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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
When I am reviewing sandboxes that have been tagged for AFC review, I first try to move them to draft space with an appropriate title. Sometimes I get the message that the sandbox cannot be moved because the draft already exists. Does anyone have any specific thoughts about what to do? Usually the named draft and the sandbox have been created by the same person, and I ask them not to create multiple copies of drafts. It is rare that either version of the draft is ready for mainspace. Maybe editors who are clueful enough to create a draft that is ready for mainspace are clueful enough not to create duplicate drafts.
On second thought, as I write this, the best answer normally is to convert the sandbox into a redirect to the draft, and comment on the draft (declining it if it is submitted).
Why does the same author create multiple copies of drafts, other than just good-faith cluelessness?
Sometimes I find that the named draft and the sandbox are identical or almost so but created by different accounts. That is either use of multiple accounts (sockpuppetry), or the second account is ripping off the first account (less likely than sockpuppetry). Sometimes the two drafts are by different people and are actually different, but about the same subject. In that case, the best action would seem to be to ask them to coordinate with each other. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest to reviewers that, if a submission seems really stupid or clueless, it is a good idea to check the contribution history of the author. Sometimes the author has also engaged in vandalism, and it may be appropriate: (1) to revert any questionable edits that have not yet been reverted; (2) to warn the vandal if they have not already been warned; (3) if appropriate, to report the vandal to the vandalism noticeboard. This has to do with really clueless submissions or with clearly improper submissions (such as attack pages). Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
When I am reviewing sandboxes that have been tagged for AFC review, I first try to move them to draft space with an appropriate title. Sometimes I get the message that the draft title has been protected against creation, that is, salted. My question is what do other reviewers think I should do (and what do other reviewers do). I don't know whether the submitter knows that the title has been create-protected. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't. My usual approach is to comment that the title has been protected against creation, and to list any applicable deletion discussions, and to advise them that they can discuss with the deleting administrator or protecting administrator. If it were obvious that the draft should be accepted, I would either refer the submitter to deletion review or go to deletion review myself, but that is very rare, and I think I have been in that situation only once. I think that the submission should be declined on notability grounds if the deletion included notability grounds. If the submission is promotional, one can list that also. Does anyone else have any other ideas about salted titles? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I am now seeing submissions that I would like to Reject. I have a question for any reviewer who is willing to consider why I am asking. I can't say anything to explain a rejection, since any comments that I put in the Comments space are ignored. How should I provide any explanation or justification of why I am rejecting a draft? Am I supposed to go through the first stage of Commenting, which does record my comments? (I am aware of one editor here who, to the best of my knowledge, is not a reviewer, who thinks that Rejected should be final and should not be explained. Nothing is truly final in Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Are there categories for drafts with foreign references that are waiting for review by reviewers who can read the languages of the references? If so, where are they documented? If not, we should develop them.
I reviewed a draft which is now in the Very Old list and have commented that it needs a reviewer who can read Korean. Is there a way to publish this request? Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
By the way, it is Draft:Dunia: Into A New World. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
There are certain comments that I frequently use in reviewing drafts. For instance, one of them is: "This draft is an autobiography, the submission of which is discouraged." I would like to know whether I can simplify the reviewing process by using some sort of abbreviation or macro. Would this be a case for a template? Can I create a template, or do I need to request the Template Editor privilege first? There are other comments that I would like to be able to enter via shorthand in the Comments field, but the above is a good example, and it might be useful for other reviewers as well. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Please add additional independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail.. I use it all the time. Primefac ( talk) 04:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers and Araratic raised concerns on my talk page regarding my acceptance of Draft:2016 Young Critics Circle Awards. Both of the editors question the notability of the subject.
At the time of submission, the draft author ( BudoyAko) only provided one source: "Young Critics Circle votes ‘Women of the Weeping River’ best film". This is a primary source, as it is a page from the awards' official website, according to the Young Critics Circle article. I was suspicious of the source's legitimacy, because it is hosted on a subdomain of wordpress.com, but the revision of the Young Critics Circle article that passed AfD in 2012 also confirms this.
I was in the middle of researching and adding sources when the other editors commented on my talk page. My mistake was in accepting the draft after confirming the notability of the subject, but before adding sources to the article to support this. In the future, I will only accept the draft after adding sources to the article that establish the subject's notability, because new page patrollers and other editors watching the page may think that no further revisions are planned.
As for the notability of the 2016 Young Critics Circle Awards, I've found 2 sources that I believe qualify the article subject for notability under WP:GNG: "Ai Ai, Nora at Jaclyn, NGANGA sa Young Critics" from Abante Tonite and "Indie films win at YCC" from Tempo. These sources are independent and offer significant coverage of the article subject. I'm not familiar enough with Filipino media to properly assess the sources' reliability.
Another related issue is the existence of articles for other years of the awards ( 1990 Young Critics Circle Awards to 2015 Young Critics Circle Awards), and the existence of a related draft ( Draft:2017 Young Critics Circle Awards). Most of the articles for the other years are poorly sourced, but they are older articles that didn't go through AfC. Please keep in mind that notability is based on the availability of sources, not the content of the articles.
I'm requesting feedback from other AfC reviewers for whether I should have accepted Draft:2016 Young Critics Circle Awards. Additionally, if the 2016 Young Critics Circle Awards (or any of the other years) aren't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, I encourage other editors to either merge them into a single list article or nominate them for deletion. — Newslinger talk 06:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I can verify that the ability to provide a comment when rejecting a draft does work. The evidence that the bug has been fixed won't last very long (unless you are an admin), because the draft was also tagged as G11, but rejecting it gets it out of the status of waiting for a review. Thank you, User:Enterprisey. Robert McClenon ( talk) 09:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wagon India is an online shopping store owned by Wagon India Entrepreneurs Pvt. Ltd. It was established in July 15, 2018 in Indore by Tejesh Mehta placed in Madhya Pradesh, India. With over 4000+ products and over a 85+ brands in our catalogue you will find everything you are looking for. Choose from a wide range of options in every category, exclusively handpicked to help you find the best quality available at the lowest prices, Fast delivery and your order will be delivered right to your doorstep. Wagonindia.com allows you to walk away from the drudgery of various types of product shopping and welcome an easy relaxed way of browsing and shopping.
Background
Wagon India's feature products of home % kitchen appliances, footwear, trending fashion, and daily need essentials products. Across various categories, Wagon India advertise regional as well as international brands.
Owner
Mobile App
in 2018, the Acculance IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. launched its iOS and Android App for customers.
Virendra.Shakya (
talk) 07:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is a special case that isn't normally encountered. However, I think that, on reflection, the way forward is clear. I reviewed Draft:Joseph K. Taussig Jr. on 31 August, and declined it because an article Joseph K. Taussig Jr. already existed. That is as much of a no-brainer as a reviewer is likely to do. We don't need two articles on the same person. However, on 3 September, the article in article space was deleted with G5, a blocked or banned user. This was called to my attention. Since the reason for the decline is no longer in effect, I resubmitted the draft back into the review queue. I will let another reviewer decide whether it satisfies general notability as written, and, if not, whether additional sources can establish general notability. He doesn't satisfy military notability because he didn't receive his country's highest military honor, the Medal of Honor, and didn't hold flag rank. He doesn't satisfy political notability; not every position appointed by the President of the United States is notable. Do you-all agree that resubmitting was the right action? Is anyone ready to accept the article? Also, should the deleted article be requested to be restored via Requests for Undeletion to email for possible addition to the draft? (Some criteria for speedy deletion are restored. Some are not. The fault in this case is not that of the article itself but of the sockpuppet.) Should an administrator be asked to do a history merge?
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I've pasted all of the refs from the deleted version into the draft. Primefac ( talk) 02:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I was going through the initial stages of reviewing this draft. Clearly it's reasonably well written and also links into three films that have demonstrated notability. The sources in this one wouldn't strictly satisfy the sourcing rules since linking to individual reviews would be pointless - the general data is what is needed.
In my view it's a helpful addition and we don't have any particularly clear-cut rules on film series/franchises, and a look at some others didn't help my consideration.
Thus - your thoughts? Is there any particular sourcing that I should notify the creator is required for it?
Cheers, Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Can an editor review and approved an AfC that they have created themselves. Recently User:Scope creep created an article, Draft:American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys (AAML), which I declined as it was heavily reliant on a primary source and lacked significant coverage in other independent secondary sources. A second editor John from Idegon also commented that the tone of the article was highly promotional. User:Scope creep subsequently commented that "This is a learned society that means it is notable by default and is covered by WP:NEXIST" and then approved the article themselves. I would like some feedback as to whether editors who create articles via the AfC process should be allowed to then approve them as well. I would have thought that there should be a degree of independence between the article's creator and the article reviewer. Dan arndt ( talk) 08:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Sachin is a former Indian international cricketer and a former captain of the Indian national team, regarded as one of the greatest batsmen of all time. He is the highest run scorer of all time in International cricket — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sai sachin bellie ( talk • contribs) 06:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed a sandbox page that had been submitted but contained patent nonsense, possibly the result of strumming on the keyboard keys. I wanted to Reject it, but wasn't sure what codes to use. I wound up Declining it as 'test' and 'joke' and tagging it for {{ UFW}}, but would like advice on what to do next time this happens. It isn't really a lack of notability, because there isn't a subject at all. Would it be reasonable to say that Wikipedia is not for patent nonsense? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
What is Genius.com? Is it an unreliable or vanity source? I sometimes see it as a source. Am I correct that it is not a reliable source? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
If I tag a draft with an AFC comment, does that restart the G13 calendar? I encountered a draft on Cy Chermak and tried to move it to Draft:Cy Chermak. Already taken. So I checked to see if it was created by the same person. No. It was created in March 2018, and wasn't as good as what I moved to Draft:Cy Chermak (2), which still isn't good enough because it needs reliable sources, but they can probably be found. If the old draft had been recent, I would have left a comment on it. However, I didn't, because it is almost ready to be blown away to G13. Would a comment start the calendar over? If so, I made a conscious choice in leaving it alone. If not, I may comment on it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we had a complete lack of disagreement with the idea that the comments should go on the draft talk page (just like comments on anything else). The reason why we want to make it happen does not have much to do with the G13 clock, but primarily so that the comments will survive acceptance. Also, having the comments on the front leads some contributors to think, by reasonable good-faith mistake, that they can just edit comments onto the front. Such comments, if not affixed with the AFC script, have to be removed manually if the draft is accepted, which complicates the review job. If the review comments went on the talk page, the submitter would almost certainly reply on the talk page. So, yes, we have a complete lack of disagreement that it would be a good idea to move the comments "to the back", to the talk page. Now that we have improved the AFC script with the option of two decline reasons and Reject, the next improvement should be putting the comments on the talk page. Thank you, User:SmokeyJoe, for restating this. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm posting this here because it seems like a good place to possibly get an answer. If there's a better place to post, please advise accordingly. Occasionally, I come across drafts/userspace drafts that appear to be written about fictional subject. Not about books and things like that, but about make believe topics which seem to be more fancruft or part of the creator's imagination, than the makings on a possible Wikipedia article. These pages usually don't seem like they're ever going to be submitted for AfC review, but rather are just for goofing around. For example, Draft:YBC1 seems (I could be wrong) to be about a made up TV station/network that never existed. Since the page is not in the mainspace, it's not really subject to WP:A7 or WP:A11. Such pages can be MfD for sure, but I'm also wondering if they can be tagged per WP:G3.
Anyway, I've come accross other drafts/userspace drafts where the creator seems to be creating their own fictional TV program/reality or using their sandbox for other type of fantasy writing (typically they copy-and-paste something from an existing into their sanbox and then use that as a template for whatever fiction they want to write about). This seems to be a pretty close to WP:NOTWEBHOST (even for a sandbox), but I'm never sure whether common practice is just to leave these things alone as long as they stay out of the mainspace and don't contain any serious policy violations. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The big yellow Comment button in the AFCH script isn't working for me, and hasn't been for about half an hour. Is there a known problem with it? I will try using Firefox instead of Chrome and see if that changes anything. If that fails, I will try restarting my desktop machine. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
extended content
|
---|
jaykumarshah was born in kalaynpur nagarpalika 5 chikna, in the siraha district, Sagarmatha Zone of Nepal. He attended primary school in manakmana public school,janakpur dham-7 and secondary school in srijana secondary English boarding ashanpur 7 golbazar . He went on to study at Tribhuvan University (Nepal),at americian emmabacy got a best award on drawing,graft and desipline. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaykumarshah ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
So, I was trying to decline Draft:Charles E. Chupp, in part because the book title of his that I chose to look at in detail is published by Xlibris and held in 5 libraries. I was prevented from saving my decline and comment by an edit filter (a lot of squiggly gibberish, some wording along the lines of "vanity-published sources are not reliable"). So, I can see the thinking behind a filter to stop people citing vanity press titles (though I'd hope that what they see would be better formatted than what I got); but I really don't see why reviewers should be stopped too. I've re-declined the draft and manually added my AFC comment (which I was able to recover from the submitter's talk-page). To save people going to look, here's what I said:
This person appears not to be notable by our standards. His book Frankly Speaking, for example, was – according to WorldCat – published by Xlibris, a vanity/print-on-demand publisher, and is held in a grand total of five libraries in the world. I don't see any other sourced and credible claim of notability here either.
