Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:AFC)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Talk page
ReviewerAFCH
Submissions
CategoryList
Showcase Assessment Participants Reviewing instructions Help desk Backlog drives
Welcome to the main Wikipedia Articles for Creation project talkpage
WPAFC talk pages: Main - AFC Helper script - Reviewer help
AfC submissions
Slight backlog
578 pending submissions
Purge to update
Shortcuts:


Skip to the bottom
WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page. WikiProject icon
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Project banners supporting "Draft" class etc.[edit]

Just a note to say that the WikiProject Opera banner now supports "Draft" class. I've bannered the ones I've found via our new article bot and will continue to do so every time I check the bot results. If members here find any further drafts within WPO's scope, feel free to add {{Opera|class=Draft}} to the draft talk page and feel free to post a note at our project's talk page if you need specialist advice in assessing those drafts. See Category:Draft-Class Opera articles.

Although many project banners may not yet support draft class, if you are looking for new drafts to review in other specific subject areas, don't forget to check the search results available via the links at User:AlexNewArtBot#Currently supported. The bot now lists all new drafts as well as new articles in nearly 100 subject areas. Voceditenore (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore, perhaps you could help Doc James implement Draft-class for the Medical WikiProject, he asked about it at the Reviewer Help page some time ago. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes that would be great. I do not know if I could implement it without breaking things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The banners for both WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Psychology already support "Draft" class—see Category:Draft-Class medicine articles. When you come across a new draft just add {{WikiProject Medicine|class=Draft}} to the talk page. Doc, if you're talking about finding potential new drafts, then just monitor User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult. It lists all new drafts and new articles in that area, and is updated daily. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Banner support is only one half of what's needed, the statistics table on the project page needs to also include Draft-class. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Roger and Doc James, that table is bot-generated and not always up to date. It's not like {{Category class}} which produces the assessment bar at the top of category pages. I suggest inquiring at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team who seem to be in charge of those tables. Almost all the important/highly used templates are edit-protected anyway. (I had to make an edit request to get the WPO banner changed.) But... Having "Draft" in that table on the main page of WikiProject Medicine is quite unimportant if the goal is to get that project (or any WikiProject) more active in reviewing drafts. Far better to have a separate section/blurb on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine#How to help which links to Category:Draft-Class medicine articles. Or even better, keep a permanent section on the project's talk page. Most active long-term members of projects use the talk page and rarely look at the main project page. Many of them are willing to provide advice on a draft if an AfC reviewer asks. But, as to becoming active reviewers, the vast majority will not. The complicated and arcane AfC scripts, rules, and processes are terribly off-putting. You should start by encouraging various WikiProjects to leave comments on drafts for the reviewers to take into account, but you'd need to show them how to use {{Afc comment}}. Voceditenore (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
That's right; I assume most times I don't get an answer it's because editors don't know how or can't be bothered to use {{Afc comment}}. We should place simple instructions on the review template so that non-participants can also freely comment. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I invite them to post comments on the draft's talk page, then they don't need to bother with AFC process at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
And if you guys do find any projects that support draft class, you can use the new draft sorting script. (Feedback welcome!) APerson (talk!) 12:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your great work, APerson! How exactly does it work? Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
If you have Equazicon's script installer, you can click the "Install" link at the top of the script page; otherwise, you can use {{iusc}}. Once you have it installed, you can go to a draft page; next to the AFCH helper script link in the "More" menu, there should now be an option labeled "Sort (draft)"; click on that, and a box will come up where you can select WikiProjects in the same way that you select WikiProjects when accepting an article. APerson (talk!) 20:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, but I can't seem to be able to use it. Could you help me find out what's the matter? I already tried bypassing the cache. Also, could we add more WikiProjects to the Add WikiProjects list for accepting articles? Some of the most used are not available, such as WP:MILHIST. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
APerson Am I doing something wrong? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
FoCuSandLeArN, in what way can't you use it? Is it not appearing on the screen, or is it unable to save or something? APerson (talk!) 21:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yup, can't see it. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
FoCuSandLeArN, what errors show up in the console? What browser/OS are you using? APerson (talk!) 19:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
APerson, that's bizarre, your ping didn't show up. I faintly recall some error being shown weeks ago, but now that I try to paste the code again it says nothing. Oh and Chrome/Windows 7. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Co-op officially open, looking for mentors[edit]

