Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

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

Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!

AfC submissions Random submission

3+ months

3,319 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

Scoring for LLM generated Wikipedia Style models.

I am part of a team at a University where we are building a LLM style model which will be given a topic and will generate different subtopics and then text in order to write an informative article. We are going to be using several different types of scoring mechanisms, but we would ideally like to have frequent wikipedia editors collaborate with scoring the articles.

Our goal is only for educational research, and we are not intending to try to publish these LLM generated articles on Wikipedia. Our LLM will ideally generate Wikipedia style articles with citations, and different sub-points. We will also have an automatic scorer that will score the essay based on 1. Well Written, 2. Verifiable with no original research, 3. Broad in its coverage, and 4. Qualitative comments (The first three metrics for a Good Article + Qualitiative comments). We would take a subset of our articles produced and score them by actual Wikipedia editors as a way to verify our scorer is within reason.

We will have about 20-30 articles to be scored, and will be able to monetarily compensate scorers. Terribilis11 (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like you would like to recruit Wikipedia editors to do scoring, but you did not mention next steps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1UEvyGpnOw_V3PCCU0uUu87QsKwrcA0WiKVhHl7D7WOM/edit If you fill out this form we can contact you for next steps. Terribilis11 (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Terribilis11 Potentially interested, but I'd like to see a Research Ethics Statement/Infosheet first. Do you have a copy? Qcne (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1UEvyGpnOw_V3PCCU0uUu87QsKwrcA0WiKVhHl7D7WOM/edit If you fill out this form we can contact you for next steps. Terribilis11 (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like something I'd be up to. Let us know what the next steps are. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1UEvyGpnOw_V3PCCU0uUu87QsKwrcA0WiKVhHl7D7WOM/edit If you fill out this form we can contact you for next steps. Terribilis11 (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but further details would be helpful. What would this LLM be used for once it is finished? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1UEvyGpnOw_V3PCCU0uUu87QsKwrcA0WiKVhHl7D7WOM/edit If you fill out this form we can contact you for next steps. Terribilis11 (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I would also consider, but need further details. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1UEvyGpnOw_V3PCCU0uUu87QsKwrcA0WiKVhHl7D7WOM/edit If you fill out this form we can contact you for next steps. Terribilis11 (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Need help with AFCP

I have been dealing with some IRL issues the couple of weeks, and have been unable to devote the time and space to properly vet the new AFCH access requests. With the backlog drive coming up, as well as just the general idea that folks simply shouldn't be waiting that long to get looked at, I simply need to ask for help.

I have at least been able to go through and find that no one (currently) meets the quick-fail numerical criteria, but I need thoughts on whether someone is a) not meeting the "experience" criteria, b) is suitable for probationary membership, or c) should clearly be a full reviewer straight off. I'll put a subsection for those three options below, and if I don't hear anything before 1 Nov I will assume that there are no issues with the new applicants receiving a probationary membership (which, as a reminder, means nothing other than "any admin can remove the user for any reason") and will give them access. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC) And just as a note, I don't need to be pinged, I'm watching this page as well as subscribed to the thread. update: removing subthread, there are few enough left (thanks Spicy) that they can just be mentioned/discussed below easily enough. Primefac (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Would there be any objection to other admins handling the requests? I should have the time to look at some of them today. Spicy (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

No objection from me. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done, with thanks to those who helped out. Primefac (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Spicy just fyi, if you have another moment, there are a handful of people who have applied since the backlog drive started. To save anyone reading this the first round of checking: Styx & Stones (now Donnchadh4) does not have 500 mainspace edits, so can be declined easily. F.Alexsandr only barely meets minimum edit count. The other three (as I write this, Styx & Stones is the most recent) all easily meet the minimum edit count. -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I declined the obvious one; of the four remaining:

• R. S. Shaw: seems fine, good AfD stats, seemingly not as active recently as many years ago but no big red flags.
• Micheal Kaluba: see #Query below (and details on his user talk); no AfDs that I can find.
• F.Alexsandr: 506 mainspace edits, 50% on 2 AfDs. May have some experience at ru.wp.
• LEvalyn: seems very strong all around, plenty of edits, good AfD stats, good interactions with new editors.

But I'll leave those for a second opinion (and because I can't add anyone to the list). LittlePuppers (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I would accept (maybe probation, probably not), decline or ask questions, decline for now, and accept (without probation), respectively. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I plan on getting to these today at some point; my usual workflow is to deal with AFCH requests on Sundays. Thanks for the feedback on them :-) Primefac (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a way to see all my afc submissions?

I have a lot of afc submissions so I am unsure which ones are actually active and which are not. Is there a way to easily look through a list of all drafts I have submitted? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You can see all your draft creations here. If you're looking to find just the drafts you've submitted for review, you can head over to {{AfC statistics}}, and then simply press Ctrl+F to search for your username without the 'User' prefix. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer thank you, that solved it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle the quickest way to see your active submissions (99% accurate) is with a search like this. Which show you have 45 submissions which is ~2.5% of all submissions and climbing (yesterday it was 2%). Can you please take a break from submitting for a while for the sake of both the reviewers and other submitters and let us catch up. Currently the top submitters list is: Immanuelle: 45, Dogloverr16: 18, 126yt: 10, Liuchinghuang: 9, FloridaArmy: 8, Shan-Chen Lu: 7, Winnie0510: 5. You can also find your declined submission with this. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@KylieTastic I think I'll just take a general break from Wikipedia. I managed to reorganize my drafts a lot reducing my draft count from 3,946 drafts to 3,522 drafts, after being criticized for having too many drafts. I think I will just take a break for a while. I submitted the drafts I thought were good (although a few weren't that good), and now it's my time to relax for a bit and decompress. I've been acting a bit from a perceived pressure for performance lately, now my drafts are all ones someone else can realistically contribute to if they find them. Might be gone for a week or two Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah gonna take a break for a week Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle wow that's a lot of drafts, which means a lot of work, so yes you need to take care not to get overloaded and burnout. Over the years I've seen a number of good editors push themselves then disappear. It's good to recognise when you need to take a break and actually take one for your own health. Have a good chill. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@KylieTastic I haven't really been very good at taking the break. But do you think it is okay that I am submitting a lot of my drafts that I previously was hesitant to submit due to the backlog being cleared? I really want to take this opportunity before the backlog comes back since I have a lot of years old drafts that I want to get reviewed. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle I did notice your taking a break had very little break. Although people would like to see the backlog hit zero that should not stop people submitting as that is what this is here for. Don't spam huge amounts all at once, but it you have drafts that you think are solid then that is what we are all (mostly) here for. You would not be the only one taking advantage of a small queue. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@KylieTastic Yeah I intend on taking more of a break after submitting many drafts that I consider to have a lot of potential. Some like Draft:Mirabilis Ventures Inc are over a year old. tbh Shinto texts being accepted really motivated me to look at my oldest drafts and try to get them submitted. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ancient Backlog Cleared

At this time, we do not have any drafts that are 3 months or more old. Does this mean that the backlog drive has been a success so far? (I think so, but that is only my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Good start, but no one should really have to wait more than a month for a review (preferably a week), so more to go for a real success on !queue reduction. Success will also be judged by quality which we will probably not tell for a while. At least accept rates are up. KylieTastic (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that means the drive has been a runaway success! Extrapolating from the rate the backlog has been reducing, we're due to hit zero before November 8. (Not saying that will happen, only that it might be expected given the current pace.) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

We're down to under 500 drafts! The queue hasn't been this thin since mid-2021. -- asilvering (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow, ok that was quick lmao. I was expecting things to take more than a week to mostly clear. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Focus on re-reviews

I know we're getting close to being "done" a scant week into the drive, but I would ask that folks start focusing on re-reviews, in particular those with maybe 50+ reviews (and or the top 10 reviewers). It's one thing to get rid of the backlog, but if folks are getting sloppy to do so then we've probably done more harm than good. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I've done some spot-checks of reviewers with abnormally high decline rates and the results haven't been terribly encouraging, but it's easy enough to fix if we work quickly. (ie, so far I've been resubmitting failed declines before the original author has done so) -- asilvering (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Out of interest, what do you consider an abnormally high decline rate? – Joe (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe I've been spotchecking people whose decline rates approach 100%. I'm not sure exactly where the bottom end of "abnormally high" would be - maybe about 80% declines? The project average is something like 60%, but it really depends on how you approach the queue. My decline rate was dead average or a bit low for a long time, but when I switched to prioritizing the four-month-old backlog, it went up quite a bit. The easy declines are all at the front of the queue. My ratio early in the drive (before I started doing re-reviews and going back to clearing out the Books and Literature categories) was something like 30% declines. So I would expect that someone who exclusively makes quick calls at the front of the queue, leaving anything that requires further investigation, to approach something like 80% declines without making inappropriate declines. But that's pretty much all based on feel. -- asilvering (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I sometimes look at AfC decline rate when evaluating WP:PERM/NPP requests and generally find >80% to be a red flag too. It's nice to have a broader basis for comparison. I've never thought to check my own... 11%, I guess that puts me on the other abnormal end! – Joe (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe there is a huge variance and frankly I don't think it's a good indication of review quality. yes we certainly have had those doing bad declines, but also those doing bad accepts, and worst of all bad rejects. I just run the last 7 days stats this and we have 24 reviewers at 100% accepts 49 at 0% accepts. My accept rate is always low because I spend the most time playing Whac-A-Mole with spam, copy vio, promo etc in 0 day. Some focus on good articles or old end of queue where you then expect a higher accept rate. KylieTastic (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