NB: there is an author named Charles Chupp who published a good deal on plant diseases (e.g., this, held in 433 libraries); but one of his books is dated 1917, so I don't think it can be this chap (or Chupp).
Is this a one-off glitch, or does someone, somewhere, need to be asked to undo something? And if so, who? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't found where disputed category creations can be discussed. Delete/merge/rename, sure, but where to discuss a category that, to some, seems unlikely or dubious?
An IP editor 68.192.236.111 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) attempted to populate categories like
attached to songs identified as being sung by those people. It was noted those categories were not actually created and a few editors thought it seemed excessive, and so reverted. I was one of those.
Would cross-referencing songs by who sang them be reasonable? Or who played instrumentals for them? Or particular instruments? Or were recorded in particular studios? I don't know what is reasonable, and I'm asking on behalf of the IP editor.
If this question ought to be posted better somewhere else, please indicate where. WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk? Shenme ( talk) 05:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I have created two templates that any reviewer is welcome to use: {{ draftautobio}} and {{ compsays}}, which expand to "This draft is an autobiography, the submission of which is strongly discouraged. See the conflict of interest policy for more information." and This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the company.. They can be entered in the Decline comments or in the Reject comments. These are explanations that I found I was frequently typing. You are welcome to use them or to tweak the wording if you don't change the meaning. I may create more of these templates. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Re: Draft:Ice Poseidon - it passes GNG but I noticed the name is protected so I changed it to Ice Poseidon (streamer) and got the following message: Error moving Draft:Ice Poseidon to Ice Poseidon (streamer): "protectedpage". Is there something I'm not doing properly? This is the first time I've had this issue so I'm stumped. Atsme 📞 📧 01:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
In trying to work off the backlog of drafts with the same names as existing articles, I see certain editing patterns. One of them is an editor whose edits are limited to creating drafts on new people and discussing the drafts on talk pages and project pages. This is someone who doesn't seem to be trying to improve the encyclopedia except by adding articles. My question is: How likely is it that this person is a paid editor, and to what extent should a reviewer allow that concern to affect their reviewing? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Here is another story about a matching draft and article. The draft had been in AFC and was declined twice, both times for notability. So then a copy of the draft was put in article space by the principal author of the drafts, bypassing AFC. (Bypassing AFC is of course permitted, and most experienced editors do not use AFC anyway, but bypassing AFC after having used it is annoying. In this case, after two shots at AFC, that was the necessary 10 edits to get autoconfirmed.) There has been some improvement of both the draft and the new article, but it isn't to where I would accept it. So I can decline the draft both on notability grounds and as duplicating an existing article. But what to do with the article? In this case the author of the article was the only author of the draft, so that there doesn't seem to be a need for history merge or an attribution problem. But in some cases there have also been edits by other authors to the draft, so that the author, by doing the copy-and-paste, is breaking attribution. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't yet decided whether to take the article to AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Draft:List_of_Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire%3F_top_prize_winners Me and my friend decided it to re write all top prize winners . Can you create a new one please. And also me and my friend will be responsible for this page, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marik-modder ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually back on 2007 the page was created it and title was called List of top prize winners on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? . And Yesterday me my friend decided it to rewritte all top-prize winners and add them. And i also have better title List of top prize winners on international versions of Who Wants to be a Millionaire?. Cos is much better than List of top prize winners on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? About draft that's my friend did it not me. Also why i decided it to rewrite, because new versions of wwtbam is appearing like Iran, Mautrius, Kazahstan(Kazah Language ) ane etc. And if that page will be removed again. Where i can add them? Marik-modder ( talk) 15:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Im confused i dont no how to suggest a article about someone - when i google for canadian atheists i see lots of wikipedia articles for lots of people come up in a scroller at the top including david silverman who is president from american atheists but not randolf richardson who is preseident of canadian atheists , and i cant find randolf richardson in wikipedia so i try to add article but i get directed to this page so i dont no whut to do.. if u can help thanks u!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.64.187.20 ( talk) 17:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi AfC reviewers -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a product manager at WMF working on a project to make it easier to prioritize AfC and NPP pages for review by adding AfC drafts to the New Pages Feed along with quality and copyvio indicators. I last posted here three weeks ago when reviewers started testing the New Pages Feed in Test Wiki. I'm posting again because the issues that reviewers found over the last weeks have been addressed, and we're getting ready to actually add AfC drafts to the New Pages Feed in English Wikipedia on September 17. ORES scores and copyvio indicators will be added in following weeks. Please click here to read more or to test things out in Test Wiki, and click here to discuss on the project's talk page. Thank you, and I'm hoping we'll hear from many AfC reviewers. -- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 21:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I know this is allowed by our license, and I know I shouldn't even be surprised, but I was indeed surprised to discover that we've got mirrors that mirror our drafts and promote them to mainspace. See Draft:Doyle Country Club and [1]. Chalk one up for the SEO trolls. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I wrote a new article about the singer "Oshri", its in my sandbox: User:מיקרוז/sandbox, can anyone explane me how I remove it from my sand box to the Encyclopedia? thanx! מיקרוז ( talk) 01:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC) מיקרוז ( talk) 01:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{AFC submission|||ts=20180924093759|u= Draft:Kietaviškių gausa |ns=5}} Paulius0605 ( talk) 09:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Currently, when we notify a user with empty talk page about a decline or accept, the {{
Talk header}}
is automatically placed on top of the user's talk page. Should we remove it? I don't see the need for it, and the user has the final decision on what is put in their talk page (or maybe they don't even know what the talk page header is for).
—AE (
talk •
contributions) 12:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I had a person request help on #Wikipedia-en-help about this draft. I think there's some notability in the first couple sources, but there's some spammy text, so I would like to have a third opinion about it before taking any action. Thanks, L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 12:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey all, you can move me to the active list. Sorry for the delay in starting after my request. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 22:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Please join us... We have four new topics for
Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October!
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Hello. I am requesting to start helping with Articles for creation again. I have read the rules and understand the rules. Thank you. Schwartzenberg ( talk) 22:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
After several months of development, the New Pages Feed is ready for use by AfC reviewers! Reviewers can now use the feed to find and prioritize drafts for review, instead of choosing randomly or by category from this page. To use the New Pages Feed:
1. Go to the New Pages Feed.
2. Select the "Articles for Creation" toggle at the top of the feed.
3. Select a "State" to filter the list. These are the available states, all of which exclude redirects:
4. Sort the list by a date:
5. Click the title of a draft to open it in a new tab.
6. Review as usual, using the AFCH gadget.
As announced above, this is the first of three enhancements happening over the next month to improve the toolset for AfC and NPP reviewers. The next one will be deployed as soon as Thursday, October 4 (or in the days that follow), and will add ORES scores to the feed so that drafts can be prioritized based on how likely they are to be high or low quality. The final enhancement will add copyvio detection to the feed, and is expected during the week of October 14. You can actually test out both of those upcoming features in Test Wiki!
Please comment here or on the project talk page if you find bugs or have any thoughts or reactions. We're hoping this work makes it easier to be an AfC reviewer, so that high quality drafts can make it into the article space faster!
Thank you to the many AfC reviewers who weighed in to shape this project over the last many months, and who were patient with our team as we learned more about the AfC process. Our team really felt like this has been a partnership with the community.
To read more about this project, check out the project page here. -- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 20:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Towards the bottom of this edit, made using the Cleanup function of AFCH, it appears to have removed a full stop that appeared after a ref tag - but this now leaves the sentence with no ending punctuation. Perhaps it should have moved the dot to before the ref rather than just removing it? – numbermaniac 08:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I occasionally encounter drafts that have been tagged with one of the notability tags, or one of the style tags, such as 'advert', or a POV tag. My question is: Am I correct that these tags are being applied in good-faith error, and that they are not really appropriate for drafts? Certainly, a concern about notability is a reason, and the most common reason, to decline a draft, but the tags are really for articles, and can serve as a caution to the creator that someone else may choose to AFD the article. I can see that cleanup tags are reasonable on drafts, but am I correct that notability tags should not be used on drafts, because comments and declines are in order instead? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Just checking to see if people are interested in holding a new one as the backlog nears 4K. Consensus here means I'll start serious work on resurrecting the scoring bot, and we can start talking about specific rules for the drive. This time around, extra emphasis will be made on making sure reviews are high-quality; this can be done with the re-review system that is used during drives. I believe with the right set of rewards/penalties, we can ensure that people don't just grind through reviews as fast as possible. Enterprisey ( talk!) 07:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please tell User:Pipo.bizelli, in Portuguese, not to submit his draft in Portuguese any more? I declined it once, both as inadequately sourced and as in Portuguese, but now it has been resubmitted. My guess is that the submitter doesn't understand the English decline. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
We have now completed the second part of the three part project to improve reviewing tools for AfC reviewers.
Here is what has changed in the New Pages Feed. These additions are meant to help reviewers quickly find and prioritize drafts that need review soonest:
For instance, right now there are 40 drafts awaiting review that are predicted to be "B-class" or better. Those might be good drafts to review first because they are likely to have high quality content that could be delivered to the article namespace quickly (and they might be written by eager newbies who could use the positive reinforcement!)
Below is more background on where these predictions come from. As this community updates any documentation around the New Pages Feed and how to review pages, our team is happy to help with any explanations or screenshots. Let me know!
ORES is a system built by the WMF Scoring Platform team, led by Halfak (WMF), that automatically classifies edits and pages using machine learning. ORES models are in use at the Recent Changes and Watchlist feeds, where they estimate "content quality" and "user intent". We have added two different models to the New Pages Feed, which estimate the "predicted class" and whether an article has "potential issues". The models are built by looking at existing examples of articles that have been given a class, or shown to have issues, and then the algorithm learns what it looks like when future articles have those same characteristics.
It's important to note, as was referenced many times in the community discussion around planning these enhancements, that these predictions are only predictions. Because they are only suggestions from an algorithm, they are often wrong. Reviewers are meant to use them to find pages that are more likely to have those characteristics, in order to help make reviewing work more efficient. They can also be taken into account when doing a review. But at the end of the day, as several experienced reviewers emphasized in the community discussion, human judgment is still what should be deciding whether a page is of high quality or not.
As reviewers work with these models, cases will come up where the models seem to be wrong. It is really helpful to the Scoring Platform team to report those cases! They can use those to recalibrate and improve the models. Here is where and how to do that.
Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, or bugs with the new ORES classifications. Our next (and final) enhancement to the New Pages Feed will be the addition of copyvio detection, planned for the week of October 15 or October 22. I will be back with more information on that. -- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 18:50, 5 October 2018 (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 is a backlog of about 140 drafts whose names are also in article space. I am trying to work this backlog, but would like to discuss a few of the typical cases.
The draft is the same, or almost the same as, the article, and both are by the same editor, and the article deserves to stay in article space. Decline the draft, saying that the article exists, as a courtesy to the author to put a note on their talk page. Then turn the declined draft into a redirect.
This is relatively rare but can happen.
This happens frequently with biographies of people who share a name.
Disambiguate the draft.
Disambiguate the draft. Then either accept it (with the new name) or decline it. If accepted, add a hatnote to the original.
Please consider incorporating any useful material from the above submission into this article. The submission is eligible for deletion in 6 months. ~ Kvng ( talk) 19:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Thoughts? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I have placed a copy of this discussion at Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles. I am doing additional refinement on it there. ~ Kvng ( talk) 02:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Could one of you give me a second opinion about Draft:Shaun B. Coleman? I'm inclined to accept it, but it's partly due to polite interactions I've had with the creator. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 14:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pir Syed Muhammad Ameen Shah 177.15.10.134 ( talk) 08:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I happened to run across Draft talk:EOS Group#Promotional terms, in which a highly experienced editor gives this sentence as an example of inappropriate promotionalism: "The EOS Group has more than 55 operating companies with locations in 26 countries"
(The editor who left this comment says on that talk page that s/he doesn't want to invest more time in this, which is perfectly acceptable, so I'm not pinging him. Also, this is not an unusual comment, so it'd be unfair to single out one person.)
