Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, FeedShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!

AfC submissions Random submission

3+ months

1,467 pending submissions to update

• Are you in the right place?
  • If you want to ask a question about your draft submission, use the AfC Help desk.
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, use the Teahouse.
  • Create an article using Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Put new text under old text. Start a new topic.
• In addition to this page, you can give feedback about the AFCH helper script by creating a new ticket on GitHub.
• New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Bottom of page

The "Decline" template – more references, or better references?

I first posted this at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse, where I was recommended to come here with it.

Often I see an editor write at the Teahouse about how they've been told their draft needs more references. They've learned this, reasonably enough, from a template that declines the draft for lack of notability, with the words "Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these [notability] criteria should be added." But the template isn't asking for more references, it's asking (as we here all know) for better references.

Inexperienced editors waste a lot of time through this misunderstanding. We might argue that we don't care if they waste their time, all we care about is improving Wikipedia. But it's cruel to misinform people like that. I would like to see the template rewritten. At the very least, the word "additional" should be removed. Maproom (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to just replace "additional" with "better". I mean, technically, it doesn't imply that existing references aren't good -- just that they do not establish notability. But I suppose the fine distinction is irrelevant to new editors. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

While we're looking at this, many submitters are confused when we "Decline" a draft, feeling that it has been "Rejected" (see AFC Help Desk for examples a-plenty).

Can we start to consider changing the "Declined" concept to "More work required" in some way? Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Maproom's idea, as I did at the Teahosue talk. I also agree with Timtrent above. Could we possibly use some version of "not yet accepted" or "not currently accepted" in place of "declined"? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I should have said I agree with a message for better references. I care about time wasting for any editor. Wikipedia is a huge time sink anyway, a fascination, an addiction. The more we can help folk enjoy editing here productively the better. I include me in that! I waste my own time advising folk about better vs more and declined vs rejected Fiddle Faddle 22:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's an unfortunate thing that there is the notion out there that more references are better. More references make it harder to review, and the additional references are usually worse. It only takes two or WP:THREE good references to AfD-proof an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• I have never liked WP:THREE and I think that often three sources are not enough, particularly for body-of-work notability, such as WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. But I surely agree that too many sources, particularly where most are relatively weak sources, actually harms the ability to demonstrate notability. I have taken to advising article creators to point out their best three to five sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree that three WP:GNG-meeting sources are not good enough, but even if there are cases where more will be needed, the point is that if the author's choice of best sources does not include *any* WP:GNG-meeting sources, then it should be failed, deleted at AfD, or rejected at AfC. If the draft creator is told to point out their best 3-5 sources, that would be fantastic. I wish that it was clearly and explicitly placed on the creator the requirement for them to point out the best sources, as opposed to expecting a reviewer to check the twenty reference for two GNG-required sources. While most Wikipedians seem to know to start their articles with a nicely sourced stub, which matches WP:THREE, I suspect that newcomers are influenced by reading WP:Good articles where the article lede, which seems to match a typical Stub expectation, is completely unreferenced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox changes

I have made sandbox edits to achieve the above goals at Template:AFC submission/comments/sandbox and Template:AFC submission/declined/sandbox. Please look these over to see if they look like improvements. I have changed only display wording (and added links to WP:SIGCOV in the comments) I have not changed the template logic at all. Can these sandbox changes be accepted and moved to the working templates? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think these templates are the wrong road, and the more work done on them the further down the wrong road it is going. I think that newcomers need untemplated messages.

These templates seem required to process the many bot-like UPE creations. I think real newcomers respond much better to being treated as humans. It is regrettable that most draft writers are not real newcomers. It's hard to come with with solutions to this; my current favorite idea is to require a telephone number for authentication for registration, and to require registration to create any new page, including draft pages. The telephone number number would be private information only accessible to checkusers. I believe that no person in the world with access to the internet does not have access to a telephone that can receive an SMS code. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• DESiegel, In the template sandbox I think I would like to see "additional references" replaced with something along the lines of "better references" throughout, otherwise, unless I am missing something, I am not sure we are making the progress we wish for.

In the decline sandbox, I would like to see "Submission not accepted" to be varied along the lines of "Submission not yet accepted - more work required" Fiddle Faddle 08:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Timtrent I actuall;y used "better references" throughout throughout. You didn't see it, because Template:AFC submission/comments/sandbox uses the documentation page from teh live tempalte, and doesn't show any sandboxed changes. didn't realize this yesterday. See Template:AFC submission/comments/testcases (which was empty yesterday, but isn't now) to see the effects of my changes, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I have picked up your suggested change to "Submission not yet accepted - more work required", I like it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  DESiegel, If it needs to be shorter, drop the word before 'not yet' Fiddle Faddle 13:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  DESiegel, Who knew? Looks good to me now! Fiddle Faddle 13:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  DESiegel, Template:AFC submission/comments/testcases looks good. There are entries in Template:AFC submission/comments/sandbox that still could use work along these lines. I don't understand the relationship between the two pages. ~Kvng (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• SmokeyJoe I see your point above. When I review AfC submissions myself, I often use the tempaltes but supplement them with non-templated comments. When I do informal reveiws at the Teahosue or the AfC Help desk i don't mostly7 use templates. But I am only an occasional reviewer, and I review rather slowly. If all reviewers acted much as I do, the backlog would be growing fast, I think. And I don't think that the backlog consists largely of bot-like UPE creations. There are some of them, and some not-so-botlike but probably paid creations. But there are also many who are fans of a performer, organization, or topic and want to put an article up. Many of these drafts are more or less promotional. Many are about non-notable topics. But I think a significant number are about notable topics, and can be converted into valid articles. I have worked on a few. I fear that the templates are needed to handle the number of submissions, although I would strongly encourage reviewers to supplement them with more individual comments. In any case the templates are now used by almost all AfC reviewers. I can't see that improving them makes the situation any worse. It may make it somewhat better. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  As to the idea or requiring registration and a phone to create articles, this isn't the forum for that, but I don't see it getting consensus in any case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  On use of templates. Actually, I don't have a problem with using templates, they do make it really easy for reviewing. What I object to is their output being markup-heavy and being at the top of the draft page. I think the output should be markup-lite, and on the daft_talk page, where the draft authors can better respond.

