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

2,814 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

Chart: Pending AfC submissions

Backlog chart daily Backlog chart weekly

Draft:Jake Ejercito

Hello, can you please accepted this draft for Jake Ejercito? AnsrieJames9 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

User:AnsrieJames9 - I have neither accepted nor declined the draft, but it does not appear to me that he has the multiple major roles that are required by acting notability. Please indicate, in AFC comments or on the draft talk page, how he satisfies acting notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Accepted this article, Robert McClenon AnsrieJames9 (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Battle of Tifariti

This is a strange case, and I think that I am partly asking for comments and partly identifying a situation that may happen. I used Earwig's Copyvio Detector on Draft:Battle of Tifariti, and it came up with a 91.3% match, which I think is the closest match I have seen in a long time. I then looked at the source, placeandsee.com, and I saw that it says that it is copied from Wikipedia. That is, it appears to be a Wikipedia mirror. It then appears that the text in the draft was copied from the History section of Tifariti. So am I correct that what this means is that the draft is an unattributed copy from the existing Wikipedia article? Am I correct that, while that isn't exactly copyright violation, it is sort of a copyleft violation by copying from Wikipedia without proper attribution? I have Rejected the draft. Was that a reasonable response?

My assessment is that a case could be made for splitting the section about the battle from the article, but that isn't what this draft was.

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, if there isn't much difference from the existing article, i would decline on basis that it is a duplicate of the existing article, and ask further if it was the intention of the author to expand on the event so much so that it becomes undue to be in the original article. – robertsky (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with robertsky, if the plan is to do some sort of split or fork then the draft isn't a problem, but if it's just someone trying to write an article by copying an existing one, that's an issue. Primefac (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The copying wasn't from the existing Wikipedia article at all, which it would have been for a split or a fork. The copying was from a Wikipedia mirror, which had in turn copied it from Wikipedia. So it was only an indirect copying from the existing article. In my opinion, this was a an attempt to write an article that was copied from another web site. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, then just decline (or rejcct as you did) and add a note to the editor that the content actually exists in Wikipedia almost word for word, and invite them to expand further if they wish for a seperate article. they are probably new editors anyway. – robertsky (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Divisions and Subsidiaries

I may have seen this already and forgotten where it is. Where is there a policy or guideline that explicitly discusses divisions and subsidiaries of corporations? I thought it was in corporate notability guidelines, but I don't specifically see a guideline about divisions. We often have submissions of drafts about divisions and subsidiaries, when there is already a parent article. Sometimes the submitter is stubborn and is a paid editor. Sometimes the submitter is enthusiastic. I see a section on branches, but those are of non-profit organizations. I know that the applicable guidelines include due weight and balance. My judgment as a reviewer normally is to decline subsidiaries and divisions with either or both of 'exists' and 'mergeto'. Is there something specifically on subsidiaries and divisions of companies? I thought that there was, but I can't find it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I went back to look at Talk:Adani Group as I thought a guideline might have been cited there but no. While WP:BRANCH appears under the guidance on non-commercial organisations, I would have thought it would equally apply to companies, much as WP:NFACULTY applies to universities. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Backlog at ~6 weeks

A mini-drive soon might be a good idea to knock it back a bit? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The last drive ended less than 2 months ago. It is definitely too early to start a new one. But I'm curious, what would be the difference between a mini-drive and a regular drive? ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng Presumably it would be 1 week long, as agreed at the end of the last drive. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Side discussion

I'm not saying that we shouldn't do this, but if after 8 weeks post-backlog-finish (with 0 new entries) our backlog is 6 weeks, we're doing something wrong, because it means we are being overwhelmed; our rate of increase is almost the same as our rate of increase in February. I'm going to put this as a subsection because it's related but I don't want to derail discussion of the drive above. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed—I worry something is up if the rate of submissions is truly that high. MusikAnimal, could we maybe get backlog charts that show the rate of change of pending AfC submissions? My thought is that may help spot when there is a sudden change in how fast the backlog is growing. Perryprog (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

We do have a chart, it's at the top of the page. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Primefac a chart of the rate of change of pending submissions. The derivative of the above graph, if you will. The only reason I think it'd be helpful (as opposed to eyeballing) is that it makes it easier to notice the effect of things like burnout after AfC drives much faster, for example. Perryprog (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, misunderstood. Just speaking for myself, eyeballing it is sufficient to see it's a similar rise. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

User:MusikBot/CategoryCounter unfortunately only works off of categories. We'd need a custom bot task for this. I probably won't have time to work on it anytime soon. Sorry! — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

A big reason is also probably burn-out among reviewers. I got burned-out near the end of the last drive. Curbon7 (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

If we're burning out this bad then we shouldn't be doing them. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

We're not that burned out if the backlog is just rising at the same rate as before the drive; We just haven't made any systemic changes that would address the backlog differently going forward. Is having a minimal backlog on an ongoing basis the goal of this project? I've never seen it operate that way. It's not something I'm trying to help work towards. The backlog gets big but it never actually grows without bound; It levels off at a high level or a couple of heavy lifters show up or we have a drive. It's not predictable but it's not dysfunctional this way and is actually behavior you'd expect from WP:VOLUNTEERS. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and I do suppose I was being overly dramatic. I think my point and/or concern is more the fact that we used to be able to (at the very least) keep the backlog somewhat stable. I'm not overly bothered with a backlog in the 1-2k range, but for whatever reason we are not able to maintain the daily reviews that we used to have in times like '16-18. Back then, the backlog fluctuated wildly between 1k and 2k, but it actually went down some months. The last year or two we've consistently managed to never keep up with the daily influx (barring the aforementioned "I'm going to review 100 reviews a day" folks who randomly show up for a few weeks), hence the consistently-rising backlog. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It's been depressing to see it clime so easily. I don't think it's more submissions but because the daily number of reviews has dropped a lot to ~155 a day when we really need 200-250 a day. We only had 28 people doing 1+ review a day, which with only 193 doing any is not going to work. Ideally we need a lot more reviewers, but also some of those who are doing just a few to do just a couple more, and we certainly need to get away from needing a few heavy hitters. KylieTastic (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

At this exact moment we have 624 "active" reviewers (including the probationary members). If we could get even half of that list to do a single review per day, we would knock down the backlog. If we had a third of the list do a single review per day, that takes care of ~80% of the daily submissions. We don't need more reviewers, we need more reviewers actually reviewing.

