Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Requesting review limit removal

Hi, it has been about a month since I was added to the AfC reviewer list. I have done a couple reviews over this month and would be happy to do more. Pinging @Primefac for review, thanks. TLA^tlak 15:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It has been three weeks and three days, but I welcome feedback on their performance nonetheless. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla why did you not wait a full month before requesting a review as Primefac instucted? Also, why did you not wait to get feedback before requesting the NPP perm, now for the 3rd time in less than three months? You've been advised time and again not to rush be yet you still do which is one of the reasons an admin brought you to ANI and the reason an ANI you filed was dismissed, not to mention the advise you have been given on your talk page another other venues. S0091 (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@S0091 I wasn't aware it was a hard, 30-day month, sorry. I requested NPP because I truly think I'm ready, maybe I am over zealous but I hope that my competence has shown in the 40+ pages, 50+ reviews. I haven't been in issues in a long while, as the ANIs you mentioned have all been important learning opportunities.

However, given that both you and @DreamRimmer think it's best that I wait before applying for NPR, I have withdrawn my request.

As per the message you gave on my talk page, I really do not quite understand why that was a problem when all I wanted to do was move my draft to the mainspace because I believed it was ready. TLA^tlak 14:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You're right in that Primefac didn't say "30 days", he said "a month" which is not 3 weeks and as for the ANI's, those were in the last couple months so not that long ago. The reason I mention them at all is because it demonstrates an ongoing pattern. As for you accepting your own pending draft, I haven't mentioned it because it is not prohibited, nor should it be. As I stated, given you are on probation with restrictions I didn't think it was a good idea.

I think you have potential, TLA but you still have a lot to learn. For example, your source assessments at AfDs have issues as demonstrated at WP:Articles for deletion/INVNT, WP:Articles for deletion/Saidullah Karimi (some were identical articles) and WP:Articles for deletion/Justin Jin where experienced engaged editors have disagreed with your analysis. These are all recent. S0091 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Got it, I'm not quite understanding why accepting my own draft wasn't a good idea, it was just procedural. As per the AfDs, I'm not perfect in my source analyses but I hope my 87% match rate can show I have an understanding. Thank you for thinking I have potential, that is very encouraging.

P.S. I don't think you should link those two on-going AfDs as that can be interpreted as canvassing TLA^tlak 16:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you should link those two on-going AfDs... False; S0091 is not asking for anyone else to participate. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to add to this for the benefit of TLA/anyone else reading, it's perfectly fine even to invite others to participate in an AfD directly, provided that you aren't trying to prejudice the result in some way. Pinging a handful of people who have historically voted keep in similar AfDs is canvassing. Going to someone who has access to, say, a database of 20th century Lithuanian newspapers, and asking for their help finding sources for a bio article up for AfD is fine. Every so often I take a handful of AfDs to WP:WIRED for the latter reason, since a lot of people there are newspaper wizards. If they say they can't find anything, I believe them! It's much better to have a conclusive delete/keep than something that fizzles out in no consensus for lack of input, which just wastes the time of the few who participated. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Whoops. I was once warned when linking to an on-going AfD, I may have interpreted it wrong. Sorry S0091. TLA^tlak 16:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No apology needed. It's a valid concern and have no issue with you bringing it up. S0091 (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I personally do not take a whole lot of stock in the AfD match rate. It can be a good indicator of someone being totally out of whack with PAGs/consensus/norms but what really matters is the quality of participation/analysis. Anyone can do a drive-by !vote, which is pretty much what you did in January with !votes being cast within seconds of each other, and the stats can be gamed. What I look for is when someone !voted and overall engagement (i.e..did they review the sources, explain their reasoning, convince others who are experienced and engaged, etc.). Certainly not that !votes need to be accompanied by a full source assessment or anything like that but enough to tell they have a grasp, can determine a good source from bad one and understand the relevant PAGs. (Side note, for some reason your AfD stats stop on February 26th though you have participated since that time).

I think you have you some work to do which includes taking seriously the feedback you are given directly, in AfDs, etc. as its not clear you do and in some instances, clear you haven't. I've blathered on enough so will step aside. S0091 (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe my AfD counter is broken? You are right that I rushed in January, but quite sure my votes in March/February have depth and not drive-by at all though. Sometimes I used a source assessment table. TLA^tlak 16:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggest posting a note at WP:VPT about the counter. It is odd. ? Yes, you have done sources assessment tables but your sources assessments are poor as demonstrated in the AfDs I noted above. S0091 (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Linking AFDs on WikiProject talk pages is usually fine. It's pings and user talk pages that can run afoul of canvassing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There was a time yesterday I was thinking of speaking to an editor, who voted the same as me, on their talk page about an AfD. Is that fine? TLA^tlak 16:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably. No one's going to be able to give you a clear "always fine" or "always not fine" on this kind of hypothetical because it's going to come down to perceived intent. If you develop a habit of always voting keep or always voting delete on a particular class of articles, people will be less likely to give you the benefit of the doubt. Same goes for if you do it constantly, if you do it when it looks like you have a particular interest in the outcome, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As a concrete example, from Usedtobecool's comment below: The first in light of the second suggests to me an editor who had already decided they were not going to allow yet another young person biography to get deleted by the "passionate" others who were "targeting" it. This suggests to me that you will be extended considerably less benefit of the doubt when it comes to bio articles on young people. -- asilvering (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with asilvering. It depends because you don't want to come across as colluding. If the AfD is already close though, colluding would be a big stretch for obvious reasons. However, I think you would benefit more from reaching out to editors who have disagreed with you. S0091 (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

S0091, you meant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Jin (entrepreneur), right? I am too close to it but I have a couple concerns which I wish to make known for independent evaluation. First, I disagree with their analysis almost completely. They were the largest contributor to that page in both size and frequency. I do not think someone who's unsure about what they're doing should be overwhelming a discussion like that. There was so much to challenge that I gave up on it completely. I saw strawmanning (As well, Spanish language should not be considered per WP:GNG), misapplication of WP:ENT (the second criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER may potentially apply here ... My small point with WP:ENTERTAINER relates to comedians, vaguely, with the fact that the subject seems to make comedy videos and that the company itself posts a lot of memes) and a failure to correct the entry on Billboard Argentina in their source analysis table when pointed out to them. When I said the source highlighting script doesn't necessarily represent consensus, they said, A good amount of them do. There is 6, and to me, 5 of them meet our requirements for significant coverage and independence. If it were up to me, that article would be deleted as spam, so naturally, I am wary when I see someone who saw no problem with it trying to join AFC/NPP but that's just my perspective. The second concern relates to this: The nominator's peculiar passion to delete this page and the imprecise G4 rationale by an administrator (having been deleted over a year ago, with strong changes and a massive increase in sourcing, and no hoaxes) seem to reflect a common trend I've seen on Wikipedia. Young, relatively notable subjects such as Rishab Jain, Avi Schiffmann, Jenk Oz, Kevin Leyes (which has since been recreated under Leyes (singer) due to new sourcing, which is evidently the case here as well, are often a target of editors. The first in light of the second suggests to me an editor who had already decided they were not going to allow yet another young person biography to get deleted by the "passionate" others who were "targeting" it. Other AFDs mentioned indicate the same to me: an editor who has a very hard time accepting a deletion outcome, which is fine except if you intend to work AFC/NPP, where we have to put our personal philosophies second to community given inclusion guidelines. They need to consider carefully whether this was the case, and if they need to sort out their priorities.

I checked a few of their reviews. And I think they should have brought Draft:Jasmin Champagne to admin attention immediately, even if they weren't sure what to do with it (which I wasn't either, but I contacted OS and it was promptly suppressed). It's hard to explain why now because TLA likely doesn't remember what it was, and I couldn't bring it up until I heard back from OS. But Primefac is an OS. I trust they will review and advise accordingly. I do not mean to recommend they should not be a reviewer, as I am unsure as to the expectations that are realistic for this project. I am sharing feedback because it looks like that's what's happening here. I am sure TLA will do fine with more experience. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean Justin Jin (entrepreneur). Thanks for catching my error, @Usedtobecool. S0091 (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm tla, sorry for using the third person. It's only because I was replying to S0091. I hope you'll consider my feedback—which, sorry again, is mostly criticism as I reread it—even if you end up ultimately not agreeing with all of it. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That was definitely a contentious AfD. Most of my comments there were with Jeraxmoira (we had disagreements of the relationship between interviews and independence), I decided to stop replying after a while because it got heated and I stopped caring to be honest. I also just noticed that it's at a deletion review, and it looks like it'll likely be relisted in a few days. Well this is not a place to argue again, but I'd like to justify my statements (admittedly went overboard at that one and some others):

1. The language and origin of the sourcing isn't a technical policy, and the African origin sourcing was obviously reasonable.

2. I disagreed with your reasoning to change Billboard to unreliable. Don't know why it's the Argentina edition, but I wanted to stick to policy and not speculate.

3. I feel WP:ENT should apply (comedic elements), but even if it doesn't, WP:GNG was met with my source assessment. I remain by that, though some of it is borderline.

4. I think the draft was previously deleted as G11? If I recall correctly I don't think it qualified as that.

As I've already commented a lot there, if it does go back to AfD I won't participate. Unless I change my vote to Draftify because this (imo) only be a WP:TOOSOON case.

I don't recall what Draft:Jasmin Champagne was, I'm guessing it was some diary entry? Perhaps I only read half of it and declined, I see that you marked it for G11 so was there some advertising content at the bottom that I missed?

I have no problem with the criticism. Lots of experienced and respected editors have shown up here to look at my work and that's great. I disagree with some of it and it admittedly can get tough, but it is helpful in the long run. TLA^tlak 16:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

TLA, can you expand upon "I wanted to stick to policy and not speculate." in #2? S0091 (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm tla,

1. I think you're hung up on how foreign language sources are as good as English language sources for use on Wikipedia, whereas my point wasn't language. My point was that a notable Canadian should have coverage in Canada and maybe the USA if they're already getting covered in Argentina, Nigeria and Holland. Because stuff like that happens when, for the express purpose of using on Wikipedia, they shop around the world for legitimate-looking and sounding websites and magazines that you can buy coverage in.
2. You need to explain this further.
3. ENT applies for people whose claim to notability stems for ENT activities, not everyone who's ever done anything ENT in their life. Businesspeople involved in producing art and entertainment are not themselves artists or entertainers, they're businesspeople. You said ENT#2 might apply, which says the contributions need to unique, prolific or innovative. Which attribute would you apply to Jin's comedy?
4. Not sure what draft you're talking about.

I will leave it to Primefac to speak about Draft:Jasmin Champagne, or not. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

An unsourced draft about a minor should always be sent to oversight to be dealt with privately. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Jasmin Champagne? It looks like I said Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "passion project" or "digital journal", sorry. so I'm guessing it was written by a minor with some personal content. Can't quite recall. If I come across something like that in the future I'll make sure to SD nom it and go to oversight. TLA^tlak 15:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool should we take this to a talk page? I don't want this to be a reiteration of an AfD. TLA^tlak 15:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to, for my benefit. If you want to, I'm game too. Either way, we can stop discussing the AFD here, sure. If you'd like to add a final response, feel free. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like an answer to #2 from a source/AfD agnostic perspective. Which policy and what is meant by "speculate". S0091 (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is Usedtobecool mentioned in the AfD that Billboard AR shouldn't be reliable because it calls an obscure 17-year-old Canadian a "mogul". TLA^tlak 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think what you are calling speculation is the standard evaluation and analysis that should occur with any source, even if "green lit" because context matters and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. You might find Talk:Arrests of Ulysses S. Grant an enlightening example of the evaluation of several reputable sources by some of Wikipedia's most experienced editors. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of Billboard AR, @Novem Linguae how did Billboard AR become a green lit source in your script? It wasn't a couple weeks or so ago and as far as I can tell, while their charts meet the WP:CHART criteria there's been no discussion about their articles/reviews. WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources is specific that Billboard US is generally reliable but makes no claim for other countries. Other countries are under different ownership and not the same editorial body as US. S0091 (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI, TLA added Billboard AR and many other Nigerian/Non-Nigerian URLs to this script. See Special:Diff/1211746164 and Special:Diff/1214639619. – DreamRimmer (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Usually I would think it is safe to assume that the same brand in different languages is the same content and editorial process. But to play it safe, I'll go ahead and remove the non-US Billboards here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The reviews seem promising, and I think it's time to remove the review limit restriction. Nonetheless, I concur with S0091; it's important not to rush through things and request NPR until you've spent another month or two reviewing AfC submissions and participating in AfDs. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, DreamRimmer. TLA^tlak 16:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• TLA has been CU blocked. Even if they become the exception and manage to return anytime soon, they should not be doing AFC/NPP for a while. Too many red flags, and they had some work to do in understanding PAGs and norms too. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  And not for being the sock, but for being a new sockmaster. Sigh. -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I did not have that on my AFCP bingo card... Primefac (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel like AfCs are somewhat flawed

I have noticed this a few times where what I consider are decent quality articles getting repeatedly rejected. I know that reviewers are not supposed to take previous reviews into consideration when reviewing a new article, but it's hard to deny that seeing say 5 rejections must surely subconsciously or consciously affect the review of a new draft submission.

Often the initial article definitely had reason to be rejected, but over time improvements get made and in my opinion become fairly good, well written and sourced, but I feel as if the previous rejections often influence or bias the latest AfC submission. I don't want to list examples, but has anyone else had this experience, if so, what are some alternatives to AfC - that perhaps works like an AfD where there is more community consensus. Mr Vili talk 12:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean declined NOT rejected, drafts are only rejected once, after which they are not considered again, when reviewing I always check to see if previous decline reasons have been addressed, if improvements have been made I will accept. Theroadislong (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mr vili: I think you should list examples, otherwise this is just ranting.

Perhaps you could also enlighten us on what makes you more qualified than a reviewer to judge what is "decent quality"? I'm not for a moment suggesting that isn't possible, just wondering why you feel a number of reviewers are all wrong, and you alone are right.

Also, a technical point: it is highly unlikely that a draft gets "repeatedly rejected", because rejection is meant to be the end of the road. You probably mean repeatedly declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You say you don't wish to give a specific example of a draft that has been repeatedly and incorrectly declined, but it is difficult to judge such a claim without one. AFC is almost always a voluntary process(except in cases of things like topic bans/COI). If an editor in good faith feels that the numerous, more experienced reviewers have gotten it wrong(not impossible, but seems unlikely), they should move the draft themselves and roll the dice that it won't be nominated for AfD or other forms of deletion. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@331dot @DoubleGrazing Was probably this version of Draft:Tristan Tate. It was moved into mainspace anyway after Mr vili took me to dispute resolution for declining it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are confident a draft should be accepted, just accept it (if you're an AFC reviewer) or move it to mainspace (if you're not an AFC reviewer). Draftspace is optional. However I hope you are well-calibrated to the norms of AFD if you are accepting marginal drafts, else a bunch of drafts you accept may end up getting deleted at AFD. There is probably a reason that these drafts are getting declined, and that reason might not be "AFC is broken/biased". I would encourage you to post examples if you want to discuss this in more detail. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This is likely the result of me declining Draft:Tristan Tate (which was dragged into mainspace anyway after he took me to dispute resolution for declining the draft. Thanks!). Even if it was unrelated to notability, that article cited several unreliable sources and bringing it to mainspace forced other editors to clean it up for you. BLPs especially are a contentious topic and need to cite only reliable sources. That draft did not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The AFD related to that Tristan Tate article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination)) is quite messy. There are several newer editors who aren't familiar with the nuances of WP:GNG claiming that various non-GNG sources are GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

And then accusing me of bludgeoning for pointing it out! Argh. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

good heavens. this whole discussion is a mess, and I don't want to be part of it. Speaking for us all. -- asilvering (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mr vili I think I get what you mean. Personally, I saw that Dexerto was in the draftspace and had been declined a couple times due to not great sourcing. Probably discouraged the original creator. I improved it myself, added some WP:RELIABLE sources here and there and decided to move it to the main space. Notability was met for me. The fact that Dexerto is used as a source in many articles on Wikipedia also affirmed notability.

I think Tristan Tate should be kept, so I'm going to put in my two cents there. There is some iffy sourcing there though so I think cleanup is in place. TLA^tlak 03:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla I don't want to bludgeon the discussion so I'm asking you here, but are you aware of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR? That's the secondary reason I declined the draft. While there are reliable sources that discuss him, it's all in reference to his and his brother's criminal case (almost exclusively his brother) and generally from a policy POV it is considered a very bad idea to make an article on a living person known for committing a crime when they have not been convicted yet. The sourcing exclusively backs up the crime conviction notability, even ignoring the fact that it's a duplicate of his brother info wise. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll have to be careful. But Tristan Tate is certainly not known only in connection with a criminal event or trial. I'm sure there are other reliable sources but requires a deep dig-up that don't hone in on the criminal case. TLA^tlak 03:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla As far as I can see, no reliable ones discuss him outside of the court case, unlike his brother. A lot of sources have been presented to try to justify it and none have been reliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say completely non-reliable. Yeah there's a bunch of rando blogs and tabloid stuff, but from a quick search I see stuff from Hindustan Times and Dexerto outside of the criminal cases. These are WP:MREL, but they still somewhat contribute. TLA^tlak 04:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You can't really partially contribute to notability. It's either there or it isn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I just want to mention, this was not specifically about Tristan Tate, I have noticed it in a few other articles in the past but anyways I didn't want to distract this discussion with the controversial nature of Tristan Tate. I was merely curious as to whether others have also experienced this issue. Mr Vili talk 03:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mr vili Your statement makes sense. I think AfC reviewers wouldn't want to take a big risk accepting a possibly non-notable subject, especially BLPs. TLA^tlak 04:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

In the context of BLPs I think it certainly makes sense to be a bit more cautious, which to me also highlights the need for a way to gain greater community consensus to avoid the issue of being overly cautious and just flat out rejecting an article which would otherwise be considered notable. Mr Vili talk 04:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

A dedicated additional process like that would be nice, but it would probably very annoying and just make it all complicated. Also I think where we are discuss right now is a fine place to discuss on-the-verge drafts. I don't think the issue is that serious either, if a topic is notable it's most likely that one day an editor will come across, ensure it's properly cited, and get it accepted. TLA^tlak 04:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The way to gain community consensus is usually AfD. By itself, that wouldn't be a problem: AfC reviewers are encouraged (I hope) to accept borderline drafts even if they run the risk of being nominated for deletion, as this provides a way to get a large number of eyes on a new article and source editor opinions. However, this can be a stressful process sometimes for both the reviewer and submitter, which is why some reviewers might hesitate to accept some drafts without more solid groundwork. I'm not opinionated one way or another in this discussion, just sharing my perspective on why you may be seeing what you're seeing. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla @TechnoSquirrel69 Perhaps in the AfC process, there should be an "official" mechanism in the workflow for an experienced editor (maybe uninvolved or 100+ edits) to nominate a declined request for dispute, perhaps within here. I may possibly be over-complicating it, but I much prefer the AfD process to gain community consensus over singular reviewers which may or may not have their own biases, or be influenced by previously declined reviews - anyways just an opinion Mr Vili talk 05:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I can already see UPE editors would want to take advantage of a process like that. Maybe something like 250+ edits could be okay. I wouldn't mind a process like that, though, you could take it to WP:Village pump (idea lab)? TLA^tlak 05:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Not to shoot down your ideas out of hand, but I'm not immediately seeing the need for a new discussion venue in this case. As you mentioned, AfD is an option, as is asking at the help desk or the Teahouse. That's about it for official processes (I believe), but reviewers will often discuss possibly contentious or difficult reviews on this talk page or in the NPP Discord server. What additional benefit or opportunity for discussion would be provided with a new venue? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It already exists. WP:DRAFTOBJECT. You can just move it to mainspace. Draftspace is optional and anyone (within reason) can switch a draft to mainspace and the AFD process at any time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding to what Novem Linguae said, there's also an in-AfC process at WP:AFCHD. -- asilvering (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mr vili: Also, if we're discussing the relationship of AfC reviewers to demonstrating notability, there was also a recent discussion at § Ettrick and Northern that you might be interested in. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I see a draft that has been declined a few times already it's either a) an open-shut obvious fail being repeatedly resubmitted by an editor who doesn't understand or doesn't care about the feedback or b) something an editor has been putting a lot of effort into, so previous declines are barely relevant because they were stamped on a draft that was so significantly different from the one I then end up reviewing. Rarely anything in the middle. If your article has 5 declines on it and you're still resubmitting, it's probably the former, sorry. You can always start a thread at WP:AFCHD if you want to object. -- asilvering (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

To make a long story short, IMO in practice, on average, passing AFC is a higher standard than passing NPP/AFD. I've done a lot of NPP and later a small amount of AFC review. When starting the latter it was explained that theoretically, the criteria for passing AFC is having a good chance at passing AFD. In reality, the criteria for passing at NPP/AFD is "should this topic have an article?" (and 95% of the time that is "Does the topic pass wp:notability?") and not other article quality issues. I think that the de facto requirements for passing AFC is that the article does not have any other significant quality issues. I think that this is simply human nature.....what reviewer is going to want to put their stamp of approval on an article which has significant problems even if it would pass NPP/AFD? I'm not implying that this is good or bad, I'm just noting it and noting that I think that this phenomena is relevant to some of the types of discussions that often come up. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I know I said this when you made similar comments before, but for anyone reading this, if you see this happening - ie, someone declining an article that would pass NPP/AfD - please bring it up with the reviewer, because that should not be happening. -- asilvering (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I saw a rejected draft today that 22 references, and most of them looked reasonable. Resubmitted it because that's just silly to reject (didn't have time to formally do a full review). Primefac (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

and I just accepted it. Theroadislong (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that it's a bit ingrained. Often when people talk about "article improvement before it's ready for mainspace" (vs. the narrower topic of just including references to establish wp:notability) they are often talking about article quality issues which would not be a cause for rejection at NPP/AFD. Also, it's human nature to be cautious about passing something, doubly so if they are concerned that someone might critique them for passing an edge case article which would be 90% sure of passing AFD (and NPP) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, and the way to deal with that is to bring it up with the reviewer, because that should not be happening. I'm not saying you have to go yell at them. It's perfectly fine to have sympathy. But we shouldn't be sitting on our hands saying "alas, it's just human nature to decline drafts without good reason" and acting as though there is nothing to be done. Reviewers who decline drafts incorrectly aren't going to get any better at it if no one tells them they've messed up. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at a bunch of the ones at the help desk. There's another common situation, perhaps the most common one there. That is where the actual problem is wp:notability and a wp:ver type rejection reason is given. Then the author really doesn't understand what the problem is and exactly what needs to be done to fix it, or why fixing it will be impossible if the needed GNG sources don't exist. I might try helping a bit on some of those at the help desk to do what you say and to get more of an understanding. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of the decline template reasons aren't that great – either vague or some editors may not use the appropriate one. It might be worth striking up more specific decline reason templates for AfC revewiers too?

