Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

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

Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!

AfC submissions Random submission

~6 weeks

936 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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Stubs by PPP001

Hi guys, with respect to "state constituency" stubs by PPP0001, of which I am seeing a number come through (accepted or declined) - we are currently having a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Large_number_of_constituency_stubs_by_PPP001 about this. Feel free to pop in, might save some duplication of effort. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

Chart

Is there something like this available to track AfC backlog. We're out to about 10 weeks at this point. ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC) so what with the issue of looking into wrong English or misplace words.....~

@Kvng: - there was User:Primefac/AFCStats (now well out of date) by @Primefac:, but I'm not aware of a set-up that isn't dependent on one user having enough time to collate the stats. I'd be happy for someone to say we have the figures/graphs somewhere Nosebagbear (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Why yes, there is. As an interesting note, we're almost smack dab in the middle of the "upswing" (see the "view all" version), which indicates that we might actually start decreasing soon. However, the backlog is pretty huge... Primefac (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Primefac Hi, May I know what do these numbers "216, 218, 220, 222,224,226" on "View less page" represent ? and what do these numbers "100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600" on "view all page" represent?Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

It's a three-axis graph, so the overall count (blue) uses the left y-axis, while the "very old" count (red) uses the right y-axis. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Primefac the numbers I referred to is on the right not the left side. what are those represent? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The "very old" count, shown on the graph in red. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course, it is a three-axis graph. My brain was somewhere else yesterday :). Thank you Primefac for taking the time to answer my question. cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Not to nitpick an otherwise helpful graph but Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old currently has 475 drafts but the graph is showing only 190. ~Kvng (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There'sNoTime, any thoughts on that? Primefac (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac and Kvng: That tool is set to look at Category:AfC pending submissions by age/8 weeks ago ^(API) - could definitely change it to look at "Very old" if preferred? - TNT ^💖 19:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There'sNoTime, it should be Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old to show backlog overflow. When that is fixed Primefac may need to reconsider his "upswing" conclusion. ~Kvng (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, given that we haven't had any more than maybe 5 in the very old category since that chart started collecting data, I suppose the 8+ week data was sufficient until this recent upswing... Primefac (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is misleading to call this "8+ week data." It is the number of drafts submitted between 8 and 9 weeks ago. ~Kvng (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Backlog is still rising. Chart is giving an "Account Suspended" error. ~Kvng (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Chart is back online. New Very old plot is working but using the LHS scale which is maybe what what we want, maybe not. Anyone object to removing the 8 weeks+ plot? ~Kvng (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Primefac, I don't quite understand the "Very old" part of the graph. The current count for the Very old category is 700+, while the chart shows ~100. Could you clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  The chart shows it at 700+; it's reading off the left axis. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Primefac thank you for the clarification. It's a bit confusing since there are now three plotlines on the chart. Similar to Kvng I would suggest removing "8 weeks" plot from the chart, since its a "transit" category. "Very old" would provide a better picture of the backlog instead. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Don't look at me, I just use it. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: can we remove the 8 weeks+ plot now? ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Review of a reviewer Process

I think it should be done privately. The talk page is essentially the spoken word, visible to everybody. There is a known psychological effect on a person when discussing that person in a group context, in the open, when they are the person getting spoken about. It degrades and corrodes them, breaks down their confidence, resulting a net negative loss both to them and to us, unless they are extremly robust and that is the exception. And that is the reason and the norm in Europe and the UK to hold such a meeting like this in private. Any University Court or learned society would use that approach or professional company. It takes as much risk out of the process as possible, preserves the dignity of the person and reduces the probability of the process becoming errant. There is many examples, recent examples where the effect turned into a kind of almost drunken mess. You start with a rationale idea at the beginning and after several days its gone south.

It should be: Prepare the evidence beforehand, select 3 or 5 editors in good standing, and then do a short interview and discussion that takes no more than 4 hours in private, thereby reducing disruption to both the person and Wikipedia. Then publish the outcome and the evidence if the outcome is remove. If it is not remove, then close it with a quiet word on the talk page. It is always puzzled me from the get-go why we have not had something in place like this beforehand and that is the clearest indicator yet that Wikipedia is not a learned society. It really a kind of short-termism. scope_creep^Talk 22:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, one reason is that with very small exception we've never really needed to review reviewers. They're either good enough to keep, or they're so bad that it can be done unilaterally by an admin without much discussion. I implemented the "review of reviewers" system after I screwed up that one time (because I am an admin but there should have been discussion). I thought acting as a neutral mediator I could field complaints, collate the ones that seemed significant, and post them for general review. I'm starting to think (based on not only the above discussion but how previous reviews have gone) that this isn't the best of systems. (I know, the road to hell, etc etc)