It seems to me that this sentence is very similar to sentences that are found in the lead of several Wikipedia:Featured articles, including:
My question for you: Do we have any decent pages that explain what "promotionalism" is, and (importantly) how promotionalism differs from reporting positive facts? When the subject actually is the biggest, fastest, first, etc., then it's not promotionalism to say that. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"As of 2018 the company operates 55 subsidiary companies in 26 countries". This basic problem pervades the entire article. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 18:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm interested in being a reviewer. Please add my username to the list. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
This article is making the rounds of social media today. Any thoughts on it? Kaldari ( talk) 13:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
V and BLP do not require independence, they require reliability, which a professional bio published on the site of a professional organization is. It is independent enough to verify that she wasn’t making up the claims, which is the purpose of independence in these cases (i.e. they’re not going to publish her biography claiming she was a fellow if she wasn’t. It wasn’t a personal website.) PROF does not require as strict independence as other guidelines in that it is a merit based standard for people where intellectually independent coverage is difficult. This met the basic requirements for promotion to mainspace. It wasn’t the best article, but that’s not the purpose of AfC: the purpose of AfC is to determine if an article has a more likely than not chance of surviving AfD, which this clearly did as there was proof of notability under PROF in the references.
Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined. Issues that do not affect the likelihood of success at AFD (e.g., halo effects like formatting) should not be considered when making this fundamental calculation.
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.If you're proposing a change to that policy then you should take your concerns to that page's talk page. Falling Gravity 06:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
To repeat a point I've already made elsewhere: We probably wouldn't be having to have this conversation, if AfC applied something equivalent to AfD's WP:BEFORE.
So how can that be achieved, and what should the guidelines say? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Shifted these from Template talk:AFC submission since this is watched by a few more folks. Primefac ( talk) 19:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Proposed change:
The former discourages any resubmission, especially for newbies who might think it's better to have a draft up than to resubmit and have it disappear. (This language also matches that next to the resubmission button.) – SJ + 18:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
All of the declined comments read as though they are a final rejection. Only after you make it through a few sentences describing the failings of the article is there a positive suggestion of ways to make it better. For a new contributor, this looks like a form rejection slip, and discourages further work.
Proposed change: move the last sentence of each comment (detailing how to improve the article) to the top of the comment. Condense the criticism (which is redundant to the positive suggestion) so that the focus is on what to improve. Something like
I am happy to draft specific revised text, but this is a lot of edits to a widely-used template, so I'd rather the changes be made by people who are actively handling AFC and using them in practice. – SJ + 18:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Previously the decline language was seen as saccharine, encouraging the submitter to improve and resubmit. I will take another look after I do my next round of reviews, but I think it is still saccharine, encouraging crud to be reworked, which is why we now have Reject also. This is yet another case where the rule not to bite the newcomers is treated as a commandment, even overriding policies, because many editors tie themselves in knots to avoid being bitey, but some newcomers do need to be bitten. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
1. Notability alone does not determine an article's suitability for the encyclopedia
2. The sources cited in the article should be sufficient to establish notability -- otherwise the draft is not ready for the encyclopedia
3. Requiring such a search would further increase the backlog and add unneeded bureaucratic procedure
There's really no need to keep piling on opposes here. Therefore, I think this discussion is ready for closure. All the best, ProgrammingGeek talktome 21:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)Should a BEFORE-style search be part of the AfC workflow when declining drafts? Brad v 14:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
18:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)I recently had a look at Peace Uzoamaka Nnaji and moved it into article space as an adequately sourced article on an elected member of a country's government (and thus clearly notable). It had been rejected twice at AfC, and five different editors had edited it, but no-one had welcomed the editor to Wikipedia or made any comment on their talk page about the progress of this, their first article. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they have not edited the encyclopedia since that first article creation (and a simple message on their own talk page). I see that the Project Goals don't include anything about providing a friendly welcome to good-faith new editors so that they will be encouraged to continue their editing. Perhaps the project should consider adding something like that to its goals? (Yes, I know the instant response will be "You aren't an AfC editor so don't tell us how to do things" or words to that effect: I WikiGnome away in various other areas like stub-sorting, each to our own. But the work of AfC can be the first interaction a potential new editor has with Wikipedia, so you can make a huge difference by how you respond to them). Pam D 08:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There is, above, yet another suggestion that the AFC volunteers are collectively at fault for not being sufficiently enthusiastic in their implied function of meeting and greeting new editors. I have been saying from time to time for maybe two years that we should consider whether there should be a separate volunteer function of meeting and greeting new editors. That way, it wouldn't be necessary to dump on the AFC or NPP volunteers, who are already doing a job that the overall Wikipedia community thinks is important, for not also acting as the meeting and greeting committee. We need to decide whether meeting and greeting is a sufficiently important role that we need to ask for volunteers for the purpose. If it isn't important enough to call for its own volunteers, then maybe we don't need to dump on the AFC volunteers. (Oh, never mind. It is very much the Wikipedia way to dump on some other group of volunteers than one belongs to and say that they aren't doing enough. Dumping on another group of volunteers makes the dumper feel better, that they have accomplished something. Whether it annoys the dumpees is not important.)
Seriously, if meeting and greeting is so important that it is worth dumping on other volunteers, then maybe it is important enough to have volunteers for the purpose.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Three new topics for
WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives
Continuing: | ||
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This is a proposal to put all AfC status templates, maintenance templates, comments, and such on the draft talk page instead of the draft page, where they currently are. This would enable reviewers and draft authors to hold normal conversations on the talk page, and would (as a side effect) retain all conversation if the draft is moved to mainspace. A general disclaimer-style AfC banner will remain on the draft page, informing readers that the draft is not an article yet. A script (or Lua template) can also be written to summarize the status of the draft so far, for use by reviewers and others interested in AfC reviewing operations. Robert McClenon was the most recent person to suggest this, and this issue has also come up in the past before then. Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Clarification: The previous status of the draft will be summarized in the banner by default. Every decline reason and comment will appear on the draft page, except (of course) taking up less room. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Apologies that I am not up to speed on previous discussion of this proposal. I have a couple questions.
We need to think about what we want the talk page to look like after a draft has been accepted. Retaining the reviewer comments in a clearly-marked talk section is potentially valuable but a wall of pink AfC reject templates, probably not. What is the thinking here?
Who is going to do this work? There's not much point of approving a change unless there is a person or team that is actually going to implement the change. ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
How will some of our newest editors know to check the talk page to submit their article for review? I can tell you that even in the current system how to submit their article for review is something new editors sometimes need support with doing. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Important We really should talk to the growth team at WMF before making this change. The new AfC tools that will be at Special:NewPagesFeed rely on categories present on the draft page itself (which are put there by the templates). I'm pretty sure they could rework it to go off of the talk page, but let's keep them informed. Pinging MMiller (WMF) — MusikAnimal talk 02:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
Can I check whether it is just me for which the "Pending AfC Submissions List" isn't removing reviewed articles - it seems to have vast hoards (thus not recent changes) of articles with a reviewed status still sitting there, which seems contrary to its purpose as a pending list.
Not sure if just me, some error from the large number or something else.
Cheers, Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a proposal to add the rejection feature to the main script, allowing all reviewers to use it. To provide guidance on when to use this feature, the final wording in #Guidelines for rejecting above will be added to the reviewing guidelines. I won't add the feature until we've agreed on a set of guidelines, of course, so you can support here while suggesting changes to the guidelines. Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks ok to me for notability and not copyvio, but the title was create protected back in 2012. Can an Admin look at it and remove the old create protect? Legacypac ( talk) 19:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I have already asked this and not gotten a conclusive answer. Is there a template that I can tag a draft with that indicates that it is waiting for a reviewer who can read Arabic, because the reliable sources are in Arabic?
I have in the past had the same question about Korean sources, so this is a more general question about tagging drafts that need a reviewer who can read Language Y.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This isn't a particularly urgent or critical question, but I will ask it anyway. The question is whether submissions that are purely advertising or are spam should be declined with 'adv' and tagged for G11, or should be rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and tagged for G11. I am in the habit of declining them, usually with 'adv' and 'corp', and tagging them for G11. I have been doing that for a long time, since before there were multiple reasons, so that I would use either 'adv' or 'corp' and would decline them, and would also tag G11. Now that rejection has been implemented, that is an alternative disposition. My first thought is that "Contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" is too harsh a judgment, and that a decline and a G11 is good enough. However, on second thought, advertising does violate Wikipedia is not for advertising, and that is fair after all. It doesn't really matter which type of disapproval I provide if the G11 is agreed to by the reviewing administrator, because the offending article is only there for a matter of hours. So is there a definite reason why I should reject it and G11 it, or a definite reason why I should continue to decline it and G11 it? Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
So: If I am tagging the submission for G11, should I decline it with 'corp' and/or 'adv', or should I Reject it as contrary to Wikipedia (and probably not notable besides)? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Legacypac: clearing out the "adv" entries manually seems like a chore. Has it ever been suggested to create a new criterion, say WP:G14, that would delete the drafts declined as "adv" automatically, AND a. do it sooner than six months (perhaps three? one?); b. make them ineligible for restoration? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi AfC reviewers -- the third part of this project to improve prioritization tools for AfC is now ready for testing by reviewers. In the vein of how "potential issues" were added to the New Pages Feed in a previous update, we are now adding the potential issue of "Copyvio". Drafts will be flagged in the New Pages Feed if a revision in the draft has been flagged by CopyPatrol (via the Turnitin service) as potentially copied from another source. This feature should make it faster and easier for AfC reviewers to find and deal with drafts that have potential copyright violations. Here is how to test:
This testing period will continue into next week, at which point we'll decide whether we're ready to make the feature available at the usual URL. If you have feedback, reactions, or questions, please post here or on the project's talk page. And to read more about the specifics of this implementation and the rules behind how it works, check out this project update. -- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 23:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please check my draft which I have updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keditz ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I've read this essay with interest: User:Bradv/Strickland incident. There was one idea there that I thought would be helpful to the project:
It AfC-sorting may seem like busywork, but quite a few people do it at AfD, so I assume there may be people willing to sort drafts. It would improve the efficiency of the process, as people would be able to focus on the areas that interest them and / or where they have experience establishing notability. Any feedback? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorting AfC drafts is regularly brought up but is a huge waste of time. By time you classify a Draft that needs a decline you can assess it and decline it. Classification work requires a generalist volunteer that knows how to do it, the perfect volunteer to accept or decline whatever they come across. Further classifications can not be categories (Draft NOCAT) and would therefore go away on approval.
I suggest using the NPP browser which has recently been expanded for AfC. It gives a short part of the page intro which, along with title, usually gives you a pretty good idea what the topic is and if it is something you feel ok reviewing. Legacypac ( talk) 17:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip about the https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/. I found the ability to search by keywords to be very helpful.
I don't see this functionality in the Special:NewPagesFeed. It does include AfC but seems to lack the functionality / view of tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser. Is there perhaps a way to have the same keyword search for AfC drafts? The current options are
It would seem to be fairly straightforward to add a "(_) drafts" option, but I'm not sure what would be involved. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm just letting you guys know that there is a page to suggest improvements to the NewPagesFeed/PageCuration software. See Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements where you can file requests.
Many feature requests there have been neglected by the WMF for some time, and we have been told that we must get support at the Community Wishlist if we want improvements/upgrades. Some of the tasks are relevant to AfC as they involve feature requests to the NewPagesFeed that would undoubtedly be useful to this project as well.
Now that NPP and AfC share the NewPagesFeed, it seems like we should work together on this issue. There is a discussion at the NPR discussion board regarding drafting a proposal for the Community Wishlist Survey. Please join the conversation. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 16:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I am reviewing a draft that has to do with climate change modeling. Is there a WikiProject that I can ask to review the draft? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I have a more general question. When I accept an article, I am asked to assign it to WikiProjects. Sometimes it is clear what the appropriate project or projects are. Sometimes it isn't. Is there a reasonably comprehensive list, either alphabetic or hierarchical? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
What do you do when an article is acceptable, but the title isn't quite right ( Draft:Richard Barnett (writer 1980-))? Just add it to mainspace and then move it? Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I occasionally come across promising drafts that have bare URLs as sources; sample: Draft:Ellen_Covey. What is the best way of dealing with this situation? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting how different reviewers look at this. No right answer. Legacypac ( talk) 06:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
It would be helpful if before an article is accepted, it could be checked with the relevant naming convention. Peston (TV show) was accepted 2 days ago and it's already at a RM discussion since the name is clearly violating WP:NCTV. In this case at least it was caught, as others just slip through. This just creates extra work for us all and can easily be corrected by checking the naming conventions before accepting the article. -- Gonnym ( talk) 09:31, 27 October 2018 (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.
