This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 57 |
If I review a lot of drafts, my watchlist quickly piles up with user talk pages I never wanted on my watchlist in the first place. Please add an option to disable adding these user talk pages to my watchlist. — pythoncoder ( talk | contribs) 04:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I wrote an article in Bulgarian thinking I was in the Bulgarian Wikipedia, then uploaded the draft, but it turned out I was in the English one. Can I somehow move the draft to the Bulgarian Wikipedia? Vassil01 ( talk) 04:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Vassil01 ( talk) 11:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I accepted this yesterday, but felt for no real reason that it was borderline. I still feel this today. This is a (currently) unused disambiguating page.
It's good that we self review and ask for the opinions of others 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why an article being a copyright violation is a decline reason rather than a reject reason (along with vandalism). IT would make more sense for this and the vandalism one to be a reject reason considering drafts can be deleted for both of these reasons so users shouldn't be resubmitting them. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Misterrrrr blocked as sockpuppet. They approved AfC submissions, one of which caught my attention as it was clearly not-notable. Just FYI for those who want to go back to their aprovals for cleanup. CNMall41 ( talk) 21:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
# | title | Notes |
---|---|---|
1 | Draft:José_Lello | NPOL pass |
2 | Draft:Marina_Gonçalves | NPOL pass |
3 | Draft:Diwali_in_Muzaffarnagar | Despite Twinkle1990's comment below, I've sent this to AfD. If it survives, it survives. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC) |
4 | Draft:Nihad_Ahmadzade | Accept reverted |
5 | Draft:Nokmey_Namati | NPOL pass |
6 | Draft:IndiQube | Accept reverted |
7 | Draft:Chakradhari_Sharan_Singh | NPOL pass |
8 | Draft:Improper | now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Improper 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC) |
9 | Draft:Sanjay_Kumar_Jha | NPOL pass |
10 | Draft:Kaiwalya_Trivikram_Parnaik | NPOL pass |
11 | Draft:Charles_H._Weber | Fine |
12 | Draft:Vivek_Sood | Accept reverted |
13 | Draft:Mohit_Dhawan | @AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohit Dhawan |
14 | Draft:George_L._Caldwell | looks fine |
Is there any chance anyone could find the source for Draft:LÜ Bing-Chuan? It doesn't show up with earwig, but if it's not copyvio, it's two editors sharing the same account. I suspect it might be deep-L on one of the Chinese sources. Here's the other draft article by the same user: Draft:Zhuang Jin-Cai. The difference in writing is dramatic. -- asilvering ( talk) 04:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't know about y'all but I miss @ DoubleGrazing. One of the many things they did was answer AfC Helpdesk queries. That also means @ 331dot you cannot leave lol. Thanks to all the folks who pitch in (now and always). S0091 ( talk) 18:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Proposed changes to the Terms of Use. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 10:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Checking AfC pending drafts, I have witnessed a sudden growing of
WP:Academic submissions by editors who are editing their first edit. Onel5969 is kind to catch
WP:UPE and
WP:COI. But it's a challenging issue for us to handle as there are many editors active in
WP:UPE per noticed in
Freelancer.com and
Upwork. We need a crystal clear scenario of
WP:UPE as we can't detect them, but I have found a path to identify them all - "They all uses hyperlinking in the draft articles and places references before coma and the period."
Who else have noticed the same?
Twinkle1990 (
talk) 13:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red Mar 2023, Vol 9, Iss 3, Nos 251, 252, 258, 259, 260, 261
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 12:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I am having trouble accepting a few drafts with the AfC helper script, which already exist in the mainspace as redirects. Is there a way to accept these without having to do it manually? 141 Pr { contribs/ Best page} 16:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I needed to unwind from work, and dove into AfC submissions for about an hour or so. Out of the 10 drafts I acted on, 3 of it, with 1 as collateral (it was reviewed and decline as copyvio earlier) bugged me the wrong way ( Draft:Corporate English User:Hoangluong007/sandbox, Draft:Virtualization and containerization in testing environments. and collateral: Draft:E-Library)... They looked artificial. I did a check on these with writefull's GPT checker, and they returned with rather high confidence (>90%) that they may be AI generated. These were also lacking in-line references. I have declined them with either hoax/joke, essay, or exists, and left a link to Wikipedia:Large language models as comments.
I am wondering, how the rest of the reviewers here deal with this situation? – robertsky ( talk) 15:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The engine is paired with a manual 5-speed gearbox, which provides smooth and responsive gear changes.Sounds great, but the Big Red has an automatic transmission. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello! So while attempting to decline User:Heisenburg7/sandbox for being in Serbian and not English, upon pulling up the AFC reviewer script (or UI or whatever), for whatever reason it causes that browser tab to hang. I don't know what's going on here but could someone possibly decline it for me? ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I have been through a check in Freelancer.com and found this. In my opinion, we should be more cautious before approving any AfC draft. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 13:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
declared WP:UPE. UPE is undisclosed paid editing. So
declared undisclosed paid editing? Paid editors are encouraged to submit drafts for AfC reviewers to vet through for GNG, NPOV, PROMO, ADV among other possible issues. As long as the content they write meets our guidelines and policies, including disclosing their paid status, there is no issue with accepting such drafts. In my opinion, we expect such articles meet a much higher/stricter bar since the writers are paid for their work. – robertsky ( talk) 16:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I briefly browsed through Twinkle1990's recent AfC-related edits and frankly, I am a bit concerned. Editors who obviously disclose their paid editing should not be told that their disclosed paid editing is a violation of the terms of use, and their AfC submissions should not be declined and tagged as UPE. This is extremely harmful to the effort we have to undertake against UPE, because it gives paid editors who disclose the impression that they violate the terms of use, and this, as a result, will likely lead to disruptive editing. I think that checking Twinkle1990's recent AfC history is a good idea. Best regards, -- Johannes ( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Articles) 22:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
"checking Twinkle1990's recent AfC history is a good idea"which should be considered per through checking of my reviewing. Day by day AfC submissions are increasing, and as a probationary reviewer, I don't think I have violated any rule of WP:AFC. Thanks for your concern. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 12:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I take time to read the sources before accepting/declining.but only looked at English sources for Draft:P Nation, which is sourced mostly with non-English sources. See also WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk 08:34:23, 6 March 2023 review of submission by Jupi2 and their response (Draft: Demian Saffer section) to @ Primefac which also does not instill confidence they understand. S0091 ( talk) 22:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
"Twinkle1990's claim "Nevertheless, I take time to read the sources before accepting/declining" makes no sense.", I used to have a check per WP:THREE. I accepted drafts if met notability criteria. The single exception is Chinnapat Panwisawas which is under WP:PRD after my accepting and patrolled by WP:NPP, which was massively edited by the page creator after acceptance. I rest my final reply to you. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 12:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Background: I have a draft that has been declined three times: Draft:Main Directorate of Deep-Sea Research. I have received the same message about notability as an explanation. I have asked the reviewers about more pieces of advice and I got some hints. (For that draft, you can comment here).
My general question: How do we improve the feedback on the declined drafts? It would be good to have the articles accepted in the next round, as it will lower the burden on reviewers.
My background: I have been active on Wikipedia for more than 15 years. I have seen the whole spectrum of contributions. I have created 30 articles on ENWP and 129 on SVWP, where I am an administrator.
I know that the reviewers are doing it voluntarily and they deserve many thanks for their work. The point is to identify the possible articles and to suggest concrete improvements in order to be able to accept them. Per W ( talk) 08:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello there! The Active reviewers section on the page
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants states that "Please note that as of 13 September administrators do not need to add their name..."
. I think this phrase should also mention the year in which the motion was appended to minimise confusion, as right now even I have no idea if it was 13 September 2022/21/20/19... etc. ❯❯❯
Raydann
(Talk) 18:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Before it gets G11ed... Draft:Rupansh Ashwani is evidence that Indian media will include anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curb Safe Charmer ( talk • contribs)
A
recent thread at WP:AN got me thinking - how can we improve the cv
decline to make it more obvious to reviewers that if there is non-infringing content that can be left on the page (i.e. it's not a {{
db-g12}} candidate) that the reviewer needs to (at the very least) tag the page for {{
revdel}} so that it can be dealt with?
The decline notice already gives a (very tiny) note to reviewers not to leave copyvio, but clearly that is not working. My first thought is to make that note very large and very obtrusive, or somehow making it so that it must be dealt with, but I would like to get consensus before doing so.
Primefac (
talk) 09:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
cv-cleaned
to get it out of the category? Or something else?
/wiae
/tlk 00:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
cv
as the only reason for decline is a bit excessive, then clean it, mark for {{
revdel}} and (potentially) resubmit.
Primefac (
talk) 10:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I did a silly thing. See below. Primefac ( talk) 14:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Administrators: if the page has been cleaned and you are seeing this notice, please change thePrimefac ( talk) 08:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)cv
tocv-cleaned
in the {{ AfC submission}} call.
Example decline message
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The new notice is way too big and bright. Reviewing a rejected draft for CSD is already a mess of red boxes, I don't need even more of it. Is this really necessary? Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 21:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I am working my way through Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations, which is down to under 50 (plus another 15 or so waiting to be revdeled so that they can be marked as cleaned). In terms of high-level trends, most declines looked good to me. A couple of drafts were declined for only a sentence or two of copied material; I guess it's up to AFC folks to decide whether that's how they'd like the copyright decline to be used. I also found a few drafts that were declined when the text in question was public domain (typically from a US government source), suitably licensed (I think there was a CC BY-4.0 journal article with the license hidden on an unintuitive part of the page), a bibliography / works cited, or a backwards copy. This wasn't all that common, but maybe it's something that we should flag for reviewers to keep in mind. /wiae /tlk 13:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I've re-jigged the cv
decline to now put the page directly into the
RD1 requests, but I find it somewhat problematic that we have
Category:AfC submissions cleaned of copyright violations as a subcategory of
Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations, primarily because once the page is cleaned it no longer shows up as a "declined for cv" draft. I have two thoughts on this:
Thoughts and suggestions welcomed. If I don't hear anything I'll probably just go with the second option. Primefac ( talk) 14:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I think there should be some way to warn users who resubmit their article when they've made no edits since the previous decline, saying that if they choose to resubmit again without making any improvements that their submission will most likely be reverted or the article will simply be declined again. I feel that this might reduce the number of submissions in which the user jsut immediately resubmitted after it was declined when the user has made no attempt to address the concerns. Obviously it should either go through if they try and submit it again (if the warning should stop them from resubmitting it) or have a button that says something like "I know what I'm doing." or "Submit anyway". ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again." If someone chooses to ignore that, they'll probably ignore other similar warnings as well? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 18:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, today i've come accross an ip 174.212.224.64 ( talk · contribs) who has reverted two afc submissions which also included reverting improvements to one of the drafts by the submitter which seems to be disruptive in my view. Here are the diffs here and here. One of the drafts has been turned down a few times but the submitter has not been told by an approved reviewer to stop submitting, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 02:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
This is in relation to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_53#Help_finding_copyvio (pinging @ Asilvering). There are some Taiwanese drafts that are being submitted that may seem as though they might have copyright issues. Chances are that they are translations from zhwiki, written in a concerted effort by GLAM (and other) members at Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan 1000. I have dropped a message on that project's talk page requesting them to attribute the source text where possible: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Taiwan_1000#Attributing_translations – robertsky ( talk) 20:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Team,
I'm Shaun Morgan and my team wanted to start creating my page they are always went to auto rejection and deletion every time they submit the page to be published. We are a new team and we would like to seek your great assistance to get us started.
