Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!

AfC submissions Random submission

3+ months

3,356 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

Major AFC fail re: Korean literature

Hi all, I wanted to call the group's attention to a major failure of AFC to approve appropriate articles and welcome valuable contributors, who somehow soldiered after having article after article unfairly declined. There seems to have been an educational or WP:GLAM project about Korean literature. I am no big fan of the AFC review process because I think many articles are inappropriately declined, but I have not seen anything quite like this before. The articles are largely sourced to the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. This is often the single source for the article, but the inclusion of a topic in a significant, serious encyclopedia means that the topic is something Wikipedia should have an article on as well. Or at least that the community, rather than a single reviewer, should consider whether the article should exist. Possibly at least half of these articles were both declined and G13 deleted, usually meaning three different people were involved, and no one saw their value. And no one thought to write a message to any of the contributors welcoming them and suggesting how to improve their valuable articles. Anyways, I invite discussion about what went wrong here and how we can prevent it from happening again. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles that I have approved, often after undeletion

Eulhwa - modern Korean literary work Jin Daebang jeon - pre-1900 Korean literary work Im Gyeongeop jeon - pre-1900 Korean literary work Choe Goun jeon - pre-1900 Korean literary work Hong Gyewol jeon - pre-1900 Korean literary work Bang Hanrim jeon (方翰林傳 The Tale of the Woman Scholar Bang Gwanju) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Pahk Yon-Hee - dead Korean author Imjillok (壬辰錄 Record of the Imjin War) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Pak ssi jeon (朴氏傳 The Tale of Lady Pak) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Sodaeseongjeon (蘇大成傳 The Tale of So Daeseong) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Sinmirok (辛未錄 Record of the Incidents in the Sinmi Year) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Seol jeo jeon (薛小姐傳 The Tale of Seol Sojeo) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Yeoseong yeongung soseol - Korean literary genre Sukhyang jeon (淑香傳 The Tale of Sukhyang) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Wang Lang-banhonjeon (The Story of the Return of Wang Lang’s Spirit to This World) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Wanwolhoemaengyeon (A Promise Made During a Moon Gazing Banquet) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Yussisamdaerok (The Story of Three Generations of the Yu Family) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Yuhyogong seonhaengnok (The Story about the Good Deeds of Hyogong Yu Yeon) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Korean heroic novels - Korean literary genre Kim Naesung - dead Korean writer Pansori-based fiction - Korean literary genre Jeon Uchi-jeon (The Tale of Jeon Uchi) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Yeowarok (The Story of Yeowa) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Jo Ung-jeon (The Tale of Jo Ung) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Saekki seo bal - Korean folktale Banggwijaengi myeoneuri - Korean folktale Namu doryeong - Korean folktale Dokkaebi bangmangi - Korean folktale Gyeonmyo jaengju (The Cat and Dog Fight Over a Marble) - Korean folktale Ureongi gaksi (The Snail Bride) - Korean folktale Jihaguk daejeok toechi seolhwa - Korean folktale The Rainy Spell - modern Korean short story

Articles that have not yet been approved but probably should be (may be a couple of exceptions), many of these were also deleted

Draft:An Heon-mi - Korean writer BLP Draft:Choe Dooseok - Korean writer BLP Draft:Choecheokjeon (최척전 The Tale of Choe Cheok) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Draft:Eom Won-tae - Korean writer BLP Draft:Ha Sangwook - Korean writer BLP Draft:Ham Seong-ho - Korean writer BLP Draft:Hong Changsoo - Korean writer BLP Draft:Hwamongjip (A Collection of Romance and Dream Journey Stories) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Draft:Inhyeon wanghu jeon (仁顯王后傳, Story of Queen Inhyeon) - pre-1900 Korean literary work Draft:Isaenggyujangjeon - pre-1900 Korean literary work Draft:Jo Yongho - Korean writer BLP Draft:Jung Hanmo - dead Korean writer Draft:Kim Chong Kwang - Korean writer BLP Draft:Kim Eon Hee - Korean writer BLP Draft:Kim Eui-kyung - Korean writer BLP Draft:Kim Joong-sik - Korean writer BLP Draft:Kim Jun Tae - Korean writer BLP Draft:Kim Kyoungin - Korean writer BLP Draft:Kim Moon-soo (Novelist) - dead Korean writer Draft:Kim Myung-su - Korean writer BLP Draft:Kim Sa-i (Poet) - Korean writer BLP Draft:Kim Yeonkyung - Korean writer BLP Draft:Kim Youn Bae - Korean writer BLP Draft:Ko Jinha - Korean writer BLP Draft:Ku Jung-seo (literary critic) - Korean living literary critic Draft:Memilggot pil muryeop (메밀꽃 필 무렵, When the Buckwheat Flowers Bloom) - modern Korean short story Draft:Memoirs of Lady Jo of Pungyang - pre-1900 Korean literary work Draft:Min Gyeong-hyeon - Korean writer BLP Draft:Old Metal-Type Print Classical Novels (guhwaljabon gojeon soseol) - type of printing of Korean novels Draft:Park Cheong-ho - Korean writer BLP Draft:Seo Joon-hwan - Korean writer BLP Draft:Seong Mi-jeong - Korean writer BLP Draft:Sohn Won-pyung - Korean writer BLP Draft:Tales from the Green Hills - pre-1900 Korean literary work Draft:The Black Leaf in My Mouth - modern Korean poetry collection Draft:Woodblock commercial publication in Korea - type of printing of Korean literary works Draft:Yeom Seungsuk - Korean writer BLP Draft:Yoo Juhyun - dead Korean writer Draft:Yu Sun-ha - Korean writer BLP Draft:Heo Jun (writer) - dead Korean writer Draft:Hwang Hyunjin (writer) - Korean writer BLP

A few tricky ones that should be considered further-- not sure if the myths themselves deserve separate articles. These were all deleted
Draft:Myth of Bak Hyeokgeose (Foundation Myth of Silla) Draft:Myth of Dangun Draft:Myth of Jumong (Foundation Myth of Goguryeo) Draft:Myth of King Kim Su-ro (Foundation Myth of Gaya)

Another depressing tidbit: One author made a perceptive comment challenging the reviewer's basis for a bad decline, and the reviewer just went back to add a comment to the article with another bad basis for a decline. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Korean Drafts

I have read the statement by User:Calliopejen1 and I mostly agree. I agree with the principle that too many of the Korean articles have been declined. I have spot-checked some but less than half of the articles, and I partly agree and partly disagree on the specifics. I would suggest that the more general concern is that some reviewers are applying a hard standard consistently, and that reviewers should instead be applying a standard that takes into account the specific subject area. In particular, some reviewers apply general notability strictly and require multiple independent sources. (A side effect of the over-emphasis on multiple sources is that submitters of drafts on non-notable people and companies think that multiple sources are the key to it, and will reference-bomb their drafts with low-quality sources.) In my opinion, we don't always need three sources. We often should require three sources, but sometimes one source really will do. We really should apply a different, more stringent standard to early twenty-first-century people, companies, and bands, all of whom have publicists, than to nineteenth-century people, or to species, or to chemicals.

I have spot-checked some of the articles that User:Calliopejen1 listed. I agree that all of them satisfy notability. Not all of them were declined for notability. Some of them were declined for tone, and we really should not accept drafts with tone issues in areas where there is little attention, because a non-neutral article may remain non-neutral for years. The reviewer and the author may be the only editors who work on it for years after it is accepted, so I agree that a non-neutral draft should be declined. In most of the specific cases, I agree with the reviewer and not with Calliopejen1. But there is a problem.

I think that the failure to approve the drafts illustrates a combination of a misguided good-faith strict focus on the general notability guideline requirement for multiple sources, and what may be a systemic bias. The general notability guideline has been written strictly so as to keep out promotion, but it may also be limiting in fringe areas where it should not be limiting. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. A couple thoughts:

1) Notability and referencing. On the issue of one excellent source vs. three good sources, I think people need to keep in mind that at AFC, you're acting as judge, jury, and executioner. If you decline, you should assume that the article will not be resubmitted and will be deleted. Where there is a borderline case, the article should be accepted so that the community can evaluate it. This is especially true where the article couldn't have a promotional motive (e.g. numerous declines of 18th/19th century Korean novels). One more note: I'm embarrassed at our reviewers' evaluations of specialized encylopedias. Specialized encyclopedias are some of the best sources to give a biographical overview of a person and to establish notability. So many editors looked at the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and discounted it (for reliability and/or establishing notability) because it is an encyclopedia. I understand that there could be some confusion because it is hosted by Naver, which also has some social media branch, but no one reached out to WikiProject Korea to ask this question. Where a specialized encyclopedia has determined that it is worth having an article about something, probably our AFC reviewers should not be judge, jury, and executioner and decline the article. I also note that one reviewer said that s/he was declining "out of an abundance of caution". This should never be happening.

