Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Talk page
Showcase Assessment Participants Reviewing instructions Help desk Backlog drives
Welcome to the main Wikipedia Articles for Creation project talkpage
WPAFC talk pages: Main - AFC Helper script - Reviewer help
AfC submissions
664 pending submissions
Purge to update

Skip to the bottom
WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page. WikiProject icon
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Reviewer help archive[edit]

Can someone help figure out how to put an {{Archive box}} on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help. I've tried but the archive page naming convention used there is not standard. ~KvnG 16:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - only 2 archives existed so it was simple enough to manually list them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio detector in reviewer tools for Template:AFC submission/pending[edit]

Is there any reason why the copyvio checker isn't in the Reviewer Toolbox for {{AFC submission/pending}}? If there isn't, can we add it? — kikichugirl speak up! 04:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Request seconded. Also can we have a Wikipedia search link (to help look for similar existing articles and potential merge targets)? ~KvnG 22:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Kvng, although it could be moved to a more prominent location or expanded, Wikipedia search is already in the template (under "Search:", it's the 3rd link ("WP")). APerson (talk!) 02:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. ~KvnG 17:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks; I did not realize that either. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and expanded the abbreviation, since it seems evident that the link wasn't noticed by at least a few users. APerson (talk!) 15:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

0 pending submissions in Category:AfC submissions by age/Very old[edit]

Good work everyone. That hadn't happened in 6+ months. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@ThaddeusB: Honestly thought it was a glitch as I've never seen it before! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Excellent! Still plenty of crusty stuff needing love at Category:AfC_postponed_G13 for anyone interested. ~KvnG 16:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you everyone! --Ahecht (TALK
) 21:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to use an abuse filter to enforce rule about reviewing drafts[edit]

An editor recently created a hacked version of the review script that allowed use by unauthorized users, which they then used to go on a spree of improper reviews. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lynctekrua/afch-rewrite.js/submissions.js for details. In light of this, and to prevent such an occurrence from ever happening again, I propose that we now set up an abuse filter rule to enforce who can review drafts, rather than relying on the script to do it. Thoughts? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

100% agree, have no idea how abuse filters work. They have ones on Commons that prevent/tag license reviews by non-reviewers so its possible. I've come across people trying to review without the script with limited success... Lots of spliced edit historys and AFC banners messed up. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I was the one who exposed and acted upon the unusual editing patterns of User:Lynctekrua. There is a simple solution without the need for filters and/or yet more bolt-on scripts. I've been advocating for it ever since I initiated the criteria of experience for reviewers. Simply use exactly the same technical access system and permission request s as for Huggle (through the 'Rollbacker' permission) or AWB through its list page, and have the permission accorded at WP:PERM by an admin. That would also be an extremely good stepping stone for introducing a technically controlled user permission for NPP too.
If that proves too difficult (or too uninteresting for AfC's 'resident' programmers) then simply make sure that the helper script code is invisible, fully protect the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants and make additions subject to edit requests that will be authorised or denied by admins. (time for users unfamiliar with the pages at WP:PERM to take a look and see what I am talking about).
A quick look at this will convince anyone that something has to be done now. true to my words months ago, totally inexperienced users are hoering ove their edit count to pounce on that list as soon as they have 500 edits to mainspace and very little else. We need to insist upon the discretionary powers of those overseeing this list to enact the other part of the experience required in addition to 500 mainspace editds, namely: 'thoroughly read and understood the reviewing instructions' and 'a good understanding of the policies mentioned in the reviewing instructions, including the various special notability categories.' --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
While that is true, AfC always needs more reviewers, otherwise we will always be backlogged. Let's try not to make it too difficult to become one otherwise the backlog will never be solved. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@Kudpung: How would switching to Huggle or AWB's system help? Users could still create their own version of the script that didn't have the permission check. Also, it's 100% completely impossible to "make sure that the helper script code is invisible". Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
See if I didn't take a whole lot of time loooking through revision histories I would have brought this up as suspicious. User:McIntireEvan/afch-rewrite.js/submissions.js? Has a grand 80 edits but added as a student apparently. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::@EoRdE6: please follow the links in my message before commenting. AfC is totaly overburdened because a) it tries to take on too much, e.g. be a second WP:ARS, b) the requests for help with reviewing cleary demonstartae that reviewers don't know what to do, and c) although I set the criteria of 500e/90d myself, it has proven to be hopelessly inadequate because users hover with their mouse over their edit count until they have reched 500 without even bothering to fulfill the other requifrements. We certainly do not need more inexperienced users - they create more work than ever. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Looking at contribs the reviews leave much to be desired, actually (I just reluctantly G11'd one; it was unsalvageable). I'd say the average good AfC reviewer accepts 1 on 30-50 drafts. This is a lot of acceptances. In fact, today I was in a heated discussion with an editor who I and User:Primefac agreed that these reviews shouldn't have been accepted. I only notified them, but Primefac reverted all of them and now there are newbies caught in the crossfire. :( A change is definitely necessary (or at least have reviewers/admins patrol new reviewers, maybe like a Pending Changes thing). — kikichugirl speak up! unsigned when written, re-signing at 04:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn:, if it works for stuff like Huggle and/or AWB then it is absolutely possible for it to work for AfC. The problem is in finding programmers who do not act as if they own AfC and use the AfC project as a battleground for #1 place for their scripts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: It doesn't really "work" for Huggle either. It's just that nobody's bothered to try to bypass Huggle's rules yet. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: - yes and up to now we only had one user who tried not only to create his own script for AfC but also to create one for blocking users in order to bypass becoming an admin. Admittedly we occasionally have cranks like that but it is rare. The suggestions I made above for tightening up the access to the script 'and' reviewing the editors who have very little experience beyond the 500 edits they racked up just to be able to join AfC, are perfectly viable and feasible. Just take a look at the history - don't you think I'm getting fed up of being practically the only user to patrol this page and do something about it every time? The amount of talk here and little action makes me understandably jaded. I'm getting more convinced that it's time to enact last April's consensus and close down AfC altogether and replace it with either a clone of the NPP suite of software, or simply combine it with NPP. At least we would also get some quality patrolling finally done at NPP which is a ten-fold more important process than AfC. Although he's busy now in a new, very time consuming job, I think we should call on DGG for his input here. If I'm wrong with anything, he will tell us, and I highly respect his experience, opinions, and above all, wisdom. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6:It's all very well now taking a stab at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants in good faith because I mentioned it, , but you are still not getting it right and as a consequence making more work for me checking what you are doing. You also apparently never brought the User:McIntireEvan/afch-rewrite.js/submissions.js issue to the notice of anyone who could do something about it. Such a user needs to be severely warned and their special .js page deleted like we did with the other clown, and then closely watched for any other edits they may do with a view to blocking them if necessary. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC) I see now that User:McIntireEvan, according to Theopolisme, might possibly somewaht of a special case, but that doesn't excuse either mac or Theo from keeping us informed. I'm nevertheless still highly skeptical of anyone who creates a Wikipedia account for such a very singular purpose, and if it's an additional account of an existing user, they should tell us. At least it would keep Hasteur amused. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