Currently, this page says
In my opinion, articles should only be added to wikiprojects by the members of those projects, and we certainly should not be adding all new articles.
This post is to test the waters. If everyone agrees with me, I will remove the above language and get the template changed to no longer have the option (editors could, of course still add wikiprojects manually).
If there are objections, that's fine. In that case I will post an RfC and see what the consensus of the community is. Be aware that the consensus of the community may be that we don't do this, which would be a change from my "remove it from the instructions and template but allow it" proposal above. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion around Strickland and WP:PROF in general in the latest Signpost has been an interesting one. What may not be clear to the general reader is that many WP:PROF drafts are obvious autobiographies. E.g., the account only ever edited one page; they have uploaded a photo; the draft looks like a promotional CV, complete with an exhaustive list of journal articles the subject has published, etc.
Issues of neutrality and COI aside, I often think to myself: these people don't know what they are getting into. Here's a cautionary tale: I once participated in an AfD on a university professor. The article had been apparently created by the subject himself some years ago, but when he was accused of sexual harassment, he nominated the article for deletion. IIRC, he was "sanctioned" by the university, but did not lose his job; however, the whole affair was covered in the press. It was therefore included on his wiki page. The AfD participants said: nope, he's notable under PROF; no reason to delete. If he had not created the article in the first place, he would have been in this predicament.
Another point it that BLPs too often can become battlegrounds. A minor, but nonetheless illustrative example from an article I created: an anon user changed "historian and author" into "social commentator", while figuratively appending a Star of David to the page [3]. I have more examples I could cite.
A wiki page on a BLP is a double-edged sword; there has to be a solid reason for an article to exist. With all of that in mind, how do you deal with autobiographies? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The third and final feature of this project to enhance the New Pages Feed is now in the New Pages Feed for all reviewers! The testing of copyvio detection went well, and so the ability to filter the New Pages Feed to AfC drafts with potential copyvios is present for AfC reviewers.
In this post, I want to give some info on how the new copyvio flag can be used for AfC review. As this community updates any documentation around how to do reviews, our team is happy to help with any explanations or screenshots. Let me know!
Here is how to use the feature:
For instance, as I write this, there are 6 drafts awaiting review flagged as potential copyright violations.
It is important to note, as many reviewers discussed during feature development, that these flags are meant only to draw reviewer attention to potential issues -- they are not meant to be taken as absolute truth. Since they are predictions from an algorithm, it is very common for CopyPatrol to flag an edit that is not a violation at all. In other words, this flag is for drawing reviewer attention to those drafts that need their judgment. Similarly, when a draft does not have the copyvio flag, it does not necessarily mean that it is not a copyvio.
Here is what is happening in the background:
To detect potential copyright violations, the feed uses the same system that backs CopyPatrol. CopyPatrol is backed by the external service Turnitin, which is primarily used by academic institutions to detect plagiarism. Turnitin scans books, articles, and websites for text matches. CopyPatrol runs all diffs over 500 bytes through Turnitin and flags diffs where there is over a 50% match with some other document.
Pages in the New Pages Feed get flagged as potential copyright violations if any of their diffs (including the initial creation of the page) are flagged by CopyPatrol. The flag will remain with the page in the New Pages Feed as long as the page is in the feed -- even if the violation is resolved in CopyPatrol. For a full explanation of the rules we're using and for the way Turnitin works, see the in-depth discussion from our planning process.
Please let me know if you see any bugs or problems. Since this is the final component of the Growth team's work with the New Pages Feed, we'll keep an eye on performance for the next week, and then post a final update before concluding the project. Thank you all for your input and time spent on these improvements! -- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
An RfC of interest to AfC Reviewers: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_Amendment_for_BIO_to_address_systemic_bias_in_the_base_of_sources. Regards proposed changes to notability of marginalised persons. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 11:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The "comment longer than 30 characters" warning is kinda useless because messages about adding refs are placed in drafts by default; therefore there is an extremely high chance of false positives. Is there a way to turn it off? — pythoncoder ( talk | contribs) 21:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I just proposed a merger of {{ db-blankdraft}} into G13, you can comment on it over here. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 07:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi all.
A user's been posting on my talk page about a draft I rejected here. While I think I'm in the right, I've been known to have some erroneous judgement in the past. Would someone else mind taking a look at it? Thanks a lot. ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
197.255.118.195 ( talk) 16:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Top Tough Long Distance Runners In Ghana 1.AKUKA WILLIAMS 2.MALIK YAKUBU 3.AMPONSAH WILLIAMS 4. YIN FRANCIS
It looks like the rejection feature is going well so far, so we should start thinking about guidelines to put in the reviewing guide so the option to reject drafts can be pushed to the main version of the script. Any thoughts? I would favor wording mentioning AfD, like "would be a SNOW delete at AfD or a PROD, and is unsuitable for CSD", but a translation of that into plain English to improve accessibility would likely be better. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Which rejection reason should I use for a blank or nearly blank draft? They aren't exactly contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, because I don't know what they are, and they aren't exactly not notable, because I don't know what they are. I can decline them and tag them as UFW, but is there a proper rejection message, or should they in fact be declined because the editor should get a second chance, or should there be a third rejection reason, or what? Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If we add rejection to the script, should the following text be added to the reviewing guide, under the heading "Rejecting submissions"?
Drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia should be rejected. Rejection is a good choice for a draft that would likely be the subject of an uncontroversial PROD, or if an AfD on the draft would be an unanimous "delete". However, if the draft meets one of the non-article criteria for speedy deletion, an appropriate CSD tag should be added instead of rejecting. (Drafts that would fall under one of the article criteria, like A7 or A9, should be rejected.)
Suggestions & edits are welcome. Pinging Robert McClenon, SmokeyJoe, DGG, and Tazerdadog. Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia should be rejected. Rejection is a good choice if the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it was an article. This can be through a CSD criterion, PROD, or an overwhelming consensus at AfD. If the draft meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion as a draft, an appropriate CSD tag should be added in addition to rejecting.
Drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia should be rejected. Rejection is a good choice when the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it were an article, for example if the page would be an overwhelming "delete" at AfD. If a draft meets a non-article CSD criterion, an appropriate CSD tag should be added in addition to rejecting.
What caused the hidden text message of "<!-- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. -->" to appear after {{ AFC submission}} on e.g. User:Flickyard/sandbox and User:BlackLotus/ICEY (Video Game)? — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 17:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thought it worth getting a sanity check before being too bold.
User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel, another script created by our own @ Enterprisey:, was created reasonably recently and has just been added onto the COPYVIO main page as a useful tool. Since sorting out the revdel bit of fixing copyvio issues is one of the most fiddly bits I thought I should add it to the relevant bit of the reviewing instructions as a potential aid. Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, At Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/AFC articles by quality log are many articles (not all, but most) with duplicate AFC lines. I did cleanup (removed duplicate AFC lines) on the first 3 or 4. The daily assessment WP 1.0 bot has big-time problems with duplicate WPs. Regards, JoeHebda ( talk) 02:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Update for ( Enterprisey— Nathan2055— audiodude— Kelson— Walkerma) - For November 3 processing WP 1.0 bot ran AFC "quality logs" for Oct. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, Nov. 1, Nov. 2 = all repeats; and Nov.3 (new log). JoeHebda ( talk) 14:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I have a question about history merge, in particular where I think (but am not sure) that another reviewer has been overly conscientious (which is basically good). An editor has created two copies of a draft about the same person, one in draft space and one in a sandbox subpage. User:Legacypac has tagged one of the copies for history merge. It is my understanding that history merge is unnecessary when only one editor is involved, since both copies are the work of a single editor. So: Is history merge required, or can I accept one of the two copies and convert the other one to a redirect? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
This may appear to be two questions rolled into one, about how to deal with drafts that are repeatedly resubmitted and repeatedly need to be declined. I am only asking the harder part of the question at this time. The easy part of the question has to do with topics that seem to be clearly non-notable or otherwise clearly will never be articles. These can be either Rejected, or nominated for deletion at MFD, or both. I am not asking about them at this time.
What I am asking about is subjects that seem possibly notable, but are repeatedly being declined as not demonstrating notability or otherwise just aren't being made ready for article space. The question is what I should do when I am reviewing one of them. One possible answer is to do nothing, neither accept nor decline, and wait for another reviewer, or see if the submitter will just copy/move it into article space. However, that sort of seems to avoid responsibility. I guess my question is what reasonable options I have as to advising the submitter to ask for advice. Sometimes there is a WikiProject (and maybe I know about it, or maybe I don't know about it). Where else can I ask for another review, or ask the submitter to ask for another review? The Teahouse? The AFC Help Desk? What suggestions does anyone have for reviewers to deal with submitters who just seem to be almost there and not getting any closer? (Of course, maybe they won't ever get there.)
Thoughts? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I have realized that there is another reason for repeated resubmission of drafts that calls for a different view by the reviewers (us). Sometimes a topic is inherently of marginal notability. It isn't obviously notable, but it isn't crud, isn't obviously conflict of interest or advertising, and it isn't an obvious accept or an obvious decline. Sometimes one of these gets declined, and the author tries to improve it, and it is still marginal, and they resubmit it, and it gets declined again. The draft has reached the point of diminishing returns. It won't get better. Just declining it again may result in yet another tweak and resubmit. (It might, on the other hand, result in a request for help to the Teahouse, or in an embittered editor, but it might result in another resubmit.) One possible action that will break the cycle of repeated resubmission would be to decide that the draft will never be a good article, but it isn't bad, and can be accepted. It's a judgment call by the reviewer whether the repeated resubmissions indicate a hopeless topic or a marginal topic. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
If it is a hopeless topic, then it is still a good idea to break the cycle of repeated resubmission, and MFD is a way to do that. (So is Reject, but MFD establishes a precedent that can be used for G4, and Reject does not.) But sometimes, the repeated resubmissions are because the topic is marginal. We have lots of marginal articles, and it is only the ones with COI that are a problem (in my opinion, and I am a deletionist). Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
One practical solution could be making a point to review from the back of the queue, rather than First In First Out. This draft, Draft:On_This_Holiday, was created on 15 October. Here its review history:
Each time a reviewing editor has left a helpful comment on the draft. I became aware of this draft because I occasionally check the postings at the Helpdesk, where the author posted about this draft and received another response. So it's six interactions with this page -- the time and effort that could have been spent on reviewing six other drafts.
Some editors get disproportionate attention, while others wait two or three months for a first review. (I've started at the back of the queue and I accepted a couple of articles that had been submitted in July. I'm still in mid-August.). Do you guys have any thoughts on this approach: Last In First Out? K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Reality, as best I can tell, is the easier declines and accepts get done in the first 48 hours. The tougher cases get strung out. The positive side of that is we give feedback to most of the people most of the time very quickly. If we strictly enforced FIFO reviewers would lose the ability to skip what they are not comfortable with. I'd love to beat the backlog back to a few days of course. The total backlog is about 6-10 days worth of submissions but it takes over 2 months to deal with the tough cases. No, I don't have a solution for that. I mostly work the oldest pages. Legacypac ( talk) 04:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello all.
I'm curious about the status of the articles that are deferred from a G13 deletion. Is deferral a good option? To me, it seems like these drafts are just languishing in purgatory.
I'd like to propose the removal of deferring a G13-eligible draft from deletion. My rationale is twofold: 1. Deferral isn't likely to catch the eye of whatever newly-registered editor made an article on six months ago 2. If these users want to work on their article, they can retrieve it at WP:REFUND
The obvious exception to this would be if one intended to work on the draft themself.
I'd love to hear thoughts on this. Cheers, ProgrammingGeek talktome 03:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Scott and I work for CommonBond. An editor recently advised me to submit my draft content to Articles for Creation, even though the CommonBond page already exists. They said if AfC approved my draft, a UDP template would still be added, even though I have disclosed my conflict of interest (unfortunately my company previously hired someone that broke Wikipedia’s rules without our knowledge). I am confused; are we permanently branded with this tag as punishment or is it possible to address it? Does it expire? Should I be submitting something to AfC? Scott at CommonBond ( talk) 19:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Ping User:Scope creep. I am unclear why a submission to AfC is required when the page already exists. Usually we would just decline that as a duplicate topic in mainspace already. Legacypac ( talk) 19:49, 8 November 2018 (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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
When I am reviewing sandboxes that have been tagged for AFC review, I first try to move them to draft space with an appropriate title. Sometimes I get the message that the sandbox cannot be moved because the draft already exists. Does anyone have any specific thoughts about what to do? Usually the named draft and the sandbox have been created by the same person, and I ask them not to create multiple copies of drafts. It is rare that either version of the draft is ready for mainspace. Maybe editors who are clueful enough to create a draft that is ready for mainspace are clueful enough not to create duplicate drafts.
