae, or whoever, and thank you, User:Rich Smith. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheChineseGroundnut, where they are a likley UPE editor, editing in the same area as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tochi Clement 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Please could you modify your helper script to always put the WPAFC banner inside the banner shell (if one is already on the page) or to add a banner shell (if not). Also can you put the |class=
parameter in the banner shell instead of individual project banners?
This edit is not current best practice, and needs cleaning up by another editor later. Thanks! — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
08:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The text of this submission has been removed from Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning biographies of living persons; we cannot accept such articles if they are unsourced, or contain unverifiable information which is potentially defamatory. All articles about living persons must conform to our biographies of living persons policy. In order to permit the author of this submission to provide sources that may satisfy the policy, the text of the page is available in the history.
I've just declined this
Draft:Pune Porsche Crash case partly on the basis that there is unsupported potentially contentious information about living people. I used the BLP decline reason, and the resultant notice states that "The text of this submission has been removed from Wikipedia"
, but nothing has been removed, it's all still there. (Whether it actually needs to be removed is another matter, but if so then it can always be redacted as a separate exercise.) My question is, did I do something wrong, or is the tool not working correctly, or is it not even meant to remove anything? I can't remember if I've used this decline reason before, so don't know what was supposed to happen with it. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I reviewed and declined Draft:CaptionHub. It had already quite a lot of commentary from earlier reviewers, to which the draft author (presumably) had replied. When I declined it, all these comments somehow became repeated several times over. Anyone know why this happened? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section Creating an article, please make the following change:
− | If not, there is a very good chance that the topic is not notable and will | + | If not, there is a very good chance that the topic is not notable and will not be accepted as an article. |
An article might be notable in the future, so I don't think it is appropriate to say that it will never be accepted. OzzyOlly ( talk) 18:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I was interested in that question, and so I designed a user script for it. The results so far can be seen here. JJP Mas ter ( she/ they) 19:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I've seen in the past few hours three drafts on AI, each one a copyvio from the same source. First I thought it was the same user editing under two accounts, but perhaps it's another student assignment instead? (Although in that case their institution's anti-plagiarism measures must be pretty rubbish, if the students feel they could get away with blatant copypasting!) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Ctrl+C
Ctrl+V
.
Primefac (
talk)
18:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Drafts so far:
I have asked both editors if this is an education project. Both appeared within a very short gap of each other, and in Useer space 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Disney Emoji Blitz was recently submitted by a user with no previous involvement with the draft. They turned out to be a sock of someone with a habit of going around submitting other users' drafts. I was going to decline it purely on that basis, but then thought does it matter who submits the draft, if the draft is good enough to be published (and I say that hypothetically, as I've not evaluated this draft in any way). What's the best practice here? Or in the absence of that, at least a not-terrible practice? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 07:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
If anyone wants to know what Wikipedia's notability guidelines really mean and how to interpret them (as opposed to what you may have thought they mean), look no further than Draft talk:El Paso Chamber (with some additional content here). I have been comprehensively schooled, and can wholeheartedly recommend the experience. Now, where do I collect my diploma...? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Do we (at AfC, that is) need to agree some sort of coordinated approach to this ongoing flood of drafts on Indian military units? (In the unlikely event that anyone hasn't yet come across these, see eg. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Indian_army_usernames.) So far I've not seen a single one that was even close to acceptable standards. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Qcne (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi folks,
I wonder if the text on v - Submission is improperly sourced is a little misleading.
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This fail criteria is often used fairly generically, where the sources may also not be independent or provide significant coverage or be multiple or not-published. We get quite a few queries on the help desk where people argue the sources they provide are reliable not realising they fail the other requirements.
I think a better message might be:
The sources in this submission fail to meet one of Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability. Sources should be reliable and published, and to prove notability should be independent of the subject and provide significant coverage. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Happy to get any feedback or thoughts. Qcne (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
ilc
) where it comes down to using the decline properly. As mentioned above, it isn't necessarily for a lack of independent sources, but a lack of reliable sources. If the only things in the draft are primary sources (think GARAGEBAND) then something in the nn
family should be used. If there are huge swathes of unsourced content, v
should be used. If it's a combination of the two, then both should be used.
Primefac (
talk)
18:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)I didn't notice a discussion about that here. There's pending changes attached to WP:AFC/R right now.
-- 65.92.244.143 ( talk) 07:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I just noticed that this is also activated at WP:AFC/C; though not at WP:FFU ; the reasoning at RFP provided was same as AFC/R, but there hasn't really been much persistent activity of non-process requests there... -- 65.92.244.143 ( talk) 21:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Will someone, maybe User:Novem Linguae, please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Alpharomeo12&oldid=1227618442? The message says that they have made at least ten edits over four days, and so can create articles directly. Maybe the script is counting their Commons and Simple edits, but I don't think that those edits count toward the autoconfirmed privilege in English Wikipedia. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
I just ran into a software issue while submitting a draft for review. The issue stems from having to perform the Submit action twice, first without the captcha security check, then with. The problem is that a rate limit starts a timer during the first action, that triggers an error during the second action; and because of the latter, the first action must be repeated before the second is available. As a result, the only way to actually submit for review is to first Submit without captcha, then wait a minute or so before finally submitting with the captcha. This is extremely counter-intuitive. Either the rate limit should allow at least two actions in quick succession, or the captcha step should prevent editors from submitting before the timer ends (e.g. using software or warning text). -- Talky Muser ( talk) 16:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
{{subst:submit}}
on the draft page. –
SD0001 (
talk)
21:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)$wgCaptchaTriggersOnNamespace
setting. Might be worth a trial? After all, people are supposed to be adding references. If draftspace is overrun by spambots, we can always go back.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
21:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I have started reviewing Draft:Trivadi Sundaram Ganesan (my first review). I found some copied material, which I have removed, and declined on that basis.