McIntireEvan is legitimately a script developer. That copy isn't a problem at all and shouldn't be removed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't excuse the fact that we were not informed about it. It would have avoicded all the discussion here concerning McIntireEvan.
Wikipedia:STiki is another script or piece of software that requires a clearly defined set of qualifications - much higher than those for AfC - for its use and a request for permission to use it, and that for only chasing vandals. I don't know how one can make these AfC issues more clear - it seems as if those who are most active on AfC (not those who limit themselves to actual reviewing) are putting their hands over their eyes and ears. Note that Anne Delong and Hasteur and Technical 13 don't chime in here (perhaps it's their time zones). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Well an edit filter would be a place to start at least. Even if it doesn't solve everything. Also T13 and Hasteur have an interaction ban with each other and me and Hasteur aren't on very good terms with one another so don't expect much there. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw the discussion, but since you only pinged DGG I was sulking (okay, just kidding, I was actually battling the Hasteurbot, which nominated for deletion a batch of abandoned pages that got by me...). I'm not sure in particular what you wanted me to comment on, so here's a smattering of opinions (as you know I always have plenty).
  • I agree with Kudpung that it's not likely that many editors are going to go to the trouble to modify software just so they can stick templates on AfC pages. Experienced users know that they can just move pages out of AfC any time they want to, and take the consequences. I wasn't aware of this until afterwards, but it's not likely a problem worth spending a lot of time on on which it's worth spending a lot of time.
  • Thanks, Kudpung, for keeping an eye on the Participants page. I have seen others dealing with inexperienced reviewers. I'm sorry I haven't been helping out with this. About all talk and no action - please specify exactly what action you wish would be done.
  • The problem of users who meet the official criteria but aren't good at reviewing is not unique to AfC, since everything on Wikipedia seems to be a learning curve with a moving endpoint. As mentioned above, we want new reviewers; I can't think of a way of efficiently monitoring their reviews so as to bring them up to speed - maybe a welcome template with suggestion to use the Reviewer Help page, etc., would have some effect, and perhaps some of the more experienced reviewers could spend some time looking at Template:AFC statistics, which can be sorted by reviewer, to find problem reviewers.
  • About closing down Afc - I like AfC, and won't help close it, since I feel that the same amount of work would just pop up somewhere else, but if it closes down I'm sure I'll participate in whatever replaces it, even if'ss thousand and thousands of AfDs.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

there are two problems: One is what the procedure should be for approving new submission. Here, the only rational step is to remove the entire AfC process. If we have one incoming stream of articles, at NPP, we can deal with it better. Draft space can be a holding space to deal with articles moved there after AfD or after review at NPP. We can then deal with how to improve it by adjusting the requirements for patrollers there. (I've done a prelim check on submissions--almost all could be dealt with equally well at NP, by either accepting or listing for deletion--numbers and examples forthcoming if I ever have the time --Anne Delong, you are right it would be the same work, but it's more easily controlled in a single stream. )
But then, and now, we need to control who does the approval. I agree totally with Kudpung that right away we do have to increase the requirements to include active permission-granting of this right. The STiki procedure would work,or anything similar). (Huggle , btw, no longer has an approval mechanism. It's a gadget; anyone can use it. We have not had many problems with it, because it adds no particular powers, just prevents technical errors in applying normal tagging.) The requirements should not be only numeric. They should require the significant and correct addition of material to articles, significant participation in one or another quality improvement process, and a probationary period. (There's no real way of providing specific training, except NPP, and I wouldn't want to do that, for the requirements for approving articles there should be every bit as high--it's the same process essentially. The requirement there is presently autoconfirmed, & much lower -- 4 days and 10 edits -- it's just intended to weed out the worst of the SPAs.) I would also perhaps add the one visible process of article review here , AfD -- it needs participants and is safe, can be easily watched, because errors are corrected by the other participants and the admins, and, ultimately, by Deletion Review. It's how I learned, so naturally I think it's a good method. If the standard does not get raised, no progress will be made, because we'll continue to be too busy dealing with errors. It takes much more time to detect and correct errors than to do things correctly.
There are so many other things that would help. Requiring handwritten comments as well as the prebuilt reasons, and requiring review and editing of the prebuilt comments before pasting them, so people could include only what is relevant. The long awaited ability to combine reason (this is lacking at NPP, by the way, despite its otherwise superior feature. Kudpung, it's time this were fixed.) The ability to sort by subject. The clarifying or removal of such vague reasons as "essay", "lacking context" "not in a formal style" , "not suitable for WP" -- at least half the pages marked with these are marked inappropriate. An easier way of auditing. And I could have have gone on to list a few dozen other needed fixes, none of them impossible, all of them asked for long ago. The burden of fixing them should be on those who want to keep this process. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I would like to thank DGG for his input here - and certainly not for simply concuring with me, I was not 100% sure that he would even be in agreement. Anne Delong, I did ping you, but thank you for boldly putting into words something that I very cafrefully circumvented: the perennial battle between those editors now i-banned for vying for the #1 position of programmer and who are essentially here to demonstrate their programming skills rather than be concerned with the philosphy and policies surrounding the creation of new articles.

When AfC finally gets closed down in accordance with the April 2014 consensus and has its own proper feed and suite of software or is merged to an existing project, those people will be out of a job. One thing however on which I must put you right is that NPP in spite of having a ten times more new pages to contend with every day, does not create dozens of AfD. Far from it. As DGG points out NPP is a sorting process, just like AfC should be, and not a field hospital. Anyone who has any military training will understand the most unenviable task that front line medics are confronted with at CasEvac where triage is a sad, unpleasant but necessary task. That's what we do at NPP and what should be done at AfC.

The most urgent and immediate solution is to place the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants under full protection, forcing edit requests and the additions being made at admin discretion. That's very basically what we do at WP:PERM although there are a few minor technicalities involved. Admins will then vet not only the edit count but also the overall suitability and motivation just as they do their due diligence when according or declining requests for Reviewer or Rollbacker. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

For those without a long history here, Kudpung is referring to my opposition to his earlier proposal to restrict the creation of new pages. I continue to think it important that people can write articles immediately on coming here,because of my experience in seeing it a strong motivating factor with new users in editathons.
the suggestion for full protection does sound like a simple immediate measure, even though it does not deal with anything fundamental. But considering it's not quite a routine use of full protection, I think Id like to see some degree of consensus--and to let an admin without previous involvement her place the protection. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the editathon thing, DGG, but let us not forget that the people who go to editathons are already highly motivated Wikipedians-to-be. The crap gets created online by the trolls, spammers, and CCOI/POV misfits. I must admit however that I'm seeing a marked decline in the number of vandalism, hoax, and attack pages, but perhaps I'm just ptrolling at the wrong time of day for tnhier time zones. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This blew up rather stupendously overnight... Kudpung you might want to outright make an apology for your "I see that our resident techs haven't chimed in yet" statement as we're volunteers as well. I take significant umbrage at that. Now it seems to me that part of the "Shut down AFC" RFC that we had was to have something to replace it first rather than denying unregistered/newbie editors the ability to submit a new article. The predicate hasn't been fufilled (as there is no tool to deal with these submissions) therefore the the response hasn't been fufilled. I also question if your supposition that shutting down AFC is what was agreed to. I don't recall that being agreed to. Finally it's always going to be an arms race between those people who attempt to get around the requirements for using the AFC tools and those of us trying to uphold the requirements. Just because it's an arms race doesn't mean that we should relent. And with that I exit stage right from this discussion as it appears we've already got an angry mob. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