For sure there are good reasons why some reviewers might fall on the extreme ends of the distribution. But if you're just reviewing drafts at random and decide that less than 1 in 5 would pass AfD, I think it's at least worth a closer look. – Joe (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking on this and looking at the data wondering if there is a way to spot possible problematic review areas.... but failed to come up with anything :/ I think we are going to have to rely on good old random checks unless anyone has some bright ideas. KylieTastic (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the re-review system will probably work well enough, but it does leave me wondering about what the project's standards for reviewers are. For instance, right now Vanderwaalforces has 6 failed reviews. Is that a lot? Well, no one has failed more. But that's also only six fails (so far) out of over 600 reviews. A fail rate of 1% seems pretty good to me. GraziePrego has also six failed re-reviews, this time out of about 120 reviews. That's 5%, which is a lot higher. But is it "too high"? It's still not very high (for the ttrpg players, it's how often you expect to critfail, so it's a number I'm used to treating as negligible). To be perfectly clear, I don't think enough re-reviews have been done in any case to make any statements about any particular reviewer's overall review accuracy. But I don't really have a sense of what "enough reviews to determine whether someone is reviewing acceptably" would be, either. -- asilvering (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much "failed reviews out of the total", but "failed reviews out of the re-reviews". If someone has six failed reviews out of 6 re-reviews, that's bad. If they have six failed reviews out of 10, 20, 30, that gets increasingly better. Someone who is failing a majority of their re-reviews should get more re-reviews, while someone who is failing almost none likely does not need many more re-reviews. It's a rolling-snowball metric more than anything. Primefac (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it's a "rolling-snowball metric". As re-reviews are done the pass/fail rate should determine if more are needed or not. I would aim for 5% re-reviewed at first, if all pass then probably good if not aim for 10% re-reviewed and re-evaluate... it's not just pass/fail but are they opinion/nuanced fails or WTF fails. KylieTastic (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac yes, that's a good point. Though I think it's important to point out that re-reviews aren't neutral (as in, they are not selected completely at random). I've been paying particular attention to rejections, for example. I like KylieTastic's suggestion of 5% re-reviewed before we try to make any further conclusions. Worth noting also that someone who declines articles 100% of the time, without even reading them, would have a re-review pass rate of about 60%, so it seems to me that whatever our hoped-for pass rate is, it should be rather higher than that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that re-reviews are far from neutral or random. We all probably pick, consciously or unconsciously, first the reviewer we want to check, and then the draft. And depending on whether we like (consciously or un-) to pass or fail reviews, we might skate over 'problematic' ones, or make a point of picking up on them. For a better idea of review quality, the re-reviews should be allocated truly randomly, and ideally be anonymised. Which is probably far more hassle to organise than it's worth, but still. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I assumed the idea was that every draft in the backlog drive was going to be re-reviewed. I read the discussion in the previous few comments as "when to raise the alarm early", not "when to stop re-reviewing". I don't think re-reviews should be anonymized. If we block someone for gross incompetence, for example, we'd want to check their re-reviews. And I think we should be open to the basic standards of being available for comment on our re-reviews, just as we are on our reviews. -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

There are, of course, certain technical and other reasons why one's decline rate may be legitimately quite high. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:CANCER, I'm not accepting any drafts. I only decline/fail those that merit and just pass by the ones which ought to be accepted. Please don't think that the overall acceptance rate should be represented by each individual reviewer. Also, while I admit to being a deletionist, we should avoid bringing inclusionist opinions to judging the work of other editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Even if it is purely decline/fail, as long as they are valid, that's still some work load taken off everyone else's back. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that it should be represented by each individual reviewer, and I think it's quite clear from my posts (and Joe's) that this isn't what we're intending. -- asilvering (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused to how WP:CANCER relates to not accepting any drafts? KylieTastic (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably along the lines of 'why help enrich the content pool with accepted submissions when we don't get to see the effects of the donated money'. – robertsky (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I have included re-reviews as part of the points awarding mechanism. The re-reviews will be counted at the end of drive at the very least if the bot isn't updated. – robertsky (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Per guidance I requested before (and the standard discussed here), I'm using the same standard as I do at NPP which is basically the "likely to pass AFD" standard. A lot of the re-reviews that I look at would previously have passed that standard but were failed on other quality issues. IMO under normal careful AFC review standards, "fail for other quality issues" just sets the AFC standard a bit higher. However, since every AFC article has some quality issues, if I wanted to rack up a big total, by that standard, I could use the "no quality issues" standard and legitimately quickly fail nearly every AFC article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@North8000 Can you give us some examples? -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean of a article good faith rejected on quality grounds which would have passed AFD? Or my mention in the last sentence which I won't go further on. On the former, maybe an extreme hypothetical example would make it simple. Article with these major problems: Lack of sources, very badly written in many respects, substantial lack of citing and was previously rejected citing one or more of those problems. Article complies with wp:Not, a separate article on the topic does not already exist, and the topic clearly qualifies under wp:notability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by re-reviews failed on other quality issues, so I'm hoping examples will help. -- asilvering (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Maybe I'm using the wrong word. I'd be happy to find some examples that I did except that I don't know how to see the article's review history (particularly past rejections and the reasons given for the rejections). If there is a way to do that and you could tell me how, I'd be happy to look at those that I passed and find some examples. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@North8000 The previous review history should be clearly listed at the top of the article. It only won't be there if an editor has removed them manually (and if they do this, please add it back). -- asilvering (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Thanks. I believe you are referring to an article which is still awaiting another AFC review. I was referring to looking at articles that I already passed which are now in article space. North8000 (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)are now in

@North8000 You should still be able to find those by going into the article's edit history and selecting a diff from before it was accepted. -- asilvering (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Well one example of both trying to see the decline history and where I passed a previous rejected one is George Atwater (composer) Going back in article history, decline is noted in the edit summary and some notes to author there but not the "decline record" that is displayed on declined articles. IMO all of the decliner's comments at the original decline were valid, but IMHO even at the time of the original decline it would have had a 95% chance of surviving at AFD. The editor added more references making my later decision even easier. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

In this case, I would say that's an inappropriate decline, and it should have been accepted. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that "inappropriate" is a strong word (even if technically accurate) because they were following what seems to often be the norm at AFC. A higher bar than NPP/AFD "to be safe". North8000 (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Are we too fast?

Usually I try to wait at least a few minutes before reviewing (in case they're still making changes), but I didn't check on this one. At least KylieTastic and I are in agreement :P.

Backlog drives are fun. LittlePuppers (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

In mainspace yes wait as we don't know if they are still changing stuff, but if they hit submit here before ready that is really their issue not ours. Also all they have to do is finish and resubmit so it's not a big issue. KylieTastic (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, I mostly just found it funny that two people managed to review it within a minute of it being submitted. LittlePuppers (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, this reminds me of an issue I had been meaning to bring up earlier: the AFCH script doesn't seem to have a way of dealing with edit conflicts and just overwrites the previous review if two reviewers happen to decline a submission at the same time. It's usually pretty easy to catch and fix, but it'd be nice if it could warn the user if it detects that an edit has been made to the page. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

What Wikipedia calls an Edit Conflict is known more generally in electrical engineering and computer science as a race condition. It is not easy to design systems to handle race conditions optimally. I think that most Wikipedia processes handle race conditions at least as well as could be expected. Most but not all Wikipedia editors understand that race conditions happen, and that results are sometimes unpredictable. The unpredictability is a characteristic of race conditions, and is what makes them difficult to design for. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

One way to deal with such race conditions is to have the script to check if there was a prior review done in the last hour, or any other suitable duration and warn the reviewer if so. – robertsky (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Tracked in github.com
Issue #153

There's a ticket to detect and prevent this here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I've had two AfC declines overwritten in a row just now, as can be seen by my edit history. I don't mind being pre-empted by someone else (though whether I agree with the decision is another matter), but I do mind that it glitches out and forces you to revert everything manually, in effect punishing you for being too slow. Hopefully the bug gets fixed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

About Draft:Protests against the Israel-Hamas conflict in the United States

If I'm remembering correctly, drafts on topics that are under ArbCom sanctions that only have substantial edits by non-extended-confirmed users are subject to deletion, right? I wanted to run this by someone else before moving forward; I've marked it as under review for now so it hopefully stays in draftspace until we figure something out. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Technically, can probably tag it csd WP:G5 (in violation of topic ban) and get it deleted. How bad is it? If its good, you could instead "accept" it and basically adopt it and vouch for it. Up to you! –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say it's in an acceptable state, and I would have accepted it if not for the fact that it could be merged and that it's in a sanctioned topic. I wouldn't really feel too good about throwing away good-faith contributions from this editor, as it's unlikely that they knew about the extended-confirmed restriction. I was thinking about overseeing the merge myself, since the article creator can't edit the destination page either, and I could use a second (or higher!) pair of eyes on that as well. I think I'll drop a template on their talk page explaining that they've stumbled into an ArbCom remedy, and give them a heads-up that the draft will probably have to be deleted once I've merged over what I can. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say that you should recommend it be merged into 2023 Israel–Hamas war protests. Historyday01 (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I just did — declined as mergeto per F.Alexsandr's comment. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw his comment about it being "potentially notable, but 2023 Israel–Hamas war protests already covers the topic," but I would say that logic supports a merger. Admins reviewing an AfC do not need to agree. It seems you have already started a merger, from your other comment, which is good. Historyday01 (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

My initial thought is to treat something going through AfC on a contentious/sanctioned subject like that sort of like an edit request - I don't have the wording in front of me, but it's not that new editors can't in any way contribute to these topics, it's that they can't directly edit an article and instead must go through a more experienced editor, right? Is that a reasonable way to treat it, or am I just making stuff up? LittlePuppers (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

From WP:ARBECR: Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. In other words, admins are welcome to delete these drafts, but they are not required to, and a "good" draft can probably be accepted if it meets our criteria. Primefac (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Topic pivot

There was a BLP draft on a person, at Draft:Yusif Meizongo Jnr, which has been declined a few times. The author has now 'reinvented' that as a draft on that person's business instead, and moved it to Draft:Maison Yusif. This feels vaguely wrong to me, but I can't think why exactly. Thoughts? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

IMO it's a bit of wp:gaming but it's probably best to deal with the articles individually rather than acting based on this tactic between the two. If they just tried moving the material over, the new article it would have an even weaker case North8000 (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I was debating a history split, but since the topics are somewhat intertwined ("the founder" -> "the founder's company") I think it's acceptable to leave the history alone. I don't think we should keep decline notices for the first iteration, though, if the draft has been essentially rewritten. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is concerning unless there is some other shenanigans. I have at times suggested a draft should be a about different topic in my reviews, for example an author where sources are mostly about a book, companies where sources are mostly about a specific product, etc. S0091 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible bug with the backlog drive bot?