2) Tone. I think there is also a problem here with the standard being applied re: tone, or possibly whether people's processes for reviewing are adequate to identify good-faith contributors as opposed to WP:SPAs. I agree, there are some tone problems, particularly in the articles about living authors. I tend to apply a stricter test for tone with BLPs because of the possibility of promotion. But in most of these articles, the issues with tone are fixable and what was criticized as "ad-like" or "promotional" may in fact be the critical consensus about these authors. I say that because the people writing these articles seem to have some expertise in Korean literature judging by their contributions as a whole. Sometimes where I have a borderline case, I click contributions to see what else the author has been up to. Where there is an author drafting numerous articles in a legit subject area (e.g. here where any single author was drafting articles about 18th/19th century Korean novels, dead Korean authors, and living Korean authors), they should get more leeway for tone -- because the problem may be simply one of attributing opinions of critics (e.g. author uses vivid prose) rather than a PR person writing a promo piece. These sorts of contributors are very unlikely to be PR flacks. It seems that no one (or virtually no one) clicked "contributions" to see what else these authors were up to. I think that most of the tone-declined articles would have been a net positive even accepted as is. Normal WP editors can also edit for tone where we're not dealing with a PR person writing an ad. (Anyways, they're motivated to edit and resubmit until it's up to our standards, so we don't need to worry much about losing that sort of content to G13...)

3) Involving Wikiprojects and using our heads about good-faith contributors. I think this is one big problem here that relates to the notability issue, and a bit to the tone issue. No one ever mentioned any of these drafts to WP:KOREA, ever. And never asked WP:KOREA about sourcing. How is this possible? And how did no one connect the dots about this project? There are many editors who reviewed multiple articles that were a part of this project. I'd really encourage people to start checking submitters' contributions where you see good-faith submissions. I started with a couple folktales that had been unfairly declined. Then I noticed an 18th-century novel that had been unfairly declined. At that point, it was obvious to me that there was some broader pattern of contributions that needed to be investigated. WP is awesome at tracking down bad contributions but why are we not using that same energy to foster good contributions? These are the sort of contributors that we desperately need here! Anyways, some of this is not exactly responsive to what Robert said, but I really think we need to be discussing AFC more broadly. I know there has to be some sort of gatekeeping function for crap articles, but if this is our success rate for good articles, it's almost at the point that we need to blow the whole AFC process up. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI, here are the user talk pages for the apparent participants in this project: User talk:Kumquat30, User talk:GoldenAlpha77, User talk:Njoyseon, User talk:Serendipity217, User talk:Seray Lim, User talk:Sojungyang, User talk:Shinewer01, User talk:Benlawrencejackson, User talk:AsterYomena, User talk:SeanLinHalbert, User talk:Minheepark33, User talk:Chaekbeolle. In total, 27 articles from the project were initially accepted, in comparison to the much larger number of good articles that were improperly declined. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's an exemplary decline that shows what is wrong here: Yu hyogong seonhaengnok. Has one general reference, to the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture (not hyperlinked in article but easily findable). Article notes that a "[r]ecent[]... discovery ... [has] allow[ed] scholars to slightly narrow down the time in which Yuhyogong seonhaengnok was written to early 18th century or earlier". Mentions that "[t]here are over 10 handwritten editions of Yuhyogong seonhaengnok, including the ones housed at the National Library of Korea, Harvard University, [and] Kyujanggak Institute for Korean Studies at the Seoul National University" (bolding mine). Article declined as improperly verified and was heading to the G13 trash heap. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC) (By the way, a Google Translate of the cited source shows that the facts I highlighted are not entirely verifiable in the cited source, but I would nonetheless accept and mark citation needed for the portions that are not found in the cited source. I doubt the draft author invented this... Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC))

This article have some problems. "It seems to have been written before the early 18th century". Contradicted by "was written early 18th century or earlier." And the wording is wishy washy sort of feels OR. There are no inline cites, but things like "is considered a work .. " beg an attribution - considered by who? The single source should be wikilinked to Encyclopedia of Korean Culture using {{Cite encyclopedia}} with |type=CD/DVD since it was born and lives on CD/DVD. I can see why this was rejected, though I have no opinion either way, given the singular source, seemingly contradictory statements, OR-language, poorly formatted citation - and of course the source is not available online and only Korean language, which makes it impossible to verify for most patrollers. -- GreenC 18:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually the source is available online and is hyperlinked in the references section. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah it looked like a publisher's generic "About this book" sort of page (in Korean) my bad assumption. I formatted it to {{Cite encyclopedia}} so it looks more credible. -- GreenC 22:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Korean Drafts Comments 2

Calliopejen1 et. al. - As the above already contains a lot I thought it would be clearer to respond in a separate section - no particular order just points while reading through above:

• TLDR version Yes the AFC project is still failing: we have too many submissions, too few reviewers and the community is very split as to the actual rules/actions we should take. We qare criticised for not accepting "probably ok" submissions, we are criticised for accepting "probably ok" submissions. IMHO we need a fundamental change.
• Since this appears to mostly be about 2019 note that we did implement Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/List of reviewers by subject and SD0001 kindly made Wikipedia:AfC sorting to help these issues (if it's helping/working I have no idea)
• Yes there are many problems and reviewers make mistakes, but most are doing the best they can and we learn by mistakes
• I'm always surprised that those that organise educational or WP:GLAM projects etc don't: give AFC a head's-up; give participants people/a place to ask for help if they hit a wall like this; don't have people to keep an eye/follow up on submissions; don't get experienced editors/wikiprojects related to the area to help, comment, or sign up at AFC to smooth the process. Is their a how to organise an event checklist somewhere that we could add "Inform/Join/Watch AFC" as a recommendation? And maybe all drafts in an event should be told to add a category to track?
• If there had been some pre-input or active feedback then AFC would have been able to help the event be a better success.
• Not everyone in AFC is a fan of AFC as it is either, however things are so hard to change as too many appear to be encamped in "leave it alone" or "dump it" camps. I'm a fan of the concept, but not the implementation.
• There are many more submitters than reviewers so I feel submitters have to take responsibility there own work, many just appear to stop at the first decline with little or no attempt to discuss, ask for help/feedback, or try to address concerns. I've always found it odd that someone would care enough and take the time to do these then just give up. In an ideal world, we would have enough reviewers with the time, experience and knowledge to give every submission more time and effort, and mentor "good faith" submitters - but due to the current reality of the project often we have to do our best and hope the submitters work with us, and the help desk, teahouse etc
• I check a few of the "Articles that I have approved, often after undeletion" and most had been created rejected, and just abandoned. Yes many could/should have been accepted in the original state, but most were not declined for notability but for sourcing and a large problem appears to have been confusion about using Naver rather than a direct link to the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. I would note that we get (from what I have seen) just as much complaints for accepting things that are under-sourced; badly referenced; badly formatted than those they say you got it wrong and should have accepted x,y,z. Basically for everything but the easy/clear accepts and declines there are people who tell us we are wrong, most who don't help or suggest achievable improvements (Unlike Calliopejen1 who thankful does a lot for AfC/the submitters being one of the top 25 acceptors).
• Calliopejen1 I'm confused by the list "Articles that have not yet been approved but probably should be..." In your comments you seem to be suggesting that such articles should be accepted and let the community decide - So.... if so why haven't you accepted them?
• Calliopejen1 Again I'm confused by the list "A few tricky ones..." you thought they are notable enough to un-delete but have not accepted of merged into the main articles. I really don’t understand how you can complain the reviewers got it wrong, but have just put them back into limbo. If they are worthy enough to be un-deleted and used in a complaint surely by your own comment "Where there is a borderline case, the article should be accepted so that the community can evaluate it" you should accept/merge and let the comunity evaluate?
• "Another depressing tidbit" if you're making a comment about a particular reviewers review, is it not polite to tell the person (in this case Sagotreespirit) so they have the ability to respond? If reviewers don't know about issues they can not accept and learn or reject and defend their actions.
• "If you decline, you should assume that the article will not be resubmitted and will be deleted." Really! Why? Not counting the complete endless fountain of garbage, many do address concerns or rebut why they think the reviewer was wrong. If submitters are thinking this (and I don't believe the majority do) then the problem is with the decline notes. I think they should be clearer a decline is not a reject, and I think "If you would like to continue working on the submission... " you be changed to something like "If you think the subject is notable please continue to improve the article and re-submit and please seek help if required. Also I would add the teahouse to the "If you need extra help" links to get more eyes outside AfC onto issues.
• I personally think if I was submitting I would rather have quick feedback that gives me something I can work on, address, discuss, than be one of the poor suckers who sit waiting for months. Even if then accepted they have probably already been put off for good. In these cases if I had been told declined due to sources, I would have either added sources/clearer referencing or commented "it's in the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture why is that notable enough?" Whether in school, or work or private projects I've always expected and been expected to take responsibility for my own work and if you get feedback fixing or seeking help yourself - never have I just dumped and excepted the teacher, colleague, fiend, publisher etc to sort it for me!
• "Where there is a borderline case, the article should be accepted so that the community can evaluate it." this is the crux of the problem. In the reading of WP:AFCPURPOSE some say it means if it has a better than 50/50 chance, but in reality wrongly accepting gets complaints: we had a reviewer (now blocked) who use to have a more "accept it let the community decide" attitude to the backlog and they were removed as a reviewer for just (approx) 1.4% of their last 1000 accepts being deleted, and in a RfA recently-ish lots complained just about a single bad AFC accept that I noted not a single one of the complainers who thought the acticle was obvious spam draftified or AfDed. This is and always has been the problem with AfC - there is no real consensus of what rules should be applied.
• I personally think the project is failing due to this divide in opinion and in it's current form consensus on this will not be achieved. I think it's failing both Wikipedia and decent new contributers badly. I think the project needs a more radical change. There are ideas but there is such huge reluctance to change or compromise. Personally I will support any changes I think can achieve two primary goals: [1] Keep the spam, attacks, copy vios, BLP vios, jokes etc out of mainspace [2] Let everything else go through as an accept, or a pass and allow consensus to deal. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