you might ask why the "mob" is so angry. They're upset at being involved in a losing arms race with insufficient weapons that take years to incorporate improvements, in forced company with many soldiers who don't understand what they're doing and are shooting at random people. We first have to understand that the battle is not going to ever be finished. WP is always growing, and we will always be getting new submissions, many of which will be useful. But we're losing because the flood of promotional submissions has increased, and we need better ways to deal with them. The key method is to shoot down the incoming invaders as they appear, not send them back to try another time. AfC is based on the assumption that most submissions will be acceptable eventually, and the submitters will help improve them, which is patently false. At least half will never be acceptable, and the main problem is how to efficiently & definitively get rid of them. Of the others, the ones that are fundamentally acceptable and need improvement will be improved much better in main space. DGG ( talk ) 10:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I will start by apologizing for not doing more to help the AFC WikiProject endure its workload – I'm a very inactive member right now. FWIW, my interest in being regularly active began to wane proportionately with my realization that the vast majority of participants who use AFC trying to get an article published reek with a terribly hard to breath stench called "super-duper COI". It almost follows that there are basically two kinds of people whose first Wikipedia endeavor is to have an article published – those with a COI, and those with a super-duper COI. The situation had a negative effect on me and I progressively did less and less. Maybe there are some things worth fixing around that notion too. I think there are; although thinking's not my best suit – I should disclaim. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello, an outsider's comment here. I only recently became aware of AfC: I think I was commenting to Lopifalko on his suggestion of creating a new article, realized that he planned to title it "Draft:[Title]", and wondered why on earth why this should be so. (L: "You mean one can just ... create an article?" Me: "Well of course.") As it happens I am, for the first time ever, working on a "Draft" myself right now (long story); but as I look at "Drafts" in general I'm dismayed: so many seem promotional, or are so bad as to require about as much work to "fix" as it would take to start afresh, or some combination of the two. ¶ I think the main problem is the feeling of an obligation to encourage people to jump in and "be bold", when only a tiny percentage of newcomers are capable of this. No wonder a significant number of them take up the invitation, are clobbered for this or that species of incompetence, are dismayed and go away (or worse, stay and sulk). My brain feeling (no mere gut feeling, this!) is that newcomers should on the contrary be encouraged to dip their toes in WP editing, then the ankle, then -- well, you know the rest of the metaphor. Once they know what they're doing, they can create articles. After all, why not wait? Probably because they have a burning urge to write about just this or that subject. Chances are high that there's a CoI; and even if there isn't, then there's very likely to be some sort of emotional attachment (or loathing). AfC seems to me a wonderful notion given certain premisses -- which unfortunately are for the most part fictional. -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access[edit]

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)



I am experienced editor and would like to create an article on A. T. Moorthy but I note that a new user has submitted an Afc on the same subject - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A. T. Moorthy - which has been rejected twice. My contribution will be significantly different to the Afc submission. Do I move the Afc to mainspace to keep the edit history or do I just ignore the Afc and create a new article? Sorry if I've posted this on the wrong place.--obi2canibetalk contr 14:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: If you are planning on reusing any of the current articles content then I would suggest editing the current one. If it will be entirely new, I would suggest making a new draft at Draft:A. T. Moorthy. Face-smile.svg EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Alternatively, since the main problem with the draft is a POVand lack of inline references, you could simply fix it up. Drafts are not the property of the original editor, any more than anything else here is. Anyone who wants to improve a declined draft and submit it is helping WP. DGG ( talk ) 10:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Done as you've suggested.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and reviewed it for you. Much improved, very good! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

IP randomly submitting articles[edit]

Can people keep an eye out for (talk · contribs)? They seem to be stalking articles in draft space and randomly adding {{subst:submit}} to them for no reason. Their talk page is full of declined notices, presumably from the not-ready drafts they picked up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Malice or misguided helpfulness? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll AGF the latter, but at least one, Draft:Know Your IX was only moved to draft this morning because NE Ent didn't think it was ready for mainspace. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects[edit]

Some assistance at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects would be most welcome. To speed things up the beta version of AFC helper script works on that page, for both redirects and categories. Bellerophon talk to me 22:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have "Yet another Articles for creation helper script", but cannot get automated assistance working on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. How can one activate this? Please ping me on reply, thanks. --LukeSurl t c 17:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@LukeSurl: Its only available in the beta, which I can't figure out how to get. @Bellerophon: how do I install the beta version? Thanks EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
See User:Bellerophon/common.js. The first line contains the import code for AFC beta, which ironically is an earlier version to the present one. You will need to disable the current AFC helper script and then copy the first line of my common.js page to your common.js page. The only real downside to Beta is that when reviewing articles it does not automatically add the decline reason the submitters talk page, but you can always copy and paste it in yourself. Bellerophon talk to me 20:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There are several requests for R from alternative languages. I'm not confident accepting these (esp. the non-Roman ones), as I can't verify that the non-English title is correct, or even that it is not horrendously offensive. Aside from learning Japanese, any ideas here? --LukeSurl t c 13:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@LukeSurl: I usually check the target article to see if the foreign language title is shown there and if there is a reliable source for it. If it's not, I use Google translate and set it to auto-detect the language. Google translate is pretty good for literal translations, so languages that rely heavily on loan-words, such as Japanese, are quite easy to handle. It also copes well with most European languages. If you can't get it to translate a phrase, try each word individually and use best judgement. Chinese can get a bit tricky, but I have some basic ability in that language, so if you get really stuck just ping me. Bellerophon talk to me 23:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification about Notability, Independent reliable references and Promotion guideline[edit]

Moved question to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#15:17:55, 15 February 2015 help regarding world records

That's a reviewer question so maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help is a more appropriate location. ~KvnG 15:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The person has just become a reviewer, but the question seems to be mostly inspired by his own AfC submission. Let's first figure out if his submission can be saved, then we can address his concerns about sources being ignored by reviewers. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Hroðulf: Thanks, So now the question should be moved back here where it originally started or as suggest by KvnG at reviewer help ?One life to live (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Process for a reorganized article?[edit]

An editor did a massive reorganization of the content of List of viruses, a massive list in alphabetic order. They reorganized it in Draft:List of viruses, putting them into expanding lists organized by the Baltimore classification. WikiProject viruses likes it and another editor wants to do a replacement. What are the steps to do this and preserve the edit history of both? StarryGrandma (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I personally would tell the editor who created the draft to copy and paste his content to the current article and leave a note on the TP for attribution. But don't take my word, I'll ping the expert of history merges @Anthony Appleyard: for his opinion. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:StarryGrandma: History-merging is for where there was a single clean complete cut-and-paste from page A to page B. If it was a copy-and-paste, or a text-merge of two pages, or a page split into two pages, or many small movings of text, history-merge cannot be done; best thing is to put at the start of its talk page a ==History section== saying where the text in the page came from. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
If the original editor is still active and move the information to the mainspace article him/herself, the draft is then unneeded and can be deleted db-g6 (routine maintenance). If someone else moves it, the process is at WP:MERGETEXT with additional details for moving of all content at WP:FMERGE. However, both of the pages should be in mainspace, so the draft needs to be moved to some alternate title in mainspace as a redirect. This page: Wikipedia:Merge and delete#What can 'merge and delete' look like? has advice on where in mainspace to store the redirected page if no one can think of a useful alternate title.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The original editor Bervin61 was active earlier today. So simply ask them to paste the new text into the mainspace article. Anne is right: there is no need to preserve history if one person wrote the text then pastes it in. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What needs to be done in in situation like this[edit]