I think declining can also have something to do with potential WP:COI in regards to WP:BLP and WP:CORP drafts. Sometimes I look at Draft submissions at New Pages Feed that could meet notability but there is a hint of advertising or conflict of interest, judging by the username or the article's tone. I might take a stab at some declined drafts to see if I can bring them up to Wikipedia's requirements.

Also @Primefac I noticed on Sunday you replied to all AfC participant requests other than mine – are you still reviewing my case? I'm keen to get involved in this process via a probationary period of some sort. Thaks. TLA^tlak 02:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am still reviewing. Your participation in various discussions here is helping that process. Primefac (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! TLA^tlak 07:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the 22-source decline draft, same thing. Reviewer had posted a COI notice on the creator's other draft that was interconnected (person & association). It's possible that caused a decline for the 22-source draft. TLA^tlak 02:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

A COI is not a reason to decline a draft; a promotional page is a reason to decline a page, but COI editors can (admittedly rarely) write neutral articles. Primefac (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how promotional it is. And fax, I see so many clearly use ChatGPT or an WP:CORP draft completely rely on the company's own website and press releases. TLA^tlak 07:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

fyi, if you see that a draft or article is mostly citing the company's own website and various press releases, this is a strong hint that running it through earwig might show obvious copyvio. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

So, if the wp:afc passage standard is intended to be a reasonable chance of passage at AFD, why are there "decline" templates for reasons which are not a reason for deletion of an article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess an example WP:NPOV. I think people just have higher standards with an AfC submission (it's like decline or accept) but at AfD people are lenient as it would "already" be in the mainspace which = opportunity for other editors to "fix" TLA^tlak 03:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Because AFC reviewers individually and collectively have requirements beyond WP:LIKELY to survive WP:AFD. WP:NPOV is the only one in the reviewer instructions but certainly not the only one in play. Reviewers seem to appreciate additional latitude to decline because you do risk the scorn of other editors for accepting a marginal draft. ~Kvng (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kvng: (and to others) I think that you have accurately described the situation. Noting, you have described a situation which conflicts with the official AFC passage criteria. I'm not implying which one is a better idea, but wouldn't it be a good idea to reconcile the two? North8000 (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

If it means changing the acceptance criteria to include a quality component, no, that takes us further from the Wikipedia way. Changing reviewer behavior to more closely match reviewing instructions will require a cultural change at AfC. I'm not sure where to start with that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kvng: I think that the latter would be easier than you realize. I think that most reviewers doing non-AFC criteria rejections do it out of fear / obligation including for the reason described in your 22:04, 17 March 2024 post. AFC also gives mixed signals on this, including by having rejection templates for criteria which are not AFC rejection criteria. And easy start would be to get rid of non-AFC criteria rejection templates. And n the instruction directly say that it is OK to pass articles (and they should pass articles) with quality problems if the AFC criteria have been met. North8000 (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I concur with North8000 on his first point. I was also in the "apply quality criteria to avoid criticism" camp when I started reviewing, but after a short discussion with an experienced reviewer, I quickly switched my priorities to be more in line with meeting core policies than assessing things like prose quality or formatting. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Primefac set up a workshop several years ago to review decline reasons and messaging available in AFCH. I suggested removing many of these. IIRC, my suggestions were not well received also the whole workshop project stalled. ~Kvng (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kvng: We should work out a specific proposal and propose it. I'd be happy to help but I'm not very fluent in the AFC mechanics/message/template details so this would other folks to work on development. I'm pretty strong on article existence criteria (a few thousand NPP reviews over a few years) so I could help in the article existence respect. North8000 (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid all I'm up for at this point is beating my head against this wall on occasion. ~Kvng (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Just a snippet. Ive been involved in training hundreds of new Wikipedia editors for years and we tell them all about the five pillars and then caution them never to use the AFC process. Everyone here knows why. I'm not keen to join this debate. I look through the articles that we have on Wikipedia that are completely unreferenced and then I look at a stalled AFC where I see editors who I m sure think they they are helping with "Articles for Creation" and its all too frequently "Articles for continued continuation". The unreferenced articles are nowhere near AfC tick standard. The articles that are rejected at AfC are of much higher standard. It takes an hour to create a perfectly valid Wikipedia article that can add to the project just as long as the editor doesnt press the AfC button.... in whiich case the same article can take months before its abandoned. I see in this thread then you want to discuss examples .... umm the issue I'm afraid is not about a specific article. I get the impression that some members of the AfC crew are valued if they keep the backlog down by repeatedly rejecting articles that no one would think needed deleting. Good luck with addressing this problem. Victuallers (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding AfC seems like good advice for editors that have been given some training. Thanks for your work here! ~Kvng (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

IMO, at least at the macro level, the solution is simple. Align everything "pass/fail" related at AFC with it's stated pass/fail criteria. (e.g. instructions to reviewers, failure templates etc.) North8000 (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Also say that it's OK to pass "edge cases" regarding wp:notability. We can handle those out at NPP based on AFD norms which is a harder-to-learn criteria. North8000 (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Tristan Tate

Since we are discussing the Tristan Tate article, I would like feedback on whether what I did with that page was reasonable. As has been mentioned, the article was submitted to AFC, reasonably, and declined, reasonably. The originator then requested discussion at DRN. The author said that they wanted the draft moved into article space so that there could be a deletion discussion to obtain a rough consensus on individual notability.

DRN has not in the past been a forum for a discussion of draft declines, which are discussed at the AFC Help Desk or the Teahouse. Also, I had previously declined an earlier version of the draft, and so had become involved and would not be a neutral mediator. However, I was willing to ignore the rule that a reviewer should only accept a draft if they thought that there was a greater than 50% chance that it would be kept after AFD. I had no idea what the likelihood was that it would be kept at AFD, but I thought that it was in the interests of the encyclopedia to resolve the question of the biographical notability of Tristan Tate with an AFD. So I said that if the draft was resubmitted to AFC again, I would accept it for the purpose of enabling a deletion discussion. The originator resubmitted, and I accepted, and there was a seven-day AFD, which has now been non-admin closed as Keep. So my question is: Do other reviewers think that I reasonably applied Ignore All Rules? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I will also comment that I think that the non-administrative close was questionable because the AFD had been contentious, and the guideline says that contentious closes should be left to admins. But that is a matter either for discussion with the closer or for Deletion Review. It would have been a valid admin close, and I am very seldom inclined to criticize a non-admin close simply for being a non-admin close. But if it comes to Deletion Review, I will !vote to Overturn to Relist to allow an admin to close after another week, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I have accepted drafts knowing that they would probably be sent to AFD, so I don't think there's anything wrong with what you did here. Primefac (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The close was self reverted. But the afd is still leaning keep. I think that's your answer right there, Robert. You accepted a draft that is so far surviving a deletion discussion. Looks like a good accept to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Templated response to draft bios being placed at wp:AFC/R ?

It would be good to have a subst'able response template to place on users' talk pages, when they make this mistake. It seems to be a daily occurrence that some person from India places a draft biography into WP:Articles for creation/Redirects instead of using a sandbox or draftspace. That in itself is very weird, why are so many people from India are writing bios at AFC/R? There should be a standardized response to these people to tell them to use the article wizard, draft space, or a user sandbox, instead of making an illegal request at AFC/R. Considering how common this has become recently, there should be a template response to this situation, just as we have template rejection closures at AFC/R for closing requests. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd be in support of this. It has slowed down a little bit but for a good while we were getting at least one draft attempt at really weird AFC-related redirect talk pages (like... in places where I am literally the only page watcher... who finds these things?). A note about the "right place" might help over simply reverting them with "wrong location" as the edit summary. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I will note that we have {{Uw-draftfirst}} which theoretically could be used in these sorts of circumstances, though it's not perfect. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

{{AfC redirect error}} suits this purpose quite well. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I knew we had something better-suited. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Can this be documented somewhere? Other than this discussion, nothing links to it. Single-level user information (WP:SLT) templates would seem to be a location. As would AfC reviewer instructions. It also might do with a rename, to add "category" to the cannonical template name, with redirects from "redirect" and "category" individually. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I've renamed the page to {{Improper AfC redirect or category request}}, and will add the page to SLT! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

User:CandyCola4444

This user is making some genuine efforts to write content but is just getting knocked back on Draft:Gauda conquest of Kamarup. I'm not saying this was the wrong decision but is there any way we can we be more encouraging and supportive rather than just declining the good faith submissions? I've left some suggestions on Draft talk:Gauda conquest of Kamarup — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I used to add more custom comments but I found it took a lot of effort with little indication it helped (like in this case they took no actions from your helpful input). I find the bullet point list of the basics (in-depth, reliable, secondary, independent) on that decline is clear indication of what they need to consider. I also welcome users if they are new, add a Teahouse link, and answer 99% of questions asked on my talk page. I decided (IMHO) it was better to spend my time reviewing/improving other submissions so more submitters got help/feedback quicker than fewer getting more custom advice that was mostly ignored. In an ideal world of enough reviewers and a minimal !queue yes I agree custom help is preferable, but we are far from that place. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

help with reference

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. GeorgeBergerson (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This board is for discussion about the operation of the AFC process. Please ask for assistance at the AFC help desk. 331dot (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Query

Hello, AFC folks,

I just noticed that Shewasafairy was reecently blocked and on their talk page they have discussions with editors whose drafts they reviewed. They even kept a log, User:Shewasafairy/AfC log. But I can't find their name on the AFC Participants list. Was their name recently removed or were they never an accepted AFC reviewer? I was wondering if the drafts they looked at should be re=reviewed. However, I can see that I'm tla was recently removed from the Participants list so they were an approved reviewer but they also had a log, User:I'm tla/AfC log that I thought might be reviewed in case there was any paid editing occurring. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I failed to scroll up to see this discussion with I'm tla above this one. But, honestly even though you all know about the block/sock issuesfor a few days now, my concerns remain. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

As I just said elsewhere, Shewasafairy got AFC rights automatically when they were granted NPR here.
Yes, we've not really got around to discussing rechecking their usage of advanced rights, that I am aware of. There are multiple editors involved, so everyone may be individually doing spot checks, which I have done a few of myself. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I've quickly gone through Shewasafairy's acceptances. A bit of a mixed bag, a few borderline cases, a couple of solid ones, and some that have either been approved by NPP or are awaiting patrol (most were autopatrolled by Shewasafairy). One I moved back to drafts, as it seemed like the subject might be notable, but the sources just weren't there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I just went through and unpatrolled any suspicious Shewasafairy NPP patrols (NCORP, BLPs). I'm tla was not an NPP. I think this is sufficient to make sure that all of the articles get scrutiny. AFC accepts will get checked again by a random NPP so should be safe to leave alone. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Have AFCH add Template:Uncategorized to drafts with no categories?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's a software patch written and ready to go for this but there's some objections in the ticket. Let's hash it out here and get this patch un-stuck. How should the AFC helper script handle uncategorized drafts?

• Option A - don't do anything (status quo)
• Option B - offer a check box. if ticked by the reviewer during acceptance, add an {{Uncategorized}} template
• Option C - automatically count categories and add {{Uncategorized}} if 0 categories

–Novem Linguae (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I said this on the patch, but I find zero reason a reviewer cannot add at least one category. I am fine being overruled, but there is a minimum amount of effort I would expect from a reviewer and "thinking of the most obvious category to place a draft in" is one of those efforts. If the consensus is that the option should at least be available, then I would rather a check box to at least force the reviewer to think about it before just clicking "accept". Primefac (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Same, I don't find adding adding 1+ category difficult and think people should. There are some odd topics I have struggled a bit, but for 99% I don't find it hard. My preference would be that a reviewer has to either add a category (if not already one) or check the box to tag uncategorized to make it a positive decision and thus encourage adding some. Option A is a terrible option; Option B I think should only be taken if you can't accept without at least one cat or checking the box; Option C is the most sensible if you don't want to force reviewers to do anything; Option D make it mandatory to have at least one would also be fine with me. I also think adding {{Improve categories}} if only 1 is also sensible. KylieTastic (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I always add at least a couple of cats, but I don't always add them using the helper script, sometimes I accept the draft first and then do the cats, projects, general CE, etc. So from my point of view it makes little difference which of those options you go with.

I do agree with Primefac, though, that adding at least one cat really isn't too much to ask, and should be seen as part of the job. So whatever we do, let's at least not encourage ignoring cats. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that NPP made the "gnoming" steps of the flowchart (categories, WikiProjects, maintenance tags, stub tags) optional a year or two ago. The idea is that we already ask patrollers to do a ton of work including checking copyright, checking for CSD, checking for notability, verifying title, verifying it isn't a duplicate article, etc. Complex workflows have disadvantages. Tags like {{Uncategorized}} and {{Improve categories}} call in reinforcements to assist with this rather specialized work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

My current read of this discussion is that folks prefer Option A. That is, AFC helper script to not provide any support for adding {{Uncategorized}} or {{Improve categories}}, because we do not want to make it easy to skip adding categories. Will close the patch and ticket as declined on Monday unless there are further comments over the weekend. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have AFCH allow quick CSD tagging?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Another stuck patch. Right now, AFCH will provide a "Nominate the submission for speedy deletion" check box for G12 copyright only. Would we like to expand this to include any other CSDs?

• CSD G3 when selecting "van" (vandalism)
• CSD G10 when selecting "attack" (attack page)
• CSD G11 when selecting "adv" (advertisement)

If G3 and G10 support is added, we will need to split "attack" and "van" into separate decline reasons. (Currently, "attack" is just an alias/redirect to "van". This split would be easy to do.). –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Assuming these are like the existing cv one (just offing an option that you have to tick) I see no reason not to add them or require things to be split for this to be valid and helpful. It is just offing a possible useful action that you can also just ignore. However, I think for other reasons the attack should be split with a much stronger worded message and should be a reject reason anyway. KylieTastic (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure AFCH strictly needs this, as it's essentially duplicating functionality that I expect most people would already be using Twinkle for. (I certainly don't bother with an AfC decline when I tag a draft for G3 deletion.) However, if a dev feels like it would be an easy addition, and is willing to take it on, I see no reason not to support — I'm sure someone else could find it useful. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. I am slightly concerned that if we add a G11 option it will encourage its use too much. Draft space can have some heavily-promotional content in it, because after all that's why it's a draft and not publicly visible. I guess another way of putting it is that we don't have quite the "need" to nuke a promotional page, and now that I type this out I'm not sure we really should be anyway; much easier to try to help someone improve a promo draft than tell them they have to start from scratch. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I've pondered this for a bit, but do you think the community might be overzealous in G11 tagging draft pages? I've considered the same thing as you, that it's easier to improve a promo draft than start from scratch. I find it tough sometimes to make this decision when processing CSD tags in draft space. Sometimes I think it'd be better if we were more patient with drafts that start out promotionally. Writing in an encyclopedic tone isn't easy for everybody right off the bat. But it's a difficult balance, so I'd be interested in hearing any more thoughts you have on the matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any hard data, just anecdotal evidence, but I would say probably 3-4 times a week we have someone come in to WP:IRCHELP asking why their draft was deleted, and almost always it's because of a G11 tag. Some are genuine UPE and a lot are in the GARAGEBAND category, but a non-negligible number have a not-unreasonable number of sources. It's a lot easier to tell someone how to clean up the language when there's still text on the page! Primefac (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I usually leave most 'adv' non G11 tagged as they are still just non public drafts so I usually just WP:AGF. However, I would say in most cases someone else will tag G11 anyway. I do think they are overused in draft space, but I assumed I was just the exception as most are deleted if tagged so at least two people are in agreement. KylieTastic (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

With comments like To be honest, I'm not sure AFCH strictly needs this and I'm on the fence being mixed with I see no reason not to add them, my current read of this discussion is "no consensus". Will close the patch and ticket as declined on Monday unless there are further comments over the weekend. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

– DreamRimmer (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: If you are an AfC reviewer and don't have NPP rights but believe you can help out, please check out the granting requirements for NPP. If you meet the criteria, you are welcome to apply at WP:PERM/NPP. Thanks :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Using Db-afc-move for articles

Does anyone ever use {{Db-afc-move}} on articles rather than redirects? For example if there is a really good draft and a really poor article and you want to replace the mainspace article with the draft? The answer to this will determine how I write the documentation at Template:Db-afc-move/doc (which I recently edited), and may also affect the current patch I'm writing for WP:AFCH. At the moment my patch is only for tagging redirects. My concern is {{Db-afc-move}} is a type of WP:G6, which I think is normally only used on redirects. But the "non-controversial maintenance" clause is broad enough that it could arguably be applied to articles if the deletion were completely non-controversial. If {{Db-afc-move}} cannot be used on articles, then I guess the alternatives could be anything from a copy-paste move with attribution, to a page swap, to asking an admin to G6 it for you. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No never! Surely that should never happen, if someone wants to improve an existing "really poor article" they should do so in place. KylieTastic (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't have even crossed my mind to do so. I would decline that 'really good draft' on the basis that a published article exists, directing the author to edit that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

We have exists as a decline reason; I don't think we should be G6'ing articles just to move a draft over them, since as you say there are a half-dozen alternate options. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'm glad I asked. Will fix the template documentation to say redirects only. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Are History Merges necessary?