On second thought, as I write this, the best answer normally is to convert the sandbox into a redirect to the draft, and comment on the draft (declining it if it is submitted).
Why does the same author create multiple copies of drafts, other than just good-faith cluelessness?
Sometimes I find that the named draft and the sandbox are identical or almost so but created by different accounts. That is either use of multiple accounts (sockpuppetry), or the second account is ripping off the first account (less likely than sockpuppetry). Sometimes the two drafts are by different people and are actually different, but about the same subject. In that case, the best action would seem to be to ask them to coordinate with each other. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest to reviewers that, if a submission seems really stupid or clueless, it is a good idea to check the contribution history of the author. Sometimes the author has also engaged in vandalism, and it may be appropriate: (1) to revert any questionable edits that have not yet been reverted; (2) to warn the vandal if they have not already been warned; (3) if appropriate, to report the vandal to the vandalism noticeboard. This has to do with really clueless submissions or with clearly improper submissions (such as attack pages). Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
When I am reviewing sandboxes that have been tagged for AFC review, I first try to move them to draft space with an appropriate title. Sometimes I get the message that the draft title has been protected against creation, that is, salted. My question is what do other reviewers think I should do (and what do other reviewers do). I don't know whether the submitter knows that the title has been create-protected. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't. My usual approach is to comment that the title has been protected against creation, and to list any applicable deletion discussions, and to advise them that they can discuss with the deleting administrator or protecting administrator. If it were obvious that the draft should be accepted, I would either refer the submitter to deletion review or go to deletion review myself, but that is very rare, and I think I have been in that situation only once. I think that the submission should be declined on notability grounds if the deletion included notability grounds. If the submission is promotional, one can list that also. Does anyone else have any other ideas about salted titles? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I am now seeing submissions that I would like to Reject. I have a question for any reviewer who is willing to consider why I am asking. I can't say anything to explain a rejection, since any comments that I put in the Comments space are ignored. How should I provide any explanation or justification of why I am rejecting a draft? Am I supposed to go through the first stage of Commenting, which does record my comments? (I am aware of one editor here who, to the best of my knowledge, is not a reviewer, who thinks that Rejected should be final and should not be explained. Nothing is truly final in Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Are there categories for drafts with foreign references that are waiting for review by reviewers who can read the languages of the references? If so, where are they documented? If not, we should develop them.
I reviewed a draft which is now in the Very Old list and have commented that it needs a reviewer who can read Korean. Is there a way to publish this request? Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
By the way, it is Draft:Dunia: Into A New World. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
There are certain comments that I frequently use in reviewing drafts. For instance, one of them is: "This draft is an autobiography, the submission of which is discouraged." I would like to know whether I can simplify the reviewing process by using some sort of abbreviation or macro. Would this be a case for a template? Can I create a template, or do I need to request the Template Editor privilege first? There are other comments that I would like to be able to enter via shorthand in the Comments field, but the above is a good example, and it might be useful for other reviewers as well. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Please add additional independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail.. I use it all the time. Primefac ( talk) 04:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers and Araratic raised concerns on my talk page regarding my acceptance of Draft:2016 Young Critics Circle Awards. Both of the editors question the notability of the subject.
At the time of submission, the draft author ( BudoyAko) only provided one source: "Young Critics Circle votes ‘Women of the Weeping River’ best film". This is a primary source, as it is a page from the awards' official website, according to the Young Critics Circle article. I was suspicious of the source's legitimacy, because it is hosted on a subdomain of wordpress.com, but the revision of the Young Critics Circle article that passed AfD in 2012 also confirms this.
I was in the middle of researching and adding sources when the other editors commented on my talk page. My mistake was in accepting the draft after confirming the notability of the subject, but before adding sources to the article to support this. In the future, I will only accept the draft after adding sources to the article that establish the subject's notability, because new page patrollers and other editors watching the page may think that no further revisions are planned.
As for the notability of the 2016 Young Critics Circle Awards, I've found 2 sources that I believe qualify the article subject for notability under WP:GNG: "Ai Ai, Nora at Jaclyn, NGANGA sa Young Critics" from Abante Tonite and "Indie films win at YCC" from Tempo. These sources are independent and offer significant coverage of the article subject. I'm not familiar enough with Filipino media to properly assess the sources' reliability.
Another related issue is the existence of articles for other years of the awards ( 1990 Young Critics Circle Awards to 2015 Young Critics Circle Awards), and the existence of a related draft ( Draft:2017 Young Critics Circle Awards). Most of the articles for the other years are poorly sourced, but they are older articles that didn't go through AfC. Please keep in mind that notability is based on the availability of sources, not the content of the articles.
I'm requesting feedback from other AfC reviewers for whether I should have accepted Draft:2016 Young Critics Circle Awards. Additionally, if the 2016 Young Critics Circle Awards (or any of the other years) aren't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, I encourage other editors to either merge them into a single list article or nominate them for deletion. — Newslinger talk 06:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I can verify that the ability to provide a comment when rejecting a draft does work. The evidence that the bug has been fixed won't last very long (unless you are an admin), because the draft was also tagged as G11, but rejecting it gets it out of the status of waiting for a review. Thank you, User:Enterprisey. Robert McClenon ( talk) 09:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wagon India is an online shopping store owned by Wagon India Entrepreneurs Pvt. Ltd. It was established in July 15, 2018 in Indore by Tejesh Mehta placed in Madhya Pradesh, India. With over 4000+ products and over a 85+ brands in our catalogue you will find everything you are looking for. Choose from a wide range of options in every category, exclusively handpicked to help you find the best quality available at the lowest prices, Fast delivery and your order will be delivered right to your doorstep. Wagonindia.com allows you to walk away from the drudgery of various types of product shopping and welcome an easy relaxed way of browsing and shopping.
Background
Wagon India's feature products of home % kitchen appliances, footwear, trending fashion, and daily need essentials products. Across various categories, Wagon India advertise regional as well as international brands.
Owner
Mobile App
in 2018, the Acculance IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. launched its iOS and Android App for customers.
Virendra.Shakya (
talk) 07:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is a special case that isn't normally encountered. However, I think that, on reflection, the way forward is clear. I reviewed Draft:Joseph K. Taussig Jr. on 31 August, and declined it because an article Joseph K. Taussig Jr. already existed. That is as much of a no-brainer as a reviewer is likely to do. We don't need two articles on the same person. However, on 3 September, the article in article space was deleted with G5, a blocked or banned user. This was called to my attention. Since the reason for the decline is no longer in effect, I resubmitted the draft back into the review queue. I will let another reviewer decide whether it satisfies general notability as written, and, if not, whether additional sources can establish general notability. He doesn't satisfy military notability because he didn't receive his country's highest military honor, the Medal of Honor, and didn't hold flag rank. He doesn't satisfy political notability; not every position appointed by the President of the United States is notable. Do you-all agree that resubmitting was the right action? Is anyone ready to accept the article? Also, should the deleted article be requested to be restored via Requests for Undeletion to email for possible addition to the draft? (Some criteria for speedy deletion are restored. Some are not. The fault in this case is not that of the article itself but of the sockpuppet.) Should an administrator be asked to do a history merge?
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I've pasted all of the refs from the deleted version into the draft. Primefac ( talk) 02:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I was going through the initial stages of reviewing this draft. Clearly it's reasonably well written and also links into three films that have demonstrated notability. The sources in this one wouldn't strictly satisfy the sourcing rules since linking to individual reviews would be pointless - the general data is what is needed.
In my view it's a helpful addition and we don't have any particularly clear-cut rules on film series/franchises, and a look at some others didn't help my consideration.
Thus - your thoughts? Is there any particular sourcing that I should notify the creator is required for it?
Cheers, Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Can an editor review and approved an AfC that they have created themselves. Recently User:Scope creep created an article, Draft:American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys (AAML), which I declined as it was heavily reliant on a primary source and lacked significant coverage in other independent secondary sources. A second editor John from Idegon also commented that the tone of the article was highly promotional. User:Scope creep subsequently commented that "This is a learned society that means it is notable by default and is covered by WP:NEXIST" and then approved the article themselves. I would like some feedback as to whether editors who create articles via the AfC process should be allowed to then approve them as well. I would have thought that there should be a degree of independence between the article's creator and the article reviewer. Dan arndt ( talk) 08:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Sachin is a former Indian international cricketer and a former captain of the Indian national team, regarded as one of the greatest batsmen of all time. He is the highest run scorer of all time in International cricket — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sai sachin bellie ( talk • contribs) 06:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed a sandbox page that had been submitted but contained patent nonsense, possibly the result of strumming on the keyboard keys. I wanted to Reject it, but wasn't sure what codes to use. I wound up Declining it as 'test' and 'joke' and tagging it for {{ UFW}}, but would like advice on what to do next time this happens. It isn't really a lack of notability, because there isn't a subject at all. Would it be reasonable to say that Wikipedia is not for patent nonsense? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
What is Genius.com? Is it an unreliable or vanity source? I sometimes see it as a source. Am I correct that it is not a reliable source? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
If I tag a draft with an AFC comment, does that restart the G13 calendar? I encountered a draft on Cy Chermak and tried to move it to Draft:Cy Chermak. Already taken. So I checked to see if it was created by the same person. No. It was created in March 2018, and wasn't as good as what I moved to Draft:Cy Chermak (2), which still isn't good enough because it needs reliable sources, but they can probably be found. If the old draft had been recent, I would have left a comment on it. However, I didn't, because it is almost ready to be blown away to G13. Would a comment start the calendar over? If so, I made a conscious choice in leaving it alone. If not, I may comment on it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we had a complete lack of disagreement with the idea that the comments should go on the draft talk page (just like comments on anything else). The reason why we want to make it happen does not have much to do with the G13 clock, but primarily so that the comments will survive acceptance. Also, having the comments on the front leads some contributors to think, by reasonable good-faith mistake, that they can just edit comments onto the front. Such comments, if not affixed with the AFC script, have to be removed manually if the draft is accepted, which complicates the review job. If the review comments went on the talk page, the submitter would almost certainly reply on the talk page. So, yes, we have a complete lack of disagreement that it would be a good idea to move the comments "to the back", to the talk page. Now that we have improved the AFC script with the option of two decline reasons and Reject, the next improvement should be putting the comments on the talk page. Thank you, User:SmokeyJoe, for restating this. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm posting this here because it seems like a good place to possibly get an answer. If there's a better place to post, please advise accordingly. Occasionally, I come across drafts/userspace drafts that appear to be written about fictional subject. Not about books and things like that, but about make believe topics which seem to be more fancruft or part of the creator's imagination, than the makings on a possible Wikipedia article. These pages usually don't seem like they're ever going to be submitted for AfC review, but rather are just for goofing around. For example, Draft:YBC1 seems (I could be wrong) to be about a made up TV station/network that never existed. Since the page is not in the mainspace, it's not really subject to WP:A7 or WP:A11. Such pages can be MfD for sure, but I'm also wondering if they can be tagged per WP:G3.
Anyway, I've come accross other drafts/userspace drafts where the creator seems to be creating their own fictional TV program/reality or using their sandbox for other type of fantasy writing (typically they copy-and-paste something from an existing into their sanbox and then use that as a template for whatever fiction they want to write about). This seems to be a pretty close to WP:NOTWEBHOST (even for a sandbox), but I'm never sure whether common practice is just to leave these things alone as long as they stay out of the mainspace and don't contain any serious policy violations. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The big yellow Comment button in the AFCH script isn't working for me, and hasn't been for about half an hour. Is there a known problem with it? I will try using Firefox instead of Chrome and see if that changes anything. If that fails, I will try restarting my desktop machine. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
extended content
|
---|
jaykumarshah was born in kalaynpur nagarpalika 5 chikna, in the siraha district, Sagarmatha Zone of Nepal. He attended primary school in manakmana public school,janakpur dham-7 and secondary school in srijana secondary English boarding ashanpur 7 golbazar . He went on to study at Tribhuvan University (Nepal),at americian emmabacy got a best award on drawing,graft and desipline. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaykumarshah ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
So, I was trying to decline Draft:Charles E. Chupp, in part because the book title of his that I chose to look at in detail is published by Xlibris and held in 5 libraries. I was prevented from saving my decline and comment by an edit filter (a lot of squiggly gibberish, some wording along the lines of "vanity-published sources are not reliable"). So, I can see the thinking behind a filter to stop people citing vanity press titles (though I'd hope that what they see would be better formatted than what I got); but I really don't see why reviewers should be stopped too. I've re-declined the draft and manually added my AFC comment (which I was able to recover from the submitter's talk-page). To save people going to look, here's what I said:
This person appears not to be notable by our standards. His book Frankly Speaking, for example, was – according to WorldCat – published by Xlibris, a vanity/print-on-demand publisher, and is held in a grand total of five libraries in the world. I don't see any other sourced and credible claim of notability here either.