Given how few of these reviews we've had, I'd say just go back to the status quo of only dealing directly with the "clearly ineffective"/CIR reviewers. We're all volunteers here, we all make mistakes, and really only the people in the aforementioned category really need to be removed. Primefac (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

That's all of it there. You've summed it up. If they were clearly ineffective this conversation wouldn't have happened, they would have been gone. Competence is core. If they are fully competent, the conversation woudn't have happened either. Hence the reason I posted Warn. It is a clear borderline case. What do you do! I don't think Kvng is incompetent. We had a long discussion about software about three month ago. I thought it it was promotional, but another editor came in and informed me that software sources are based on a slightly different rationale and clearly consensus prior to the event. It was a good discussion and it worked, so the process is definitely working there. I think the choice of certain sources as RS are problematic but that is judgement. I'll leave it there for the moment. scope_creep^Talk 22:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a good place to leave it. I've closed the above discussion and will be encouraging editors who have concerns about other reviewers to talk to them directly. Primefac (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with the closing. It would probably be friendlier for all if we just encouraged more discussion of unsure cases with another reviewer or here, and let us dodge some of the review-reviewer Nosebagbear (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• It is agreeable closing. AfC talk page has been active with discussions of unsure drafts. Reviewers do join in and give opinions and share their knowledge, helping each other. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose ScopeCreep's proposal of setting up a self-chosen kangaroo court and then taking removal decisions through them. Transparency is a fundamental value and I will urge others to be not part of such vehicles. If anybody chooses to have a private talk about anybody's reviews, that's OK and I don't spare a bother but anything more than that is in clear prohibited territory (for me). Once you start taking decisions through off wiki foras (as someone from the IRC days may remember), things start going downhill rapidly. ∯WBG^converse 12:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly - it's also rather arrogant, as we'd be setting up a completely different review method than every other permission Nosebagbear (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I figured it would controversial even though it is the standard way it done in the west and has been since the 1970's as far as I know, mostly because they realise the value of people to a level that we haven't seen here, mostly due to being volunteers. I think it very short-termist that way the processes work here at the moment, the idea that there is an endless supply of new people coming in when it is now clear now that is not happening the way it is supposed to. I don't think self chosen courts would be the way to go. You trust senior people, administrators, bureaucrats and stewards, whatnot, to do the job or you don't. Trust is the core part of it. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There are fundamental differences between how we operate and how those entities, whom you point at, operate. Both has it's own share of advantages and disadvantages. Frankly, there's a whole lot of academic material on the topic of open-door vs closed-door, achieving optimum transparency whilst resolving conflicts and all that. But, that's a debate worth going into over some other venue than this t/p. ∯WBG^converse 16:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Primefac:, can you shed some light upon the rate of receiving credible complains about competency of AfC reviewers? How many times have we reviewed someone in the above manner? Have you removed anyone, (who has passed probation), for competency issues? Does there exist a list? ∯WBG^converse 16:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'll see about collating some bigger stats when I have more than five minutes to check my pings, but just from a quick search I found the following:

  Creating a standard "best practice" for problematic editors (May 2018)

  Review for May AFC reviewers (2018)

  Review for June AFC reviewers (2018)

  Review of a reviewer (Feb '19)

  Those were the discussions. As I said, I'll try and dig through my archives for removals for CIR reasons. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  I checked all the threads and found nothing resembling a pitch-fork brigade, turning out to have a go for the heads of a reviewer. There's nothing to fix and we ought to continue with the tried-and-tested method.

  I personally prefer that for the first time, you leave a note over the reviewer's t/p, explaining the issues in detail and asserting that continuation of non-optimal practices might lead to a revocation of flag. If he still continues in a similar fashion but you are not comfortable to outright yank it, open a discussion over here. ∯WBG^converse 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• As a note on the latter one (an actual review-reviewer) I'd definitely agree that waiting for the editor in question to comment is worthwhile, but we should probably remember to follow-up (says I, the person who made the last comment!) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• I am one of the very few people who make a point of checking prior reviews & reviewers. I see a substantial amount of less than perfect reviewing, but substantially less of the really bad reviewing that was not uncommon 3 or 4 years ago. (This is partly due to the various efforts to remove the worst reviewers, partly to the loss of interest in those not taking the job seriously, and partly to a more general agreement on standards). When I see a single incorrect review, I just review it properly, and try to make word my review to indicate the error. (if the original reviewer is watching, they'll see it and , I hope, understand.) IfI see several of the same sort from the same person, I'll mention it to them. Nowadays, they'll usually see what I mean. If they disagree, I don't press it unless its awful, and it's been over a year since there I've seen anyone that awful