  On requiring registration and a phone (access to, not ownership of) to create articles, I have proposed it in village pump discussions with only a little comment. I know it would be a big change, but in the meantime, I blame the production of much of the draft_cruft on the great ease of creation of throw away accounts for the large number of bold drafts created contrary to WP:COI. I think the standard model of low quality UPE is for a low-experienced Wikipedian to create a throwaway WP:SPA for every job, which they submit through AfC. More experienced UPE editors don't use AfC or draftspace, and know how to evade checkuser detection of connection to their main account. Inexperienced fans of a performer, organization, or topic, they are quite a different matter; I think they are one who need to see the advice to first edit around their topic of interest improving existing articles. Inept UPE, and inept fans, the two sets can be hard to tell apart when writing about an upcoming young actor for example, but you can tell the difference by talking to them, UPEs don't engage in personable discussion. Personable discussion posts produce permanent evidence of WP:SOCK violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Have we moved forward with this small change or is an even fuller consensus required, please? Fiddle Faddle 06:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  We might wish for a simultaneous slight alteration to the script's red DECLINE button along the lines of "More work needed", but I think we are bright enough to cope with a transition period Fiddle Faddle 06:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Formatting of Template:afc comment

At the same time, please can we look at what happens when the reviewer adds a multi-para comment? The first para is correctly indented, and the remainder outdent. I tend to go back in and tidy, but I wish I didn't feel that I have to. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Timtrent. This can now bee seen at Template:Afc comment/testcases, because I added a multi-paragraph test case. I don't see a good fix, i have asked for advice at WP:VPT. In the meantime, either do manual cleanup afterwards, or le3ave a separate comment for each paragraph. Because the entire comment is passed to the template as a single text string, I don't see an easy way to insert bullets, colons, or any other indent markup for each paragraph in the comment. {{afc comment}} was never designed for multi-paragraph comments. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for getting as far as you have. I think things start in simpler times and we always push the limits Fiddle Faddle 16:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel and Timtrent, I've taken a shot at making it indent new paragraphs, you can check it out in the sandbox and let me know if I've broken anything. LittlePuppers (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That looks good to me, LittlePuppers. The result can be seen at Template:Afc comment/testcases. I didn't know that {{Replace}} existed. What do you think of the result, Timtrent? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know of it specifically either, but I figured that it had to be possible, somehow. LittlePuppers (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, DESiegel I love it here. There is alwasy someone who knows more than I do! Now I have to try to learn! Unless anyone objects please can we implement that at once, assumkng it breaks nothing? Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent, LittlePuppers, and DESiegel: This is a bad idea because it mixes list types, violating MOS:LISTGAP and confusing screen readers. In fact, MOS:LISTGAP says Definitely do not N attempt to use a colon to match the indentation level, since (as mentioned above) it produces three separate lists.

The correct thing to do is to use {{pb}} to make a new line. <br /> will also work, but it has different semantic meaning. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber Good catch. What if the leading bullet were removed? I'd rather not have a solution like {{pb}} because it requires an action on the reviewer Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent, AntiCompositeNumber, and LittlePuppers: I have changed the sandbox version to use {{pb}} I don't see that any action by the reviewer is needed. The replace call now simply replaces a pair of newlines with {{pb}}. The output is visually the same, but should be better for a screen reader. Any objections to this version? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC) @Timtrent, AntiCompositeNumber, and LittlePuppers: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 lgtm --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I am content. This is a skill I do not have Fiddle Faddle 20:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks AntiCompositeNumber (this is why I always have people check my work, especially in technical areas). @DESiegel: LGTM as well. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have further comments here or should I go ahead and open an edit request? LittlePuppers (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: The template is now updated. LittlePuppers (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, Wheeeeeeeee!!!!!! (Thank you) 👍🌷🥕 Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, I fear this diff shows that it does not always succeed. Fiddle Faddle 08:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, It's set to only create a paragraph break from two newlines, not one. I'm not sure of the best way to deal with single and double newlines at the same time - I'll think about it. LittlePuppers (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, good luck. I knew it would be easy to spot, yet less easy to fix Fiddle Faddle 18:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I've made an attempt - now instead of replacing every two consecutive newlines with a {{pb}}, the sandbox replaces every two newlines with one, then every one with a pb. It seems messy, but it should work. DESiegel, thoughts? LittlePuppers (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, not that I have decent experience of them, but can one use a regex in template syntax? If one can then I wonder it it might be, well, not easier, but elegant Fiddle Faddle 20:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Not unless you're using a module, though most of the string formatting templates like {{replace}} do use Lua and accept regex. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thinking more a regex might actually be a pretty elegant solution. I didn't realize that {{replace}} could take a regex (it doesn't appear to be documented there, although there's a bit on it at Module:String's documentation. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually Primefac does {{replace}} take a regex? It looks like you have to pass plain=false to Module:String, which it can't. Do you know of any way to do that short of invoking the module directly? LittlePuppers (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought it did, but I can see you bypassed it altogether (smart idea) to just call the module directly. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I forgot to let you know, but the template is now updated so you can use howevermany newlines you desire between paragraphs. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, And I saw with pleasure and forgot to thank you! Fiddle Faddle 23:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Monitoring feedback

I was wondering if anyone monitors Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback and does anything with the comments? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer, I've watchlisted the page, but have never taken action on any of the comments. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I never even knew it existed... At least link it from the main page! Eumat114 (Message) 11:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't know it existed. It receives as many pageviews as edits. Is this black comedy? I am watchlisting it now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Eyes on Draft:Davo (Musician) please

It's not that the draft is hard to review, it's that it is a troublesome draft whose creating editor is having difficulty understanding that it is not yet ready to be an article and that the references chosen are all PR pieces or performance videos. I've done all that is sensible there as have several others. I was tempted to send it to AfD this norning when I saw it in main space by the creating editor's hand, but chose not to. Another editor was kind to it and moved it back to draft space.

It feels as if there is some release deadline that is being worked to, with an article 'required' for some potential PR reason. If the gentleman is notable this is not the article that reports and verifies it. Fiddle Faddle 07:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - There is such a thing as taking the assumption of good faith too far. I do not think that the assumption of good faith applies to an editor who both pushes a draft into mainspace more than once AND removes an AFD tag. There are two possible explanations. The less likely one is that the editor is incompetent and is not capable of being here to work on the encyclopedia. The more likely one is that the editor is paid, and is in a hurry to get paid. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes you try too hard to be kind to editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I try hard, yes. We lose nothing by trying. Doing my best to think the best until I am disappointed is very similar to there being no deadline. We can undo any mess here with the mighty thump of the ban hammer at the right time and wielded by the right person Fiddle Faddle 17:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, they mentioned another article to me on their talk page. Would you mind taking a look and forming a judgement on it? I think it is their sole other contribution Fiddle Faddle 17:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - What other page? Do you mean Ciera Rogers? They seem to be trying to confuse you by mentioning it. They moved that article into article space two years ago, and it belongs in article space. I don't know whether there was a valid issue at the time, but at this point that article should be in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I do. I agree that it should remain an article. The lady is notable. The talk page is interesting, though, the the spirited conversation on it Fiddle Faddle 20:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