I posted a question at VPM about copy-pastes, and am now asking here about an unexpected answer that I got. I have from time to time complained that the message that the history merge template suggests be given to the user who did the copy-paste is mealy. It doesn't say not to do copy-pastes, only that move is better. I still think that there should be a Level 2 caution, at least in cases where the reviewer thinks that the editor should have known better. However, I said that we would like to minimize the amount of work done by admins in doing history-merges. I got an answer that is, essentially, that history merges are not needed, and no admin work is needed, because either a talk page template, or a note in an edit summary, is sufficient. So my question is: Are history merges no longer required? It was always my understanding that if a reviewer encounters a draft and an article that are the same, they should check whether they have the same authors, and, if not, request a history merge. I hope that this is not considered a stupid question. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not a stupid question, and not to be too rude to the individual in question but saying "I don't know anything about this but..." and then proceeding to give an opinion is... problematic. Yes, there are many options for attribution, but histmerge is the easiest and leaves the least amount of room for ambiguity and screwing things up. Request histmerges... I don't mind! ^_^ Primefac (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. And I still think that copy-pasting of drafts into article space should be discouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Not that I handle a ton of histmerges (apparently I'm 8th for the year?) but I also never mind them. If anything, I think we don't see as many of them as we should. I have no issue processing the less complicated histmerges and I'm interested in the opportunity to do more and get good at the harder ones. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

And histmerges are an admin task that very seldom makes other editors angry. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion after watching the help page and AFC article conversations for a while

I've been watching the help page and some AFC conversations a while... one recurrent theme is that for a common type of article that they are creating (=aren't given presumed notability by an SNG) the creators don't understand that for their article the wp:notability requirement is not about the common meaning of notability, it's about having two published independent sources (sometimes one) which cover the topic of their article in depth. For somebody new to Wikipedia I don't think that they understand this from the explanations given, doubly so because the explanations are usually complicated by the (irrelevant-for-them) SNG possibilities. Would it be good to add something like this to explanations?:

Thanks for working on your article. The subject of separate articles needs to meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability requirement which can be confusing. To meet this it needs to meet either meet the requirements of an applicable special notability guideline (which IMO is not an option for your subject) or meet WP:GNG, Wikipedia's sourcing-based General Notability Guideline. So, roughly speaking, to meet that requirement you need to include two independent published sources which cover the topic of your article in depth. So it's not about notability by the common meaning of the term, it's about finding two sources each of which meets all of those criteria. My suggestion is to look for and include those sources. If you are unable to find sources which meet all of those criteria, IMO it's best not to pursue creating a separate article for this subject. Happy editing!

North8000 (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Where exactly are you proposing to add this? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I was more bringing it up for general discussion and am not sure I know the mechanics/tools well enough to formulate it well. But something that would be included in relevant decline messages and maybe boilerplate that can be pasted into relevant help page responses. Or a "if your subject does not meet a special notability guideline" section that can be linked to Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

CSD tagging

Hi. If a draft meets the criteria for CSD (for example, for G5), should the draft be tagged and declined, or can the submission templates be removed altogether? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey CanonNi, I'd recommend simply tagging the page without any further action. Declining the draft tends to cause template bloat on the page creator's talk page, which I like to avoid. If an administrator declines the CSD tag for whatever reason, the draft will simply remain in the queue for review as usual. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 02:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say that an exception would be for G12/copyvio, since AFCH has the option to tag the page along with the decline. Primefac (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I do the opposite (and I'm not saying it's right, just what I do): I decline or reject the submission as I think fit, and then request speedy if it seems necessary. If the speedy gets declined for any reason, that means the draft has at least been removed from the pool. Yes, this does result in a decline notice on the submitter's talk page, but so be it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, in thinking about it more, I don't think there's a single "best" way to deal with it. A decline probably has better information about why the draft itself wasn't sufficient (with tips to improve) while a CSD notice will simply tell them that the page fails one of our deletion criteria. On the other hand, G5 and G10 should not be declined, as those types of pages just need to be nuked outright per DENY etc. Primefac (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair. Although your mention of G5 raises a point: certain admins (without naming any names) don't like to action G5 requests unless the author has already been confirmed as a sock at SPI (or otherwise as a block evader), even if the case is pretty obvious (FanBeatles333 recreating a draft that the blocked BeatlesFan333 had previously created, that sort of thing). This is part of the reason why I treat the review and CSD separately, because I can never be 100% sure that the speedy will go through. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll name myself, because I'm one of these admins. I believe that's how it should be though. We shouldn't be performing G5 deletions unless we're sure the accounts are related. Admins unfamiliar with the LTAs wouldn't be familiar with all the signs and wouldn't feel comfortable acting without being sure. Side note, you'd be surprised how many G5 tags get added before a user has even been blocked as a sock. Hey man im josh (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't have you in mind, but thanks for volunteering! :)

Above my pay grade to suggest whether it's right or wrong to accept the type of G5 I'm referring to, all I know is that some admins readily accept, others consistently decline, which means it's a bit of a gamble to see which admin attends to it first.

FWIW, my motivation in requesting G5 in cases which to me seem obvious is to avoid putting them through SPI which is often congested enough already. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I always decline/reject for two reasons: Apart for G5 the notices tend to give better information and I find it cuts down on the "why did you delete my article?"; Second to get it out of the !queue. Sometimes it takes hours to be deleted so just wastes peoples time. If people are submitting drafts that require a speedy then they clearly need more information so I'm not concerned at all with 'template bloat'. KylieTastic (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:Drafts - proposed split

There is currently a discussion at WT:Drafts regarding a proposed split of WP:Drafts. The thread is WT:Drafts#Split into help page and guideline. Thank you. S0091 (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Moving of Dabney S. Lancaster to draftspace

Hello. A few days ago, User:Dan arndt moved an article I created to draftspace. Admittedly, I let this one fall through the cracks, and it sat for a few weeks as an unreferenced stub. I immediately objected to the move and requested that the article be moved back to mainspace per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, but, nearly 5 days later, I still haven't heard anything back. I believe I've more than established the subject's notability and intend to improve the article even further. I'd appreciate anyone who could help me out here or direct me to the right place. I've created thousands of articles in my almost 15 years of editing, including a number which I've gotten up to GA status, and I think it'd be silly to require review of the existing draft. Thanks! Rockhead126 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It was clearly not ready for main space when it was draftified, you have improved it, just submit and it can be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for making a fuss about nothing; despite having autoconfirmed rights, I've never dealt with this situation before, and I didn't realize until I read Wikipedia:Requested moves that moving to mainspace is like any other move. All good now. Rockhead126 (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:AFC/R

Hi, apologies if the answer to this question is mentioned somewhere and I've missed it! I just wanted to check if I had to be a listed AfC participant in order to create redirects from WP:AFC/R; or if that isn't a requirement for that page. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

No barriers, any autoconfirmed user can help at this venue. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info :) ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 22:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Is Indo-Asian News Service a reliable source?

I've seen a few articles that cite the IANS that look like press releases, but are also in reputable newspapers. Noah ^💬 19:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@-noah-, you might want to try starting a discussion at WP:RS about it. -- asilvering (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

AFC history tool

Sounds like Enterprisey is retiring or semi-retiring. Before he left, he gave me access to the AFC history tool, and I went ahead and made some updates. So far I've modernized the code, added a feature where the URL always contains the username now (for easier linking), and the browser forward and back buttons now keep a proper history. I'm open to more suggestions if y'all think of anything else. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Tool broken on Firefox and Edge

​ Given that you've changed the backend code of the page, could you please update {{userAFCH}} and {{userAFCP}} so that the "reviews" link works properly? I'm not seeing what needs changing and I can't get it to work any more. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It's working on my end.

Novem Linguae (t · c · reviews)

Clicking "reviews" opens afchistory and calculates all my reviews. Can you please give a diff or exact template code where it's not working so I can try again? Can you try hard refreshing (ctrl+F5) to clear cache? Can you please check for WP:CONSOLEERRORs? Thanks and sorry for any inconvenience. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I just tried and I get total failure in Firefox and Edge for https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/?user=KylieTastic but it works fine in Chrome. Edge has the console error of Error with Permissions-Policy header: Origin trial controlled feature not enabled: 'browsing-topics'., no errors on FF. KylieTastic (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Was able to reproduce in Firefox. Looks like a Firefox+Edge only bug. I didn't see it because I'm on Chrome. Will see if I can debug this or will roll back my changes. The $( window ).on( 'pageshow', function () { is the problem. I'll be back in a bit with an update. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I just deployed a patch. Hopefully fixed. Try it now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Most excellent, ta. Primefac (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Rows too tall on Chrome and Edge

Tracked in github.com
Issue #24
Resolved

It works on all three browsers now. It looks better on FF for mine as most lines are single depth, but reviews on drafts with long names (Draft:David M. Knight - American Catholic Priest, Author, Speaker, Retreat Leader, Spiritual Director) makes Chrome and Edge format the table so all the dates take two lines. Not a biggy. KylieTastic (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think double tall rows may be an old bug unrelated to my changes. I went ahead and filed a ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually that was a quick fix so I wrote and deployed a patch. Should be fixed now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yup, looks fine. Thanks KylieTastic (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing instructions: Translating content from other Wikipedias

Regarding this edit, the wording added states that "Drafts containing copied/translated content and lacking such attribution should be speedily declined". I don't see such a statement in the Terms of Use, but I do see WP:RIA, which states that "While technically licensing violations are copyright violations, pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted. Attribution can be belatedly supplied by the methods above, using dummy edits to record new edit summaries. Such belated attribution should make clear when the relevant text entered the page. You can also identify problem articles, in particular complex cases that you cannot fix right away, by tagging the article itself with the templates

(for a single origin) and

(for articles with multiple origins)." Greenman (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I misread this in an interesting way. I read "speedily declined" as "speedily deleted". While speedy deletion does exist, I'm not aware of such a concept as "speedily declined". I'd suggest just changing this to "declined". Greenman (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, nobody is talking about deleting anything, that is not what this is about. Unattributed translation (or copying) is a licensing violation whether the article is highly notable and has 500 references, or is undeniably non-notable and has zero references. (Note that attribution is not required/no longer required for an article that has been removed from Wikipedia, but it *is* required for all copied/translated content that has ever been added to an article, even if it is no longer there in the current version. Removed content still requires attribution; removed articles do not. I.e., as long as the article still exists on Wikipedia, then licensing of copied/translated content still applies.) For those articles having copied/translated content that lacks attribution, you are absolutely right to quote RIA as the method of supplying belated attribution: this is called "repairing insufficient attribution" and can be applied to any article or draft that lacks it. That was the whole point of asking above whether reviewers only review, or also modify, because if a reviewer could apply WP:RIA during review, that would settle the matter and remove one bar to acceptance.

The wording "Drafts containing copied/translated content and lacking such attribution should be speedily declined" does not come from the wmf, which does not concern itself with AFC procedures. That is wording I created to propose how AFC reviewers should act when faced with a licensing violation. Given that the wmf Terms of use prohibit unattributed content anywhere in Wikipedia, what instruction or guidance should we give an AFC reviewer in that situation? What ought they do, if they are assessing a Draft that has copied content but lacks an attribution statement? I think that should trigger an instant decline, because we shouldn't give an AFC stamp of approval to a Draft that is in direct violation of the Wikimedia Terms of use. If you disagree with that reasoning or that wording, just change it.

The two templates you quoted are issues related to complex edit histories and reside on the periphery of this problem; they do deserve attention, because they exist, but they are a small fraction of the problem. The majority of the cases are articles with very simple edit histories—often fewer than a dozen or two edits. The edge cases covered by those templates should be handled too, of course, but they are a footnote compared to the whole. Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I was using "speedy decline" as a synonym for "quick-fail", as in, "quick-fail criteria". Mathglot (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot, this does make me wonder about templates, though - do we have one for "unattributed translation"? We really ought to. That would allow people who suspect an unattributed translation to raise the issue without having to do the detective work themselves, which they might not be able to do or might not feel confident about their abilities to do. -- asilvering (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I looked around, and I'm pretty sure we don't have one, and I agree we should. Can you link two or three templates typically used by reviewers to point out other types of issues, so I can style a new one in a similar vein? (subscribed; no ping needed) Mathglot (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

AfC uses the same maintenance tags that are used is mainspace and probably the most used are Template:COI and Template:UPE. There are none, at least that I am aware of, that are specific to a draft/AfC so if you create one, it should be applicable in mainspace as well. The COI one actually might be a good one with some modifications, like "Content in this article appears to be a translation, in whole or part, from another Wikipedia project and may require the appropriate attribution. See Help:Translation." S0091 (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

See {{Unattributed translation}}. In use at Louli Sanua and Adrien Couret. Mathglot (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Extremely helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hm, though it seems it somehow isn't clear enough, since it's already been removed from Louli Sanua incorrectly. I think we'll have to edit the notice to make it clear that the edit summary is where this is required. I'll make a note on the docs for the translated page talk page template also. -- asilvering (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe; I've now added the attrib directly to the Sanua article so it is compliant again. Seems to me I had a discussion about this with the lawyers at wmf at some point; one wishes they had written ToU 7g a bit clearer, as it does leave open an arguable interpretation that the TP template is enough; the problem with that being, someone can just come along later and delete it from the TP, whereas you cannot delete the hyperlink to the source from the article revision history—once it is there, it is permanent. You'd think lawyers would know about writing (or stealing) language that had already been tested and verified in a court case where it had come up before, or just being clearer about it. I'll see if I can find that discussion, but I'm not even sure what project it was on; probably mw: or meta:.Mathglot (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I expanded the template /doc to try to explain that better, at {{Unattributed translation#When to remove}}; feel free to update it directly as you see fit. Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, about we'll have to edit the notice to make it clear that the edit summary is where this is required: I think we'll first have to agree that noting this in the edit summary is actually required. It does not appear to be required by the TOU.

The "must" language in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Copying from other Wikimedia projects was added just a couple of years ago, a couple of hours after that now-inactive editor posted a comment on the talk page, prompted by a discussion in which he concluded that reading the license itself (such that one might notice that the terms say things like "in any reasonable manner" rather than anything even remotely like "through the only valid method of placing a link in the edit summary") was preferring a primary source over a secondary source (namely, the guideline he had just changed), and was therefore un-Wikipedian behavior, and based on this, he declared Template:Interwiki copy to be unacceptable.

I do not think that we should make the same mistakes. The license does not actually require the use of a link in edit summaries. It's a great method, it's my own preferred method, but it's not actually mandatory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We are having the same discussion now in two places. First, the language has been clear in the lead paragraph of WP:CWW *at least* as far back as 2012, and has always said to put it in the edit summary. (It may be older than that.) If the ToU isn't as clear as it should be, blame the lawyers. My reading is that the ToU *requires* the hyperlink in the edit summary, as it leads to an absurdity if you assume it doesn't mean that, so it is actually mandatory. See my 04:52, 1 May response in the previous section for further details. Mathglot (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Can't we just follow the advice at WP:CWW and either add {{Translated from}} to the talk page, or make an edit summary with a dummy edit? I am not sure a new maintenance tag is the best solution for this. In the time it takes to place the maintenance tag, we could instead follow the advice at WP:CWW and either add {{Translated from}} or make the dummy edit. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would be easier in some cases for some reviewers, but from what I've seen above, some reviewers are review-and-maybe-fix, and others are review-only, so it may be a matter of personal style. There have also been valid objections to making the RIA fix as a reviewer, because it may not always be clear what source the creating editor copied it from, and you have to know that that to add the edit summary attribution, but you don't need to know it to add the maintenance tag, just that it came from somewhere, and hasn't been attributed, which basically just kicks it back to the editor who created it to supply that information. So in those cases, adding the tag may be easier. Mathglot (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy decline criterion #1 – copying and translating from other Wikimedia projects

Hello. Speedy decline #1 has been updated to account for how to handle Drafts that are translations from other Wikipedias (permitted, but requires attribution in the edit summary) or are a copy of content from other Wikimedia projects (also permitted, with attribution). In brief: a Draft submitted for review which contains content translated or copied from other Wikimedia projects but lacks the required attribution statement in the revision history should be speedily declined as a Terms of Use/copyright violation, and a link to WP:RIA should be provided to the user in the decline message, which explains how to rectify the missing attribution so the Draft can be resubmitted. This is based on Wikimedia's Terms of Use which govern every edit at Wikipedia (a statement and link to it is given on the preview page just above the 'Publish' button every time you save an edit). The Terms of Use overrides guidelines, policy, consensus, and ArbCom, and is a hard requirement. Feel free to update the additional wording as need be. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot in your edit summary you stated "Translated drafts lacking required attribution are being approved at AFC contrary to Wikimedia's Terms of Use, and this cannot continue." Can you please expand upon that statement? For transparency, I did revert Mathglot and asked they start a discussion here. They reinstated their change and we did have discussion on each other's talk pages, but nothing contentious. My main concern is this being a chronic issue. S0091 (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely a common issue in the encyclopedia at large, and I have no reason to believe it's not happening at AfC also. I've been templating people who do this, but I can't really imagine that's helping much. For a non-AfC/NPP example, I used to keep Category:Unassessed Germany articles zeroed out, but haranguing people for not attributing their translation got too annoying and I decided that wasn't a good use of my time. @Mathglot, can you clarify what you mean by "speedy decline criterion #1"? That's not an option in the AFCH reviewer script. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I'm not used to the terminology; the actual term is "Quick-fail criteria", and what I am referring to is row #1 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Step 1: Quick-fail criteria. Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, ok, that's not helpful for reviewers in itself, since we don't have a decline criteria for unattributed translations. If we're supposed to be outright quickfailing articles for this reason, we'd need both clearer consensus on that and a decline reason written up for it. Here's a start for one, in case anyone has any good ideas about how to make this clearer (I sure don't):

trans - Submission appears to be an incorrectly attributed translation from another language Wikipedia

This submission appears to be a translation of (articletitle) on (language) Wikipedia that has not been correctly attributed. Translations must be attributed in the edit summary. Find instructions at WP:HOWTRANS and WP:RIA.

I'm not sure this is worth declining articles over, though I do agree it's a problem. What I mean isn't that I don't think the attribution is important, but that I don't think declining the article is going to lead to better compliance. I think we'll just end up with more frustrated and confused newbies. What I would sincerely appreciate is for someone (@Novem Linguae? sorry, you're the first person to come to mind) to draw up a userscript or even an alteration to AFCH that would automate both repairing the attribution and templating the translating editor. -- asilvering (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand the point about compliance and frustrated newbies. I dont know whether it's fair in that case to just ask AFC reviewers to fix the attribution problem themselves or not—I guess I should ask first, if reviewers strictly review, or do they also fix problems that are easily fixable? Because while the lack of attribution is very serious, the fix is very easy. Adding the {{Expand French}} template to the top of an article translated from French, for example, will give you an exact attribution statement in the expanded instructions that is compliant with the Terms of Use and can be copied word-for-word and pasted into the edit summary. Go to Adolphe Sax, for example, expand the banner at the top, and look at the 4th bullet. Does this help, and would it be something a reviewer could do, or is this beyond their remit? Mathglot (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot reviewers frequently do small edits. I think it's perfectly fair to say "fix it or don't accept it", but then I'd want "fix it" to be about as easy as checking a box that says "attribute translation", since the more we add to reviewer workloads, the fewer articles anyone can review. -- asilvering (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the WP:RIA wording is what the Reviewer would add, if they can add it, so not quite the language in the Expand language banner. But it could easily be automated by template for ease of use by reviewers. If it would help to have that, I can create template {{attrib needed|lang_code|title}} and it will spit out the exact words that need to be added to satisfy the attribution requirement specified by WP:RIA. Would that help? (P.S. No need to ping; I am subscribed.) Mathglot (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

See {{Attribution repair}} (or, {{RIA}}, for short). Mathglot (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure, and that's a fair question, but I don't want to point fingers at reviewers who are just following the instructions as given. Anyone may email me privately for more information off-wiki. I can't say how frequent it is, as I am not an active reviewer, and I only find out about them by accident when someone creates an article that happens to have a link that hits something on my Watchlist, and then I get a link notification. If the article title given in the link notification sounds like it might be translated from another Wikipedia, I go have a look. This comes up from time to time just from that very tiny filter of links hitting my Watchlist, so the actual number must be a whole lot bigger than that. That said, I had a couple of hits this week, and one about a month ago. How to extrapolate that into an incidence estimate is anybody's guess, but if we need a better estimate, there are folks at WP:Quarry who might be able to help. Mathglot (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Purely anecdotally, a common - not just occasional - experience at NPP is picking up very obviously unattributed translations that have been accepted from Draft by AFC and wondering why they weren't spotted. Ingratis (talk)

The reviewing instructions (until yesterday, and the wording seems to be in dispute) have never made any mention of translation, so I'm sure the issue does occur. As to the question of whether reviewers fix things, that depends on the reviewer. There's a huge backlog, and in my case, I generally don't, unless it's something I have a particular interest in. More importantly, how should one notice this? If it's picked up by the copyvios tool, that's fine, but I don't recall ever seeing such an example. User:Mathglot's method, "If the article title given in the link notification sounds like it might be translated from another Wikipedia, I go have a look" doesn't seem feasible. Greenman (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Greenman, yeah, the one thing I do understand about Afc is the huge backlog; I see it mentioned at the Teahouse and Help desk all the time. Regarding "how should one notice this?", I think that is exactly the right question to ask next. Like a lot of things from riding a bicycle on up, it was hard once, but seems straightforward/semi-automatic to me now. (I often marvel at the folks who can spot sockpuppets while squinting sideways at three sentences written by one of them, but like everything else, I guess it comes with experience.)