Looking forward to hear from you the soonest. Dr. Shaun Gregory Morgan ( talk) 22:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
FYI Template:Uw-afcnc ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. This is a user warning template for Articles for Creation -- 65.92.244.151 ( talk) 04:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
List-articles are different animals, and it is my personal experience that AFC is often/usually incapable of reviewing and accepting them when they obviously do meet standards and would absolutely not be deleted by any AFD. For example, Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States, in its current version as of 21 march 2023 is obviously valid IMHO, although it will not meet personal (non-policy) standards of some/many regular AFC volunteers. Towards allowing these to be handled in a different track, I started up Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/List-articles to list editors willing and able to handle reviewing them, and linked that from the "Reviewers" section. I only put myself as a willing party there; please feel free to add yourself if you have a basic willingness to address these. It happens that I myself am limited by an editing restriction and have had negative experiences with list-articles that I have myself created and submitted to AFC. I am myself willing to review list-articles, although I believe I will have to ask others for assistance at the end of an acceptance. --Doncram ( talk, contribs) 20:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Well since recently we've made changes to other AFC decline templates, how about this one? Currently it says:
The proposed article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles on fictional subjects should cover their real-world context and contain sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance—not just a summary of the plot. You may wish to add this content to an existing article. As anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are free to do so yourself.
The issue with this is that it doesn't immediately tell the user that it was declined because it's mostly a plot summary. I think instead it should read:
The proposed article is not suitable for Wikipedia because it is mostly a plot summary. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles on fictional subjects should cover their real-world context and contain sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance—not just a summary of the plot. You may wish to add this content to an existing article. As anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are free to do so yourself.
I feel like at the end, instead of simply mentioning it might be better in an existing article (because, in the case of the most recent draft I declined Draft:Stars and Stripes Forever (Novel) the content may not be relevant in an existing article), it should first mention how the user should improve their draft, and then mention that if they can't it may be better to add the content to a pre-existing article. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Added formatting, no content change. Primefac ( talk) 20:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
plot
, much like ilc
, is a supplementary decline rationale that should be used with a primary/deal-breaking decline rationale. In other words, decline as something like v
with plot
to indicate that the sourcing sucks, but also that the plot needs trimming. Very rarely should one expect to see a plot decline by itself.
Primefac (
talk) 09:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red Apr 2023, Vol 9, Iss 4, Nos 251, 252, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 07:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
After a draft was declined, a user received an offer for 'free editing consultancy' from "Wiki Submissions" at a seemingly Peru-based (or spoofed) number. I've advised them to give it wide berth. Any other action needed here? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Before I get to my first AfC reviews (by the way, thanks to @ Primefac for giving me the green light), I just wanted to ask if I can still take over drafts I've helped improve by myself: I was specifically thinking about Taha Ayari and Lorenzo Lazzari.
[Especially in the first case, I expanded the draft significantly, so I just wanted to make sure I avoid any "conflict of interest"...]
Oltrepier ( talk) 19:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I've just done something which made sense to me when I was doing it... and now I'm not so sure anymore. I reviewed Draft:Mohammad Eghbal Shahnavazi, which IMO wasn't notable, failing WP:BLP1E and possibly also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. However, I thought it might make sense as a redir (essentially as WP:BLAR, although I realise I'm working on a draft, not a published article), pointing to the article on the 2022 Zahedan massacre which it relates to. But as I can't remember if I've come across this before, and can't immediately find a guideline covering it, I thought I'd ask "better late than never". Views? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 08:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Is this discussion about redirecting a draft to an article after declining it, or about redirecting a draft to another draft?Neither, it is about redirecting a Draft to a related Article.
reFill is unavailable for much of today due to scheduled maintenance on the Toolforge platform. See Wikipedia talk:ReFill#3 April. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 12:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
If the page "Draft:Foo" is reviewed and approved it is moved to "Foo" in mainspace, and "Draft:Foo" becomes a redirect to it. Should it be left that way, or should the redirect be deleted? Cambalachero ( talk) 17:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that using the Template:Draft categories actually makes hotcat add categories into the template.
It only does so when a category is already present though
Do you think we could change the draftify script to put all the categories in this template instead of turning them into links, and possibly somehow transclude draft categories into
Template:Draft or
Template:AfC submission in order to make it so that people can edit categories more naturally and not lose them in the process of drafting?
Immanuelle ❤️💚💙
(talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm asking for help about a very frustrating problem that comes up repeatedly. The instructions to AfC reviewers at WP:AFCSTANDARDS still contain the following advice: "Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons."
This advice might once have been correct, but is now completely at odds with what reviewers do, it's against Wikipedia's policies, and it merely misleads those of us who edit, but do not review, should we come across it. There is no point in pretending that general referencing is permitted. It isn't. Elemimele ( talk) 12:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
FYI,
Template:Ifu w (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) has been nominated for deletion. It appears it was never migrated to the newer {{
Ffu b}} template set. Though, the FFU template set should probably also be updated to match the corresponding Afc template (ie. {{
Ffu c}}
equivalent for {{
Afc c}}
). And {{
ifu c}} should probably be merged into {{
afc comment}} --
64.229.90.172 (
talk) 09:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Since I'm an admin, I can delete articles. However, when I'm accepting a draft via AFCH, if the destination is occupied, I have to go manually delete the destination. It would be handy if AFCH could see my admin bit and realize that it can use my perms to delete the destination. Perhaps give a checkbox or somehting to acknowledge that the destination will be deleted? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Military style has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 8 § Military style until a consensus is reached. 64.229.90.172 ( talk) 03:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
...and given the rising backlog the team's facing, how do I (or whom should I contact to) bump it up the priority queue if that's even possible? (Subject in question: Lonzo Anderson ( draft) [1905–1993], author of Two Hundred Rabbits [1968]; preferred deadline, Sunday or Monday.) To @ Theroadislong:/@ S0091: Any ideas? -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
With pending submissions standing at almost 4,000, I can't help but think we really do need a new drive. As many articles are over 2 months old, could I suggest a more motivating points system such as:
Anyone have any thoughts on this? Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 07:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I have gained access to GPTZero's API for detecting AI-generated drafts (for two weeks). As a follow up to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 53#ChatGPT and other AI generated drafts, I can automatically check new drafts to make sure they haven't been LLM-generated. I'll start work on this soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerfjkl ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
{'documents': [{'average_generated_prob': 0, 'completely_generated_prob': 4.188728382629251e-08, 'overall_burstiness': 81.27423095703125, 'paragraphs': [{'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 0}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 1}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 2}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 3}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 4}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 5}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 6}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 7}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 8}], 'sentences': [{'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 20, 'sentence': "Climate change has likely led to the decline of some of Scotland's mountain plants, according to new research."}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 71, 'sentence': 'Scientists said many of the species relied on snow cover remaining high on hills until late spring and even summer to ensure a moist environment.'}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 112, 'sentence': 'They also said plants that thrived on lower ground in warmer conditions were spreading to mountain habitats.'}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 169, 'sentence': 'Species found to be in decline include snow pearlwort, alpine lady-fern and alpine speedwell.'}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 26, 'sentence': 'The research by the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI) has taken 20 years to complete and has been published in the new Plant Atlas.'}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 61, 'sentence': 'Data used to produce the report included more than three million plant records of 2,555 species collected by hundreds of botanists across Scotland.'}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 25, 'sentence': 'Climate change, habitat loss and the spread of non-native species were found to key threats to the health of British and Irish native plants.'}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 265, 'sentence': 'BSBI said devastating losses of species in Scotland were among the findings.'}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 130, 'sentence': "Almost the entire British population of snow pearlwort is found on Ben Lawers, but half of the Perthshire mountain's known colonies have disappeared over the last 40 years."}]}]}
Qwerfjkl talk 18:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Would appreciate another pair of eyes on this Draft:Unnecessary surgery. First, it looked like a polemical essay to me. Then I noticed that several of the refs are to the website of a law firm that deals in medical malpractice etc., so I thought maybe it's just admasq. But there are also a couple of secondary sources and a number of academic papers cited, which suggest that there could be some notability to this, although even then, I'd say there is almost certainly OR/synth included. I don't think it's acceptable as it stands, but beyond that, I'm not sure quite what to do with it? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 07:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm looking to become a participant, and the criterea state I have to have "500 undeleted edits". How do I check the number of undeleted edits I have? If at all? And what does it mean by undeleted edits? Current edits or ones that were reworded, or what? AugustusAudax ( talk) 21:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, I'm seeing quite a lot of crap lately coming through AfC on this silly John Pork meme. Managed to get some of it deleted, others not. Apparently TikTok have blocked them, so I don't know if the idea is to target Wikipedia next. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 17:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm trying to accept Draft:O'Clock (album), but O'Clock (album) already exists as a redirect. How do I go about dealing with this? Cheers! :3 F4U ( they /it) 22:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
In light of the ArbCom case request involving Jimbo, which stemmed from someone losing a lot of money to a WP scam, I think it may be a good idea to add a small short warning onto {{ AfC submission/declined}} regarding these paid editing scams, perhaps with a link to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
the mark has had their biography deleted several times over the past decade and was easily duped into the belief that they were paying the big bucks to buy off administrators and arbitrators. Adding something to AFC declines may still be a decent idea, but just wanted to point this out. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Anne-Marie Chang. I cleaned this one up a bunch. I'm pretty much ready to accept it. With an h-index of 31, probably passes WP:NPROF. My hesitation is the only sourcing is the university website's bio, and her scientific papers. I'm a bit hesitant to accept a BLP that is 1 bio website and a bunch of non-independent sources. Think we should accept this one, or are we supposed to require better sourcing? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I've just picked up a draft that's been sitting there for three months, Draft:Intellectual Property (album). Purely by coincidence, it's about a new album that came out yesterday. I was going to accept it... but as it happens, only a few hours ago someone has independently of this created Intellectual Property (album). So I had to decline the draft. I expect its author won't be best pleased. :( -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the article was rejected. It has 2 inline referenced that meets the 4 criteria that is mentioned in the rejection notice... Pvmoutside ( talk) 18:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I'd like some people to take a look at this article. It seems pretty good, however there's a 2 sentence paragraph about his membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and him baptizing his wife. I'm not aware of any guideline in WP:BLP relating to how a person's religion should be covered in the article if they've publicly disclosed it so I'm not entirely sure how it should be handled here. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Wonder if there's an editathon on? I've declined several South Asian stubs on streets/localities today. All just a single paragraph of text, no refs, no links, nothing else. Alternatively, could be some sort of AI thing, I guess? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I have another question about history merge and tagging for history merge. I know that if I see what looks like a copy-paste from draft space to article space, but the author of the draft was also the person who did the copy-paste into article space, there is no need for a history merge. In that case, the history merge is not required, because there is no attribution problem. If I encounter a draft and an article that are almost identical, both the work of the same person, where there is a history merge tag, the tag has probably been applied in good-faith error, a misunderstanding of when history merge is needed. Should I remove the history merge tag, or just leave it to let the administrator decline the history merge? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
As anyone patrolling the help desk knows, a large proportion of the threads are blanks, where the user doesn't even ask a question, they just open up a new thread (often on a rejected draft), prompting the routine "you don't ask a question, but yada yada", which usually gets no response. To plug this particular time sink, is there any way of configuring the template so that it won't allow publishing until something has been entered into the question field? (We might still get random gibberish, of course, but at least not complete blanks.) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The edit notice for the AFC Help Desk is as follows:
|
Please discuss below the ways we could improve it for clarity. Primefac ( talk) 09:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
There are currently four preload templates for the AFC HD. Hatted below are what the user is shown when they click on the link that preloads the text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/preload - loaded from the
WP:AFCHD "Click here to ask a new question." link.