Hi , This is the first time I encountered this while AFC review can’t see any article / content which can be moved to draft space . Please help me learn what needs to be done in such cases. Thanks One life to live (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Samuell1616. There is nothing that needs to be done right now with this blank submission, since an empty page isn't really a draft, and we wouldn't know what title to give it. The user will likely add some content and resubmit the page, at which time a move to Draft space may be appropriate. If the page remains blank it will eventually be considered abandoned and be deleted under db-g13. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: Hi there, Thank you. I learned something new today and the credit goes to you ... appreciate your quick response. Thanks again.. Cheers !!! One life to live (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A Template for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants[edit]

A couple issues I wanted to address. Firstly I have made a template for users to request on the talk page, located at Template:AFC Request. It might not be the best coding but it does the job. Second, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants is in serious need of updating. A big link should be added at the top pointing to the talk page and the text telling people to add their names to the list needs removing. WE need an admin to come do that. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite see the use for the tpl you created. Are you sure it is not instruction creep? Users who have asked for their names to be added to the list under the new system have understood and done what they should. It all boils down again to the fact that anyone who cannot read instructions or who has to be spoon fed with them, should probably not be reviewing at AfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That is true but I prefer things like that to be neat and organized. With the template a edit count button is automatically added to the request and everything is kept uniform, easier for the admins. Speaking of which is it necessary to add admin instruction or can they figure it out? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What the template applies: note the edit count button. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I like things to be neat and organized too. IMO the template is overkill - I think you'll find that admins are able to figure out what to do, that's why they are admins. That said, just as at WP:PERM, the edit count is not the sole criterion. Admins need to do further checks for general cluefulness and maturity, and ability to conduct discussions with all users in a formal manner. We don't have to be ramrod stiff at Wikipedia, and even I'm not at my old age, but we do need to give the impression that Wikipedia is a serious project and is run by serious people. That's one of the reasons we've introduced this measure. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Mads Peitersen[edit]

Could someone create a wiki page on this amazing artist

Yes, you could! The Article Wizard will help you. Bellerophon talk to me 23:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Frankly I doubt it, and I think it is cruel to tell a new editor otherwise. A Google search shows that Mads Peitersen is very good at self-publicity; but I find no mention of him in reliable independent sources, such as Wikipedia requires for an article. Maproom (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, there are plenty of reliable source mentions (do a news search) and notability looks borderline - there is definitely a chance a viable article could be written. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Great work everyone[edit]

Category:Pending AfC submissions contains 967 items. Is that cause for celebration or what? — kikichugirl speak up! 01:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

493 now..Cheers!! Face-smile.svg Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
While this is terrific, let's make sure we aren't just rushing through and rejecting drafts that could pass AfD or accepting sub par articles. And its always a good idea to run Reflinks through an article with bare refs before accepting, it only takes a minute. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Crikey, I haven't seen AfC this un-backlogged in a long time, even the list template now works. I may do a few spotchecks on declined submissions, as I think that's the larger problem than stuff going through to AfD, which I already keep an eye on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

IFU Backlog[edit]

FYI, Wikipedia:Files for upload has a backlog with unresponded requests dating back to 31 October 2014, (no queries on some requests starting at that time) that's around 4 months now, so a 1-season backlog -- (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of these should be easily declinable, being empty requests, or requests missing image links. Others should be easily queriable, as they seem to be missing information -- (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Check process[edit]

Hi, two questions ; First - is there a check or appraisal method to know how am doing as AFC reviewer and over all as a wiki contributor? Second- is it possible to keep a separate log of individual AFC reviews  ? Thanks ...One life to live (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Better copyvio message at Template:AFC submission/comments[edit]

I wanted to get some feedback on the message we put on pages with copyright violations. Currently that text reads:

Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. We cannot accept copyrighted content taken from websites or printed sources. Note that copyright protection is granted to all works automatically, whether it is asserted or not. Unless stated otherwise, assume that most content on the internet is copyrighted and not suitable for publishing on Wikipedia. Copyrighted content can be cited as a reliable source if it meets Wikipedia's guidelines; however, your submission must be written in your own words, and in continuous prose.

The issue is that a large fraction of the people that come to WP:AFCHD are asking some variation of "Why was my article deleted, the text was copied from the company's website?" or "This is my company's text, it isn't a copyright violation". The two things that don't seem to be coming across is (a) that all text on the web, unless specified otherwise, is assumed to be under copyright and (b) the procedures (and pitfalls) of donating copyrighted text to Wikipedia.

I am proposing the following wording, but I'd like any help or input in making this work better:

Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. You should assume that most content on the internet and in printed sources is copyrighted, and is therefore unsuitableunacceptable for publishing on Wikipedia unless it has been specificallyexplicitly released under a compatible free license. Note that copyright protection is granted to all works automatically, whether it is asserted or not. If the copyrighted text was created by you or your company you can donate it, however promotional text found on other websites is not appropriate for Wikipedia and should be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Copyrighted content can be cited as a reliable source if it meets Wikipedia's guidelines as long as your submission is written in your own words, and in continuous prose.

Comments? --Ahecht (TALK
) 15:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a good idea to revise this, since so many draft articles run into this problem. I'd like to see it worded in simpler English and emphasize that it is illegal on Wikipedia's part to do this. Leave out the talk of donating in this message. The tone of the material is almost never right for an encyclopedia. I suggest something like:
It is illegal (copyright violation) for Wikipedia to have anything in it copied from already published sources, even if you wrote that source yourself. (There are some exceptions for older material). Use reliable sources as references, but rewrite in your own words. Good published material often exists to promote the subject, as it should. So rewrite using a neutral point of view.
StarryGrandma (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I like your proposal. I suggest replacing "unsuitable" by "unacceptable", and "specifically" by "explicitly". Maproom (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ahecht: I think the wording is accurate, but it's too long. New editors aren't going to read it and the help desk will still be inundated with questions people could already have the answers to, if the did a little more reading. @StarryGrandma: It's a good start, but I'm concerned about the use of the word illegal. It's only illegal if Wikipedia reproduces something that explicitly violates copyright law. It is a matter of policy for Wikipedia to aggressively remove material that meets the threshold for originality and has been copied from elsewhere, if no compatible licensing terms apply; because it would be all to easy to fall foul of copyright law if we didn't. I also don't think we should be making suppositions about whether 'good sources promote the subject'. I would suggest something short and written in simple English, but is still businesslike. Such as:

Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly exists under a compatible licence and is written in an acceptable tonethis includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