This is kind of like that, I believe, and because this thread is focusing attention on the whole issue, I have started to think about doing a brain dump and trying to analyze how I do it, so I can write it down. Your quote of my "method" was really just my hand-wavy way of saying, "I've been riding this bicycle so long I don't really know how I do it anymore." But I'm starting to compile some raw notes offline, and I'll put something together at some point and try to sketch it out, and then maybe users like Asilvering, Ingratis, and others who have also noticed this issue and worked out their own methodologies can jump in and we can get a group together and develop a how-to page that can be linked to for this purpose. Stay tuned, but it won't be right away, unless someone can jump in with something quickly to get it going. Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Greenman, I typically find it pretty easy, but perhaps that's because I'm a translator myself. (It's possible I miss a lot of them that are in languages I can't read?) If it "feels" translated from another language, it almost certainly is. An extremely obvious tell for German is that the references section will be called "Literature". Another obvious tell for many languages is a style artifact: they will say (born Berlin 4 April 1998 - died Paris 10 August 2021) or similar; that is, the place of birth/death is in the parenthetical in the first sentence. Dates in day-month-year format is another frequent one - it's not completely unusual in English but it is ubiquitous in many other languages. If none of the references are in English, that's another likely sign. Another one is overtranslation - rendering something in English that is normally written in its original language. It is especially common from Chinese, where you will sometimes find a whole phrase, often repeated in the article, that makes no real sense in English. That's because the translator has "translated" each individual character rather than taking the meaning as a whole or using whatever the English-language equivalent is. I can't think of a real example right now, but here's one that's so obvious no one would ever screw it up: instead of saying "Republic of China" or "Taiwan" for 中華民國, saying "middle flower nation" or something. It happens in Latin-alphabet languages too, though. Imagine someone saying "spread" or "paste" where in English we'd say pâté. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought of another much weaker one: the section headings are totally unlike how we use them in English wikipedia. This is only a weak tell because sometimes newbie editors make this same mistake. An obvious example is having a biography where the top-level header is "Biography" rather than the standard on en-wiki, which is "Early life" etc. -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

NB - day-month-year is the UK standard - it will often mean no more than that the editor is British. Ingratis (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but a typical British editor is writing in English from start to finish, so it won't give off "this is a translation" vibes. -- asilvering (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I just want to add that I really value what Afc reviewers contribute to the encyclopedia. It's a really valuable service for maintaining quality, and I realize there is a tension between adding more reviewer instructions on the one hand, and throughput or being able to get anything done on the other, and I don't know what the solution to that is; maybe there isn't any really good one. But what you are all doing is really valuable, and I think it's important that that be acknowledged. So, a big "Thank you" goes out to everyone involved in this project; what you are doing is really worthwhile. Mathglot (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where best to add this comment (in this thread or the one below) but in my opinion this is an issue that needs to be looked out for by reviewers, but is not in and of itself a reason to decline a submitted draft. For other "copyright" issues there is a tangible change in the page - removal of offending content, RD, or wholesale deletion. "This wasn't properly attributed" can be fixed with a single edit summary and as mentioned above probably should be done by a reviewer rather than decline and try and convince the submitted to make the attribution and then resubmit with literally no other changes required. There's talk of a Newsletter being written soon, this issue might be worth including in it as well so that folks know to keep an eye out for it. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Primefac. This is not an a reason to decline a draft and according other comments, it is a broader issue than just AfC. Also, to Greenman's point, there are no tools currently available for us to be able to identify a draft might be a translation. In article space, you at least get interlanguage links which can provide a hint but you don't get interlanguage links in draft. Unless there is something really obvious, it leaves reviewer's guessing if it is a translation and from which language. Looking at some pending drafts, Draft:Carl Gierstorfer is an example. The creator did use the German Wikipedia as a source and linked to a German Wikipedia article so that's a good hint but had they not, there's nothing to indicate de:Carl Gierstorfer exists so the draft might be a translation. S0091 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually that one gives a clue a bot could use to tag some drafts as probable translations. AnomieBOT updated the German templates and left the comment <!-- auto-translated from German by Module:CS1 translator -->. Maybe that bot could be updated to add a maintenance template if it does this in draft. That could alert creators that they needed to attribute and/or reviewers. There are probably a number of such hints that we could use to tag possible translations. Also in this one the birth being (*1975) rather than (born 1975) is a hint to me. A search for "Module:CS1 translator" gives 40 possible translations in the !queue, and 321 in draft space. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Oooh, yeah the bot is a good idea. @KylieTastic nice find! For my and perhaps others education, why (*1975) is a hint? @Mathglot we need a bot. :) S0091 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@S0091, German Wikipedia uses * for born and † for death, so if you see those in the lead then its probably a translation from de:, or sometimes just a German editor. KylieTastic (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is a very good one, since it's quite unusual in English except in encyclopedias. If you see it written like that, you're almost certainly looking at a translation, or a work of WP:OR by a genealogist, or, well, something written by someone who knows how to write an encyclopedia article (a very different genre than a wikipedia article, despite our claim that we're an encyclopedia). If it's the latter, you'll be tempted to decline it as npov or essay. -- asilvering (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• When I see cross-wiki translation copyvio in drafts, I just throw {{Translated from}} on the talk page then proceed as normal. Unless I am missing something, this seems like a pretty efficient workflow, and I am not sure adding another round of back-and-forth via a dedicated decline message would be an improvement to this workflow.
  In regards to creating a user script for this, could always check WP:US/L to see if someone has already made it, or request a custom script at WP:US/R.
  If it happens all the time, we could think about building it into AFCH, but because this might need to be applied to both accepts and declines, there isn't a really good spot for it. Would need to custom code a new screen, probably, which is not trivial. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  Do you use the {{Translated from}} as a reminder to self (or whomever) to add the attribution to the rev history later? Mathglot (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  I was under the impression that the template on the talk page is sufficient to provide attribution. However re-reading WP:CWW it doesn't say this clearly, so I have started Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#Is a template on the talk page enough for attribution? to double check my understanding. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's not, it's strictly optional; a nice-to-have for other editors. The requirement is from ToU § 7g Re-use for one of two things to be placed into the revision history via the edit summary, either: a) a list of all of the authors of the source article copied from (usually impractical, but may work for young articles or those developed entirely or almost entirely by one editor), or b) a hyperlink to the source article such that the link leads to a list of all the authors (this would be true of any Wikimedia property, via the History link). Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Mathglot, please quote the exact words from ToU § 7g that specifically say that the page history is the only acceptable place for a re-user (e.g., the translator posting the translation here at the English Wikipedia) to place the desired "hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages that you are reusing". I don't see any words requiring that said hyperlink be placed as an edit summary in the page history. Do you?

  (I agree that it's nice to have the URL in the page history, but I don't see any requirement, and we'd need a hard requirement if we're going to justify deleting a page over the absence of such a link.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  First, regarding AFC: if there is anything in this discussion that says such pages should be deleted, it wasn't me who said it, or else I was very unclear in what I meant. Afaik, only WP:AFD is about deleting pages by the community, AFC is about promoting them, or declining to promote them. (True, if something is never promoted from Draft, a bot will delete it after six months, but that's not what we are talking about, is it?

  Second, that it is the edit summary we are talking about, has been the opinion of the community of editors watching the lead paragraph of WP:CWW at least as far back as 2012, in this version (that's as far back as I looked; I don't know how old it is; it's interesting that the wmf:ToU oldest version is also 2012, but it inherited from meta, along with the edit summary: transferring from meta:Terms of Use, which see for attribution, which is pretty suggestive of what they meant, even back then). This page gets a lot of views (and adjustments, when needed) from editors interested in copyright issues, and clearly no one has seen fit to challenge that. Still, everyone could be reading it wrong (but if we/they are, I blame the lawyers; read on).

  Third, to your specific question: you have already quoted it (fair warning: wall of text coming, and here's a good spot to jump down to the penultimate sentence or so), and I agree it is unclear at first blush—which is very annoying considering that attorneys wrote the ToU (or it was drafted with the approval of attorneys). I had a discussion with Legal somewhere about this exact point once before, and wished they would've been crystal clear about the language, the way lawyers usually are (usually to an extreme, but there are good legal reasons for that; whey they didn't do that here is annoying) to avoid the conversation we are having now; not the first time I've been here. If you don't think the ToU says that, then this entire discussion is moot and should be hatted, and any change to the reviewer instructions should be stripped out. Nothing can be decided here if there is no agreement on what the ToU says, because this is the wrong venue for it, and we need to go back to mwf or meta and settle it once and for all. Afaic, it is clear, but by implication and not be clear language: if you follow the implications of placing it elsewhere than the edit summary, it leads to an absurd situation which cannot possibly be what the attorneys drafting the ToU intended.

  If one places the attribution in the edit summary as recommended in the lead paragraph since < 2012 and at WP:TFOLWP, then you have created a 1-to-1 link between a specific edit revision id on en-wiki on the one hand (your edit), and a specific article on a foreign Wikipedia, by hyperlink to the foreign title in your edit summary, and by implication of the moment you added it, also to the revision id of the foreign article (i.e, implicitly crediting all authors before the present moment and no authors in the future). That is very clearly compliant with 7g, so we are done.

  But now, lets say you don't read the ToU that way, and you prefer the {{translated page}} template on the Talk page, believing that is also compliant (hang the CWW), so you do that. Maybe someone else comes along later, and takes the template out, maybe on purpose, maybe by accident when adding some WikiProjects, or a Wiki Ed student adding their assignment or something. So, now it's gone. Now what? Is it attributed, or not? Well, you could claim it still is, because the template is in some version in the history somewhere at the point when it was placed, so that's good enough. Well, okay, so where was the edit summary, could you find it again? Plenty of people don't use edit summaries at all for that sort of thing. Would you even know what to look for? There is no recommended edit summary in CWW when placing a TP template. Do editors wishing to check for proper attribution (let's say, an NPP or AFC reviewer have the burden of scanning for... something... in the Talk page history? What if they can't find it, does that mean it isn't there, or just that they didn't know what edit summary to look for, and maybe it really is there? If you find a template, it might or might not have a revision id in it (it's an optional parameter, I see them very often without one), and would you recognize the difference between one that had it, and one that didn't? This gets into a maze of twisty little passages, and I just cannot imagine the authors of the Terms of Use as envisioning or approving this as a reliable method of providing attribution, as it has more holes than it has cheese, something anathema to attorneys. On the other hand, adding the verbiage specified at WP:TFOLWP to the edit summary completely satisfies the requirement, is findable, and cannot be removed by anybody (short of REVDEL) on purpose or by accident.

  So, two questions: if you really believe that there is no requirement to use the edit summary and the TP template is enough, then I suggest we take it up with the attorneys once again, and get them to change the language if need be to state that, and then we can rewrite the lead paragraph of WP:CWW to conform with the new understanding. It's not worth this much confusion in the community to leave it as it is. In that case, I suggest we call a halt to this discussion until that point is clarified, one way or the other because it depends on that change happening first. On the other hand, if, like me, you just can't find that wording in the ToU and have raised this as a kind of what-if scenario, I agree with you. In my view, all of this discussion is due to a poorly worded ToU 7g section, and it's not up to us to fix that, and we couldnt if we wanted to. Either way, I wish they would clarify the language. Last time, they didn't; maybe this time will be different. Mathglot (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  I just cannot imagine the authors of the Terms of Use as envisioning or approving this... Well, I can, and I was significantly involved in the discussions about the last major TOU update, so I might be in a better position to form an accurate opinion.

  The WMF's lawyers, and Creative Commons' for that matter (they have occasionally answered questions for the communities), want attribution provided in some reasonable method(s). AFAICT they do not want to declare that only one method (e.g., an edit summary) counts as "reasonable", or even as "best". It is in nobody's interest to have any lawyer claim that uneditable edit summaries are the only possible or acceptable method. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  They've been pretty good about only using the edit summary hyperlink themselves when crediting other pages from which they've copied. Such as in this edit, creating the WMF Terms of use on 19 April 2012, and crediting the earlier, meta Terms of use by using a hyperlink in the Edit summary. Afaict, they were already following the recommendation then, have consistently followed it, as have all the drafters of WP:CWW. But as I've said previously, this is clearly the wrong venue for discussing alternative interpretations of the ToU, so this is all pretty wasted here. If you seriously want to challenge the more-than-ten-year consensus at WP:CWW, I suggest you take it up there. Nobody likely to act will see it here, and we should stop hijacking AFC's page by discussing it. Mathglot (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think the concern about deletion is just due to your phrase "speedy decline" - since we haven't got such a thing in those exact words, but it's pretty close letter-by-letter to "speedy delete", it's an easy misread.

  Regarding the question of whether the talk page template is enough, you've come up with many reasons why that is insufficient, but there's an even more important one (imo): the Talk page is not the article, and we don't sign off on our edits to the article by using the Talk page. All of our edits are clearly attributed to us as editors in the history of the article and nowhere else. I wouldn't say there's any reason to require a specific hyperlink to a specific diff, aside from best practices, but putting attribution on a totally different page is not clear attribution. -- asilvering (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  CC-BY-SA doesn't require attribution to be "clear". It only requires it to be "reasonable". Many methods are reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think this discussion has jumped the shark. The current, best practice is logical, reliable, clear, and reasonable; not coincidentally, it has been standard practice and documented that way unswervingly for the last decade. Please move the discussion to an appropriate venue if you wish to challenge it. Mathglot (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you that it is the best practice. I only disagree with claims that "the best" is legally required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good point; that is a better reason, we can move that one to the head of the class. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

How to resubmit a declined Draft after removing the AFC header

 Courtesy link: Draft:Javier Zaruski

Moved from User talk:Mathglot § "Javier Zaruski"

Hello. I encountered Medianextgen (talk · contribs) at the WP:Tea house regarding their Draft, and they have followed up with questions at my Talk page, asking how to resubmit their declined AFC Draft. They believe they have now addressed the reviewer's objections, but at some point, they deleted the AFC header including the AFC reviewer improvement suggestions from the Draft. I was unsure how to proceed, and gave some ideas at my Talk, but suggested they try here in order to get the best advice. Can someone here advise? Adding DrowssapSMM. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the old comment and decline template, and the draft has already been submitted and is currently awaiting review. Now, they should be patient as this may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

To answer the original question, placing {{subst:submit}} on any draft will submit it for review, regardless of whether there is already an {{AfC submission}} template. Primefac (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Multiple Sales-essay drafts from new users.

Four articles, all today, all from new users, all sales-related essays. What's going on?

• Draft:A_day_in_the_life_of_a_salesman/woman
• User:L_N_MANISH/sandbox
• User:Bhukya_Gangadhar_Naik/sandbox
• Draft:Understanding_The_Seller

Qcne (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Signature wikicode problem?

Tracked in github.com
Issue #358

I'm not sure if this has come up before but I've noticed that whenever I try to provide a decline reason, my comments doesn't seem to show up. Maybe there's something off with my signature wikicode? @Novem Linguae: —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib an example of a decline this happened on would be helpful. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

See this, this and this. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The vertical bar in your signature is confusing the template that your comment is being inserted into. Vertical bar is a special character in templates. I'll open a ticket for AFCH. But if you don't want to wait for a patch, you can always modify your signature and remove/replace the vertical bar with something else. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No reason to patch as that will break lots of other things as well. See the instructions under the signature config Note: to use a displayed pipe ("|") character (i.e. not part of a piped link), please use &#124; for the pipe character; otherwise, it may cause templates to fail. KylieTastic (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think an algorithm could be written to fix this without breaking other things. The algorithm would be to check the comment for special template characters such as = and |, discard any it finds that are inside of additional templates, and replace them with escaped equivalents such as {{=}} and {{!}}. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.  Fixed —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes it can be patched but that just masks the issue and someone with a signature like that may not notice it breaking other places. Really the place this should be patch is in the user preferences... it should detect issues and stop you using it :/ KylieTastic (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Television Season Articles

Myself and other editors at WikiProject Television have noticed that a few AFC reviewers have been accepting a few subpar submissions that don't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (television) and Manual of Style/Television#Article Splitting. You can see the relevant discussions here and here. These are essentially creating an unnecessary SPINOUT and duplication of information that already exists elsewhere. Additionally, it takes time on our part to clean these up when they could've just been rejected to begin with. General consensus is that season articles require extensive information in areas of production, casting, reception, and other areas, to establish that the season is notable outside of the series as a whole. Similar to other topics on Wikipedia, notability for seasons are not automatically inherited from that of the parent article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: the user Rickt11, who moved the two The Rookie articles to main space, is not an AfC reviewer, I believe? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I was just writing the same - Rickt11 is not an AfC reviewer they just removed the AfC tags then moved the articles. It appears that no one pinged them in the project discussion or left a message on their talk page. If you have a problem with someones actions it is not usually a good step to talk to them? KylieTastic (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, the three CSI drafts were approved by three different reviewers (1, 2, 3), so there is still an argument to be made here. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it's good to bring it up here as well when its more than one reviewer involved, just also good to let involved people know as well KylieTastic (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

For the second one Draft:CSI: Vegas season 1 was accepted by CNMall41 and Draft:CSI: Vegas season 2 was accepted by Ozzie10aaaa (both actual reviewers) - courtesy pinging both. KylieTastic (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I don't recall this too in-depth but looks like the individual seasons do get the coverage needed to establish notability. Yes, they are covered on the main CSI Vegas page, but once the individual seasons gain notability they can be split into separate pages and the majority of that information should be removed from the main page. As far as the move, I never have any issue with someone objecting to an approval I made. However, I would always recommend to go AfD as opposed to sending something an AfC reviewer approved back to draft. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of AfC. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

agree w/ CNMall41--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm with you in spirit, and would reinforce it with there being a wp:not argument against some of those. I also like what's in those two things that you linked. But as a structural note, Wikipedia:Notability (television) is an essay, and Manual of Style/Television#Article Splitting is guidance on a splitting action, not a rule for existence of an article. Again, I like what's in both of them but IMO AFC folks should not be criticized for not treating these as requirements for existence of an article / declining articles on those grounds. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Note that Draft:CSI: Vegas season 1, Draft:CSI: Vegas season 2 and Draft:CSI: Vegas season 3 have been updated and resubmitted if you want to take a look. KylieTastic (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

AFC helper script update

I deployed a small update to the AFC helper script tonight. The two main things in this deploy are 1) there is now a check box to copy over comments to the talk page, and 2) better autofill of a person's name in the DEFAULTSORT box on the accept screen. I have a bunch more in the pipeline. Will keep you posted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have been following via the storm of git emails recently. Good work at getting some progress on these outstanding issues. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Tracked in github.com
Issue #333
Resolved

There's an issue where AFCH is adding the section header without a line break. I've opened a ticket. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that come off as a bit curt, didn't it? Thanks to the AFCH maintainers who implemented the copying of comments to the talk page; I think a lot of reviewers, including me, will be pleased to hear it! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Your message was fine. Thanks for quickly reporting on GitHub. I think I got the fix out in 13 minutes from when I got the GitHub email :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming features

Howdy folks. I'm excited to announce I've written AFC helper script patches for several frequently requested tickets. You can visit the patches and check out the screenshots to make sure you like them. If you're a techie (cc SD0001), you can click on the "Files changed" tab to see the code I wrote and review it. I plan to merge and deploy these patches on Monday.