Hey AFC participants. Back in March-April 2015, a small team of us ran a pilot for a mentorship space for newer editors called the the Co-op. The work for the space was funded by an IEG grant from the WMF. After some analysis and tweaks to the space post-pilot, we are officially open this week, and we're looking for additional mentors. Our final report is still being reviewed by the WMF, but it is more or less done, and you are welcome to check it out. Here are some of our more prominent findings:

  1. Editors who engaged with a mentor remained active longer, edited more articles, and made substantially more edits overall than editors who were not mentored.
  2. Editors waited far less time for a mentor thanks to our matching system. Getting matched with an editor took less than five minutes, thanks to the use of HostBot. Waiting times for a mentor to actually contact an editor took less than a day, but was as low as an hour or two.
  3. A minority of experienced editors sought out mentorship despite not receiving an invitation during our pilot. These editors may have gotten the most out of mentorship, as they interacted more frequently with their mentor and in more complex topics compared to newer editors.

Based on our results, the Co-op seems to have a lot of benefits for newer editors. But our mentorship space will not work if we lack mentors. In particular, mentors who are familiar with reviewing new articles are very helpful as this is a common request from newer editors. While mentoring does require some time and effort, our findings from the Co-op suggest that such effort has a strong impact on newer editors. If you're interested in becoming a mentor, please consider joining us. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: This seems like a very interesting idea. I was wondering if there was a way we could build in a message encouraging users who do not get their submission accepted to join the Co-op as well as the Teahouse. It would help out the new users have a more direct link to a more experienced user and help them build their editing skills more. Let me know what you think Aerospeed (Talk) 22:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@Aerospeed: Sorry for the late reply-- it's been a busy July! I agree that directing editors to our help spaces can be helpful if feedback from AfC reviewers isn't constructive. The Teahouse does have this useful template for inviting editors in when hosts notice that an AfC submission was rejected. This could be incorporated into AfC, and we can redesign it to also show editors other help spaces like The Wikipedia Adventure and the Co-op. What do you think, and can you help with this? My time is somewhat limited these days. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Jethro, I'll see what I can do to edit the Teahouse template. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@I JethroBT: How does this sound Jethro?
"Hello (Username), I noticed that your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be very disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. As well, consider visiting the Wikipedia Co-Op and the Wikipedia Adventure for more help on editing Wikipedia. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!"
Many thanks in advance, Aerospeed (Talk) 13:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Creation of a warning template idea.[edit]

I'm fairly new to this project, but have dived in head first as some of you all have noticed. One issue I've seen (granted not a huge issue) is people who continually resubmit their AfC with little to no edits made. My theory is that people are doing it because 1) they don't care to improve it or 2) They think it might squeak by a less vigilant editor.

Unfortunately from what I understand there isn't a means of recourse for this. I'm proposing the creation of a warning template (which I'd happily help to create) that could be posted on user talk pages. I'm sure there might be some slippery slope issues, so I'd say the use of the template at minimum shouldn't be implemented until someone has clearly resubmitted more than once without making much of an effort to improve their article.

I think an official warning like this my help alleviate some of the backlog created by habitual resubmitters who aren't taking the time to improve their articles.

Thoughts? Sulfurboy (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sulfurboy, the warning template is a great idea. By the way, if reviewers feel like a draft has been resubmitted way too much (over 5 times, usually), they take the draft to MfD - that's sort of like the means of recourse you were talking about. APerson (talk!) 12:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I tend to mention that they will not get it through the net by doing nothing and just resubmitting :) Fiddle Faddle 19:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Usually, I'll leave a personal message on the individual advocate's page letting them know that if they resubmit again without significant improvement, that I will nominate for MFD. Either the user shapes up and I never see it again, or they don't and then we have a drag out fight at MFD about it's suitability. Typically the Community at large sees the hopelessness of the submission and puts the user out of their misery. Getting a AfC submission MFDed makes re-creations eligible for CSD:G4. Hasteur (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

I see the backlog is down to just 690 articles (from over 1500 a week or so ago)- clearly some users have been doing a lot of reviewing! Thank you to those that have, glad to see the backlog down and thus new submissions will get seen to more quickly. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: It's my pleasure. I'm happy to help! :) Vincent60030 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: Now the backlog is hovering around 100 submissions. It's almost a bit creppy now, the backlog almost feels empty... Aerospeed (Talk) 13:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Concerns about the acceptance of Alleged Clinton Controversies at AfC[edit]