|
---|
== {{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}} review of submission by {{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}} == {{Lafc|username={{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}}|ts={{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}}|page={{SUBST:Void|<!-- FIRST ENTER THE PAGENAME FOR THE DRAFT YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT ON THE LINE BELOW. It's good to omit the /info/en/?search= part -->}} }}{{SAFESUBST:Void|<!--Please enter the pagename for the draft in question on the line above. THEN TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING ASSISTANCE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}} ~~~~{{SAFESUBST:Void|<!-- FINALLY, MAKE SURE TO CLICK THE "Publish changes" BUTTON BELOW OR YOUR REQUEST WILL BE LOST!-->}} |
Template:AfC decline/HD preload - no clue where this is being called from. Not actually used?
|
---|
== Request on {{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}} for assistance on [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission by {{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}} == {{anchor|{{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}} review of submission by {{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}}}} {{Lafc|username={{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}}|ts={{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}}|declinedtalk= <draft name is preloaded from source link>}} {{SAFESUBST:Void| <!-- First, tell us why you are requesting assistance. Take as many lines as you need. --> }} <!-- Start of message --> <!-- End of message -->~~~~{{SAFESUBST:Void|<!-- Finally, make sure to click the "Publish changes" button below or your request will be lost!-->}} |
Template:AfC submission/declined/HD preload - called from the
/rejected template.
|
---|
== {{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}} review of submission by {{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}} == {{Lafc|username={{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}}|ts={{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}}|declined=<draft name is pre-loaded from the source link>}}{{SAFESUBST:Void| Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}} ~~~~ {{SAFESUBST:Void|<!-- When you have finished, click the "Publish changes" button or your request will not be posted!!-->}} |
Template:AfC submission/draft/HD preload - called from the "ask us a question" link on the
/declined template
|
---|
== {{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}} review of draft by {{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}} == {{Lafc|username={{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}}|ts={{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}}|draft=<draft name is preloaded by the source link>}} {{SAFESUBST:Void| FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING HELP ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}} ~~~~{{SAFESUBST:Void|<!-- FINALLY, MAKE SURE TO CLICK THE "Publish changes" BUTTON BELOW OR YOUR REQUEST WILL BE LOST!!!-->}} |
Let's discuss how we want to codify the messages shown by the templates and/or make it as clear as possible that information needs to be added before the page is saved. Technical solutions are also possible, e.g. we could have it save nothing if no text is provided. Also, if anyone knows where Template:AfC decline/HD preload is actually used, please update the note above; I think it's entirely unused so we could probably just redirect it to one of the other variants if that's the case. Primefac ( talk) 09:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
¶m=
can be used in URL to control the param used in {{
Lafc}} invocation when the user saves. The preload codes posted by Primefac above indicate different params like page
, draft
, declined
or declinedtalk
may need to be used, though I haven't checked if they actually make any difference in the rendering. –
SD0001 (
talk) 11:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)There are two options under the "Reject" section on AfCH. The two options are: "Topic is not notable" and "Topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". I feel like this can be improved with more options, like "This article is clearly a joke or vandalism". Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ ( talk / contribs) 23:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm going through the AfC list for the Switzerland project and saw draft:Trogen (Switzerland), which is a (shorter) duplicate of the existing Trogen, Switzerland entry (I suspect both mostly translated from the German version).
The draft has been sitting around for a couple of months and simply adds to the backlog with no chance of ever being moved to mainspace. What would the most appropriate way to flag this and get it removed from the list of AfC awaiting review? Simply comment out the review box? Superboilles ( talk) 05:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Can we get some additional functionality added to AFCH? It would be helpful for the tool to call out potential issues during the Accept process. For instance, the article Cladocolea cupulata was recently accepted but with a short description of "I made an article on a mistletoe species." That's a totally unacceptable short description. Had the tool made the acceptor review and explicitly accept this, it may have gotten changed in the process. Perhaps put an "Accept?" checkbox next to each field that isn't a checkbox or dropdown, and all must be checked before the submission can be accepted? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Adding the short description to the Accept screen sounds like a good idea. It can be captured from the draft and displayed for possible change.I think AFCH already does both of these things. We reviewers just need to remember to double check the short description box, and fix it if it is pre-filled with something poor. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 04:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
there are one or more MOS issues that remain to be smoothed out before the draft is moved into main article spacein any way other than "drafts with formatting issues should not be moved to mainspace". And like KylieTastic, I frequently observe changes being made once drafts have been moved to article space. -- asilvering ( talk) 18:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that rarely when I Decline a draft as not being in English, when I add what language the draft is in, it seemingly will ignore that I added the draft's language and instead use the default non-english decline. So far this has only happened twice to me (once when I declined a draft written in Ukranian and again just recently when I declined a draft written in German). Given the seeming rarity of the issue I don't think its of major concern but I figured I'd bring it up here in case anyone knows about it. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I follow various pages pertaining to new content in a topic area and its associated WikiProject. It appears that editors making submissions have the ability to add WikiProject banners to the talk page of their submissions, often adding a half-dozen or more WP banners which have zero to do with the topic of their submission. Is this a good idea? The WP in question has been semi-active for years, meaning that there aren't people active in undoing these edits. I suspect this is also the case with many of the other WPs added through this mechanism. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Since I've never used the submission wizard, it occurred to me that I should check it out after making the above comment. At the bottom, there's a drop-down menu with some explanatory text. In the cases I refer to above, it appears users are just picking random WPs from the top of the list instead of "the 1–4 most applicable WikiProjects". There's not even a wikilink to any page explaining what a WP is, so it's not at all surprising that this is happening. The text alone is probably not a sufficient enough explanation given the learning curve of its typical user. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2023, Vol 9, Iss 5, Nos 251, 252, 267, 268, 269, 270
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi, I notice that in the page [Wikipedia:Articles for creation] we have the following text:
Please note that getting a review can take several weeks, but that your draft will be reviewed eventually. Attempting to bypass the process by moving the page, or cutting and pasting it into a new mainspace article, may lead to the page being moved back into draftspace again, speedy-deleted or listed for AFD, and repeated attempts may even lead to you being temporarily or permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia due to disruption.
I note that this was added by Bearcat about one year ago. To my mind, the concept that an editor in good standing can be permanently blocked for developing an article in draft space and moving it to main space is completely outrageous; it is at odds with Wikipedia's philosophy, at odds with the whole point of draft space, at odds with the origins of AfC.
There are only three ways to create articles: (1) in main-space directly, which is almost never satisfactory, as it means articles must either be written in a single edit, or must linger in half-completed form; (2) in sand-boxes, which is unsatisfactory in a collaborative project, as it's very hard for other editors to find articles that have been begun in another's personal sandbox, leading to wasted effort, conflicting and overlapping articles on nearly-the-same subjects; (3) in draft-space, which was made for the purpose. But AfC manifestly struggles to keep up with its drastic workload, so it makes total sense for editors to move uncontroversial articles to main-space themselves.
If articles can only be moved from draft to main by AfC reviewers then at best AfC has a hideous work-load, at worst AfC has assumed sole responsibility for determining what goes into WP, abolishing the roles of the new page patrol, AfD, and community consensus on notability. And it has threatened to use administrative tools to assert its role.
I think that's wrong. Elemimele ( talk) 09:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
"repeated attempts may even lead you to being [...] blocked"; 'repeated', as in you did it more than once (see WP:TENDENTIOUS); 'may', as in may or may not; and 'even', implying that this is unlikely to be the first response.
Please note that getting a review may take a few weeks, but that your draft will eventually be reviewed. Do be patient. Although it is permissible to move your draft into main article space yourself, we strongly recommend that you do not do so unless you are already very experienced in writing articles. There are many things that can go wrong with a new article, some quite subtle (Wikipedia is complex; it is easy to misunderstand how it works). All new articles in main space are checked by the New Page Patrol before being listed in search-engines. If you move your article prematurely, it will not be accepted, and is likely to be listed for deletion at WP:AFD or even speedily-deleted if the problems are serious. AfC reviewers are experienced editors who recognise these problems, and who will help you iron them out, saving much wasted effort and anguish.
— Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Please note that getting a review may take a few weeks or months, but that your draft will eventually be reviewed. Although it is permissible for autoconfirmed editors to move their drafts into main article space themselves, we strongly recommend that you do not do so unless you are already experienced in writing articles. There are many things that can go wrong with a new article, some quite subtle (Wikipedia is complex; it is easy to misunderstand how it works). All new articles in main space are checked by New Pages Patrol before being listed in search engines. If you move your article prematurely, it is likely to be listed for deletion at articles for deletion or even speedily-deleted if it has serious problems. AfC reviewers are experienced editors who recognise these problems, and who will help you iron them out.
S0091 ( talk) 18:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Please note that getting a review may take some time, but the draft will eventually be reviewed. Do be patient. Although it is permissible for autoconfirmed editors to move drafts into main article space, doing so prematurely could lead to the article being deleted. If the draft is not yet ready, a reviewer will provide guidance.