I of course know we're all volunteers and we are not obligated to do anything on this site, but if we have 70% of those saying they want to help out doing absolutely nothing, that's incredibly problematic. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean, in this regard we could ping people on particular articles for them to look at based on their expertise, but it comes back to your "not obligated" point earlier. Bkissin (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, if the goal of AfC is to be a quarantine zone for all the non-encyclopedic crap that UPE/COI/tendentious editors put together, then it's working as it should. As someone who hasn't really taken a break since we reached 0, I definitely understand the burnout. Where were the new volunteers that were supposed to stay along when the drive ended? They realized that the harassment they receive from AfC submitters and the neverending slog of articles at AfC is not worth it! Bkissin (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I haven't received harassment or complaints from the reviews that I've made over the last year or three, but if the editors submitting drafts are harassing people they should be ignored or sanctioned. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a new point: but structurally, we're sorta screwed because volunteers are never, ever gonna keep up with people who are paid to submit drafts. The "breaking up a review into multiple independent steps" idea might buy us a little breathing room, though. Perhaps we could also try doing automated reviews of submissions that entirely lack (non-YouTube, non-Twitter) sources or references? Enterprisey (talk!) 07:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey There's already an edit filter that tags unsourced submissions. Perhaps that could be modified? ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

One idea I had from long ago was to have a lua module/bot that would do some basic text parsing of a draft and offer a "bot review" with some suggestions about what needs work. Multiple external links in the body? Give a blurb that you shouldn't do that. Bare refs? Explain how to properly write citations via Visual Editor. No references or two many references? Give a blurb with links to the many referencing guides we have. There's a surprising lot of text-based heuristics that would be very easy to implement in Scribunto alone that could do all this. I never got around to writing a proof-of-concept though because I got busy with life. Perryprog (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some help like that sounds like a great idea. I think we'd get the most benefit if this bot review were integrated into the editors, particularly VisualEditor (although only 1 in 5 randomly-chosen drafts were written with VE?! I have no idea how they do it, maybe we should push people towards it more). I'm aware I'm chasing the perfect over the good, though, so Scribunto it is. Maybe the "pending" template could say "warning! your submission is likely to be declined" if it detects this sort of thing. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Since it seems relevant, some other items I was thinking of adding to this list... these aren't in any particular order, but are more just things that I believe are easily implementable that could be beneficial: • pick up on common buzzwords ("solutions") • notice incorrect template placement (namely COI templates being in the wrong place) • notice abnormally high/low reference/word counts. There's a whole range of possibilities here, so it'd likely take some discussion on whether it's worth caring about the bits here that are for example fixable by semi-automated editing (like smart quotes or level one headings).

Regarding location: my original idea was it would be a template you would paste into the talk page of your draft, but that honestly seems sub-optimal. It might make more sense to have it integrated into the pending template like Enterprisey said. Perryprog (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I would also suggest checking for blacklisted/unreliable sources and predatory journal citations (User:Headbomb/unreliable.js has the regexes). – SD0001 (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Another interesting/worrying stat is that where pre backlog drive we had an accept rate ~20%, that went up to 22% for the drive, it is now down to 13.7% KylieTastic (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

That's probably just because reviewers are doing the easy declines and the growing backlog is the more difficult accepts. ~Kvng (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Technical Question About Backlog

Can someone easily determine how much of the current backlog consists of new submissions, and how much of it consists of resubmissions of drafts that were declined during the backlog drive? I am not entirely sure what conclusions can be drawn from any answer to this question, but I think that quantitative questions should be asked when possible. The backlog drive would have resulted in the following dispositions of drafts pending review:

• Accepted as articles.
• Declined, becoming drafts ready for resubmission.
• Rejected, becoming rejected drafts.
• Speedily deleted, whether G3, G5, G11, or G12 (a smaller number).

So my question is what is the mixture of the declined drafts are being resubmitted, or new drafts are being submitted? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Theoretically we could have a modified version of Module:AfC submission catcheck that counts how many decline notices are on the page, which would indicate how many times a page has been declined. I don't know if it could get as granular as to say when a page was declined, though. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

AfCH bug when adding merged WikiProject templates

Recently I accepted an article, tagging it with "WikiProject United States" and "WikiProject United States Government". Unfortunately, the AfC helper script created two wikiproject templates, once with "WikiProject United States" and another "WikiProject United States" supported by the WikiProject USG. I'm pretty sure this is a bug and intended behaviour should be one WikiProject template with all of the supporting WikiProjects under that template, i.e. one WPUS template with the WPUSG supported param. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211 Online events: New: Women in STEM New Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman Special event: 12 October: Ada Lovelace Day 24-Hour Global Edit-a-thon See also: Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New editor using AfC templates

I am not sure if this warrants any action but a new editor Nickb410 after his eleventh edit in mainspace moved a draft into mainspace and left a message on its creator Jackhughes26's talk page using the AfC accept template. On the article's talk page they added the "This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation" banner, which is misleading. See Special:Contributions/Nickb410. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer, honestly it's likely just worth it to ask them what they're doing, as odd and questionable it may be. It could be just a misunderstanding of what AfC means to them, for example. Perryprog (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

A lot on single purpose editing on David Donovan and Independent Australia - their editing suggests a undeclared COI. KylieTastic (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I've just seen this thread about the editor, so I might just wait to see how this unfolds. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Notability is a big issue. The subject of the BLP runs a political opinion blog with some very dubious practices and pretends he is a legitimate online news outlet. When three new SPAs show up to create a BLP and then edit-war to defend their version, it's kind of hard to come to any other conclusion that there's a COI aimed at advertising the blog and increasing traffic. Independent Australia isn't used as a reliable source; there is some discussion about the fake news tactics employed in the RSN archives. Even if I can't say for certain what's going on and who's behind it, I'm not seeing much in the way of building an encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

According to a sockpuppet investigation I opened, the two editors - Nickb410 and Jackhughes26 - are the same. --Pete (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Both editors indef-banned for sockpuppetry, Both articles deleted, one restored and a draft submitted for creation by an account that has been inactive for ten years and only edited on football previously. Suspicious much? --Pete (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

