Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

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

Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!

AfC submissions Random submission

3+ months

1,516 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

I propose a formal Backlog Drive

The last formal backlog drive was in 2014

Different reviewers will tell us that it had different results, but it was a period that turned a high backlog into a low one. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive speaks for itself. It is irrelevant that I topped the leader board. I have a life today and could not do that again.

There were checks and balances. Points were subtracted for poor reviews, added for reviewing other folk and their reviews. I view it over-all as a good thing.

Today we have a high backlog. It is in danger of exceeding the five months category. I think we have a worse problem, though, which is drafts that have not even had a first review in that five month period. How disheartening to create a draft and not even have anyone look at it.

I have no idea what it takes to administer a backlog drive.There is obviously some software element to it. Assumjkng it to be technically feasible I believe we should reinstate this scheme, for more than one reason:

• the backlog is high
• we are hardly making inroads into it
• new drafts are being created at a prodigious rate
• new reviewers need a stimulus to really get going solidly
• this will give new reviewers almost immediate feedback in the checks and balances
• we have a good pool of new reviewers
• it's fun!

I'm creating a discussion section where I will make my own note of support Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure how long this discussion should run before we reach a conclusion. May I suggest seven days as the usual discussion duration? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 14:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

We are coming up to the end of a week of discussion. That happens in a few hours. Indications below suggest that this is likely to be in favour. If that happens, which I hope it will, the next thing to discuss will be that start day and the duration. I doubt it could be immediate. Thanks to @Enterprisey the script is available, but will need testing. That would become the gating factor to starting this process, and we would be very much in their hands for a start day.

If anyone wishes to:

• close this tomorrow, or
• extend the discussion period

either of those things is fine. As is reaching a conclusion on consensus without a formal closure. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 07:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

For things such as these, it takes someone to "just do it", not necessarily to close. Primefac (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac My own concern with a JDI approach is that I have no idea how, myself, to do it. Add to that the slight uncertainty over the script and I am not at all sure how to kick one off. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 15:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

My point was more that I could very well close this today and say "consensus says to do it", but if no one actually does it, then it's rather pointless as it will not get done (a corollary is WP:TFDH where templates-to-be-deleted can sometimes languish for months). Clearly, the consensus is here, so now we need someone (one or multiple individuals) to start the actually process rolling. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I figure we should also discuss scoring and other rules at some point; now's a fine time. I can dust off AFCBuddy and start looking at the templates again while that happens. Enterprisey (talk!) 17:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Just noting on-wiki that I'm happy to help with both technical and policy aspects of the administration of the drive. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 18:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey I am not sure how many current folk came to play in the 2014 drive, but the scoring scheme seemed to work well enough. Unless folk disagree, why not continue with that until it proves that a better scheme can be proposed and implemented?

@Firefly Thank you for throwing your hat into the ring

All: With various technical aspects to solve, should we suggest a one calendar month drive staring on 1 June? Or is that too soon? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 20:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

In favour

• Support for the reasons in my nomination Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support because it can only be of benefit, I review between 10-30 drafts a day, but could always do more! Theroadislong (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I'd certainly contribute to a potential drive. I'm not particularly fussed about the details as long as it gives editors a motivation to help reduce the backlog. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support not that it would make any difference to my editing, other than if the backlog was less I'd feel less pressure to do just one more... If we mass-message active, non-active, NPP patrolers about it then just that could encourage a bit more activity. KylieTastic (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support We need all the help we can get. We keep talking about bringing in new blood and the burnout faced by prolific reviewers. Let's fix it!Bkissin (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Additional Comment of support I believe that when quarantine started, we were able to bring the backlog down to under 2000 articles, so it can be done. (Hopefully it doesn't take something as bad as a pandemic to do it again) Bkissin (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not a very consistent reviewer (or editor), but I came back from a bit of a break as of last night-ish and it doesn't look like the backlog's improved while I've been away. I've seen backlog drives proposed a number of times and considering the size of the backlog and the success of drives in other projects (eg WP:GOCE) I think it's a good idea. LittlePuppers (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, given the ever-expanding backlog, something like this is clearly a good option in order to reduce it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. On the one hand, when we used to do AfC backlog drives, they tended to get over-eager reviewers throwing the baby out with the bathwater and declining rescuable drafts. On the other hand, since WP:ACPERM, AfC has filled up with a ton of crap that previously would get deleted via A7 / G11, so blasting through it all with a wiki-shotgun is likely to be less destructive as it was 7 years ago. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, as I always do. Might as well. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I've been open to giving this another try for a few years now. A drive will definitely increase my level of AfC participation. ~Kvng (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - unlikely to do any harm and may help get the backlog down. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 07:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Its going to be very hard. scope_creep^Talk 11:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support, not that the suggestion seems to need my support. I've thought we should run one of these for the last couple of years, but never had the time to offer to run one. But we need this and we need to reduce that backlog. — Bilorv (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, although it may have already been approved. I won't mediate any new content disputes for a while, so that I can focus on reviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Other opinions

• Quality issue — In the past one of the main reasons for not having one was possibly lower quality, but even if this happens to a degree I think it's worth it for a period just to get things back to a manageable level, and stop discouraging new editors facing months of waiting. KylieTastic (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  @KylieTastic You make an important point. The prior drives had substantial incentives to reviewers to double check other reviews, with points subtracted if a review failed two different reviewers' opinions. They relied on the competitive nature many of us have, though I acknowledge that many of us are not competitive. Peer pressure not to make stupid reviews is important whether in a Backlog Drive or outside one.