Now that this material is removed, there seems little for the author to do other than resubmit so I am considering the article against other criteria. Considering it against WP:NPROF#C3 , the subject is a fellow of the National Academy of Medical Sciences. My initial thought is that this sounds less prestigious than a national academy of science (i.e. restricted to medical science), but the fellowship does seem to be only just over 1000 people, so it's quite selective. I have found it mentioned three times at AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunkara Balaparameswara Rao, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. N. Sharma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahdi Hasan), each time leading to a keep result but never on its own.
The draft certainly needs better citations, as whole sections are currently unreferenced, but before I wanted to have a clear idea about notability before moving on to that. So I'd value any opinions whether to count fellowship of National Academy of Medical Sciences is sufficient for WP:NPROF#C3. Thanks Mgp28 ( talk) 16:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I made some significant additions to Draft:2-Phenylbenzofuran, a previously declined draft, as it's within my area of interest (filling out the catalogue of chemical compounds). After these edits, I feel like the article's reached a point of acceptable quality, but I'm unsure if my edits are clouding my judgment - is it appropriate for me to accept the draft at this point, or should I wait for another reviewer to look at it? I'm asking here as this is something I anticipate happening in the future and (unless I missed it) the reviewer instructions don't provide specific guidance on acceptance of drafts that have more than minor fixes done by reviewers. Recon rabbit 15:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Is another backlog drive being planned? I missed the last two so I'm not sure if there was a set schedule put into place or if they occur whenever. Status has been on 3+ months for a while. C F A 💬 20:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I constantly find that new editors misunderstand the paid-editing warning, esp. when they're writing about their employer rather than a client. I raised this on the template's talk page a few months ago, didn't get anywhere, so have opened an edit request at Template_talk:Uw-paid1#Edit_request_7_June_2024. Feel free to add your views there. (Sorry, should have mentioned this earlier but clean forgot.) Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 14:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
If an article gets declined at AfC but then is immediately created in Mainspace (and has problems), per Caroline Leon, what is the process? Can it be automatically re-sent back to Draft/AfC or does it have to go to AfD? thanks. Aszx5000 ( talk) 12:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
At Miscellany for Deletion, we sometimes see drafts that are nominated for deletion for lack of notability, or for some other reason that is applicable to articles but not to drafts. These nominations are made in good faith, but are undesirable because they bite the originator of the draft, and are a waste of time for the MFD regulars. I would sort of like to know how to minimize the number of these nominations. I have in particular wondered whether they are made by new New Page Patrol volunteers who are looking at new entries in draft space, rather than at new entries in article space. I understand that a quick check of new entries in draft space is useful to verify that they are not attack pages or vandalism, but those are among the few things that new drafts should be checked against.
So I have occasionally asked a nominator what their reason was for nominating a draft for deletion (as well as, of course, saying Keep). One of my concerns is whether clearer instructions to NPP reviewers are needed about draft space. All that is prologue. I have assumed that AFC reviewers understand draft space, and know that there are five main choices that they have with regard to drafts:
We know that drafts can be nominated for deletion at MFD, but that should only be done in rare cases, mainly for tendentious resubmission.
So, after that prologue, here is my question. There is a draft at MFD that was nominated for deletion by an AFC reviewer as crystal balling. It will be kept, but I think that its nomination was a mistake. Is this a case where an AFC reviewer didn't understand something, and where maybe clearer instructions are needed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to raise attention to a discussion started in the Village Pump regarding potential changes to WP:COI which currently requires any paid editor (including the ones receiving grants from non-profit organizations) to go through AfC for all new articles. I thought this might be of interest to AfC reviewers, as a change of policy would substantially reduce the AfC volume.
7804j ( talk) 11:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § {{AfC submission}}. '''[[
User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk •
contribs)
03:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@ North8000 said something at WT:N, in a different context, about wanting articles to have at least a bit of content (maybe a couple sentences or an image), and this has reminded me that I have a question about an item in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Step 3: Suitability, "too short".
This item in the reviewing instructions says "Too short, but could be merged into Article" and "Decline the submission as too short and suggest a suitable title for the content to be merged into (if applicable). Generally, the author should be able to do this themselves."
My question: What's too short?