Leave out all the info about donating copyright as to self-interested people here promote stuff, that translates as: "if you jump through some hoops we'll happily post your corporate bio on Wikipedia". Bellerophon talk to me 14:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I like that, it shifts the focus away from the legal intricacies of what is/isn't under copyright and instead focuses on what the editor can/cannot do. --Ahecht (TALK
) 16:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, this is smart wording. --LukeSurl t c 16:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes please. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I gave this discussion an extra week to marinate, and submitted an edit request at Template talk:AFC submission#Template-protected edit request on 1 March 2015. --Ahecht (TALK
) 16:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem, as I've just realized, is that most editors never see the message from Template:AFC submission/comments because the draft is speedy deleted and the message isn't transcluded onto their talk pages like the other decline messages are. I've proposed a change at Template talk:Afc decline#Add_decline_reason_from_.7B.7BAFC_submission.2Fcomments.7Ccv.7D.7D_for_copyvios.3F that should fix this. --Ahecht (TALK
) 13:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What did I mess up?[edit]

I noticed an editor copying his autobiography from his sandbox User:Markandrewz/sandbox to article space. Clearly it's not ready for article space so I moved it to draft space and added a AFC header. [1] No doubt I messed up something or broke the some process. Any comments (or brickbats)? --NeilN talk to me 23:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused... What did you mess up other than a blatent copy paste move cleanup that I can be bothered to tag... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: To clarify, moving bad pages that are still being created (particularlly by new users) is a good idea, and a better alternative to CSD. However because the user copy and pasted the article it should have been history merged per WP:CUTPASTE. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
EoRdE6, there's no need for a history merge - see WP:NOATT. The AFC template is usually added by the AFC script. I wanted to know my manual addition didn't mess anything up. --NeilN talk to me 01:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Look a few above this section to Should blanked draft pages be deleted or redirect?. You'll see another reason other than attribution. Wikipedia has many mirror sites that show the same content in different formats. Should someone check for copyvios and find it was on a different site before the supposed creation date here it is considered a copyvio and speedily delted. Once again look above(or click link) for full convo. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I see you strongly holding one opinion with others having differing opinions. Your mirror site example does not really make sense. All mirror sites must attribute their work to the original source (i.e., Wikipedia). Again, WP:NOATT is a Wikipedia guideline and there's no reason to ignore it. Heck, the one article I've created followed the same develop-in-sandbox, paste to new article process. --NeilN talk to me 02:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I quote an admin above "A problem is created if people keep editing the old draft, not knowing that it had been copied." There's another issue. There is no purpose in copy-paste moving instead of actually moving. It takes longer, and leaves a mess behind. Why not just move like the rest of the Wikipedia community started doing in 2002. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, given that I'm the one copying (and then blanking) it, there's no chance of editing the old draft. There's no "mess" left behind and obviously this particular practice is still used. Also, lots of editors work on new sections of existing articles in their sandbox and then copy-paste the new content into the article. --NeilN talk to me 02:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh new sections are fine, just with whole pages it makes no sense. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 February 2015[edit]

Please edit the template as shown in the diff here (this was done on the sandbox page).

The tool is now located at —CraigyDavi (TC@) 19:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Could whoever adds this also add <noinclude>{{pp-template|small=yes}}</noinclude> to the top of the page? Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done{{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


I am surprised to see that Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects is named so even though it includes requests for both redirects and categories. Can anyone explain why? I think it should be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. Also, the page's talk page redirects here. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SD0001 (talkcontribs)

Probably because categories were added as an afterthought. Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories redirects there; many talk pages in the scope of Wikiproject Articles for Creation redirect here to allow more centralised discussion. The page should not be moved without further input from the script devs as doing so would almost certainly break the only version of the script that currently works at WP:AFC/R. Bellerophon talk to me 17:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Categories should be split to a separate request page, since they seem to wait around for some time to be processed, unlike redirects. -- (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are serious about it, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), or initiate an RfC here. SD0001 (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

auto archiving?[edit]

So I've just archived the page (that hasn't really been touched in my absence!), and was wondering if there was a consensus to enable auto-archiving on here again? Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why it isn't...? — kikichugirl speak up! 18:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Finding the review button is hard[edit]

I think there should be a prominently place button which lets the person clicking it review a random article. It is not at all obvious how a person should find articles which need review.

Am I missing this button? Has it been proposed in the past to make this button easier to access? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You could put {{AFC button}} somewhere convenient, such as your user page. --Ahecht (TALK
) 03:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, this is just to say that I recently stuck a button on CAT:PEND that sends you to a random submission, since I also thought such a button was needed there. APerson (talk!) 12:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Bug with open ref tags[edit]

There seems to be a bug when submitting a draft that contains open ref tags, and I can't find this discussed in the archives.

As an example we have Draft:Cody Lachey submitted 17:22, 5 November 2014‎. Nothing happened, still the grey AFC submission "Draft article not currently submitted for review" box, so the user tried again a minute later. Newyorkadam in all good faith comes around 02:56, 23 February 2015 and closes ref tags, which turns him into submitter.

For what it is worth he and I did some tests on Draft:Testing - ignore this - will G7 later and Draft:Testing - ignore this - will G7 later 2 to fathom what was going on, and talked about it at User talk:Newyorkadam#AFC submission template. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that @Sam Sailor: reverted @Newyorkadam:'s edit, and that there have been two subsequent attempts to resubmit, again unsuccessful because of the unterminated ref tags. I have taken the liberty of reverting to Newyorkadam's version, but just correcting the submitter's name & date in the template to reflect the original submission attempt. David Biddulph (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, David, the way to work around the problem became clear when we tested it. But there's obviously a bug presumably in {{AFC submission}} that needs to be dealt with. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 11:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
No, there's not a bug in {{AFC submission}}. That template was never called, because the string {{subst:submit}} was never parsed. The reason for that was simply that with an unterminated ref the rest of the page is regarded as being part of the ref. An error message was automatically inserted to highlight the unterminated ref. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, {{AFC submission}} is called from its /draft state. Look at the testing already done and feel free to play around with it. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, my wording was not quite correct. As you rightly say, it had its AFC submission in its draft state, and the draft was therefore correctly listed in the appropriate categories for an unsubmitted AFC draft. As I said, however, the {{subst:submit}} was never parsed (because of the unterminated comment), and that is what would have moved it from the draft to submitted state. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That's a correct observation and description of what happens. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The real bug is the often reported phab:T4700, here meaning that {{subst:}} does not work in ref tags. If it worked then the submission box would just have become part of a reference. A reviewer could have cleaned that up. A Draft space search of "subst:submit" finds many failed attempts to submit and there are also some in other namespaces. An AfC reviewer should maybe make that search periodically. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, PrimeHunter. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 February 2015[edit]

If I'm not mistaken, the "Draft:" namespace is much prefered over the "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" namespace. On this template there is already a capability to move pages to the "Draft:" namespace so I don't see why there should also be a function to move it to the old, deprecated namespace.

