Main page | Talk page |
Submissions Category — List ( sorting) | Showcase |
Participants Apply — By subject |
Reviewing instructions | Help desk |
Backlog drives |
AfC
submissions Random submission |
3+ months |
![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation redirects here. |
![]() | Articles for creation Project‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | WikiProject Articles for creation was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 24 December 2018. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)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 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)
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)
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)
Main page | Talk page |
Submissions Category — List ( sorting) | Showcase |
Participants Apply — By subject |
Reviewing instructions | Help desk |
Backlog drives |
AfC
submissions Random submission |
3+ months |
![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation redirects here. |
![]() | Articles for creation Project‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | WikiProject Articles for creation was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 24 December 2018. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)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 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)
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)
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)