I was just looking through Hey man im josh's log and noticed several drafts are marked as pending for over 360 days? I know our backlog has been pretty big, but I don't recall anyone ever having to wait a year! (Pinging bot operator Ingenuity.) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a bug; for example Richard Stansberry was not submitted (draft view) when he marked it under review. In other words, he's accepting drafts that were not submitted. Primefac (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not a bug? Steven Jackson (politician) looks like it was only created on 22 October 2023 and submitted that same day, but shows as being pending for 359 days. The one you mentioned also has that it was submitted in its edit history. Turnagra (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The template does not go off the actual page history, it goes off the timestamp added to the page. In this case, it is {{AfC submission|t||ts=20221107185100|u=MoviesandTelevisionFan|ns=118|demo=}}, which gives a time stamp of 7 Nov 2022. Primefac (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is an easy way to fix the scoring for this situation, unless @Ingenuity thinks otherwise. What we can do is to check for any drafts that're more than 150 days pending and adjust the scoring manually at the end of the backlog drive. – robertsky (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that'd be the best duct-tape solution for now. Since it's been ascertained that the bot is not malfunctioning, there's no urgent need to fix anything at the moment. The AFCH maintainers will probably look into the issue of the script's timestamps when marking as under review, but that could take a minute. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

hey man im josh, could I ask why you have accepted at least 9 pages created by MoviesandTelevisionFan, who is CIR-blocked from editing the article space, without any of those drafts having been submitted? Primefac (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Apologies for the ping, I guess I'm just being overly cynical this morning. Primefac (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The block was because of poor English skills but MaTF appears to understand nobility so I see no problems with getting these into article-space once reviewed. I do think this is a bug in the fact that if a draft is not submitted and you mark under review it should use the current date. If do a submit on behalf of the creator first then mark under review this is what would have happened. In normal times this would not matter to anyone, but this oddity makes it look a bit like gaming the drive points system rather than saving lost drafts which I'm sure was the actual motivation. I assume this is easily fixed with manual timestamp manipulation. KylieTastic (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

An unsubmitted draft doesn't need a timestamp (i.e. there's nothing that uses it) so really what needs to happen is it should be ignored (or better yet, not even added in the first place) until it is either submitted or marked for review. Primefac (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Tracked in github.com
Issue #299

Is this a bug in AFCH? When marking an unsubmitted draft as under review (such as here), what should it write instead of {{AFC submission|r||u=MoviesandTelevisionFan|ns=118|demo=|reviewer=Hey man im josh|reviewts=20231101022236|ts=20221107185100}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->? Should ts= the current timestamp, or maybe be left blank? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bug so much as a situation which was not really planned for. If a draft is being pushed straight from /draft to /reviewing the time stamp ideally should be when it was marked as under review, as seen here. That being said, we can likely hash this out in a new section to avoid cluttering up this one, which is definitely not about the template itself. Primefac (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw, if you look at my AfC log, I was going through their drafts before this drive even started. It's a continuation of what I was doing, no gaming. No objection from me if my points are adjusted at the end. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac: Just to follow up a bit more now that I'm at a computer, I mark them as under review so I can take advantage of the automation portion of the AFCH tool to add appropriate tags, adjust commented out categories, and to add it to my AfC log so that I can continue to track what drafts I've accepted or declined. Thank you @KylieTastic, you're correct in my intentions. I just wanted to get more drafts from draft space into main space and MaTF has a niche and pattern to the articles they create, so I've looked through their current drafts (found here). In short, they've figured out the formula for creating stubs that pass WP:NPOL and are written well enough to be accepted, so I wanted to clear those away instead of them getting to a point where they get close to expiring. In October I accepted 21 of their drafts, some of which had not been submitted. Thus far, in November, I've accepted 14 of their drafts, none of which had been submitted. When looking through their drafts in progress I made a bookmarks folder of drafts of theirs that I intended to accept, which currently has 4 drafts left in it. I spaced out when I was accepting their articles because I didn't want to flood their talk page with mass accepts all at once.

I want to be absolutely clear I had no intention of gaming the system. I also have no issue whatsoever with removing the entries from the my backlog drive log. With that said, perhaps we should instead consider explicitly allowing drafts that were not submitted to count towards scoring. With the backlog dwindling, and the reviewers on a roll, I think it could be a good idea to help reduce the total number of drafts and save some content from eventually getting G13 deleted. For those who aren't aware, there are roughly ~150-250 articles that appear on User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon each day. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the expanded explanation. Honestly, I wasn't even thinking about the backlog drive or points or anything like that, I was not thinking broader and just saw "AFC reviewer accepting a bunch of unsubmitted drafts". I do apologise for jumping to nefarious conclusions (I obviously shouldn't have) and do feel like a right twit for doing so. I think going through drafts like that is probably a good thing (I know Prax is doing it for FA's creations) since it clears out the unnecessary wait times for good pages. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No worries @Primefac, I absolutely see how you reached the conclusion you did and why you felt the way you did at first, so don't be too hard on yourself. Star Mississippi is doing so as well with FA's drafts, which is actually what gave me the idea! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh thanks for that link, it hadn't occurred to me to go through these. How do you mark them as under review? I've never bothered to do this before and I don't see an option when I run the AFCH script. -- asilvering (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I click the arrows on the right side when the tool appears at the top of the page (see this image) and then click the "Mark as under review" text that appears. I then am able to refresh the page and accept it. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering if you fist use the submit from within AFCH, then optionally mark as under review if you need more time, then accept it will get around the date that started all this. KylieTastic (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, both! -- asilvering (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Scoring for Wikipedia type Articles Generated by LLM

Our research team is building a LLM-based system which can generate a full-length Wikipedia page for a given topic without the need for supplemental information (e.g., human written outlines, curated references, etc.). Besides automatic evaluation, we would like to have frequent wikipedia editors collaborate with scoring the articles and providing feedback. Our goal is only for educational research, and we are not intending to try to publish these LLM generated articles on Wikipedia. Our LLM will ideally generate Wikipedia style articles with citations, and different sub-points. We will be scoring the essay based on 1. Well Written, 2. Verifiable with no original research, 3. Broad in its coverage, and 4. Qualitative comments (The first three metrics for a Good Article + Qualitative comments). We would take a subset of our articles produced and score them by actual Wikipedia editors as a way to verify our scoring is within reason.

We will be providing monetary compensation for work provided. This was posted earlier, but now with next steps. We hope to begin the review process in a few weeks.

Link[1]https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfaivclenvs9pdnW7cFcsTyvYy-wSCR_Vr_oYzJx_2bm-ZAqA/viewform?usp=sf_link Terribilis11 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This is still extremely low on answers to important questions like "who are you", "what is the purpose of your educational research", and "where are your standards of research ethics". -- asilvering (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The Google Forms link merely states that they're a "research team at Stanford". —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad to answer your questions. I wasn't sure what was permissible by Wikipedias idea of not posting personal information. We are a team of three students working on a project as part of this class [2]Conversational Virtual Assistants with Deep Learning. We are focused on a few things: Exploring if we can reduce LLM hallucination to negligible amounts, exploring if LLM can generate articles with the same high quality as Wikipedia, and exploring if article based information gathering will remain relevant with the advent of informational chatbots.

Filling out the form is obviously not a binding agreement. We would appreciate you filling it out and we can contact you with more details. To be clear, the intent of this is not to build a model that will be used on or with Wikipedia. Rather it is in the scope of the class and of improving LLM models. Terribilis11 (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow ok it is... significantly context-altering to know you are in a 2nd-year undergraduate course. New question: does your professor know that you are recruiting people who are not Stanford students as scorers? The way you've gone about this recruiting set off a lot of my "these people are acting completely without IRB oversight, as though they do not know they need it or for some reason hold it in contempt" alarm bells, which is understandable because you... are students, and indeed probably have never been told about ethics approval at all. What you are proposing is a study with human participants, and, barring some strictly defined cases, studies with human participants require ethics approval and data security standards. Since this is obviously a study with only extremely low risks for your human participants, you can probably get ethics approval expedited, but you probably need it and your professor can get into big trouble if they don't get it. (It's your supervisor's responsibility, so here that's your prof - you're not in trouble.) The compliance office at Stanford closes to new submissions on the 13th ([3]), so you need to work quickly to ensure you're ok here. -- asilvering (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Just wait until they hear about the GDPR rules they'll have to meet, given that non-trivial numbers of en.wiki editors are in the EU, and neither the call for participants nor the sign up form filtered those out, so the google docs spreadsheet is already in breach. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Wonderful point, we will go ahead and limit participation to America. You are correct that I wasn't familiar with the IRB requirements, but after further investigation we do have IRB approval. Below is our Ethical statement regarding our research, and we have an research consent form that is according to IRB standards available to distribute to those who are interested.