When users submit their completed drafts for AfC review, it could be a good idea for a prompt that asks the user for 2-4 of the strongest sources in the draft that establish notability. A feature of this ilk will be particularly helpful for drafts that are ref bombed. See here for previous discussion @ WP:Village pump (idea lab) ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 02:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed a lot of drafts recently about future events that haven't happened yet and are at least a year away. Is there any specific policy regarding events like these? For example there's Draft:Hungary at the 2024 Summer Olympics, a draft about an event that hasn't happened so there are no statistics. I usually am inclined to decline these drafts as being WP:TOOSOON, but is that really the right rationale here? ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Please see below the detected copyvios which have a 5015%+ probability from
Earwigs. Updated every 12 hours at midday and midnight UK time (and sometimes manually run by me). Each run a random 200 drafts are checked + the existing detected copyvios (to see if they have been fixed)
- Rich T| C| E-Mail 14:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've just moved the draft for Dawn Moore to mainspace and re-named it Dawn Moore (American philanthropist) because Dawn Moore already existed, and then noticed that the page Dawn Moore is actually a redirect to her husband. I've tried to fix it but now the page Dawn Moore redirects to Dawn Moore (American philanthropist) - but I think the correct fix is for there to be no redirect at all? Could someone please assist? TIA! MurielMary ( talk) 12:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if this an AfC or AfD problem, but I'll start here. Yesterday, Draft:Fractured (Mini-series) was created, and in its first six hours draftified no fewer than three times, with the creating editor Tyamutz each time moving it back to the main space. This morning I took it to AfD, and immediately Tyamutz moved it back to drafts. (Which, BTW, should IMO be downright forbidden, but that's a separate point.) What should I do now – move it back to the main space and let the AfD run, or withdraw the AfD and treat it as an AfC draft as if none of this happened? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts.Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
"While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD"bit is where the problem lies, and the policy should be changed to expressly prohibit that.
For some reason a large number of user pages are showing up in the subcats at PAFC. I've flagged this up at VPT, but if anyone knows of a resolution and/or a better place to report it to, let me know. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 07:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
After having been moved to the list of inactive reviewers, I applied for access to the AFC Helper Script and was approved. My name was subsequently removed from the list of inactive reviewers, but has not been added back to the list of active reviewers. Am I supposed to add it back myself, or was this a mistake? Thanks! Noahfgodard ( talk) 21:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Right, earlier last month (see here, lots of us made a discussion about the backlog and backlog drives, how to reduce it, how people work, etc. Out of that came a firm desire for more regular reviewing. With that in mind, I want to suggest a way of doing this which would a) help keep the backlog down potentially, and b) encourage new reviewers in their work. So, my idea(s) is/are:
Thoughts? Is this complete and utter rubbish, does it sound absolutely genius, or a potentially good idea with tweaking? Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 09:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
It is not an uncommon situation for a reviewer to encounter a draft that has the same title as an existing article. I would like to review the different reasons why this can happen, and my advice as to what a reviewer should do:
That's a long list of different cases. I have seen all of them. Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
On the subject of history merge, I will repeat a comment that I have made before. When a reviewer requests a history merge, the template on the surviving article advises putting a canned message on the talk page of the editor who did the copy-paste. I have said that the message is too wishy-washy. It implies that doing the copy-paste was all right, and that moving the article would have been even better. Doing the copy-paste was not all right. We want to discourage it. We don't want to be excessively bitey, because sometimes the copy-paster didn't know better, but we don't want to imply that it was all right. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello
I'm Trizek, community relations specialist working with the Growth team.
The Growth team is exploring a project idea that aims to improve the experience of new editors by providing them with better guidance and structure in the article creation process. The hope being that by providing new editors with more structure around article creation, it will lead to newcomers creating fewer low-quality articles that create work for patrollers who check recent edits and mentors who review newcomers’ drafts.
In 2022, about 28% of newly registered users who completed the Welcome Survey indicated that they opened an account specifically to create a new article ( all stats). These newcomers don't yet understand core Wikipedia principles and guidelines around notability, verifiability, conflict of interest, neutral point of view, etc. These newcomers need additional guidance or they end up frustrated and disappointed when their articles get deleted. Because they aren't receiving the proactive guidance they need, they end up creating additional work for content moderators (patrollers, admins, watchlisters…) who need to provide reactive guidance which is rarely well-received or well-understood.
While the specifics of the project, and the Growth team’s annual planning priorities, are still under consideration, we anticipate exploring ideas related to Article creation improvements for new editors. One possibility is a community configurable "Article wizard" or helper, which could also fulfill the 2023 Community Wishlist survey Reference requirement for new article creation proposal (ranked #26 out of 182 proposals).
We're committed to shaping the overall plan based on community feedback and needs, while adhering to the following requirements:
So, we would love to hear from you:
Or do you want the Growth team to consider a totally different idea? Keep in mind that the Moderator Tools team and two other teams are also working the shared “improve the experience of editors with extended rights” key result, so there will be other teams approaching this from a less new-editor centric perspective.
Thank you in advance for your replies. Trizek (WMF) ( talk) 15:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it would better to change the bullet points into a numbered list of participants. This would make it easier to see how many people are participating in the Articles for creation. Carpimaps talk to me! 13:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
If a draft is rejected, is that permanent, or can drafts be edited enough to where it is un-rejected? QuicoleJR ( talk) 13:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I started this idea above with some degree of support, but wanted to actually develop it into a proposal. With the AfC backlog now at over 4 months (and 77 articles, as I write this, being left stale for over 4 months), I think it's high time this gained some proper traction. Consequently, my ideas are to reward the reviewing of older articles (such like those 77), rewarding new reviewers, and rewarding regular participation and reviewing. In more depth, this would look like:
All discussion and comments welcome. I'm happy to answer questions about how this might work, etc. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk)
Editor || New || Average || Old
Matt || 2:9:0 || 2:15:1 || 0:3:0
First, there shouldn't be any G12 declines- yes, there absolutely should be
cv
declines. Users need to know why their draft was declined, and it is not always the case where a G12-tagged draft is deleted as a copyvio, so tagging without declining just means the draft has to get re-reviewed anyway.
Primefac (
talk) 08:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts everyone (and KylieTastic) - with response to the thoughts on declines, I've updated the table at User:Mattdaviesfsic/AfC awards once again. Now the declines are worth half of accepts and rejects, and the maths is made easier (?) by adding together the outcome total and the time-based total. Is this too difficult, or is this much better? Please let me know! Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 10:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Now the declines are worth half of accepts and rejects. I think incentivizing rejects over declines is not a good idea. Most non-accepts should be declines. For example I almost never reject. In fact, I think incentivizing accepts is also not a good idea. Accept, decline, and reject should have equal weight in any awards system, so that reviewers give a true and objective assessment, and are not nudged towards one or the other to get awards or points. Hope that makes sense. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 11:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I've also created a userbox to use (e.g., for June), as seen on the linked page above. I don't do a lot of stuff with userboxes, so more than happy for someone to design something newer! Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 12:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Ingenuity - would you be able to write the code for your bot to update a leaderboard like the one at User:Mattdaviesfsic/AfC awards? (Obviously rejects would need to be counted before deletion.) I could write a message to send to AfC'ers (and possibly NPP'ers, depending on when their permissions are added here) and we could potentially get started on one for June? I would suggest a leaderboard be hosted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Leaderboards/2023/June and then so on monthly and annually, as it would be easier to keep track of each month. I could then see who to award userboxes (etc) to at then end of each month. Could the bot update the leaderboard, say, every 2 or 3 hours, do you think? I've no experience with bot running so not my area of expertise! Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 16:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I have a question, maybe for User:Primefac, about whether a history merge is required. I reviewed Draft:Sajjad Jani about a week ago. A stub had been created at Sajjad Jani two months after the draft was created. I tagged the draft to be merged into the article. I considered whether to tag the article for a history merge as a copy-paste from the draft, but concluded that the wording of the article was different from the wording of the draft, so that it was not a copy-paste, although it looked like an "almost copy-paste". The originator of the draft, User:HMGelani, has asked for another look. It appears to me that the originator of the stub just barely managed to get credit for the stub, and that HMGelani should merge their additional content into the article. Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I stumbled across this draft while reviewing today. I fairly quickly rejected it, because a quick background search pulls up 0 google results for "Skill Broughtner" in quotes and the mentioned twitter account the article is focused on has 2 followers, but it also looks like it was written by AI. I can't tell if this really qualifies under any CSD criteria; can this be nominated under anything, or should it just be left there until G13?
(I vaguely remember rejecting a draft on first submission was discouraged at some point as well, but this falls under the criteria at WP:AFC/RI, so I figured it was fine; is it not fine, and/or is there anything else I should be aware of when rejecting submissions?) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I propose we rename "Yet another Articles for creation helper script" to "Articles for creation helper script". The "Yet another" part is a bit verbose, and in practice I don't think many people call it that. Any objections? cc Enterprisey – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
There has been a question raised as to whether we should have the "Automatically open the review panel on AfC submissions" option enabled by default (i.e. you have to opt-out of having it show up) or keep it as the current status where it is in the "More" dropdown by default (opt-in to auto-open). Personally, since we have just had a script update that allows NPR to use AFCH (assuming they have the gadget turned on) I would think that not having it automatically display would be a better option (since it's just one more thing to pop up if one is randomly viewing drafts). Thoughts and comments appreciated. Primefac ( talk) 10:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I've notices they are quite strange and arbitrary. For example we have Politics of the United Kingdom and History of Poland but no other individual country politics or history tags. This makes it hard to add the appropriate projects to a lot of AFC submissions. Can we fix them to make every wikiproject available or similar? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 6, Nos 251, 252, 271, 272, 273
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 09:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
As I've been thinking, The Nervous Set (which I created as a draft) was moved to mainspace several years ago by non-reviewer Moxy soon after Curb Safe Charmer rejected one of draft revisions. I didn't feel like bringing it up at the time because I created the draft and I just wanted to feel pleased to see the draft being in the mainspace. Two more examples are Policy Man, moved into mainspace by PigeonChickenFish after S0091's rejection, and Eleazar (painter), moved into mainspace by Netherzone without AFC review.
No offense to those who moved those drafts, but I just have concerns about such un-reviewed moves. I know that AFC has backlog issues, but are they excuses for those users to move them without awaiting an AFC reviewer? I mean, I wonder whether such practice is okay. I honestly don't have much confidence with using my notability skills for articles that I created, so I have had to use the AFC process, despite its agonizingly slow process. George Ho ( talk) 05:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
There is a situation in which one should look carefully at an article that was moved from draft space into article space other than by a reviewer. That is if the article was previously draftified. In that case, a previous editor, probably an NPP reviewer, thought that it was not ready for article space. If so, it is a good idea to check whether the problem that the previous reviewer identified has been addressed. Sometimes it will have been addressed, and sometimes it will not have been addressed. If an article has already been moved to draft space once because it was not ready for article space, and is back in article space, but is still not ready for article space, then, if you are willing to state that it is still not ready for article space, an AFD nomination is in order. An alternative then is to put a {{ notability}} tag on the article, and maybe another editor will write an AFD. Moving the article back to draft space a second or third time is move-warring and is disruptive. AFD is sometimes necessary. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I have a different copy-paste question. I just reviewed a draft that is identical to a section in an article, because the originator copied it without attribution from the article. What I normally see is that an article was copy-pasted from a draft. In this case the draft was copy-pasted from an article. I have declined the draft. Is there anything further that I should do, such as tagging the draft? By the way, it is Draft:Tav-Prasad Savaiye. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 57 |
If I review a lot of drafts, my watchlist quickly piles up with user talk pages I never wanted on my watchlist in the first place. Please add an option to disable adding these user talk pages to my watchlist. — pythoncoder ( talk | contribs) 04:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I wrote an article in Bulgarian thinking I was in the Bulgarian Wikipedia, then uploaded the draft, but it turned out I was in the English one. Can I somehow move the draft to the Bulgarian Wikipedia? Vassil01 ( talk) 04:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Vassil01 ( talk) 11:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I accepted this yesterday, but felt for no real reason that it was borderline. I still feel this today. This is a (currently) unused disambiguating page.