  I view a drive as an important trigger to accept drafts that are "not quite perfect" because the ideal outcome is a massive influx of decent quality articles that are susceptible to improvement by the community as a whole, coupled with a genuine reduction in the backlog. Declining a borderline draft does not truly reduce the backlog, it just moves that draft into a future backlog. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 14:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I definitely see your point KylieTastic. It would probably mean that many of the PAID and COI articles in the backlog would probably go through. I think as Timtrent mentioned double-checking and tagging articles with COI or UPE tags makes it easier to put them on NPP and AfD's radar. If our role (as some have suggested) is to accept articles with at least a 50/50 chance of surviving AfD, then I don't see an issue with reviewers opening those floodgates. Additionally, I think we were all a little green quality-wise when we started. We shouldn't close the door or gatekeep because someone makes a couple mistakes. It's just difficult to correct those mistakes without being BITEy when edits are moving so fast during a drive. (Though to be fair, Wikipedia editors seem to have no problem telling others when they screw up, lol) Bkissin (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Technical issues

• Question Does Excirial's script User:Excirial/AFCBuddy work with the current releases of MediaWIki software (etc). I note that they have not been actively editing since October 2020. The script was fundamental in making this easy to participate in Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Timtrent they may not have mention email notifications on, so probably worth leaving a talk-page message or direct email. KylieTastic (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  @KylieTastic I have left them a talk page message, linked to this discussion Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 12:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I have also emailed them, though email is not my favourite means of editor to editor communication. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 07:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  I have not had any response so far. Assuming we commit running a drive this is a hurdle that we must discover how to leap Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 06:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I asked them for the code a while ago and got it. I would be happy to take a look and perhaps run it if there's another backlog drive coming up. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey This is extremely good news. Obviously the discussion has to reach a conclusion, and it would be wrong to pre-judge that conclusion Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Some numbers

Out of curiosity I looked at some of the numbers and both last month and this month average to almost exactly 300 submissions per day. So that means that if we want to maintain the backlog we need to do:

• 9000 per month
• 300 per day

If we want to remove the backlog we need to do:

• 14250 over one month
• 475 per day (slightly fewer if it's a 31 day month)

Previous backlog drives appeared to reach 5000-7000 drafts reviewed in one month with 50 reviewers in one drive; I'm not sure how the number of members in AfC has changed since then, or if they ever ran out of drafts. (If we can have 60 reviews averaging 8 drafts per day, that'll completely empty the backlog; if one person does 1500, that'll drop to 7, so a few people can bring up the average a lot.) Tools (AfCH) have probably also improved since then. It might also help that it's been so long since we've had them (it appears that they used to be pretty regular/frequent). Unfortunately I'm not coming up with any good numbers for how quickly we're reviewing them as-is. See more accurate numbers below. LittlePuppers (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I sometimes manage to review 50 in a day, but it gets rather wearing having to contantly respond to outraged users of declined or rejected drafts. Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the numbers we're achieving at present can be deduced from your analysis of the actual backlog number. It is semi-stable at present, but it has stabilised at far too high. If one reviewer currently active goes inactive then it increases. If a new one joins in there is a decrease. With 300 a day being added we appear to be processing 300 a day. While that sounds a goodly number it's insufficient. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm also not sure how the length of the backlog affects submission/resubmission rates. I don't think there's a good way to tell that, though, because there are so many variables at play. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

LittlePuppers do the daily numbers come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions because recently I have us doing ~210 reviews per day and the backlog has been reducing. Two problems here is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions includes submitted redirects to WP:AFC/R that appear to be tagged with the created via AfC template. However worse is there is a bug where non submitted drafts such as Draft:吴冕 and Draft:Who is winning the race for brands? (at random) are not submitted but have the "AfC submissions by date/..." category added. This looks like a bug in Template:AfC submission calling Template:AfC date category when the first argument is T (aka non submitted draft). I'd delve deeper but I don't have the perms to fix... So pinging the last couple of template editors in 6 years Primefac and Enterprisey. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

KylieTastic, it is from that page, so going off what you're saying the numbers may actually be a good bit lower (which is encouraging). I was also wondering if they fail to count the same draft submitted twice in one day (but I assume that's a good bit less common). Do you know of a better place to take numbers from? LittlePuppers (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I have fixed the issue in the sandbox version with this and I've put in an edit request. KylieTastic (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the change went through, so I'll be curious what the numbers look like in the next couple of days. LittlePuppers (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I've run a purge on May - down to 211 per day but that still includes a lot of redirects - should those be in these cats? KylieTastic (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I suppose it depends on whether dates are meant to track articles specifically, and if they're for tracking submissions or pages created. I've updated the figures based on your numbers. LittlePuppers (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Better Numbers

Updated figures (still slightly high - it counts redirects, but not articles submitted multiple times in one day - but it should be much closer).

