Main page | Talk page |
Submissions Category — List ( sorting) | Showcase |
Participants Apply — By subject |
Reviewing instructions | Help desk |
Backlog drives |
AfC
submissions Random submission |
4+ 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. |
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)
@ 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)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § {{AfC submission}}. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 26 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). [2]
The site's "about" page alone screams "low grade" with numerous basic grammar mistakes [3] Rambling Rambler ( talk) 23:05, 29 June 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)
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)
5.43.87.31 ( talk · contribs) modified date timestamps at WP:AFC/R into a different format with this edit. It was subsequently reverted. But if this wasn't caught, would this date format cause problems with the archival bot? -- 64.229.90.32 ( talk) 05:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I was going to accept Draft:Victoria Starmer, because the sources look to me enough to pass GNG, and I couldn't find any major issues with it. Then I realised this had been draftified following this AfD only a month ago, and the sources back then were pretty much the same as now. Given that our ultimate yardstick for assessing drafts is 'would this survive a hypothetical AfD?', and seeing as this one sort of did, sort of didn't, I'm hesitant to just overrule the AfD consensus. Would someone else please take a look and let me know what they think? Ta muchly, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 08:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Despite the reason for existence of GNG coverage (because she is Keirs wife), IMO GNG coverage does exist and my thought would be to accept it. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new § Remove link to the article wizard. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Some pending change reviewers accept empty (and thus automatically declined) submissions; and other reviewers reject them; and I simply cannot decide. Do we want to decide this one way or the other? Is there anything to be gained by clogging the list — however little — with pointless, empty, trivially declined entries? Nick Levine ( talk) 16:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Mathglot left a message on my talk page asking me not to edit categories when I am editing AFC drafts. This can be seen at the bottom of my talk page. The example that he gave of what he was asking me not to do is this edit. As an AFC reviewer can see, I was using the yellow Comment button to insert a comment into a draft, and it appears that the script did cleanup on the categories, inserting colons in front of them. However, that was mistaken cleanup, because the categories should be disabled while the draft is in draft, and will be enabled when the draft is accepted. I replied that I know little about categories, and I seldom edit them. If I accept a draft, I normally tag it with {{ Improve categories}} to request that gnomes review the categories. I said that it appeared that the AFCH script was messing with the categories, and that I would start a discussion of the issue at the AFCH talk page (here). So, is the script editing the categories in an incorrect way? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Could some AfC reviewers please have a look at this draft and the rationale used to reject it. Thank you very much. FloridaArmy ( talk) 11:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I was looking at reasons for declining, and I see nothing about prose quality when it relates to translation. Should we say something along the lines "avoid declining an article if it is a rough translation; instead, tag it with {{ rough translation}}? @ WhatamIdoing Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
See Special:Diff/1233550011, the script has (in multiple instances on this draft's history) re-added a duplicate comment to the top of the page. Any help in why that is so I can prevent it if I see it again in the future, and what to do to prevent it now would be appreciated. Thanks, microbiologyMarcus petri dish· growths 17:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Why isn't this long serving state legislator notable? I don't understand why the references are objectionable? FloridaArmy ( talk) 16:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi AFC reviewers,
Anyone in their free time, may look at the last four months backlog pending drafts. A cheeseburger from me 🤣. They are:
Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 22:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
What is the policy or consensus on marking accepted AfC drafts as reviewed right away? Should they be left in the queue for another NPP reviewer to check? WP:NPP says "When drafts are approved at AfC and moved to the mainspace they will be checked again by new page patrollers in many instances." I always just leave them for another reviewer but is there an actual policy on this? There is always a fair number of unreviewed accepted AfC drafts at WP:NPPEASY so I wonder if allowing this would help reduce the NPP backlog. C F A 💬 17:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I was reviewing drafts, and came across one with the notation: I have to reject this without prejudice to accept when there is a line of notability. I mean if this goes to AFD, the possible outcome may be to delete or draftify as
WP:TOOSOON.