It's good that we self review and ask for the opinions of others 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why an article being a copyright violation is a decline reason rather than a reject reason (along with vandalism). IT would make more sense for this and the vandalism one to be a reject reason considering drafts can be deleted for both of these reasons so users shouldn't be resubmitting them. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Misterrrrr blocked as sockpuppet. They approved AfC submissions, one of which caught my attention as it was clearly not-notable. Just FYI for those who want to go back to their aprovals for cleanup. CNMall41 ( talk) 21:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
# | title | Notes |
---|---|---|
1 | Draft:José_Lello | NPOL pass |
2 | Draft:Marina_Gonçalves | NPOL pass |
3 | Draft:Diwali_in_Muzaffarnagar | Despite Twinkle1990's comment below, I've sent this to AfD. If it survives, it survives. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC) |
4 | Draft:Nihad_Ahmadzade | Accept reverted |
5 | Draft:Nokmey_Namati | NPOL pass |
6 | Draft:IndiQube | Accept reverted |
7 | Draft:Chakradhari_Sharan_Singh | NPOL pass |
8 | Draft:Improper | now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Improper 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC) |
9 | Draft:Sanjay_Kumar_Jha | NPOL pass |
10 | Draft:Kaiwalya_Trivikram_Parnaik | NPOL pass |
11 | Draft:Charles_H._Weber | Fine |
12 | Draft:Vivek_Sood | Accept reverted |
13 | Draft:Mohit_Dhawan | @AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohit Dhawan |
14 | Draft:George_L._Caldwell | looks fine |
Is there any chance anyone could find the source for Draft:LÜ Bing-Chuan? It doesn't show up with earwig, but if it's not copyvio, it's two editors sharing the same account. I suspect it might be deep-L on one of the Chinese sources. Here's the other draft article by the same user: Draft:Zhuang Jin-Cai. The difference in writing is dramatic. -- asilvering ( talk) 04:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't know about y'all but I miss @ DoubleGrazing. One of the many things they did was answer AfC Helpdesk queries. That also means @ 331dot you cannot leave lol. Thanks to all the folks who pitch in (now and always). S0091 ( talk) 18:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Proposed changes to the Terms of Use. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 10:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Checking AfC pending drafts, I have witnessed a sudden growing of
WP:Academic submissions by editors who are editing their first edit. Onel5969 is kind to catch
WP:UPE and
WP:COI. But it's a challenging issue for us to handle as there are many editors active in
WP:UPE per noticed in
Freelancer.com and
Upwork. We need a crystal clear scenario of
WP:UPE as we can't detect them, but I have found a path to identify them all - "They all uses hyperlinking in the draft articles and places references before coma and the period."
Who else have noticed the same?
Twinkle1990 (
talk) 13:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red Mar 2023, Vol 9, Iss 3, Nos 251, 252, 258, 259, 260, 261
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 12:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I am having trouble accepting a few drafts with the AfC helper script, which already exist in the mainspace as redirects. Is there a way to accept these without having to do it manually? 141 Pr { contribs/ Best page} 16:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I needed to unwind from work, and dove into AfC submissions for about an hour or so. Out of the 10 drafts I acted on, 3 of it, with 1 as collateral (it was reviewed and decline as copyvio earlier) bugged me the wrong way ( Draft:Corporate English User:Hoangluong007/sandbox, Draft:Virtualization and containerization in testing environments. and collateral: Draft:E-Library)... They looked artificial. I did a check on these with writefull's GPT checker, and they returned with rather high confidence (>90%) that they may be AI generated. These were also lacking in-line references. I have declined them with either hoax/joke, essay, or exists, and left a link to Wikipedia:Large language models as comments.
I am wondering, how the rest of the reviewers here deal with this situation? – robertsky ( talk) 15:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The engine is paired with a manual 5-speed gearbox, which provides smooth and responsive gear changes.Sounds great, but the Big Red has an automatic transmission. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello! So while attempting to decline User:Heisenburg7/sandbox for being in Serbian and not English, upon pulling up the AFC reviewer script (or UI or whatever), for whatever reason it causes that browser tab to hang. I don't know what's going on here but could someone possibly decline it for me? ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I have been through a check in Freelancer.com and found this. In my opinion, we should be more cautious before approving any AfC draft. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 13:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
declared WP:UPE. UPE is undisclosed paid editing. So
declared undisclosed paid editing? Paid editors are encouraged to submit drafts for AfC reviewers to vet through for GNG, NPOV, PROMO, ADV among other possible issues. As long as the content they write meets our guidelines and policies, including disclosing their paid status, there is no issue with accepting such drafts. In my opinion, we expect such articles meet a much higher/stricter bar since the writers are paid for their work. – robertsky ( talk) 16:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I briefly browsed through Twinkle1990's recent AfC-related edits and frankly, I am a bit concerned. Editors who obviously disclose their paid editing should not be told that their disclosed paid editing is a violation of the terms of use, and their AfC submissions should not be declined and tagged as UPE. This is extremely harmful to the effort we have to undertake against UPE, because it gives paid editors who disclose the impression that they violate the terms of use, and this, as a result, will likely lead to disruptive editing. I think that checking Twinkle1990's recent AfC history is a good idea. Best regards, -- Johannes ( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Articles) 22:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
"checking Twinkle1990's recent AfC history is a good idea"which should be considered per through checking of my reviewing. Day by day AfC submissions are increasing, and as a probationary reviewer, I don't think I have violated any rule of WP:AFC. Thanks for your concern. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 12:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I take time to read the sources before accepting/declining.but only looked at English sources for Draft:P Nation, which is sourced mostly with non-English sources. See also WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk 08:34:23, 6 March 2023 review of submission by Jupi2 and their response (Draft: Demian Saffer section) to @ Primefac which also does not instill confidence they understand. S0091 ( talk) 22:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
"Twinkle1990's claim "Nevertheless, I take time to read the sources before accepting/declining" makes no sense.", I used to have a check per WP:THREE. I accepted drafts if met notability criteria. The single exception is Chinnapat Panwisawas which is under WP:PRD after my accepting and patrolled by WP:NPP, which was massively edited by the page creator after acceptance. I rest my final reply to you. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 12:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Background: I have a draft that has been declined three times: Draft:Main Directorate of Deep-Sea Research. I have received the same message about notability as an explanation. I have asked the reviewers about more pieces of advice and I got some hints. (For that draft, you can comment here).
My general question: How do we improve the feedback on the declined drafts? It would be good to have the articles accepted in the next round, as it will lower the burden on reviewers.
My background: I have been active on Wikipedia for more than 15 years. I have seen the whole spectrum of contributions. I have created 30 articles on ENWP and 129 on SVWP, where I am an administrator.
I know that the reviewers are doing it voluntarily and they deserve many thanks for their work. The point is to identify the possible articles and to suggest concrete improvements in order to be able to accept them. Per W ( talk) 08:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello there! The Active reviewers section on the page
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants states that "Please note that as of 13 September administrators do not need to add their name..."
. I think this phrase should also mention the year in which the motion was appended to minimise confusion, as right now even I have no idea if it was 13 September 2022/21/20/19... etc. ❯❯❯
Raydann
(Talk) 18:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Before it gets G11ed... Draft:Rupansh Ashwani is evidence that Indian media will include anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curb Safe Charmer ( talk • contribs)
A
recent thread at WP:AN got me thinking - how can we improve the cv
decline to make it more obvious to reviewers that if there is non-infringing content that can be left on the page (i.e. it's not a {{
db-g12}} candidate) that the reviewer needs to (at the very least) tag the page for {{
revdel}} so that it can be dealt with?
The decline notice already gives a (very tiny) note to reviewers not to leave copyvio, but clearly that is not working. My first thought is to make that note very large and very obtrusive, or somehow making it so that it must be dealt with, but I would like to get consensus before doing so.
Primefac (
talk) 09:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
cv-cleaned
to get it out of the category? Or something else?
/wiae
/tlk 00:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
cv
as the only reason for decline is a bit excessive, then clean it, mark for {{
revdel}} and (potentially) resubmit.
Primefac (
talk) 10:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I did a silly thing. See below. Primefac ( talk) 14:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Administrators: if the page has been cleaned and you are seeing this notice, please change thePrimefac ( talk) 08:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)cv
tocv-cleaned
in the {{ AfC submission}} call.
Example decline message
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The new notice is way too big and bright. Reviewing a rejected draft for CSD is already a mess of red boxes, I don't need even more of it. Is this really necessary? Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 21:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I am working my way through Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations, which is down to under 50 (plus another 15 or so waiting to be revdeled so that they can be marked as cleaned). In terms of high-level trends, most declines looked good to me. A couple of drafts were declined for only a sentence or two of copied material; I guess it's up to AFC folks to decide whether that's how they'd like the copyright decline to be used. I also found a few drafts that were declined when the text in question was public domain (typically from a US government source), suitably licensed (I think there was a CC BY-4.0 journal article with the license hidden on an unintuitive part of the page), a bibliography / works cited, or a backwards copy. This wasn't all that common, but maybe it's something that we should flag for reviewers to keep in mind. /wiae /tlk 13:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I've re-jigged the cv
decline to now put the page directly into the
RD1 requests, but I find it somewhat problematic that we have
Category:AfC submissions cleaned of copyright violations as a subcategory of
Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations, primarily because once the page is cleaned it no longer shows up as a "declined for cv" draft. I have two thoughts on this:
Thoughts and suggestions welcomed. If I don't hear anything I'll probably just go with the second option. Primefac ( talk) 14:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I think there should be some way to warn users who resubmit their article when they've made no edits since the previous decline, saying that if they choose to resubmit again without making any improvements that their submission will most likely be reverted or the article will simply be declined again. I feel that this might reduce the number of submissions in which the user jsut immediately resubmitted after it was declined when the user has made no attempt to address the concerns. Obviously it should either go through if they try and submit it again (if the warning should stop them from resubmitting it) or have a button that says something like "I know what I'm doing." or "Submit anyway". ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again." If someone chooses to ignore that, they'll probably ignore other similar warnings as well? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 18:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, today i've come accross an ip 174.212.224.64 ( talk · contribs) who has reverted two afc submissions which also included reverting improvements to one of the drafts by the submitter which seems to be disruptive in my view. Here are the diffs here and here. One of the drafts has been turned down a few times but the submitter has not been told by an approved reviewer to stop submitting, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 02:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
This is in relation to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_53#Help_finding_copyvio (pinging @ Asilvering). There are some Taiwanese drafts that are being submitted that may seem as though they might have copyright issues. Chances are that they are translations from zhwiki, written in a concerted effort by GLAM (and other) members at Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan 1000. I have dropped a message on that project's talk page requesting them to attribute the source text where possible: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Taiwan_1000#Attributing_translations – robertsky ( talk) 20:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Team,
I'm Shaun Morgan and my team wanted to start creating my page they are always went to auto rejection and deletion every time they submit the page to be published. We are a new team and we would like to seek your great assistance to get us started.