NB: there is an author named Charles Chupp who published a good deal on plant diseases (e.g., this, held in 433 libraries); but one of his books is dated 1917, so I don't think it can be this chap (or Chupp).
Is this a one-off glitch, or does someone, somewhere, need to be asked to undo something? And if so, who? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't found where disputed category creations can be discussed. Delete/merge/rename, sure, but where to discuss a category that, to some, seems unlikely or dubious?
An IP editor 68.192.236.111 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) attempted to populate categories like
attached to songs identified as being sung by those people. It was noted those categories were not actually created and a few editors thought it seemed excessive, and so reverted. I was one of those.
Would cross-referencing songs by who sang them be reasonable? Or who played instrumentals for them? Or particular instruments? Or were recorded in particular studios? I don't know what is reasonable, and I'm asking on behalf of the IP editor.
If this question ought to be posted better somewhere else, please indicate where. WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk? Shenme ( talk) 05:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I have created two templates that any reviewer is welcome to use: {{ draftautobio}} and {{ compsays}}, which expand to "This draft is an autobiography, the submission of which is strongly discouraged. See the conflict of interest policy for more information." and This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the company.. They can be entered in the Decline comments or in the Reject comments. These are explanations that I found I was frequently typing. You are welcome to use them or to tweak the wording if you don't change the meaning. I may create more of these templates. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Re: Draft:Ice Poseidon - it passes GNG but I noticed the name is protected so I changed it to Ice Poseidon (streamer) and got the following message: Error moving Draft:Ice Poseidon to Ice Poseidon (streamer): "protectedpage". Is there something I'm not doing properly? This is the first time I've had this issue so I'm stumped. Atsme 📞 📧 01:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
In trying to work off the backlog of drafts with the same names as existing articles, I see certain editing patterns. One of them is an editor whose edits are limited to creating drafts on new people and discussing the drafts on talk pages and project pages. This is someone who doesn't seem to be trying to improve the encyclopedia except by adding articles. My question is: How likely is it that this person is a paid editor, and to what extent should a reviewer allow that concern to affect their reviewing? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Here is another story about a matching draft and article. The draft had been in AFC and was declined twice, both times for notability. So then a copy of the draft was put in article space by the principal author of the drafts, bypassing AFC. (Bypassing AFC is of course permitted, and most experienced editors do not use AFC anyway, but bypassing AFC after having used it is annoying. In this case, after two shots at AFC, that was the necessary 10 edits to get autoconfirmed.) There has been some improvement of both the draft and the new article, but it isn't to where I would accept it. So I can decline the draft both on notability grounds and as duplicating an existing article. But what to do with the article? In this case the author of the article was the only author of the draft, so that there doesn't seem to be a need for history merge or an attribution problem. But in some cases there have also been edits by other authors to the draft, so that the author, by doing the copy-and-paste, is breaking attribution. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't yet decided whether to take the article to AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Draft:List_of_Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire%3F_top_prize_winners Me and my friend decided it to re write all top prize winners . Can you create a new one please. And also me and my friend will be responsible for this page, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marik-modder ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually back on 2007 the page was created it and title was called List of top prize winners on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? . And Yesterday me my friend decided it to rewritte all top-prize winners and add them. And i also have better title List of top prize winners on international versions of Who Wants to be a Millionaire?. Cos is much better than List of top prize winners on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? About draft that's my friend did it not me. Also why i decided it to rewrite, because new versions of wwtbam is appearing like Iran, Mautrius, Kazahstan(Kazah Language ) ane etc. And if that page will be removed again. Where i can add them? Marik-modder ( talk) 15:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Im confused i dont no how to suggest a article about someone - when i google for canadian atheists i see lots of wikipedia articles for lots of people come up in a scroller at the top including david silverman who is president from american atheists but not randolf richardson who is preseident of canadian atheists , and i cant find randolf richardson in wikipedia so i try to add article but i get directed to this page so i dont no whut to do.. if u can help thanks u!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.64.187.20 ( talk) 17:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi AfC reviewers -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a product manager at WMF working on a project to make it easier to prioritize AfC and NPP pages for review by adding AfC drafts to the New Pages Feed along with quality and copyvio indicators. I last posted here three weeks ago when reviewers started testing the New Pages Feed in Test Wiki. I'm posting again because the issues that reviewers found over the last weeks have been addressed, and we're getting ready to actually add AfC drafts to the New Pages Feed in English Wikipedia on September 17. ORES scores and copyvio indicators will be added in following weeks. Please click here to read more or to test things out in Test Wiki, and click here to discuss on the project's talk page. Thank you, and I'm hoping we'll hear from many AfC reviewers. -- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 21:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I know this is allowed by our license, and I know I shouldn't even be surprised, but I was indeed surprised to discover that we've got mirrors that mirror our drafts and promote them to mainspace. See Draft:Doyle Country Club and [1]. Chalk one up for the SEO trolls. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I wrote a new article about the singer "Oshri", its in my sandbox: User:מיקרוז/sandbox, can anyone explane me how I remove it from my sand box to the Encyclopedia? thanx! מיקרוז ( talk) 01:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC) מיקרוז ( talk) 01:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{AFC submission|||ts=20180924093759|u= Draft:Kietaviškių gausa |ns=5}} Paulius0605 ( talk) 09:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Currently, when we notify a user with empty talk page about a decline or accept, the {{
Talk header}}
is automatically placed on top of the user's talk page. Should we remove it? I don't see the need for it, and the user has the final decision on what is put in their talk page (or maybe they don't even know what the talk page header is for).
—AE (
talk •
contributions) 12:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I had a person request help on #Wikipedia-en-help about this draft. I think there's some notability in the first couple sources, but there's some spammy text, so I would like to have a third opinion about it before taking any action. Thanks, L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 12:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey all, you can move me to the active list. Sorry for the delay in starting after my request. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 22:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Please join us... We have four new topics for
Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October!
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Hello. I am requesting to start helping with Articles for creation again. I have read the rules and understand the rules. Thank you. Schwartzenberg ( talk) 22:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
After several months of development, the New Pages Feed is ready for use by AfC reviewers! Reviewers can now use the feed to find and prioritize drafts for review, instead of choosing randomly or by category from this page. To use the New Pages Feed:
1. Go to the New Pages Feed.
2. Select the "Articles for Creation" toggle at the top of the feed.
3. Select a "State" to filter the list. These are the available states, all of which exclude redirects:
4. Sort the list by a date:
5. Click the title of a draft to open it in a new tab.
6. Review as usual, using the AFCH gadget.
As announced above, this is the first of three enhancements happening over the next month to improve the toolset for AfC and NPP reviewers. The next one will be deployed as soon as Thursday, October 4 (or in the days that follow), and will add ORES scores to the feed so that drafts can be prioritized based on how likely they are to be high or low quality. The final enhancement will add copyvio detection to the feed, and is expected during the week of October 14. You can actually test out both of those upcoming features in Test Wiki!
Please comment here or on the project talk page if you find bugs or have any thoughts or reactions. We're hoping this work makes it easier to be an AfC reviewer, so that high quality drafts can make it into the article space faster!
Thank you to the many AfC reviewers who weighed in to shape this project over the last many months, and who were patient with our team as we learned more about the AfC process. Our team really felt like this has been a partnership with the community.
To read more about this project, check out the project page here. -- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 20:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Towards the bottom of this edit, made using the Cleanup function of AFCH, it appears to have removed a full stop that appeared after a ref tag - but this now leaves the sentence with no ending punctuation. Perhaps it should have moved the dot to before the ref rather than just removing it? – numbermaniac 08:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I occasionally encounter drafts that have been tagged with one of the notability tags, or one of the style tags, such as 'advert', or a POV tag. My question is: Am I correct that these tags are being applied in good-faith error, and that they are not really appropriate for drafts? Certainly, a concern about notability is a reason, and the most common reason, to decline a draft, but the tags are really for articles, and can serve as a caution to the creator that someone else may choose to AFD the article. I can see that cleanup tags are reasonable on drafts, but am I correct that notability tags should not be used on drafts, because comments and declines are in order instead? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Just checking to see if people are interested in holding a new one as the backlog nears 4K. Consensus here means I'll start serious work on resurrecting the scoring bot, and we can start talking about specific rules for the drive. This time around, extra emphasis will be made on making sure reviews are high-quality; this can be done with the re-review system that is used during drives. I believe with the right set of rewards/penalties, we can ensure that people don't just grind through reviews as fast as possible. Enterprisey ( talk!) 07:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please tell User:Pipo.bizelli, in Portuguese, not to submit his draft in Portuguese any more? I declined it once, both as inadequately sourced and as in Portuguese, but now it has been resubmitted. My guess is that the submitter doesn't understand the English decline. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
We have now completed the second part of the three part project to improve reviewing tools for AfC reviewers.
Here is what has changed in the New Pages Feed. These additions are meant to help reviewers quickly find and prioritize drafts that need review soonest:
For instance, right now there are 40 drafts awaiting review that are predicted to be "B-class" or better. Those might be good drafts to review first because they are likely to have high quality content that could be delivered to the article namespace quickly (and they might be written by eager newbies who could use the positive reinforcement!)
Below is more background on where these predictions come from. As this community updates any documentation around the New Pages Feed and how to review pages, our team is happy to help with any explanations or screenshots. Let me know!
ORES is a system built by the WMF Scoring Platform team, led by Halfak (WMF), that automatically classifies edits and pages using machine learning. ORES models are in use at the Recent Changes and Watchlist feeds, where they estimate "content quality" and "user intent". We have added two different models to the New Pages Feed, which estimate the "predicted class" and whether an article has "potential issues". The models are built by looking at existing examples of articles that have been given a class, or shown to have issues, and then the algorithm learns what it looks like when future articles have those same characteristics.
It's important to note, as was referenced many times in the community discussion around planning these enhancements, that these predictions are only predictions. Because they are only suggestions from an algorithm, they are often wrong. Reviewers are meant to use them to find pages that are more likely to have those characteristics, in order to help make reviewing work more efficient. They can also be taken into account when doing a review. But at the end of the day, as several experienced reviewers emphasized in the community discussion, human judgment is still what should be deciding whether a page is of high quality or not.
As reviewers work with these models, cases will come up where the models seem to be wrong. It is really helpful to the Scoring Platform team to report those cases! They can use those to recalibrate and improve the models. Here is where and how to do that.
Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, or bugs with the new ORES classifications. Our next (and final) enhancement to the New Pages Feed will be the addition of copyvio detection, planned for the week of October 15 or October 22. I will be back with more information on that. -- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 18:50, 5 October 2018 (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 is a backlog of about 140 drafts whose names are also in article space. I am trying to work this backlog, but would like to discuss a few of the typical cases.
The draft is the same, or almost the same as, the article, and both are by the same editor, and the article deserves to stay in article space. Decline the draft, saying that the article exists, as a courtesy to the author to put a note on their talk page. Then turn the declined draft into a redirect.
This is relatively rare but can happen.
This happens frequently with biographies of people who share a name.
Disambiguate the draft.
Disambiguate the draft. Then either accept it (with the new name) or decline it. If accepted, add a hatnote to the original.
Please consider incorporating any useful material from the above submission into this article. The submission is eligible for deletion in 6 months. ~ Kvng ( talk) 19:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Thoughts? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I have placed a copy of this discussion at Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles. I am doing additional refinement on it there. ~ Kvng ( talk) 02:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Could one of you give me a second opinion about Draft:Shaun B. Coleman? I'm inclined to accept it, but it's partly due to polite interactions I've had with the creator. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 14:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pir Syed Muhammad Ameen Shah 177.15.10.134 ( talk) 08:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I happened to run across Draft talk:EOS Group#Promotional terms, in which a highly experienced editor gives this sentence as an example of inappropriate promotionalism: "The EOS Group has more than 55 operating companies with locations in 26 countries"
(The editor who left this comment says on that talk page that s/he doesn't want to invest more time in this, which is perfectly acceptable, so I'm not pinging him. Also, this is not an unusual comment, so it'd be unfair to single out one person.)