Full disclosure: I'm not as well informed about day-to-day work at AfC as I might be. But I was alarmed when I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies, an AfD through which Alleged Clinton Controversies was snow-deleted in less than 24 hours. I read the article itself and was even more alarmed. Would people here care to comment, perhaps especially Sulfurboy who accepted the article and moved it to mainspace? I don't mean to put Sulfurboy on the spot, we all make mistakes, but can something be done towards avoiding such debacles in the future? Requiring endorsement by a second reviewer before an article is accepted? (Perhaps this is a perennial proposal and unrealistic because of time constraints.) Please see the comments in the AfD. I realize non-admins can't now read the article itself; I've put a copy of it (just after it was moved to mainspace) temporarily into my userspace for accessibility. Pinging the article's creator Professor JR for courtesy, though please note, Professor JR, that I don't mean to criticize you, or to re-ligitate the AfD; it's the AFC process that concerns me.

PS, when I went to post this on the page, the edit window met me with "This page is for users working on the project's administration" in loud letters, and suggestions for other pages for other business. However, a) none of those other pages seemed to fit either, and b) I would really like to hear from users working on the project's administration. And please don't think I don't realize that working here is an ungrateful task, that you're perennially backlogged, etc. I do know that much about AfC, and I do appreciate the work done here. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC).