An old user Simba1409 who had stopped editing in 2011 just reactivated only to work on David Donovan and submit Draft:Independent Australia... also looks iffy. KylieTastic (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yet another attempt to create Independent Australia, using the same draft wording. I have commented on notability on the talk page. --Pete (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank goodness, the draft was rejected. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Typo in decline rationale

The decline rationale for neologisms contains the word "neologisim". I'd fix it myself if I knew where those things are stored, but ... I don't. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Um... no it doesn't? Primefac (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

When you go into the AfC Helper, the decline option is "neo - Submission is about a neologisim not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". I'm not sure where it's stored either, but it's certainly there. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a part of the helper script, which is hosted on GitHub. I've submitted a PR that fixes the typo. Perryprog (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pretty much what I was going to say. Working on it. Primefac (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the spelling is a neologolism. McClenon mobile (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Drafts to Article Space

When a draft is accepted by an AFC reviewer using the AFC script, a redirect is left from draft space to article space. A redirect is also created if an editor who is not a reviewer moves a draft to article space, because a redirect is automatically created on a page move (unless the editor doing the move is a page mover or an administrator and has checked to suppress redirect creation, but acceptance of a draft is not one of the reasons why redirect creation should be suppressed). So the redirect will stay in draft space. I had been about to ask whether the redirect will be deleted by G13 in six months, but I have answered my own question. The criteria for speedy deletion say that redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. There are sometimes nominations to delete drafts because there is an article. They happen often enough that there is a speedy close criterion, Speedy Redirect from draft space to article space, and the resulting redirect is exempt from G13.

So the first question that I have is (again) what should be done if a draft is submitted for review and an article on the topic exists. I think that this calls for two questions. First, is the draft a subset of the article, or does the draft contain information that is not also in the article? Second, were the draft and the article written by the same editor? If the draft is a subset of the article, I think that the draft should be redirected to the article. If the draft contains additional information, the draft should be tagged to be merged into the draft. Do the other reviewers agree? If the draft and the editor were written by the same person, then I think that the reviewer should consider whether the article passes review, because too often, if the draft and the article were written by the same person, they are gaming the system to prevent draftification. In that case, if the article is not ready for article space, an AFD may be in order.

By the way, yes, this is being written partly in response to an unpleasant MFD nomination, now withdrawn in a tiff. Since the nominator has said that he will let the draft page "rot for all eternity", he obviously is ignorant of how drafts work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, as has been discussed before, if there is a draft duplicating an article:

• if only one editor has created both (so we assume copy/paste), then redirect the draft to the article
• if there are multiple editors for the draft, or it wasn't a copy/paste, decline the draft as a duplicate
• if there are multiple editors for the draft, and it was a copy/paste, request a {{histmerge}}
• if (from your last hypothetical scenario) there is more information in the draft or other non-copied information available, decline the draft as "merge"

Sometimes the reviewer copy/pastes a draft into the article space, and we can't really do anything about that other than AFD the article or decline the draft (as appropriate). Primefac (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone make an article for Pootis

Thanks

IDK how to make article request please no ip ban — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teuf0rt (talk • contribs) 04:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Teuf0rt, article requests happen at WP:RA, creating a draft happens at the WP:Article wizard. Primefac (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Reviewer accepting their own draft

Odd to see a reviewer accept their own draft. Does AFCH not prevent it? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope, we just strongly discourage it. Anyone who writes a draft shouldn't be reviewing it, but we cannot enforce that. I would argue, though, that if they're just going to do that they should move it themselves without giving it the "AFC approval" (even though technically that's not worth anything). Primefac (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I do that myself from time to time for drafts in the state supreme court justice project. In those cases, it's basically a formality, since an editor who has the ability to create new pages in article space could have done so in the first place. BD2412 T 20:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

how Long?

How Long will it take from Oct. 4th for my Publishment the Town stead of Ovedio be Published as a Article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavetheTreeSBro (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

SavetheTreeSBro, there are currently just below 1,800 other drafts waiting to be reviewed. This works out to be an estimate of seven weeks, but that's highly variable—it can (randomly) be much faster than that, or even much slower. Perryprog (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Please ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk and include a direct link to your draft. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 04:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Global Esports

Hello. I'm a reviewer at Afc. Created this page Draft:Global Esports. Accordingly, can I accept it myself. If I can, I would prefer someone please do it on my behalf, cause I believe it to be immoral. GyanKnow _{contributions?} 23:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This is correct. As a reviewer you should not accept your own drafts. I would suggest that for questions about your draft, please post HERE instead, not here. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 04:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft: The Loud House Movie

Will someone please look at this draft and either accept it or decline it, or advise me whether they agree with me? My review is that it should be accepted, but I declined it three times before it was released, because it had not been released, and I want to be sure that I am not biased one way or the other. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Wrong forum. This is only about admin issues for AfC. For questions about your draft content, please post HERE instead. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 04:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Gryllida, Robert is a reviewer, and is asking for a second opinion. This is absolutely the correct forum. Primefac (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I’ve reviewed it twice. I think it is the sort of draft that should be accepted, despite misgivings that it might get deleted at AfD. There are many sources, but weak at demonstrating notability. More likely, it won’t get nominated. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The ultras are good-faith editors and can !vote to Keep it if it goes to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It satisfies film notability guidelines. Only a deletionist would nominate it for AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I almost accepted it the other day, but the redirect needs to be G6d. Looks OK to me. Bkissin (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

And a G6 on the redirect would have been inappropriate. The redirect had non-trivial history, due to ultras trying to convert the redirect into an article. A round-robin move rather than a G6 was needed. Sometimes ultras try so hard to get an article accepted that they make it harder to accept the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Suggested to add a 'I have coi' form to Special:CreateAccount

Please share your thoughts. --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 04:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Name put twice