In this work, we study the automatic Wikipedia generation problem as a way to push the frontier of automatic expository writing and automatic knowledge curation. All the studies and the evaluation in this work are designed to prevent the dissemination of misinformation by not publishing generated content online and implementing strict accuracy checks. We avoid any disruption to Wikipedia or related communities, as our system does not interact with live pages. Also, although we try to generate grounded articles, we believe there is no privacy issue related to this work as we only use information publicly available on the Internet.The primary risk of our work is that the Wikipedia articles written by our system are grounded on information on the Internet which may contain some biased or discriminative contents. Currently, our system relies on the search engine to retrieve high-quality information but does not include any post-processing module. We believe improving the retrieval module to have good coverage of different viewpoints and adding a content sifting module to the current system will be a critical next step to achieve better neutrality and balance in the generated articles. In our experiment, we manually go through all the topics in the test set to ensure the topics themselves are not biased or discriminative.Another limitation we see from an ethical point of view is that we only consider writing English Wikipedia articles in this work. Extending the current system to a multilingual setup is a meaningful direction for future work as there are more interesting topics that do not have their Wikipedia pages in non-English langua Terribilis11 (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The form appears to miss-understand the Good Article requirements. The zeroth GA requirement is that it's an article. The first sentence on the page A good article (GA) is an article that meets a core set of editorial standards[...] Stuartyeates (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The results of our model will be an article or rather in the format of an article. We won't be publishing the articles on Wikipedia.Terribilis11 (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)'

GA requirements are on top of, not in place of, standard article requirements. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Terribilis11: By the way, I'm not sure this is the right forum for this discussion. This talk page is used for the administration of WikiProject Articles for creation, which does not actually write new articles, but rather reviews drafts created by other editors so they can be considered for moving into article space. You might have more luck drawing attention from interested editors at, for example, the Village pump. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I will check out village pump. Terribilis11 (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow you have under 30 in the queue

Is it remotely possible we can make this more sustainable? It is serirously impressive. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 18:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Almost all of it is @Vanderwaalforces and @WikiOriginal-9, so probably not... I expect they'd burn out if they kept operating at that rate for long. But I do hope that now that the backlog is cleared, us less-prolific reviewers can help keep it under control. -- asilvering (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's hoping! I concur with Asilvering on the fact that it should — in theory — be easier to simply maintain the status quo if we're able to match the rate that drafts are getting submitted, which is nowhere near the rate at which we were going through the backlog for the drive. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 I’ll also note that I and possibly many other people are submitting drafts at a faster rate now that we feel we can easily get timely reviews for existing drafts. I’ve run up pretty close to my limit on that, although I think @FloridaArmy has a good deal more he’s gonna submit. Once these people have stopped submitting I think the background submissions rate will actually be slower, so I can easily see it as being very manageable in the future. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User talk page template formatting inconsistency

Could not help noticing the 'not accepted' and the 'accepted' template messages left on user talk pages have slightly different formats, so that one is indented, the other is not, one has a linespace at the top, the other does not. This can be seen very well at this user's talk page. I wonder if anyone would know where they live & care to amend the formats so that they match?

The format code for the two is:

• div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"
• div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; width: 90%;"

thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. You have a good eye for detail! I copied the relevant CSS code from {{AfC decline}} over to {{AfC talk}}, which should now fix the problem. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

NPPBrowser can now be used for AFC drafts

Hi! Just wanted to announce that there has been a recent patch to add the ability to use https://nppbrowser.toolforge.org with AFC drafts, to use it, you can go to https://nppbrowser.toolforge.org/index.php?mode=AFC to use the interface. With this it should be a lot easier to filter drafts for specific topics (for example drafts related to a specific country). Let me or MPGuy2824 know if you find any issues :) Sohom (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

AFCH updated

I updated the AFC helper script today. This is my first time syncing the code offwiki to the code onwiki (called "deploying"). Please ping me if anything breaks. Now that I have figured out how to do it, this should be a good step towards getting AFCH updated more often :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Novem Linguae - Have any features been added to the script of which we should be aware, or is it bug fixes, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I synced all the patches since May 24, 2023, which is the last time the deploy script was run by Enterprisey. The patches are listed here.

• remove "beta" wording. no longer in beta (#264)
• window.afchSuppressDevEdits = false to turn off silent mode (#230)
• Add WP:NEVENT (#266)
• Provide Template:L with 'MISSING' as second parameter if date is omitted (#294)

–Novem Linguae (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Backlog Prevention

Some editors said, partway up this page, that we want to avoid having a three-month or four-month backlog again. I agree. Rather than relying on occasional backlog drives, we should review what features of the backlog drive can be adapted to use on a regular basis. Can we provide that there will be a monthly prize for the editor making the most reviews? We can continue to assign extra points for reviews that have become more than N months old, and hope that maybe that extra credit reduces the likelihood that the old categories will re-populate. We should consider what techniques we can use when this drive is over that will reduce the likelihood of another deep backlog that requires a drive.

Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like a solid idea to me. Everyone wants more barnstars to add to their collection, and thankfully they are free to hand out! We already have the processes to make it happen, we just need to keep them going into December at a lower level. I'm assuming that unless we mean to formalize re-reviews into AfC's main process that they will remain a backlog drive-only thing. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If we want to get serious about monthly awards, we should probably appoint an awards coordinator to create a page, create a process, be the one that hands them out every month, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it could also be helpful to have something that shows the daily / weekly / monthly change in the backlog, maybe similar to what the Guild of Copy Editors have on their sidebar? That way, even if the backlog starts to creep up we can at least focus on keeping the change as close to 0 as possible and it can make progress on the backlog feel more achievable. Turnagra (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

There must have been so many good ideas floated in the past that weren't acted on or even captured, so we keep returning to this question again and again, a point also made in a thread on the current drive's talk page.

I'll repeat what I said there:

• Yes, monthly bling seems a good idea, ideally with a leaderboard so you can easily see how far you're from leveling up. (Is that a major hassle to administer on an ongoing basis, though?)
• To encourage regular reviewing, let's award milestone badges ie. 'daily reviews for X days in a row', with X being 10, 25, 50, 100, etc. so you always have the next milestone to aim for. (Whether one daily review is enough or we need to set the bar higher, I don't know.)
• Special badges for dealing with difficult (eg. old, refbombed, etc.) drafts.

-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• I don't really know, but I'd love to hear from Robertsky and Ingenuity about what kind of work it took to set up the drive and whether that would be feasible for a long-term process.
• I know the NPP drive last month had some sort of steak system, we could check in over there to see how it was done.
• Aside from old drafts, how would we flag "difficult" drafts from an award-giving standpoint? Number of previous declines or number of maintenance tags? Both can be misleading figures a lot of the time.

A line here so my signature isn't indented. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

More work is required if we have to do up a leaderboard that runs by itself as well as for the scoring and awarding of barnstars. I have yet to work on the barnstars stuff, but it will definitely take sometime to work the scores out. I would hate to be that person working on it month in month out with the current setup.

The codes will have to be worked on further to deal with deleted reviews. I am of half a mind to flesh out a separate analytics/counting setup/database to track such stuff.

Also stuff like keeping track refbombed drafts and stuff for special awards, it might be difficult to account for that except if the draft was declined accordingly. But some drafts may have more than 2 issues... so... If we are to go down this path, let's start with one or two awards, and then expand further down the road. – robertsky (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@robertsky what's the extra work you're talking about for working out the scores? What's wrong with the ones generated by the leaderboard table? -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The script which the bot is running on does not account for deleted drafts, therefore deleted reviews are not reflected in the list. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/November 2023 Backlog Drive#Counting glitch.

If we are to rely on API calls as what the script is doing now, the bot has to be elevated to be an admin bot to look at the deleted revisions, but I believe it will be through another API therefore additional work. If we are to use database calls, the script will have to be rewritten. A third option is to use wikitech:Event Platform/EventStreams but will require rewrite and as well as a separate database storage. – robertsky (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing's ideas or any kind of monthly awards looks good to me. We've identified a good and uncontroversial idea. I think the next step is we need a volunteer to coordinate the area of monthly awards, milestone badges, etc. Any volunteers? @DoubleGrazing? @TechnoSquirrel69? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd love to contribute to this! I don't think I'd be able to run it alone, though — especially at the moment, when I've only been reviewing here for a few months, and have no experience whatsoever running bots. Anyone else interested? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Time limit

I've split this to a new subsection, in case a poll is to be run, per Kylie's suggestion. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm also going to refloat an earlier proposal, because I can't remember what if anything the consensus was. We could cap the waiting time, so that if a draft has been in the pool for, say, 30 days (without a review, or since its most recent review), it gets published automatically, and NPP deals with it instead. This could increase the community's confidence in AfC and motivate editors to go through the process. Automatic publication of problematic drafts could be prevented by tagging: eg. if the draft seems to duplicate an existing article, or the submitter is blocked, that would force the draft to wait for a review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I've always liked the idea of turning AfC into a x days holding area rather than the endless pit of doom it can be. Probably need to hold some: some named submitters, any with COI tags, maybe a new tag just to say hold for a human etc. However as it's such a fundamental change it would probably need an RfC, but we could start with a AfC poll to see if the current project members agree/disagree. It would help to have stats on what the accept rate was of drafts that had been waiting > 30d etc KylieTastic (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I could be persuaded to a length of submission time cap. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the simplest way to do this is "any article that has no previous declines will be published to mainspace if not reviewed in x days"? -- asilvering (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a high bar to pass. I seldom see drafts that linger for months and did not attract any reviews. – robertsky (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Robertsky before the backlog drive, I was seeing a lot of them, even in the four-month pile. -- asilvering (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know about this one. If this time limit is something that'll motivate reviewers to make sure no draft lies waiting for more than a month, I'd be down for it. However, to be a bit cynical for the sake of argument, "NPP deals with it instead" is likely how a lot of reviewers will see it. It might demotivate people from tackling some complicated drafts if they know it won't be their problem anymore in a couple of weeks. Let's also not forget that NPP has a severe and seemingly perpetual backlog of their own, and it seems rather unfair for AfC to start stacking on even more work just because one of us couldn't get to it within an arbitrary time period. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 but it is also unfair to submitters to have to wait sometimes for 5 months when the draft is fine. There are many who submit good drafts and have to wait so long while others can add very poor articles to main-space. If we make it so that it's only non-declined with no COI etc tags then the number should hopefully be low. If it worked then it would be easier to mandate more low-quality submitters to use AfC which is a last resort at the moment. However we cannot know and rather than second guess I think a 3-6 month trial would be the way to go. It would also have to start when the queue is very low to not insta-dump on NPP. KylieTastic (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a complicated situation, for sure. Consider this, though: if AfC adopts the one month auto-accept procedure, then the wider community's perception of the project is likely to worsen even further if AfC ever becomes backlogged again. Hopefully it doesn't — knock on wood — but we have to be prepared if it does. AfC would at that point just become a purgatory where thousands of drafts sit around with no improvement for thirty days and then get passed to the already overworked NPP. I'll be honest with you; in a hypothetical world where that was the current situation with AfC, I might've personally started an RfC to shut down the project, and I know a lot of other editors would feel the same way. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