• hide submit button if no comment typed in
• add edit conflict detection
• auto subscribe to user talk messages
• when accepting, offer to place Db-afc-move when the destination is a redirect

So far I've cleared out the queue of other people's patches, cleared out the queue of tickets marked easy, and am about halfway through clearing out the high priority (frequently requested) queue. Will probably work on AFCH for another week to finish clearing out the high priority queue, then switch to a new project. There is no shortage of programming stuff to work on in the movement.

Anyway, I hope y'all like these patches. If you want me to adjust anything, let me know before Monday. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing these, NL. I know a lot of reviewers have been wanting these features for years. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Seconding Ingenuity — thank you so much! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Good work, sorry but real-life issues mean I probably won't get time to review the code. KylieTastic (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Been a delight to see this getting processed. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all. The new features are live. Please keep an eye out for bugs. P.S. An additional feature not mentioned above is the TurnItIn copyright detection warning will now show (it was broken before). –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Hate to be the bearer of bad news after such a while, but I haven't been reviewing at AfC very much recently. The auto-subscribe feature did not take effect on this decline. I have Convenient Discussions enabled, which may have something to do with it, but I don't know enough about it or AFCH to be sure about that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Newsletter?

Cheers Novem Linguae. As the subscribe feature is a new preference we really could do with a way to tell people that it is now an option especially as we know from past discussions that a lot don't even notice the preferences. I'm not sure how many reviewers even watch this page. KylieTastic (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Cool stuff @Novem Linguae! @KylieTastic and others, what you think about a newsletter? S0091 (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@S0091 by newsletter I assume you mean a mass message? Why not, we've never sent many. A short post highlighting the tool improvements and maybe a general poke about the backlog growing and any other news? KylieTastic (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, mass message. I don't mind trying to do one but will need some help. Is there an example of one from the past somewhere? S0091 (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Newsletter#Newsletter archive may provide some ideas, templates, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Double signature bug

Tracked in github.com
Issue #347

• Possible minor issue Novem Linguae... I just noticed on a couple of declines an extra signature on the user talk page messages (this and this) however the first I did after your announcement this morning this does not have the issue, so it appeared after changing my preferences (I enabled 'Do not add pages to watchlist' and 'Receive a notification....'). I played in my sandbox with different settings but it didn't happen so maybe it's only on new pages or something? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's probably the discussiontools API (which I use for subscriptions) auto adding a signature. Definitely a bug. Will work on fixing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  OK, this bug happens when 1) the user talk page doesn't exist yet and 2) the user's preferences are set to auto subscribe. The simplest fix is to stop auto adding {{Talk header}}s to the user talk pages that AFC helper script creates. I've written a patch for that if anyone wants to comment. Will probably deploy it tomorrow unless there's objections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  This one should be fixed on Thursday when MediaWiki core auto deploys. Someone wrote a patch for this upstream :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  And the update has finally hit and yes it's fixed the issue KylieTastic (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yay. We can cross another bug off the list :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions has been nominated for discussion

Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Input from the project would be good, I will not give my opinion here but needless to say I think our project should have an input on the categories we use to manage it. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Michiko Iseri

Comments are invited on my draftification of this article which I believe was prematurely and erroneously moved to main space by a non-reviewer (no harm in their status, it is simply a statement of fact).

If consensus says I am in error please return the draft to mainspace. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Captbloodrock

Since User:Captbloodrock has been blocked for sockpuppetry, they should probably be removed from the list of probationary members. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The tool shows this user completed 0 reviews, for the record. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Done; thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Extraordinary Writ. Primefac (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I was going to get to it this weekend as usual but per the above someone beat me to it.

Genuinely curious, though... why does it matter if a blocked user is on the list? This is the third or fourth time in recent history that someone posts here (or contacts me directly) about a user needing removed. I don't really mind; it seems a bit unnecessary but I'm happy to adjust my editing habits if folks want it. Primefac (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of removing sockpuppets in an effort to deny recognition; we simply move on without acknowledging their disruption. Also, in these cases it's quite obvious the user account will never be reviewing at AfC again, so there's little point in listing them among other active WikiProject members. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's useful to see the true number of reviewers, so we have a good idea of who is active or not. Qcne (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I get that; I had seen they were blocked and was going to remove them next time I was going in that direction. I guess the urgency is what I'm asking about. Then again, it just could be me reacting to someone asking to do something I'm already planning on doing (not quite ODD but in that same vein). Primefac (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Remember Taiwan 1000?

Back in the end of 2023, we had a spike of submissions from Taiwanese, which resulted in a number of discussions here, 1, 2, 3, 4. The project administrators are presenting their experience organising the activity in 2.5 hours time at meta:ESEAP Conference 2024 for a lightning session (15 minutes)! The session will be livestreamed (and likely subsequently uploaded to commons). Do tune in at YouTube at May 11, 2024, 8:00 UTC. (conference timetable).

Sorry for the short notice, I have been up at my neck with various commitments. Pinging the following reviewers who had participated in the previous conversations here for awareness: @GoingBatty, @Novem Linguae, @S0091, @Asilvering, @North8000. I will present for the lightning talk as part of the audience, but may end up participate in the QnA or sharing my experience as one of the AfC reviewers having dealt with this project as well (who knows?). – robertsky (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I missed this, but I'd be interested to read a summary of the talk if you're so inclined. -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I am waiting for the recording to be made available. Will update when ready. – robertsky (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Commenting causes 'edit conflict'

Tracked in github.com
Issue #352
Resolved

For the last few days, when I try to add a comment using AFCH, I get an 'edit conflict' error message for no obvious reason. I think this has (so far at least) only happened when I try to do that straight after I've just done a decline/reject, but I'm not sure; will keep an eye on it. Reloading the page and relaunching AFCH resolves the issue, so it's no biggie, just a bit annoying. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That's probably the edit conflict detection feature that we released a few days ago. As you say, it's probably detecting your decline as an edit conflict. Don't forget that there's a comment box on the decline/reject screens, so you can just type your comment there before clicking decline/reject. Then, if I'm understanding you right, you wouldn't need to reload the page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Is there a time limit (from the decline/reject) within which a comment gets treated as an EC? In other words, would it help if I waited, say, 5+ sec before commenting?

As an aside, rightly or wrongly, when declining, I don't like to put into the comment box anything which isn't related to the decline, I rather add it as a separate comment. So if I decline eg. for notability, and there is also a problem with formatting or layout etc. which I feel compelled (!) to remark upon, I do that after my decline so it's clear that isn't why I declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The algorithm doesn't look at time. It triggers if there's an edit after the page is loaded. Perhaps I could look into making it only detect edits from other people, and not edits from yourself. Stay tuned. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

A patch to only detect other people's edits as an edit conflict ended up being pretty easy. Will deploy it in the next day or two. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Novem Linguae, appreciate it! :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Deployed. Will take effect within 15 minute as caches clear. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone else is still having the issue but I am. Even without placing a comment I get the warning when I decline a draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Was able to reproduce. I've reverted the changes for now (will take up to 15 minutes to take effect) and will fix when I get back from dinner. Thanks for reporting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Perfect. I just performed it on a new AfC submission as well as the one I was attempting when I first received the error message. Both work fine. Thanks for fixing!!!!!! --CNMall41 (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I wrote and deployed a patch for this today. Hopefully this one is resolved now. Let me know if it goes awry again. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for persisting, @Novem Linguae, but it's still happening. Do I need to do something at my end, like clear my caches, or should it be working automatically? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Should just work. Ill take a look and report back. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't read this page for a few weeks and just noticed this, which I think I did observe also a few weeks ago. But I have also encountered a different edit conflict situation that I have reported below, which really is a case of detecting and preventing a race condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Another Type of Edit Conflict

There is a description above, from a few weeks ago, of a situation where the AFCH script detects an edit conflict with itself. I consider that situation to be neither a bug nor a feature, but something in between, a harmless oddity. I have, at least twice recently, encountered a slightly different edit conflict, also the result of the edit conflict detection feature, which is surprising, but is a case of two things working correctly, and so is a feature. If I view the list of submitted pages in user space, I may see a few user sandboxes that have been submitted for review. What I do is to see if there is an obvious title, which there will be if the sandbox has a proper lede sentence. If so, I move the sandbox page to draft space, with the appropriate title. Then I give the draft a quick review for any obvious fails, such as no references. If so, I decline, or occasionally reject, the draft, with the appropriate code, and one or more templates, such as {{seefoot}}. Sometimes the script gives me an error message saying that there was an edit conflict. A look at the history may show that a bot, usually RichBot, has edited the draft. RichBot has removed a template that is not used in draft space. This is unexpected, unless one is expecting it, but is entirely correct, because the bot is checking new draft pages, including new draft pages created by moving, and the bot is fast, because it is a bot. The edit conflict detector is also completely correct, because otherwise the script would be overwriting the edit by the bot, and therefore re-inserting the {{User sandbox}} template that is not valid in draft space.

So, if you see this behavior when reviewing a sandbox, it is entirely correct. Thank you, User:Novem Linguae, or whoever, and thank you, User:Rich Smith. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Robert McClenon, just to add, it doesn't *really* matter if AFCH does overwrite RichBot's edits, as it will just come and do them again next time :) - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's true. Bots can be persistent. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Rich Smith - What you are saying is that the design of the bot causes the race condition to be a non-critical race condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: In a fashion, I guess so. All I'm saying is, in that task, RichBot doesn't check if its edited the page before, and will do so again if the template re-appears - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit Conflicts with Yourself

Just noting for the record (not that it's entirely on-topic) that if you first mark a draft as under review, and then try to carry out the review (accept/decline/reject), that also counts as two consecutive edits by you, triggering the edit conflict warning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, User:DoubleGrazing. It appears that there are at least two situations in which the script detects an edit conflict. One is an edit conflict with oneself, as you describe, which is sort of a misfeature, because it is not actually a race condition, which is the computer science term for what Wikipedia edit conflicts are a variety of. The other is an edit conflict with a bot, which really is a race condition, because the bot has a different starting gun than is used for reviewers. The edit conflict detection for a bot is correct, while with marking a draft under review and then accepting the draft, there is no real race condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The case that I saw was where I saw that the draft should be accepted, but there was a blocking redirect. So I marked the draft under review and performed other reviews until I was ready to deal with the blocking redirect. I then checked whether the redirect had significant history, which would require a swap. On seeing that the redirect had minor history, I moved the redirect to limbo and tagged it as {{db-moved}}, and tried to accept the draft. I was able to accept the draft after I refreshed my view of the draft page. Is that similar to what User:DoubleGrazing is describing? Is that similar to what was described a few weeks ago? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet probationary reviewer TheChineseGroundnut

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheChineseGroundnut, where they are a likley UPE editor, editing in the same area as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tochi Clement 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering if I'd see their name pop up like this when I approved them... Primefac (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I've never been happy that Johnel was "accepted". The main editors have (now) been sock blocked. I am unsure whether there is any purpose in sending it to AfD, or whether an IAR draftification is appropriate. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Huh. I thought there was something a bit off there, but wouldn't have imagined UPE related to Tochi Clement, esp. given that they started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kourage Beatz. Or was that some sort of nefarious double bluff? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes rivals try to interfere with each other. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Rating articles in the banner shell

Tracked in github.com
Issue #73

Please could you modify your helper script to always put the WPAFC banner inside the banner shell (if one is already on the page) or to add a banner shell (if not). Also can you put the |class= parameter in the banner shell instead of individual project banners? This edit is not current best practice, and needs cleaning up by another editor later. Thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This issue has been raised almost every month this year (Jan, Feb, Mar). It is a known issue and is being tracked. Primefac (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll be traveling for a week. May have some time to work on this after that. I might need to do another burst of work on AFCH to fix some small bugs caused by the last patches, and fix these talk page wikicode bugs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you telling me this issue has been "tracked" since 2016 and is still not fixed? Would be great if Novem Linguae can spend some time on this and get it fixed. But ultimately people have to take responsibility for the edits they make using tools. If the tool cannot be fixed, then you may have to stop using the tool. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't a bot go through and regularly fix WPBS issues in talkspace? This doesn't seem like a big enough problem to effectively shut down AfC over. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a bot but I can't think which at the mo. Until a helpful coder decides to fix the issue the simple thing is for reviewers to use a tool or manually fix up, personally I always run Rater after any accept. However we also have many Gnomes that will just fix up the issue. The case given is very rare, most have no banner shell, many have no talk page, so it really is not a huge issue and more of a nice to have. It should be remembered that AfC is primarily a notability check (as well as spam, attack, copy vio filter) and has no requirements to do clean up and accepts are they same as if these users could just create in main-space direct. I personally like to so as much tidy-up as I can but I have no desire to make it mandatory when we can't get enough reviewers as it is. KylieTastic (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Not placing any wikiproject tags is an option if this problem is severe. But would need consusus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

'BLP' decline

Category:AfC submissions declined as BLP violations (19)

The text of this submission has been removed from Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning biographies of living persons; we cannot accept such articles if they are unsourced, or contain unverifiable information which is potentially defamatory. All articles about living persons must conform to our biographies of living persons policy. In order to permit the author of this submission to provide sources that may satisfy the policy, the text of the page is available in the history.

I've just declined this Draft:Pune Porsche Crash case partly on the basis that there is unsupported potentially contentious information about living people. I used the BLP decline reason, and the resultant notice states that "The text of this submission has been removed from Wikipedia", but nothing has been removed, it's all still there. (Whether it actually needs to be removed is another matter, but if so then it can always be redacted as a separate exercise.) My question is, did I do something wrong, or is the tool not working correctly, or is it not even meant to remove anything? I can't remember if I've used this decline reason before, so don't know what was supposed to happen with it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Woah. I don't think I've ever used that before either. I wouldn't be opposed to just removing that first bolded sentence; if something needs removal that badly, it will likely need RD2 and a comment will do better to explain what and why it was removed (plus likely an additional warning on their user talk). Primefac (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have used it a couple times and I manually blank the draft which is what I think "removed from Wikipedia' is intended to mean, similar to when you tag an page for G10 the text is automatically removed. S0091 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Just noting (and I'll put the template above the quote) that there are currently only 14 drafts declined under this criteria, so it's not like it's being misused. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@S0091: that's kind of what I was expecting would happen, that the content would be automatically deleted (indeed, like with G10, as you say), hence my wondering 'what gives?'

BTW, the draft has been resubmitted, and while the referencing is better it's still not enough IMO to support all that speculation and innuendo. I'm also not sure that this is compliant with WP:NEWSEVENT, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME, and/or possibly others. But I'll happily let someone else review it next. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I just rejected it under WP:NOTNEWS. I will not put up a struggle if another reviewer reverts this. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Repeated comments

Tracked in github.com
Issue #206

I reviewed and declined Draft:CaptionHub. It had already quite a lot of commentary from earlier reviewers, to which the draft author (presumably) had replied. When I declined it, all these comments somehow became repeated several times over. Anyone know why this happened? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems this repetition happened both when I marked the draft as under review, and then again when I declined it [1]. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems that if an {{AfC comment}} is malformed, AFCH for some reason duplicates it. See this previous discussion. It's being tracked, but I don't know if it's a super-high priority since it doesn't seem to happen often. Primefac (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Primefac, didn't remember the earlier discussion on this. (I'm somewhat relieved to note that I wasn't at least part of it at the time!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying it up, Ingenuity! I meant to but forgot. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Will try to patch this in my next burst of AFCH work. Am travelling this week, so maybe in a week or two. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

In the section Creating an article, please make the following change:

−

If not, there is a very good chance that the topic is not notable and will never be accepted as an article.

+

If not, there is a very good chance that the topic is not notable and will not be accepted as an article.

An article might be notable in the future, so I don't think it is appropriate to say that it will never be accepted. OzzyOlly (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. JJP_Master (she/they) 19:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

How long does it take to review?

I was interested in that question, and so I designed a user script for it. The results so far can be seen here. JJP_Master (she/they) 19:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Another student assignment?

I've seen in the past few hours three drafts on AI, each one a copyvio from the same source. First I thought it was the same user editing under two accounts, but perhaps it's another student assignment instead? (Although in that case their institution's anti-plagiarism measures must be pretty rubbish, if the students feel they could get away with blatant copypasting!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Make a list of users and post it at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard - someone might know something. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Roger wilco. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Persistent, all the symptoms of a maladministered student project. I added one to the noticeboard 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for posting on their UTPs as well.

If it is a student project, I do kinda feel for these kids. Their lecturer sets an impossible task, their attempts keep getting declined, speedied, their accounts blocked, etc., panic sets in as the assignment deadline looms... All this, when they should be in the student union bar drinking jägerbombs and playing silly buggers like nature intended. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I have added If this is an education project please ask your tutor to contact the Wiki Education Foundation for guidance to each known editor's talk page 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I have created User:Timtrent/Eduproject if anyone feels it to be helpful. I appear not to have the skill to turn it into a template that is automagically SUBSTed nor signed. More than happy for anyone to fiddle with it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent how about this expanded text?

Hello, <User>. Your recent edits <on Article name> indicate that you may be engaged in an education project that may not be known to other editors. This may have an indirect impact on how your contributions are being assessed by your tutor. If this is an education project please ask your tutor to contact the Wiki Education Foundation for guidance.

Wikicode: {{{icon|[[File:information.svg|25px|alt=]]}}} Hello, {{{{{subst|}}}PAGENAME}}. Your recent edits {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|on "[[{{{1}}}]]"|}} indicate that you may be engaged in an education project that may not be known to other editors. This may have an indirect impact on how your contributions are being assessed by your tutor. If this is an education project '''please ask your tutor''' to contact the [[meta:Wiki Education Foundation|Wiki Education Foundation]] for guidance.

– robertsky (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Robertsky That looks excellent. Well above my paygrade. How do I/we deploy it, please? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Ctrl+C Ctrl+V. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac You have the Tao of snark! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Another possible student project re Denmark

Drafts so far:

• Draft:Denmark's Maritime Security Policy in Greenland
• Draft:Denmark's Maritime Security Strategi in the Arctic (sic)

I have asked both editors if this is an education project. Both appeared within a very short gap of each other, and in Useer space 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Posted at WP:EDUN. Reviewers spotting more, please add commentary there (as well as here) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I converted the notice discussed above into a template. You can use it by substituting {{subst:Education project}} and it will automatically populate and sign itself. May be useful for future education project bursts like this. C F A 💬 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Clearfrienda Thank you 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Clearfrienda Is there any chance you might add a level 2 heading as well, please 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I was going to do it myself, but I can never think of a good header name (Timtrent, you can also do it yourself...). Primefac (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll give it a go! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac I have given it a title I believe to be appropriate. I am not wedded to it. If folk wish to change it, that is fine, but please keep it as relevant as you can. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. C F A 💬 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

'Procedural decline' question

Draft:Disney Emoji Blitz was recently submitted by a user with no previous involvement with the draft. They turned out to be a sock of someone with a habit of going around submitting other users' drafts. I was going to decline it purely on that basis, but then thought does it matter who submits the draft, if the draft is good enough to be published (and I say that hypothetically, as I've not evaluated this draft in any way). What's the best practice here? Or in the absence of that, at least a not-terrible practice? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If the only thing the sock did is submit, then I suppose it's fine to review as normal if it would have been accepted otherwise. If the draft would be declined, then I would just revert the submission (i.e. not declining). Primefac (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

That (reverting the submission) was my first thought, too. But there were a couple of subsequent edits, so I would have had to do it manually. And lazy as I am... well, I came here instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Free masterclasses!