To maintain the current level of submissions:

• 6660 per month
• 222 per day

If we want to remove the backlog we need to do:

• 11860 over one month
• 395 per day (slightly fewer if it's a 31 day month)

These queries show a total of 6596 reviews over the last month (220/day), which is encouraging and shows that the backlog is no longer growing on us as it once was (and actually seems to be decreasing by a good bit in the past couple days). The last week had a total of 1681 reviews (240/day), which would corroborate a recent (or continuing) increase. To do similar calculations to above for completely clearing the backlog in a month (assuming an unchanged level of submissions) could be done by:

• 50 editors doing 8 reviews a day
• Convincing 50 reviewers to do 3 more reviews per day than they do currently
• Convincing every non-blocked user listed at WP:AFC/P to do 20 reviews over the month (or 8 reviews more than they do now)

An unrelated tidbit I noticed is that there is a significantly lower submission rate on weekends, especially on Saturdays (although how much time zones affect that I'm not sure - as it's UTC (I think), evening in the US counts as the next day). LittlePuppers (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Your observation is correct, generally Saturday is "easy-going" day here. Question: How many editors do 8 AfC Reviews per day in average? I do see always the same 8-10 reviewers every day, @KylieTastic what are the numbers of the top 20 reviewers currently? I personally also reduced my engagement because I seem to be more busy with handling talk page requests of frustrated editors then really being able to do reviews in depth. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford I've just run all my main SQL queries. Last week 9 people hit 8+ a day, 13 did 5+ a day (you've cut back to 30 a day). Last month 5 hit 8+ a day, 10 5+ a day, 21 2+ a day. Doing 6598 in a mounth or 212/day, and all this work for only 18% acceptable :/ - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel like I should emphasize: we're at a pretty steady level already. Even a small increase could have a decent impact on the backlog. And, averages can be misleading - we don't know how many people will participate, and there's going to be (already is) a wide range of reviews/person already; a few people tend to bring up the average a lot. LittlePuppers (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus and Implementation

It seems clear to me that we have a consensus. We need to move forwards to implementation. There seem to me to be three outstanding areas:

1. Start date and duration
2. Scoring system
3. Techncial aspects

Start date and duration

I would like to propose a start date of 1 June.

With regard to duration I am not sure whether a short sharp drive of one month, or a longer drive of two months will be more effective in motivating reviewers to review more, and in motivating new reviewers to get a solid base of reviews under their belts. Arguing for two months, we will make a bigger inroad into the backlog, but arguing agaist it, keeping up motivation at drive level for more than a month can be hard. I would prefer to argue for a pair of narrowly spaced single month duration drives, perhaps a month apart.

As always, opinions are welcome Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 09:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Start date

I have added headings for Start Date and Duration. The first opinions expressed on duration suggest a single month, perhaps followed after an interval by another. But no-one apart from me has offered opinions so far about start date. This date may be limited by technical issues, but opinions are important. We need not start at the start of a calendar month, for example. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 13:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I favour 1 June if this is possible technically Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 13:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  We are unlikely to be able to hit 1 June without a stupendous effort. What should the start date be? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 07:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  July 1 might make sense. Or any month that you're available, since you're providing good leadership. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae I am flattered, and I thank you for the compliment. While I don't mind leading in spirit I am not sure at all that I have the technical grasp to "take charge" so to speak. I think I must defer to someone else, unless the task came be shown to me to be non technical.

  Even then there is a risk that, even should I be in a position to lead this one, I would not be in a position to lead the next one, or the one after that. Equally, one person should not become indispensable. I have a vision of a small pool of folk where some fall away over time and new folk leap in to replace them. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 22:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  The tech stuff probably won't be ready by tomorrow. July 1 sounds fine to me. I'm hoping to run at least a couple of single-day "test drives" - or maybe one over a weekend - to make sure all the moving parts are fine. I'd also like to squash a few of the worse helper script bugs (e.g. decline/reject comment handling). It's been a while, after all. I'm also sitting on some proposals for rule changes from last time (mostly about scoring and quality control) that I'd like to polish and have discussed before the drive starts, as well. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Duration

• I think a one-month drive would be preferable. I participated in the March GAN Backlog drive and felt that motivation petered out towards the end of the month. Anything longer than that might be inefficient. I would support your idea of a second, month-long drive though we would have to think about the spacing. We should allow at least two weeks, if not a month, between individual drives. If we go for 1 June to 30 June, the second drive could start, say, on 1 August. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that it would be better if the drive didn't go for more than a month consecutively. LittlePuppers (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear, in case I was not, I also support a single month at any given time. I was simply setting out some arguments previously Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 13:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Two month-long drives a month apart might be nice, especially for anyone who wants to participate but is busy in real life during one particular month. — Bilorv (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Scoring system

I had not envisaged a different scoring system from the 2014 drive, but this is a good opportunity to make adjustments. Whatever scoring scheme is chosen I hope we retain the checks and balances of points to review other reviewers' reviews and negative points for poor reviews. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 09:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent or anybody - Is there a link to the 2014 scoring system? How does a scoring system work? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog elimination drives where there is a section on it. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 10:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - I will look at and comment on AFCBuddy in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Technical aspects

These are beyond me, but we have two excellent volunteers to look at these with care Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 09:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• We will need an invitation to all current reviewers togethher with whomsoever is deemed suitable i addition. I am not sure how to handle that except by labour. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 13:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

We should give some thought to how we are going to market this. Should we mass message all existing AFC reviewers? Mass messaging is simple enough, we just need somebody with the mass message perm to send the message out for us.