So... I check the participants tab and i saw that you put my name twice, I cannot request an edit so i need someone to undo that. MoonlightVector^{Talk page} 16:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@MoonlightVector: Why did you accept Carlo Romeo (journalist)? There doesn't seem to be a single independent source in it - everything is sourced to the organisations that he worked for - and it reads like a CV. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo Romeo (journalist) where policy based opinions for and against the nomination may be left Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I only now noticed this, and I see that it has been relisted. I see that it had 10 sources when User:Timtrent nominated it for deletion, and he said that they were primary or otherwise inadequate. It now has 18 sources. I am checking the sources (using Google Chrome, because it translates). One possible result, the ideal result, would be a Heymann Keep. By the way, the disambiguation is unnecessary, but an article should not be moved while it is in a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

It isn't a Heymann close. Maybe in a few weeks or months someone will find sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Acceptance script Interrupts Itself again

I accepted Vivienne Medrano. About half an hour I checked on it and saw that it had two AFC templates still on it. It also still had AFC comments. I removed them. I also noticed that it was categorized as Draft class, and I had specifically assigned it C-class, but it also didn't have the AFC project template, and the adding of the AFC template also assigns the class (if the reviewer specifies the class in the Accept dialog). In other words, the script didn't do anything except to move the draft to article space, which is the first thing that should be done, but not the only thing.

So I think I have a question, and a request or comment for other reviewers. The request or comment is: If you think that you have accepted a draft, check on it in a little while and verify that it has finished accepting itself. Sometimes the script doesn't finish, for no obvious reason. Sometimes the reason is that the reviewer closes the window that the draft is in before the script completes. That wasn't the case this time. The question is: Does anyone know of any other causes of the script not finishing? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hm. Unaware of something that could be causing that. I guess I could make it only do the move after everything else is done, but that wouldn't be much of an improvement. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

DGG used to have this problem all the time, but the only thing we could figure was that the script was being interrupted, either due to connection issues or the page being closed before everything was complete. I think the main advice here would be to refresh the page after an accept, which will take you to the new article and it can be checked that everything went as planned. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I've been having intermittent timeouts and had edits not processed, and one decline with a failure to add the notice to the users talk page. Unless it happens regularly I would just put it as server/internet issues. KylieTastic (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Heropanti 2

I think that I am more calling attention to an occasional situation than asking for advice. See Draft:Heropanti 2 and Heropanti 2. The draft was submitted for AFC review about 24 hours ago, after having been declined previously. The obvious problem is that it is an unreleased film. It is being submitted because there is a myth that films become notable when they begin principal photography (or animation). The wording of the film notability guidelines is awkward but contributes to that myth. In fact, films normally become notable when they are released and have been reviewed. However, the less obvious problem is the more serious one, which is that the title in article space is a locked redirect to the previous film. It was locked by an administrator due to repeated resubmission by disruptive accounts that were probably sockpuppets. So a reviewer can't accept the draft, even if it were ready for acceptance. I could decline the draft, and it could probably be resubmitted, just because declined drafts of films are usually resubmitted. So I rejected the draft, and said that if the submitter wants it considered, they have three choices:

• 1. Discuss with the locking administrator.
• 2. Request unprotection at requests for unprotection.
• 3. Request Deletion Review.

Does anyone either agree or disagree that this was what needed to be done? The situation happens from time to time with locked redirects. Persistent resubmission of declined drafts also happens from time to time, including for films in production. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

SALTing admins usually don't unprotect under request from contributors to the draft. Deletion Review is almost always an option, especially with a decent draft in hand. My recommended would be for an AFC reviewer to review it as a normal draft, and if the result is accept, then the AFC reviewer contact the SALTing admin or RPP to request unprotection, and if that is declined, go to WP:DRV. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Usedtobecool - The draft is about an unreleased film, and is too soon. The redirect is locked because it was repeatedly being edited by single-purpose accounts and suckpoppets. It isn't about to be ready for review until early 2022. It is being resubmitted by ultras who will simply bang away to get their article. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Robert, I disagree with your reading of WP:NFF. I think it is not awkward or confusing or mythmaking. It is indeed an SNG that provides an exception to the WP:GNG. It is for films that are imminent for release, the bulk budget is spent, it will be released. This is justified by the release of a film generating a flurry of activity, and by the expectation that Wikipedia is up to date. If the film is released deadpan straight to TV, and no sources are generated, it can be deleted, but the norm is that one the day of release a film with reliable source verification of big budget will attract a flurry of activity and sources and edits and even new editors.

User:SmokeyJoe - On this film at least, you and I are taking opposite views on whether the film satisfies film notability. This is not the only film that is awaiting release where there has been strong disagreement as to notability. The fact that reasonable reviewers commonly disagree is, in my view, sufficient evidence that the guideline is confusing. Either: (1) you are completely and inexplicably wrong; or (2) I am completely and inexplicably wrong; or (3) the guideline is poorly written; or (4) something else is wrong. I have disagreed with reasonable reviewers in the past often, and have been supported by reasonable reviewers in the past often. I think that is sufficient evidence that the guideline is poorly written. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Robert, on WP:NFF. Many years ago I spent a lot more time at AfD than I do now, but back then, I saw that WP:NFF, then a mere WikiProject guideline, was an absolute predictor of whether a film would be kept at AfD. Has principle photography commenced, meaning the commitment of the bulk of the budget? Are you disagreeing that NFF is a strong predictor of outcome at AfD? Or are you disagreeing that this film Heropanti 2 objectively passes NFF? NFF goes grey for low budget films, but I don’t think this is the case here, do you? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your frequent recommendation to draft authors to go to DRV. I have never yet seen that to be appropriate. A better recommendation of disagreement with an AfC REJECT is WP:DUD. AfC is optional, and it provides advice to assist drafters. It is not itself meant to be a barrier.

I disagree with you REJECTION of the draft. If it looks like it meets WP:NFF, it should be accepted.

If an AfC reviewer accepts a draft, the protecting admin, or WP:RFUP, or most admins including User:Primefac, will unsalt on the basis of the AfC accept. Anything else would demand a review of the AfC reviewer. The SALTing threshold is way higher than the threshold for an AfC accept.

