Main page | Talk page |
Submissions Category — List ( sorting) | Showcase |
Participants Apply — By subject |
Reviewing instructions |
Help desk |
Backlog drives |
AfC
submissions Random submission |
2+ 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. |
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)
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 noticed a number of Australian/Tasmanian flora articles recently, however I just noticed that they add all single article accounts, and all make the same weird format error of periods after the references, or missing. They are also all quite reasonable submissions. So now I'm wondering is this a sock, or some organised project with the similarities maybe coming from some example? Anyone remember any blocked user being involved with this type of subject before or aware of any project running this? Examples: Poa clivicola, Diplaspis cordifolia, Schoenus tesquorum and Euchiton traversii. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 13:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Caught the draft creator moving their own AfC draft to mainspace after it was declined (see diff). Can somebody from AfC decide the best course of action on this? Does this break any guideline or policy? Pilaz ( talk) 06:08, 4 April 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Main page | Talk page |
Submissions Category — List ( sorting) | Showcase |
Participants Apply — By subject |
Reviewing instructions |
Help desk |
Backlog drives |
AfC
submissions Random submission |
2+ 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. |
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)
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 noticed a number of Australian/Tasmanian flora articles recently, however I just noticed that they add all single article accounts, and all make the same weird format error of periods after the references, or missing. They are also all quite reasonable submissions. So now I'm wondering is this a sock, or some organised project with the similarities maybe coming from some example? Anyone remember any blocked user being involved with this type of subject before or aware of any project running this? Examples: Poa clivicola, Diplaspis cordifolia, Schoenus tesquorum and Euchiton traversii. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 13:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Caught the draft creator moving their own AfC draft to mainspace after it was declined (see diff). Can somebody from AfC decide the best course of action on this? Does this break any guideline or policy? Pilaz ( talk) 06:08, 4 April 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)