We should also give some thought to if we want to try to recruit people that don't normally AFC review. I think we definitely should. New blood will be important for crushing the backlog both short-term and long-term. Should we mass message every NPP that isn't an AFC reviewer? I could provide this list, if needed.

Maybe we should even give some thought to configuring the AFCH script to auto allow admins and people with the NPP perm, without the normal AFC approval process. If a person is qualified, the less obstacles to reviewing, the better. From a technical side, I have a bot that keeps a list of people with these perms and updates it daily, that data file could be loaded by AFCH. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Even though it's kind of not a discussion, maybe we can put it on WP:CENT. A watchlist notice is probably too much as we do only want people comfortable with notability standards. A load of {{Please see}} notices on every village pump, at AN and ANI and anywhere else that primarily experienced editors frequent. Maybe even go around some major active WikiProjects and mention it. This to get some new people on board, and also send a mess message to existing AfC reviewers so we're aware of it. If this is to work, it needs to get fresh blood reviewing and not just the usual people doubling their efforts and then burning out. (I don't consider myself one of these people so I'll do my part in upping my reviewing as much as I can.) — Bilorv (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

We have almost 600 reviewers, a post to CENT isn't necessary so much as an MMS. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I incline to @Primefac's view. With 600 reviewers we surely just need a spur. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

We have 560 on the 'active' list, but in the last month we have only had 189 with 1+ reviews - so lots to encourage to do some/more. We also have 572 Inactive reviewers that maybe some could be encouraged to re-join. And the NPP who should be qualified and end up reviewing a lot of the accepted so hopefully we could get some to join in. The only thing to avoid is spamming people with multiple messages. KylieTastic (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Special Considerations

I will, first, urge reviewers to err on the side of acceptance, with certain exceptions. Remember that the guideline says to accept if there is more than a 50% chance (subjectively judged) of being kept at AFD. If the backlog drive results in a lot of AFDs, that is what will happen. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. We should have no concerns about accepting borderline cases Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 10:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. But at present, reviewers may prefer to ignore borderline cases, especially because it is very much a Wikipedia practice for one group of volunteers to dump on another group of volunteers, including about uncertain acceptances. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I will urge reviewers to be quick to decline any draft where there is a question about conflict of interest. If there is any question about conflict of interest, whether paid editing or anything else, it is better to send it back with a question to the submitter, who is then expected to answer the question before resubmitting. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This is, or ought to be, a general practice unless the draft is ready for acceptance, when I see no obstacle to accepting it and flagging the nature of the COI Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 10:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there a script, or can one be developed, to copy AFC comments to a draft talk page? If there are previous comments, it will facilitate any subsequent reviews (or AFDs) if the comments are on the article talk page after acceptance, rather than having to find them in the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I see this as a more general item, and not one that should be a gating factor on initiating a drive. @Robert McClenon would you object to splitting this off as a separate proposal? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 10:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - If you are referring to the copying of the comments to the draft talk page, then I say "both of the above" to it being a more general item, and to it being a gating factor on initiating a drive. I have previously written about copying the comments to the talk page, and the usual response has been 'apathetic agreement' that it would be a good idea but that no one cares that much, along with the question of whether new editors know what talk pages are. No one disagrees, and no one cares. It is relevant to initiating a drive because some drafts have notability issues or other issues that really should be addressed at AFD. Doing nothing with such drafts is all right as long as the backlog can build up. If we really want to work the backlog off, and we agree that we do want to work the backlog off, then we should make it easier to deal with identified issues in AFD. That is the link. I have raised the issue before, and it gets agreement, and is ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - Of course I have no objection to splitting off the copying of AFC comments to the draft or article talk page as a separate proposal. I have been proposing that for an extended period of time. As I noted, it gets 'apathetic agreement'. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I think the issue is not so much that folk support it, and I do think it would be better as a separate formal proposal to avoid diluting or delaying a much needed reduction in backlog, but that it needs to claim the attention of our script guru. I recall your speaking or it previously, but I cannot for the life of me recall the conclusion, nor whether I participated. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 06:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the loss of old AfC comments addressing COI concerns is a bigger problem. I wish that all comments would be copied to the talk page, perhaps to a section titled “Pre-acceptance comments”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus says yes, so what now?

• Are we aiming for 1 June?
• Who will run it?
• Does the script work?