It seems to me that this sentence is very similar to sentences that are found in the lead of several Wikipedia:Featured articles, including:
My question for you: Do we have any decent pages that explain what "promotionalism" is, and (importantly) how promotionalism differs from reporting positive facts? When the subject actually is the biggest, fastest, first, etc., then it's not promotionalism to say that. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"As of 2018 the company operates 55 subsidiary companies in 26 countries". This basic problem pervades the entire article. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 18:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm interested in being a reviewer. Please add my username to the list. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
This article is making the rounds of social media today. Any thoughts on it? Kaldari ( talk) 13:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
V and BLP do not require independence, they require reliability, which a professional bio published on the site of a professional organization is. It is independent enough to verify that she wasn’t making up the claims, which is the purpose of independence in these cases (i.e. they’re not going to publish her biography claiming she was a fellow if she wasn’t. It wasn’t a personal website.) PROF does not require as strict independence as other guidelines in that it is a merit based standard for people where intellectually independent coverage is difficult. This met the basic requirements for promotion to mainspace. It wasn’t the best article, but that’s not the purpose of AfC: the purpose of AfC is to determine if an article has a more likely than not chance of surviving AfD, which this clearly did as there was proof of notability under PROF in the references.
Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined. Issues that do not affect the likelihood of success at AFD (e.g., halo effects like formatting) should not be considered when making this fundamental calculation.
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.If you're proposing a change to that policy then you should take your concerns to that page's talk page. Falling Gravity 06:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
To repeat a point I've already made elsewhere: We probably wouldn't be having to have this conversation, if AfC applied something equivalent to AfD's WP:BEFORE.
So how can that be achieved, and what should the guidelines say? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Shifted these from Template talk:AFC submission since this is watched by a few more folks. Primefac ( talk) 19:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Proposed change:
The former discourages any resubmission, especially for newbies who might think it's better to have a draft up than to resubmit and have it disappear. (This language also matches that next to the resubmission button.) – SJ + 18:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
All of the declined comments read as though they are a final rejection. Only after you make it through a few sentences describing the failings of the article is there a positive suggestion of ways to make it better. For a new contributor, this looks like a form rejection slip, and discourages further work.
Proposed change: move the last sentence of each comment (detailing how to improve the article) to the top of the comment. Condense the criticism (which is redundant to the positive suggestion) so that the focus is on what to improve. Something like
I am happy to draft specific revised text, but this is a lot of edits to a widely-used template, so I'd rather the changes be made by people who are actively handling AFC and using them in practice. – SJ + 18:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Previously the decline language was seen as saccharine, encouraging the submitter to improve and resubmit. I will take another look after I do my next round of reviews, but I think it is still saccharine, encouraging crud to be reworked, which is why we now have Reject also. This is yet another case where the rule not to bite the newcomers is treated as a commandment, even overriding policies, because many editors tie themselves in knots to avoid being bitey, but some newcomers do need to be bitten. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
1. Notability alone does not determine an article's suitability for the encyclopedia
2. The sources cited in the article should be sufficient to establish notability -- otherwise the draft is not ready for the encyclopedia
3. Requiring such a search would further increase the backlog and add unneeded bureaucratic procedure
There's really no need to keep piling on opposes here. Therefore, I think this discussion is ready for closure. All the best, ProgrammingGeek talktome 21:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)Should a BEFORE-style search be part of the AfC workflow when declining drafts? Brad v 14:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
18:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)I recently had a look at Peace Uzoamaka Nnaji and moved it into article space as an adequately sourced article on an elected member of a country's government (and thus clearly notable). It had been rejected twice at AfC, and five different editors had edited it, but no-one had welcomed the editor to Wikipedia or made any comment on their talk page about the progress of this, their first article. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they have not edited the encyclopedia since that first article creation (and a simple message on their own talk page). I see that the Project Goals don't include anything about providing a friendly welcome to good-faith new editors so that they will be encouraged to continue their editing. Perhaps the project should consider adding something like that to its goals? (Yes, I know the instant response will be "You aren't an AfC editor so don't tell us how to do things" or words to that effect: I WikiGnome away in various other areas like stub-sorting, each to our own. But the work of AfC can be the first interaction a potential new editor has with Wikipedia, so you can make a huge difference by how you respond to them). Pam D 08:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There is, above, yet another suggestion that the AFC volunteers are collectively at fault for not being sufficiently enthusiastic in their implied function of meeting and greeting new editors. I have been saying from time to time for maybe two years that we should consider whether there should be a separate volunteer function of meeting and greeting new editors. That way, it wouldn't be necessary to dump on the AFC or NPP volunteers, who are already doing a job that the overall Wikipedia community thinks is important, for not also acting as the meeting and greeting committee. We need to decide whether meeting and greeting is a sufficiently important role that we need to ask for volunteers for the purpose. If it isn't important enough to call for its own volunteers, then maybe we don't need to dump on the AFC volunteers. (Oh, never mind. It is very much the Wikipedia way to dump on some other group of volunteers than one belongs to and say that they aren't doing enough. Dumping on another group of volunteers makes the dumper feel better, that they have accomplished something. Whether it annoys the dumpees is not important.)
Seriously, if meeting and greeting is so important that it is worth dumping on other volunteers, then maybe it is important enough to have volunteers for the purpose.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Three new topics for
WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives
Continuing: | ||
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This is a proposal to put all AfC status templates, maintenance templates, comments, and such on the draft talk page instead of the draft page, where they currently are. This would enable reviewers and draft authors to hold normal conversations on the talk page, and would (as a side effect) retain all conversation if the draft is moved to mainspace. A general disclaimer-style AfC banner will remain on the draft page, informing readers that the draft is not an article yet. A script (or Lua template) can also be written to summarize the status of the draft so far, for use by reviewers and others interested in AfC reviewing operations. Robert McClenon was the most recent person to suggest this, and this issue has also come up in the past before then. Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Clarification: The previous status of the draft will be summarized in the banner by default. Every decline reason and comment will appear on the draft page, except (of course) taking up less room. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Apologies that I am not up to speed on previous discussion of this proposal. I have a couple questions.
We need to think about what we want the talk page to look like after a draft has been accepted. Retaining the reviewer comments in a clearly-marked talk section is potentially valuable but a wall of pink AfC reject templates, probably not. What is the thinking here?
Who is going to do this work? There's not much point of approving a change unless there is a person or team that is actually going to implement the change. ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
How will some of our newest editors know to check the talk page to submit their article for review? I can tell you that even in the current system how to submit their article for review is something new editors sometimes need support with doing. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Important We really should talk to the growth team at WMF before making this change. The new AfC tools that will be at Special:NewPagesFeed rely on categories present on the draft page itself (which are put there by the templates). I'm pretty sure they could rework it to go off of the talk page, but let's keep them informed. Pinging MMiller (WMF) — MusikAnimal talk 02:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
Can I check whether it is just me for which the "Pending AfC Submissions List" isn't removing reviewed articles - it seems to have vast hoards (thus not recent changes) of articles with a reviewed status still sitting there, which seems contrary to its purpose as a pending list.
Not sure if just me, some error from the large number or something else.
Cheers, Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a proposal to add the rejection feature to the main script, allowing all reviewers to use it. To provide guidance on when to use this feature, the final wording in #Guidelines for rejecting above will be added to the reviewing guidelines. I won't add the feature until we've agreed on a set of guidelines, of course, so you can support here while suggesting changes to the guidelines. Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks ok to me for notability and not copyvio, but the title was create protected back in 2012. Can an Admin look at it and remove the old create protect? Legacypac ( talk) 19:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I have already asked this and not gotten a conclusive answer. Is there a template that I can tag a draft with that indicates that it is waiting for a reviewer who can read Arabic, because the reliable sources are in Arabic?
I have in the past had the same question about Korean sources, so this is a more general question about tagging drafts that need a reviewer who can read Language Y.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This isn't a particularly urgent or critical question, but I will ask it anyway. The question is whether submissions that are purely advertising or are spam should be declined with 'adv' and tagged for G11, or should be rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and tagged for G11. I am in the habit of declining them, usually with 'adv' and 'corp', and tagging them for G11. I have been doing that for a long time, since before there were multiple reasons, so that I would use either 'adv' or 'corp' and would decline them, and would also tag G11. Now that rejection has been implemented, that is an alternative disposition. My first thought is that "Contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" is too harsh a judgment, and that a decline and a G11 is good enough. However, on second thought, advertising does violate Wikipedia is not for advertising, and that is fair after all. It doesn't really matter which type of disapproval I provide if the G11 is agreed to by the reviewing administrator, because the offending article is only there for a matter of hours. So is there a definite reason why I should reject it and G11 it, or a definite reason why I should continue to decline it and G11 it? Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
So: If I am tagging the submission for G11, should I decline it with 'corp' and/or 'adv', or should I Reject it as contrary to Wikipedia (and probably not notable besides)? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Legacypac: clearing out the "adv" entries manually seems like a chore. Has it ever been suggested to create a new criterion, say WP:G14, that would delete the drafts declined as "adv" automatically, AND a. do it sooner than six months (perhaps three? one?); b. make them ineligible for restoration? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi AfC reviewers -- the third part of this project to improve prioritization tools for AfC is now ready for testing by reviewers. In the vein of how "potential issues" were added to the New Pages Feed in a previous update, we are now adding the potential issue of "Copyvio". Drafts will be flagged in the New Pages Feed if a revision in the draft has been flagged by CopyPatrol (via the Turnitin service) as potentially copied from another source. This feature should make it faster and easier for AfC reviewers to find and deal with drafts that have potential copyright violations. Here is how to test:
This testing period will continue into next week, at which point we'll decide whether we're ready to make the feature available at the usual URL. If you have feedback, reactions, or questions, please post here or on the project's talk page. And to read more about the specifics of this implementation and the rules behind how it works, check out this project update. -- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 23:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please check my draft which I have updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keditz ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I've read this essay with interest: User:Bradv/Strickland incident. There was one idea there that I thought would be helpful to the project:
It AfC-sorting may seem like busywork, but quite a few people do it at AfD, so I assume there may be people willing to sort drafts. It would improve the efficiency of the process, as people would be able to focus on the areas that interest them and / or where they have experience establishing notability. Any feedback? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorting AfC drafts is regularly brought up but is a huge waste of time. By time you classify a Draft that needs a decline you can assess it and decline it. Classification work requires a generalist volunteer that knows how to do it, the perfect volunteer to accept or decline whatever they come across. Further classifications can not be categories (Draft NOCAT) and would therefore go away on approval.
I suggest using the NPP browser which has recently been expanded for AfC. It gives a short part of the page intro which, along with title, usually gives you a pretty good idea what the topic is and if it is something you feel ok reviewing. Legacypac ( talk) 17:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip about the https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/. I found the ability to search by keywords to be very helpful.
I don't see this functionality in the Special:NewPagesFeed. It does include AfC but seems to lack the functionality / view of tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser. Is there perhaps a way to have the same keyword search for AfC drafts? The current options are
It would seem to be fairly straightforward to add a "(_) drafts" option, but I'm not sure what would be involved. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm just letting you guys know that there is a page to suggest improvements to the NewPagesFeed/PageCuration software. See Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements where you can file requests.
Many feature requests there have been neglected by the WMF for some time, and we have been told that we must get support at the Community Wishlist if we want improvements/upgrades. Some of the tasks are relevant to AfC as they involve feature requests to the NewPagesFeed that would undoubtedly be useful to this project as well.
Now that NPP and AfC share the NewPagesFeed, it seems like we should work together on this issue. There is a discussion at the NPR discussion board regarding drafting a proposal for the Community Wishlist Survey. Please join the conversation. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 16:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I am reviewing a draft that has to do with climate change modeling. Is there a WikiProject that I can ask to review the draft? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I have a more general question. When I accept an article, I am asked to assign it to WikiProjects. Sometimes it is clear what the appropriate project or projects are. Sometimes it isn't. Is there a reasonably comprehensive list, either alphabetic or hierarchical? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
What do you do when an article is acceptable, but the title isn't quite right ( Draft:Richard Barnett (writer 1980-))? Just add it to mainspace and then move it? Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I occasionally come across promising drafts that have bare URLs as sources; sample: Draft:Ellen_Covey. What is the best way of dealing with this situation? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting how different reviewers look at this. No right answer. Legacypac ( talk) 06:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
It would be helpful if before an article is accepted, it could be checked with the relevant naming convention. Peston (TV show) was accepted 2 days ago and it's already at a RM discussion since the name is clearly violating WP:NCTV. In this case at least it was caught, as others just slip through. This just creates extra work for us all and can easily be corrected by checking the naming conventions before accepting the article. -- Gonnym ( talk) 09:31, 27 October 2018 (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.