Please edit the template as shown in the diff here (done on the sandbox page), thanks. —CraigyDavi (TC@) 14:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. This has been requested before, and there is still no consensus for it. Please make further requests on the proper Template_talk: page. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Should be done. There is solid consensus to use the Draft space instead, and this is a mere technical fix to ensure that articles should not be added in the wrong way. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if there is still an option to save drafts in "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation", it should be removed; we're trying to empty that area of drafts, not suggest that more be created there, and the consensus about this has been in place for many months. —Anne Delong (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree This should be changed, the Draft namspace allows for easier finding and collaboration. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a very well established consensus that use of "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" is deprecated in favour of Draft-space. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 15:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for WP:Drafts for deletion[edit]

A proposal for splitting up WP:Miscellany for deletion is currently underway at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Splitting up the MfD. This includes the possibility of the creation of a new WP:Drafts for deletion page, which might of interest to this WikiProject. Your comments on the proposal would be appreciated. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been a while[edit]

Hello all! I took an extended leave from Wikipedia almost a year ago. How are things these days? Still experiencing an eternal backlog? How are all the editors doing? Anyways, just saying hi again and I hope to see you around. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The backlog is down, review quality is hopefully (touch wood) on the up, and there is still the possibility of doing something else with the workflow entirely. Anyway, good to see you back - I'm not doing much on AfC myself these days but I still pop in to review the odd article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the update! Doing something else? Anything specific? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Article writing mostly, with a flair for article rescue. Still working on taking a CSD nominated article to GA - haven't managed that yet. Done one AfD - GA, and another one's at GAN now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Jolly good! I'll see if I can hop on that wagon. Face-smile.svg FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to alter default decline wording for test articles[edit]

Hi, currently, when we are declining edits as test, This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any tests in the future. Thank you. is displayed. However, I find that many people are submitting out of their sandbox like this and therefore it's weird to ask them to go and use the sandbox.

I propose that we reword this, to This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any tests in the future, but do not submit them. Or any other alternative wording...? I look forward to everyone's input. — kikichugirl oh hello! 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

While we're revising that comment, we could also include a reminder to only submit drafts that are ready for review. I was thinking of something along the lines of Please make sure that your draft is ready for review in the future. APerson (talk!) 04:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not so much that they're not ready for review, its that they're not encyclopedia articles. What about Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit your sandbox for review until you have an actual article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
) 19:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that is the way to go. — kikichugirl oh hello! 09:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm using the right template, since I don't actually know where the decline template can be found as it's a mess of templates and I'm bad at template syntax, but... If there's no further objections, can we implement this? — kikichugirl oh hello! 23:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wording updated. Note: "sandbox" is no longer linked - is this intentional? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@MSGJ: No, I definitely think we want "sandbox" or "the sandbox" linked, as someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia or programming jargon would have no idea what we're talking about otherwise. The question is whether it should link to WP:Sandbox as it used to or to Special:Mypage/sandbox, but I guess in the interest of momentum it would be best to just restore the link as it was. --Ahecht (TALK
) 14:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


I almost choked on my coffee when I saw the green bar with the word "Normal" in the pending submissions count box, I haven't seen it for ages! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Is this due to an increase in reviews or a decline in submissions? Has someone checked we haven't got a high volume-low quality reviewer bringing the number down unscrupulously (the sort that has popped up in former drives)? --LukeSurl t c 12:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a bit suspicious honestly... It was 700 before the weekend. Doesn't seem to be a software glitch so maybe we should check the recent acceptances and browse through declines and check for bogus ones... Preliminarily I see nothing. Hey just an idea, is it possible to have a list of number of reviews per editor so potential issues can be found? Like people just declining everything? It could just be the attention brought by the RfC and AN ... Well keep up the good work everyone! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
EoRdE6, I know that some people, myself included, periodically go through the recent accepts and recent declines in {{AFC statistics}} checking for suspicious patterns; at the moment, that's one of the best ways bad reviewers can be caught. There has been discussion about keeping a userspace log of AfC reviews (like the Twinkle CSD one). Nothing's ever come of those discussions, but I think it's a very good idea. APerson (talk!) 15:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Since mid-2013, a there have been a lot of extra submissions because of the new db-g13 criteria. Over the next year, the creators of more than 50,000 old declined pages were notified that their creations were about to be deleted, plus thousands more that hit the six-months mark during the year. I am estimating about 5,000 notifications per month. Naturally, a percentage of these users decided to fix up and resubmit their pages. Other editors have also been fixing up these old drafts and resubmitting them. Because most of them had already been through at least one review, they also took longer to review than some first time submissions because many of the most obvious flaws had been addressed. Since last fall, when the whole 50,000 had been notified, the number of notifications each month has been substantially reduced. This is likely one reason why the backlog has been gradually going down for several months.
Hard work by the reviewers has also been a factor. Also, I've noticed a number of reviewers conforming more closely to the aims of the project - to accept drafts on notable topics, which aren't advertisements or copyvio, and let them be improved in the encyclopedia. For example, if a draft doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria, has a few references but needs more, and a quick Google search shows that there are plenty available, or if it just needs the references placed as citations to non-controversial facts, then the article won't be deleted at AfD, so it should be accepted. You won't believe how many db-g13 nominated drafts on perfectly good topics have been declined for needing minor improvements and abandoned.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
One possibility is that more reviewers have come on board. A hard line against new reviewers, particularly from Kudpung has hopefully stopped inexperienced reviewers from wading in, which might mean that the place is taken more seriously now. Another possibility is that word has got around that AfC takes too long and you might as well run the risk of NPP instead (there was a time not too long ago I saw a lot of mainspace duplicates), which leads to less submissions, which ironically means what does get submitted is faster. Anyway, I can now use the submission list for the first time in ages; all I need now is OohBunnies! to come back and it'll be like the old days. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I cannot stress often enough that poor reviewing both at AfC and NPP contribute significantly to Wikipedia's poor reputation for reliability and internal management. It should also be clear to everyone by now ::sigh:: that poor reviewing is wholly due to such maintemnance areas being a magnet to new, inexperienced users. And IMO it's a shame that the community ostensibly prefers to let the crap arrive, create backlogs, and not care about doing anything concrete about improving it other than backlog drives that don't addrfess any problems, and maintaining a constant competition for 'best script editor' and what has become largely a place of a lot of talk (be nice though if we had just a bit of that at NPP...) - if there was so much discussion about every article to be reviewed at NPP the backlog there would be even more than 30,000. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's suspicious. Since I joined AfC in January, the backlog has been steadily going down. I have seen a number of poor new rewiewers but I and Kudpung and primefac cleaned up a couple of those messes, so it's not that they're being poorly reviewed. At the end of February it was at 500, went up to 800, and we thought it would never happen again. This weekend I vowed to help get it down to 300... It was maybe 400 or 500 on the weekend. It took me and some others 5 hours on Sunday but it happened! I think that it's very easy to work through the newest ones, clearing out quick fails (copyvio, unsourced, blatant advert etc) in order to just get the backlog under control which is really what I think happened. I think the hardest part of this area is answering the talk page comments from new editors who are rude, don't read edit notices, or don't read decline notices. As for this mass drop, I've been spending time in IRC who convinced me to join in the first place, and IRC itself seems to be very effective at getting it done. Now the question is - when one does not have several hours to spend, how do you keep it down? — kikichugirl oh hello! 09:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Not new to AfC, but rejoined after about a six month delay. Saw that there was a tremendous backlog, and thought I'd help out to get the backlog down. I try to err on the side of accepting, and keep an eye on those I do accept until a few other editors have worked on them, that way I can see if they get sent to AfD. Only have had a few (perhaps 5). Glad to know someone's checking on my work. What Kikigirl said above is true, the new ones you can go through quickly and get rid of the obvious declines. What I try to do is to make sure I get rid of (as in off the list, either accept or decline) 5 of the articles in the longest categories, then look at the newer ones. My issue is trying to stay on top of all the messages on my talk page which this project generates. I try to respond to each reply and give good feedback. The only time I stop is when someone becomes uncivil, or simply wants to argue. Anyway, glad to see the backlog is somewhat under control. Will continue to attempt to contribute, but I've been focusing on it for the last two weeks, and now want to put some time back into films and the city project. Onel5969 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Onel5969: I'd like to second your comment about the talk page messages. I've still got over 50 threads less than 10 days old, and it takes a lot of time to answer them. It seems as if I've worked out something with fellow reviewers Lixxx235 and primefac - they seem to enjoy answering my messages (and I can only answer so many before my patience runs dry, and it's not fair to give some people a really curt response) - that don't require me specifically to answer them, and when they do, I take the time to answer those myself. L235 did say the other day something like how I did the "grunt work" of actually reviewing the AfCs, and he would help out by answering my talk page messages instead... :P — kikichugirl oh hello! 19:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Kikichugirl: ::laughs slightly at enjoy answering my messages:: Kikichu is an amazing prolific reviewer... but when she reviews on two hours of sleep, it tends to generate about five talk page threads per day :P For me, personally, answering questions about why Kikichu declined is a lot easier than reviewing myself, mainly because of the slow internet here and therefore the relative unreliability of AFCH compared to responding to talk page messages. Cheers, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Recreation of a deleted article[edit]