Let's say that the median Wikipedia article today contains n sentences of readable prose. What's the minimum? Does it need to be 50% as long as the median? At least as long as the median? Longer than the median? Are all stubs (generally, <250 words or <10 sentences) too short? Do reviewers all use the same standard? Does anyone even know? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
merge
decline says... The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article on the same subject. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.Primefac ( talk) 00:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
When an article is draftified, we typically need to manually insert the subjected template". IMO, there should be an option to add this template using the AFC script. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 13:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
As per the title really, looked at a draft of an article that's "under review" and instead of making a decision the probationary reviewer (Ae245) has instead chosen to attempt to add biographical material to it from a clearly non-reputable source (thebiography.org). [3]
The site's "about" page alone screams "low grade" with numerous basic grammar mistakes [4] Rambling Rambler ( talk) 23:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
FYI Template:Comment inline ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a template used for the development of draft articles, has been nominated for deletion -- 64.229.90.32 ( talk) 06:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The AFC script provides a comment if the originator of a draft is blocked, stating the duration of the draft, and the reason given by the administrator. I think that it needs one tweak. If the originator is partially blocked, it says that they are blocked, not that they are partially blocked. For instance, you can see this with Draft:Burnett Township, Santa Clara County, California. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:58, 30 June 2024 (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 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 |
Hi, it has been about a month since I was added to the AfC reviewer list. I have done a couple reviews over this month and would be happy to do more. Pinging @ Primefac for review, thanks. TLA tlak 15:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you should link those two on-going AfDs...False; S0091 is not asking for anyone else to participate. Primefac ( talk) 17:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The first in light of the second suggests to me an editor who had already decided they were not going to allow yet another young person biography to get deleted by the "passionate" others who were "targeting" it.This suggests to me that you will be extended considerably less benefit of the doubt when it comes to bio articles on young people. -- asilvering ( talk) 17:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
As well, Spanish language should not be considered per WP:GNG), misapplication of WP:ENT (
the second criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER may potentially apply here...
My small point with WP:ENTERTAINER relates to comedians, vaguely, with the fact that the subject seems to make comedy videos and that the company itself posts a lot of memes) and a failure to correct the entry on Billboard Argentina in their source analysis table when pointed out to them. When I said the source highlighting script doesn't necessarily represent consensus, they said,
A good amount of them do. There is 6, and to me, 5 of them meet our requirements for significant coverage and independence.If it were up to me, that article would be deleted as spam, so naturally, I am wary when I see someone who saw no problem with it trying to join AFC/NPP but that's just my perspective. The second concern relates to this:
The nominator's peculiar passion to delete this page and the imprecise G4 rationale by an administrator (having been deleted over a year ago, with strong changes and a massive increase in sourcing, and no hoaxes) seem to reflect a common trend I've seen on Wikipedia. Young, relatively notable subjects such as Rishab Jain, Avi Schiffmann, Jenk Oz, Kevin Leyes (which has since been recreated under Leyes (singer) due to new sourcing, which is evidently the case here as well, are often a target of editors.The first in light of the second suggests to me an editor who had already decided they were not going to allow yet another young person biography to get deleted by the "passionate" others who were "targeting" it. Other AFDs mentioned indicate the same to me: an editor who has a very hard time accepting a deletion outcome, which is fine except if you intend to work AFC/NPP, where we have to put our personal philosophies second to community given inclusion guidelines. They need to consider carefully whether this was the case, and if they need to sort out their priorities.I checked a few of their reviews. And I think they should have brought Draft:Jasmin Champagne to admin attention immediately, even if they weren't sure what to do with it (which I wasn't either, but I contacted OS and it was promptly suppressed). It's hard to explain why now because TLA likely doesn't remember what it was, and I couldn't bring it up until I heard back from OS. But Primefac is an OS. I trust they will review and advise accordingly. I do not mean to recommend they should not be a reviewer, as I am unsure as to the expectations that are realistic for this project. I am sharing feedback because it looks like that's what's happening here. I am sure TLA will do fine with more experience. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "passion project" or "digital journal", sorry.so I'm guessing it was written by a minor with some personal content. Can't quite recall. If I come across something like that in the future I'll make sure to SD nom it and go to oversight. TLA tlak 15:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
an obscure 17-year-old Canadian a "mogul". TLA tlak 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed this a few times where what I consider are decent quality articles getting repeatedly rejected. I know that reviewers are not supposed to take previous reviews into consideration when reviewing a new article, but it's hard to deny that seeing say 5 rejections must surely subconsciously or consciously affect the review of a new draft submission.
Often the initial article definitely had reason to be rejected, but over time improvements get made and in my opinion become fairly good, well written and sourced, but I feel as if the previous rejections often influence or bias the latest AfC submission. I don't want to list examples, but has anyone else had this experience, if so, what are some alternatives to AfC - that perhaps works like an AfD where there is more community consensus. Mr Vili talk 12:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
this whole discussion is a mess, and I don't want to be part of it. Speaking for us all. -- asilvering ( talk) 11:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
known only in connection with a criminal event or trial. I'm sure there are other reliable sources but requires a deep dig-up that don't hone in on the criminal case. TLA tlak 03:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
To make a long story short, IMO in practice, on average, passing AFC is a higher standard than passing NPP/AFD. I've done a lot of NPP and later a small amount of AFC review. When starting the latter it was explained that theoretically, the criteria for passing AFC is having a good chance at passing AFD. In reality, the criteria for passing at NPP/AFD is "should this topic have an article?" (and 95% of the time that is "Does the topic pass wp:notability?") and not other article quality issues. I think that the de facto requirements for passing AFC is that the article does not have any other significant quality issues. I think that this is simply human nature.....what reviewer is going to want to put their stamp of approval on an article which has significant problems even if it would pass NPP/AFD? I'm not implying that this is good or bad, I'm just noting it and noting that I think that this phenomena is relevant to some of the types of discussions that often come up. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
So, if the wp:afc passage standard is intended to be a reasonable chance of passage at AFD, why are there "decline" templates for reasons which are not a reason for deletion of an article? Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 21:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
IMO, at least at the macro level, the solution is simple. Align everything "pass/fail" related at AFC with it's stated pass/fail criteria. (e.g. instructions to reviewers, failure templates etc.) North8000 ( talk) 15:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Since we are discussing the Tristan Tate article, I would like feedback on whether what I did with that page was reasonable. As has been mentioned, the article was submitted to AFC, reasonably, and declined, reasonably. The originator then requested discussion at DRN. The author said that they wanted the draft moved into article space so that there could be a deletion discussion to obtain a rough consensus on individual notability.