Currently, this page says
In my opinion, articles should only be added to wikiprojects by the members of those projects, and we certainly should not be adding all new articles.
This post is to test the waters. If everyone agrees with me, I will remove the above language and get the template changed to no longer have the option (editors could, of course still add wikiprojects manually).
If there are objections, that's fine. In that case I will post an RfC and see what the consensus of the community is. Be aware that the consensus of the community may be that we don't do this, which would be a change from my "remove it from the instructions and template but allow it" proposal above. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion around Strickland and WP:PROF in general in the latest Signpost has been an interesting one. What may not be clear to the general reader is that many WP:PROF drafts are obvious autobiographies. E.g., the account only ever edited one page; they have uploaded a photo; the draft looks like a promotional CV, complete with an exhaustive list of journal articles the subject has published, etc.
Issues of neutrality and COI aside, I often think to myself: these people don't know what they are getting into. Here's a cautionary tale: I once participated in an AfD on a university professor. The article had been apparently created by the subject himself some years ago, but when he was accused of sexual harassment, he nominated the article for deletion. IIRC, he was "sanctioned" by the university, but did not lose his job; however, the whole affair was covered in the press. It was therefore included on his wiki page. The AfD participants said: nope, he's notable under PROF; no reason to delete. If he had not created the article in the first place, he would have been in this predicament.
Another point it that BLPs too often can become battlegrounds. A minor, but nonetheless illustrative example from an article I created: an anon user changed "historian and author" into "social commentator", while figuratively appending a Star of David to the page [3]. I have more examples I could cite.
A wiki page on a BLP is a double-edged sword; there has to be a solid reason for an article to exist. With all of that in mind, how do you deal with autobiographies? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The third and final feature of this project to enhance the New Pages Feed is now in the New Pages Feed for all reviewers! The testing of copyvio detection went well, and so the ability to filter the New Pages Feed to AfC drafts with potential copyvios is present for AfC reviewers.
In this post, I want to give some info on how the new copyvio flag can be used for AfC review. As this community updates any documentation around how to do reviews, our team is happy to help with any explanations or screenshots. Let me know!
Here is how to use the feature:
For instance, as I write this, there are 6 drafts awaiting review flagged as potential copyright violations.
It is important to note, as many reviewers discussed during feature development, that these flags are meant only to draw reviewer attention to potential issues -- they are not meant to be taken as absolute truth. Since they are predictions from an algorithm, it is very common for CopyPatrol to flag an edit that is not a violation at all. In other words, this flag is for drawing reviewer attention to those drafts that need their judgment. Similarly, when a draft does not have the copyvio flag, it does not necessarily mean that it is not a copyvio.
Here is what is happening in the background:
To detect potential copyright violations, the feed uses the same system that backs CopyPatrol. CopyPatrol is backed by the external service Turnitin, which is primarily used by academic institutions to detect plagiarism. Turnitin scans books, articles, and websites for text matches. CopyPatrol runs all diffs over 500 bytes through Turnitin and flags diffs where there is over a 50% match with some other document.
Pages in the New Pages Feed get flagged as potential copyright violations if any of their diffs (including the initial creation of the page) are flagged by CopyPatrol. The flag will remain with the page in the New Pages Feed as long as the page is in the feed -- even if the violation is resolved in CopyPatrol. For a full explanation of the rules we're using and for the way Turnitin works, see the in-depth discussion from our planning process.
Please let me know if you see any bugs or problems. Since this is the final component of the Growth team's work with the New Pages Feed, we'll keep an eye on performance for the next week, and then post a final update before concluding the project. Thank you all for your input and time spent on these improvements! -- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
An RfC of interest to AfC Reviewers: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_Amendment_for_BIO_to_address_systemic_bias_in_the_base_of_sources. Regards proposed changes to notability of marginalised persons. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 11:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The "comment longer than 30 characters" warning is kinda useless because messages about adding refs are placed in drafts by default; therefore there is an extremely high chance of false positives. Is there a way to turn it off? — pythoncoder ( talk | contribs) 21:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I just proposed a merger of {{ db-blankdraft}} into G13, you can comment on it over here. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 07:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi all.
A user's been posting on my talk page about a draft I rejected here. While I think I'm in the right, I've been known to have some erroneous judgement in the past. Would someone else mind taking a look at it? Thanks a lot. ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
197.255.118.195 ( talk) 16:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Top Tough Long Distance Runners In Ghana 1.AKUKA WILLIAMS 2.MALIK YAKUBU 3.AMPONSAH WILLIAMS 4. YIN FRANCIS
It looks like the rejection feature is going well so far, so we should start thinking about guidelines to put in the reviewing guide so the option to reject drafts can be pushed to the main version of the script. Any thoughts? I would favor wording mentioning AfD, like "would be a SNOW delete at AfD or a PROD, and is unsuitable for CSD", but a translation of that into plain English to improve accessibility would likely be better. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Which rejection reason should I use for a blank or nearly blank draft? They aren't exactly contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, because I don't know what they are, and they aren't exactly not notable, because I don't know what they are. I can decline them and tag them as UFW, but is there a proper rejection message, or should they in fact be declined because the editor should get a second chance, or should there be a third rejection reason, or what? Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If we add rejection to the script, should the following text be added to the reviewing guide, under the heading "Rejecting submissions"?
Drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia should be rejected. Rejection is a good choice for a draft that would likely be the subject of an uncontroversial PROD, or if an AfD on the draft would be an unanimous "delete". However, if the draft meets one of the non-article criteria for speedy deletion, an appropriate CSD tag should be added instead of rejecting. (Drafts that would fall under one of the article criteria, like A7 or A9, should be rejected.)
Suggestions & edits are welcome. Pinging Robert McClenon, SmokeyJoe, DGG, and Tazerdadog. Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia should be rejected. Rejection is a good choice if the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it was an article. This can be through a CSD criterion, PROD, or an overwhelming consensus at AfD. If the draft meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion as a draft, an appropriate CSD tag should be added in addition to rejecting.
Drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia should be rejected. Rejection is a good choice when the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it were an article, for example if the page would be an overwhelming "delete" at AfD. If a draft meets a non-article CSD criterion, an appropriate CSD tag should be added in addition to rejecting.
What caused the hidden text message of "<!-- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. -->" to appear after {{ AFC submission}} on e.g. User:Flickyard/sandbox and User:BlackLotus/ICEY (Video Game)? — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 17:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thought it worth getting a sanity check before being too bold.
User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel, another script created by our own @ Enterprisey:, was created reasonably recently and has just been added onto the COPYVIO main page as a useful tool. Since sorting out the revdel bit of fixing copyvio issues is one of the most fiddly bits I thought I should add it to the relevant bit of the reviewing instructions as a potential aid. Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, At Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/AFC articles by quality log are many articles (not all, but most) with duplicate AFC lines. I did cleanup (removed duplicate AFC lines) on the first 3 or 4. The daily assessment WP 1.0 bot has big-time problems with duplicate WPs. Regards, JoeHebda ( talk) 02:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Update for ( Enterprisey— Nathan2055— audiodude— Kelson— Walkerma) - For November 3 processing WP 1.0 bot ran AFC "quality logs" for Oct. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, Nov. 1, Nov. 2 = all repeats; and Nov.3 (new log). JoeHebda ( talk) 14:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I have a question about history merge, in particular where I think (but am not sure) that another reviewer has been overly conscientious (which is basically good). An editor has created two copies of a draft about the same person, one in draft space and one in a sandbox subpage. User:Legacypac has tagged one of the copies for history merge. It is my understanding that history merge is unnecessary when only one editor is involved, since both copies are the work of a single editor. So: Is history merge required, or can I accept one of the two copies and convert the other one to a redirect? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
This may appear to be two questions rolled into one, about how to deal with drafts that are repeatedly resubmitted and repeatedly need to be declined. I am only asking the harder part of the question at this time. The easy part of the question has to do with topics that seem to be clearly non-notable or otherwise clearly will never be articles. These can be either Rejected, or nominated for deletion at MFD, or both. I am not asking about them at this time.
What I am asking about is subjects that seem possibly notable, but are repeatedly being declined as not demonstrating notability or otherwise just aren't being made ready for article space. The question is what I should do when I am reviewing one of them. One possible answer is to do nothing, neither accept nor decline, and wait for another reviewer, or see if the submitter will just copy/move it into article space. However, that sort of seems to avoid responsibility. I guess my question is what reasonable options I have as to advising the submitter to ask for advice. Sometimes there is a WikiProject (and maybe I know about it, or maybe I don't know about it). Where else can I ask for another review, or ask the submitter to ask for another review? The Teahouse? The AFC Help Desk? What suggestions does anyone have for reviewers to deal with submitters who just seem to be almost there and not getting any closer? (Of course, maybe they won't ever get there.)
Thoughts? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I have realized that there is another reason for repeated resubmission of drafts that calls for a different view by the reviewers (us). Sometimes a topic is inherently of marginal notability. It isn't obviously notable, but it isn't crud, isn't obviously conflict of interest or advertising, and it isn't an obvious accept or an obvious decline. Sometimes one of these gets declined, and the author tries to improve it, and it is still marginal, and they resubmit it, and it gets declined again. The draft has reached the point of diminishing returns. It won't get better. Just declining it again may result in yet another tweak and resubmit. (It might, on the other hand, result in a request for help to the Teahouse, or in an embittered editor, but it might result in another resubmit.) One possible action that will break the cycle of repeated resubmission would be to decide that the draft will never be a good article, but it isn't bad, and can be accepted. It's a judgment call by the reviewer whether the repeated resubmissions indicate a hopeless topic or a marginal topic. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
If it is a hopeless topic, then it is still a good idea to break the cycle of repeated resubmission, and MFD is a way to do that. (So is Reject, but MFD establishes a precedent that can be used for G4, and Reject does not.) But sometimes, the repeated resubmissions are because the topic is marginal. We have lots of marginal articles, and it is only the ones with COI that are a problem (in my opinion, and I am a deletionist). Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
One practical solution could be making a point to review from the back of the queue, rather than First In First Out. This draft, Draft:On_This_Holiday, was created on 15 October. Here its review history:
Each time a reviewing editor has left a helpful comment on the draft. I became aware of this draft because I occasionally check the postings at the Helpdesk, where the author posted about this draft and received another response. So it's six interactions with this page -- the time and effort that could have been spent on reviewing six other drafts.
Some editors get disproportionate attention, while others wait two or three months for a first review. (I've started at the back of the queue and I accepted a couple of articles that had been submitted in July. I'm still in mid-August.). Do you guys have any thoughts on this approach: Last In First Out? K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Reality, as best I can tell, is the easier declines and accepts get done in the first 48 hours. The tougher cases get strung out. The positive side of that is we give feedback to most of the people most of the time very quickly. If we strictly enforced FIFO reviewers would lose the ability to skip what they are not comfortable with. I'd love to beat the backlog back to a few days of course. The total backlog is about 6-10 days worth of submissions but it takes over 2 months to deal with the tough cases. No, I don't have a solution for that. I mostly work the oldest pages. Legacypac ( talk) 04:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello all.
I'm curious about the status of the articles that are deferred from a G13 deletion. Is deferral a good option? To me, it seems like these drafts are just languishing in purgatory.
I'd like to propose the removal of deferring a G13-eligible draft from deletion. My rationale is twofold: 1. Deferral isn't likely to catch the eye of whatever newly-registered editor made an article on six months ago 2. If these users want to work on their article, they can retrieve it at WP:REFUND
The obvious exception to this would be if one intended to work on the draft themself.
I'd love to hear thoughts on this. Cheers, ProgrammingGeek talktome 03:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Scott and I work for CommonBond. An editor recently advised me to submit my draft content to Articles for Creation, even though the CommonBond page already exists. They said if AfC approved my draft, a UDP template would still be added, even though I have disclosed my conflict of interest (unfortunately my company previously hired someone that broke Wikipedia’s rules without our knowledge). I am confused; are we permanently branded with this tag as punishment or is it possible to address it? Does it expire? Should I be submitting something to AfC? Scott at CommonBond ( talk) 19:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Ping User:Scope creep. I am unclear why a submission to AfC is required when the page already exists. Usually we would just decline that as a duplicate topic in mainspace already. Legacypac ( talk) 19:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)