My concern is that your concern appears to not be about readers or submitters that I would considerer primary, but about protecting NPP at the detriment to readers and submitters. Then your suggested solution to extreme failure, which could happen more easily with the current system, is to shut AfC down making it all on NPP? At the moment thousands of drafts sit in your purgatory, if we had auto-move to main-space then this can only ever be a smaller subset of the existing problem and only worse if all AfC reviewers gave up. I've worked on AfC for 8+ years and hate the fact we block good editors and many just stop due to the ridiculous waits while at the same time so much junk is still created direct in main-space. Having a time-limit of whatever length is to stop AfC being the purgatory and anti new-editor backwater that it is at the moment. Personally if I could just make the call I would make AfC a one or three month check period, but also make direct creation require "extended confirmed" rather than just "autoconfirmed", so that AfC is the primary check for newer accounts and NPP for the rest and things that do not get declined by AfC. That would hopefully balance things out, but has zero chance of happening KylieTastic (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of this extra burden on NPP, in fact that was my initial reason for not suggesting a time cap. But it also works the other way: so as not to create a flood downstream at NPP, we're voluntarily creating a dam upstream at AfC – who ultimately benefits from that? (No one, IMO.)

And having a time cap at AfC is no different to what NPP has: there, if a new article isn't reviewed within 90 days, it gets accepted by default and becomes indexable etc.; we would just be mirroring that policy.

In any case, a lot of articles get published directly past the AfC by editors who don't want to go through us, and NPP is there as a QC mechanism. By imposing a time cap we would be adding to the volume of work there, but we wouldn't be fundamentally changing the way the system operates. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

if a new article isn't reviewed within 90 days, it gets accepted by default. A small correction. Articles (non-redirects) that go over 90 days are not auto accepted, they stay in the queue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a fundamental change, but still a meaningful one. There is a large overlap between the communities of AfC reviewers and NPPs, but consider the number of non-NPP editors like myself who participated in the backlog drive this month who couldn't have made those contributions if the page was already in mainspace. Also, even though new articles aren't indexed by search engines, they are still way more visible to readers than if they were in draftspace. (You can't link to drafts in mainspace, after all.) The more work we keep from spilling over to NPP, the better, in my opinion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

NPP's backlog is worse than AFC's (much higher quantity of unreviewed articles). That'd be one thing to think about before shifting a bunch of work to NPP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do drafts get "ignored"

I am going to add this as a subsection of the above, because I do not think we should put any time frame on this proposal until we know why we are getting articles at the back of the queue (in whatever timeframe that might be). And honestly, my personal opinion (based on my own stats-taking back in the late 2010s and observing recent trends) is that we simply do not stay on top of the queue. If X drafts are submitted every day, and Y drafts are reviewed, the queue with always increase if X > Y. During a drive, and usually following a spike in submissions (see for example Feb/Mar 2018), Y will briefly exceed X and we will get back down to a "good" or "normal" level of backlog. Then one of our "Top 10" goes on holiday and the backlog increases again.

I'm all for incentives if they work (i.e. let's try barnstars and leaderboards, etc), and I honestly don't think we should have a queue that is always at zero (puts too much pressure on reviewers), but we need to find a better way to more closely make it so X ≈ Y so that a small increase in submissions can be easily met with a small increase in reviews, without needing drives or burnout. I'm not really sure how to do that, though. Which, I guess, is why I'm starting this thread. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Something I've seen quite often in drafts at the tail end of the queue (and which I've been guilty of leaving myself) is articles where most or all of the references are in another language. My general approach to these has been to add the relevant WikiProject if it's a country-specific article in the hope of attracting speakers familiar with the language, but this doesn't always work and can end up with some of the drafts sitting there for ages. Turnagra (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

My guess would be a combination of other-language sources, refbombing, and overall just borderline stuff. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I suspect reviewers have many different reasons but you would think that would mean that someone would pick up a submission even if lots avoided. Personally I tend to avoid many/most BLPs and active companies, products etc. as although many may be just about WP notable often I find them personally not encyclopedic and just promotion. I understand this is my opinion so just leave and would not decline. If this was a job, I'd review all randomly from both ends of the !queue but as we volunteer I ignore such topics and put effort into improving others I see as more worthy. KylieTastic (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that zero queue length is difficult to work with. The current short queue creates multiple resubmissions and it "feels" as if one has little time to think. In reality ones all the time one needs.

Many of the drafts at the tail end of the queue had not been reviewed even once. That was disdappointing, the more so since the majority had easily accessible references English.

I admit that even using Google Translate, I couldn't face the Taiwanese rather large set of drafts. I have no real idea why. The machine translation is perfectly good enough.

In general I pass on a draft where I feel out of my depth. Good! But how did so many get to the tail end, untouched? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac I wonder if even just having a daily-updating count of how many drafts were submitted and how many were accepted would help. Basically, something that makes that X/Y disconnect immediately obvious, while also showing how much work has been done. Right now it's not all that easy to see if there's been a temporary upswing in draft submissions unless you're really into the habit of checking the by-date categories. And when the pile gets very deep, it doesn't feel all that satisfying to deal with several drafts in a row. You review ten drafts and the pile still looks just about as big. Looking at the X/Y difference could give people something to shoot for. Something like "okay, I can't make meaningful inroads into the backlog, but I can at least do the 7 reviews we'd need to break even for the day." -- asilvering (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I used to take those metrics. I could be convinced to start up again if people would find that useful. Might not be daily but I could probably do weekly tallies. Primefac (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Would there be any way to automate that to save you the time? -- asilvering (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I am new to AfC as of this backlog drive, and I am enjoying the work while also finding a little demoralizing to see the backlog remain exactly the same size even while I am actively reviewing. I'd love to see these kinds of stats (X submissions and Y reviews), if they could be posted automatically. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

There probably is, I just usually checked category counts; I know Kylie's done a bunch of automation to keep the (now-broken) graphs going. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize it until you wrote this, but I did like monitoring the submissions by topic category (Books, History, and Literature) rather more than the four-month-old category, for this reason. Of the three, I significantly preferred Books and History to Literature, since they were much shorter lists, and usually on topic. (Literature, somehow, gets a lot of unrelated articles.) The history articles usually take much longer to review than Books/Lit do, but once one is done, you know you've taken down 1/6 of that whole queue, or what-have-you. -- asilvering (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably not what you're looking for, but I will speak on my personal experience. Somewhat shameful, but it is what it is, I like to grab low hanging fruit. As such, I will grab newer submissions and pass the ones that clearly pass and decline those that clearly fail. This leaves anything that falls out of the "1 day old" category to continue down the road. Others are WP:REFBOMBING and I don't want to take 30 minutes to review one draft only to find out it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Sometimes, a draft is resubmitted multiple times and the submitter just don't seem to get it despite the comments and reviewers pointing to guidelines (those I just let go down the road because if they aren't willing to put in the time then neither am I). Others I am on the fence about and leave for another reviewer. I am going to assume that some of these situations apply to others (maybe??). To feel better about myself (yes, I feel guilty at times), I sometimes take a day and go to the old queue and take as much times as necessary to try to clean out old submissions. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I used to stick mostly to topic categories and every so often look at the very old drafts, and frequently would come away from the exercise having looked at many drafts and only reviewed a few. I'd open them up, go "ah, no wonder this is still here", and unless I felt inspired to start editing it myself, I'd probably move on to the next one. So yes, I'm sure what you mention is a factor generally. But something remarkable about the four-month-old backlog recently was how many of the articles in it were still pretty low-hanging fruit. I think this has been the case since about August or so - meaning that around April, something changed. What, I'm not sure. -- asilvering (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe me? For about a year I almost exclusively reviewed drafts in the 3 month category but stopped few months ago because it seemed futile as it just grew. So many were non-English sources thus very time consuming or WP:NPROF which I lack competency unless it is obvious. S0091 (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help with any prof ones you get stuck on. I hear you about the futility of that backlog though. -- asilvering (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Same here. When I do go and try to do some of the backlog, I normally find a few that a quick Google Search could verify as being notable. I simply move them to mainspace and tag for cleanup at that point so some low hanging fruit is being missed. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I do see a lot of drafts with non-English references or topics from countries where I am not well versed. I try to ping the WikiProjects related to those languages/countries and have gotten favorable responses from most. They tend to want to help out when asked. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Recently those Taiwan 1000 ones have been a real pain. Many of them are on topics that are probably notable, but with absolutely nonsense titles that they could not possibly ever be known as in English. I just... don't want to accept articles that look like they've been translated by someone who doesn't know what they're doing. Honestly, I wish it was required that every article have at least one English-language source. And I say that as a translator myself. -- asilvering (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There's no shame in focusing on "easy reviews". Every little bit helps. And it's better to let someone experienced handle a hard one than to get it wrong. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Backlog Stats

The rough stats for the drive so far are: ^source

• 6422 visible reviews

• 1639 accepts (25.5%)
• 4644 declines (72.3%)
• 139 rejects (2.2%)

• At least 535 deleted reviews making 6,957 total reviews

KylieTastic (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Declined Only primary sources cited. See also WP:OR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

KylieTastic (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

A broadly 24-25% accept rate is fairly good. Of the declines, a number will be multiple declines of the same submission, and most of the rejects are likely to be after multiple declines. Or so I believe.