I can't run this. I am travelling or otherewise incapacitated for the next few weeks, and we have far better folk than me to do it. Please let us not allow this to wither on the vine. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 22:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It's also unfortunate timing for me, so I can't run this. It looks like the previous script used was User:Excirial/AFCBuddy but the user is no longer active. I don't know if anyone knows how to run the script. Worse comes to worst, could we run it with everyone keeping track of their own contributions periodically, and a judge (spot)checking them? I'd be happy to be a judge, at least during the second half of the drive. Pinging some users from the discussion who might be technical-inclined, @Primefac, Enterprisey, Ritchie333, and Firefly: any ideas? — Bilorv (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

We know that Enterprisey has the script and may be checking ity and the templates currently. We know that Firefly is happy to do things.

For myself I'd rather do it well and 'soon' than not as well and fast. We're very much in technical hands to know when we can start. What we need to do is to formalise who is willing and happy to do what in order to get drives working again Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Jou Okitsu

Can someone please create a page for a man named Jou Okitsu? He was Japanese-America and a winner of a purple heart award in WWII.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.176.18 (talk)

This page is for discussing the operation of Articles for Creation only. You may make article suggestions at Requested Articles, though the backlog there is severe. If you have independent reliable sources about this man, the fastest thing to do is create a draft yourself using the process described here at WP:AFC. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Over a million Purple Hearts were issued in World War II alone. That isn't enough to warrant a page. Even people who received far more prestigious awards aren't considered notable enough for articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Cynthia Graham Hurd

This is basically a request for a fifth opinion. I think that I disagree with at least two editors in opposite directions. User:FloridaArmy submitted this draft, which was Rejected by User:Clarityfiend. I disagree with the rejection, and Clarityfiend stands by their decision, and we agree to disagree. FloridaArmy then revised the draft and resubmitted it with what I see as inadequate explanation, and I strongly disapprove of resubmitting a Rejected draft without discussion. In my opinion, resubmitting a Rejected draft with inadequate discussion degrades the value of Rejection, but that is my opinion. It was then declined (in my view, a more reasonable action) by User:Jeromeenriquez, and it has been resubmitted again.

My first thought is that I should submit the draft to Drafts for Discussion. There is no Drafts for Discussion. My second thought is to let the community decide. The only way that I know of to let the community decide is to Accept the draft, where it will get more attention in article space than in draft space, and any editor can then reasonably nominate it for Articles for Deletion.

What does anyone else think? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thabks for initiating this discussi9n Robert McClennon. We shoukd be governed by the very substantial coverage in reliable sources of her and her legacy including years after the shooting. I would also like to point out that despitw your repeated claim that I resubmitted withiut discussion, I merged as was suggested by the modt recent reviewer. It was reverted. I then restored thw draft and explained my resubmission stating "Merge was undone per wp:Weight. Not surprisingly. Needs its own entry as the perp Dylan Roof has and as other notable victims have". FloridaArmy (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no "very substantial coverage" after the crime, merely announcements of scholarships, a renaming in her honor and a foundation. She has no notability separate from the shooting. FloridaArmy has compared her to Rachel Scott. Scott has had books written about her, as well as a film. Hurd has not. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that User:Theroadislong accepted the draft, so it is now an article. Thank you. Any editor who thinks that the subject is not notable has the right to nominate it for deletion, and then the community will decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I find this article to have a complexity of issues. I scratched my head long and hard over it, and have made a mindful nomination at AfD.

Emotionally, I understand why the article has been created and been accepted. Intellectually I am not so sure. Thus I have chosen to let the community decide. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't decided how to !vote in the AFD. I also thank User:Timtrent for taking this to the community. I thought that the community should decide, which required first and acceptance and then an AFD nomination. So there we are. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I think this is likely to be a protracted discussion, and potentially hard to close, as so often happens with people thrust into the white heat of the public gaze by the horror of their murder. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 05:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

If any reviewer thinks a draft is acceptable, they may accept it. Anyone who disagrees is then welcome to send it to AfD where the final fate is decided by the community and we all learn from it. It looks like this is what ended up happening. ~Kvng (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I have always favoured the acceptance of borderline acceptable drafts. The community has greater wisdom than the individual, and our role is not to require perfection. AfD is then a wholly valid tool, though probably not if the proposer was also the accepting reviewer! (not this case!!) Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - The proposer of what? Do you mean the nominator of the AFD, or the originator of the article? The first case sounds like Good Hand Bad Hand or multiple personality disorder. The second is approving one's own draft, which is permitted if one is allowed to create new articles, as reviewers are. You probably mean the nominator, and that would be weird. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Nominator for AfD. Apologies. I have a fairly weird brain. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 15:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library accessed references not allowed?

So, I saw a discussion further up on this page a couple days back about Draft:Richard Burge and how it was very obviously a COI made article from the original user that authored it. But since it looked like Burge was actually notable, I decided to take a challenge and improve it, while removing the puffery nonsense at the same time. Which resulted in changing the article from this originally to the current version. In working on the article, I discovered that a lot of the references that extensively discussed Burge were from decades past and not publicly available from a Google search. In comes The Wikipedia Library to the rescue and ProQuest in particular. I was able to find a number of articles from the 90's and his strongly media-discussed positions in the Countryside Alliance and the British Council. Thus, I added them into the article, removed any of the extraneous nonsense text and trimmed and formatted everything into a proper article, as it is now, before resubmitting it to AfC.