Much more prevalent is inadequate reviewing , where a reviewer just leaves the form message. I do that too, when it meets the case. if it's hopeless ly promotional or impossibly non-notable, or not acceptable for other obvious reasons, the form message does say all that is necessary. But if the contributor is apparently making a sincere effort, they deserve some careful and specific explanation. I'll add it to the review if the macro lets me, and unless my whole message transfers to the user talk page, I'll add it manually. In what I say, I try to indicate specifically why there is a problem, wording it specifically enough to show that I have actually read the submission, not just glance at it. That's the key part--if the contributor just gets a form when they think they deserve a real response, they do what I do when someone sends me a form--I either ignore it, or get angry as well. I try to make concrete suggestions for what references are needed, and where to look for them. When appropriate, I try to indicate what part of the material is considered promotional .

Of course, this takes time. I can only look at maybe 10 articles a day at most, and write 2 or 3 detailed responses. But if everyone does some, instead of aiming for quantity, we would be able to keep up because there would be fewer useless resubmissions. It's those futile resubmissions that contribute half of the backlog. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

AFCH bug

@Enterprisey: see this edit - if a wikiproject's templates are already there, it should edit them rather than duplicating them. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Create this articles

Articles for Creation - redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for Creation

G-tolerance

Fainting on roller costers

83.20.176.239 (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC), I represent Monniasza

@83.20.176.239 and Monniasza: - we don't create mainspace articles here except in the form of taking a complete draft and turning it into an article. I also wasn't sure what you meant by representing another user. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The place to ask for this is WP:RA Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019 – phase 2

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects.

Phase 2 of the consultation has now begun; as such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2. All users are invited to express their views. Individual WikiProjects, user groups and other communities may also consider creating their own requests for comment; instructions are at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up. (To keep discussion in one place, please don't reply to this comment.) Jc86035 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sophisticated AFC subversion

For those who may not already be aware. Discussion at COIN.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As the backlog (thus the motive and opportunity) and number of volunteers (means) grew, this was always likely to happen. Now to stop myself bubbling with rage. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. I started to go through the list and then backed off as I was pretty pissed off. Need to chill a few days before I am able to do it with a clear and level head.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

New Thread

Ahmad Narvaw Walla - also known as MANZOOR AHMAD RATHER is BORN in MALPORA NARVAW on 14th January, 1990, the first child of Mr. Bashir Ahmad Rather, a High School Teacher. Manzoor Ahmad Rather passed his Childhood in his native Countryside, west Baramulla, the Narvaw, Jammu and Kashmir. Till the year 2001 he was admitted in a local school, Islamia Model High School Malpora, as he passed 5th Standard, his parents admitted him in a Boarding school, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Shahkote, Baramulla. He passed his 12 th standard in 2007 with Science Stream from Government Higher Secondary School Fatehgarh. In 2010 he graduated from Govt. Degree College Boys Baramulla with English Literature. He is M.A. in History and English Literature. In 2016 he submitted his M.Phil dissertation on Partition - Pain and Pathos of Women. Presently he is persuing P.hD. on the same selected topic Partition - Pain and Pathos of Women. He Visited many Cities in India for education and Research purpose, like Dehradun, Indore, Bhopal, Delhi, Hyderabad, Nagpur, Amravati, Mumbai, Punjab. During his College days in Bar. S.K. Wankhede University's College Of Education Nagpur University , He has been active in student Politics, and was the Member of Baba Saheb Ambedkar Students Organisation , Nagpur University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad Narvaw Walla (talk • contribs)

@Ahmad Narvaw Walla: - this isn't the place to add entire drafts, best to ask on the help page if you need some help with the process. As a side note, you shouldn't try to add an autobiographical article on wikipedia - it's strongly discouraged as it's almost impossible to write without bias. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

June events with WIR

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125 Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red: Virtual events: New topics: Pride / Royals / Space Geofocus: Mediterranean Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Accept failing for Reed trio

I've made two attempts to accept Reed trio. Both times, the page gets moved to mainspace, but the browser window (I'm using Chrome 74.0.3729.169 on MacOS) hangs and the AfC template isn't removed. Any idea what's wrong? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Did this happen with anything else? It's likely a hangup on your end - I seem to recall it happens sometimes if there's a disconnect between user and server. For what it's worth, if it does this, just clean it up manually - I know it's a hassle but it avoids having four moves in the history. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects to be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. Masum Reza^📞 21:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2019

223.231.68.4 (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Hiii I didn't find an Article about Stark Maliyk. He is an musical artist.

Spotify- https://open.spotify.com/artist/7xWYSq1Tr6z37mR9QwUdaj?si=l1Zau9dASya5WYkaMq8dyg

Google- Stark Maliyk https://g.co/kgs/7iyYXG