I already answered to this on the AfD page, I will copy paste it here:
As the reviewer, I felt it necessary to post this response for reference that I already gave on my talk page: Not to defend my decision (as I see now it was an egregious error) but instead to explain it...1) It was incredibly biased before and edits were made, I think seeing such a large improvement tricked my mind into thinking it was acceptable 2) If it did have continuing issues it would be caught by other editors and sent to AfD (the system worked fwiw). 3) Edits would be made other editors to counter or defend accusations in time. I did believe there was worth for convenience of research to compile the controversies, but obviously there was a better way to go about it.
The most important thing to take from this is that a second reviewer isn't needed (or practical) and the process worked even when there was a major error. Sulfurboy (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I'd read through the AfD, but I must have speeded up towards the end, and I'm afraid I missed your comment there, Sulfurboy. Thank you for making it. Still, unless it's already been hashed over here, I wouldn't mind hearing from other regulars as to whether it's really impractical to have two reviewers. (Note, only for articles that have been accepted by one reviewer. I wouldn't suggest it for rejections, I'm not crazy.) Not every dreadful article makes it to AfD. Some just sit in mainspace. Bishonen | talk 12:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC).
Can you point out some AfC articles that are dreadful and just sitting in mainspace? Or are you just assuming that's a thing? I'd like to see some examples to maybe see what seems to get through, or at least make sure they have the proper main tags and or noms for AfD. I understand why you think two editor approval would be a nice thing and I'll let others comment on it, but I'll give a few reasons it would be impractical.
  • 1) Usually over a hundred articles are submitted a day, which can easily lead to a backlog in the thousands, you just happened to stop by during one of the lowest backlogs ever, so that may not be immediately apparent.
  • 2) It could be incredibly discourging to a new editor to see one editor approve an article then have to possible wait weeks to get another editor approve it as well.
  • 3) It could be incredibly confusing and frustrating for a new editor to see one editor approve their article and another reject it.
  • 4) There is a slight, but varying consensus amongst AfC editors (from what I understand) as to what is a ready article. (Btw, not saying this was the case with the Hilary Clinton article). Some think it should be practically perfect C-class quality, others think it should just have a 50-50 chance at least to survive an AfD. This could lead to a slippery slope for double approvals. And could likely cause unneeded arguments amongst editors.
  • 5) There's already plenty of other checks in place. Most editors usually will watch pages and check them when they are approved by another editor. I know I and at least a few others do this. Also, egregious errors such as mine will get caught by NPP or other looking editors. The thing to keep in mind Bishonen (and I do understand your concern) is this process approves tens of thousands of articles with very, very few errors. One egregious error on my part is hardly a reason for a large policy overhaul without abundant evidence that this is indeed a problem. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Come on, of course I can't point to articles that are dreadful and just sitting in mainspace. When I come across dreadful articles in mainspace, I don't leave them in situ, I speedy them or prod them or redirect them. I'm afraid I don't keep files on which of them are AfC articles, very likely none, why not. (I do believe the most clueless article creators are too clueless to go via AfC.) However, I remember a young user who used to write drafts with one sock and approve them with another. I won't mention the name here, as they've recently been allowed back after a lengthy siteban. But I suppose that doesn't happen very often. (Now there, I'm in fact "just assuming", as you say.) I've seen people on IRC asking for AfC review and offering to review the other persons articles in turn, as quid pro quo. But it was years ago and is probably unusual. A double reviewer system would take care of egregious cases like those, but I'll take your word for it that it's unrealistic. Bishonen | talk 15:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC).
Sorry, Bishonen, I didn't mean the do you actually have examples comment to sound so snippy. I was just genuinely curious if you had some examples that you remembered. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) One of the problems that 'Shonen has touched on is that this page claims to be for users working on the project's administration. The problem, however, is that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, the talk page for the AfC process has become a redirect to here. Now, I can understand the regulars here wanting to keep discussions related to AfC in one place, but that cannot happen at the expense of discouraging editors from commenting on the AfC process by a notice that says:
I'd like to see: either (i) the notice acknowledging that this page, as a redirect, also serves the purpose of the talk page for the AfC process itself; or (ii) the redirect removed so that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation can be used to discuss issues related to AfC which are not covered by the shopping list above. --RexxS (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps changing "project's administration" to "Wikipedia's administration". The point of that edit notice is that we really don't want this to become a dumping ground for "Why didn't you approve my article" questions, which should go on the help desk. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 14:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Ahecht, I hear you, but your suggested change sends an unclear message to me. Can only admins post? And "Wikipedia's administration"… what would that mean in terms of what kind of issues can be brought here? How about for example my issue? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation was made a redirect in 2008.[1] Golly. Pinging MSGJ, who redirected it. Would you like to take a look at the discussion above, MSGJ? A page for non-regulars to comment really is needed. It's the Wikipedia way. That said, I understand Ahecht's concern about a dumping ground very well, because I took a bit of a look at the history of the page before it was redirected and I'll acknowledge there was a lot of clueless crap on it. I can't really blame the regulars for tiring of dealing with it. However, I guess clueless crap and dealing with it is the Wikipedia way too. (I type that with very mixed emotions, as I believe clueless crap may eventually completely overwhelm the project and tire out everybody who's heroically trying to deal with it.) Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation could be revived, with a different edit notice, addressing what can not be posted there? "Don't ask why we didn't approve your article here, please ask at the help desk instead." Bishonen | talk 15:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC).
I just want to chime in and support Sulfurboy here. To contemplate Bishonen's proposal of double reviews we need some evidence that there is a problem with the current process. I'd say there is a problem if an AfD reviewer's serious mistake was likely to go undiscovered for some longish period of time. That clearly did not happen with Alleged Clinton Controversies. If you have other specific instances to bring to our attention, we can discuss your proposal further. From my experience at AfC, the common mistake is rejecting adequate (but not well developed) submissions and I appreciate reviewers willing to accept and risk AfD as it exercises our checks and balances and helps us find feel out our boundaries. ~Kvng (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I second what Kvng said. Articles being discussed at AfD is sometimes the only chance some former submissions get a fair go at proper evaluation by a broader set of contributors. Sometimes we accept borderline cases (I'm not saying the Clinton article is borderline; I wouldn't have accepted it), and most editors don't give a damn about submissions coming from AfC until someone coincidentally nominates them for deletion (yes, not even people that were called upon to so do via several available means). If that means people will use that as another reason to frown upon the whole process, then so be it, but at least here we are discussing it, meaning on the whole it proved to be a solid undertaking, making the encyclopaedia better! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Categorizing AfC submissions?[edit]

This is a comment from the peanut gallery follow-up from this thread at WT:MED, where Dodger67 suggested that some people there might poke through the pending AfC submissions on occasion to find relevant ones. I asked about topic tagging, and I see there's a thread above on this page describing a script for reviewers to apply wikiproject tags, but there appear to be over 1000 wikiprojects available for tagging.