All that said, if the sources are all about a perpetual delaying of release into the distant future, it may be arguable to decline. For me, the question would be: If I encountered this at NPReview, would I AfD it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

On my review, reference 34, [1] is the critical reference. It says a portion of filming is completed. This is enough for WP:NFF. If I found it at NPReview, I would stubify it. I can appreciate hesitancy to accept a reference bombed draft, I sure don’t like to. 40 references make reviewing tedious. I wish drafters were pointed to WP:THREE. More references don’t help with getting it accepted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - I thought that I was raising two separate concerns. You seem to be addressing and disagreeing with one of them, and don't seem to be referring to the other one. The first one is the future film guidelines, and I will try to explain some time in the near future why I think that the guideline is ambiguous. The second, which you don't seem to be addressing, is that the title is already salted due to previous repeated re-creation. The previous re-creations were by sockpuppets, and the submitter is not a sockpuppet, but that is not important. The title is a locked redirect. I couldn't accept it if I wanted to accept it. The submitter can't mainspace it if they want to mainspace it. If you or the submitter think that it should be mainspaced, do you have another option besides discussing with the salting administrator, requesting unsalting at RFPP, or DRV? I don't think that you have addressed the fact that the title is salted, and so resubmission is useless unless the create-protection is addressed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you about the salted title. I disagree with your statements that you can’t accept a draft if the title is salted. Are you you referring to the technical function of the AfC script. If one would accept the draft, I think one should press the accept button. If that leads to an ungracious script failure, then the script needs fixing. If you think you mustn’t accept if the title is salted, that creates a catch-22 situation, because the decision to unsalt requires the decision to accept the draft.

What happens when the accept button is pressed while the mainspace title is salted? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe What happens when the Accept button is pressed while the mainspace title is salted is the same as what happens if there is an unsalted redirect in mainspace. The Accept script does not permit a reviewer to accept a draft when the mainspace title is occupied by anything, an article, a salted redirect, an unsalted redirect. If there is an unsalted redirect, or a salted redirect, or an article, the script will not overwrite. If there is an unsalted redirect, then the reviewer should tag the redirect as G6 - move. That is not an ungracious script failure. That is the way the script ought to work. It should in particular prevent accidentally overwriting anything that exists. A feature to force overwrite of a redirect would be nice-to-have, but other things are more important. Does that answer your script question? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I think so, thanks. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe that User:Woody exceeded WP:Protection policy (WP:SALT) in applying both excessive level and duration of protection he applied, for not that many recreations over a limited timeframe. It should be a straightforward and quickly approved WP:RfUP request. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - As to level of protection, many admins are not in the habit of ECP protection, and semi would not have been enough. As to duration, I agree that indefinite protection is a mistake on any film that is rumored to be in the works. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we are agreed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've reduced it to ECP. Salting is usually permanent "(While creation-protection is usually permanent, temporary creation protection may be applied if a page is repeatedly recreated by a single user (or sockpuppets of that user, if applicable).) but I am always happy for anyone to tweak or amend (without recourse to me) any admin action I've made if they see it differently. Woody (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer on Heropanti 2

User:SmokeyJoe wrote:

Or are you disagreeing that this film Heropanti 2 objectively passes NFF? NFF goes grey for low budget films, but I don’t think this is the case here, do you?

Heropanti 2 does not objectively pass NFF. I don't know how NFF was worded in the past. I know how it is worded now. The film is in principal photography, and there have been passing mentions of photography, and press releases stating that it is in photography. This draft or article is about an unreleased film. The film notability guideline identifies three stages in the production cycle for films:

• 1. Planned films that have not begun production (principal photography or animation). These planned films do not satisfy film notability.
• 2. Films that are confirmed by reliable sources to have begun production, but have not been released. These films are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability in terms of significant coverage. Mere mention of the start of production does not satisfy notability.
• 3. Films that have been released, whose notability is determined primarily by reception and reviews.

This film page must be evaluated based on general notability of production. Production itself has not been notable, and has not had significant coverage. The guideline is poorly worded because some editors think that it says that films normally are notable if they are in principal photography. It does not say that. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

NFF says that films that have commenced principle photography can have their own article. NFF wording has been fiddled, and is not written the the double negative, consistent with the wording not being “must”, as there is always the possibility of a good reason to NOT have a standalone article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

There are a myriad of sources confirming the commencement of principle photography. eg. Sources reporting the completion of major elements of principle photography are unambiguous proof that it began. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The film has an abundance of sources. It’s release is imminent (allowing for lengthy delays probably due to COVID). It doesn’t make any sense to insist on keeping it in draft, with readers expecting it to be covered. With every new source hitting the media, a new editor is likely to create a new article, making a new fork. This is why anticipated films get an easier pass on the GNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - I have analyzed the sources in detail and have nominated the article for deletion. We are clearly interpreting the future film guideline differently, and this is far from the only time that the guideline has been differently interpreted. The forum to discuss notability of the article now is the AFD. I am also discussing the contentious nature of the guideline again at the film notability talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:James E. Stewart (civil rights leader)

This is not a request for a second or third opinion as to notability. I think that we agree that the subject is notable. The problem with the draft is one of tone. Can someone please rewrite this draft so that it isn't written to praise its subject? Wikipedia editors know that if the subject deserves praise, then a neutral description of the subject's career is sufficient praise. Can this draft be reworked? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:2022 Francisco Domagoso presidential campaign

A certain user created an article titled 2022 Isko Moreno presidential campaign while the draft mentioned above is in process for submission. I hope that this problem be solved and this became one of the major problems here. Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks NewManila2000; I've declined the draft submission with a note that they can work on the mainspace article instead. It's a bit annoying, but not much else to be done for it. Perryprog (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Perryprog, Can I redirect it to the article that I mentioned? NewManila2000 (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

User:NewManila2000 - Drafts may be redirected to articles in mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. NewManila2000 (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Recovery from Accept Script Dropping ?

If the Accept script partly completes, by moving the draft into article space, and does not finish:

• 1. Is there an automated or semi-automated procedure to complete the acceptance?
• 2. If not, what are the manual steps that should be taken to duplicate what the script was doing?