Which has then led to Fiddle Faddle declining the submission today for the following reason:

"It is generally accepted that references be inked to the precise medium, not a more general link. I am not about to chase them down. If you want the article to be accepted that is your job."

I presume this to be in regards to the Wikipedia Library references I used. Are such references not allowed on AfC? Is it that WP:PAYWALL does not apply to AfC submissions? That seems like a restriction that would limit the exhibition of notability for thousands of topics, as many are going to have references that can only be accessed through such non-public subscription sources, not to mention physical media in many cases. Silverseren^C 23:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it could be helpful to include the URL to the ProQuest article even if it is paywalled — for example, https://www.proquest.com/docview/1715157025 for reference #6 — to provide a direct link that at least verifies that there exists an article titled X published in Y, and to allow people with access to log in with a simple button click instead of manually looking up the details themselves. I think citing articles on ProQuest is fine in general. DanCherek (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, done. But that doesn't really address the broader issue. What if these were references to physical media sources? Silverseren^C 23:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: In general, WP:Offline sources are absolutely acceptable. It just leads to a more difficult review and a certain degree of WP:AGF. Newspapers.com is a valuable tool that the library provides, and you can cite the exact date, edition, and page number of a physical source. Unfortunately not everyone can easily verify that info, but if somone wanted to, they could do so. The same would apply to a textbook. -2pou (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: I think you are overthinking this. The objective is to make life easy for the potential readership. That a source is offline is fine. That a source is behind a paywall is fine. And that you have now added the relevant urls is excellent. What is required in a reference is the fullest information that will allow an interested party to chase it down and verify it. Where possible that should be directly to the publication if there is a direct online version, avoiding intermediary sites. That means that a newspaper's own site is alwasy preferable to a library version, for example.

The extra work you have done also makes it far easier for the AFC reviewer to come to a conclusion about the draft. Since I do not review a draft more than once that will be someone else. Different eyes are almost always better as reviews progress. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 07:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this was an inappropriate decline. I would probably accept the draft myself, but my AFC gadget no longer works correctly (womp womp). Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I took a quick look at this one, and my Wikipedia Library version of ProQuest couldn't open all the articles. It said I didn't have access to some of them. Don't forget, one option is to move the article to mainspace yourself. You can do this if you are confident that it passes GNG. You might actually be in the best position to evaluate this since you have access to and have read all these sources. Do around 3 of the sources go into at least 3 paragraphs of detail about the subject? Barring other problems, an article that meets that criteria usually passes the significant coverage part of GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae:, yeah, several of them are entirely about Burge and his life and history, particularly with the Countryside Alliance. I didn't realize there were different versions of access to the same databases through the TWL. Silverseren^C 00:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren. Here's some screenshots. The first is when I attempted to use the link in citation #6 (although I tweaked the URL a bit). The second is when I searched for the article title (it didn't appear in the search results). So you also have WL and it worked fine for you? Interesting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility of references is not any part of the notability criterion at WP:SIGCOV; nonetheless, editors trying to assess the quality of sourcing in an article have to work with the sources they can see, so accessibility matters. It is a pragmatic concern, in that accessible references will 'count more' than inaccessible ones, and if Timtrent is suggesting this is a matter of policy he is wrong, but it is advisable to do what you can to help reviewers see the strength of sources you provide. — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that Reviewers may WP:AGF WRT sources they cannot personally access. If there are questions about WP:SIGCOV a discussion with the author on the draft's talk page is an option. AfD is the place if a deep dive is needed. ~Kvng (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Kvng and others, for restating common sense about sources that a reviewer or reader cannot access. Paywalled sources are similar to foreign-language sources in that they are permitted, and the ability of a reader of the encyclopedia to click a link and see the sources is a nice-to-have rather than a requirement. A book that was printed in the nineteenth century and is in libraries and has not been scanned is also a valid source. (In a content dispute, I was dealing with an editor who thinks that foreign-language sources should be accompanied by a translation.) Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

A Blocked Reviewer

Some of you already know that CommanderWaterford has been indefinitely blocked. I think that the slight effect that this has on reviews is that resubmitted drafts that were declined by CW should be looked at a little more as if they had not been previously reviewed. I will say that I usually agreed with CW's declines. (I don't really have an opinion on their accepts, because I don't usually see accepts unless I am looking at the same draft as another reviewer, or unless I am looking at the New Page feed, and I haven't reviewed new pages much recently.) I don't comment further on this unfortunate turn of events, at least not at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The reasons for their block had almost nothing to do with their NPR or AFC work, so for me I would not view any of their past reviews as suspect (as opposed to, say, someone who was blocked for UPE or socking). Primefac (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay. So then the main questions, as with any resubmission, are whether the originator has made non-trivial changes that address the reason for the decline, and (as with any draft) whether the new draft satisfies the criteria for acceptance. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: we might need to review his AFC and potentially NPP work as well given how blatant the advert, copyright violation, and COI were on Youth Coalition for Organ Donation, which he had accepted at AFC. – robertsky (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Review with what workforce? Without CW, we now have a submission quantity that will increase over time, and is starting from a number so large we can't possibly handle the submissions we already have. How many articles did you have to go through before finding Youth Coalition for Organ Donation? If CW was 80% accurate or higher then I'd say leave it, unless you come across a CW mistake while doing other things. — Bilorv (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in the week (ish) since they were blocked, our backlog has dropped back down below 5000 and we've cleared out the 5 month category. CW might have been a prolific reviewer, but clearly their loss is not the end of the project. I do, however, agree that unless there are specific issues regarding their reviewing in the past, just treat their reviews as normal. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, since his block I have tried to review at least 20 - 30 a day to compensate, but don't see any problems with their reviews. Theroadislong (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've had the week off work and it's been rain rain rain (good old Blighty) so I've been doing more than normal so I've been partly covering CWs loss, but soon I have to go back to the hell that is my job and wont have the time anymore. KylieTastic (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, there's your explicit cause for the backlog dropping under 5,000 and it's absolutely not an indication that we have this ship under control—but thanks for what you've been doing, Theroadislong and KylieTastic. Our loss of CW is not itself a death sentence, but it could be one of 20 contributing factors to a death sentence. To say "no draft has waited more than five months for a review" is like saying "I managed to accomplish everything on my to-do list for today by the end of the calendar year". — Bilorv (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The site is very hard to use.