DRN has not in the past been a forum for a discussion of draft declines, which are discussed at the AFC Help Desk or the Teahouse. Also, I had previously declined an earlier version of the draft, and so had become involved and would not be a neutral mediator. However, I was willing to ignore the rule that a reviewer should only accept a draft if they thought that there was a greater than 50% chance that it would be kept after AFD. I had no idea what the likelihood was that it would be kept at AFD, but I thought that it was in the interests of the encyclopedia to resolve the question of the biographical notability of Tristan Tate with an AFD. So I said that if the draft was resubmitted to AFC again, I would accept it for the purpose of enabling a deletion discussion. The originator resubmitted, and I accepted, and there was a seven-day AFD, which has now been non-admin closed as Keep. So my question is: Do other reviewers think that I reasonably applied Ignore All Rules? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I will also comment that I think that the non-administrative close was questionable because the AFD had been contentious, and the guideline says that contentious closes should be left to admins. But that is a matter either for discussion with the closer or for Deletion Review. It would have been a valid admin close, and I am very seldom inclined to criticize a non-admin close simply for being a non-admin close. But if it comes to Deletion Review, I will !vote to Overturn to Relist to allow an admin to close after another week, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
It would be good to have a subst'able response template to place on users' talk pages, when they make this mistake. It seems to be a daily occurrence that some person from India places a draft biography into WP:Articles for creation/Redirects instead of using a sandbox or draftspace. That in itself is very weird, why are so many people from India are writing bios at AFC/R? There should be a standardized response to these people to tell them to use the article wizard, draft space, or a user sandbox, instead of making an illegal request at AFC/R. Considering how common this has become recently, there should be a template response to this situation, just as we have template rejection closures at AFC/R for closing requests. -- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 07:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
This user is making some genuine efforts to write content but is just getting knocked back on Draft:Gauda conquest of Kamarup. I'm not saying this was the wrong decision but is there any way we can we be more encouraging and supportive rather than just declining the good faith submissions? I've left some suggestions on Draft talk:Gauda conquest of Kamarup — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 18:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. GeorgeBergerson ( talk) 00:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, AFC folks,
I just noticed that Shewasafairy was reecently blocked and on their talk page they have discussions with editors whose drafts they reviewed. They even kept a log, User:Shewasafairy/AfC log. But I can't find their name on the AFC Participants list. Was their name recently removed or were they never an accepted AFC reviewer? I was wondering if the drafts they looked at should be re=reviewed. However, I can see that I'm tla was recently removed from the Participants list so they were an approved reviewer but they also had a log, User:I'm tla/AfC log that I thought might be reviewed in case there was any paid editing occurring. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 11 April 2024 (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.
There's a software patch written and ready to go for this but there's some objections in the ticket. Let's hash it out here and get this patch un-stuck. How should the AFC helper script handle uncategorized drafts?
– Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:21, 9 April 2024 (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.
Another stuck patch. Right now, AFCH will provide a "Nominate the submission for speedy deletion" check box for G12 copyright only. Would we like to expand this to include any other CSDs?
If G3 and G10 support is added, we will need to split "attack" and "van" into separate decline reasons. (Currently, "attack" is just an alias/redirect to "van". This split would be easy to do.). – Novem Linguae ( talk) 14:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure AFCH strictly needs thisand
I'm on the fencebeing mixed with
I see no reason not to add them, my current read of this discussion is "no consensus". Will close the patch and ticket as declined on Monday unless there are further comments over the weekend. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
– DreamRimmer ( talk) 16:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone ever use {{ Db-afc-move}} on articles rather than redirects? For example if there is a really good draft and a really poor article and you want to replace the mainspace article with the draft? The answer to this will determine how I write the documentation at Template:Db-afc-move/doc (which I recently edited), and may also affect the current patch I'm writing for WP:AFCH. At the moment my patch is only for tagging redirects. My concern is {{ Db-afc-move}} is a type of WP:G6, which I think is normally only used on redirects. But the "non-controversial maintenance" clause is broad enough that it could arguably be applied to articles if the deletion were completely non-controversial. If {{ Db-afc-move}} cannot be used on articles, then I guess the alternatives could be anything from a copy-paste move with attribution, to a page swap, to asking an admin to G6 it for you. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
exists
as a decline reason; I don't think we should be G6'ing articles just to move a draft over them, since as you say there are a half-dozen alternate options.