AFCH and "blp" decline reason

The text of the "blp" decline reason makes it sound like you're supposed to blank the submission when you use it, but when you choose that reason with AFCH, it uses it without doing so, or even offering a checkbox to do so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have worried about "blp decline" before. WP:BLP applies to all namespaces. If a page can't be mainspaced due to WP:BLP, then doesn't that mean it can't be left in draftspace? I suspect some misuse reference to WP:BLP policy when it is a WP:BIO notability issue. BLPPROD can see unsourced BLPs moved to draftspace, but the reason is lack of a single source, not a BLP violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Template nomination

Template:Afc b has been nominated for deletion and relisted a few times. If you're the type of person that cares about such things, please give your opinions at the discussion. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Andrew S. Bishop

Need a second opinion on this draft. On the one hand, there is no significant coverage presented. On the other hand, this is a black man living and acting in the first quarter of the 20th century, and there are a half-dozen references to verify the facts in the draft. I don't think there will really be significant coverage from that time period. Primefac (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think in the scheme of things he is probably notable. Most of the references from about 1910-1923 period very very early in cinema are very basic and there is not a huge number of notable people with articles from that period. One of the sources also state he was the star, which is a good indication, even if its one ref. Actors particularly are so obscure, as they were generally working class at that time and not reported on, generally speaking. Georges Méliès Le Voyage dans la Lune is only 1902, so its that period. He stood out as surrealist. But he was firmly middle class so even without the special effects/illusions there would be more coverage, and would be notable. But even with all his work of special effects, which were stellar, he was almost forgotten. scope_creep^Talk 11:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it is contingent on us to to at least try to find and document some of these early film actors, stage and film folk. scope_creep^Talk 11:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, with the prior comments I think the draft has a better than 50% chance of withstanding an immediate deletion process. Fiddle Faddle 11:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Probationary members - is there a point?

In the past, I have removed users from the AFCH list when it was brought to my attention that they were not performing the sorts of reviews that we would expect of them. After a series of contentious removals and discussions about removals, we to a "probationary member" system; much like the WP:PERM system, it seemed like a good way to gauge the abilities of users who met the technical requirements of AFCH access but might not have the desired "demonstration of notability criteria", and those that performed poorly could be removed without the huge, contentious discussions that have plagued us in the past.

Now, the point of this post is because it seems like every time I post a "check their reviews" thread, there are few (if any) replies. I feel like we can't have it both ways - I get criticized for bringing up removal of reviewers when concerns have been brought to me, but yet when I ask for feedback on newer users (bad or good) I get stony silence. Should we just not care about the quality of reviewer and go back to the system we had pre-2017, where any ECP editor could add their name to the list and start reviewing? Am I just concerned about nothing? Is anybody there? Primefac (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There's certainly a point. I think we're probably all concerned about the quality of reviewing. Sorry for having missed your post about two probationers a few months back. If you continue to do the same I'll do my best to check some of their reviews next time. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. As I was looking back through the archives to find those threads, it looked like there were a lot of posts that went unanswered. With more spirited discussions happening lately I guess things have turned around a bit. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, do we make any formal or informal checks and give feedback? Fiddle Faddle 14:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The last time I asked for it I received zero feedback. The default probationary period is two months, but the most recent crew haven't had any formal (or informal) review of their work. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in reviewing the work of new editors. That said, put the onus on the new editors. If their reviews are questionable, flag them for probationary status and let's require them to gain sponsorship from established reviewers in the space of 60 days or lose any ability to review. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

People review drafts even when not on the list, so there's no point unless it's enforced. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I recommend having the default state at the end of probation being loss of privileges until there is an endorsement.  Continue to post a request for feedback, and if there is no response, the privileges are lost, and post this to their talk page. If the editor truly wishes to maintain privileges, place the onus on them to seek out another AfC reviewer on their own to review their work. They can use the AfC participants list, or seek an admin they are familiar with from other editing work to request a review. Alternatively, this can be pre-empted by posting a request for feedback here, and simultaneously posting to their talk page recommending they take that course of action to receive an endorsement. Whichever way, I think a canned talk post response can be created here for easy use. I think this is similar to what Chris troutman is saying above, but I think the question was meant for people already on probation and finishing their probationary period, correct? -2pou (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't retroactively "screw over" anyone who is currently on probation, but I kind of like that idea - after all, with temporary PERM granting, the user has to re-request access. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

2pou accurately portrays my point, perhaps better than I did. DYK manages to get reviews done by putting the onus on the submitter, via QPQ. There's been talk at WikiProject Good Article about the same thing. Here, the person on probation has to seek their own release and they might even gain some needed mentorship from the experience. I'm not trying to "screw over" my fellow game players out of points; rather, I recognize that manner in which we handle the new editors submitting drafts serves as the basis of whether or not those new editors stick around. Bad reviewing either adds junk to our encyclopedia that has to get cleaned up later or unnecessarily bites the newcomers who are experiencing peak sensitivity while their very first draft is on the bubble. Let the reviewer falling by the wayside seek their self-improvement. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Forgive my parlance, I simply meant I wasn't going to change the rules out from under anybody. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris troutman, QPQ (etc) would be hard here. We indulge in a masochistic form of gruntwork

When AFC was new I don't recall probation. Maybe I served one? What I think happens is that those of us who enjoy it carry on, those who don't, well, don't. So we get our quality by the regular dropout.

When I was new I reviewed low hanging fruit. Some days I review tough calls, other days random drafts, other days the oldest category. Ok, that's a ramble!

So a radical thought. "Probation is a concept where new reviewers feel on probation" and thus it makes them better. Fiddle Faddle 19:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I will try to look at these when I see them. If you get no responses, no need to wring your hands over Warnock's dilemma; just assume probation has successfully expired; if no one bothers to respond, worst case, we're reverting to the old system. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: formalizing probation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Okay, here is my thought for any users put "under probation" due to any concerns about their meeting of the subjective criteria (i.e. knowledge of GNG, deletion, etc). Those that are put on probation (standard time 2 months) will, upon reaching the end of that period, fill out a form similar to that used at WP:PERM/TPE, indicating:

• Number of drafts declined (ignoring deleted)
• Number of drafts accepted
• Number of accepted drafts still in article space
• (up for debate) a link to their CSD log

They would then post their request for indefinite participation here. Barring any major concerns, they can be re-added to the list.