If anyone wants to know what Wikipedia's notability guidelines really mean and how to interpret them (as opposed to what you may have thought they mean), look no further than Draft talk:El Paso Chamber (with some additional content here). I have been comprehensively schooled, and can wholeheartedly recommend the experience. Now, where do I collect my diploma...? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Indian military

Do we (at AfC, that is) need to agree some sort of coordinated approach to this ongoing flood of drafts on Indian military units? (In the unlikely event that anyone hasn't yet come across these, see eg. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Indian_army_usernames.) So far I've not seen a single one that was even close to acceptable standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Would these two users 171FieldRegt (talk · contribs) and Behtereen (talk · contribs) also be part of that wave of Indian army editors? -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Adding a few more:

1. User:Rahulsingh278
2. User:Topguntwoatethree
3. User:Sarvatra15
4. User:831 palali
5. User:Basantarbull
6. User:Piyushkb95
7. User:85josh
8. User:Braveheart0505
9. User:Sam4272
10. User:Vijaykiore
11. User:Garuda35
12. User:Manlikeut
13. User:Govindsingh2494
14. User:171 FD REGT
15. User:Valiants216
16. User:Freeindiandemocracy
17. User:Srushtivv
18. User:Sarthak Dhavan
19. User:Vaibhav Kr Singh
20. User:Abhi892
21. User:Abhi1830
22. User:Yugsky
23. User:Veerhunkar

Could you add these to the sock investigation pages? Qcne (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't these fail 100% into WP:PAID? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

More:

1. User:Peakconquerors
2. User:72fdregt
3. User:AmrishAnanthan

Qcne (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is to warn them for UPE and see what happens 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Can we change the wording for v - Submission is improperly sourced?

Hi folks,

I wonder if the text on v - Submission is improperly sourced is a little misleading.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This fail criteria is often used fairly generically, where the sources may also not be independent or provide significant coverage or be multiple or not-published. We get quite a few queries on the help desk where people argue the sources they provide are reliable not realising they fail the other requirements.

I think a better message might be:

The sources in this submission fail to meet one of Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability. Sources should be reliable and published, and to prove notability should be independent of the subject and provide significant coverage. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Happy to get any feedback or thoughts. Qcne (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Qcne Isn't this redundant with the "nn" decline? Mach61 11:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

in particular, there is nothing wrong with using sources that don't establish notability in line with WP:PRIMARY or WP:ABOUTSELF. We don't want people removing those, we want them to add sources showing notability Mach61 11:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair comment.

Perhaps v's title could be updated to Submission has unreliable sources ? Qcne (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think "V" is fine as it is - I agree its a broad brush to cover unsourced or not reliably sourced articles, but the new proposed wording can also be achieved by combining the NN and V options but keep the finer grained option as well. This might be an issue of reviewers using the wrong reason (or the one that's quicker/easier to find!), but I don't think it's an issue with the criteria itself. Mdann52 (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

A thought I just had, I often use V for when drafts have zero sources. I always tell the submitter to check WP:V, but it perhaps makes more sense to add a bit to the template about verifiability at the start of the message, replacing the Reliable sources bit? Qcne (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be another case (like ilc) where it comes down to using the decline properly. As mentioned above, it isn't necessarily for a lack of independent sources, but a lack of reliable sources. If the only things in the draft are primary sources (think GARAGEBAND) then something in the nn family should be used. If there are huge swathes of unsourced content, v should be used. If it's a combination of the two, then both should be used. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

AFC/R pending changes?

I didn't notice a discussion about that here. There's pending changes attached to WP:AFC/R right now.

-- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Protection was requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2024/06#04_June_2024, which was based on a discussion at WP:EF/R Mach61 11:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

And there's already been one example as to why this is a bad idea on a high traffic page such as this.... Mdann52 (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

AFC/C pending changes

I just noticed that this is also activated at WP:AFC/C; though not at WP:FFU ; the reasoning at RFP provided was same as AFC/R, but there hasn't really been much persistent activity of non-process requests there... -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect Message from AFCH Script

Will someone, maybe User:Novem Linguae, please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alpharomeo12&oldid=1227618442? The message says that they have made at least ten edits over four days, and so can create articles directly. Maybe the script is counting their Commons and Simple edits, but I don't think that those edits count toward the autoconfirmed privilege in English Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The message says for you that they have made ten edits, while they see it as "once you made made 10 edits..." (i.e. it's a user status switch statement). See Template talk:AfC accept § User talk:Yam.Ing.Wa.Ng for a longer explanation. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it has HTML class "autoconfirmed-show", so will show for anybody viewing it that has autoconfirmed. Counter-intuitive, but was probably the easiest way to code it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. The messages that my templates leave either on a user talk page or on a draft really say what they seem to say, but that is because I have the template set so that a bot substitutes it automagically. That template is transcluded, and shows whatever the transclusion shows, so it might be telling me that I, User:Robert McClenon, have made at least ten edits. Interesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it will also show User:Joe Bloggs, who has all of 2 edits, that he still needs to hit 10 first. Here's the pseudocode of what gets subst'd onto the page:

• If user is IP: You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
• If user is autoconfirmed: Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
• If neither of the above: Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

As Novem said, this is basically the best way to have a subst'able template actually show the right message to the right types of users. We've got these (and sysop-level hiding) all over the place. Primefac (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Rate limit issue

I just ran into a software issue while submitting a draft for review. The issue stems from having to perform the Submit action twice, first without the captcha security check, then with. The problem is that a rate limit starts a timer during the first action, that triggers an error during the second action; and because of the latter, the first action must be repeated before the second is available. As a result, the only way to actually submit for review is to first Submit without captcha, then wait a minute or so before finally submitting with the captcha. This is extremely counter-intuitive. Either the rate limit should allow at least two actions in quick succession, or the captcha step should prevent editors from submitting before the timer ends (e.g. using software or warning text). --Talky Muser (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts, SD0001? Primefac (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The rate limit is 8 edits per minute for unconfirmed accounts, although unfortunately an edit gets counted as 2 if a captcha was required for it (and as 3 if captcha was once entered wrong, and so on). You shouldn't be getting rate limited unless you did 7 edit submits in the minute before opening the form.

In any case, once your account becomes autoconfirmed (4 days from creation), the rate limit is 90 per minute so you wouldn't be running into the problem at all.

To clarify, WP:AFCSW does not impose any rate limits of its own. The limits are MediaWiki's, and are applicable even when submitting manually by placing {{subst:submit}} on the draft page. – SD0001 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I was unable to reproduce this using an alternative account subject to the same rate limits. However, I question the necessity of adding extra links to bing.com and google.com (the toolforge links are exempt) every time someone submits a draft. If those links are useful, they should be in the original template that was added when the page was created, no? I'll admit I have no idea how any of these template work. But requiring yet one more CAPTCHA just to submit a draft seems annoying. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The links comes from the transclusion of {{find sources}} in {{AfC submission/helptools}}. I agree if we can remove them, that would be a singnificant improvement to the submit workflow. Metrics collected from the wizard suggest that over 10% of all submit attempts fail due to rate limiting (54 out of 496 per day, averaged over the last 2 weeks). – SD0001 (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

{{find sources}} is already shown in the editnotice while editing any draft page. So I have done the bold thing and removed it from the submit template. – SD0001 (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Still getting a CAPTCHA, from the same links, see Special:AbuseFilter/examine/1782527261. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think those links are actually coming from {{AfC submission/tools}}. Though the removal of the links from {{AFC submission/helptools}} does mean I no longer get a CAPTCHA when creating a draft, which is still an improvement. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah well, the links were coming from both places. I'm less sure about removing it from /tools as this feels like a part of the template that would be getting used (by reviewers). Perhaps we can tweak the AFC helper script to hack in the links instead of having the template generate them. – SD0001 (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

A more drastic solution: According to mw:Extension:ConfirmEdit#Configuration it's possible to exclude an entire namespace with the $wgCaptchaTriggersOnNamespace setting. Might be worth a trial? After all, people are supposed to be adding references. If draftspace is overrun by spambots, we can always go back. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Or why don't we add the search engines to MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist? Links to search results can't improve SEO and I can't imagine what other spam potential they hold. It seems like a less drastic interim solution. – SD0001 (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request raised at MediaWiki talk:Captcha-addurl-whitelist#Protected edit request on 8 June 2024. – SD0001 (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

National Academy of Medical Sciences

I have started reviewing Draft:Trivadi Sundaram Ganesan (my first review). I found some copied material, which I have removed, and declined on that basis.

Now that this material is removed, there seems little for the author to do other than resubmit so I am considering the article against other criteria. Considering it against WP:NPROF#C3 , the subject is a fellow of the National Academy of Medical Sciences. My initial thought is that this sounds less prestigious than a national academy of science (i.e. restricted to medical science), but the fellowship does seem to be only just over 1000 people, so it's quite selective. I have found it mentioned three times at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunkara Balaparameswara Rao, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. N. Sharma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahdi Hasan), each time leading to a keep result but never on its own.

The draft certainly needs better citations, as whole sections are currently unreferenced, but before I wanted to have a clear idea about notability before moving on to that. So I'd value any opinions whether to count fellowship of National Academy of Medical Sciences is sufficient for WP:NPROF#C3. Thanks Mgp28 (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Accepting a draft after personal additions

I made some significant additions to Draft:2-Phenylbenzofuran, a previously declined draft, as it's within my area of interest (filling out the catalogue of chemical compounds). After these edits, I feel like the article's reached a point of acceptable quality, but I'm unsure if my edits are clouding my judgment - is it appropriate for me to accept the draft at this point, or should I wait for another reviewer to look at it? I'm asking here as this is something I anticipate happening in the future and (unless I missed it) the reviewer instructions don't provide specific guidance on acceptance of drafts that have more than minor fixes done by reviewers. Reconrabbit 15:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't have time to look at it right this second, but if you've improved a draft to the point where you feel it is acceptable, then by all means feel free to move it to the Article space. If you've significantly edited the page it's probably best to just move it manually and then cleanup manually, but if it's something like "I added a paragraph and fixed up the references" then feel free to use the scripts. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that contributions such as the ones you made to the article don't disqualify you from accepting it. If you move it manually the bot still comes and tags you as accepting it on the talk page, so it really doesn't make much of a difference! I've accepted the above article regardless, clearly demonstrates it meets WP:NCHEM. Mdann52 (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I've improved and accepted many times. If a reviewer could have written the article and that would be fine or they would have been trusted to accept as a draft, then doing a combination of the two should be no issue. If you are really unsure just improve and leave to another; if you're just a bit unsure just accept and leave to NPP (or if you are a patroller yourself you can unmark as patrolled). Also I still use the tool as it's just easier doing all the extra bits, but if I've ended up doing most the content I will remove the AfC template from the talk page. In the end we are here to help as many submission as we can into main-space, so I view improving and accepting as a part of that goal and a positive thing for any reviewer to do. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine to accept drafts that you've edited or added content to. I think the line is at accepting drafts that you've created. In that case, I would recommend moving them instead of accepting them. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks. In this case it was about half-and-half authorship between the creator and my additions, so I wasn't certain. I'll look to follow that in the future. Reconrabbit 17:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Backlog drives

Is another backlog drive being planned? I missed the last two so I'm not sure if there was a set schedule put into place or if they occur whenever. Status has been on 3+ months for a while. C F A 💬 20:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Usually ad-hoc, and usually when we get towards 5mo. I honestly think that unless we start tickling 4mo we're in a good place, as long as the numbers don't keep creeping up to quickly. Mildly related, it's interesting how we can have 2-4 new reviewers added per week and yet the backlog increase rate never seems to drop... Primefac (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I am guessing the amount of reviewers added are equal to the amount of editors who quit/take a wikibreak reviewing, like I did for few months. I like AfC reviewing since it brings articles to mainspace, but it is hard to keep a motivation in this largely thank-less task. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Uw-paid

I constantly find that new editors misunderstand the paid-editing warning, esp. when they're writing about their employer rather than a client. I raised this on the template's talk page a few months ago, didn't get anywhere, so have opened an edit request at Template_talk:Uw-paid1#Edit_request_7_June_2024. Feel free to add your views there. (Sorry, should have mentioned this earlier but clean forgot.) Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Declined article appearing in Mainspace

If an article gets declined at AfC but then is immediately created in Mainspace (and has problems), per Caroline Leon, what is the process? Can it be automatically re-sent back to Draft/AfC or does it have to go to AfD? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

If it was moved from draft, then move it back if you think it has a chance of being improved. Or you can improve it yourself. If no chance of becoming an article, then use speedy delete nominations, or AFD as appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See WP:ATD-I. I would argue that that article doesn't meet the criteria though as it's been widely edited - and there is a claim to notability in there. It's certainly not a clear delete !vote to me at AfD, so I think it's best to either send it there or work on improving it. I'm not a fan of moving articles back from articlespace once they've been moved there anyway as it gets messy quickly. Mdann52 (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

it was draftified once before. Conservatively, per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, it shouldn't be draftified again, unless it is a UPE editor. However, what I could determine is there is a conflict of interest at the most. So either AfD or improve the article. – robertsky (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all. It is a problem in the WPClimbing project of BLPs that have no notability as climbers (they never appear in any climbing media) but because they paid $50k to climb Everest (or Seven Summits etc.), they get some local non-climbing coverage, and then a UPE article appears in WP as PROMO for their public speaking / business coaching activities (although. I think the AfC reviewer made the correct call, but obviously the editor know that they can just by-pass it. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

If necessary request a {{histmerge}}. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Drafts Nominated for Deletion

At Miscellany for Deletion, we sometimes see drafts that are nominated for deletion for lack of notability, or for some other reason that is applicable to articles but not to drafts. These nominations are made in good faith, but are undesirable because they bite the originator of the draft, and are a waste of time for the MFD regulars. I would sort of like to know how to minimize the number of these nominations. I have in particular wondered whether they are made by new New Page Patrol volunteers who are looking at new entries in draft space, rather than at new entries in article space. I understand that a quick check of new entries in draft space is useful to verify that they are not attack pages or vandalism, but those are among the few things that new drafts should be checked against.

So I have occasionally asked a nominator what their reason was for nominating a draft for deletion (as well as, of course, saying Keep). One of my concerns is whether clearer instructions to NPP reviewers are needed about draft space. All that is prologue. I have assumed that AFC reviewers understand draft space, and know that there are five main choices that they have with regard to drafts:

• Accept the draft.
• Leave the draft alone for another reviewer, maybe with comments.
• Decline the draft for possible improvement.
• Reject the draft (which should be done seldom compared to accept and decline).
• Tag the draft for speedy deletion, whether as spam or for some other reason (which should be done seldom compared to accept and decline).

We know that drafts can be nominated for deletion at MFD, but that should only be done in rare cases, mainly for tendentious resubmission.

So, after that prologue, here is my question. There is a draft at MFD that was nominated for deletion by an AFC reviewer as crystal balling. It will be kept, but I think that its nomination was a mistake. Is this a case where an AFC reviewer didn't understand something, and where maybe clearer instructions are needed? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2025 in animation I assume? Got any concrete proposals for what you'd like done? Are you proposing we add "Drafts should not be nominated at MFD for violating WP:NOTCRYSTAL" to one of the NPP/AFC/MFD pages? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Novem Linguae - Yes, that's the case in point. I am thinking of adding something more general to the AFC pages, and maybe the NPP pages, something to the effect of:

There are six options with regard to drafts:

• Accept the draft.
• Decline the draft for possible improvement, possibly with additional comments for the author.
• Leave the draft for another review, possibly with comments.
• Reject the draft, which should be done less often than either accept or decline.
• Tag the draft for speedy deletion, whether as spam or for some other reason, which should be done less often than either accept or decline.
• Nominate the draft for deletion at MFD, only in special cases, such as tendentious resubmission, and not for reasons of notability or sanity.

The issue is not really any one reason why drafts should not be nominated for deletion, but that nominating a draft for deletion should be done rarely.

Another bad reason why drafts are nominated for deletion is that there is already an article, but I think that is taken care of by speedy redirection. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I agree that we need this list posted somewhere; these are pretty much all of the options available, and without them being numbered there isn't a definite "priority" and even if we say "do these less than the others" people won't notice and/or won't care: with it being "an option" it's fair game. Personally I don't really think drafts should be G11'd either, as it's a PITA when someone comes into IRC looking for help with their draft and it turns out it's been deleted so I can't even point out why it's a problematic page.

In other words, I don't think increasing our how-to should change if what we're really looking to do is have a philosophical change with how people view and interact with drafts. If we don't want people MFD'ing drafts except in the most egregious of circumstances (which would likely require speedy deletion anyway) then we should make it possible (and/or easier) to speedy-close MFD'd drafts (almost like an anti-CSD criteria). Primefac (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Change proposal regarding AfC requirement for COI

Hello,

I would like to raise attention to a discussion started in the Village Pump regarding potential changes to WP:COI which currently requires any paid editor (including the ones receiving grants from non-profit organizations) to go through AfC for all new articles. I thought this might be of interest to AfC reviewers, as a change of policy would substantially reduce the AfC volume.

7804j (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § {{AfC submission}}

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § {{AfC submission}}. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Too short

@North8000 said something at WT:N, in a different context, about wanting articles to have at least a bit of content (maybe a couple sentences or an image), and this has reminded me that I have a question about an item in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Step 3: Suitability, "too short".

This item in the reviewing instructions says "Too short, but could be merged into Article" and "Decline the submission as too short and suggest a suitable title for the content to be merged into (if applicable). Generally, the author should be able to do this themselves."

My question: What's too short?

Let's say that the median Wikipedia article today contains n sentences of readable prose. What's the minimum? Does it need to be 50% as long as the median? At least as long as the median? Longer than the median? Are all stubs (generally, <250 words or <10 sentences) too short? Do reviewers all use the same standard? Does anyone even know? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This decline rationale is designed for something like paragraph-long statements about a subject, but there is an existing article where that content could just as easily be added as a stand-alone section (or even as part of an existing section). In other words, this isn't really for all short submissions (we do accept stubs), but more for the ones of questionable notability where it would be a lot easier to just fold it into something that already exists.

As an arbitrary/hypothetical example, let's say we have University of Coolness, which has an article. Someone writes a draft about the School of Awesome, which is located at the UoC, but the draft itself is only about a paragraph long (though properly sourced). That would probably fall into this category of "short but could be merged", as it's not really long enough (or notable enough) to have its own article, but would be served reasonably well as a section on the main University's article (ostensibly with a redirect pointing to that section). Primefac (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to rename it to something like "Could be easily merged". That way nobody gets the idea that length is a requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That's... exactly what the merge decline says... The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article on the same subject. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

See [2] WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I also wonder whether this is the right approach. If the subject is notable, then why not accept the draft and immediately tag it for merging? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Usually these aren't yet shown to be notable. Rather than declining the article and sending the editor back through some unknown number of revise-and-declines, the merge decline tells them how to get their content onto wikipedia immediately, by editing another article. -- asilvering (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Is "shown to be notable" a requirement? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

For AfC acceptance? Yes. For merging? No. Hence my comment. -- asilvering (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

AFC is supposed to accept articles that will survive at AFD (right?).

AFD does not require that subjects be "shown" to be notable (though it certainly helps).

So... maybe AFC shouldn't actually have such a requirement, at least in theory? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

AfC reviewers are not obligated to do a full WP:BEFORE search that is expected of someone nominating an article for AfD. So an article needs to be shown to be notable to get through AfC, unless the reviewer goes out of their way to find and add some more sources (as I do often for books and profs articles, where notability is clear to me even in absence of sources in the draft). -- asilvering (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Any editor can help improve an article, of course, and Wikipedia is built on that sort of voluntary collaboration.

For a subject whose notability is clear to you (e.g., due to your personal knowledge), do you feel like the sources really must be added before you could move the draft to the mainspace? Do you feel like it would be a violation of the rules if you instead (e.g., because you didn't have the time right now) moved it to the mainspace and tagged it as {{sources exist}} or {{more refs}}? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Just noting, if one knows the subject is notable, then the reviewer in a way has done a sort of BEFORE. I think the assumption here is that the reviewer has no familiarity with the subject, and thus has the not-unreasonable option of declining a draft that does not appear (based on given references and text) to be notable. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I'm asking this because Asilvering often goes out of their way to find and add some more sources for some books and profs articles whose notability is already obvious to them. Are they doing this because they feel that adding the sources is actually required, or just because they want to? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Precisely, Primefac. We cannot expect reviewers to go out of their way to determine notability before accepting AfC drafts. The backlog is long enough as it is. My reasons for adding sources that show notability are completely irrelevant to the question at hand. -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's irrelevant.