I looked for a Wikipedia article on smoking posts (https://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels-behind-the-scenes/170598/barniers-last-throw-of-the-dice/). I got a notice that such an article does not exist but that I could request one be made using the link to this page (not submit a draft - just give the topic so someone in the know might see the request and write an article, so we can find out about the topic). Well, I can't find anything about requesting articles. Am I blind? No. So, IF such a resource exists, it sure is not made easy for people not in the know. Why can't the page say near the top something like, "This page is for people who want a new article. There are n options: 1) If you have a subject but no content, do/go to..., 2) If you have a subject about which you know something and want to write...
Wikipedia should be easy for 'everyman' to use, not so complicated that people just give up. 79.134.37.83 (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You may request a new article at Requested Articles, although the backlog there is severe and it may be a long time, if ever, before your request is acted on. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the assumption when one clicks a "red link" to a nonexistent article is that they would be interested in creating it, not merely asking someone else to. If you are interested in creating an account, there is a new user tutorial which would likely answer many of your questions about editing Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The limiting factor is not topics to write about, but people to write them. As such, it's not useful to us to have people suggest articles. "Oh, so and so thinks we should write about this. Great—I'll add it to the bottom of my thousand-entry list of things I'll never get around to." On Wikipedia you have to learn that if you want something done, you need to do it yourself. So why don't you try writing a draft on the given topic? — Bilorv (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Speak for Itself (More)

I have added a few examples to the essay Speak for Itself which we discussed a month ago. One of the examples is a case where there may be a Heymann keep of an article that didn't speak for itself. I nominated the article for deletion based on the article as written and a naive Google search. Another editor has found other sources. Sometimes the process works like this. I think that I should have nominated it for deletion. Occasionally an article only gets improved after it is nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Under 5000!

Finally it's been a while - good job all! KylieTastic (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, I was watching the decrease too, but had just slipped outside for a glass of wine in the summerhouse. Onwards and downwards. Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

5mo is (almost) clear (just one left). Primefac (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:AFCH

Yesterday I've installed Yet another Articles for creation helper script and I've bypassed my cache. Why doesn't WP:AFCH work well? Dr Salvus 19:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus perhaps you would care to expand on the not working well aspect. please? Please be precise about what you mean. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent, I don't see this thing below . Dr Salvus 20:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus in the Draft: namespace? This is important, because un the User: namespace it only appears when triggered in your More tab Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 20:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent, yes. I mean in the draftspace. I don't see the thing above Dr Salvus 20:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus so do you see the "Review (AFCH beta)" in the "More" top menu but nothing happens? KylieTastic (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't show up automatically, you have to click things. Primefac (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

In the Draft: namespace it shows up automagically for me? It always has. What have I done right? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent I thought "really!?" then looked and at the top there is "AFCH v0.9.1 (preferences)" and the preferences link lets you set auto open - but I head never noticed that before. Not sure what the default is thought. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It was aeons ago I will have set it! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What can I do to solve the problem? Your replies weren't clear Dr Salvus 21:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus When you have persuaded the banner to pop up, click the preferences link in its top line, and set them to whatever you wish Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It does not achieve the same effect in User: space. @Enterprisey, is that by design or a gremlin, please? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus It would be pleasant to know the end of this from your perspective Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Article Copied from Draft

What should I do if I am reviewing a draft and I see that the draft has been copied into article space exactly as it was in draft space by a different editor without attribution? I think that the subject of the article passes notability. (I know that it would be easier if the subject didn't pass notability, in which case the article can be nominated for deletion.) I am aware that what I am observing and describing is probably plagiarism. (It may instead be sockpuppetry, but that is not my question here.) My question is how to deal with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If the draft was copied by another editor without attribution, and you don't think the article in the mainspace should be deleted immediately, the typical thing to do here is request a histmerge. This will move the history from the draft to the mainspace page, and turn the draft into a redirect. This can be requested with {{histmerge}} in the usual case, or otherwise at WP:RFHM if the situation is more complex for whatever reason. — The Earwig (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. If the article is a direct copy of the draft, request a {{histmerge}}. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you guys G11 drafts?