Primefac (
talk)
11:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I posted a question at VPM about copy-pastes, and am now asking here about an unexpected answer that I got. I have from time to time complained that the message that the history merge template suggests be given to the user who did the copy-paste is mealy. It doesn't say not to do copy-pastes, only that move is better. I still think that there should be a Level 2 caution, at least in cases where the reviewer thinks that the editor should have known better. However, I said that we would like to minimize the amount of work done by admins in doing history-merges. I got an answer that is, essentially, that history merges are not needed, and no admin work is needed, because either a talk page template, or a note in an edit summary, is sufficient. So my question is: Are history merges no longer required? It was always my understanding that if a reviewer encounters a draft and an article that are the same, they should check whether they have the same authors, and, if not, request a history merge. I hope that this is not considered a stupid question. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I've been watching the help page and some AFC conversations a while... one recurrent theme is that for a common type of article that they are creating (=aren't given presumed notability by an SNG) the creators don't understand that for their article the wp:notability requirement is not about the common meaning of notability, it's about having two published independent sources (sometimes one) which cover the topic of their article in depth. For somebody new to Wikipedia I don't think that they understand this from the explanations given, doubly so because the explanations are usually complicated by the (irrelevant-for-them) SNG possibilities. Would it be good to add something like this to explanations?:
North8000 ( talk) 00:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. If a draft meets the criteria for CSD (for example, for G5), should the draft be tagged and declined, or can the submission templates be removed altogether? Thanks. '''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
01:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
02:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
07:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at
WT:Drafts regarding a proposed split of
WP:Drafts. The thread is
WT:Drafts#Split into help page and guideline. Thank you.
S0091 (
talk)
17:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. A few days ago, User:Dan arndt moved an article I created to draftspace. Admittedly, I let this one fall through the cracks, and it sat for a few weeks as an unreferenced stub. I immediately objected to the move and requested that the article be moved back to mainspace per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, but, nearly 5 days later, I still haven't heard anything back. I believe I've more than established the subject's notability and intend to improve the article even further. I'd appreciate anyone who could help me out here or direct me to the right place. I've created thousands of articles in my almost 15 years of editing, including a number which I've gotten up to GA status, and I think it'd be silly to require review of the existing draft. Thanks! Rockhead126 ( talk) 20:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, apologies if the answer to this question is mentioned somewhere and I've missed it! I just wanted to check if I had to be a listed AfC participant in order to create redirects from WP:AFC/R; or if that isn't a requirement for that page. All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I've seen a few articles that cite the IANS that look like press releases, but are also in reputable newspapers. Noah 💬 19:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like Enterprisey is retiring or semi-retiring. Before he left, he gave me access to the AFC history tool, and I went ahead and made some updates. So far I've modernized the code, added a feature where the URL always contains the username now (for easier linking), and the browser forward and back buttons now keep a proper history. I'm open to more suggestions if y'all think of anything else. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 10:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
$( window ).on( 'pageshow', function () {
is the problem. I'll be back in a bit with an update. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
00:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
It works on all three browsers now. It looks better on FF for mine as most lines are single depth, but reviews on drafts with long names ( Draft:David M. Knight - American Catholic Priest, Author, Speaker, Retreat Leader, Spiritual Director) makes Chrome and Edge format the table so all the dates take two lines. Not a biggy. KylieTastic ( talk) 08:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, the wording added states that "Drafts containing copied/translated content and lacking such attribution should be speedily declined". I don't see such a statement in the Terms of Use, but I do see WP:RIA, which states that "While technically licensing violations are copyright violations, pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted. Attribution can be belatedly supplied by the methods above, using dummy edits to record new edit summaries. Such belated attribution should make clear when the relevant text entered the page. You can also identify problem articles, in particular complex cases that you cannot fix right away, by tagging the article itself with the templates
This article's
edit history is not complete. Some of the article text's edit history exists at a different location due to copying and pasting between articles. This may be a violation of the
CC BY-SA and/or
GFDL if proper attribution was not made in an edit summary or on the talk page. |
(for a single origin) and
![]() | This article's edit history is not complete. Some of the article text's edit history exists at different locations due to copying and pasting between articles. This may be a violation of the CC BY-SA and/or GFDL if proper attribution was not made in an edit summary or on the talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Merge and Wikipedia:Splitting for details of how to correctly attribute using links in the edit summaries. You can also read the " copying within Wikipedia" guideline for an overview of the issues involved. The articles from which material was copied include, |
(for articles with multiple origins)." Greenman ( talk) 08:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Speedy decline #1 has been updated to account for how to handle Drafts that are translations from other Wikipedias (permitted, but requires attribution in the edit summary) or are a copy of content from other Wikimedia projects (also permitted, with attribution). In brief: a Draft submitted for review which contains content translated or copied from other Wikimedia projects but lacks the required attribution statement in the revision history should be speedily declined as a Terms of Use/copyright violation, and a link to WP:RIA should be provided to the user in the decline message, which explains how to rectify the missing attribution so the Draft can be resubmitted. This is based on Wikimedia's Terms of Use which govern every edit at Wikipedia (a statement and link to it is given on the preview page just above the 'Publish' button every time you save an edit). The Terms of Use overrides guidelines, policy, consensus, and ArbCom, and is a hard requirement. Feel free to update the additional wording as need be. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 20:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
{{attrib needed|lang_code|title}}
and it will spit out the exact words that need to be added to satisfy the attribution requirement specified by
WP:RIA. Would that help? (P.S. No need to ping; I am subscribed.)
Mathglot (
talk)
23:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link:
Draft:Javier Zaruski
Hello. I encountered Medianextgen ( talk · contribs) at the WP:Tea house regarding their Draft, and they have followed up with questions at my Talk page, asking how to resubmit their declined AFC Draft. They believe they have now addressed the reviewer's objections, but at some point, they deleted the AFC header including the AFC reviewer improvement suggestions from the Draft. I was unsure how to proceed, and gave some ideas at my Talk, but suggested they try here in order to get the best advice. Can someone here advise? Adding DrowssapSMM. Thanks. Mathglot ( talk) 02:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Four articles, all today, all from new users, all sales-related essays. What's going on?