IMO there are too many semi-active wikiprojects on very specific topics to generate much project buy-in in terms of regularly monitoring draft categories, and you'd be better off with a small number of general categories along the lines of Category:AfD debates, with one category assigned by the author at the time of submission. Not sure if AfC has already considered and rejected that approach for other reasons (maybe the submitters are too unreliable to trust with a list of 10 categories to pick from?). Speaking for myself, I'd be a lot more likely to occasionally look at a hypothetical Category:Science, technology, and medicine AfC submissions than to dig through an undifferentiated list of 4000, or keep track of draft categories for all of the various semi-active wikiprojects whose scope has some overlap with my interests. Having reviewers apply wikiproject tags is a good start, but it's an extra person's worth of effort and risks missing willing reviewers for niche topics because they're watching for drafts in the wrong niche. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe this idea has merit and should be properly considered. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea too. Similar things have been proposed before (such as here). Now, in a world where the AFC queue stays under 200 (as appears to be the current situation), this isn't hugely necessary, but it's probable we'll be back to lengthy queues eventually. --LukeSurl t c 08:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, better safe than sorry. Should we start confecting those categories? What about Science, General Bios, Companies, Military topics, Music, and Miscellanea? Those are the most common I can think of, off the top of my head. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

My first thought was to replicate the AfD category structure below - which might allow for some interesting statistics eventually on the survival of AfC articles in different topic areas. I'm not currently active in the AfC process except as a person who responds sometimes when someone asks a wikiproject I follow about a draft, though, so maybe these topics don't map well to what people tend to submit here. It wouldn't really help much if 70% of the backlog is in one category. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

cat=M Media and music
cat=O Organisation, corporation, or product
cat=B Biographical
cat=S Society topics
cat=W Web or internet
cat=G Games or sports
cat=T Science and technology
cat=F Fiction and the arts
cat=P Places and transportation
cat=I Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic
cat=U Debate not yet sorted
I think "Biographical" will need to be subdivided as the overwhelming majority of "not obvious junk" submissions are biographies. However if multiple categories can be used on a submission the intersections could be useful; Athlete = Biography + Sport, or Politician = Biography + Society, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
That would be a good idea if it were possible to easily look at category intersections on-wiki. Maybe you just use the rest of the categories but have a separate flag for 'biography'? (And another one for 'living'? The resulting list of 'living people associated with organizations, corporations, or products' is probably low-hanging fruit for handling the backlog....) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
A "biography flag" within the topic categories makes a lot of sense because a biography is never only a biography, it always belongs to another topic category too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

See also[edit]

Some old related discussions that went nowhere:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Anna, I'd seen a couple of related discussions but didn't realize how far back it went. Those just seem to peter out repeatedly - call me crazy but I don't get it. On a technical level this is really simple, and there's no reason anyone has to use the categories if they don't want to. Being ignorant of internal AfC project matters, I'll just say this would make it a hell of a lot easier for people who mostly work on other things to handle the subset of drafts on abstruse or overly technical topics, and having an avenue for established editors to get in touch with the authors of these articles is probably an advantage retention-wise. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I suspect they failed because people tend to come up with these ideas during backlogs, when nobody has the time or energy to actually execute the plan, as all our fingers are in the dike. Now that we've just cleared one of the biggest backlogs ever we actually do have some space to get it done. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome, Opabinia regalis. I agree with what you say. This would make things easy. Maybe we should just boldly move forward with this. We're talking about categories here. Pretty harmless. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
We need to also compose a paragraph for the Reviewing instructions/Workflow on how to impliment categories on drafts. Does the following make sense?:
Please add an apropriate draft category to the draft page after the initial review, unless the draft is accepted or nominated for speedy deletion. At the same time one or more relevant WikiProject banners could be added to the draft's talk page with a "class=Draft" parameter. These steps enable subject specialist reviewers to easily find relevant drafts. Then list all the categories. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Should there subsequently be a category cleanup by the script to remove duplicate cats if the article is accepted? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a good way to tell a reviewer to add a category, but is it not possible/desirable to have the author do it on submission?
Presumably the AfC script should just strip the draft categories when moving to mainspace. Duplicates while it's in draft space don't seem like much of a problem.
Anna Frodesiak I agree - time to give the script developers a ping? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good! I support any steps you'd all like to take to move this forward. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Most authors of drafts submitted to AFC hardly grok referencing, asking them to add a category would be pointless in the vast majority of cases. In any case we don't want junk submissions (most of them) cluttering up these categories, so having the first reviewer do it makes better sense. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Implementation[edit]