Do you guys WP:G11 drafts? I don't, since AFC is technically supposed to be the place where COI promo type people can work on articles. But lots of AFC reviewers do. Thoughts? If I'm in the minority, maybe I'll start tagging them too. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes i do, but I give more leeway in draft than I would in main-space. However I often notice someone will G11 ones I AGF on shortly after so it makes little difference. Also as an admin mentioned on my talk page recently if there is personal information in it it's better to go for a G11. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

In the past, I have given the editor leeway to fix the prose, but if they've submitted a few times and it still contains more spam than the Green Midget Cafe in Bromley, then I might stick a G11 tag on, as it's obviously going nowhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that promotional drafts are often copyright violations (e.g. copied from press releases or the company's website), so it's always good to run them through Earwig's tool. If most of the article prose is a copyright violation it should be tagged as G12. firefly ( t · c ) 10:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

.... and that's generally good advice for any draft, full stop. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

My thought process for potential G11 nominations is the same for a potential G12 nomination: does the draft require a full and total rewrite to avoid the issue? If yes, it gets nominated. If there are a paragraph or three of reasonable prose, then no (for a G11 I might either leave it with a note or remove it myself, with G12 I'll excise the offending text). I do agree that G11 in draft space is much more lenient than G11 in article space, and we likely each have slightly different metrics as to where that line is, but it is done. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I G11 them after they've been resubmitted as ordure once too often Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 13:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't do much AfC reviewing any more, but yeah, I G11 drafts. That's why it's G-something instead of A-something. And, as others have noted, my G11 meter is calibrated to be more lenient in draft space than in mainspace. I also factor in other things like whether this feels like UPE, socking, etc. If it's just a newbie writing in adoring terms about something they're really interested in, they'll get a lot more latitude and guidance vs. just being slapped down. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I seldom tag a draft as G11, but I have done so on occasion. I base the action on a sort of smell test. If the draft smells, so that it is obvious that it will never be an article, I either Reject it or tag it for speedy deletion. My particular variety of the smell test is what grammatical person the draft is written in. If the draft is written in the first person plural, by the company, or in the second person, addressed to the customer-reader, that is a smell. Other reviewers may have other rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201 Online events: New: Wiki Loves Pride | June Junes | Jewellers & Watchmakers Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOMOS Films

I have just sent one of my own acceptance to AfD. Either I was incorrect then in accepting it or I am incorrect today in suggesting it be deleted. The reason I mention it here is because of the unusual nature of what I have just done. My eyes today told me it was an advert. My eyes on acceptance told me it was probably of article quality, albeit borderline. I am certain it has suffered negative improvement since acceptance.

I will take no further part in the deletion discussion and will welcome your contributions there whatever they offer as opinions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - You made a mistake a year ago in accepting this article. We all make mistakes, and some of us have the wisdom to admit to them. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Thank you for your honest appraisal of what I did then. Mistakes are useful things to admit. They make us better for the future. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 07:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, that is the type of reviewing error that the scoring scheme in the proposed backlog draft is intended to catch Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 07:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem was never and is not one of corporate notability, but of neutrality, and we don't have good procedures on what to do with spam that does satisfy notability. I think that this is a discussion for a policy forum such as Village Pump - Policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

We can and do decline or reject drafts that are mostly advertising, but being mostly advertising isn't a basis for deletion if the subject passes notability and doesn't trigger G11. That is the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Help with blacklisted title

I am trying to accept Draft:Tinsley-Wallerstein Diagram as (α/Fe) versus (Fe/H) diagram or The (α/Fe) versus (Fe/H) diagram, but am getting the message "titleblacklist-forbidden-move". The draft title isn't acceptable since the name has just been proposed in a May 2021 paper and is not otherwise in use. The diagram is currently known in the literature as the [α/Fe] versus [Fe/H] diagram, definitively calling out for a new name. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

New backlog chart?

Since our old backlog chart died ages ago I was wondering if we should have something like Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart for AfC? I would think it would be a good thing in general, but also for the backlog drive(s). Either maybe MusikAnimal would be willing to add it to MusikBot or maybe any other AfC bot runner could add it. It would need:

• The bot to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart/monthly like Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart/monthly
• The bot to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart/weekly like Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart/weekly
• The bot to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart/daily like Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart/daily
• The bot to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart/hourly like Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart/hourly

• not convinced hourly is needed in general but maybe would help for backlogs?

• Create Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart like Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart

• also the /doc and /sandbox sub pages
• also if would be nice if the chart had links under to swap between monthly/weekly/daily/hourly views - or maybe just to a link to another sub page with all 4 on

• Finally could add it the top of here like the old chart used to be, and similar to NPP Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers
• As for the data this API call is simplest but gets about +9 (at the moment) on the {{AFC status/backlog}} as the latter does not count Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space or a couple of oddities like Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories and Wikipedia:Files for upload so just use the API result -1 (for those two pages.... I didn't even realise Wikipedia:Files for upload was considered part of AfC!)

Thoughts? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse

Hello, could you review: Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse and create it as an article on wikipedia? Thanks!

Emat20211 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Emat20211