Qcne (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has come up before but I've noticed that whenever I try to provide a decline reason, my comments doesn't seem to show up. Maybe there's something off with my signature wikicode? @ Novem Linguae: — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 10:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Myself and other editors at WikiProject Television have noticed that a few AFC reviewers have been accepting a few subpar submissions that don't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (television) and Manual of Style/Television#Article Splitting. You can see the relevant discussions here and here. These are essentially creating an unnecessary SPINOUT and duplication of information that already exists elsewhere. Additionally, it takes time on our part to clean these up when they could've just been rejected to begin with. General consensus is that season articles require extensive information in areas of production, casting, reception, and other areas, to establish that the season is notable outside of the series as a whole. Similar to other topics on Wikipedia, notability for seasons are not automatically inherited from that of the parent article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Note that Draft:CSI: Vegas season 1, Draft:CSI: Vegas season 2 and Draft:CSI: Vegas season 3 have been updated and resubmitted if you want to take a look. KylieTastic ( talk) 14:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I deployed a small update to the AFC helper script tonight. The two main things in this deploy are 1) there is now a check box to copy over comments to the talk page, and 2) better autofill of a person's name in the DEFAULTSORT box on the accept screen. I have a bunch more in the pipeline. Will keep you posted. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Howdy folks. I'm excited to announce I've written AFC helper script patches for several frequently requested tickets. You can visit the patches and check out the screenshots to make sure you like them. If you're a techie (cc SD0001), you can click on the "Files changed" tab to see the code I wrote and review it. I plan to merge and deploy these patches on Monday.
So far I've cleared out the queue of other people's patches, cleared out the queue of tickets marked easy, and am about halfway through clearing out the high priority (frequently requested) queue. Will probably work on AFCH for another week to finish clearing out the high priority queue, then switch to a new project. There is no shortage of programming stuff to work on in the movement.
Anyway, I hope y'all like these patches. If you want me to adjust anything, let me know before Monday. Thank you. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 18:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Comments are invited on my draftification of this article which I believe was prematurely and erroneously moved to main space by a non-reviewer (no harm in their status, it is simply a statement of fact).
If consensus says I am in error please return the draft to mainspace. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Since User:Captbloodrock has been blocked for sockpuppetry, they should probably be removed from the list of probationary members. jlwoodwa ( talk) 04:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Back in the end of 2023, we had a spike of submissions from Taiwanese, which resulted in a number of discussions here, 1, 2, 3, 4. The project administrators are presenting their experience organising the activity in 2.5 hours time at meta:ESEAP Conference 2024 for a lightning session (15 minutes)! The session will be livestreamed (and likely subsequently uploaded to commons). Do tune in at YouTube at May 11, 2024, 8:00 UTC. ( conference timetable).
Sorry for the short notice, I have been up at my neck with various commitments. Pinging the following reviewers who had participated in the previous conversations here for awareness: @ GoingBatty, @ Novem Linguae, @ S0091, @ Asilvering, @ North8000. I will present for the lightning talk as part of the audience, but may end up participate in the QnA or sharing my experience as one of the AfC reviewers having dealt with this project as well (who knows?). – robertsky ( talk) 05:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
For the last few days, when I try to add a comment using AFCH, I get an 'edit conflict' error message for no obvious reason. I think this has (so far at least) only happened when I try to do that straight after I've just done a decline/reject, but I'm not sure; will keep an eye on it. Reloading the page and relaunching AFCH resolves the issue, so it's no biggie, just a bit annoying. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a description above, from a few weeks ago, of a situation where the AFCH script detects an edit conflict with itself. I consider that situation to be neither a bug nor a feature, but something in between, a harmless oddity. I have, at least twice recently, encountered a slightly different edit conflict, also the result of the edit conflict detection feature, which is surprising, but is a case of two things working correctly, and so is a feature. If I view the list of submitted pages in user space, I may see a few user sandboxes that have been submitted for review. What I do is to see if there is an obvious title, which there will be if the sandbox has a proper lede sentence. If so, I move the sandbox page to draft space, with the appropriate title. Then I give the draft a quick review for any obvious fails, such as no references. If so, I decline, or occasionally reject, the draft, with the appropriate code, and one or more templates, such as {{ seefoot}}. Sometimes the script gives me an error message saying that there was an edit conflict. A look at the history may show that a bot, usually RichBot, has edited the draft. RichBot has removed a template that is not used in draft space. This is unexpected, unless one is expecting it, but is entirely correct, because the bot is checking new draft pages, including new draft pages created by moving, and the bot is fast, because it is a bot. The edit conflict detector is also completely correct, because otherwise the script would be overwriting the edit by the bot, and therefore re-inserting the {{ User sandbox}} template that is not valid in draft space.
So, if you see this behavior when reviewing a sandbox, it is entirely correct. Thank you, User:Novem Linguae, or whoever, and thank you, User:Rich Smith. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheChineseGroundnut, where they are a likley UPE editor, editing in the same area as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tochi Clement 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Please could you modify your helper script to always put the WPAFC banner inside the banner shell (if one is already on the page) or to add a banner shell (if not). Also can you put the |class=
parameter in the banner shell instead of individual project banners?