User:KylieTastic - Having just read your above comments, I mostly agree, if we define spam expansively. If you aren't sure if something is spam, it probably is. Otherwise let the stuff that we are not sure of go to AFD, knowing that will increase the workload on AFD. I will comment more in a while. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: Thanks for your comments. To respond to a couple of comments: I have not passed all of them yet because I have not even had time to read them all beginning to end. There are a lot of them. I have undeleted them so they can at least get further consideration and be viewed by non-administrators. I have put them on my to-do list for later. Also, I didn't name the reviewer because I didn't want this to be about any particular reviewer. There are dozens of editors involved here.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, I don't think I have accepted nor declined any Korean drafts. I may be wrong in that statement. I find most to be outside my competence, Google Translate notwithstanding.

The project is not so much failing as not succeeding well enough in attracting sufficient reviewers to make up for folk like me who feel unable to review some drafts, unless they are blindingly obvious pass/fail candidates

I have very little hesitation in accepting drafts that I view as having a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process, unless, of course, I suspect UPE, when I am substantially more rigorous. It is having the confidence to be challenged over a borderline acceptance. I view the community as wiser than I am. Fiddle Faddle 22:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the question in bullet 2 on whether WP:AFC/RBS and WP:AFCSORT are helping/working, I think they are. AfC sorting gets 1100+ monthly page views which is quite a lot -- and that's just the main landing page (not including the subpages). WP:AFC/RBS has 130 monthly page views, which also sounds healthy to me for that kind of a page. – SD0001 (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree with Calliopejen1's premise. Wikipedia has too many articles already and most of them suck. If the notability of a subject hinges on some specialist understanding of the sources and references then you cannot expect the dilettante reviewers to understand that. We also don't have enough reviewers with subject-specific knowledge to take on these drafts. The declination of those drafts is a feature, not a bug, of our content curation system. It is a privilege for our established editors, not the random students and IP contributors, to write article about such not obviously notable topics. The fact that most articles suck only draws in more would-be editors who seek to add their dreck, resulting in a race to the bottom. If, however, we seek to "hasten the day" let's abolish AfC, let NPP sort new entries to prevent another Seigenthaler incident and either the encyclopedia's decline in stature or a lawsuit against W?F will finally bankrupt the project. I essentially stopped editing mainspace so I don't care how this website meets its end; maybe you do. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Chris troutman insofar as a fair portion of the blame for this "failure" must be borne by whoever organised this editathon/event. It should be incumbent on such organisers to at the very least talk to AFC as well as relevant wikiprojects to ensure that the neccessary subject and language competence is available to do reviews and assist the article creators. Generalist AFC reviewers cannot be expected to flawlessly handle a sudden influx of drafts on esoteric subjects sourced entirely in foreign languages. AFC gets very little respect and practically fuck-all co-operation from subject-specific projects. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Dodger67: As an active member in several WikiProjects, I am happy to help when asked to review a draft, but that always never happens (see the case study of Korea articles). Nobody asked that WikiProject for feedback until User:Calliopejen1 did so, in the meantime, numerous good drafts were declined for spurious reasons (as I showed in my analysis of 10+ samples where close to half had totally bogus decline rationales, like a claim of no footnotes on a draft that clearly had many, or a claim that all online encyclopedias are unreliable as sources - since you are so vocal about people being competent, how would you comment on this glaring incompetence seen here?). I well understand that many reviewers are overworked, this is Wikipedia, we all are. But the problem is the clear lack of competence on the subject of some reviewers, who instaed of asking for help from more experienced volunteers at WikiProjects or such decline drafts on totally baseless grounds, resulting in a potential loss of content that would suvive any competent AfD, but due to existence of the draft system is being sneakily deleted due to incompetence of some. I am hoping what happened here is an exception, and does not represent the average quality of the draft review system, but frankly, I am far from impressed. We have a problem. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
      • If there are reviewers giving crap reviews, we need to tell them that (nicely, of course). If they continue to give bad reviews, we need to cut them from the project. It's as simple as that. Primefac (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • To Christroutman: You don't need to be a specialist in Korean literature to realize that if something has an article in the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture it deserves to have one here too. To Roger: Ah, yes, the excellent "blame the newcomers for not knowing our arcane processes" conclusion. And no one from AFC ever reached out to WP:KOREA about any of these drafts, so also a great to blame them for AFC's failures... Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    • To be fair, User:Calliopejen1, you said in your opening There seems to have been an educational or WP:GLAM project about Korean literature which implies that not even you have been able to 100% confirm the true organization of such an initiative. Not trying to absolve the failures of AfC (I've been disappointed here as well, I work in Africa topics where unfamiliar users often decline when they shouldn't), but just a little more effort on the part of whoever organized this apparent event surely would have gone a long way in helping here. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I have now confirmed that the institution behind this is the Literature Translation Institute - Korea. I agree that they should have made more of an effort, but most people starting on Wikipedia don't know how to do this, and we certainly did not invite them to do this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Calliopejen1 Quite frankly anyone who is not familiar with "our arcane processes" has no business running an editathon or education project. (BTW please ping when responding to specific editors.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I compiled a large table of all of the articles I found (accepted or declined) and started a thread at WP:VPP#What can be done about AFC? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

And I've closed it. There's nothing wrong with cross-posting and notifications, but starting multiple full-length discussions on multiple noticeboards falls afoul of WP:FORUMSHOP. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussions on other noticeboards

WP:VPM

WP:VPP

WT:KOREA

Korean Drafts Comments 3

• I lost all respect for the AFC process when G13 came in. That happened because AFC was entirely unable to cope with its backlog. By my estimation, around 10% of the articles deleted in that enormous first tranch of deletions were salvageable. That amounts to tens of thousands of good pages deleted. My estimate is not a guess. It is based on the percentage of articles I personally removed the G13 and put them in mainspace. As I recall, there were hundreds of thousands of pages put up for G13 deletion in a short space of time and very few editors trying to save them. So of course, the vast majority were deleted without a proper review. As far as I know, none of the pages I saved has ever been deleted, or even challenged. Nothing much seems to have changed in the intervening years except the deletion rate has become gentler.

The fundamental problem is the scope creep of the reviewing process. The criterion should be "will it survive an AFD", but instead submissions are judged by many reviewers essentially against GA criteria. AFC should not be an obstacle and submissions should not be required to be perfect. Many new participants are only likely to submit an article once, not keep coming back to service reviewer comments.