The F1 financial crisis article was deleted from Wikipedia last month over concerns about original research. However it was today accepted at AFC by Graeme Bartlett, despite the fact it is a copy of a deleted article, that was still a page formed by forming a conclusion from the synthesis of different subjects from multiple sources. Are recreations of deleted content not checked by reviewers? Articles like this should be speedied under G4. QueenCake (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you feel the article has not improved enough since deletion, then yes it is eligible under WP:G4. not much seems to have changed. Can I also just point out this creation was pretty sneaky, by using different capitalisation it avoids the AfC helper script's deletion log checks which would have prevented acceptance. So yes G4, unless you thing it deserves another AfD. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Striked some of that as the reviewer changed the name apparently. Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) mind explaining why this was recreated even when you knew about the past AfD and it's rationale? [2] EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The proposed article addressed the concerns, ie original research and GNG. When I searched on line I found reliable sources using and writing about the term. I did not look at the deleted version, so I do not know if the original AFD was valid or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
It's still heavily synthesised and contains original research. Some of the essay-like qualities have been tidied up, but it's still something that should be deleted under G4. The original AfD was valid. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a tricky one. I follow F1 a little, and a fair few commentators are using the term "crisis" to describe the current situation - at least tentatively: (e.g. BBC News - Why is Formula 1 in crisis?, Autosport - Is Formula 1 in crisis?). The AfD did close "Without prejudice to recreation should this develop further.", which is debatable. A G4 CSD is too heavy a tool for this situation. I suggest we bump it back down to draft, and invite WikiProject_Formula_One to the draft talk page. Hopefully they to work on the manuscript and promote it to an article if/when there is consensus to do so. --LukeSurl t c 10:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
You'll find plenty of sources referring to financial problems related to this or that thing in F1. What you cannot currently find are sources referring to a definite "F1 financial crisis". There is no reliable source giving a timescale, causes, issues covered, or how these problems are interconnected into one widely recognised "crisis". Compare to Greek government-debt crisis, which is a widely recognised subject that can be defined by numerous sources. If G4 is not the correct procedure at the moment, we should indeed be bumping it down to a draft until the subject can be supported (if at all). QueenCake (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking at this from the article creator's perspective, he was told there was a possibility of recreation when the AfD closed. He/she worked on amending a draft (rather than a malicious mainspace recreation), which is a perfectly reasonable course of action. He then submitted it for peer review, which was, rightly or wrongly, approved. Being speedily deleted would seem cruel, as the recreation of the deleted material was not done directly in mainspace, and there's plenty of reason to assume good faith here on behalf of the author.
A well-written commentary on the financial situation in the sport since 2014 would be a useful contribution to the encyclopedia. It may be that we need a more coolly worded title, or this commentary can be done as sections in other articles. Regardless, there's no good reason to delete when we have the option of bumping down to a draft. --LukeSurl t c 17:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett to avoid the appearance of an Admin-supervote would you please restore the status-quo-ante of begin the community endorsed process of overriding the AfD by a Deletion Review? Hasteur (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If there is no "F1 financial crisis" perhaps the artcile should be renamed "F1 finances in 2014/1015"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I will move the article back to a draft in the mean time. And in response to some initial statements, I was not aware of any AFD until notified in this discussion. No admin powers have been used until now when they will be needed to put the draft back. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Draft:F1 financial crisis. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I've alerted the author. I'm hoping this can be a case whereby a Wikiproject effectively works as an incubator for a draft article and applies expert knowledge to it. --LukeSurl t c 10:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Allowing recreation (even if GB was aware of the AfD) is not "an admin supervote", but rather something any user can do at any time. All AfDs do not preclude the recreation of an article if concerns raised at the AfD can be addressed, even if they do not specifically say so. Let's avoid the hyperbole please. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If in doubt, another AfD is always the best course. G4, like all speedy criteria, is for uncontroversial cases only. If a WPedian in good faith decides not to use speedy, it is debatable enough that it needs a discussion. AfD is the place to consider whether the article has merit, not here. The only time an admin need be involved is if re-creation is blocked by protecting the article. (I know protection can be evaded by changing the title, but if that is done in good faith, it's still reason to use AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio tool question[edit]

Hi. Here's a hopefully quick question. I use Earwig's Copyvio detector to check articles for violations. I've found it very helpful. However, occasionally, for whatever reason, it does not operate correctly (like today, it's given me 10 0% violations in a row - and it RARELY gives a 0%). Is there another tool that is as good? Thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have seen a warning about a problem with the database occasionally, so I suspect there is a recurring problem with the tool. Have you tried to contact User:Earwig about this? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dodger67 - No, I haven't, since it really hasn't been a major issue. It was just a problem when I was making a concerted effort to help on the backlog, and any delay was costly. Next time it occurs, I'll let Earwig know. Onel5969 (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It's The Earwig not Earwig. I have contacted him on IRC previously with this error and it appeared to be a memory glitch. He just needs to restart it when it happens. Just ping when it's happens again. (And no. This is the best tool ever. If you say something else, you're with the cabal!) (tJosve05a (c) 15:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


  • Question: is the G13 bot still running? It's been a while since I received notification. And are accepted afcs now showing up on NPP? Are they showing up as reviewed or unreviewed? Are they indicated there as being derived from AfCs? I've been reviewing the ones from the latest burst, and I think we may have sometimes sacrificed quality for quantity, in both directions. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC) repeated DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • DGG My time has been elsewhere. If you had pinged me, I could have responded to this sooner... Bot overall appears to be working as evidenced at Special:Contributions/HasteurBot. From what I can tell it looks like Task 1 (the perform the CSD:G13 nomination) is stuck again. Probably due to the known defect of unicode accented characters in the mysql database. When I arrive at my programming console I'll do a review and clean out the records that are preventing the nomination process from moving forward. Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • DGG Yep, the nomination bot had 50 unicode accented characters stuck in the front. Nothing I can really do about that except manually review and move them out. Same problem with the Interested Notify process (which can be taken down by a single accented unicode character). Hasteur (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC about Referencing tutorial[edit]

Pls see Help talk:Referencing for beginners#RfC: What method first -- Moxy (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Stop adding User Talk pages to "Category:AfC submissions declined as..."?[edit]