This edit is not current best practice, and needs cleaning up by another editor later. Thanks! — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
08:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The text of this submission has been removed from Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning biographies of living persons; we cannot accept such articles if they are unsourced, or contain unverifiable information which is potentially defamatory. All articles about living persons must conform to our biographies of living persons policy. In order to permit the author of this submission to provide sources that may satisfy the policy, the text of the page is available in the history.
I've just declined this
Draft:Pune Porsche Crash case partly on the basis that there is unsupported potentially contentious information about living people. I used the BLP decline reason, and the resultant notice states that "The text of this submission has been removed from Wikipedia"
, but nothing has been removed, it's all still there. (Whether it actually needs to be removed is another matter, but if so then it can always be redacted as a separate exercise.) My question is, did I do something wrong, or is the tool not working correctly, or is it not even meant to remove anything? I can't remember if I've used this decline reason before, so don't know what was supposed to happen with it. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I reviewed and declined Draft:CaptionHub. It had already quite a lot of commentary from earlier reviewers, to which the draft author (presumably) had replied. When I declined it, all these comments somehow became repeated several times over. Anyone know why this happened? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section Creating an article, please make the following change:
− | If not, there is a very good chance that the topic is not notable and will | + | If not, there is a very good chance that the topic is not notable and will not be accepted as an article. |
An article might be notable in the future, so I don't think it is appropriate to say that it will never be accepted. OzzyOlly ( talk) 18:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I was interested in that question, and so I designed a user script for it. The results so far can be seen here. JJP Mas ter ( she/ they) 19:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I've seen in the past few hours three drafts on AI, each one a copyvio from the same source. First I thought it was the same user editing under two accounts, but perhaps it's another student assignment instead? (Although in that case their institution's anti-plagiarism measures must be pretty rubbish, if the students feel they could get away with blatant copypasting!) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Ctrl+C
Ctrl+V
.
Primefac (
talk)
18:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Drafts so far:
I have asked both editors if this is an education project. Both appeared within a very short gap of each other, and in Useer space 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Disney Emoji Blitz was recently submitted by a user with no previous involvement with the draft. They turned out to be a sock of someone with a habit of going around submitting other users' drafts. I was going to decline it purely on that basis, but then thought does it matter who submits the draft, if the draft is good enough to be published (and I say that hypothetically, as I've not evaluated this draft in any way). What's the best practice here? Or in the absence of that, at least a not-terrible practice? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 07:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
If anyone wants to know what Wikipedia's notability guidelines really mean and how to interpret them (as opposed to what you may have thought they mean), look no further than Draft talk:El Paso Chamber (with some additional content here). I have been comprehensively schooled, and can wholeheartedly recommend the experience. Now, where do I collect my diploma...? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Do we (at AfC, that is) need to agree some sort of coordinated approach to this ongoing flood of drafts on Indian military units? (In the unlikely event that anyone hasn't yet come across these, see eg. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Indian_army_usernames.) So far I've not seen a single one that was even close to acceptable standards. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Qcne (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi folks,
I wonder if the text on v - Submission is improperly sourced is a little misleading.
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This fail criteria is often used fairly generically, where the sources may also not be independent or provide significant coverage or be multiple or not-published. We get quite a few queries on the help desk where people argue the sources they provide are reliable not realising they fail the other requirements.
I think a better message might be:
The sources in this submission fail to meet one of Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability. Sources should be reliable and published, and to prove notability should be independent of the subject and provide significant coverage. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Happy to get any feedback or thoughts. Qcne (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
ilc
) where it comes down to using the decline properly. As mentioned above, it isn't necessarily for a lack of independent sources, but a lack of reliable sources. If the only things in the draft are primary sources (think GARAGEBAND) then something in the nn
family should be used. If there are huge swathes of unsourced content, v
should be used. If it's a combination of the two, then both should be used.
Primefac (
talk)
18:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)I didn't notice a discussion about that here. There's pending changes attached to WP:AFC/R right now.
-- 65.92.244.143 ( talk) 07:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I just noticed that this is also activated at WP:AFC/C; though not at WP:FFU ; the reasoning at RFP provided was same as AFC/R, but there hasn't really been much persistent activity of non-process requests there... -- 65.92.244.143 ( talk) 21:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Will someone, maybe User:Novem Linguae, please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Alpharomeo12&oldid=1227618442? The message says that they have made at least ten edits over four days, and so can create articles directly. Maybe the script is counting their Commons and Simple edits, but I don't think that those edits count toward the autoconfirmed privilege in English Wikipedia. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
I just ran into a software issue while submitting a draft for review. The issue stems from having to perform the Submit action twice, first without the captcha security check, then with. The problem is that a rate limit starts a timer during the first action, that triggers an error during the second action; and because of the latter, the first action must be repeated before the second is available. As a result, the only way to actually submit for review is to first Submit without captcha, then wait a minute or so before finally submitting with the captcha. This is extremely counter-intuitive. Either the rate limit should allow at least two actions in quick succession, or the captcha step should prevent editors from submitting before the timer ends (e.g. using software or warning text). -- Talky Muser ( talk) 16:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
{{subst:submit}}
on the draft page. –
SD0001 (
talk)
21:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)$wgCaptchaTriggersOnNamespace
setting. Might be worth a trial? After all, people are supposed to be adding references. If draftspace is overrun by spambots, we can always go back.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
21:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I have started reviewing Draft:Trivadi Sundaram Ganesan (my first review). I found some copied material, which I have removed, and declined on that basis.