What does this say about our performance? How are we at accepting the borderline drafts? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Or, DoubleGrazing, is that WP:SYNTH? 😈 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup, I do assume the multiple decline/rejects are skewing the accept rate... I just haven't managed to do the WP:OR to work that out. KylieTastic (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that answer will have to come from the re-reviews. @Timtrent, want to roll up your sleeves and get into those? The two front-runners are pretty under re-reviewed and I think someone other than the two of them ought to be re-reviewing theirs. For one, they've done enough already! -- asilvering (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we should all roll up our sleeves, but I am on it, among others 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, so do I of course, but since you asked... -- asilvering (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The chart on the current drive page suggests that for the past week or so we seem to be in a more or less steady state, hovering around the 70-100 mark. This is with a hundred reviewers participating in an ongoing drive. When the drive ends and the bling has been handed out, we can probably expect the effort to wane and the numbers to go up again. Already dreading the cold light of that morning after... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The submission stats show we are still running at a high rate of daily submissions. 260/day for the second week of November compared to 170/day for the second week of October. ^{* Not counting deletions} The main issue is going to be if the top new reviewers stop doing any reviews and any burnout. So basically the same old issue of the project relying heavily on the heavy-lifting work of a few rather than 260 reviewers doing a review per day. KylieTastic (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I remember seeing on someone's user page a userbox that said they had pledged to review two new articles (NPP) every day. It doesn't sound much, but if everyone did that we probably wouldn't have a backlog problem. Maybe we should make that a condition for joining the AfC chain gang. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering the steep rise is submission is because Zheshih has 61 active submissions. KylieTastic (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks, that explains the flood of Taiwanese music-related drafts! Wonder how close this Taiwan 1000 project is to meeting whatever they've set as their objective? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't tell, but you would really think that that Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan could be involved and help rather than them just dumped on AfC. Not all will be the Taiwan 1000 project but 78 (~42%) of the current submissions have the word "Taiwan" in them KylieTastic (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Objective: 1,000 new/expanded Taiwanese-related articles on enwiki. All translated from zhwiki.

Current progress: 178 accepted submissions (this number should be more now given that I have seen least 10-20 acceptances in the last couple of days).

Based on this weekly tracker, as shared on Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan 1000#Work Progress – robertsky (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

oh... 800 more... asilvering (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear... we're never going to get to 0 at this rate. Unless we get someone who knows Taiwanese. I've been skipping these. I know I can use Translate or something but that's a chore. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

There are already reviewers working on these drafts. And Chinese suffice – robertsky (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Kidnapping of Manu Bheel and family is interesting

You will see I declined it and suggested repurposing to this title. Assuming I am correct, I have a feeling that this topic, or the underlying more general topic of kidnap of "servants" is significant, let alone notable. I wonder of the creating editor has the distance from the original subject to be able to develop it a s the broader topic seems to require.

Does anyone feel able to either mentor the editor or join in and assist with editing, or both? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

We now also have Draft:Manu Bheel's Tragic Search, with more issues than one can shake a stick at. Are there other volumes in this series? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I automatically assumed they were by the same editor, but no, two different ones (or at least two different user accounts). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

AFC participants

Why is the main participants page protected fully? Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 08:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

You mean other than to stop users unnecessarily editing it, eg. by including their name on the list without actually being a reviewer? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

So this means that unverified users can't use AFCH. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 08:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Admins, NPRs, and users listed on the participant page are able to use the AFCH toolbar to review new draft submissions. Anyone who is not an admin or NPR and wishes to become an AfC reviewer must have minimum experience and needs to request the addition of their name to the participant list. Participant requests are only processed by admins, which is why only admins can edit that page to add/remove new users. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Because the AFC helper script reads that page and uses the data. Applicants need to place a permissions request at WT:AFCP, and then an admin will handle the request, editing through the full protection to add the person to the list if the application is approved. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Script to add/fix Draft topics?

I know that {{Draft topics}} are added with the submit script but is there any other script to add/fixup these when missing or incorrect? KylieTastic (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Changes to Special:NewPagesFeed

Hi, There have been some recent changes in the design of Special:NewPagesFeed if you have any feedback about these changes, feel free to leave any feedback about them at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Feedback_on_NewPagesFeed_design_changes_(Codex_conversion). Regards Sohom (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Default decline rationales

@Vanderwaalforces and I briefly discussed the wording of the current default decline rationales on the discord the other day and I wanted to bring the conversation here. The current rationales, IMO, are likely to be confusing for new editors. Most of them, particularly the notability ones, have one or two sentences and then a bulleted list dumping links to various P&Gs. That can be overwhelming for a new editor or someone who is not already familiar with the P&Gs. Most of the time, I end up using some default responses I've created as a comment when I decline. Whether the project wants to adopt the ones I've drafted, or workshop other ones, I'm of the opinion that they need significant reworking. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

We had a rather large discussion about this back in '18. Not saying that consensus can't change, nor do I think we need quite as large of a discussion, I thought it prudent to indicate how we got here. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac Well, things are bound to change, and I honestly believe the current decline reasons and their text are not very helpful, especially for new Wikipedia users, who might end up being potential editors in the future. Giving a one or two-line sentence as per the actual decline reason would make sense. The current decline reasons are just too generalised and would leave a lot of new users (who are supposed to become potential editors) confused. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I think we can do with shorter, but more specific decline notices. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

And also, so far, the drafts I've been able to review, 80 percent or more are new users, etc. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There was also an RfC in April 2022, WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 189#Proposing a change to the notability declining message in AFC and subsequently WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 52#AfC decline messages 2, I suggest reading through as there's some good discussion. Also, Template:AfC submission/comments are the current messages for reference. S0091 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Because of banner blindness and an attitude unwilling to question their priors no change in those templates is going to reach them. Instead, how about every editor who has entirely made edits to a declined draft get automatically blocked from editing so they are forced to dialogue on their user talk? Almost every time I confront this sort of editor with a plain language explanation like "your band is not notable" or "we don't advertise here" the user immediately argues with me about it. You have a selfish group of people who won't take no for an answer, so don't misunderstand that there's some lack of clarity in our boilerplate. Would that WMF spent their ill-gotten gains on full page ads in major newspapers telling people to stop trying to write new articles. Wikipedia has new editors every day who read our policies and guidelines, edit appropriately, and never need boilerplate. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chris troutman You're not wrong though. But, if we keep the attitude of "errm, Wikipedia will get new editors everyday that can edit appropriately, and those that can not should go and never return", then we will keep loosing editors more than we can imagine, that is exactly what I am concerned about. While I will agree that some new editors can be so annoying and desperate, some, all they need is just proper guidance and they'll become the editors that will edit appropriately. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Unsubmitted drafts in the feed

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T350449

There are a bunch of unsubmitted drafts appearing in the feed. Thoughts? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it's fixed. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a known bug. Unfortunately it is intermittent so we have not been able to fix it. Any clues about what might be causing it? What's your OS and browser, is your connection fast or slow, have any connection problems today? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I edit on different stuff but I was on Adblock Browser on Android, fast connection, no problems. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

If it happens again, please check for WP:CONSOLEERRORs, and post the results in the phabricator ticket (or ping me) –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Hemaa Singh

Indian Film Producer Ashvin29 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

This page is for users involved in this project's administration. Please ask about your submission at the Articles for Creation help desk. This is where other editors will try to answer any questions about the Articles for creation process and your submission.

NotAGenious (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

AFCH gadget description

An admin familiar with gadgets should edit MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper to remove ", Files for Upload, redirect and category requests". This script indeed doesn't process them, and the description may come off as misleading to new reviewers. NotAGenious (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Diff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Have AFCH detect deleted AfC decline templates?

Tracked in github.com
Issue #304

I don't know if this is technically feasible or easy, since I have no programming knowledge, but it seems useful for spotting potential bad-faith contributors or locating comments by other reviewers. In either case, I want to say thank you to people who maintain AFCH. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Is possible to code this up. Ticket created. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

thanks Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeated resubmission of draft when article exists

I am encountering a situation that I know will occur from time to time. That is that I am reviewing a draft which was submitted earlier today (18 November) and declined as exists because there is already an article, and has been resubmitted after some editing. The article is Draft:Javier Milei, and there already is an article at Javier Milei, and they are about the same person, a candidate for President of Argentina. I would like to Reject the draft, to discourage another resubmission, and to encourage the submitter to review and compare the draft and the article. I don't want to blank and redirect the draft, because I haven't read it in detail and it may contain information that should be moved to the article. Neither of the existing reasons for Rejection is applicable. We all agree that he is biographically notable; there has been plenty of coverage of him by both Argentine publications and world publications. His submission is not contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. It is just a tendentious submission. What should be done? I will decline it with exists again. This is bound to recur from time to time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I would just remove the AfC templates all together. That's what I do with vandalistic submissions to WP:DENY. Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this is a possible need for the introduction of a custom rejection rationale? I don't think every draft that has to be rejected falls cleanly into the two existing template messages. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:TechnoSquirrel69 that a custom option would be useful. In this specific case, it turns out that the submitter wanted to add material that would be a separate child article, about the public image of Javier Milei. I advised them that the draft should be renamed/moved. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

A couple of times I've thought it might be helpful to have a third reject option, something along the lines of "publication not possible for technical reasons"; that might apply here. To be used judiciously and sparingly, of course, not as a free-for-all when you just don't like the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I sometimes blank and redirect these. It's inefficient to have articles in two places. A BLAR encourages folks to focus their efforts in one place (on the mainspace article). If you're declining with "exists" and they keep resubmitting, hmm... not sure how to handle. If it gets disruptive, MFD maybe? –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think "contrary to the purposes" is such a bad reject in this case, provided you comment first to give an indication that the article already exists. Continually resubmitting an AfC draft for a topic that already has a mainspace article sure isn't "the purpose of Wikipedia"... asilvering (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I got a fail for doing that. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean Draft:H. Pearl Davis? That was never declined for already existing, so it should have been declined. Robert McClenon is talking about tendentious resubmissions. -- asilvering (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Appropriate for users to review their own AfC nominations?