I figure this will give us ("the regulars") enough to go by as far as experience and demonstration that they actually understand the policies. That being said, if all everyone wants is just a generic "I've been on probation and I'd like to keep working" post that's fine too, I just figured having some "hard data" would make it a little easier for a quick review (as multiple people above said they had no interest in doing the digging themselves). Feel free to make tweaks/suggestions for changes. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, are you sure we need to formalize this? Is there a problem you're trying to solve? I think probation is good as it solves your problem of getting flack for revoking permissions. Are you having problems other than unresponsiveness from other reviewers when deciding probation outcome? ~Kvng (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think there's a need for any process or formalisation. If no concerns were raised during the probationary period (or its expiry), it can be assumed that they did nothing wrong. SD0001 (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copy-Paste from Draft into Mainspace

I have more than once recently observed an issue, and I don't know whether it is due to sloppiness or to meatpuppetry. First a draft is created in draft space, sometimes for a minor actor or other minor person in the entertainment sector. It may be declined once and resubmitted. Then the draft is copied into article space by a different editor. An example is Draft:Elijah Canlas and Elijah Canlas. The result is that we have an article in article space that has not been reviewed, and is not really the work of the person who is listed as the author. The loss of attribution by the original author calls for a history merge. However, a history merge, when done in the usual fashion, causes the article to be marked as reviewed. At the worst, this may be a way of deliberately sneaking the article into article space and bypassing normal review. At the best, this may be a vehicle that accidentally sneaks the article into article space and bypasses normal review.

The usual way to deal with an article that is not ready for article space is to draftify it. The article cannot be draftified because the draft is already in draft space. I see that in the case of Elijah Canlas it is waiting for review.

If the subject of the article is completely non-notable, the article can be tagged for A7, but I would prefer not to use A7 in doubtful cases. I would suggest that PROD may be the best way to deal with these copy-pastes. Of course, a PROD can be removed, and taken to AFD. Any other suggestions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Sounds like a slight variation of what we discussed here only recently. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, User:Curb Safe Charmer. I am cynical or cautious and am inclined to suspect meatpuppetry, possibly paid meatpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I would be inclined to the making of a sock report, considering asking for Checkuser verification, and not informing the parties,

With the main space article why not draftily with a suffix (drafitified version), which removed the problem from mainspace and allows the history merge to take place there. I have not checked the gentleman for notability, but the picture is up for deletion on Commons as a copyvio Fiddle Faddle 18:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Curb Safe Charmer - I think that there are two scenarios at least. In one of them, the account that copied the draft into article space is a semi-established account. In that case, it looks as if the copier is ripping off the draft writer. In the other scenario, they do look like sockpuppets. If you are suggesting reporting them and letting CU check it out, okay as long as it looks like it might be sockpuppetry (e.g., it has feathers but doesn't quack). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel like this is a slight variation - the draft absolutely must be histmerged with the article, but it should go the other direction: delete the draft, move the article to the draft space, and then restore the relevant/original draft space contributions. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Primefac. But what if the article just copied the draft and didn't add anything? Histmerge anyway? Okay. If so, I will note in the histmerge request that it is to be merged into the draft, in which case the copy doesn't gain anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the history merge already happened, and the current final location is main space. Therefore, it looks like a move without redirect back into draft space is needed. (Or move and R2) -2pou (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Especially in that case the article should be merged back into the draft (through whichever means necessary, likely via the method described by 2pou). Primefac (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I had a thought about this after I went to bed, if the only edit is a copy/paste, with no extra edits, then it should be deleted as a G6/G12 (especially if there was no attribution). Generally in these cases, though, there's the "copy" edit and then subsequent edits that would need to be merged back into the draft. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel like I would skip PROD considering that if something was recently created, it is unlikely to go uncontested for seven days and wouldn't be "uncontroversial", so I'd then go to AfD recommending outright deletion because it is a copy/paste that violates WP:ATTREQ, and draftifying is not an option since it was already drafted. (Or take the approach linked in the previous discussion to redirect to Draft, and then WP:R2 that redirect.) Submitting the Draft for AfC on behalf of the copy/paster seems like an above and beyond courtesy. -2pou (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:2pou - Please explain what you are saying is above and beyond courtesy. I don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: In the previous discussion linked by Curb Safe Charmer, there was mention of another step where Cabayi tagged the draft with {{subst:AFC draft| username}}. I just meant that submitting the draft for review on behalf of the copy/paster was a kind thing to do that I personally wouldn't feel the need to do (partly because they can do that on their own, partly because other editors working on the draft may not share the feeling that it was ready)—unless of course, it was clearly something I would accept, and there's no reason to keep it out of main space. Basically, I'll review something officially submitted, but if I catch you bypassing the process, I'm not going to follow the process for you, I'm just going to revert to what was status quo. -2pou (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That tag doesn't submit the draft for review - it adds the template to the draft which allows the author to submit it when ready. It's only a kind thing to the extent that it points novice editors to the preferred way forward, hopefully deterring them from moving the draft to mainspace without independent review. Cabayi (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I clearly misunderstood the template being substituted when I didn't look it up! -2pou (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I am going to propose a new speedy deletion criteria for these cases. BD2412 T 02:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Done, at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new criteria for articles copied from draft to mainspace without attribution. BD2412 T 02:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion I think some sort of flowchart / decision tree / truth table would be handy as a means to map out the various scenarios and the possible speedy deletion / move options. It would help in the proposal for a new speedy category. It would be useful even if (especially if?) we don't get a new category for this. The diagram could live on a page within the AfC project? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There is at least some commentary in the speedy deletion criteria discussion that an unattributed copy can be speedied as a copyvio. Technically, that's not wrong, so let's go with that until a determination is made otherwise. BD2412 T 23:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for Second Opinion on Draft:Anirban Bandyopadhyay

Will another reviewer please take a look at Draft:Anirban Bandyopadhyay? I declined this draft twice. The firs time, I declined it basically because the draft is almost incomprehensible. It appears to be written to amaze or confuse the reader, but it also makes claims having to do with the artificial brain that, if confirmed, I would have expected to read an abstract of in Scientific American. The second time, I read it more carefully, and came to essentially the same conclusion, but also to the conclusion that the subject probably is notable either as a scientist, or, more likely, as a pseudo-scientist. I checked some of the references that mentioned Roger Penrose, a great mathematician with some eccentric philosophical views. The subject did present papers at conferences that Penrose also presented papers at. However, I did not research whether the papers were peer-reviewed prior to presentation, or whether the conference was for brain-storming, and might have welcomed unproven work. I would appreciate the opinion of another reviewer. Maybe the opinions of two other reviewers, one with a scientific background and one with a humanities background, would be ideal. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, happy to take a look Fiddle Faddle 17:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, as a generalist my head exploded. I read every word and understood each one, but not necessarily in the order it was written. That says it needs a copyedit, but main space will almost always take care of that.