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, your best bet would be to follow the instructions here; it's linked from WP:AFC/RI § Reviewing manually. Perryprog (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

When this happens, which steps usually fail? Enterprisey (talk!) 08:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Note on Draft for Action When Accepted

Sometimes I see that a draft has a title that duplicates that of an existing article, but is not the same topic. There are two usual cases, both when the topic of the draft is a person. First, there may be another person with the same name already in the encyclopedia. Second, there may be a disambiguation page because multiple people have the same name. As we know, this calls for disambiguation. So I move the draft to disambiguate the title. So far, this is basic AFC stuff, and we all know this. Then what I want to do is to request that, if the draft is accepted, it can be found be a reader typing the undisambiguated name. That means that either a hatnote is required on the primary, or an entry is required in the disambiguation list. So far, we all know this. So what I want to do is to tag the draft to say that the primary or the DAB page should be updated when the draft is accepted. Here is the issue. What I have been doing is putting an AFC comment on the draft, saying that the title has been disambiguated, and a hatnote should be added, or a line should be added to the DAB. But the problem is that, if the AFC script works correctly, the AFC comment is now removed. If I am the accepting reviewer, I remember what needs to be done. But often, someone else reviews, and accepts, and they should accept the draft if the person is notable. (Occasionally this happens with a company also, but this usually happens with people.) So the article may have been accepted, but a reader may not be able to find it until the link is inserted.

So the question is: Is there a better way to mark a draft so that it will be cross-linked when it is accepted? I don't want to put the hatnote on the primary at the time of disambiguating, unless I know that I am accepting the draft. I don't want to put an entry in a DAB page unless I know that I am accepting the draft.

What I would like to do is, at a minimum, to put a note on the talk page of the draft. Some of us have already said that we would like AFC comments either to be on the draft talk page, or to be moved to the article talk page at acceptance time. I assume that will be implemented in 2023. So another question is: Would it be appropriate to put a Cleanup tag on the draft saying that a link should be added? As I was writing this, it occurred to me that a Cleanup tag, like other Twinkle tags, survives the AFC script. Is that the right approach? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not suspect there is any script, or a way of making a script, that can accurately and reasonably add a name to a dab page if it is necessary (after a draft has been accepted). This step is likely not one that we can mandate anyway. I suppose manually adding a maintenance tag is one way to do it, and I've seen a few hatnotes (which aren't removed by AFCH) saying "if accepted XYZ needs to be updated", but it still requires extra edits and if it's not removed then there is a random hatnote sitting there. In other words, I don't have a good answer to your question, as it's "probably not". Primefac (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Primefac - I wasn't asking about a script that would add the name to a dab page or the hatnote to the primary page. The script change that I was asking about would copy the AFC comments to the draft talk page. We have been talking about that, and in agreement that it would be desirable, with no downside, which is why I don't expect to see it done before 2023. I was looking for a way to keep a visible but not disruptive note of the need to update the dab page. Thank you for the answer, which amounts to that nothing will be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Questions from a new reviewer

I recently got access to the AfC helper script and the permission to review articles, but I had a couple of questions. I assume that I cannot accept a draft I create, but can I edit drafts before or after I review them? For instance, can I clean up the article a little bit to remove original research, give the article a more neutral tone, or clean up the references and add archive links? What if I find a submission that does not contain references that demonstrate notability, but doing a quick Google search clearly shows that there is significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. Can I add the sources and then accept the article or should I ask the user working on the draft to do it themselves? Could I drop some sources on the talk page using Template:Refideas? I guess I'm mostly curious how involved I can get with a draft if I'm going to review it. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

You may edit any draft as mercilessly as any article. If you put so much effort into it that you feel invested in the topic, then, especially as a new reviewer, it would be wise to leave the improved draft for someone else to review. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant yes you can. You can do as much or little editing as you want to improve articles, before accepting, declining. I have a list of ones that I ended up being the major contributor at acceptance. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

"Thirded" for what it's worth. If I find a draft that is acceptable but might contain reference, formatting, or other relatively minor issues I will often clean them up before accepting. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Unused AFC templates

Hello, is there a policy for this project to use or leave as is the unused AFC templates from the Unused Templates Report from 452 to 490? Asking to avoid any potential major disruption as part of my task force idea to deal with the backlog of unused templates as part of WikiProject Templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi WikiCleanerMan some of those I think are unused and could go but others are used only as long as issues persist, or are only ever substituted, or are used in passing (such as {{AfC submission/Subst/Editintro}} is used by {{User sandbox}}). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Please leave the AFC templates alone. As Kylie states some might be truly unused, but a lot of them are subst-only. I know you want to clean up the unused templates, but I would really prefer to see the Project to take care of its own templates, especially when there are less than 40 anyway. Primefac (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Just quickly judging from the names of the templates, they're probably used in the manual workflow. We could consolidate them, but I judge that effort to have the worst cost-to-benefit ratio of any idea I've had in the last year. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

College Sports Seasons - AITA?

There is an IP user (probably the same one that does the two-sentence stub articles on former NFL players) that submits articles on Football and basketball seasons for various universities. Examples (not exhaustive): Draft:1979–80 Rice Owls men's basketball team, Draft:1969–70 SMU Mustangs men's basketball team, Draft:1979–80 Brown Bears men's basketball team, Draft:1992–93 SMU Mustangs men's basketball team, Draft:1971–72 Penn State Nittany Lions basketball team, Draft:1975–76 Nevada Wolf Pack men's basketball team . That is only the ones that I have declined today! I am of the opinion (and while I don't want to put words in @KylieTastic:'s mouth or any other reviewer) and I'm not alone, that these articles are not ready for mainspace, both due to the anemic sourcing and the fact that they have little to no prose content. I frequently cite WP:NSEASONS, which states: Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created. At this point, all it is creating is an an indiscriminate collection of schedules and bare bones stats without any information to explain the content they are providing. This would not be a big deal, except that non-reviewers will go in later after the drafts have been reviewed and move the drafts to mainspace anyway (with no changes), suggesting (in the diffs located here and here that the articles would pass AfD, and therefore, through WP:AFCPURPOSE, should be accepted. Who is in the right here?
In the end, Wikipedia is not WP:SRSBSNS, and it's not the biggest deal in the world. It's really frustrating and a massive slap in the face to have something you decline make it to mainspace anyway, but that is what we deal with at AfC. If the consensus is against my read of this situation, I will gladly step back from reviewing those articles and leave it for others to deal with. Bkissin (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Bkissin oh yes I am well aware of them, they also have a habit on the NFL players of having refs (often the nfl.com one) that are for the wrong player, and quite often the nfl.com has no actual career info on the older players. Also another submitter that refuses to communicate or improve there submissions based on past edits (Only edits to their talk page are unblock requests). I read the situation as, per WP:NSEASONS, as submitted they are a usually no go (usually no prose and 1 source) but probably many/most would survive AfD but only because there are a couple of really good editors for American Football subjects that jump in and do the work if challenged. The trouble is there already exists so many in mainspace that do not pass WP:NSEASONS in the current state, and often only get fixed when challenged (AfD etc). I think WP:NSEASONS has become out of touch with consensus, and unless your into a sport how do you know which are notable. It feels like there should be a caveat for NFL teams (maybe others) and that WP:NSEASONS is really there to stop marginally notable sports teams having lots of minimal season articles. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely agree with your view of the situation KylieTastic. On one hand deletion is not cleanup and it shouldn't take the threat of deletion for good editors to jump in and rescue and article from the chopping block. Yes, WP is always a work in progress, but if an article is not even trying to meet minimum standards and is no more than a directory listing, then in my mind it should be declined until such a time as it has passed WP:NSEASONS. In the past I have attempted to show examples of good and featured WP:NSEASONS articles, but people want things accepted now, quality control be damned. Bkissin (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Bkissin yes some people want "things accepted now" but the golden rule for AfC work is: "There is an equal and opposite number of people who will agree and disagree to any action you take" ;) KylieTastic (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