In my view, we are better off without AFC. It does more harm than good and is against the founding principles of Wikipedia (anyone can edit and their work is immediately visible – that's what wiki-wiki means). So either abolish it entirely, or reserve it just for editors with a COI. SpinningSpark 13:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC) This was copied from my talk page (Special:Diff/980257418) Primefac (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• • I think it would be better if the criterion were "will it be taken to AfD", because even if the end result is the same (keep), we should hope that AfC reduces the workload of AfD. A little bit of QC is nice. Just because a crap article is notable doesn't mean we should accept it in crap state. Even a horribly promotional article can survive AfD because the topic is notable, but AfC should not encourage such submissions. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

    It's counterproductive to hold up articles about notable topics in draft space due to quality concerns. The quality concerns are much more likely to be addressed if the article is moved to mainspace than if it sits in draft space, where instead of being worked on by everybody, it'll only be worked on by the original author, who is the person that wrote the poor quality draft in the first place. The fundamental premise upon which Wikipedia is built is that crowdsourced editing is better than single authorship. It strikes me that rejecting a notable AFC draft for quality is the very opposite of how Wikipedia works. Lev!vich 05:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

    • @Levivich: Point taken about mainspace increasing eyes on an article, but I still think in instances like promotional material we should not be encouraging the users who submit them by saying that promotional language is accepted. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

      That's true, we don't want to encourage promo writing by accepting promo submissions. I think there are "best of both worlds" alternatives, such as tagging and accepting, or even (perhaps in extreme cases) stubifying and accepting. If it's a notable topic, if there are two GNG sources, we should move the title from draft space to mainspace ASAP in some acceptable form. I actually think it would be better to cut an entire article down to one sentence, accept the submission and move it to mainspace, and block the author for promotion, than to reject a notable title and send it back to the promo-author and wait for them to fix it. I think of it this way: I'd like to have AFC reviewers "touch" notable titles only once, and then never have another AFC reviewer have to deal with that entry again. As soon as an AFC reviewer sees a notable title, get it into mainspace and let the editing begin. Send the non-notable ones back for the author to find two good sources for it. Lev!vich 05:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

      • That's a workable solution. Remove the very problematic text but leave what works along with the good references. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Like others, I am thoroughly convinced that AFC is broken. The question is what to do about it. I have no idea. Lev!vich 17:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• What to do with this "Articles for Chuckle" process ? Simple: delete and salt. It has been clearly established that these articles were *wrongly* put aside. But the Chucklers haven't corrected their mis-behavior. How long will we have to wait before seeing these articles moved to the article space? I have tried a simple move, this doesn't work. I have tried a redirect, but this wasn't the opinion of User:Fastily. You know, a speedy deletion is more expeditive, and less burdensome. So that Queen Inhyeon (1667 – 1701) will wait some more time.

As a general summary, only stupid beginners are going through this "Articles for Chuckling process". You only have to wait a full week, and publish in the main space ! Pldx1 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

That really could have been said in a way that was much less insulting to our colleagues who volunteer their time at AFC. Lev!vich 23:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm very unimpressed with these declines and I do know rhat these aren't even close to the only worthy articles that were declined. While I disagree with how Pldx1 phrased their comment, I do think that there is a good point mixed in - that articles are being declined that shouldn't be and it doesn't seem to be changing. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• I think Spinningspark has hit it on the nose: The criterion should be "will it survive an AFD", but instead submissions are judged by many reviewers essentially against GA criteria. Many of the declined AFC submissions I've seen that should have been accepted on simple notability have been wordy, poorly formatted, badly referenced (but referenced), or full of puffery. Hardly the best kinds of articles to have. But this batch is not the only batch I've seen that on balance met the notability requirements, largely by meeting one of the slam-dunk criteria for acceptance, and yet was declined. That shouldn't be the answer - after all, we have malformed/poorly-written/badly-formatted articles all over the place, and our answer to such cases is to expect the articles to be improved, not deleted.

Two ideas: one, reform the process so that anything that meets simple notability requirements is passed through, regardless of quality (with the usual restrictions in re: copyright, etc.) Tag them up the wazoo if need be, tag the creators' talk pages if need be, but at least get the article into the encyclopedia so that it can exist and grow, if possible. The other: encourage a process of chainsawing problematic articles before passing them through - removing the worst, messiest stuff and otherwise performing triage. Neither suggestion is ideal, but both would at least get more topics into the public arena. Which should, I think, be the main concern currently.

(For what it's worth, I'm an avowed inclusionist, so take the above in that spirit.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I'm coming in rather late on all this but I recently spent quite some time looking carefully at several of these Korean articles. It certainly appeared to me that there was frequently no good reason for refusal or deletion as in most cases the content of the article was backed by good secondary sourcing. Another more general reason for the deletions appears to me to result from the fact that we are dealing with the literature of a language which is unfamiliar to nearly all the editors of the English Wikipedia and no doubt all of those on AfC. When they use the English version of Google search, they come up with very few hits in English, if any, and if they find any in languages other than English, they ignore them. I have experienced the same refusals for articles documenting biographies or literature in the Scandinavian languages (Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish) which I frequently try to cover in English. While English language searches often reveal very little, searches in the Google versions for the other languages with appropriate search terms in the language in question reveal far more. There are also a number of excellent databases and bibliographic dictionaries which seldom show up in English-language searches but can be used as solid secondary sources. Maybe we should introduce special rules or "exemptions" in AfC policy to avoid the refusal or deletion of valid contributions in the less familiar languages?--Ipigott (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• I do not have too much to add, as I have zero participation in this area of the wiki, but I would say that What to do with this "Articles for Chuckle" process ? Simple: delete and salt. is a completely unfair characterisation. AfC does great work, and whilst confirmed is not the biggest restriction, it is working at a time when the number of promo editors is increasing and the number of Wikipedians able to cleanup stuff is going in the opposite direction. I suspect our other venues could not deal with the increased flow if the AfC process did not exist. The most obvious failures in notability etc tend to be addressed within minutes/hours from what I've seen. I suspect the ones taking time are the ones requiring closer inspection, and those are maybe the ones held to a higher standard of review than should be. In that sense, I suppose the issue is the same as pending changes reviews - if one 'approves' something that isn't quite perfect, or later turns out to have an issue, someone else will be on your case about it. AfC may not be perfect, as some of the points/cases above indicate, but nothing ever is. I think it's inappropriate to diminish the solid work AfC does for the encyclopaedia by considering it solely on some of its less perfect aspects. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• It's very evident from the number of discussions like this over the years that the AfC process is very and fundamentally broken, and that we have trainers and GLAM coordinators, etc. all advising people never to touch AfC with a barge pole is further evidence of this. It seems that the attitude of those who support it is "well it gets rid of a lot of promotional rubbish" and success seems to be measured only in terms of how much promotional material doesn't make it to mainspace, regardless of whether it was salvagable. This is fundamentally wrong - success at AfC (or whatever functional successor replaces it) should be measured in terms of how many articles are not deleted under G13. Evaluating drafts based on the criteria "Will it survive an AfD?" would be a good start as long as everything with the answers "yes", "maybe", "probably", and "possibly" are accepted and only those where the answer is firmly "No" rejected. However as long as AfC patrollers regard the purpose of the task as fighting back hordes of spammers and not as making sure that as many good and potentially good articles get in as possible then I don't have high hopes of an improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, Part of the problem is a feeling of being required to review to perfection, when we are absolutely not. I review to "having a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process" in almost every case. We all should.

  Like all of us I also make mistakes.

  It is impossible not to fight spam since we are the declared COI/PAID gateway, and it can take time to do this well

  None of us should ever forget that this is a hobby. If it feels like a job we need to step back for a bit.