See Template talk:Afc decline#RFC: Stop adding User Talk pages to "Category:AfC submissions declined as..."?. --Ahecht (TALK
) 00:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What the HECK????[edit]

Okay, there was a portal template draft here. I contacted the folks over at the portal group and asked them to take a look John of Reading was kind enough to respond. Unfortunately, I didn't take his instructions seriously enough, and did not request the move be made through WP:RM. You can see his response HERE. Instead, I simply hit accept on the draft. Here's the result: Portal:Tuvalu. I attempted to "undo" the acceptance, but it's still all screwed up. Can someone else fix it? The editor did a lot of hard work on this, and I hate to think I was the cause of undoing all that effort. Onel5969 (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Onel5969: The subpages didn't get moved over into article space by the tool. I moved them myself, but there are still a few (such as {{Tuvalu}}) that I couldn't find in draft space. --Ahecht (TALK
) 14:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ahecht - For the life of me, I could not figure it out. Since I mentioned John of Reading above, hopefully, he'll take a look and be able to correct the rest of the issues. Onel5969 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Question from[edit]

There is still no article on the March 1st 2015 legislative and local elections in El Salvador - why not? (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Because no one has written one yet. You can either write it yourself at WP:WIZARD or request that someone else write one at WP:REQUEST. --Ahecht (TALK
) 14:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Finding pending submissions by subject[edit]

How can I find pending AfC submissions, but subject (i.e. by the category they will end up in)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Step 0: Get support for some sort of categorization scheme in the templates (as we want template inhereted categories instead of explicit categories)
Step 1: Go through every pending submission and dump it into one or more of the category buckets
Step 2: ....
Step 3: PROFIT
This is a perenial suggestion/request but nobody wants to spend the time developing solving this problem so no activity gets done on it. Hasteur (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
As Hasteur points out, we can't identify submissions by subject unless someone does the work of classifying them. That time is probably better spend reviewing submissions. All is not lost though. How about control clicking on this a bunch of times
Close tabs you've opened until you find one that interests you. --Kvng (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
You could always modify the article wizard to add categories based on keywords the editors supplies in a keywords box. -- (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett, for some subjects it works well to use this custom search which only looks in draft space. By adding the words "Review waiting", you only find drafts which are up for review. For example, if you want to find submissions about politicians, try typing "review waiting politician" in the search box below. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

A solution, though a manual one, for this issue would be for an additional step to be added to the first review: "Add relevant WikiProject banners to the draft talk page with class=Draft parameter". This would help to sort those submissions that have been through the review sieve at least once. A more comprehensive process would be the equivalent of Stub sorting, replicate all the Stub categories and the associated template and icons, but replace "Stub" with "Draft". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Roger (Dodger67), I seem to recall an earlier discussion about this, and there was a problem because most Wikiprojects hadn't implemented "draft" in some process or other, what it was I can't remember. Does anyone know exactly what the problem was, and if it has been fixed? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah that would require some big collaboration to get the word spread between the 1,984 wikiprojects (not all active mind you) that exist. Also would it be added be the creator (a new/unregistered user) or the first reviewer? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@EoRdE6 most newbies will have no idea at all about WikiProject banners so the task would almost always fall to the first reviewer. Most WikiProjects already have an article rating system which includes a table that lists the numbers of pages by class. The active projects would notice the appearance of Draft-class pages on the list and the curious editors among them would click to see what it means. I think a mass posting of a message on all WikiProject Talk pages would be useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
(ec)@Anne Delong yes indeed, this issue is not new, however since we last raised it the "class=Draft" parameter has been rolled out to all WikiProjects by default, so we can and should now use it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Often when I'm reviewing I'll "skip" on drafts that I either don't feel skilled enough to review, or that I don't have the time/energy to do a quality review for at that time. I suspect I'm not alone in this, drafts in the "very old" lists are likely to have been seen by quite a few pairs of eyeballs.
Though I'm not sure about reviewing these, I'm sure I'd be capable of categorizing most into broad pots (especially if one of these was "companies"). If a straightforward categorization system could be implemented in the helper script, which would tie in the necessary Wikiprojects, I reckon we could find ourselves tapping into a lot of reviewer time that currently is wasted. In a sense we'd be creating a triage system, whereby straightforward passes and fails are done quickly (which kinda happens already), and the trickier cases are categorized rather than just languishing. --LukeSurl t c 14:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject tagging is already a part of the Accept "subroutine" of the script - maybe it could be made available as a separate process, like "cleanup" currently is? I know nothing about scripts, so.... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a cool idea. We've been making noise about shuffling around the buttons on the main menu, and this would definitely be a candidate for being on the "primary menu" (i.e. you don't have to click the << to show it). An idea I've been thinking about for a while is automating the process of sticking a notice on a WikiProject talk page about a draft and commenting on the draft with the notice; perhaps that could be somehow integrated.
Where would these WikiProject tags go on drafts? I feel like putting them on the talk pages would be a bad idea because reviewers just glancing at the draft wouldn't be able to see them. So putting them in a specialized comment - perhaps modifying {{Afc comment}} with a WikiProject tag-specific version - might be the way to go. APerson (talk!) 16:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


FYI (talk · contribs) has been deleting unprocessed requests off WP:AFC/R without closing or archiving them; I've reverted the deletions and issued a blanking warning. -- (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

--Sdash095 (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirects from one-time fictional entities from TV series[edit]

Hello. Over at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects a user has proposed several redirects for names of fictional products or one-shot characters featured in episodes of The Simpsons, proposing a redirect to the article about the episode in which they appear (for example Gorilla Man Scalp Blaster -> Simpson and Delilah). While I'm satisfied these titles aren't going to be needed for any real entities, this is very much in the domain of trivia, and these articles make at the very most only quick references to the subjects of these redirects, rather than discussing them in any detail. Do people think these are valid proposals? --LukeSurl t c 17:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If they were created, it is unlikely they would be deleted at WP:RfD as the generally consensus is "redirects are cheap" and such redirects would do no harm. So, as long as the subject is mentioned in the target article the request would seem to be valid. Whether it's a worthwhile of of time is another question, but as far as redirect policy goes they are unlikely to be questioned. (The example isn't even mentioned in the article. IMO, it would be best to just decline them as a waste of time if others are similarly obscure.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I will also note that there is no technical limitation preventing Pickuptha'Musket form creating them himself, so he too is wasting his time by requesting them at AfC/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that these truly one shot passing mentions don't need a redirect. The google search lists more than enough to figure out the context and SimpsonsWiki has a stub article about the subject. Now if it's a recurring bit (i.e. KrustyBurger) I could see a redirect, but not as a in passing mention. Hasteur (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I will only delete one-time entities because I've learned they're not necessary. However, if any recur, are mentioned in a different episode or are reasonably popular, then they'll stay. Sorry if I bothered anyone. --Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Pickuptha'Musket: I'm sure no one was "bothered" - my point was that you are free to create the redirects yourself without using AfC... If a one-time character is central to the plot of a particular episode, that would be a very good reason to have a redirect. If something just happens to be in an episode but isn't a significant part of the plot, that would be a good reason to not have a redirect. Such a redirect won't be of any use since the searcher won't find any information on the subject at the target anyway. Hope that clears it up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)