If you are adding them because you're nice, then thank you!

If you're adding them because you believe that it's required by AFC's rules, then maybe we should talk about whether AFC's rules are correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 54#Google searches when reviewing? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I like your edit. I also think this is the right approach. If a draft comes to AfC and you think it shouldn't be a mainspace article then I think the better solution has to be to decline it, rather than accept it then send it to another forum to try to remove it again.

I also agree with asilvering that it is helpful to encourage new editors to improve existing articles rather than them focussing only on creating new ones from scratch. Mgp28 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't this create an unnecessary duplicate of an existing article? I think the status quo of keeping content that needs merging in draftspace is fine. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

If it gets merged, then theoretically we need the original/draft in the mainspace, for licensing purposes. AIUI this isn't legally required if all merged copyrighted content are also from the editor who does the merge (or if you follow one of the pre-approved alternative processes), but it is normal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit looks good. I didn't realize the AFC page said this (I thought you were talking about the decline reasons in the template). The AFC page was probably just out of date. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

If the article is very short and there an obvious place to merge it to than I think that the merge would be a good idea. (and of course, if it fails wp:notability a separate article is not an option) But structurally, the official AFC pass criteria is a reasonable likelihood of surviving at AFD. And for credible candidates that criteria will typically be wp:notability. Actual AFC practice is that articles commonly get declined for other reasons and various template wordings contribute to that. So IMO, while a good plan, such should not be a decline reason.

My comment that you led with (I'm flattered :-)) was intended for a possible new SNG which was for a special case Where the accepted defacto notability bar is very low and greenlights millions of species that don't currently have articles. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:AfC submission/draft

Tracked in github.com
Issue #240

When an article is draftified, we typically need to manually insert the subjected template". IMO, there should be an option to add this template using the AFC script. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib: the User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft script adds that template automatically. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing, OK, but the AFC script should include this functionality as well. When articles are moved instead of draftified, the template still needs to be added manually. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the WP:AFCH script? It moves drafts to mainspace, not articles to draftspace, so I'm not sure I understand the suggestion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I'm just suggesting that we include an option in this WP:AFCH script to insert template Template:AfC submission/draft or Template:Draft article. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Novem, AFCH is for accepting drafts and dealing with pages already in the pipeline; it's still a single edit and typing out {{afc submission/draft}} isn't that onerous. Primefac (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I really like this idea. I even wrote a patch for it one time, but there was an objection so I had to abandon it. If folks want this I am happy to revive the patch. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, Yes please do. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to add the more generic {{Draft article}}, as AfC is not mandatory. – Joe (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned on Github, this seems like scopecreep for the AFCH script. Mdann52 (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

How would someone call for a review of a probationary reviewer?

As per the title really, looked at a draft of an article that's "under review" and instead of making a decision the probationary reviewer (Ae245) has instead chosen to attempt to add biographical material to it from a clearly non-reputable source (thebiography.org).[3]

The site's "about" page alone screams "low grade" with numerous basic grammar mistakes[4] Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the first step is not to immediately call for them to be removed from the project; discuss the matter with them and see where they are coming from and if they appear receptive to the (hopefully constructive) criticism of their edits. Obviously, if that does not yield positive results, then a review can be done by me or any other admin who feels comfortable making that decision. If said admin does not remove and you do not agree (and/or said admin says more discussion is needed) then bringing it here for a wider project-based review is probably the best bet. You can, of course, come straight here for a wider project review, but please make sure that you let the reviewer in question know about the discussion so they can participate (on the off chance they don't watch this page or missed the discussion being posted). Primefac (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac thanks for the reply, I'll leave a message on their talk page. Have to say though I'm very surprised at what I found given they added clearly unsuitable sources to establish WP:BLP material and then deemed the article acceptable for mainspace[5]. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

{{Comment inline}}

FYI Template:Comment inline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a template used for the development of draft articles, has been nominated for deletion -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

AFC Script comment on originator of draft

Tracked in github.com
Issue #361

The AFC script provides a comment if the originator of a draft is blocked, stating the duration of the draft, and the reason given by the administrator. I think that it needs one tweak. If the originator is partially blocked, it says that they are blocked, not that they are partially blocked. For instance, you can see this with Draft:Burnett Township, Santa Clara County, California. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur. A minor tweak is needed, please. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

5.43.87.31 and timestamps

5.43.87.31 (talk · contribs) modified date timestamps at WP:AFC/R into a different format with this edit. It was subsequently reverted. But if this wasn't caught, would this date format cause problems with the archival bot? -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It would cause problems, but an edit like that is almost always going to be detected on such a widely watched page. That one in particular is also under a page protection where edits made by new or unregistered users need to be approved by a pending changes reviewer or administrator. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new § Remove link to the article wizard

 You are invited to join the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new § Remove link to the article wizard. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Second opinion(s), please

I was going to accept Draft:Victoria Starmer, because the sources look to me enough to pass GNG, and I couldn't find any major issues with it. Then I realised this had been draftified following this AfD only a month ago, and the sources back then were pretty much the same as now. Given that our ultimate yardstick for assessing drafts is 'would this survive a hypothetical AfD?', and seeing as this one sort of did, sort of didn't, I'm hesitant to just overrule the AfD consensus. Would someone else please take a look and let me know what they think? Ta muchly, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The only point of note about the subject is that she is the spouse of a politician who has a named position in the parliament, therefore inheriting her husband's notability. I would not have published the article based on just this one fact. Just a disclosure, I had nominated several similar articles for deletion discussions, and the end result were that they were redirected to their spouses' article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Chee Bee Kiang and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Abdullah Alhabshee. – robertsky (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if that's what you're saying, @Robertsky, but just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that she gets any sort of automatic notability as the spouse of someone (be it of the LOTO, or possibly in a few days' time, of the PM). I'm saying the sources satisfy GNG, specifically #1-3 and 7 (also 8, if you ignore the fact that the publication is the same as in 3). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What I am saying is that she is only in the news because of her partner, not her. Whatever are covered in the sources, despite of what maybe satisfying GNG, can be easily be a couple of sentences in the personal life section of Keir Starmer, which is the case already. There is no need for a standalone article on her at this juncture. If she is a PM's wife, there may be a presumption of notability, but not all spouses have a public life or do public work that warrant a separate article. – robertsky (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Although in one sense the sources at first appear to have significant coverage they feel forced and all just because she is Keir Starmers wife rather than because she's notable in any other way. All but one sources titles are some form of "Keirs wife" and the one that isn't is just a passing mention. #1 even starts by saying she is low profile apart from having to do a few public appearances as his wife. It does feel that if they weren't desperate to write something about Keirs wife she would not be notable and appears to avoid publicity. The "personal life" section adds nothing that is not shared so could be on Keirs article, and the rest is mostly just personal info. Frankly as she appears to avoid publicity and according to #1 "has never done an interview - and according to Sir Keir, that's not about to change." this seems like a WP:BLP violation. It's not just outing her personal information it also says what her mother does and her sisters name. Just based on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy it's a firm no for me. KylieTastic (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that there were only two sources added between the draftification and now, and both are "who is this woman that is married to the presumptive next PM" pieces. I would normally decline for such a little change, but in about 48 hours I do somewhat agree with the above that if the precedent for the wife of a PM to be notable and have an article, you might as well wait until it's official and then accept. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, all. I'll release this back into the pool, then, because I don't want to decline it (not sure I could convincingly explain why, if asked), and don't want to accept it, either, against what seems to be the consensus here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Despite the reason for existence of GNG coverage (because she is Keirs wife), IMO GNG coverage does exist and my thought would be to accept it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I have accepted it, she clearly easily meets WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Empty Submissions

Some pending change reviewers accept empty (and thus automatically declined) submissions; and other reviewers reject them; and I simply cannot decide. Do we want to decide this one way or the other? Is there anything to be gained by clogging the list — however little — with pointless, empty, trivially declined entries? Nick Levine (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly not sure what you're asking about here. Drafts don't have automatic pending changes enabled, so PCRs shouldn't have anything to do with the draft process. A blank draft should be declined, which is trivially easy to do and takes no less time than rejecting (which leaves no room for improvement). If you are seeing AfC reviewers rejecting blank drafts, please tell them to stop. Primefac (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Nick is talking about Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects rather than drafts? KylieTastic (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Nick Levine (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah. See my reply below then. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn’t realised this talk page covered multiple types of creation request. Apologies for the confusion. I’m specifically talking about Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. Nick Levine (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Only vandalism should be rejected, in my opinion. There are a ton of reasons why a blank request may be submitted, and the user may not even realise it was blank when they submitted it (basically people can't figure out how to read instructions and end up doing things like putting their request inside of a {{void}} or similar). Primefac (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Primefac that looks like really clear guidance. Nick Levine (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

AFCH Helper Script and Categories

Tracked in github.com
Issue #256

User:Mathglot left a message on my talk page asking me not to edit categories when I am editing AFC drafts. This can be seen at the bottom of my talk page. The example that he gave of what he was asking me not to do is this edit. As an AFC reviewer can see, I was using the yellow Comment button to insert a comment into a draft, and it appears that the script did cleanup on the categories, inserting colons in front of them. However, that was mistaken cleanup, because the categories should be disabled while the draft is in draft, and will be enabled when the draft is accepted. I replied that I know little about categories, and I seldom edit them. If I accept a draft, I normally tag it with {{Improve categories}} to request that gnomes review the categories. I said that it appeared that the AFCH script was messing with the categories, and that I would start a discussion of the issue at the AFCH talk page (here). So, is the script editing the categories in an incorrect way? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarification: I think it's fine for anyone at Afc to edit categories of AFC drafts. The only thing I am asking, is for those drafts containing Draft-protected categories (i.e., embedded in template {{Draft categories}} ), please do not prefix the categories with a colon. As Robert says, this is "mistaken cleanup", and it makes things worse. I have nothing against any other kind of category edit before, during, or after Afc. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record, there is nothing wrong with having colon-hidden categories instead of using {{draft categories}}. That being said, I was under the impression that AFCH ignored the latter when doing routine cleanup. Primefac (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's handled somewhere near here or here, but I'm not a js-jockey. Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It is a bit odd and probably confuses some new editors, but not a huge issue. Note, it is already raised as an issue, so just waiting for a volunteer code monkey. Also on a related topic see this one. KylieTastic (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Prose quality/rough translation

I was looking at reasons for declining, and I see nothing about prose quality when it relates to translation. Should we say something along the lines "avoid declining an article if it is a rough translation; instead, tag it with {{rough translation}}? @WhatamIdoing _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:AfC submission/comments says:

The submission appears to be written in language. This is the English language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the English language. Please provide a high-quality English language translation of your submission. Have you visited the Wikipedia home page? You can probably find a version of Wikipedia in your language.

I didn't see any others that related to translation, and this is for no translation, rather than a poor translation, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions does not mention bad grammar, need for copyediting, or similar problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Bad grammar is not a reason to decline; we are primarily here to assess notability and neutrality. If folks are using that regularly as a decline reason, then yes, we should add a note about not declining for that reason (unless it's a single editor, in which case we just trout them). Primefac (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyone know why AFCH has been re-adding a duplicate comment?

Tracked in github.com
Issue #206

See Special:Diff/1233550011, the script has (in multiple instances on this draft's history) re-added a duplicate comment to the top of the page. Any help in why that is so I can prevent it if I see it again in the future, and what to do to prevent it now would be appreciated. Thanks, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a known bug, see e.g. this and that discussion; current working hypothesis is that it's when an {{AFC comment}} is malformed. Primefac (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Jacob A. Eaton

Why isn't this long serving state legislator notable? I don't understand why the references are objectionable? FloridaArmy (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@FloridaArmy: I'm not saying this was the reason for declining, but is there any independent and reliable verification (eg. official legislature records or similar) of his service? The first two sources don't seem to state that, from what I can see at least, and the last two are primary. Other than that, perhaps you could ask the reviewer what they had in mind, as I'm only guessing here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I found some and added them User:DoubleGrazing. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, with those improvements I've gone ahead and accepted the draft. Curbon7 (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Four months cheeseburger gift

Hi AFC reviewers,
Anyone in their free time, may look at the last four months backlog pending drafts. A cheeseburger from me 🤣. They are:

• Draft:'alam al-mansûr
• Draft:Evkaf Administration of Cyprus
• Draft:Clothes in Poland
• Draft:Coastal Television
• Draft:Mark Ginzburg.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing accepted AfC drafts

What is the policy or consensus on marking accepted AfC drafts as reviewed right away? Should they be left in the queue for another NPP reviewer to check? WP:NPP says "When drafts are approved at AfC and moved to the mainspace they will be checked again by new page patrollers in many instances." I always just leave them for another reviewer but is there an actual policy on this? There is always a fair number of unreviewed accepted AfC drafts at WP:NPPEASY so I wonder if allowing this would help reduce the NPP backlog. C F A 💬 17:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The best practice is to let an NPR review the page after it's accepted, but there is no firm policy or requirement to do so. Granted I generally am dealing with borderline drafts as it is, but I almost always un-review a page after I've accepted it so that someone else can take a look. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW (and I realise this has nothing to do with any policy): if I'm confident that it's a clear pass, I let it stay patrolled, mainly so as not to put more pressure on NPP which is even busier than AfC. If I feel it's borderline, or I'm not sure if I've interpreted something correctly, I un-patrol it after accepting, to get a 'second opinion'. I have quite a high pass threshold (too high, probably), so I tend to do the former more than the latter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Because this is asked here multiple times a year, I've added the section Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Marking your own AFC accepts as reviewed. Folks should feel free to iterate on it. Hope it helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks NL. I agree with what you've written there. -- asilvering (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

AFCH Error

Just recently, when I logged-in, I got a pop-up message showing some sort of AFCH Error, and i misclicked on the pop-up disabling my ability to review. Somebody help me understand what is happening. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I am getting the following message as pop-up:

AFCH error: user not listed AFCH could not be loaded because "Ken Tony" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there. If you wish to disable the helper script, click here. If you have any questions or concerns, please get in touch! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ken Tony: are you saying that you didn't know that you need to be approved to use that tool, or that you believe you are but for some reason the system is not recognising that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I've been a reviewer since 2021, but I haven't been very active on the project lately. I never saw this pop-up when I used to be active, so I'm just curious about what's going on. Have there been any changes to the criteria for reviewer rights while I've been away? What should I do so that I can start reviewing the drafts again? Regards. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like your name was removed as inactive yesterday [6]. I think you just need to request to be restored to the list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Mgp28 (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Or just post here and I"ll take care of it. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Whiiiiich I've now done. Ken Tony you should be good to go. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Primefac. Really appreciate it. Besh wishes! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible Misunderstanding of Rejection

I was reviewing drafts, and came across one with the notation: I have to reject this without prejudice to accept when there is a line of notability. I mean if this goes to AFD, the possible outcome may be to delete or draftify as WP:TOOSOON. I partially reverted the rejection, because I think that there was a good-faith misunderstanding by the reviewer of when Rejection should and should not be used. As I understand it, the whole point to Rejection is that it is with prejudice, so that a draft which is too soon for significant coverage should be declined for notability. It is my understanding that rejection for notability should be used in hopeless situations. I use rejection for notability mainly when there was an AFD, and there is no reason given to think that the situation has changed, or if there is no credible claim of significance, so that A7 would apply in article space. I have used the latter on what are really social media profiles. So do other reviewers agree that this was a good faith misunderstanding of rejection? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Rejection is essentially us saying "no way, no how, please stop trying". If the subject is a "not now, but feel free to try again in the future" then the draft should not be rejected. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

That is what I thought. So maybe the guidance for reviewers needs to be clarified, since this was a good faith error by a reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The guidance on rejection is pretty clear, but I'll add bold to "uncontroversially". I hope you contacted the rejecting reviewer? -- asilvering (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

More Rejection Questions

I will also ask a question that I have probably asked before, and that is what if any procedure should be followed if a draft was rejected and the originator wants it reconsidered. I will also ask another question that I know I have asked before, and that is what options reviewers have if a draft was rejected, and is resubmitted tendentiously. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If they want it reconsidered, the submitter is welcome to ask the reviewer (or a different reviewer) or raise the matter here. If they continue to resubmit without talking to anyone and ignoring the rejection notices, then it might be a candidate for MfD or (depending on how disruptive they are being) the user is topic-banned from the subject. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I have a template that states that, {{rejectdraft}}, and was wondering if I had the sense correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I was unaware of this discussion because I thought Robert had removed the rejection status of the draft. Though I regret my incorrect application of the rejection, which was intended to prevent the user from resubmitting a WP:TOOSOON draft, I believed that wasting other reviewers' time would not resolve the issue. However, I forgot that a shared problem can be solved as many people understand things at least if not obvious, in different ways. Thank you @Robert McClenon for the correction and I would want to clarify that my mistake was intentional, not due to a misunderstanding. That's all I have to say. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

User:SafariScribe - Please don't dig yourself into a hole. Your mistake may have been intentional, but it was due to a misunderstanding. You thought that there could be a temporary rejection. I did remove the rejection of the draft, but I also initiated this discussion, because I thought that it illustrates a good-faith misunderstanding. It appears that you were acting in good faith, so it was a misunderstanding. Please do not dig yourself into a hole. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This does raise a suggestion. If a reviewer declines a draft because it is too soon, it would be helpful for them to include advice as to when to resubmit it. For unreleased films, for instance, I advise the submitter to update the draft and resubmit with Reception information when the film is released and reviewed. In other cases, other instructions can be given on when to resubmit. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Nitish Rajput

Are any admins here able to check if Draft:Nitish Rajput is G4able after the AfD three days ago? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we need a new user right for non-admins to see routinely-deleted pages ('routinely', as in not redacted etc.) when doing reviews. Would be really useful esp. in AfC & NPP work; could even be bundled with those permissions, perhaps? Or alternatively a tool that can compare an existing page with a specific deleted one to check for similarity. (And maybe a yacht, while I'm wishing.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles for sea-ation? S0091 (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll check, but just for the record a draft is not G4-able if the article was deleted at AFD. That's kind of the whole point of the draft space. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The article was G4'd, but I will reiterate that the draft should not be deleted just because it's the same. That being said, it does make it more relevant that the issues in the AFD are overcome (since it's not a total rewrite). Primefac (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

My reading, FWIW, of G4 is that it does apply in draft space, but not if the draft was draftified ("It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)."). If it's a recreation of a substantially same content as was deleted following AfD, then it can be G4'd.