I agree with your review. I think the sole difference is the end result where I would have said "Better than 50% chance of surviving immediate deletion" and chosen to accept it. Fiddle Faddle 18:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - When you say it made your head explode, I suppose that you agree that it was and is incomprehensible, and seems to have been written to amaze and confuse? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I think it was written by someone standing too close to the subject, and I was definitely blinded by the light, yet I think it probably to be a valid article... or a darned good hoax! Fiddle Faddle 05:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:David Friend further opinion please

Not sure I've chosen to review by comment, not to accept nor decline. I'd like other reviewers to take a look and see if I'm being overly pedantic, please. I'm sure JakePeraltaB99 woudl appreciate other eyes, on it, too. Fiddle Faddle 17:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - A serial entrepreneur is, in my cynical view, a way of describing an unsuccessful businessperson who keeps trying. If they keep succeeding, they would be described more positively. I don't know whether the subject of that draft really is a success or a failure or in between, but the draft is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, We are differently cynical, but the outcome is similar. Perhaps you would offer that as a review unless you find notability? Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - Declined for tone reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Are there any guidelines people use for flagging copyright violations? I think it's easy to tell when whole sections are lifted from somewhere else, but this is the first time I'm having trouble interpreting the Copyvios report here. This is for Draft:The Unanswered Ives, which was previously declined for a violation. It's one of the older film pages in the queue created by AAlertBot (Side question: is the queue age based on original creation date, or by AFC submission date?) Onel5969 removed at least part of the violation here, but the report still has a lot of red (and it's gone through a lot of edits since). Does anyone have any tips on how they typically interpret these reports? Thanks, 2pou (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Ooft, that's a bit of a loaded question. First off, I wouldn't decline this a copyvio; there's enough there that even after removing the majority of § Content there's still "a draft" that can be reviewed. Second, regarding the match by the bot - when it looks like someone highlighting notes in their book (as opposed to just the entire paragraph) that generally means either they've changed a word or two, or there are phrases that just can't be written any other way (for example, I've seen hits off things like "The School of Natural Sciences and Engineering at the University of X" because it has "a lot of words"). This is a case of the former, so I removed it. If you were to remove it, you want to request a {{revdel}} so that it can be properly redacted.

When I find drafts with copyright issues, I ask myself a few questions (in no particular order):

• Is the content really a copyvio? Some times a list of publications will throw off the detector, but those aren't copyrightable. Long quotes sometimes mess with the search. If it's really bad, I'll actually remove the offending text temporarily to re-run the cv check.
• (as mentioned above) Is there any other way to phrase the content triggering the violation? If no, then it can be skipped/ignored (example: I've seen hits like "in school he played basketball, baseball, tennis, and rugby" - there isn't a non-trivial way to rephrase that)
• What's left if/after I remove the content?
  • If all that is left is a sentence or two (e.g. "Jimbo Wales is an..." and nothing else) then decline as cv and tag G12.
  • If there's still a reasonable draft, but you've cut out a good portion of it (e.g. you've removed 3 of 4 paragraphs, or the lead, etc) simply decline as cv, which will trigger its own version of a {{revdel}}
  • If all you've removed is a small portion (like with this draft, or this version of a page I cleaned up myself), then it can be reviewed as normal, though you may need to do a little trimming if you're going to accept (e.g. Special:Diff/969727693). If you're going to decline, just leave it be and the creator can fix things.

So yeah, that's about how I deal with copyvios in drafts. Primefac (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Another good example is Draft:Dragoș Iliescu, which was a "99.7% match" on the copyvios tool, but only because about 85% of it was a publication list that triggered the match. It's also a good example because the current check shows about 25%, but it's all titles and proper names that can't be written any other way. After removing the list (and, incidentally, a paragraph or two of actual copyvio material) the draft was perfectly acceptable for review, and shouldn't have been declined as cv. Primefac (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: I hope it is OK to just decline a draft when we have sufficient evidence of copyvio. I think it is important for authors to get the message that they can't copy or closely paraphrase sources. If we clean things up for them, that message won't be delivered.

@2pou: I review anything the earwig tool reports as 10% violation or greater. Primefac has given good guidance on what to look for. I tend to err towards declaring a copyvio and occasionally the good folks at WP:CV will tell me so. Better to have false positives than miss violations, I assume. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

If there is sufficient evidence of a copyvio, but you cannot or choose not to clean it, but it's not a G12-worthy draft, then please make sure one of the decline reasons is "cv" so that it ends up in the right category and can eventually be cleaned by someone with the time and/or knowledge necessary to do so. Primefac (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a whole process for processing CV declines. It starts with selecting CV as the decline reason and then there are further instructions in the resulting decline message. ~Kvng (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Oliver Whitecastle the creator says it is not an advert

I moved it from his user page since he is insisitent it be considered a draft. Google suggests that he probably misses our criteria. Since I'm in danger of delivering a trout, perhaps someone else would review this submission 🌷🌷🤪 Fiddle Faddle 20:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• It's a clear decline on so many criteria, if they resubmit just ignore (I try not to reject more than twice in a row, so they don't feel it's you vs them) and someone else will decline (or some will probably reject). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  KylieTastic, I'm going to ignore it totally, but I will watch with wry amusement. I had already flagged the picture on Commons as a potential copyvio. I do that as a matter of course where pictures in drafts are suspicious. Fiddle Faddle 20:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Numbers are heading upwards

Every day I spend some time in the oldest submissions category. I have managed sometimes to get through to the middle of the second column, acceptimg, declining, or passing on where I feel incompetent to review a particular draft. I can usually review 10 or more of these in a day, plus any other reviews and 'stuff' that I do on WP.

Every day that category is swelling. Apart from the fact that I feel unable to offer reviews on some I am perplexed that the great majority I have seen have arrived there before even their first review. We cannot all of us be unable to offer revews on them, because we have good breadth and depth of reviewer, and we have new reviewers arriving all the time.

For a new reviewer the older catageories can feel scary. How did they get to be that old, they must be hard to do! But they aren't. Obvious acceotances and declines are easy, and we ask our new reviewers to get their eye in on obvious ones.

How do we handle the increasing age of the pool if drafts to be reviewed? Fiddle Faddle 08:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Same way you eat an elephant - one bite at a time. I agree that "old" doesn't always equal "hard", though I do note that often those drafts will have foreign-language sources (Google Translate exists for a reason, folks!). As far as numbers increasing - with it being summer, and two of our most prolific reviewers taking a wikibreak / break from reviewing, I'm not overly surprised at the number of unreviewed drafts increasing; both of them usually looked at those oldest drafts. We've been here before, we'll probably be here again, and we just need to keep doing our individual parts as best we can. As an aside, I am glad to see a lot more "second opinion" posts being made here; it almost makes me want to re-open /Reviewer help! Primefac (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I agree it is disheartening to see the number of old drafts steadily building up like an unstoppable tide. It must be all the harder if you've spent significant time trying to stem the tide. We can take some comfort from Primefac's perspective on this. For me, I have to be in the right frame of mind to tackle the harder ones, with the uninterrupted time to read and weigh up the sources, run the translations and do the searches. With it being summer there are the distractions of the outdoors. We can all chip away, and at least hopefully keep the number of unreviewed drafts fairly constant, until someone comes along who can blitz them again. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer,Primefac, What I'm hoping to achieve is encouraging our less experienced folk to dip their toes into the older waters. I find I can't do more than 10 difficult ones a day, so I play in other ponds for light relief!