Looking forward to hear from you the soonest. Dr. Shaun Gregory Morgan ( talk) 22:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
FYI Template:Uw-afcnc ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. This is a user warning template for Articles for Creation -- 65.92.244.151 ( talk) 04:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
List-articles are different animals, and it is my personal experience that AFC is often/usually incapable of reviewing and accepting them when they obviously do meet standards and would absolutely not be deleted by any AFD. For example, Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States, in its current version as of 21 march 2023 is obviously valid IMHO, although it will not meet personal (non-policy) standards of some/many regular AFC volunteers. Towards allowing these to be handled in a different track, I started up Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/List-articles to list editors willing and able to handle reviewing them, and linked that from the "Reviewers" section. I only put myself as a willing party there; please feel free to add yourself if you have a basic willingness to address these. It happens that I myself am limited by an editing restriction and have had negative experiences with list-articles that I have myself created and submitted to AFC. I am myself willing to review list-articles, although I believe I will have to ask others for assistance at the end of an acceptance. --Doncram ( talk, contribs) 20:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Well since recently we've made changes to other AFC decline templates, how about this one? Currently it says:
The proposed article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles on fictional subjects should cover their real-world context and contain sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance—not just a summary of the plot. You may wish to add this content to an existing article. As anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are free to do so yourself.
The issue with this is that it doesn't immediately tell the user that it was declined because it's mostly a plot summary. I think instead it should read:
The proposed article is not suitable for Wikipedia because it is mostly a plot summary. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles on fictional subjects should cover their real-world context and contain sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance—not just a summary of the plot. You may wish to add this content to an existing article. As anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are free to do so yourself.
I feel like at the end, instead of simply mentioning it might be better in an existing article (because, in the case of the most recent draft I declined Draft:Stars and Stripes Forever (Novel) the content may not be relevant in an existing article), it should first mention how the user should improve their draft, and then mention that if they can't it may be better to add the content to a pre-existing article. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Added formatting, no content change. Primefac ( talk) 20:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
plot
, much like ilc
, is a supplementary decline rationale that should be used with a primary/deal-breaking decline rationale. In other words, decline as something like v
with plot
to indicate that the sourcing sucks, but also that the plot needs trimming. Very rarely should one expect to see a plot decline by itself.
Primefac (
talk) 09:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red Apr 2023, Vol 9, Iss 4, Nos 251, 252, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 07:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
After a draft was declined, a user received an offer for 'free editing consultancy' from "Wiki Submissions" at a seemingly Peru-based (or spoofed) number. I've advised them to give it wide berth. Any other action needed here? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Before I get to my first AfC reviews (by the way, thanks to @ Primefac for giving me the green light), I just wanted to ask if I can still take over drafts I've helped improve by myself: I was specifically thinking about Taha Ayari and Lorenzo Lazzari.
[Especially in the first case, I expanded the draft significantly, so I just wanted to make sure I avoid any "conflict of interest"...]
Oltrepier ( talk) 19:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I've just done something which made sense to me when I was doing it... and now I'm not so sure anymore. I reviewed Draft:Mohammad Eghbal Shahnavazi, which IMO wasn't notable, failing WP:BLP1E and possibly also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. However, I thought it might make sense as a redir (essentially as WP:BLAR, although I realise I'm working on a draft, not a published article), pointing to the article on the 2022 Zahedan massacre which it relates to. But as I can't remember if I've come across this before, and can't immediately find a guideline covering it, I thought I'd ask "better late than never". Views? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 08:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Is this discussion about redirecting a draft to an article after declining it, or about redirecting a draft to another draft?Neither, it is about redirecting a Draft to a related Article.
reFill is unavailable for much of today due to scheduled maintenance on the Toolforge platform. See Wikipedia talk:ReFill#3 April. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 12:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
If the page "Draft:Foo" is reviewed and approved it is moved to "Foo" in mainspace, and "Draft:Foo" becomes a redirect to it. Should it be left that way, or should the redirect be deleted? Cambalachero ( talk) 17:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that using the Template:Draft categories actually makes hotcat add categories into the template.
It only does so when a category is already present though
Do you think we could change the draftify script to put all the categories in this template instead of turning them into links, and possibly somehow transclude draft categories into
Template:Draft or
Template:AfC submission in order to make it so that people can edit categories more naturally and not lose them in the process of drafting?
Immanuelle ❤️💚💙
(talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm asking for help about a very frustrating problem that comes up repeatedly. The instructions to AfC reviewers at WP:AFCSTANDARDS still contain the following advice: "Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons."
This advice might once have been correct, but is now completely at odds with what reviewers do, it's against Wikipedia's policies, and it merely misleads those of us who edit, but do not review, should we come across it. There is no point in pretending that general referencing is permitted. It isn't. Elemimele ( talk) 12:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
FYI,
Template:Ifu w (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) has been nominated for deletion. It appears it was never migrated to the newer {{
Ffu b}} template set. Though, the FFU template set should probably also be updated to match the corresponding Afc template (ie. {{
Ffu c}}
equivalent for {{
Afc c}}
). And {{
ifu c}} should probably be merged into {{
afc comment}} --
64.229.90.172 (
talk) 09:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Since I'm an admin, I can delete articles. However, when I'm accepting a draft via AFCH, if the destination is occupied, I have to go manually delete the destination. It would be handy if AFCH could see my admin bit and realize that it can use my perms to delete the destination. Perhaps give a checkbox or somehting to acknowledge that the destination will be deleted? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Military style has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 8 § Military style until a consensus is reached. 64.229.90.172 ( talk) 03:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
...and given the rising backlog the team's facing, how do I (or whom should I contact to) bump it up the priority queue if that's even possible? (Subject in question: Lonzo Anderson ( draft) [1905–1993], author of Two Hundred Rabbits [1968]; preferred deadline, Sunday or Monday.) To @ Theroadislong:/@ S0091: Any ideas? -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
With pending submissions standing at almost 4,000, I can't help but think we really do need a new drive. As many articles are over 2 months old, could I suggest a more motivating points system such as:
Anyone have any thoughts on this? Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 07:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I have gained access to GPTZero's API for detecting AI-generated drafts (for two weeks). As a follow up to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 53#ChatGPT and other AI generated drafts, I can automatically check new drafts to make sure they haven't been LLM-generated. I'll start work on this soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerfjkl ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
{'documents': [{'average_generated_prob': 0, 'completely_generated_prob': 4.188728382629251e-08, 'overall_burstiness': 81.27423095703125, 'paragraphs': [{'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 0}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 1}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 2}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 3}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 4}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 5}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 6}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 7}, {'completely_generated_prob': 0.11111111111111108, 'num_sentences': 1, 'start_sentence_index': 8}], 'sentences': [{'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 20, 'sentence': "Climate change has likely led to the decline of some of Scotland's mountain plants, according to new research."}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 71, 'sentence': 'Scientists said many of the species relied on snow cover remaining high on hills until late spring and even summer to ensure a moist environment.'}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 112, 'sentence': 'They also said plants that thrived on lower ground in warmer conditions were spreading to mountain habitats.'}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 169, 'sentence': 'Species found to be in decline include snow pearlwort, alpine lady-fern and alpine speedwell.'}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 26, 'sentence': 'The research by the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI) has taken 20 years to complete and has been published in the new Plant Atlas.'}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 61, 'sentence': 'Data used to produce the report included more than three million plant records of 2,555 species collected by hundreds of botanists across Scotland.'}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 25, 'sentence': 'Climate change, habitat loss and the spread of non-native species were found to key threats to the health of British and Irish native plants.'}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 265, 'sentence': 'BSBI said devastating losses of species in Scotland were among the findings.'}, {'generated_prob': 0, 'perplexity': 130, 'sentence': "Almost the entire British population of snow pearlwort is found on Ben Lawers, but half of the Perthshire mountain's known colonies have disappeared over the last 40 years."}]}]}
Qwerfjkl talk 18:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Would appreciate another pair of eyes on this Draft:Unnecessary surgery. First, it looked like a polemical essay to me. Then I noticed that several of the refs are to the website of a law firm that deals in medical malpractice etc., so I thought maybe it's just admasq. But there are also a couple of secondary sources and a number of academic papers cited, which suggest that there could be some notability to this, although even then, I'd say there is almost certainly OR/synth included. I don't think it's acceptable as it stands, but beyond that, I'm not sure quite what to do with it? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 07:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm looking to become a participant, and the criterea state I have to have "500 undeleted edits". How do I check the number of undeleted edits I have? If at all? And what does it mean by undeleted edits? Current edits or ones that were reworded, or what? AugustusAudax ( talk) 21:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, I'm seeing quite a lot of crap lately coming through AfC on this silly John Pork meme. Managed to get some of it deleted, others not. Apparently TikTok have blocked them, so I don't know if the idea is to target Wikipedia next. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 17:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm trying to accept Draft:O'Clock (album), but O'Clock (album) already exists as a redirect. How do I go about dealing with this? Cheers! :3 F4U ( they /it) 22:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
In light of the ArbCom case request involving Jimbo, which stemmed from someone losing a lot of money to a WP scam, I think it may be a good idea to add a small short warning onto {{ AfC submission/declined}} regarding these paid editing scams, perhaps with a link to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
the mark has had their biography deleted several times over the past decade and was easily duped into the belief that they were paying the big bucks to buy off administrators and arbitrators. Adding something to AFC declines may still be a decent idea, but just wanted to point this out. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Anne-Marie Chang. I cleaned this one up a bunch. I'm pretty much ready to accept it. With an h-index of 31, probably passes WP:NPROF. My hesitation is the only sourcing is the university website's bio, and her scientific papers. I'm a bit hesitant to accept a BLP that is 1 bio website and a bunch of non-independent sources. Think we should accept this one, or are we supposed to require better sourcing? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I've just picked up a draft that's been sitting there for three months, Draft:Intellectual Property (album). Purely by coincidence, it's about a new album that came out yesterday. I was going to accept it... but as it happens, only a few hours ago someone has independently of this created Intellectual Property (album). So I had to decline the draft. I expect its author won't be best pleased. :( -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the article was rejected. It has 2 inline referenced that meets the 4 criteria that is mentioned in the rejection notice... Pvmoutside ( talk) 18:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I'd like some people to take a look at this article. It seems pretty good, however there's a 2 sentence paragraph about his membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and him baptizing his wife. I'm not aware of any guideline in WP:BLP relating to how a person's religion should be covered in the article if they've publicly disclosed it so I'm not entirely sure how it should be handled here. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Wonder if there's an editathon on? I've declined several South Asian stubs on streets/localities today. All just a single paragraph of text, no refs, no links, nothing else. Alternatively, could be some sort of AI thing, I guess? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I have another question about history merge and tagging for history merge. I know that if I see what looks like a copy-paste from draft space to article space, but the author of the draft was also the person who did the copy-paste into article space, there is no need for a history merge. In that case, the history merge is not required, because there is no attribution problem. If I encounter a draft and an article that are almost identical, both the work of the same person, where there is a history merge tag, the tag has probably been applied in good-faith error, a misunderstanding of when history merge is needed. Should I remove the history merge tag, or just leave it to let the administrator decline the history merge? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
As anyone patrolling the help desk knows, a large proportion of the threads are blanks, where the user doesn't even ask a question, they just open up a new thread (often on a rejected draft), prompting the routine "you don't ask a question, but yada yada", which usually gets no response. To plug this particular time sink, is there any way of configuring the template so that it won't allow publishing until something has been entered into the question field? (We might still get random gibberish, of course, but at least not complete blanks.) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The edit notice for the AFC Help Desk is as follows:
|
Please discuss below the ways we could improve it for clarity. Primefac ( talk) 09:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
There are currently four preload templates for the AFC HD. Hatted below are what the user is shown when they click on the link that preloads the text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/preload - loaded from the
WP:AFCHD "Click here to ask a new question." link.