Having said which, I have seen different admins both accept and decline G4 requests in the draft space. Perhaps the wording of WP:G4 could be clarified? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

While I believe the G4'd version in the article space should have been deleted as a G4, it is different enough that I do not think the exception to the exception as stated applies; the draft is different from the deleted article (i.e. it was not just copy/pasted) and also was created more than six months after the original AFD, by a different editor. I believe the point of that subclause is to avoid someone copy/pasting an article about to be deleted to the draft space immediately before deletion so that there is a copy available (not just creating a new page after deletion). Primefac (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

We're thinking about adding auto detection of this to Special:NewPagesFeed via phab:T327955. It was mentioned by a developer the other day in Discord. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate drafts

I came across Draft:Philip Blood and Draft:Philip W. Blood while checking on the licensing the imge used in the main infobox of each. These drafts appear to be identical except for their titles. They both also been submitted to AfC for review and declined. Are they both needed? Should they be merged together? The creator is the same person, and they might've mistakeny thought they needed to create a "new draft" after the first one they created was declined. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

In this situation, I like to WP:BLAR the worse draft to the better draft. If they're equal, BLAR it to the better title I suppose, which would probably be Draft:Philip Blood, since the middle initial is an unnecessary disambiguator here since there is no Philip Blood in mainspace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Same page creator, so I would also just redirect to the "better" one. Might also be worth an {{AfC comment}} to indicate there's a duplicate page with history. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Navigation link broken

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation has a small navigation pane with "Top of page / Table of Contents / Bottom of page" links generated by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/header, added by User:Timtrent in October 2023. It seems to be mostly redundant to the {{skip to top and bottom}} that the talkpage uses, but no objection if anyone thinks is friendlier to have text as well as arrows. Might be useful to refactor to implement as a optional feature in that template? But the TOC link does not work on Vector2022 because the TOC is no longer a "section" of the article pane and it no longer appears to have the same anchor-name. If this feature is worth keeping, I wonder if there is a way to determine the skin at load-time (or use CSS to control it). Or what the value is in jumping to the TOC that is presumably right near the full top-of-page. DMacks (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks I use it, and like it, but don't feel strongly about it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

AFC to AFD

I accepted a draft which I solely know meets WP:GNG, however another editor interested in suspected WP:SOCKPUPPETRY i.e may be created by a sock (though I didn't see that, and judged the article by its merit not creator). I have to take it to AFD for a general consensus. Now when @Liz was closing the AFD as keep, she made the closing comment, "The result was keep‎. FYI: Please do not bring articles to AFD unless you are seeking their deletion. To me, I disagree that an article needing clarification shouldn't be taken to AFD. I think I learnt that from @Joe Roe. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on what? She's not necessarily wrong, you shouldn't be nominating a page for deletion unless you a) think it should be deleted, or b) are doing so on behalf of another editor/person (i.e. the subjet) who cannot do so themselves. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course, Liz is not necessarily wrong but given the context of the questioning editor. Sometimes editors can note their article when it doesn't meet the appropriate SNG, and I think taking articles to AFD is sometimes to reach an official consensus on the notability. For me, taking it to AFD sought to seek second opinion, because the editor in question is an established one. Though there are many ways of clarifying notability when it's being questioned, but the best sofar is via AFD (though I don't plan on doing that again). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@SafariScribe an alternative is to bring it here to get input from other reviewers if an editor has an issue with an AfC action you made. If you scroll up through this talk page you will see few requests for another opinion. S0091 (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is the link to the discussion on SafariScribe's talk page for context. S0091 (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Convenience link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning

AFD "procedural nominations" are appropriate under some circumstances, in my opinion. The most common use case I've seen is to stop WP:BLAR edit wars. Even if the nominator wants to keep it or has no opinion, it can be good to start them to force a formal discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis comes to mind as an example.

As for this particular case, I probably agree with Liz that it is better to let the editor that wants deletion do the nomination. If they don't care enough about deletion to file the paperwork, time can be saved by not having an AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Where are explanations of "declined" and "rejected" for drafts?

I can't find it again but this was one concern of someone asking a question in the Teahouse which I found in the archives.

The person was told about the difference and said they had tried to find information on the distinction but couldn't.

If I'm asking in the wrong place, I don't see a better one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Good question. There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Rejecting submissions which says when to reject. The only info on the differences I can find is Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Draft decline or reject help which has almost no incoming links and isn't part of the AfC documentation. We probably need a concise statement, linked to the reject template, to explain that decline is for topics that might well be a proper encyclopedia article and reject is for topics that are just not the kind of thing covered in our encyclopedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I usually find a way to use really good Teahouse or Help Desk responses. If I can find one, I think I know where to put it so it can be seen by new editors.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the better move would be for teahouse hosts to stop bothering to correct people when they say their drafts have been rejected. It's a difference that matters to us as reviewers, but new people are going to keep calling declines "rejects" until the end of time, since it's a perfectly reasonable word to describe what has happened to them. We're better off just skipping to the part where we help them understand what they need to do to get their drafts accepted. -- asilvering (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "reject" is the real world word for both AFC-decline and AFC-reject. North8000 (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I still think it's a good idea to give new editors a place to read this information before they ask, and when I find a really good description of each in the Teahouse or Help Desk archives, I'll copy it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

How's this: "Reviewers may decline or reject your draft submission. If your draft has been declined, you are encouraged to take the reviewer's feedback into account and resubmit your draft using the "submit" button on the AfC template. If your draft has been rejected, you are not encouraged to resubmit and will not see a "submit" button on the template. Reviewers decline drafts if they do not presently meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Reviewers reject drafts only if there is no possibility that they will ever meet those guidelines; for example, if the topic is not relevant for the encyclopedia, or if the draft is spam." -- asilvering (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I would not say ever. See WP:Before they were notable for some examples of articles that were deleted due to notability but later met the criteria (ex. Nicki Minaj). S0091 (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I like it. I'll use what Asilvering with the clarification by S0091.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, take a look.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Flojaune Cofer

I have been queried with my decline of this draft on the submitting editor's talk page, and I may be in error. If I am please tell me kindly. It may be a case of "Never review when you are tired" if I am in error. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly there's an earlier version by Muboshgu – maybe he has some thoughts? But as a general rule if the only concern is notability and somebody challenges it, I'd just accept the draft and send it straight to AfD to find out. It's easier than arguing. – Joe (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not think this person is notable until/unless they win election in November. I only glanced at the new edits and it needs some cleaning up. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe Thanks, Joe. I feel it is a little late for me to do that, and I will not participate in any AfD on this one if it comes in the immediate future.

@Muboshgu Thank you also for your thoughts. Currently I do not see them as notable. Another reviewer may differ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

In my mind, this is a good decline. Applicant doesn't meet WP:NPOL and it is unclear whether they would if they win in November (using Bearcat's "city of global standing" yardstick for municipal politicians, Sacramento is a difficult case). Maybe a spin toward their work as an academic, but who knows. I think you did a good job. Bkissin (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Crocker Church

I accepted this today, though with a comment qualifying the acceptance on the talk page. Loads of local coverage, so it is probably enough to make it stick. Even so, I'd appreciate any thoughts any of you might have.

As a background you may wish to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Crocker (closed as Delete) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocker Cemetery (currently relisted), all three articles created by the same creating editor.

Should anyone see this as an AfD candidate I will adopt my usual neutrality as accepting reviewer and not take it personally(!). 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent, the Church seems notable. I have also closed the deletion discussion with the consensus to merge and redirect to the church. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you SafariScribe for closing this saga down 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Neutering the submission template?

A user placed AfC templates at User_talk:Ozzie10aaaa#Question_from_Créaturesastrales_(11:01,_26_July_2024)_(2), causing the page to appear in the pending drafts list. I wrapped the templates inside nowiki, but that didn't help. I tried to neuter them with : but still no joy. How does one stop the template working? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove it? You can wrap the template name in {{tl}} to preserve the meaning. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You only nowikied one of them, they double posted KylieTastic (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple drafts by multiple (?) users

Took me a while to realise this was happening, and also the extent of it, so thought I'd flag up here for the benefit of others.

Three user accounts were set up yesterday, which clearly are somehow connected, whether operated by the same individual or different ones:

• Nagpuri writers
• Nagpuri authors
• Jharkhand authors

They're writing about "their grandfather":

• Draft:Shiv awatar choudhary (rejected)
• Draft:Shivawatar choudhary (shivaji)
• Draft:Shivawatar choudhary
• Draft:Shivawtar choudhary
• Draft:SHIVAWATAR CHOUDHARY
• Draft:Shivaji (rejected)

(There may be others – users or drafts – in which case please add.)

I don't know if this is a malicious or just a CIR issue, but it's clearly wasting reviewer time and causing confusion.

I don't want to take this to ANI (yet), but I can say that if a passing admin were to see this and decide to block the three users until they provide some explanation for all this, it wouldn't be the worst thing IMO... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The three accounts are  Confirmed, and in a way that makes me think it's not just three folks editing on separate computers to do the same thing. I would suggest redirecting all of them to the best one (if there is such a thing) and leaving it at that. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Primefac. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Resubmitted Rejected Drafts

I have asked this question before, and will probably ask it again. Do we, the reviewers, have any guidance about what to do with drafts that have been resubmitted by their originators after they have been Rejected? I know that the instructions for authors say that a rejected draft may not be resubmitted (and that is the whole purpose of rejection). But we also know that authors do resubmit rejected drafts. This is especially common with subjects who have fan clubs of ultras, but resubmission of rejected drafts is all too common. The draft that has prompted this is Draft:JackSucksAtLife, but I would like to discuss the more general question. Originators should not be resubmitting rejected drafts, at least not without having discussed with the reviewers (which they seldom do), so what should reviewers do with resubmitted rejected drafts? The reviewer can decline the draft, reject the draft again, go to WP:ANI and request a partial block, send the draft to MFD. In the case in point, I Rejected the draft on 2 November 2023, and then it was resubmitted and declined twice before another reviewer rejected it again on 27 July 2024, at which point I sent it to WP:MFD. Should the intermediate reviewers have taken the rejection into account?

I will also comment that this was a "special" case in that the reviewer could not accept the draft even if they wanted to accept it, because the title was salted in article space. So that raises another question, which is whether and how the reviewers should review a draft for a salted title.

I would like comments and thoughts both about drafts that are resubmitted after rejection, and about drafts of titles that have been salted in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You asked this two weeks ago, and I don't see the answers having changed much. As far as reviewing a salted page, if it's acceptable then either ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP or ask for it to be moved at WP:RM/TR, or ping an admin here (e.g. me). Primefac (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

As with many questions on this talk page, I think the answer lies in applying the project-wide principle that where there's disagreement, we seek consensus through discussion and remembering that the creators/submitters of drafts are just as much a part of that process as anyone else. Whether that discussion happens on the talk page or here or at AfD or MfD, it doesn't really make a difference. As long as it happens. Draft:JackSucksAtLife should never have got to the point of having six giant red banners on the top: before even the first decline, PantheonRadiance tried to start a discussion on the talk page about the subject's notability, but instead of joining it, subsequent reviewers just repeated the same boilerplate message again and again. When reviewers demonstrate that the way we do things here is to say the same thing over and over until the other party gives up, it's not surprising that submitters pick up the same tactic. – Joe (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I will start these replies to the comments with an apology to User:Primefac. I knew that I had asked the question previously, but had forgotten how recently I had asked it. I continue to feel, rightly or wrongly, that there are persistent unanswered questions about Rejection, and that there are persistent unanswered questions about submission of titles that have been locked. I am trying to think through why I keep feeling that the questions are not answered. I think that one reason is that there is a failure to communicate, and that seems to be what User:Joe Roe is saying. I have two specific thoughts at this time and will probably have more within some number of hours:

• 1. I see that PantheonRadiance did try to discuss sources. Their comment was ignored due to a shortcoming in reviewing, because they put their comment on the draft talk page, and reviewers usually don't read the draft talk page, and should be advised to always read the draft talk page as well as the AFC comments. In this case, part of the failure is that the reviewers, including myself, didn't look at PR's comments, and should have looked at them.
• 2. When submitters become tendentious, reviewers push back and become stubborn. The end result is that there isn't an article on the subject, whether or not there should be. When this happens, and this is a case in point, I think that it becomes necessary to find reviewers who have had no previous experience to start over and look at the quality of the sources, because the previous reviewers can no longer be impartial. The submitters don't deserve an outside look, but the encyclopedia, which should summarize knowledge from a neutral point of view, does deserve an impartial look.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

People have been suggesting for years that we move the comments (and maybe even the decline reasons) to the talk page, to better introduce newcomers to how collaboration on Wikipedia usually happens, and make things less one-sided. I don't know if that idea has ever been conclusively rejected? – Joe (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No apology necessary, Robert, I was in a bit of a mood and was probably harsher than I needed; I checked the archives and there's no obvious discussion about the matter going back two archives, so there's that as well.

To Joe's point, AFCH recently had an update wherein the AFC comments can be copied to the talk page if desired. That being said, the easy way around the "no one is participating on the talk page" issue is to add an AFC comment that says "there is more discussion on the talk page". That, and changing the mentality and work flow of AFC reviewers to actually check the talk page before doing reviews! Primefac (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Could AFCH perhaps be modified to alert the reviewer that there may be discussion on the talk page, if the talk page exists and has been edited since the last review? – Joe (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

AFC/R: Pending revisions?

As someone without Pending changes reviewer permissions, how do I respond to redirect requests on WP:AFC/R if they're not even accepted yet? Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You can reply as normal. Pending changes just means that logged out users will see an older, verified version of the page. As a logged in user you see the latest revision of the page, and can edit it as normal. Someone with PCR will be along later to go through the edits and approve/revert them. Also, you can always apply for PCR over at WP:PERM/PCR if you are OK with going through each edit and approving/reverting it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Calzone

Yesterday I made my first "difficult" accept, as opposed to the obvious WP:NSPECIES accepts I've done before. Its tone was very promotional, but it cited two sources that I thought were likely to meet WP:NCORP, so I accepted the draft and then cut the purely promotional parts out. I was planning to ask for feedback today, but I woke up to find it deleted under WP:G11. I knew it might go to AfD, and I thought it was only moderately likely to be kept, but I'm pretty surprised that it was speedily deleted. My CSD log says I've tagged 273 pages with G11; most were deleted, but some weren't, so I thought I'd worked out a decent sense of G11's limits. On the other hand, most of those were user or draft pages, so maybe G11 is applied less strictly there.

Like I said, I knew Mr. Calzone might be deleted, so I'm not bothered that it was. I'm just trying to figure out what to learn from this. As I understand it, a good AfC reviewer should occasionally see their accepted articles sent to AfD and deleted, but I don't think the same is true for CSD. Should I err on the side of declining overly-promotional drafts, even if they seem borderline-notable?

(Pinging OnlyNano and Jimfbleak in case they want to comment/respond.) jlwoodwa (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think so much of this comes down to individual judgement. As you say, the original version was very promotional (and remained in the history), and if the original editor had made no other edits, I would have blocked them as a UPE. I thought that it may be notable, but what we got was a classic company "this is what we sell" with a bit of history, and no real facts, like number of employees, management structure or financials. I agree that if notability were the only issue AFD would have been appropriate, but I felt that it met the threshold for G11; another admin might have taken a different view Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa:, sorry forgot this wasn't your talk page and I needed to ping Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I essentially have the same feedback as Jimfbleak mentioned. I tagged the page due to the promotion, and notability was less of my priority. If notability was the primary issue, I would have tagged it for AfD, as that's a debatable issue. In this case, the article only had basic information and a menu, which overall gave the appearance of promotion being the main purpose of the article. When I am participating in AfC, I typically ask myself: "what is the point of this article?" In this case, it seemed the point of the article was promotion, as there was no information I could use if I wanted to write a paper on the company. OnlyNano^talk 14:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Bryan Mealer

Could some AfC reviewers please have a look at this draft and the rationale used to reject it. Thank you very much. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If the article was on "Muck City" I would accept it too. But it says little about the author. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

More details on his life would be good to include. Doesn't he meet criteria 3 and 4 of the creative professionals notability criteria? His most famous work was adapted into a film as is noted in the entry. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

?FloridaArmy (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• safariScribe, Chetsford, Graeme Bartlett, can you all please explain how this author does not meet WP:NAUTHOR? Specifically #3? A simple search for any and all of his four books would show numerous reliable source reviews of them, many of which I have now added to the article. But that shouldn't be necessary. Per WP:AFCPURPOSE, the only criteria that should be investigated is whether an article subject would survive an AfD attempt. If the subject meets NAUTHOR, as this one does, then it would 100% be kept. Furthermore, per long-standing AFD rules and precedent, sources do not need to be in an article for an article subject to be notable, which is why WP:BEFORE is so frequently noted in faulty AFD nominations.

Thus, per the AFC rules, it should have been immediately accepted, also noting that AFCPURPOSE states "Then ACCEPT it now. (You can tag non-deletion-worthy problems.)". Because notability is all that matters here, not the state of the article (even though this article is written fine as it is). So, please, as AFC reviewers and per AFC rules, explain why this wasn't accepted from the very beginning as a blatantly notable author. Silverseren^C 01:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I restored this page. Most of the page was about "Muck City" so if the subject of the draft was Muck City, I would accept it. I am not ruling out a page on the author, but usually if I restore a page, I would leave it to another AFC reviewer to consider. Though occasional I will just accept a rejected draft without a resubmit, as a lot of rejections are unwarranted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Certainly.

First, WP:BEFORE is a positive restraint, not a negative restraint. It requires an editor conduct a search before taking a specific action (nominating an article for deletion). It does not, and in no sense logically could, compel an editor to conduct a search before not taking an action (i.e. not accepting an article for mainspace).

Second, BEFORE does not apply to AfC submissions because (aside from maybe the more salient fact that it explicitly only deals with deletions, not article moves, as in moving from draftspace to mainspace), as per our reviewing standards (emphasis added): "If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason." Applying that standard, the references in the article at the time I reviewed it [7] were not sufficient and, per our reviewing standards, I declined it. I have not been granted authority by the community to unilaterally waive our written reviewing standards which give me the very clear and unambiguous command that I am required to decline submissions in cases where references actually evident in a draft article do not verify the WP:N of the topic. To draw a finer line under this point, we decline draft articles that are (emphasis added) "not yet shown to meet notability guidelines," as opposed to "do not meet notability guidelines".

Hope that helps. Chetsford (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Vanishing section heading

I declined a draft, and in so doing seem to have somehow deleted a section heading: [8]. Does the script automatically perform some sort of cleanup, and if so, does this include removing headings from empty sections? (That's the only way I can think of explaining this.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably. Would you be okay with the behavior staying the same, or do you think it is a bug? I'm leaning towards staying the same, personally. Deleting empty reference sections seems reasonable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I've no problem with it doing cleanup. I've noticed before that it removes white space etc., which is a good thing. Whether that should include empty section headings, I've no opinion about.

On this occasion, the draft actually had two references, which correctly appeared under the now-deleted heading. It just didn't have the reflist tag, which is why the section looked empty at the wikitext level. With the heading gone, the footnotes are now orphans. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes AFCH has a function to remove any empty sections at the end - form the code "Empty sections at the end of drafts frequently happen because of how the "Resubmit" button on the "declined" template works." I'm sure this is true anymore. In this case it does not matter and as it was miss-spelt with no {{reflist}} good cleanup. The only time I notice this causing issues when when the full text was in a heading. KylieTastic (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; the old resubmission method had the user putting in a "new section" with a {{void}} along with the {{submit}} template, and despite the fact that we didn't want people to add a subject they still would, so AFCH started removing those blank sections. I am still in favour of having this functionality, if only to clean up the drafts a little bit (the reference issue in this draft would have needed manual fixing anyway so the removal of the section heading is kind of moot). Primefac (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Loml and Loml

Will someone please look at this draft and article and advise what to do next? I looked briefly at the draft on 1 July, and saw that there was an existing redirect to the album, The Tortured Poets Department, and tagged the redirect as with possibilities. Then a few days ago an editor expanded the redirect into an article. I have taken another quick look at the draft and the article, and they have mostly the same content but are not quite the same, and appear to have been worked on independently. (It isn't surprising for a Taylor Swift song to be worked on independently by multiple editors.) I am tagging the draft and the article to be compared, combined, and merged. This appears to be not a train wreck but two trains arriving at the same destination from the same origin. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you've reached the correct conclusion; two pages being worked on more or less independently, so if there's useful information in the draft it should be merged into the article, otherwise redirecting it is sufficient. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Not on the list

I wondered why I don't appear on the list Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants of reviewers, I have reviewed a large number every day for many, many years? Theroadislong (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You used to be, but then we decided to simplify things by making NPPs automatically be AFC reviewers from the point of view of the AFC Helper Script. And that page is primarily an allow list for the AFC Helper Script. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes thank you, no worries. Theroadislong (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking for opinions on Draft:Abhishek Nigam

I think the subject is now notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Although the article has WP:PROSELINE issues and the lead section has a little bit of MOS:PUFFERY material, I think it would survive AfD (which is the bar set - no higher)... but I'm not sure - looking for more experienced reviewers. Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, the draft has been resubmitted (after being rejected... more than two years ago... for the second time), so I guess a reviewer will take yet another look at it at some point. Is there are reason why you're flagging it up here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I was going to accept it myself, but figured I should get some input (following the guideline at WP:AFCPURPOSE to "ask for help" here). Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

At a quick glance, it looks like he's had some more roles since the article was rejected last, so it's worth considering. But they don't really look like important roles, to me? I'd double-check the references to make sure they don't look like regurgitated press releases before accepting it for sure. -- asilvering (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

He has been in 93 episodes of Ali Baba: Ek Andaaz Andekha and 233 episodes of Hero – Gayab Mode On. Seems like a WP:NACTOR pass to me. I've gone ahead and accepted the draft. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)