This seems like an awesome idea. I'd just like a bit of clarification: this is going to take the form of parameters on the AfC submission template, right? I think an example of the new syntax would be {{AFC submission|d|bio|u=Ejaz92|ns=118|decliner=Flat Out|declinets=20150729045231|ts=20150726112721|cat=bio}} APerson (talk!) 23:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to hear! With the caveat that I don't currently use the AfC script and therefore don't know what I'm talking about: the final parameter should be any category except "bio", right? "bio" is a separate flag independent of the other categories? Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Add it as a step in the Decline routine, except when the decline is for one of the quick fail criteria: hoax, test, blank, copyvio or attack. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
There should be capacity to add a category without failing the draft, i.e. for cases where you think "I'm not sure about this one, it could do with a reviewer more knowledgeable in this topic than myself". --LukeSurl t c 08:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes indeed, the ability to add the category without completing a review would be useful - perhaps in the Cleanup routine? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
But the cleanup routine doesn't work if the reviewer only adds a comment, or does it? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Cleanup runs either as a separate process or with decline, not with comment. Perhaps "Add draft category" should run with all processes except Accept and the Speedy declines? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Can something easy like HotCat be used, i.e. so that we don't have to type the whole thing? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a short list of only ten categories, so selecting one from a menu makes even more sense. HotCat doesn't distinguish between valid and invalid categories, it "accepts" any category that exists. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yup, a drop-down list would work just fine! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Is anyone now working on this? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Anyone?????...... This is exactly why all the previous proposals have come to nothing. Where are the script coders? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Dodger67, I'll try and hack away at this, but Theopolisme is really the one who does major work on the script. APerson (talk!) 01:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I haven't seen him around for a while, but given the current status of our backlog I think we can be lenient on deadlines, no? Face-smile.svg FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

Now, I see: I can explain all this to your satisfaction, but, must end it here, as I cannot go farther than this last point: philipofBVMPhilipofBVM (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Here is the point: yes, I did copy that information from cathinfo site; however, I am the one who penned that information, and it was backed up by some other Wikipedian. Ergo: this can never be considered copywrite infringement, to cut and paste one's own writing, word for word. Case closed. I might add here, that, for presenting the factual truth, in regards to the true Catholic baptism, of Saint Constantine the Great by Pope Sylvsester I, during his lifetime, and/or similiar factual reportings, such as this, and also, for example, that Marcel LeFebre was not a Catholic, but an apostate, for denying the "salvation dogma", I was banned from cathinfo site, and about 5 other sites, for telling the truth. Will also Wickedpedia also ban me? I can't go any further on all this. Go "seek, ask, and knock" and you shall find the true Catholic Church. Since you don't want me to give the site, most people can find it anyways by using key words. Thanks, again. Sincerely, philipofBVMPhilipofBVM (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer but . . . I don't think you have broken the law on copyright. You did however break Wikipedia's rule which forbids content to be used on Wikipedia unless an appropriate copyright release has been granted to Wikipedia by someone known to be the owner of that content. We have no evidence that you are the original writer of the content at the cathinfo site; even if you were, you may have given them the rights to it; and either way, neither you nor they has provided a formal copyright release. Maproom (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
PhilipofBVM has been indefinitely blocked, apparently for repeatedly posting material with problematic copyright status. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. It's not the first time this has happened: I do my best to explain to explain things politely to a user who is having problems following our rules, and he ignores or misunderstands my advice and gets himself indeffed. It gets disspiriting. Maproom (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Maproom: Do not get dispirited. We cannot make every editor understand Wikipedia and the need to work within rules and consensus. Instead of being unhappy about it rejoice in those whom you have steered onto the right path. There is a modern fable about saving some starfish Fiddle Faddle 17:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
[2] cute story! Darwin would have called BS on this though. ~Kvng (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That link isn't available here. But starfish? I now have an unpleasant image of tearing an awkward user into pieces and throwing them in the sea, only to have a dozen clones of him turn up later. Maproom (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
That has been known to happen... Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

An RfC worth participating in[edit]

I commend this RfC to you It affects those who converse with new editors, and AfC is most certainly the key place for that. Please offer your opinions there. Fiddle Faddle 15:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Tim! I'll look into it shortly. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Medford Knife and Tool - M.K.T[edit]