Is there a specific policy or consensus on users reviewing their own AfC creations? Doing so seems completely contradictory to the entire purpose of this process. Seems like a very strange thing to see, time and time again. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems strange. If they're going to bother doing that, they should just move their drafts to mainspace and forego AfC entirely, which they're free to do. Unless it's someone with a restriction to only being allowed to use AfC and, in that case, self-reviewing would clearly be inappropriate. Silverseren^C 00:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Diff would be helpful. Are you talking about 1) someone creating an AFC draft, the accepting their own AFC draft? Or 2) an NPP both accepting the draft and marking it as reviewed? For #1, I agree with Silverseren that moving it instead of accepting it would be less weird. For #2, it's allowed, see the talk page archives. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I do this all the time, primarily because 1) I work on articles on state supreme court justices, who are an automatic WP:NPOL pass, so there's no controversy, and 2) it saves clicks, because accepting the draft automatically does a bunch of the formatting (for categories and the like). Provide another shortcut to do that formatting, and I'll do it that way instead. BD2412 T 03:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no prohibition, AFC is not mandatory, and there is nothing "wrong" with someone using their tools to make moving a draft easier, but I will happily remove someone if they are using their status as an AFC reviewer to attempt to "insulate" their sub-standard articles from scrutiny since it "passed" AFC. Primefac (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I sometime sort of do this if I expand a draft (most have been FAs legislatures and BD2412s justices). I do it for two reasons: firstly to do the extra bits the tool does; secondly to let the creator know it's finished. I do now tend to remove the AfC template from the talk page (when I remember) if I ended up writing most of it as its not really appropriate. It would be good if there was a tickbox to make it more of a non-AfC acceptance (no AfC accepted template on talk page and maybe different template on creators talk page). Maybe if someone was actually the page creator and submitter then the tool would auto drop anything but the cleanup. However, unless someone can point to or articulate why this is a problem more than just being "strange" or "weird" it does not seem worth the effort. As always, difficult to judge without diffs to see if there is a problem. KylieTastic (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the above responses. But when AFC is made mandatory for someone by a decision elsewhere, I think that self-review would go against what is a presumed part of that decision. North8000 (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I doubt there are any editors who are bound to go through AfC who are also AfC reviewers. Are there any? -- asilvering (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, no, but I do not necessarily keep track of everyone after they are approved, so someone could receive a topic ban without my knowledge. I would hope that someone would let the project (or myself) know if that sort of situation happened. A quick check of WP:RESTRICT does not seem to show anyone other than FloridaArmy with a creation ban with an AFC requirement. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle also. I don't know of any others. -- asilvering (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Short descriptions and the AFCH

I have just noticed on Mal'cev's criterion that the AFC Helper Script removes short descriptions upon acceptance. Is that intentional? Felix QW (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I suspect, though I am not certain, that you did not add in a shortdesc (or blanked the existing one), as AFCH should add a shortdesc if one is provided (and pre-fill the box if it's already on the draft). That, or it could be one of those mysterious DGG issues that popped up every once in a while that was not reproducible. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Testing this on testwiki with this wikitext as the "before" text reveals that AFCH reads the existing short description and places its value into the Accept form's short description text box. Accepting this with the pre-filled short descrption keeps the short description. Is it possible that you deleted this text from the short description text box by mistake? If that box ended up blank, that would delete the short description. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both very much! I must have blanked the existing short description by accident. Felix QW (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

–Novem Linguae (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Updating the WikiProject banner

Following a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_198#Project-independent_quality_assessments which closed with a consensus to move ratings to the banner shell, wikignomes are working to move the ratings to the banner shells where possible, with a BRFA currently open to speed the process up: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 26.

However for AfC ratings, these are done for a particular revision therefore should not be changed post review. Putting onto the banner shell can create the impression that particular revision that the rating was given for may be of a higher grade in the future than it was initially rated for.

I have raised an edit request to opt-out AfC's banner from this process: Template_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Edit_request_19_November_2023. I suppose we are to seek a consensus here.

In the edit request, the QUALITY_CRITERIA parameter is set to "custom", while a separate Template:WikiProject Articles for creation/class subpage will be created as well as an idiosyncrasy of the abovementioned setting. The class subpage will disable ratings for FA, A, GA, FL classes as a 'by the way' since we aren't in the business of giving such ratings here. – robertsky (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This sounds sensible, though if possible I would still love for some way to track what the current rating of articles to go through the AfC process are. It would be nice to see that articles we've approved have gone on to be good or featured, for example, while the AfC banner can still show where they began. Turnagra (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hang on a second, I've never been aware that the |class= parameter for the AfC banner was supposed to remain forever at the class it was accepted at. Nothing in the documentation of {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} suggests that it should be used this way. It's actually a habit of mine to consolidate all of the ratings into a {{WikiProject banner shell}} when I accept drafts. I don't think it's a great idea to lock the AfC ratings in, as it would prevent AfC from using the tracking categories to see what the current ratings of accepted drafts are, which is also important information along with the rating at the original state. I think it might be better for AfC to opt in to generalized ratings, and instead use a new parameter that's unlinked from the class rating. I can see it functioning similar to how the timestamp and reviewer parameters currently work: they can simply change the message in the banner without passing any data to Module:WikiProject banner. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

So, to elaborate, instead of the banner message reading "This article was accepted from this draft on date by reviewer reviewer.", it could go something like "This article was accepted with a class rating from this draft on date by reviewer reviewer.". —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't suggest doing this. I know of no other WikiProject banners that take a snapshot of the rating and keep displaying it indefinitely. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was kind of thrown off by that myself. AfC is obviously quite a bit different from other WikiProjects, though, and I don't think one parameter in the talk page banner would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I proposed the new parameter as a way to kind of compromise with Robertsky's proposal without unnecessarily complicating the application of the |class= parameter, but I'm also fine with retaining the status quo of not documenting the original rating at all. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we're in a bit of a different situation with what our ratings signify - I'd be happy with the option you've proposed. Turnagra (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it appears that at least a sizeable portion of AfC banners have the current rating (hence why at /Assessment we have FA and GA articles). LittlePuppers (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I also disagree with this change - the WPAFC banner has never worked in this way. It is much more interesting to see where the quality of articles is now. Category:FA-Class AfC articles contains 13 articles, which might have never been created were it not for AfC. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Showcase#Recognized content for more details. If we just used the quality at creation, then it would be mainly Stub and Start-class. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy to have an initial class but there are two issues I see. Firstly how some set the initial assessment: Some do not set at all, some set always to Stub, I have seen some say they only ever set to Stub or Start and others that they would never go higher than C; Secondly you will find it hard to stop others from coming along and updating the AfC class rating. So if you wanted to keep the original I think the parameter would have to be changed from |class= to say |initial_afc_class=, then we would have to update all current usages, update anything that uses the existing parameter and encourage better more consistent initial rating. Sounds like a lot of work for little gain but I don;t rally mind either way. KylieTastic (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

this may be a better idea. We don't need to update all current usage, rather it can be an additional custom parameter just for the current line in the template that says when the draft was accepted. we don't need to look back at the already approved submissions for now if the templating is done correctly. Additional code changed may be necessary on ACFH side to push the rating to the custom parameter. – robertsky (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The idea has been floated in the past, but never really reached any firm consensus, to simply remove the class option from the banner entirely, for many of the reasons mentioned above. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

We do (I'm pretty sure) have a link to the revision of the article when it was accepted, so that provides a bit of something for seeing the initial state, with a whole lot less work than re-assessing everything (which I don't really see happening). LittlePuppers (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see little benefit to keeping snapshots of the article rating, and added complexity since we would deviate from how hundreds of other wikiprojects do it. It'd also be unintuitive, so gnomes might change/ignore it accidentally. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Odd comments

Recently I've seen a lot of comments as a response to decline notices and other talk page messages, which sound like they've been generated by some sort of AI bot, or possibly are based on some templated advice being circulated on them interwebs. This one on my talk page even starts with

"When responding to a Wikipedia curator who has declined your submission, it's crucial to address their concerns clearly and respectfully, while also highlighting the improvements made. Here's a suggested response:"

They also often cite policy and make grandiose statements about respecting Wikipedia values, yada yada, like this one.