I agree about needing to be in the right mood. I stop as soon as I'm jaded! Some days jading happens earlier than others Fiddle Faddle 14:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What's the best wine to have with an elephant? Fiddle Faddle 14:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Elephants prefer Tusker (beer). --Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Worldbruce, Ah, I thought we were eating it, not raising a glass with it 🤪 Fiddle Faddle 16:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, I would be willing to help with the older drafts. I sorta take the stereotypical role of ‘less experienced reviewer’ due to having only 200 reviews with a months tenure. I have been particularly nervous when dealing with these, making me somewhat cautious even reviewing these but your rationale for why newer reviewers do is generally accurate. Eternal Shadow Talk 20:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, That would be superb. I try to actually review 10 a day, often don't make it, because they lead to ancillary work, like checking pictures on Commons for copyright, permission, that sort of stuff (I do that whenever I review, but it's not mandatory. I do get a clue about the class of editor the author is that way, though). I pass on the ones I feel uneasy about.

Just do the same with whatever your own target happens to be, and go easy on yourself, Some are hard, most not so much Fiddle Faddle 21:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, I also think some changes at AfC are needed, such as the proposal below where AfC reviewers pledge to make a certain number of reviews a day. I try to generally help at AfC, despite my occasional mishaps. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Crypto Currency Radar Alert: Draft:Coin Cloud

The creating editor has now self declared paid status. For those new to reviewing, the crypto area is one where there is a huge onslaught of badly sources spam articles. Extreme care in reference checkkng pays dividends here. At present the sources on thsi one are all execrable (0.9 probability). Fiddle Faddle 15:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Anushka Sen - a message on my talk page suggest I have been harsh

Please see User talk:Timtrent#Draft:Anushka Sen suggests my recent review to have been unfair. I'm very happy for others to comment on my recent review in which I declined it and criticised its sourcing. I have upset an editor who has invested time in the draft so far. We reviewers do that, of course. It's part of the territory. Fiddle Faddle 16:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - I think that your wording was unnecessarily harsh. You referred to the sources as all useless. They are all useless. You can find a way to say that more diplomatically, but truth is a defense. I would have been differently harsh in telling the submitter that they were wasting their time and ours by resubmitting. I do now wonder something. Are there two Indian actresses with the same name? There were two AFDs previously for Anushka Sen, but the first one does not refer to her being a non-notable child actress. Either she was a non-notable child actress and was deleted in 2013 but without a mention of being a child, or there are two actresses with the same name. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I accept your comments. Thank you.

No idea about the pedigree of the 'current' actress Fiddle Faddle 18:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I would be very happy if you chose to leaven my comment on the draft with a more sensitive one of your own. Fiddle Faddle 18:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - My comments as a reviewer and as an editor are very seldom known for their sensitivity. I sometimes try to be diplomatic, and sometimes the job of a diplomat is to insult a foreign diplomat so that only a third party realizes that it was an insult. I might have said that the sources had no substantive value to establish notability. Sometimes words of three and four syllables are preferred over words of one and two syllables. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, ROFLMAO Fiddle Faddle 19:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Attempting to answer your question about whether this is the same lady, each prior AfD could be about pretty much anyone. I searched Google for images of "Anushka Sen" Actress which gave me a large number of pictures (suggesting potential notability, or a fanbase, or both). The current redrafting may find that notability

Pictures? Of a girl, a girl-woman, or a woman? (I like pictures of women.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

My SERP had overtly sexualised (by conservative Indian standards) images of a what appears late teenager at best, perhaps even younger. So a girl-women I guess. It looks extremely exploitative to me. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The person in the most youthful appears to be the person in the least youthful Fiddle Faddle 18:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It's been uselessly resubmitted again. I'm going to nominate it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Question About Draft:Muzamil Mahmood

Maybe this is a stupid question, or maybe it is a question about stupid behavior. This draft was twice moved from draft space into article space by the author, and was then moved back into draft space by the author. I understand when a draft is moved into article space by the author and then pushed back into draft space by a reviewer. But what is the author trying to do by moving the page into article space and immediately moving it back into draft space? Is there some promotional reason? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I think it is wisest to take it at face value, at least for the moment Fiddle Faddle 17:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - Face value of what? Are they playing around, or what? Why? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, What I mean is that I think the simplest explanation is that they made an error. Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I expect it's either testing it out or a mistake. Not everything has a nefarious purpose. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Primefac, User:Timtrent - When it is done twice, it is not a mistake, but, as I asked above, it may be playing around. Stupid behavior, perhaps, not sneaky or nefarious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Content moved from mainspace to draftspace

I have created Category:Content moved from mainspace to draftspace to capture content fitting that description. If, in your travels, you happen to come across drafts which should be in this category, please add them. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

User:BD2412 - How do I add a draft to this category, either if I draftified it or if I see that someone draftified it? Do I use a tool, or do I have to do a complicated edit? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a complicated edit, it's just adding the category. I have actually asked the bot owner who maintains the bot that tracks articles moved to draftspace to do this automatically, hopefully they will be able to carry that out. Otherwise, it should just be added to any draftified content from mainspace, no matter who draftified it. BD2412 T 18:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: I went into the category to see how you were handling documenting the category, and it looks like it's now handled by adding this template instead: {{Drafts moved from mainspace}}. Is the the preferred method to add to the category now? (Presumably so the bot does not add the colon trick to this category.) -2pou (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

That is correct. I expect that eventually it will be divided into monthly subcats, but that's for another time. BD2412 T 13:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Double-Duplicate article

Hi Folks. I noticed we have this draft Draft:André Prunet-Foch and André Prunet-Foch. The draft has been rejected. Can somebody please take a look at it. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 07:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Scope creep, just scrapes in. Your mileage may vary. I considered a PROD, I looked at other language articles. Nothing to expand from. I hate articles of this length with an abiding passion.... Fiddle Faddle 15:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Me too. Thanks to JJMC89 for fixing it, but putting a redirect from the draft to the article. I've looked twice now, and still don't know what it means. The Le Monde ref is heavy duty. It could do with some more. scope_creep^Talk 16:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Scope creep, there are some other refs in the French language version, but I fall into the 'if the drafter can't be bothered....' school on this one Fiddle Faddle 16:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I know how you feel. I did plan to move it back to draft as its scrap. scope_creep^Talk 16:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Scope creep, The sole current reference is a passing mention. There is more about the other guy. I get the gut feel this the bloke is notable, but can't be bothered one way or the other Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't known enough of French political culture to say one way or another. Whether a French magistrate is notable per WP:NPOL, or indeed, if it is French magistrate, or its some kind of check and balances position between the president and the region. I'll do a check to see if there is more references. I think Le Monde may be the paper of record, so its more an announcement. I'll check. scope_creep^Talk 16:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sandboxen and Article History

Please have a look at this history which came to my notice because it is on my watchlist though I have never seen it before. It is not unique.