  I like your G13 metric, though no metric is perfect Fiddle Faddle 11:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  However as long as AfC patrollers regard the purpose of the task as fighting back hordes of spammers and not as making sure that as many good and potentially good articles get in as possible then I don't have high hopes of an improvement. To be fair, I think part the issue is general culture, rather than reviewers' attitudes alone. As I mention above the case of pending changes, I've seen on many editors' talks someone get on their case about accepting something that later turned out to have an issue (even if it was a merely technical issue). This attitude I think discourages people from approving something they haven't 'fully vetted'. I personally think the philosophy is somewhat backwards - the content would've reached mainspace anyway, so (say) a 10% 'problems get through' rate is more than fine. This makes reviews faster, and reduces the 'standard' required as well. But when that feeling looms over your head, it's harder to fault people for ignoring a review / reviewing for perfection, rather than taking a decision on it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don’t agree with a lot of the comments above. I think the ‘’Mad dash for content’’ that we had before is the surest way to disaster and will re-introduce the race to the bottom. I believe AFC is working well and is not broken and the fact that block of articles has never made it through, just proves it. It’s is doing its job. Since it has been created, the quality of new articles has gone up drastically and the number of references these articles’ have, has gone up as well. The overall look and quality are much better than 10 years. So for me, AFC has generally succeeded in its design, by ensuring a higher quality output. Personally, I think its educated new editors sufficiently, to enable them create pretty decent articles without any input. It does have problems, so it should be tightened up to ensure all articles go through it and tighten up the criteria. I would like to see the editor be responsible for the article. I want them to finish it. We have 100thousands to millions of articles, that will never be updated or improved, have never been looked at since they were created. Endless numbers of stubs. The sad fact about it as I am continually reminded, is Google graph and search can do a better job, in pulling together information on these subjects than what we can offer and it’s the clearest indication yet that a lot of these are junk. And the reader trusts it. So what is the point of them? We are getting older and it scunner’s me that we are still getting new users coming in with new unfinished work, that is often junk. Why is it not contingent on them to complete the article they started? We should be working on the 100thousands that need expanded. Instead we are 18-20 years into the project and new editors can still come in and create wee two-line articles. We should be looking to drive quality in at the beginning of the process. Not opening doors and loosening control. Looking at promo, it worries me most. Currently about 60%-80% of new articles are now paid and the majority of paid editors don’t care about standards on WP. I see it time and time again. They will add sources sufficiently to ensure it survives. It is more NPP certainly, but it is two sides of the same coin. They worry about Google ranking. They’re currently singing from ceiling, happy in their work, in what is now a mature industry with its own nomenclature, processes and methodologies. I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t have their own awards and honours. Even without the paid crowd, they are still huge amounts of promotional content going into a lot of these articles. Are they supposed to go straight to mainspace and then be checked by NPP? We don’t have enough folk for it. Afd has employed a bit of renaissance in the last year or two, but we don’t have enough people for that either. What we should be doing is strengthening AFC with new criteria and putting all articles through it. scope_creep^Talk 13:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This confirms it. On Category:Articles lacking sources in the September category Category:Articles lacking sources from September 2020 it has around 2000 new articles with no sources. So it is being front loaded. 10 years ago, that list stood at 203k entries, now it is 175k entries. To be fair a good number of them are old articles that have been recently identified but there is lots of new articles that have recently been added. scope_creep^Talk 13:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Scope creep: Have you looked at the rejected drafts? They generally either have significant numbers of footnotes (generally 10-25) for BLPs or general references to reliable sources like the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture for the articles about literary works. These were not promotional articles either. So I'm not sure why you're saying that the declines of this "block of articles" (assuming you're referring to this set of Korean literature articles? not entirely clear) proves that AFC is working. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
      • @Calliopejen1: Mistakes get made, we are volunteer workforce, but there is not been any large mishaps in Afc in the last year or so. Afc has been ticking along quite nicely, for the most part. I think the reason this happened, is due more to a lack of experience or lack of mentorship, than due to a particular directed or coordinated effort. The other main reason is that Afc has professionalised since it was created. The idea of promoting an article when it is only half-finished is anathema to most Afc reviewers, unless it is absolutely, clearly notable. All it does it push the effort back onto themselves and we are already beyond capacity, as evidenced by the mountain of stubs that are never worked on and never will be. Even now, new stubs are still arriving, getting missed in the initial rush of improvement, will never we worked on again. Also, a lot of those Korean articles had single ref's. 10 years ago it was frowned upon, but not now. You still see editors saying it OK. They are not at that sharp end. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
        • @Scope creep: I'm not entirely understanding you-- possibly English issues. That this failure may have occurred because of lack of experience is no excuse-- if we keep up this way, the next batch of submissions like this will have the same result. (Why wouldn't they?) Which is completely unacceptable. I don't understand your point about single sources. A single source to a reputable specialist encyclopedia (what we saw with many of these drafts) is absolutely sufficient to get through AFC, and if others think it isn't then we need to educate them about that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
        • there is not been any large mishaps in Afc in the last year or so - I disagree. This is a large mishap in my view. The idea of promoting an article when it is only half-finished is anathema to most Afc reviewers, unless it is absolutely, clearly notable. But does that have consensus from the rest of the community? I'm just one editor but I'm surprised to learn AFC is rejecting notable titles for quality reasons. All it does it push the effort back onto themselves - I don't understand this point. What is "the effort" and who are "themselves"? AFC reviewers? How does approving a half-finished article push anything onto AFC reviewers? And what is a "half-finished" article? Which articles on Wikipedia are finished? Lev!vich 15:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
          • @Levivich: I agree. I am still reviewing the Korean cases and most are clearly bad declines, suggesting that several involved reviewers were very much not qualified for this, to put it mildely (like declining an article claiming it has not footnotes when it clearly had them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Korean Drafts Comments 4

This discussion gives the impression that a large chunk of the AfC people will not learn from their errors, since they don't give the impression of willing to do so. One of the articles alluded to by User:Piotrus is Draft:Seo Joon-hwan. This one was submitted by User:Minheepark33 on 11:23, 27 September 2019‎, and was never edited afterwards by the submitter.

On 7 October 2019, this article has been rejected to the limbo by User:Theroadislong, and is now waiting for the required 6 months before being destroyed as "unworthy" of the glorious Encyclopedia. And guess what was the reason given by the Galactic Revizor, patrolling on the proverbial dead horse alluded to by User:Robert McClenon ? The reason given was does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. In the submitted article, there were 13 (thirteen) footnotes. Yes, one can argue that we can get articles with 30 void references, and even articles with 40 random references, generated by a generic google search, and then attributed by order of appearance. This has been proven beyond any doubt at ArbCom. One can even argue that the reference https://library.ltikorea.or.kr/node/41374 was missing, that would have proven the quality of the draft. But pretending that $13=0$... is rather "inventive".

As a resume, advise people never to touch AfC, even with a barge pole. Better wait the required week of penitence. Pldx1 (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The draft was NOT rejected it was declined because his own books, blogs, namu.wiki and his publisher are not suitable secondary sources for establishing any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm unable to divine a significant difference between "rejected" and "declined". Can you clarify? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Rejected" would mean that it would not be considered again by the reviewers, whilst "declined" means that if it was improved, (in this case with better references) then it could be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This draft was not rejected under the pretense that his own books, blogs, namu.wiki and his publisher are not suitable secondary sources for establishing any notability, but with the comment please cite your sources using footnotes. And that while the draft was submitted with 13 footnotes. Do you have a reference for the assertion $13=0$ ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• I always find it rather depressing when someone or sometimes multiple people have a rant about how something has or has not been done 'correctly' with an article (or draft, etc) pointing fingers at editors, projects, processes etc but then fail to take any action to resolve that issue. If the 'correct' action to take is so damn obvious - take the action. KylieTastic (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

There should be a BFDI article

If you do not know already, BFDI is a web series where living, talking objects battle for the chance to win a luxury island. Jacknjellify is a youtube account shared by Cary Huang and Michael Huang.

Firstly, Siivagunner, a musical parody group YouTube channel, has their own page. They have less subscribers than Jacknjellify. And, are certainly less famous.

Now to coverage. Technically, Cary Huang, one of the owners of the channel, has made a Flash program that became super popular and featured on news sites like ABC and on the NASA site. You could make a page about Cary on its own, to be honest. Now on to the coverage. Firstly, there's a Scholastic book about BFDI. Scholastic acknowledged that BFDI exists, and they are a very famous book publisher. Secondly, the Fight of Fantasy Foods competition held by Fandom, which had the fictional food Yoylecake, from BFDI, win the competition. Thirdly, the most obscure things like some really small town in like Iowa or something, or some really obscure shows, have ARTICLES, while BFDI, with more than a hundred thousand views across all videos, gets no article.

Anyways, my real question is, what happened to the BFDI draft? The one that was the longest, with lots of details. I checked the deletion log, and it said it was deleted in 2019, but I could have sworn that I accessed the draft AFTER April 2019. Pomegranatecookie (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Pomegranatecookie, Write it.

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make any draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Pomegranatecookie: the deletion log is here, showing the most recent deletion in 2020. Reasons for deletion are explained there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Try https://battlefordreamisland.fandom.com/wiki/Battle_for_Dream_Island -2pou (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, why does Siivagunner have their own page but not Jacknjellify? Jacknjellify has more subs. ALSO, Fight of Fantasy Foods is independent from BFDI. 173.70.224.219 (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

sorry i accidentally logged out ^^ was me Pomegranatecookie (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, BFDI should be excused from the self publisher and primary rules. Because BFDI is not a "real world topic", it has no in-depth papers on it, only information from the wiki. The only sources are the wiki, fan videos, fan things about BFDI, and the creators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomegranatecookie (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Pomegranatecookie, Not going to happen. Special pleading suggests some form of WP:COI. What is your involvement with this topic, please? Fiddle Faddle 04:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

My involvement is that I do watch the show sometimes, but I am not related with the creators. I believe that it should be excluded from certain rules, along with any other form of web series, as it is not a topic that is researched, unless you count the Fandom wiki's editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomegranatecookie (talk • contribs) 00:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, no. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Let me chime in for a moment. Calliopejen1, Timtrent: I have declined or deleted at least four separate attempts to make this an article, all of which were declined or deleted because it was poorly sourced fancruft, attempts to use WP as a webhost, etc. The series is not notable IMHO. Bkissin (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Bkissin, I suppose it may be, one day. perhaps. But I agree with you wholeheartedly about fancruft at present Fiddle Faddle 21:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Time errors on help desk archives

It seems that "" always appears on archives of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk ever since May 1 of last year.