Now that this material is removed, there seems little for the author to do other than resubmit so I am considering the article against other criteria. Considering it against WP:NPROF#C3 , the subject is a fellow of the National Academy of Medical Sciences. My initial thought is that this sounds less prestigious than a national academy of science (i.e. restricted to medical science), but the fellowship does seem to be only just over 1000 people, so it's quite selective. I have found it mentioned three times at AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunkara Balaparameswara Rao, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. N. Sharma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahdi Hasan), each time leading to a keep result but never on its own.
The draft certainly needs better citations, as whole sections are currently unreferenced, but before I wanted to have a clear idea about notability before moving on to that. So I'd value any opinions whether to count fellowship of National Academy of Medical Sciences is sufficient for WP:NPROF#C3. Thanks Mgp28 ( talk) 16:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I made some significant additions to Draft:2-Phenylbenzofuran, a previously declined draft, as it's within my area of interest (filling out the catalogue of chemical compounds). After these edits, I feel like the article's reached a point of acceptable quality, but I'm unsure if my edits are clouding my judgment - is it appropriate for me to accept the draft at this point, or should I wait for another reviewer to look at it? I'm asking here as this is something I anticipate happening in the future and (unless I missed it) the reviewer instructions don't provide specific guidance on acceptance of drafts that have more than minor fixes done by reviewers. Recon rabbit 15:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Is another backlog drive being planned? I missed the last two so I'm not sure if there was a set schedule put into place or if they occur whenever. Status has been on 3+ months for a while. C F A 💬 20:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I constantly find that new editors misunderstand the paid-editing warning, esp. when they're writing about their employer rather than a client. I raised this on the template's talk page a few months ago, didn't get anywhere, so have opened an edit request at Template_talk:Uw-paid1#Edit_request_7_June_2024. Feel free to add your views there. (Sorry, should have mentioned this earlier but clean forgot.) Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 14:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
If an article gets declined at AfC but then is immediately created in Mainspace (and has problems), per Caroline Leon, what is the process? Can it be automatically re-sent back to Draft/AfC or does it have to go to AfD? thanks. Aszx5000 ( talk) 12:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
At Miscellany for Deletion, we sometimes see drafts that are nominated for deletion for lack of notability, or for some other reason that is applicable to articles but not to drafts. These nominations are made in good faith, but are undesirable because they bite the originator of the draft, and are a waste of time for the MFD regulars. I would sort of like to know how to minimize the number of these nominations. I have in particular wondered whether they are made by new New Page Patrol volunteers who are looking at new entries in draft space, rather than at new entries in article space. I understand that a quick check of new entries in draft space is useful to verify that they are not attack pages or vandalism, but those are among the few things that new drafts should be checked against.
So I have occasionally asked a nominator what their reason was for nominating a draft for deletion (as well as, of course, saying Keep). One of my concerns is whether clearer instructions to NPP reviewers are needed about draft space. All that is prologue. I have assumed that AFC reviewers understand draft space, and know that there are five main choices that they have with regard to drafts:
We know that drafts can be nominated for deletion at MFD, but that should only be done in rare cases, mainly for tendentious resubmission.
So, after that prologue, here is my question. There is a draft at MFD that was nominated for deletion by an AFC reviewer as crystal balling. It will be kept, but I think that its nomination was a mistake. Is this a case where an AFC reviewer didn't understand something, and where maybe clearer instructions are needed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to raise attention to a discussion started in the Village Pump regarding potential changes to WP:COI which currently requires any paid editor (including the ones receiving grants from non-profit organizations) to go through AfC for all new articles. I thought this might be of interest to AfC reviewers, as a change of policy would substantially reduce the AfC volume.
7804j ( talk) 11:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § {{AfC submission}}. '''[[
User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk •
contribs)
03:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@ North8000 said something at WT:N, in a different context, about wanting articles to have at least a bit of content (maybe a couple sentences or an image), and this has reminded me that I have a question about an item in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Step 3: Suitability, "too short".
This item in the reviewing instructions says "Too short, but could be merged into Article" and "Decline the submission as too short and suggest a suitable title for the content to be merged into (if applicable). Generally, the author should be able to do this themselves."
My question: What's too short?
Let's say that the median Wikipedia article today contains n sentences of readable prose. What's the minimum? Does it need to be 50% as long as the median? At least as long as the median? Longer than the median? Are all stubs (generally, <250 words or <10 sentences) too short? Do reviewers all use the same standard? Does anyone even know? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
merge
decline says... The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article on the same subject. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.Primefac ( talk) 00:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
When an article is draftified, we typically need to manually insert the subjected template". IMO, there should be an option to add this template using the AFC script. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 13:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
As per the title really, looked at a draft of an article that's "under review" and instead of making a decision the probationary reviewer (Ae245) has instead chosen to attempt to add biographical material to it from a clearly non-reputable source (thebiography.org). [3]
The site's "about" page alone screams "low grade" with numerous basic grammar mistakes [4] Rambling Rambler ( talk) 23:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
FYI Template:Comment inline ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a template used for the development of draft articles, has been nominated for deletion -- 64.229.90.32 ( talk) 06:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The AFC script provides a comment if the originator of a draft is blocked, stating the duration of the draft, and the reason given by the administrator. I think that it needs one tweak. If the originator is partially blocked, it says that they are blocked, not that they are partially blocked. For instance, you can see this with Draft:Burnett Township, Santa Clara County, California. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)