Is this a problem in terms of attrbution and licencing? Fiddle Faddle 15:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This backlog is insanity/ a pledge

The fact that there are hundreds of old submissions unreviewed, some of which were submitted in June is insane. We’re backlogged beyond any fix, and our most active reviewers are away. As Timtrent mentioned several days ago, it’s strongly disheartening, especially from the POV of a newer reviewer. What we need to do is to stabilize the backlog - I.e. by winning the war on all fronts, while maintaining our integrity as competent reviewers.

I don’t want to bore the rest of the reviewers with statistics, but at the rate we are going, within a couple of months we could be at a backlog of 4,000 pending submissions and 3-4 month waits for those whom are unlucky enough. My point is, there is something we all can do to prevent these things from happening, by stepping up. If we could have a pledge to make a certain number of reviews a day, we could halt the backlog, even lower it.

This is why I make this proposal: A pledge, promising to make at least x number of reviews a day at AfC. (I will let the rest of you decide the exact number of reviews pledged.)

I don’t know for sure, it’s just a proposal for now. I just thought this could help all of our reviewers here at AfC, and a lot of reviewers seem somewhat demotivated sometimes. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, I like the concept, but I also think folk may be wary of setting themselves up to fail. I can tell you what I try to do. I try to go the oldest age category we have and attempt to accept or decline ten drafts a day. But some days I am not in the mood and other days I do a couple more.

When the oldest category feels tough I go and cherry pick low hanging fruit.

When I accept a draft I also go to Wikidata and see if there's a data record there I can link it to.

Accept or decline, if there are pictures I click through to Commons (usually Commons) and check whether it needs permission or is a copyvio, or whether I suspect that, and nominate the iffy ones for attention by Commons gurus

I see AFC as for more than accept/decline drafts. I've ended up mentoring a couple of editors who have been in dark places because of drafts. I get involved with UPE, sock puppet reports, and it is. to me, all part of my own route through AFC

So I pledge to make a strong attempt at ten of the oldest per day, plus anything else that takes my fancy Fiddle Faddle 21:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, my goal is to stabilize this mess and get reviewers to do better. I do think quality can be improved at the same time, meaning less of a mess for people like me and you who have to be at the help desk a lot. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, Go for it. My opinion is just that, my opinion! I'd forgotten the help desk!!! I use that for light relief! Fiddle Faddle 21:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, yeah the spammers love it 😂 Eternal Shadow Talk 21:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This sort of pledge has been done before and I leave it to new editors full of enthusiasm to do that work. Just because you're hot about the backlog does not mean you should make a call to the rest of us who have been working the issue for years before you arrived. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris troutman, I think we jaded old hands are probably not ES's target audience, Chris. Fiddle Faddle 21:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That backlog isnt that big. The queue is big enough for a five months backlog, we are currently on two. It is absolutely nothing like what it been in the past. scope_creep^Talk 22:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Scope creep, True, but imagine what it must feel like to be a new editor just waiting..... Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I find the zero day entries the most illustrative: if we have 100+ drafts on zero day, then that's the pace we would have to review daily to keep up with it. When many of the people around the world believe that every person, place, thing, and event should be described in a stand-alone Wikipedia article, the real fix isn't reviewing drafts. What we need to do is push a public message into newspapers and magazines telling everyone to stop writing drafts and improve extant articles instead. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate seeing this idea here. —Sm8900 (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'll just comment that We’re backlogged beyond any fix is false - we were at sub-2-months about two months ago (max age was 7-week); it might be nitpicky but the "fix" is just having folks do more reviews, which seems to be the plan listed above. I'm mostly commenting because the doom and gloom is a little hyperbolic and rather unnecessary. Yes, there's a backlog. Yes, we should all do our part to help get it down. No, we're not completely borked. Primefac (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Nirmal Munda

Draft:Nirmal Munda led an uprising against colonial exploitation. The British government retaliated with a massacre which is now known as the Amco-Simco massacre. The massacre is clearly notable, but what about the leader of the revolt, Nirmal Munda? My understanding is that WP:1E applies, and about half of the draft is about the massacre anyway; but I'm not very sure since I've been wrong about application of 1E previously. So, should I accept the draft in this state or after converting it into an article about the massacre? Any advice? Thanks in advance. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

TryKid, It looks too tiny a draft to be either, but it is assuredly not both. I think the massacre is significant, and the gentleman is too. I would prefer to see two different articles spawned from this. One for the gentleman and the other for the event

My usual go to folk for matters Indian are Sitush and Bishonen, so I mention them here in the hope that they have thoughts to bring to the party Fiddle Faddle 23:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

TryKid, I left it for a while to (a) sleep and (b) think more, then declined it suggesting it be split in twain. I think the leader of the revolt is likely notable because he led it, and because he was then hounoured in some manner in the 1970s Fiddle Faddle 07:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

new(?) spam tactic

The submitter of Draft:Caringo first removed Robert McClenon's comment using a deceptive (can't really AGF on a corporate SPA) edit summary and then resubmitted the draft in such a way that the previous decline notice disappeared. I've seen the comment removal for the first time, but the making the previous decline notice disappear is something that I've noticed in a few drafts previously. Are other reviewers aware of this issue? And how should we deal with it? Thanks, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we can have a bot log such instances. In theory, it would just be a matter of logging the initial decline, and then noting when a previously declined draft has a submission template omitting that information. BD2412 T 00:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Not trying to derail the discussion too much, but slightly more common and less likely to be bad faith is resubmission without changes - obviously it's a bit different, but it'd be nice to have something to log it and I haven't seen a simple way to do so (attempting to use Petscan didn't work out, not only because I'm terrible with SQL, but because it only stores edit metadata - not the actual content). If we had a bot to check if AfC comments/submissions were removed, perhaps that'd be a fairly simple thing to tack on. Or perhaps not. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

In this case, I have taken to opening the history, finding the last AFCH edit, and then clicking the "cur" link foot said edit. This shows a diff of all the changes since, but I guess that only shoes the difference between submissions if there have been no additional edits post submit. I have also found myself locating the last submit edit to get a manually selected diff. -2pou (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I do usually end up looking through the history, especially if it's not the first submission - I find it very useful to see what's been changed in respect to the previous decline reason - but it'd be nice if there was some larger-scale mechanism to automatically check if it happened and either warn the user or put it in a category or report of some type for reviewers to go over. LittlePuppers (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I just ran into this (resubmit with no changes) on something I declined (which is new for me), and I simply removed the submission template with a note: Special:Diff/973841449. Was that inappropriate? Is it proper to let it go to another set of eyes? I didn't want the queue further clogged, but now I'm worried about being unilateral. -2pou (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