We need to find a way to stop this from happening again and retroactively fix all of the previous errors. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Scs: your bot script User:Scsbot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) may need tweaking. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000:, @Davidwr: Thanks for the heads up. I will look into this. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe the problem is that template {{AFCHD Archive header}} makes use of utility templates {{Yester}} and {{Tomorr}}, which were rewritten last May with these edits to take the year as an additional parameter, which the AFCHD archive header isn't passing. That would explain why the problem started last May. I think this will be a straightforward fix; I'll attempt it for the archiving run tomorrow night. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, template edited, and it seems to be working. We'll have to wait for tomorrow to be sure in all respects. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This fixed the error for future archives. Now, we need to retroactively fix the "invalid time" error on all past archives from Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 May 1 to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 October 5. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I am doing it, using autoed to fix the archive. Techie3 (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: Finished the job using AWB. Techie3 (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Tagging confirmed paid editor pages

Twinkle has {{COI}}, but if a user has used the {{paid}} template on a user page confirming that they have been paid, is that still the appropriate tag/template to put on the article? I was unsure since Twinkle's summary says "creator or major contributor may have a conflict of interest". Thanks, 2pou (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Use {{paid contributions}} or {{connected contributor}}. These aren't available in twinkle, though. – SD0001 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks! -2pou (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

{{Paid contributions}} has now been added to Twinkle. – SD0001 (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent DYKs

The "recent" DYKs on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Showcase are from 2015. I decided to remove it but was reverted by User:Headbomb who says it is being updated. Well part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/DYK is certainly being updated but not the part surrounded by <onlyinclude> — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The main section is being updated. For the DYKs, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/DYK is being tweaked to make it more intelligible and automatically updated like the main section, but I can only iterate once a week. The blurbs should sort from new to old this weekend, and the switch can be made then. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Switch made. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Two More Odd Situations

I have encountered two more odd situations. I think that I have dealt with one correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Cry Macho

This is a novel. There was a draft, and the title of the book was redirected to the author. There was also a record of a deletion discussion, but the deletion discussion said that the film had not been produced. So the deletion discussion was irrelevant. The book meets book notability. I moved the redirect and am accepting the book. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It was indeed about the film. If Horacio Vara wants to see the content of the deleted article (in case it can be incorporated) then I would be happy to make it available — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Ayoub Lakhal

Two copies of articles about this Moroccan footballer have been moving between draft space and article space for a few days. The two versions are not entirely consistent, as to what day in 1996 he was born or what position he plays. A naive Google search is consistent with the version that is currently in article space. I am satisfied to leave it in article space. I have taken the controversial action of tagging the draft version for MFD in order to get some community input and to get a sort of closure. I know that there are editors who will say that I should have just redirected the draft to the article, and I am fine with that being the final result, but with the amount of swirling and whirling that there has been, I would like to get some sort of closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Moriah Films

I am about to accept this draft unless another reviewer advises me not to accept it. However, I would like another reviewer to look at it, because it is a conflict of interest submission. It looks to me to be neutral, and I see no question about notability, because the subject organization has received two Oscars for documentary films. Another pair of eyes will be appreciated, or otherwise I will assume that there are no objections. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Looks like I just missed it! However - I think it was good. :) Snowycats (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"ILC" reason code in AFCH does not say what you think it will say

The AFCH script puts reason code "ILC" under the category "Vandalism" with the description "Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements". If you look at the template that actually gets rendered when you choose this category the text reads:

"The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."

In other words, this has nothing at all to do with BLPs or vandalism. It's just a friendly message to inform new editors that they have an incorrect citation style. Given that this seems to be the case, would it be appropriate to make a pull request to tweak this aspect of AFCH? I propose to re-categorize "ILC" under the category "Invalid submissions" with a description which reads "Submission has incorrect citation style". This makes sense to me because any kind of draft can have incorrect citations, not just BLPs. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Salimfadhley - I disagree. While footnotes are encouraged for all articles, they are required for BLPs, and 'ilc' is only a valid reason for declining of biographies of living persons. Drafts that are not BLPs that have substandard citations should be accepted, but can be tagged as needing the citations improved in article space. BLPs that do not have footnotes should be declined. So it does have to do with BLPs. At least, that is the way I have understood it. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense! In that case, can we change the text in the template to be BLP specific? --Salimfadhley (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Race Condition Non-Detection

This comment is in response to a comment on my talk page. Another reviewer and I declined the same draft at the same time, and did not get an edit conflict, and she commented on my talk page. I replied that I don't think that the AFC script recognizes edit conflicts, and so they are a race condition, but I don't think that most scripts (including many of the scripts that reviewers and other experienced editors use) recognize race conditions, so race conditions simply happen. As the name used by engineers implies, the result depends on who gets there first. So, first, my question is whether other reviewers agree that the AFC script does not detect edit conflicts, so that they are a race condition. My observation is, second, that edit conflicts between reviewers are not uncommon. I won't say that they are common, but they are common enough that reviewers should be aware that they occasionally happen. Fortunately, they are usually not problematic, because usually they are two reviewers declining the same draft for similar reasons with slightly different comments. Also, there is a capability to mark a draft as under review. It appears that reviewers often use it if they are planning to accept the draft, or if they think that it needs a detailed review. Maybe it should also be used if one is planning to write long comments (so that another reviewer doesn't come along and do the same decline but without long comments). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past (feel free to search the archives for when), but no, AFCH does not do any sort of edit-conflict-check. It doesn't happen often, but keep in mind that "mark as under review" is an option. I guess, either use that, or make sure you refresh the page before taking any script-driven action? Primefac (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Budots and Draft:Budots

This is probably the best place for me to ask for advice about how to handle an unusual situation. There has been a draft, Draft:Budots, about a form of Filipino electronic dance music for about two weeks. A different editor has now created a two-sentence stub in article space, Budots. They are about the same genre, so this is not a case for disambiguation or redirection. I have not reviewed the draft in depth, but the draft clearly contains much more information than the stub. I don't want simply to decline the draft as 'exists', which would bite the submitter and lose most of the information. I can't accept the draft. This is not really a history merge situation. What should I or we do? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If the draft is worth publishing, I would just swap them (at WP:RM/TR or here), and the stub can be merged into it the other way, then serve as the leftover Draftspace redirect. -2pou (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Are we an incubator?

I see incubate being used when editors/patrollers WP:DRAFTIFY an article. Are there really editors that work through drafts and make improvements? My observation is that some reviewers will touch things up before accepting but we don't really see community improvements in draft space. If we want articles to be improved, mainspace has always been the place for that. Has that changed?

I think it is fair for NPP reviewers to give authors the choice of AfC or AfD. I don't think articles should be sent to AfC unless that's the author's preference. To do otherwise makes WP:DRAFTIFY a a backdoor route to deletion which we have agreed is not the intent. ~Kvng (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps it's time to change things up so that if a page was in main-space less than, say, 90 days and meets other criteria like "fewer than X editors" or "fewer than X edits, excluding bot edits, edits by the main contributor, and edits by the creator" and it is sent to AFD, a bot will put a note on the AFD page alerting people that the page is new enough that draftification may be better than deletion.

By the way, I see "draftify + 6 month wait + G13" as a very slow near-WP:PROD when it comes to new articles. They are both REFUND-eligible. The main difference is that in practice PROD explicitly invites de-prodding, moving to Draft is pretty much the opposite, the implication is "if you move it back as-is, it's going to AFD and will probably be deleted with prejudice." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Davidwr, you seem to be saying that it is OK if draftify is intentionally used as a deletion path. This is contrary to the intent stated in WP:DRAFTIFY. Do we want to change WP:DRAFTIFY? ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kvng: In a word, yes. WP:Drafts needs to be consistent with itself. WP:Drafts#During new page review already says As part of the review of new pages, an unreviewed page may be moved to draft if:..... On the other hand, two sections up, in #Moving articles into draft space, it says [Draftification] is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion..