|
---|
== {{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}} review of submission by {{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}} == {{Lafc|username={{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}}|ts={{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}}|page={{SUBST:Void|<!-- FIRST ENTER THE PAGENAME FOR THE DRAFT YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT ON THE LINE BELOW. It's good to omit the /info/en/?search= part -->}} }}{{SAFESUBST:Void|<!--Please enter the pagename for the draft in question on the line above. THEN TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING ASSISTANCE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}} ~~~~{{SAFESUBST:Void|<!-- FINALLY, MAKE SURE TO CLICK THE "Publish changes" BUTTON BELOW OR YOUR REQUEST WILL BE LOST!-->}} |
Template:AfC decline/HD preload - no clue where this is being called from. Not actually used?
|
---|
== Request on {{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}} for assistance on [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission by {{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}} == {{anchor|{{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}} review of submission by {{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}}}} {{Lafc|username={{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}}|ts={{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}}|declinedtalk= <draft name is preloaded from source link>}} {{SAFESUBST:Void| <!-- First, tell us why you are requesting assistance. Take as many lines as you need. --> }} <!-- Start of message --> <!-- End of message -->~~~~{{SAFESUBST:Void|<!-- Finally, make sure to click the "Publish changes" button below or your request will be lost!-->}} |
Template:AfC submission/declined/HD preload - called from the
/rejected template.
|
---|
== {{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}} review of submission by {{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}} == {{Lafc|username={{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}}|ts={{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}}|declined=<draft name is pre-loaded from the source link>}}{{SAFESUBST:Void| Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}} ~~~~ {{SAFESUBST:Void|<!-- When you have finished, click the "Publish changes" button or your request will not be posted!!-->}} |
Template:AfC submission/draft/HD preload - called from the "ask us a question" link on the
/declined template
|
---|
== {{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}} review of draft by {{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}} == {{Lafc|username={{SAFESUBST:REVISIONUSER}}|ts={{SAFESUBST:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}}|draft=<draft name is preloaded by the source link>}} {{SAFESUBST:Void| FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING HELP ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}} ~~~~{{SAFESUBST:Void|<!-- FINALLY, MAKE SURE TO CLICK THE "Publish changes" BUTTON BELOW OR YOUR REQUEST WILL BE LOST!!!-->}} |
Let's discuss how we want to codify the messages shown by the templates and/or make it as clear as possible that information needs to be added before the page is saved. Technical solutions are also possible, e.g. we could have it save nothing if no text is provided. Also, if anyone knows where Template:AfC decline/HD preload is actually used, please update the note above; I think it's entirely unused so we could probably just redirect it to one of the other variants if that's the case. Primefac ( talk) 09:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
¶m=
can be used in URL to control the param used in {{
Lafc}} invocation when the user saves. The preload codes posted by Primefac above indicate different params like page
, draft
, declined
or declinedtalk
may need to be used, though I haven't checked if they actually make any difference in the rendering. –
SD0001 (
talk) 11:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)There are two options under the "Reject" section on AfCH. The two options are: "Topic is not notable" and "Topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". I feel like this can be improved with more options, like "This article is clearly a joke or vandalism". Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ ( talk / contribs) 23:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm going through the AfC list for the Switzerland project and saw draft:Trogen (Switzerland), which is a (shorter) duplicate of the existing Trogen, Switzerland entry (I suspect both mostly translated from the German version).
The draft has been sitting around for a couple of months and simply adds to the backlog with no chance of ever being moved to mainspace. What would the most appropriate way to flag this and get it removed from the list of AfC awaiting review? Simply comment out the review box? Superboilles ( talk) 05:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Can we get some additional functionality added to AFCH? It would be helpful for the tool to call out potential issues during the Accept process. For instance, the article Cladocolea cupulata was recently accepted but with a short description of "I made an article on a mistletoe species." That's a totally unacceptable short description. Had the tool made the acceptor review and explicitly accept this, it may have gotten changed in the process. Perhaps put an "Accept?" checkbox next to each field that isn't a checkbox or dropdown, and all must be checked before the submission can be accepted? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Adding the short description to the Accept screen sounds like a good idea. It can be captured from the draft and displayed for possible change.I think AFCH already does both of these things. We reviewers just need to remember to double check the short description box, and fix it if it is pre-filled with something poor. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 04:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
there are one or more MOS issues that remain to be smoothed out before the draft is moved into main article spacein any way other than "drafts with formatting issues should not be moved to mainspace". And like KylieTastic, I frequently observe changes being made once drafts have been moved to article space. -- asilvering ( talk) 18:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that rarely when I Decline a draft as not being in English, when I add what language the draft is in, it seemingly will ignore that I added the draft's language and instead use the default non-english decline. So far this has only happened twice to me (once when I declined a draft written in Ukranian and again just recently when I declined a draft written in German). Given the seeming rarity of the issue I don't think its of major concern but I figured I'd bring it up here in case anyone knows about it. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I follow various pages pertaining to new content in a topic area and its associated WikiProject. It appears that editors making submissions have the ability to add WikiProject banners to the talk page of their submissions, often adding a half-dozen or more WP banners which have zero to do with the topic of their submission. Is this a good idea? The WP in question has been semi-active for years, meaning that there aren't people active in undoing these edits. I suspect this is also the case with many of the other WPs added through this mechanism. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Since I've never used the submission wizard, it occurred to me that I should check it out after making the above comment. At the bottom, there's a drop-down menu with some explanatory text. In the cases I refer to above, it appears users are just picking random WPs from the top of the list instead of "the 1–4 most applicable WikiProjects". There's not even a wikilink to any page explaining what a WP is, so it's not at all surprising that this is happening. The text alone is probably not a sufficient enough explanation given the learning curve of its typical user. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2023, Vol 9, Iss 5, Nos 251, 252, 267, 268, 269, 270
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi, I notice that in the page [Wikipedia:Articles for creation] we have the following text:
Please note that getting a review can take several weeks, but that your draft will be reviewed eventually. Attempting to bypass the process by moving the page, or cutting and pasting it into a new mainspace article, may lead to the page being moved back into draftspace again, speedy-deleted or listed for AFD, and repeated attempts may even lead to you being temporarily or permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia due to disruption.
I note that this was added by Bearcat about one year ago. To my mind, the concept that an editor in good standing can be permanently blocked for developing an article in draft space and moving it to main space is completely outrageous; it is at odds with Wikipedia's philosophy, at odds with the whole point of draft space, at odds with the origins of AfC.
There are only three ways to create articles: (1) in main-space directly, which is almost never satisfactory, as it means articles must either be written in a single edit, or must linger in half-completed form; (2) in sand-boxes, which is unsatisfactory in a collaborative project, as it's very hard for other editors to find articles that have been begun in another's personal sandbox, leading to wasted effort, conflicting and overlapping articles on nearly-the-same subjects; (3) in draft-space, which was made for the purpose. But AfC manifestly struggles to keep up with its drastic workload, so it makes total sense for editors to move uncontroversial articles to main-space themselves.
If articles can only be moved from draft to main by AfC reviewers then at best AfC has a hideous work-load, at worst AfC has assumed sole responsibility for determining what goes into WP, abolishing the roles of the new page patrol, AfD, and community consensus on notability. And it has threatened to use administrative tools to assert its role.
I think that's wrong. Elemimele ( talk) 09:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
"repeated attempts may even lead you to being [...] blocked"; 'repeated', as in you did it more than once (see WP:TENDENTIOUS); 'may', as in may or may not; and 'even', implying that this is unlikely to be the first response.
Please note that getting a review may take a few weeks, but that your draft will eventually be reviewed. Do be patient. Although it is permissible to move your draft into main article space yourself, we strongly recommend that you do not do so unless you are already very experienced in writing articles. There are many things that can go wrong with a new article, some quite subtle (Wikipedia is complex; it is easy to misunderstand how it works). All new articles in main space are checked by the New Page Patrol before being listed in search-engines. If you move your article prematurely, it will not be accepted, and is likely to be listed for deletion at WP:AFD or even speedily-deleted if the problems are serious. AfC reviewers are experienced editors who recognise these problems, and who will help you iron them out, saving much wasted effort and anguish.
— Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Please note that getting a review may take a few weeks or months, but that your draft will eventually be reviewed. Although it is permissible for autoconfirmed editors to move their drafts into main article space themselves, we strongly recommend that you do not do so unless you are already experienced in writing articles. There are many things that can go wrong with a new article, some quite subtle (Wikipedia is complex; it is easy to misunderstand how it works). All new articles in main space are checked by New Pages Patrol before being listed in search engines. If you move your article prematurely, it is likely to be listed for deletion at articles for deletion or even speedily-deleted if it has serious problems. AfC reviewers are experienced editors who recognise these problems, and who will help you iron them out.
S0091 ( talk) 18:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Please note that getting a review may take some time, but the draft will eventually be reviewed. Do be patient. Although it is permissible for autoconfirmed editors to move drafts into main article space, doing so prematurely could lead to the article being deleted. If the draft is not yet ready, a reviewer will provide guidance.