An edit filter might do. One could regex the submission and comment templates and then either warn/tag and fully prevent removal from non-extended confirmed users (the minimum requirement for being an AFC reviewer anyway). Sam-2727 (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

A bot could catch the rare deceptive editor with more than 500 edits, but the edit filter is a better solution overall imo. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, I reinstate the messages and consider what I will say on their talk page. I also often add an AFC comment about not deleting review messages. It takes a lot more to make me accept a draft where the editor has been underhand, but I wiki if it has sufficient quality Fiddle Faddle 07:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Timetrent, I think you're right. An edit filter would allow us to research the problem, at the very least (i.e. see how often no one catches it). Sam-2727 (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this really new? I feel like every fifth draft has deleted comments and declines. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hellknowz, I don't think it's a new problem, but to me, is an annoyingly persistent one. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

User:TryKid - It's not a new tactic. I've seen it before. I consider it to be a sufficient reason to nominate the draft for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI I've requested an edit filter to monitor this. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Francis Baraan IV Eyes please

I find I can't review this on the basis that I think the man is right about the current president there, so it's hard to be objectve. I think it's a puff piece intended to raise the profile of the getntleman, at least based on the references present. I know it's a declared paid piece, but that isn't biasing me against it. I know it deserves a review by a reviewer who wil take a disapasionate look at it. If declined I think that is for sourcing more than anything else. I do not see rejection, certainly at this stage Fiddle Faddle 12:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I have just completed a review. I declined it as the sources are largely unreliable and the coverage lacks secondary analysis. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer, I'm grateful. Sometimes we find ourselves in a blind spot Fiddle Faddle 13:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Mike Clark (conservationist) Eyes please

Was previously declined, but I see potential notability in it. Unforunately there were concerns about the tone in the past, which I don't have full confidence in being resolved yet. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, He's very close. I chose to decline with advice. Good call on your part. Fiddle Faddle 10:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Urgent rereview needed on Draft:Jana Lund

I rejected this (the second rejection) and the creator is claiming that it was unfair. Need another reviewer to take a look and see if somehow notability is demonstrated (doubtful but who am I to judge).

I think it's "borderline". And at this point, it should be just moved to mainspace; if someone then believes it isn't notable, they're free to AfD it. This will generate a enforceable consensus. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

TryKid, fair points. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Eh, promoted. There are a metric ton of hits on Newspapers.com, which is a pretty good assurance of notability. BD2412 T 23:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of GBook refs as well, enough to construct a small bio article. I think there is enough for an article to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 00:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Adeeb Ahamed eyes please

I keep oushing this back to the creating editor for over-referencing. My antennae are also starting to twitch over possible COI. I'd appreciate stepping back and having someone else look at this one in some detail, please Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeeb Ahmed. I am seeing coatrack issues again, whcih includes the major contributing editor Fiddle Faddle 16:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Editor quite reasonably denies COI. Fiddle Faddle 17:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I have Rejected it for having already been deleted. As I say in the Rejection, they now have the choice of: (1) obtaining and providing the delete article for comparison; (2) pointing to something dated after June 2020 that is more recent than the AFD; (3) appeal the deletion. Those are the choices. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ouroboros (protocol)

We have been reasonably cautioned to be wary of drafts about cryptocurrency. I would like a third opinion on a draft about cryptocurrency. It is Draft:Ouroboros (protocol), which appears to be a peer-reviewed protocol, and so not just promotion. However, in view of the amount of spamming and blowing smoke about cryptocurrency, I will only accept if another reviewer recommends an acceptance (or they can accept with my recommendation). If there are any concerns about conflict of interest, we should decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear whether the paid editing declaration here User:Monica Poucheva-Murray refers to this draft? Theroadislong (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Theroadislong - What isn't clear? Thank you. You answered that. I think it is clear. She has declared that she is being paid by IOHK, and IOHK is an implementor of the protocol. It's another honestly paid for and honestly declared paper on cryptocurrency. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Local press coverage in BLPs (Re: Draft:Tammy Exum)

Question: Are there any coverage requirements specific to BLPs that advise using sources that are more widespread than local coverage? It seems that WP:LOCAL and WP:LOCALCOVERAGE are intended for places and events, respectively. I ask to help with a borderline decision at Draft:Tammy Exum (with additional details in my last AFC comment there). I'm considering state-level House of Representatives as more local politician than national, so I'm going by bullet #2. I interpret the annotation for this bullet as saying separate outlets coming from journalists is required, but it doesn't specify how widely circulated the outlet should be. Any tips are appreciated! -2pou (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what the question is. My reading of the significant coverage provisions is that they apply to general notability, but she isn't being submitted as general notability. She is a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives and so has ipso facto notability under political notability. If we decide that regional or national coverage is required for state legislators, then we will be negating the coverage of state legislators. Is there a reason why political notability is not applicable, or is this another case where an argument is being made to subordinate a special notability guideline to general notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I guess I was getting confused by the first bullet in WP:NPOL that you are citing. I think the parenthetical was getting in the way of my understanding. For some reason, my first several readings were focused on international and national offices being the only ipso facto cases and that anything lower (such as the state-level Conecticut HoR) would fall to the second bullet. I'm not sure if I just totally missed the state/province–wide office altogether, or if I for some reason thought members of legislative bodies at those levels wasn't applying to state/province levels... Seems obvious now... I was unaware of WP:IPSOFACTO until now, thank you for linking! Even though that is an essay, it seems to be worded much clearer, and easier to understand than the actual NPOL. I'm also confused by Note 12 in NPOL where it says This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. If that bullet is secondary... what exactly is the primary criterion? Anyway, thank you for your help! -2pou (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The primary criterion here is WP:NBIO. Our overarching primary criterion is WP:GNG. ~Kvng (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

For persons not meeting WP:NPOL, this recent AfD discussion seems to indicate that local coverage is not sufficient to meet notability requirements. ~Kvng (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:POLOUTCOMES also provides some good guidance. ~Kvng (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, so much clearer and easier to understand thanks to its examples. I shouldn't have dismissed that from the further reading callout. Thanks! -2pou (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

RfD opened which could affect WP:RDRAFT

Watchers of this page may be interested in participating in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21#Draft:The Pilot Newspaper. I've posed a question in this discussion which may benefit with input from editors who are versed in the purpose of the "Draft:" namespace, specifically regarding redirects and WP:RDRAFT. Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)