Until now, I hadn't really paid attention to criteria 3a of the new page patrol criteria for moving to draft space, There is no evidence of a user actively working on it. This seems to be self-defeating, since any new article will by definition have evidence of a recent edit, even if that edit is the only edit.

Any actual proposed changes to that page should be done on WT:Drafts. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Davidwr, I don't think articles unsuitable for mainspace should be sent to Draft: unless that's the author's wish. If there's no indication that the author intends to make improvements, it's unlikely anyone else will and it just becomes a convoluted, lengthy and (mostly) hidden deletion path. Why not just use prod or AfD? ~Kvng (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kvng: If you are asking why WP:Drafts gives the option, I would have to research that page's history and the page history of WP:NPPDRAFT and read through the relevant discussions. If you are asking when I would use my editorial judgement to kick a new article back to draft-space and why, here are some common reasons I use. This list is not exhaustive.

• The page author created an unacceptable draft of a marginally notable topic, then he or another inexperienced editor moved it to the main encyclopedia. Kicking it back to draft is less WP:BITEY thank AFD or PROD, it doesn't "burn" the one-time-use of PROD, and it's better than leaving it in the main encyclopedia for someone else to nominate for deletion. Note that if the topic is clearly notable then improvement-in-place is the way to go, and if it's clearly not notable, AFD or even A7 (no indication of notability) is the way to go. Yes, I do this even if there is evidence the author is actively working on the projects, which is admittedly out of process. If questioned on it in a given case, I'll either say "fine, off to AFD" or "fine, I'll drop what I'm doing and find sources to show notability and improve it in place" or "fine, this is one of those rare cases where WP:Ignore all rules puts results over process."'
• The topic notable enough to survive AFD but I've got more than a strong hunch that sock-puppetry or other schenannigans are involved but I can't prove it yet. Typically, these are also moved by the author or someone I suspect is in cahoots with them. In these cases, as well as cases of pages created in the main encyclopedia I MAY kick it to Draft, sometimes I will just leave it alone or tag it with "advertisement/promo/COI"-related tags. If I have enough evidence, I may launch an WP:SPI. Sometimes kicking it to draft can put the suspected COI-editor on the defensive and they make a mistake which can prove sockpuppetry. Note that this is an UNCOMMON reason but I do use it. I think I've used it less than a handful of times in the last year. When I do use it, I have an obligation to watch the page, if it is abandoned and I no longer suspect WP:NOTHERE-type behavior, it's my responsibility to clean it up and move it back - after all, if I make a mistake of this nature, I have a moral obligation to the editor and to the project to make it right. This rationale is also "out of process" but when it applies I think it falls squarely under the banner of "follow established procedures when you can, WP:IAR when you must, but do so with humility and knowing that your wiki-reputation is at risk, and make the time to do the necessary follow-up and correct your mistakes if you are wrong."
• The page is on a marginally notable topic which is likely to be nominated for AFD by another editor due to notability concerns, but I'm going to improve it myself but not in the next 7 days, or I am trying to recruit others - usually from the relevant WikiProject - to do so but they might take longer than 7 days. This one is iffy, it is just as valid, perhaps more valid, to send this to AFD with a specific request that it be sent to Draft to buy time, or to PROD it and tell the primary editor NOT to "unprod" it but rather wait until the PROD expires, then ask that it be WP:REFUNDed to Draft: space so he can continue rounding up suitable references to make it AFD-proof.

Again, this is only a partial list. I'm sure other editors have their own similar "personal list of reasons" to kick things to Draft under certain circumstances.

From one editor to another, thanks for asking the question. I didn't realize until I thought about hit how "out of process" my own reasons were. That is, how often I have to use - and use properly I should add - WP:Ignore all rules. This also forced me to remember that when I do invoke WP:IAR I have to be ready to defend myself not just to my own moral compass but to the community. I also have to review things later and correct myself if it turns out I am wrong. I knew those things already, but it's helpful to be forced to put them at the forefront of my "editor's mental checklist."

Sorry, this turned out to be longer than I expected, I'll probably copy parts of it to a userspace essay on the application of WP:Ignore all rules later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Davidwr, thanks for the reply and for your transparency. Although I've tried occasionally, I don't think I've ever been able to make WP:IAR fly with other editors. I do support this pillar of policy.

I'm happy to see that you make efforts to personally improve or recruit help inprove draftified articles. That addresses my main complaint. I still think it is rare for the community to improve drafts and, as I'm sure you've experienced, most authors can only get the quality and referencing up to a certain level, often below the level many AfC reviewers are willing to accept.

Finally, there's a lot of personal judgement being applied all three of your bullet points. I suspect this is the case with most draftify decisions. My concern is that some editors have better judgement than others and, in our processes, there has to be a check on individual judgement at some point. I have been patrolling G13 drafts recemetly and I have seen cases where judgement is not great, the article is moved to Draft: and the author promptly abandons a promsing draft and 6 months later it is silently deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Draftification Issues

This thread is not just a response to User:Kvng's concern, but is a discussion of issues about draftification in general. So I will offer a few more comments on moving articles to draft space. What all of these comments illustrate is that there is no consensus about draft space. Some editors would like to use it more, and some editors would like to get rid of it, and some editors would like to clarify the rules on its use. I belong to the third camp, and would like to clarify the rules on its use. I am not optimistic that the rules about draft space will be clarified, but I will try to state some issues.

First, I think that, although the standard script explanation is a reasonable default, it is often wrong. The standard edit summary of a draftification is "Undersourced, incubate in draft space". But I have repeatedly seen it used when the page was adequately sourced, just questionable as to notability. I have even seen it used when the page had been reference-bombed with low-quality sources in order to justify a non-notable person or company. Reviewers should override that default message or enter a real reason. Saying that a page is undersourced will too often just result in the submitter adding more low-quality sources.

Second, it is common for an article to be moved into draft space twice, sometimes even three times, sometimes by multiple reviewers. In my opinion, an article should only ever be moved into draft space once. Moving it twice is move-warring. If an article is moved into draft space once, and the submitter moves it back into article space, and it should not be in article space, a community decision is what AFD is for. I have written an essay, WP:Repeated Draftification, on the subject. Don't move-war.

Third, there is a thread at WP:ANI concerning a complaint about draftification by a New Page Reviewer. I have not read the thread in detail.

There are significant differences of opinion about draftification. They need more discussion. Thank you for raising the issue again. It will probably be raised more times before the pandemic is over, and after it is resolved.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

some of this is immedately fixable. There could very easily be a number of more appropriate draftification messages to choose from. This had been requested ever since the draftification message was first introduced. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thanks for explaining where the "Undersourced, incubate in draft space" message comes from. I don't think patrollers or authors should be given the impression that the article will be improved through "incubation". Thatt just doesn't magically happen unless someone has already signed up to do it and knows how AfC works. ~Kvng (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I certainly agree that we shouldn't be move-warring. There's two possible cases of something getting moved draft -> mainspace -> draft -> mainspace. If it's the original author who moved it, that's tantamount to the author saying, "I'm willing to give up the protection of the draftspace comfort zone; judge me by mainspace criteria". In that case, we should oblige them by bringing it to AfD. The other possibility is that it was moved to mainspace by reviewers who don't know what they're doing. Or, I suppose, moved back to draftspace by patrollers who also don't know what they're doing. Either way, we need to do some remedial training. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

RoySmith I've seen sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and good-faith non-AFC/NPP editors be involved in moves that were inappropriate. The sockpuppet scenario is the same as a self-move, the meatpuppet might or might not be depending on things we can't know, namely, how much is "puppetry/coordinated editing" and how much is "people independently pushing the same agenda." Since both of those are "not good faith" I'm pointing them out just for the sake of completeness. Good faith non-AFC/NPP editors doing this does happen from time to time. I think a disproportionate number are newly-autoconfirmed and they can finally "move" something and are eager to help out, sometimes too eager. I'm not sure if I've ever seen one go draft->main->draft->and all the way back to main again entirely from good faith editors who were not heavy contributors to the page and not in NPP or AFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:RoySmith that an author who moves a draft back into article space is accepting the risk of AFD. I think that in some cases the problem is indeed a reviewer who needs some remedial training. In particular, at least once the reviewer said that they didn't want to tag the page for AFD because they didn't want the page deleted. They wanted it in draft space to be improved. If the submitter pushes to have the page in article space, Draftify is a valid outcome as an alternative to deletion, and AFD is the mechanism by which we make that decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• when the page was adequately sourced, just questionable as to notability
  This should never be an acceptable reason to unilaterally draftify. If sourced but challenged on notability, the author and most reviewers won't know what to do. AfC reviewers won't want to engage on already disputed notability, and there is no notability testing forum, except WP:AfD. If sourced, but of dubious notability, AfD it. At AfD, you can recommend "delete" or "draftify", but if you really think the article is on a non-notable topic, you should be arguing "delete" (assuming no merge target). If you are not sure, leave it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of draftification in general