When users submit their completed drafts for AfC review, it could be a good idea for a prompt that asks the user for 2-4 of the strongest sources in the draft that establish notability. A feature of this ilk will be particularly helpful for drafts that are ref bombed. See here for previous discussion @ WP:Village pump (idea lab) ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 02:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed a lot of drafts recently about future events that haven't happened yet and are at least a year away. Is there any specific policy regarding events like these? For example there's Draft:Hungary at the 2024 Summer Olympics, a draft about an event that hasn't happened so there are no statistics. I usually am inclined to decline these drafts as being WP:TOOSOON, but is that really the right rationale here? ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Please see below the detected copyvios which have a 5015%+ probability from
Earwigs. Updated every 12 hours at midday and midnight UK time (and sometimes manually run by me). Each run a random 200 drafts are checked + the existing detected copyvios (to see if they have been fixed)
- Rich T| C| E-Mail 14:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've just moved the draft for Dawn Moore to mainspace and re-named it Dawn Moore (American philanthropist) because Dawn Moore already existed, and then noticed that the page Dawn Moore is actually a redirect to her husband. I've tried to fix it but now the page Dawn Moore redirects to Dawn Moore (American philanthropist) - but I think the correct fix is for there to be no redirect at all? Could someone please assist? TIA! MurielMary ( talk) 12:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if this an AfC or AfD problem, but I'll start here. Yesterday, Draft:Fractured (Mini-series) was created, and in its first six hours draftified no fewer than three times, with the creating editor Tyamutz each time moving it back to the main space. This morning I took it to AfD, and immediately Tyamutz moved it back to drafts. (Which, BTW, should IMO be downright forbidden, but that's a separate point.) What should I do now – move it back to the main space and let the AfD run, or withdraw the AfD and treat it as an AfC draft as if none of this happened? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts.Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
"While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD"bit is where the problem lies, and the policy should be changed to expressly prohibit that.
For some reason a large number of user pages are showing up in the subcats at PAFC. I've flagged this up at VPT, but if anyone knows of a resolution and/or a better place to report it to, let me know. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 07:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
After having been moved to the list of inactive reviewers, I applied for access to the AFC Helper Script and was approved. My name was subsequently removed from the list of inactive reviewers, but has not been added back to the list of active reviewers. Am I supposed to add it back myself, or was this a mistake? Thanks! Noahfgodard ( talk) 21:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Right, earlier last month (see here, lots of us made a discussion about the backlog and backlog drives, how to reduce it, how people work, etc. Out of that came a firm desire for more regular reviewing. With that in mind, I want to suggest a way of doing this which would a) help keep the backlog down potentially, and b) encourage new reviewers in their work. So, my idea(s) is/are:
Thoughts? Is this complete and utter rubbish, does it sound absolutely genius, or a potentially good idea with tweaking? Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 09:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
It is not an uncommon situation for a reviewer to encounter a draft that has the same title as an existing article. I would like to review the different reasons why this can happen, and my advice as to what a reviewer should do:
That's a long list of different cases. I have seen all of them. Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
On the subject of history merge, I will repeat a comment that I have made before. When a reviewer requests a history merge, the template on the surviving article advises putting a canned message on the talk page of the editor who did the copy-paste. I have said that the message is too wishy-washy. It implies that doing the copy-paste was all right, and that moving the article would have been even better. Doing the copy-paste was not all right. We want to discourage it. We don't want to be excessively bitey, because sometimes the copy-paster didn't know better, but we don't want to imply that it was all right. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello
I'm Trizek, community relations specialist working with the Growth team.
The Growth team is exploring a project idea that aims to improve the experience of new editors by providing them with better guidance and structure in the article creation process. The hope being that by providing new editors with more structure around article creation, it will lead to newcomers creating fewer low-quality articles that create work for patrollers who check recent edits and mentors who review newcomers’ drafts.
In 2022, about 28% of newly registered users who completed the Welcome Survey indicated that they opened an account specifically to create a new article ( all stats). These newcomers don't yet understand core Wikipedia principles and guidelines around notability, verifiability, conflict of interest, neutral point of view, etc. These newcomers need additional guidance or they end up frustrated and disappointed when their articles get deleted. Because they aren't receiving the proactive guidance they need, they end up creating additional work for content moderators (patrollers, admins, watchlisters…) who need to provide reactive guidance which is rarely well-received or well-understood.
While the specifics of the project, and the Growth team’s annual planning priorities, are still under consideration, we anticipate exploring ideas related to Article creation improvements for new editors. One possibility is a community configurable "Article wizard" or helper, which could also fulfill the 2023 Community Wishlist survey Reference requirement for new article creation proposal (ranked #26 out of 182 proposals).
We're committed to shaping the overall plan based on community feedback and needs, while adhering to the following requirements:
So, we would love to hear from you:
Or do you want the Growth team to consider a totally different idea? Keep in mind that the Moderator Tools team and two other teams are also working the shared “improve the experience of editors with extended rights” key result, so there will be other teams approaching this from a less new-editor centric perspective.
Thank you in advance for your replies. Trizek (WMF) ( talk) 15:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it would better to change the bullet points into a numbered list of participants. This would make it easier to see how many people are participating in the Articles for creation. Carpimaps talk to me! 13:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
If a draft is rejected, is that permanent, or can drafts be edited enough to where it is un-rejected? QuicoleJR ( talk) 13:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I started this idea above with some degree of support, but wanted to actually develop it into a proposal. With the AfC backlog now at over 4 months (and 77 articles, as I write this, being left stale for over 4 months), I think it's high time this gained some proper traction. Consequently, my ideas are to reward the reviewing of older articles (such like those 77), rewarding new reviewers, and rewarding regular participation and reviewing. In more depth, this would look like:
All discussion and comments welcome. I'm happy to answer questions about how this might work, etc. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk)
Editor || New || Average || Old
Matt || 2:9:0 || 2:15:1 || 0:3:0
First, there shouldn't be any G12 declines- yes, there absolutely should be
cv
declines. Users need to know why their draft was declined, and it is not always the case where a G12-tagged draft is deleted as a copyvio, so tagging without declining just means the draft has to get re-reviewed anyway.
Primefac (
talk) 08:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts everyone (and KylieTastic) - with response to the thoughts on declines, I've updated the table at User:Mattdaviesfsic/AfC awards once again. Now the declines are worth half of accepts and rejects, and the maths is made easier (?) by adding together the outcome total and the time-based total. Is this too difficult, or is this much better? Please let me know! Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 10:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Now the declines are worth half of accepts and rejects. I think incentivizing rejects over declines is not a good idea. Most non-accepts should be declines. For example I almost never reject. In fact, I think incentivizing accepts is also not a good idea. Accept, decline, and reject should have equal weight in any awards system, so that reviewers give a true and objective assessment, and are not nudged towards one or the other to get awards or points. Hope that makes sense. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 11:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I've also created a userbox to use (e.g., for June), as seen on the linked page above. I don't do a lot of stuff with userboxes, so more than happy for someone to design something newer! Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 12:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Ingenuity - would you be able to write the code for your bot to update a leaderboard like the one at User:Mattdaviesfsic/AfC awards? (Obviously rejects would need to be counted before deletion.) I could write a message to send to AfC'ers (and possibly NPP'ers, depending on when their permissions are added here) and we could potentially get started on one for June? I would suggest a leaderboard be hosted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Leaderboards/2023/June and then so on monthly and annually, as it would be easier to keep track of each month. I could then see who to award userboxes (etc) to at then end of each month. Could the bot update the leaderboard, say, every 2 or 3 hours, do you think? I've no experience with bot running so not my area of expertise! Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 16:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I have a question, maybe for User:Primefac, about whether a history merge is required. I reviewed Draft:Sajjad Jani about a week ago. A stub had been created at Sajjad Jani two months after the draft was created. I tagged the draft to be merged into the article. I considered whether to tag the article for a history merge as a copy-paste from the draft, but concluded that the wording of the article was different from the wording of the draft, so that it was not a copy-paste, although it looked like an "almost copy-paste". The originator of the draft, User:HMGelani, has asked for another look. It appears to me that the originator of the stub just barely managed to get credit for the stub, and that HMGelani should merge their additional content into the article. Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I stumbled across this draft while reviewing today. I fairly quickly rejected it, because a quick background search pulls up 0 google results for "Skill Broughtner" in quotes and the mentioned twitter account the article is focused on has 2 followers, but it also looks like it was written by AI. I can't tell if this really qualifies under any CSD criteria; can this be nominated under anything, or should it just be left there until G13?
(I vaguely remember rejecting a draft on first submission was discouraged at some point as well, but this falls under the criteria at WP:AFC/RI, so I figured it was fine; is it not fine, and/or is there anything else I should be aware of when rejecting submissions?) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I propose we rename "Yet another Articles for creation helper script" to "Articles for creation helper script". The "Yet another" part is a bit verbose, and in practice I don't think many people call it that. Any objections? cc Enterprisey – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
There has been a question raised as to whether we should have the "Automatically open the review panel on AfC submissions" option enabled by default (i.e. you have to opt-out of having it show up) or keep it as the current status where it is in the "More" dropdown by default (opt-in to auto-open). Personally, since we have just had a script update that allows NPR to use AFCH (assuming they have the gadget turned on) I would think that not having it automatically display would be a better option (since it's just one more thing to pop up if one is randomly viewing drafts). Thoughts and comments appreciated. Primefac ( talk) 10:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I've notices they are quite strange and arbitrary. For example we have Politics of the United Kingdom and History of Poland but no other individual country politics or history tags. This makes it hard to add the appropriate projects to a lot of AFC submissions. Can we fix them to make every wikiproject available or similar? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 6, Nos 251, 252, 271, 272, 273
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 09:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
As I've been thinking, The Nervous Set (which I created as a draft) was moved to mainspace several years ago by non-reviewer Moxy soon after Curb Safe Charmer rejected one of draft revisions. I didn't feel like bringing it up at the time because I created the draft and I just wanted to feel pleased to see the draft being in the mainspace. Two more examples are Policy Man, moved into mainspace by PigeonChickenFish after S0091's rejection, and Eleazar (painter), moved into mainspace by Netherzone without AFC review.
No offense to those who moved those drafts, but I just have concerns about such un-reviewed moves. I know that AFC has backlog issues, but are they excuses for those users to move them without awaiting an AFC reviewer? I mean, I wonder whether such practice is okay. I honestly don't have much confidence with using my notability skills for articles that I created, so I have had to use the AFC process, despite its agonizingly slow process. George Ho ( talk) 05:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
There is a situation in which one should look carefully at an article that was moved from draft space into article space other than by a reviewer. That is if the article was previously draftified. In that case, a previous editor, probably an NPP reviewer, thought that it was not ready for article space. If so, it is a good idea to check whether the problem that the previous reviewer identified has been addressed. Sometimes it will have been addressed, and sometimes it will not have been addressed. If an article has already been moved to draft space once because it was not ready for article space, and is back in article space, but is still not ready for article space, then, if you are willing to state that it is still not ready for article space, an AFD nomination is in order. An alternative then is to put a {{ notability}} tag on the article, and maybe another editor will write an AFD. Moving the article back to draft space a second or third time is move-warring and is disruptive. AFD is sometimes necessary. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I have a different copy-paste question. I just reviewed a draft that is identical to a section in an article, because the originator copied it without attribution from the article. What I normally see is that an article was copy-pasted from a draft. In this case the draft was copy-pasted from an article. I have declined the draft. Is there anything further that I should do, such as tagging the draft? By the way, it is Draft:Tav-Prasad Savaiye. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)