Please would an experienced reviewer look at this draft and consider whether my review is correct. I fear each of:

  • being too cautious
  • accepting this in error

I'd appreciate further eyes. Fiddle Faddle 08:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment. The titles of the articles used as references sound like advertorials in trade publications. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:MovedtoMainspace[edit]

FYI, you may be interested in the deletion nomination for {{MovedtoMainspace}} which is a template for processing of moving drafts to articlespace -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

template:AFC Request[edit]

{{AFC Request}} has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Request to waive reviewer requirements[edit]

I am interested in reviewing AfC submissions, but my user account doesn't meet the reviewer requirements (90 days old and 500 edits to the article namespace). For a number of reasons, I am requesting that I be permitted to review submissions while not yet meeting these criteria. First, I have created 10 non-redirect articles under my current account; from my (legitimate) former account, User:Millelacs, I created 37 articles and amassed 1,666 article-space edits ([3]) under the usernames Theodore! and DCI2026. Additionally, I am well-versed in Wikipedia policy; under my current account, I have participated in 58 AfD discussions ([4]) and NAC'd several others. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation[edit]

This template leaves a lot of whitespace on a talk page. Can we look at widening the format to 7-800 or so? - Happysailor (Talk) 12:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Happysailor: I've removed the width limit entirely, so it looks better on all monitors - it should now be limited by image size or text lines - whichever is bigger. Mdann52 (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Much better. I didn't want to just go ahead and do it myself, but it looked wrong. The small width worked on the original teahouse invite because there wasn't much text in it, but didn't on this one. Face-smile.svg - Happysailor (Talk) 17:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

miscategorisation[edit]

I've just noticed that the declined categories were at some point translating onto the users talk pages (because we now put the reason for the decline on the page) which in turn, has screwed up the maintenance categories as it is now showing all of the user_talk pages as declined drafts.

Can we look at clearing this up somewhow? Bot maybe like the teahouse notice issue? - Happysailor (Talk) 18:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be a pretty easy AWB task; I'll file a BRFA as soon as I'm done with the teahouse invite stuff. APerson (talk!) 03:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

Im a new user and I accidentally approved some redirects a couple of days back and then realized that I had to be a reviewer and then had to clean up my mess. But I liked the job and in some time, I would like to become a reviewer. I would like to know what it takes though, like I know the 500 edits and whatnot but can a reviewer give me some insider insight as to the pros and cons of the job and what their favorite and least favorite parts are and what policies are used the most. But even better, if a reviewer wouldnt mind, I would appreciate doing a mentorship on the subject instead of just having a few questions answered because I think that it would better prepare me and it would be nice having one person to answer my questions. Thank You and please ping me in a response. GlacialFrost (Talk) 20:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

To get some experience you should write a few articles, improve many articles by fixing formatting mistakes, adding references, add categories, perhaps writing missing leads. Take care and check your spelling, punctuation and grammar. Creating useful redirects is good too. You should keep away from automated tools until you can prove you can work safely with your fingers and your brain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Ha ha, that's a tall order, Graeme! I can't even manage simple body movements. Face-tongue.svg Stuff that you should get used to include deletion discussions and as Graeme pointed out creating and copy editing articles yourself. Once you feel confident enough, have a look at AfC submissions that have already been reviewed. After that it might be a good idea to jump into the cold water and have a go with some easy declines or accepts, at which point we'd be happy to give you feedback. From that point forth you'll pretty much learn as you go along, always following our instructions. We're here to help at any stage of the process. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
For a substantial number of editors, a "least favourite part" is that, if you do any substantial number of reviews, you will receive on your talk page large numbers of demands for explanations, demands for re-reviews, demands for help and advice, or demands for justifications for Drafts you have declined. Some of these will be threatening, incredulous, insulting, or otherwise combative, or nearly incomprehensible. Many will demonstrate no indication of the submitter having read the decline reason you provided... nor any of the links within it... nor any of the advice provided in the article creation wizard. Some will demand that you write the article for them, or that you find the references needed. Some will assume you are an employee of Wikipedia being paid to complete these tasks for them. Others may have been contacted off-wiki by someone pretending to be you and soliciting money in exchange for a "guarantee" of their article being accepted.
In all these cases you will need to reply politely, promptly, and in enough detail to deal with whatever misunderstandings or other problems the submitter is suffering. Writing such replies... which sometimes become extended conversations... can be unenjoyable if you would prefer to spend your time simply assessing a Draft and then selecting accept or decline criteria from drop-down lists. It is a very different type of activity, but it comes with the territory. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
As others have hinted above, policy and guideline material of particular relevance to the role includes everything in Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, and also Wikipedia:PROMOTION, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:COPYPASTE, and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
GlacialFrost has been indefinitely blocked. I am going to send them an invoice for the unnecessary wear and tear on my keyboard. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
What can I say?. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate your write-up, Arthur goes shopping. I usually come across unhappy new editors at the Teahouse but I expect that AFC reviewers see quite a bit more, appearing on their talk pages, asking for explanations. You must end up pointing up some of the same facts about submissions, again and again. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
That is true. What a lot of us do is put a banner on our talk pages with links to relevant explanations and pertinent guidelines/policies. It significantly reduces obvious claims. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Alerts to Wikiprojects about AFCs[edit]