Anyone know what's behind this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This happens often, I've come across similar messages numerous times. These are generated with AI. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be getting more and more. Although, I suppose it would. Back when I was knee-high, didn't see much AI around. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Not come across such things (yet), but it does look like a response from a LLM if asked what to do when rejected. It scary that people are using these and are not even engaging their brains enough to remove the lead sentence. KylieTastic (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Though we can't fully halt the use of LLM in discussions, we are committed to ensuring it doesn't overpower our articles. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it does kind of give the game away a little. :)

Also, there was one of these convos recently on one user's talk page where they kept contradicting their earlier statements, like "I am paid to edit", followed by "as stated, I am not paid to edit". The mind boggles trying to imagine how that came about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

According to GPTZero, the block reply results in: 'There is a 87% probability this text was entirely written by AI' - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 18:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, GPTZero and other LLM detectors are not reliable. WMF engineers took a look at this when we were trying to decide whether to incorporate LLM detectors into our software, and came to this conclusion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this another one? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw that and thought the same. I see that user being blocked before very long. KylieTastic (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

backlog down to 5... can you make it 0

backlog down to 5... if anyone wants to hit zero NOW is the time to review KylieTastic (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Just want to say THANK YOU to everybody who's been working on this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• @1 KylieTastic (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Theroadislong (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• @ZERO at 8:23 including none in the being reviewed state - Well done all involved KylieTastic (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I deleted a draft by a sock to get us to zero. lol. Go take your screenshots, everyone :) Great job on this awesome accomplishment. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a pretty fitting way to get to 0, LOL. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice one, @Novem Linguae. I was staring at it, wondering how to attack it, and the next thing I knew it was gone! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Holy cow, the deed has been done. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Twiddles fingers.... Theroadislong (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, bottomed out. Got the receipts. Blink, and you missed it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, everyone! We did the thing! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Congrats!! It took me three refreshes of my "random AfC article" bookmark coming back with the same article I'd just declined before I clued in to what happened, haha. -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Stats @zero _source

• Total reviews 8801 plus 983+ deleted (9784)

Last day reviews 322+

• Most accepts WikiOriginal-9 with 555

Honourable mentions for Vanderwaalforces @310 and Theroadislong @114

KylieTastic (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@KylieTastic no no, IngenuityBot is yet to do final updates :--) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Well the drive is technically a month, so for the points is continues and I'll do a final stats after the months ends... but seeing what has been achieved in 20days to hit zero also needed recording. Note that normal monthly reviews are in the 6-7K range and we hit nearly (probably) 10K in two thirds of a month. KylieTastic (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the update. This will go into the end of drive message. Thanks for providing this. :) – robertsky (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, final updates happened. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Moving this here as stopped the graph at zero :) _{it would be depressing to see it trickle up}

AfC November 2023 Backlog Drive (Data from this) The backlog reached 0 @ ~20:22 UTC on the 20th

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KylieTastic (talk • contribs)

The template isn't true anymore, lol

"Review waiting, please be patient. This may take up to a week, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1 pending submissions waiting for review." ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I find it kind of funny that the template isn't written with a case for one pending draft lol —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary page

Is there any reason why Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation is looks exactly the same?

It certainly confused me a while before I figured out they are a duplicate. I think the duplicate submissions page should be deleted. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the Submissions page looks like it has some statistics which aren't present on the main page? They do look very similar though. Turnagra (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I am going to be WP:bold and move the submission-tracking sections on this talk page to the /Submissions tab, which will replace the duplicate information.

@Rich Smith, are OK with the copyvio section being moved? Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ca: The Copyvio section? That's only on this talk page, it's just a transclude from User:RichBot/copyvios - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 13:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the reply. I'll be moving the sections to /Submissions. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

UPE reject

Template:AfC submission/reject reasons lists UPE (promotional, author sanctioned already) as a reject reason. Why isn't it in the AFCH or what discussion led to it being removed? NotAGenious (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Quite possible it was never added... The code was placed in August 2018 but if the change was never mentioned elsewhere then it wouldn't have been matched on the Git. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Do we want it added to WP:AFCH? If so I can make a ticket. If not we can remove from the template.

I am mildly against. I'm not sure it's the AFC reviewer's job to go digging into the person's history to figure out if they've been sanctioned for UPE. I think a reviewer should usually judge a draft on its merits. Also the line between COI and UPE is blurry and a bit of a guessing game. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

+1. The problem we've got is that most UPE isn't spotted by the average reviewer, and I see many drafts that are tagged as containing paid contributions without the mandatory talk page explanation. Drafts should be judged based on their quality. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Can't say I've ever felt the need to reject on that particular basis; I just decline as adv and request G11 speedy. If it gets deleted, what does it matter whether it was declined or rejected? Likewise, what does it then matter whether the author has been sanctioned for UPE or not? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 -- asilvering (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the consensus here is leaning against having UPE as a reject reason. I went ahead and removed it from the template. Am happy to add it back if consensus swings the other way. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Redirects and categories taking longer than articles

Down at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories, there are some requests which are over a week old without being answered. This is more than the estimated time for articles. 115.188.140.167 (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:John Creuzot

Thoughts on this? There are tons of sources on Google but admins keep removing my CSD tag from the redirect. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Deb and @Liz. Any reason you have declined this AFC reviewer's {{Db-afc-move}}? It is my understanding that these should always be accepted as long as the person is an AFC reviewer, which they are in this case (all folks with the NPP permission also have AFC permissions implicitly). draft appears to have been declined. The existing decline appears to be an old decline, and the draft has undergone a fresh round of back and forth, and the current reviewer appears ready to accept. Please let me know if I am missing something. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that there is a COI here. In my opinion, the draft is worded like an advertisement. Deb (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed a line of promo just now. Anything else needed here to prevent a G11 and survive AFD? The latest AFC reviewer says lots of sources on this person exist. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Trimmed out more promotional stuff, primary sources, unsourced content, and also puffery. – robertsky (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement. Deb (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll execute the G6. In the future I think admins should consider not evaluating the draft though, and if a "bad accept" is made, should just let the AFD process deal with it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Observations

I haven't yet started re-reviewing the current drive's results, but a couple of informal observations so far:

1. I've seen quite a few drafts being accepted, where the sources really do not satisfy GNG, not with the best will in the world.
2. Almost contradictory to that, I've also seen many declines where apparently only GNG was considered, and none of the SNGs.

Nothing catastrophic, that I've seen; NPP is there to deal with '1', and resubmission is available for '2' (sometimes by way of the help desk).

Don't know if this is a feature of the current drive, drives in general, or just par for the course. Probably the last one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Bummer. Are re-reviews catching this? Are we leaving polite notes on reviewer user talk pages so that folks can calibrate? Sometimes if I see a bad decline, I'll hit the undo button so it pings the old reviewer, which is a relatively quiet way to help them calibrate without doing a big call-out. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

In hindsight, I realise I should have remarked on them in re-reviews. I didn't, and didn't even make any note of them. My whoopsie. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, just realised that NPP may not pick up some of these, because many of the participants in the current drive probably have autopatrol. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying note for those unaware: When autopatrolled users move a page from draft space to main space the page is automatically marked as reviewed, even if the mover is not the original creator. This means that AFC participants with autopatrol are automatically reviewing pages they accept. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Funny you should ask. I have just left a pleasant note on the talk page of a reviewer where I disagree with their review. We. will see what happens

I have been known to accept drafts where the topic in inherently notable despite terrible sourcing. Tagging the article post acceptance is important.

@DoubleGrazing I try to remember to untick the review when I am accepting a draft unless it's a cast iron acceptance, and (almost) always when I tag post acceptance. I believe we all should do that, or at least thave think about it.

Note to self: "Do more re-reviews" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I used to think I was doing NPP a favour by having my acceptances being autopatrolled. Then I realised (I tend to realise things with considerable delay, as you may have noticed...) that assumes I'm right in my acceptances, which is an arrogance if nothing else, even if I do have quite a high bar for accepting. Now, like you, I try to remember to unmark them, other than in entirely obvious cases. I've no idea what others do. This whole area could benefit from some clarification. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing We depend on the goodwill of others, especially when we think we may be correct! We have to trust each of us to do our best. We cant do better than our best.

My pleasant message bore fruit. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that marking AfC accepts as patrolled is "arrogance" — consider the fact that articles created directly into mainspace usually only get the benefit of one reviewer. If an editor is already an NPP, I don't have a problem with them taking responsibility for their review and marking the mainspace page as patrolled. Getting a second opinion is great, but not strictly necessary. I feel like a similar argument applies for reviewers who have the autopatrolled right. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. Anyone doing AfC reviews, especially but only those with autopatrol, should by definition be more likely to get things right than wrong.

But linking this back to the oft-mentioned need for reviewers to be bolder in accepting borderline cases (ie. 45-55% chance of surviving AfD, rather than dead certs), that seems not to mesh well with autopatrol. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. When I draft articles myself, I tend to hold them to a much higher standard than I do with drafts I accept at AfC, and I think that many reviewers would feel similarly. I imagine it's possible from a technical standpoint for changes to be made to MediaWiki to allow autopatrolled editors to opt out of bypassing NPP, but that would require a much wider consensus and a better reason than just "a few AfC reviewers want it". —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Would have to modify mw:Extension:PageTriage. Use case would be having autopatrol but not NPP (NPPs can already unpatrol their own articles, I think). It's not a bad idea. Could add an "Add to the New Pages Feed" link to the left menu for those folks. Want me to make a ticket? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, I was just throwing the idea out there; it seems like a relatively uncommon situation for an editor to have autopatrolled, be an AfC reviewer, but also not be a patroller. Do you think there's any other situation than an AfC review where an editor with the user right would want to intentionally disable the autopatrol? Also, wouldn't a change to how a user right works require an RfC or something to establish community consensus? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think giving an autopatrolled person an optional button to occasionally unpatrol their own articles would need an rfc. Seems uncontroversial. The use case seems to extend outside afc. Maybe an autopatroller not involved in afc makes an article but is unsure about its notability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Takao Yaguchi

Many of his manga series are only in Japanese Wikipedia: ja:おらが村, ja:新・おらが村, ja:マタギ (漫画), ja:かつみ, ja:ニッポン博物誌, ja:ふるさと (漫画), ja:激濤 Magnitude 7.7. Can you translate them in English, and maybe also expand his own page and Fisherman Sanpei? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.62.220 (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)