FA's articles

I've been taking a IBAN from dealing with one of our more prolific submitters (for my own sanity). Is there anyone who has been dealing with their submissions who I can ping or tag when they submit more? Bkissin (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Bkissin If you mean FloridaArmy, I have dealt with their submissions, especially when a redirect needed to be trashed in order to accept a stub, and am willing to deal with some more. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon, it is greatly appreciated. Bkissin (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I mostly only deal with the old legislators, and even then only on good days, and I have a search bookmarked. The rest I mostly just don't wont to get involved with. There submissions have been rising again (51 out of there 20 limit! list. KylieTastic (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to knock out a bunch from the list Kylie presented. Curbon7 (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Curbon7. Bkissin (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the list, User:KylieTastic. (I thought that the limit of 20 was stupid, but I guess ANI decided that they should do something and didn't know what.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I should learn how to convert the list into a category to be easier to view. I know it is just another programming language. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Acceptance Script Dropping (again)

In accepting some of FA's drafts, I had two of them fail to complete the script, after the draft was moved to article space but before anything else happened, such as removal of the AFC log, or updating the WikiProjects. This has very seldom happened to me in the past , but twice happened in quick succession. This makes me think that it is caused by some sort of noise, maybe in my router, maybe on the Wikipedia servers, more likely in the Internet between my router and the server. I think that, if this happens again, I will decide that something is too busy, and stop editing Wikipedia, and do something else. Just an observation. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Curiosity question about pending submission counts

What is difference between the counts presented in the New Pages feed (with the Awaiting Review filter checked) vs. the pending submissions counts presented in the AfC status template? For example, right now the New Page feed says 1,700 but the template has 1,749. I did purge/refresh, but get the same. S0091 (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with Malformed Street Woman Fighter

I would appreciate any comments on Draft:Street Woman Fighter and Street Woman Fighter. There is a malformed article in article space, and a draft. I didn't evaluate the draft in detail, because of the article, and I have proposed the article for deletion. I left a comment on the draft saying that it will be evaluated when the article is deleted. An editor then asked me on my talk page why I didn't boldly copy the draft into the article (with attribution). I said that if someone else did that, it would be fine with me. The disadvantage of the PROD is of course that it takes a week, but In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Is there a third approach? Was this one reasonable way to deal with this? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to put a submit link in title

Recently, a new user said in a chat room that they couldn't figure out how to submit a draft once it's written. Indeed, the interface does not currently show anything related to submitting a draft while reading or editing it. Another editor noted that they frequently field IRC help desk queries about this. I think we should make it obvious how to submit a draft. The user said (this was on Discord, by the way; the thread called "draft submit workflow" under #general) they would expect to see a "submit" button in a "banner at the top of the [draft] that says 'this is a draft. here's what you need to do' or something". Based on that, I have made an unprofessional mockup. The status will be shown using JavaScript for all Draft-namespace pages. Unsubmitted pages will have a "Submit" button that will immediately submit the draft, without having to go through the current dreadful subst:void-based interface. (With appropriate checks to verify that the draft's author is submitting it, etc.) Thoughts? Enterprisey (talk!) 08:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

If we can fix the subst-void nonsense for submitting, I'm all for it; I don't even care about the root cause for creation. Primefac (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• I Hadn't even considered such a change was possible, but I assume being a Interface administrator gives you the access. As per Primefac, just for getting rid of the subst:void it would be worth it. It should be disabled if a rejection temeplate is present. I guess you'll need the subst:void still for user page submissions. Probably need a UI engineer to help with the design though ;) KylieTastic (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Just from a technical/template-side perspective, adding a namespace check to include the submit button only if located in the userspace is fairly trivial. Primefac (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Aw, sugar. I hadn't thought enough about how it'll be redundant to the existing template system. Mostly not-serious proposal: only show the status as illustrated if there's no template at the top of the page (because sometimes the "pending" template ends up at the bottom)? I don't like that, though; just a single word + color is gonna be a lot faster to scan than all those words, so the label is likely to be beneficial if shown unconditionally. I hadn't thought about the userspace angle, either. Some userspace pages are really non-serious drafts and I wouldn't really want to show a submission button there... I don't know how to handle that. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Somewhat related: Wikipedia:Workflow improvements. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• I recommend the instruction to exist: To submit the draft, add the template {{submit}}.