I partially reverted the rejection, because I think that there was a
good-faith misunderstanding by the reviewer of when Rejection should and should not be used. As I understand it, the whole point to Rejection is that it is with prejudice, so that a draft which is
too soon for
significant coverage should be declined for notability. It is my understanding that rejection for notability should be used in hopeless situations. I use rejection for notability mainly when there was an
AFD, and there is no reason given to think that the situation has changed, or if there is no
credible claim of significance, so that
A7 would apply in article space. I have used the latter on what are really social media profiles. So do other reviewers agree that this was a
good faith misunderstanding of rejection?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I will also ask a question that I have probably asked before, and that is what if any procedure should be followed if a draft was rejected and the originator wants it reconsidered. I will also ask another question that I know I have asked before, and that is what options reviewers have if a draft was rejected, and is resubmitted tendentiously. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:47, 13 July 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 |
4+ 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. |
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)
@ 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)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § {{AfC submission}}. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 26 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). [2]
The site's "about" page alone screams "low grade" with numerous basic grammar mistakes [3] Rambling Rambler ( talk) 23:05, 29 June 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)
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)
5.43.87.31 ( talk · contribs) modified date timestamps at WP:AFC/R into a different format with this edit. It was subsequently reverted. But if this wasn't caught, would this date format cause problems with the archival bot? -- 64.229.90.32 ( talk) 05:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I was going to accept Draft:Victoria Starmer, because the sources look to me enough to pass GNG, and I couldn't find any major issues with it. Then I realised this had been draftified following this AfD only a month ago, and the sources back then were pretty much the same as now. Given that our ultimate yardstick for assessing drafts is 'would this survive a hypothetical AfD?', and seeing as this one sort of did, sort of didn't, I'm hesitant to just overrule the AfD consensus. Would someone else please take a look and let me know what they think? Ta muchly, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 08:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Despite the reason for existence of GNG coverage (because she is Keirs wife), IMO GNG coverage does exist and my thought would be to accept it. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new § Remove link to the article wizard. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Some pending change reviewers accept empty (and thus automatically declined) submissions; and other reviewers reject them; and I simply cannot decide. Do we want to decide this one way or the other? Is there anything to be gained by clogging the list — however little — with pointless, empty, trivially declined entries? Nick Levine ( talk) 16:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Mathglot left a message on my talk page asking me not to edit categories when I am editing AFC drafts. This can be seen at the bottom of my talk page. The example that he gave of what he was asking me not to do is this edit. As an AFC reviewer can see, I was using the yellow Comment button to insert a comment into a draft, and it appears that the script did cleanup on the categories, inserting colons in front of them. However, that was mistaken cleanup, because the categories should be disabled while the draft is in draft, and will be enabled when the draft is accepted. I replied that I know little about categories, and I seldom edit them. If I accept a draft, I normally tag it with {{ Improve categories}} to request that gnomes review the categories. I said that it appeared that the AFCH script was messing with the categories, and that I would start a discussion of the issue at the AFCH talk page (here). So, is the script editing the categories in an incorrect way? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Could some AfC reviewers please have a look at this draft and the rationale used to reject it. Thank you very much. FloridaArmy ( talk) 11:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I was looking at reasons for declining, and I see nothing about prose quality when it relates to translation. Should we say something along the lines "avoid declining an article if it is a rough translation; instead, tag it with {{ rough translation}}? @ WhatamIdoing Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
See Special:Diff/1233550011, the script has (in multiple instances on this draft's history) re-added a duplicate comment to the top of the page. Any help in why that is so I can prevent it if I see it again in the future, and what to do to prevent it now would be appreciated. Thanks, microbiologyMarcus petri dish· growths 17:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Why isn't this long serving state legislator notable? I don't understand why the references are objectionable? FloridaArmy ( talk) 16:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi AFC reviewers,
Anyone in their free time, may look at the last four months backlog pending drafts. A cheeseburger from me 🤣. They are:
Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 22:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
What is the policy or consensus on marking accepted AfC drafts as reviewed right away? Should they be left in the queue for another NPP reviewer to check? WP:NPP says "When drafts are approved at AfC and moved to the mainspace they will be checked again by new page patrollers in many instances." I always just leave them for another reviewer but is there an actual policy on this? There is always a fair number of unreviewed accepted AfC drafts at WP:NPPEASY so I wonder if allowing this would help reduce the NPP backlog. C F A 💬 17:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I was reviewing drafts, and came across one with the notation: I have to reject this without prejudice to accept when there is a line of notability. I mean if this goes to AFD, the possible outcome may be to delete or draftify as
WP:TOOSOON.
I partially reverted the rejection, because I think that there was a
good-faith misunderstanding by the reviewer of when Rejection should and should not be used. As I understand it, the whole point to Rejection is that it is with prejudice, so that a draft which is
too soon for
significant coverage should be declined for notability. It is my understanding that rejection for notability should be used in hopeless situations. I use rejection for notability mainly when there was an
AFD, and there is no reason given to think that the situation has changed, or if there is no
credible claim of significance, so that
A7 would apply in article space. I have used the latter on what are really social media profiles. So do other reviewers agree that this was a
good faith misunderstanding of rejection?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I will also ask a question that I have probably asked before, and that is what if any procedure should be followed if a draft was rejected and the originator wants it reconsidered. I will also ask another question that I know I have asked before, and that is what options reviewers have if a draft was rejected, and is resubmitted tendentiously. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)