I hate to shut down a useful conversation, but from my read of the initial/top-level discussion, we're trying to change NPP on the WP:AFC talk page. Shouldn't the discussion about whether NPRs are doing draftifications "correctly" be done there? I know we're two sides of the same coin, but it would seem to me like we can't really "fix" any of the concerns initially brought up. Primefac (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, this has helped me understand this is a NPP issue and I will make a post over there. ~Kvng (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions

A day or two ago this category had several thousand of items-- about 100 per day for the 30 days . At the moment it has 518. What happenned to the other 2 or 4 thousand? did someone go throuhg them all, moving to mainspace or postponing everything? The deletion log shows no unusual activity, and no apparent mistaken efforts to delete before the 6 months are expired. I suspectthat somethign was changed in hte definition of the macro,. I relly rely upon this. I know of no equivalent way for finding ones about to be deleted G13 that have never been submited for review, and there are always a few in each bdaily batch that should be rescuable. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@DGG: A few days ago I noticed SDZeroBot tagging a lot of drafts in my watchlist with dated {{Drafts moved from mainspace}} templates. I'm guessing that reset quite a few timers for pages that came from NPP draftification vice pages that started as drafts to begin with. Here is an example. -2pou (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Others have noticed this also, and asked me. What is now needed is to get it fixed. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC) ��

Oh, apologies for the disruption. I had no inkling that so many of the drafts moved from mainspace were between 5-6 month unedited period, and thus get removed from that category as a result of the bot edits. FWIW a static copy of the category as it appeared before the bot edits can be seen in this version of a bot page, though I know the topic sorting here can be annoying. – SD0001 (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC) ETA: here's a copy with no sorting if it helps: User:SD0001/AfC_G13_eligible_Oct_2020. – SD0001 (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I think what this means is that on April 20, 2021, there are going to be a TON of G13 eligible drafts coming up on their 6 month period rather than the standard 100-200 drafts/day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that WP:G13 specifically says that bot edits should not be considered to reset the six month countdown. So while these edits do remove them from the category and tracking pages and prevent AFCH and the AfC templates from marking them as eligible, they do still remain eligible. Someone just needs to manually go through and mark all of them with speedy tags using something like Twinkle that doesn't care about edit dates. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Héctor Villa Osorio

Can somebody get rid please scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Finding Copyvios - Information for AfC reviewers

Hi all,

Recently I've been bumping in to a good few copyvios in submitted drafts. So I decided to do a little something about it.

Every 12 hours (ish), my bot User:NoSandboxesHere (which normally removes invalid templates in draftspace) will edit a page in its user space - User:NoSandboxesHere/copyvios - with a table which contains the drafts, a link to the highest confidence copyvio, the confidence percentage and the link to the copyvios report from Earwig's which the script uses. The bot goes no further than this as 1. It would require a BRFA and 2. There is no way of determining a WP mirror based on what Earwig's tool does.

Anyway, hope it helps someone... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Rich Smith, are you basically saying that your bot is auto-running thousands of copyvios searches twice a day? If so, it needs to stop, because I've been hitting the "too many searches" limit a lot recently, and this would explain it. Primefac (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: Apologies, should have clarified this. To answer your question no it isn't running thousands of searches. It takes the list of submitted drafts from the Category:AfC pending submissions by age subcategories, shuffles them up, then runs them through at a hard limit of 200 per 12 hours. If Earwig's tool returns less than 50%, it doesn't look at that draft again on the subsequent runs. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can't remember our daily limit, so I'll just throw a ping to The Earwig to check. Primefac (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I originally asked Rich about it here when I first noticed we had been regularly hitting our quota, and usage from that bot is down to a more reasonable level. Primefac, have you seen the tool hit the limit in the past few days? I just checked and activity over the past week seems normal. — Earwig ^talk 21:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

When Earwig stops working, I stop reviewing. Is there any plan B for reviewers for checking CV issues? ~Kvng (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit Count

I got denied recently for not meeting the edit count requirements. However, the criteria calls for 500 live edits, and I currently have 756. Does the requirement mean amount of articles edited? That of which, I have 135. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 00:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Denied what? scope_creep^Talk 00:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Thank you for your interest in participating as a reviewer. You are correct, one requirement, as stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, is "a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles (this is not the same as total number of edits)" (emphasis mine). The Wikipedia:Task Center highlights a variety of ways to build your edit count, of which the fact-checking tasks are particularly relevant. More participation at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion would also be good preparation for reviewing. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

But what about small edits, such as re-wording and typo fixes? Do those count as live edits on additional articles? Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 01:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: This tool can show you your edits by namespace. It shows less than 300 live edits to articles. Don't be in a hurry, it's far better to wait a couple more months and learn more about the ins and outs of Wikipedia than to rush things before asking for specialized tools. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

What are the eligible criteria?. If i want to take part, how should i know that i am eligible or no?? 1Muskmelon (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

1Muskmelon, go here and scroll down to "Namespace Totals." You must have at least 500 edits for the section labelled "Main." Sam-2727 (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Helper script malfunctioning?

I just accepted Yazmin Aziz (musician) using the helper script, filling out all the fields for the biography. It looks like what it did, though, was add a bunch of duplicate categories. Meanwhile, I don't see any short description created, even though I filled out the "Description of the subject" field. It also created duplicate banners on the talk page. What's going on here? Courtesy ping maintainer Enterprisey. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The helper script is doing exactly what it should. In order:

• The script only recognizes commented-out categories (e.g. [[:Category:Foo]]), so it won't auto-populate "real" categories (e.g. [[Category:Bar]])
• AFCH does not add a short description - "Description of the subject" is a throwback to when it filled out persondata. Has nothing to do with {{shortdesc}}
• The script will add a WikiProject banner if you tell it to. If there's already a banner, it just adds a duplicate. It's up to the user to ensure the project tags aren't duplicated.

I wouldn't necessarily say these things are "user error", because you clearly didn't know about them, but it's not an error with the script itself. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

Thanks for the explanations. It would be nice if the script could be improved so that it spots and handles these sorts of things, but recognizing that it's still marked as beta, that may take a bit. However, in that case, it's pretty crucial that the script's documentation (or instructions in the helper itself) note the duplication limitations, neither of which currently do so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I for one am grateful to have a script. Back in the old old days, right after they made it so unregistered editors couldn't create articles, everything was done by hand. Read through the AFC history pages if you want to get an idea of what it was like. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Davidwr, I'm certainly grateful to have a script, too, and developers universally deserve praise for their difficult and often thankless work. We should still offer constructive feedback when code needs improvement, though, which is what I'm trying to do here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

M. David Rudd

Is any reviewer interested in writing a short biography of a living person who satisfies academic notability from a draft that is too long? The subject of this draft satisfies academic notability. The submitter of the draft has declared that they are being paid by the University of Memphis. The draft is too long, and mostly contains information that isn't needed either for the subject or for the university. I have declined the draft as 'npov'. The two options at this point are to let the submitter resubmit it, possibly getting it down to a manageable size, or for a neutral editor to extract a much shorter article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Script Addition Requests

I have two requests for features to add to the script, and would be interested in any comments from User:Enterprisey or anyone else.

First, if the reviewer enters a Comment, can the script either automatically copy the comment to the talk page of the submitter, as it does when declining a draft, or can it have a checkbox that copies the comment (as opposed merely to notifying the author of the comment)? There are cases where I do not want to accept or decline the draft but would like to be sure that the submitter, if active, sees it. An example would be a request to provide a reliable source verifying that the subject served as a senator in Alberta or held a commission as an admiral in the navy of Venezuela. If the source is provided, the reviewer can accept the article.

Second, when s draft is accepted, would it be possible to copy the AFC comments to the talk page, or to give the reviewer the option of copying them to the talk page? Sometimes they call for improvements to the article, and sometimes they call for improvements to another article (such as including the name of the subject of the article in a disambiguation list of people with the same name).

Can these be considered? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

My article was declined

My article was denied yesterday. Could you do me a small favour and tell me the errors and how to work it out. I couldn't understand the entire meaning when I read in my userpage.You can also do necessary edits yourself if you please. This is really important for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assassin7177 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)