Buttons are not how Wikipedia works, so buttons should not be what is taught to newcomers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe the question is then "where do we put that instruction" assuming the {{AFC submission/draft}} template is not present. Also, as a minor point, it needs to be {{subst:submit}} because not-substing is problematic. Primefac (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Needs? Don’t subst-only templates always get bot subst-ed a few minutes later? SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not a subst-only template, because it is populated by fields dependent on the user making the edit; if AnomieBOT were to subst every {{submit}} that wasn't subst, we'd have a ton of submissions "submitted" by the bot. We have a tracking category so that it can be manually fixed. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it is too hard. AfC is too heavy with templates and scripts. Ok. “To submit the draft, add the template {{subst:submit}}”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, but I'd rather fix those other places instead. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Muhammed Hysom

Please I need help on how delete this draft. This Draft has been declined about 5 times if not 6 and had been rejected once. Each time it is declined, the IP removes the automated message and comments by reviewers. The article has no reference to support anything in there but they keep submitting again and again. I think the lasting solution to this is to speedily delete it, but I couldn't find any criteria (even the DB A7 somehow did not really give me what I was looking for). Please someone should take a look and do something. You can find everything I said in the edit history. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Idoghor Melody, if the disruption continues, you might try nominating it for deletion at WP:MFD: they're usually willing to delete drafts that have been repeatedly resubmitted after rejection. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: Alright thanks. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The only difference between this draft and other drafts that were tendentiously resubmitted after rejection was that the proponent kept deleting the decline and reject templates, which just makes things uglier. It appears that there is a consensus developing to delete. Also, it appears that the unregistered editor has been range-blocked. This was at least as much a conduct issue (to be dealt with by a block) as a content issue (to be dealt with by deletion). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Georgia Storm FC

Rejected this one for being a duplicate of Draft:Georgia Storm, which was also rejected. However, the submitter of those drafts commented on my talk page, and made a case for accepting it. I would like a third opinion on this draft. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Kevinw33. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I've been following this drama from the sidelines. I think there is frustration on both sides, with Kevinw33 (as a fan) being frustrated with the bureaucracy of the AfC process, and AfC reviewers frustrated that despite multiple declines and rejections, the article got pushed to mainspace. Unlike most reviewers, my argument would be that if the team can meet WP:GNG with reliable sources (local newspapers, etc. instead of soccer blogs) then it could pass notability. Eternal Shadow, if you want to submit it to AfD, that would be the best test for it. After all, one of the tests around drafts is whether they would survive an AfD discussion. Bkissin (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I have looked at it, and have not checked the references in detail, but it appears to me that: (1) it still doesn't make the case for general notability, as it didn't when I declined it in May 2021; (2) the case for GNG may be there anyway. I think that this is a case where there should be an AFD. I haven't done a Before AFD search. Is it sometimes in order for a reviewer to nominate an article for deletion without having done the before search, because there should be a community discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This is another article that illustrates that we should have a way for submitters and reviewers to discuss a draft that is less contentious than to have the fans push a rejected page into article space. I will break down this comment into two parts. First, there should be a way for submitters and reviewers to discuss a draft that is being repeatedly declined. Second, there should be a way for submitters and reviewers to discuss a draft that has been rejected, that is less contentious than MFD or WP:ANI. At least, that is what I think. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Eternal ShadowThank you for the help everyone. This is my first article creation so I have been struggling with it. My concern regarding "Local newspapers, etc. instead of soccer blogs) is the environment the team is in. The team is in a town on the edge of suburban and rural and is a football hotbed. The local newspapers are good ol' boys who only care about high school and college football and brush off soccer. We have tried to get coverage from them but soccer still has a long way to go in the rural south to get coverage. The best press the team gets is from newspaper in the teams they play against, especially Appalachian FC and Georgia Revolution. Despite this the team plays in front of good sized crowds, attracts players with established notability, and makes waves in 4th tier leagues which gets good coverage in soccer blogs, podcasts, and the soccer undercurrent that has been bursting through the last few years. They played in a US Open Cup game which I saw was a requirement for club notability as well. Any advice is absolutely appreciated, thank you for all yall do. Kevinw33 (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Reviews by newish editor

I have noticed that MoonlightVector has recently made a number of questionable AfC acceptances. They have accepted Ashwin Alok, Carlo Romeo (journalist), and Gretex Corporate Services Limited, all of which are now at AfD. Loney Hutchins, another acceptance, has swathes of unsourced text without maintenance tags. I realise they have good intentions, but I wonder whether the permission to review was given to them too soon. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Modussiccandi We all make mistakes, but I would like to see them engage when comments are made on their talk page Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I am going to ping MoonlightVector because I see zero reason not to get their input as to their thinking on the matter. It can also be a learning opportunity for them. Primefac (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Superficially, they looked ok. It’s very tedious work to go through all the references to determine that the are all not WP:GNG-attesting sources. I think drafters should be advised to read WP:THREE, and to put the WP:THREE sources on the draft talk page. This would make things much easier for all involved. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, a lot of patience is needed to dig through all references, particularly with the amount of unnecessary refbombing. What I'm more interested in is the rationale for acceptation Gretex and Loney Hutchins, the former being sourced on non-independent + trivial coverage, the latter a biography that blatantly disregards our policies on the sourcing of BLP. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at all of this you have mentioned. Those at AfD are there with justification. I would prefer the outcomes off each to be to draftify since it gives the creating editor a fighting chance. AfD seldom does so. Loney H I have tagged as requiring more references. I was tempted to AfD with a suggestion to Draftify, but felt it was sufficiently advanced and that the subject was likely to pass the" >50% chance of surviving a deletion discussion" concept. That being said, I would have declined it at review time and requested better referencing.

@MoonlightVector, it is important, please, that you come here and offer your thoughts. While this may seem as if you are on some sort of trial that is not the case. Good reviewers have all made mistakes. Unless mistakes are repeated after advice we prefer reviewers to grow into the role, making fewer errors of judgement as they gain expertise and experience. Please come here and take advice from those of us who have made mistakes before you.

I give you a guarantee now that I still make errors in reviewing drafts, and will continue to do so. I also know that my errors are fewer as time passes. That is my hope for you, too. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to second what Tim has said: I did not bring up this topic here to put the reviewer on trial. God knows I've made some mistakes at NPP and AfC. My main purpose in starting this threat was to get views from experienced users on how to help new reviewer make these (sometimes difficult) judgement calls. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I have added to Primefac's cordial invitation on MoonlightVector's talk page. It is my hope that they come here. Good reviewers are made, not born. We all have to improve, all of us, from the most expert to the newest reviewer. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I mostly been declining stuff and is not fully experienced, some of them are indeed possibly bad but some I will find good to remove, I will for now review most of them if I can and figure out some. Thanks for your input. MoonlightVector^{Talk page} 12:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)