I made a request at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests but I'll ask here as well. I wondered if we could have a WikiProject alert for when articles in their draftspace fall into Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions or better yet Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions. That would give the projects the best chance to review and express opinions on articles including in particular the ones where the original drafter have abandoned it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2015[edit]

Muhammad Atif 20:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

An article talk page eligible for db-g13??[edit]

Hello fellow reviewers. It's been a while since I posted here, so I may be getting out of touch with the latest changes. This talk page: Talk:CapitalVia is listed as eligible for db-g13, because for some reason all of the AfC templates and AfC comments for this article, which is now in mainspace, are on the talk page. I am assuming that this is an error, but I thought that I'd better make sure that no new process was being tried out before deleting this materiel.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I've cleared them off the page - they shouldn't have been put there in the first place. It looks like someone decided that having the decline templates & comments on the page was bad?. Regardless - Fixed - Happysailor (Talk) 09:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Happysailor. I was pretty sure they should go, but I have been working with the abandoned drafts so long now that I have been neglecting to keep up with any proposals here.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirect PRELOAD error[edit]

The AfC Redirect Wizard preload throws an error when you supply a target with wiki-notation for the target link.

If you supply [[target]] it dumps an error

But if you do the same thing with the redirect name [[redirect]] the template accepts it with no problem

Seems to be a mismatch in processing? It would seem logical to accept targets that use square brackets

-- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@67.70.32.190: Fixed --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 15:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Add "antimetaphysics" article[edit]

Antimetaphysics is a teatise over antimetaphysical beliefs. Not all atheists are antimetaphysical, some accept or perform magical thinking, some believe in other forces, even non scientific methods that do not apply to reason but to metaphysics. We need a new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.222.127 (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer requirements[edit]

I have been patrolling new pages for a while, and would like to become an AfC reviewer. My account isn't quite 90 days old yet (it will be on the 30th), but I do have about 1500 edits. I have read the reviewing instructions. Is there a way I can start reviewing submissions now, or should I just wait a week? KSFTC 15:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus for bot to clean User talk: pages from "AfC submission declined as..." categories?[edit]

In July 2014, the Afc decline template was modified to present a full decline notice to users on their talk pages, complete with the decline rationale. One of the side-effects of this was that the user talk pages got put into the "AfC submission declined as..." categories that are intended to only house draft articles. I tried fixing it in March of this year, but due to opposition from an editor who is no longer on Wikipedia, a fix wasn't implemented until May. In the meantime, thousands of user talk pages ended up in those categories. At the time, I didn't propose bulk removal of those pages from the categories because a certain outspoken editor (who is no longer on Wikipedia) insisted that User Talk: pages were valid locations for drafts. This issue was recently brought up on my talk page, and User:Fuhghettaboutit manually went through all 349 pages in Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations and not a single one was an actual draft. Therefore, I wanted to see if there was a consensus now to do a one-time manual Pywikibot run to remove user talk pages (but not subpages) from all the "AfC submission declined as..." categories before I proposed it at WP:BRFA. I've tested this in simulation mode (running python pwb.py category.py -simulate -log remove -from:AfC_submissions_declined_as_non-notable -match:"^User.talk:([^/]*)$", for example) and it seems to filter pages correctly. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I would just add that these categories are important for the administration of the AfC project. Having thousands of user talk pages cluttering the categories makes taking action on what are supposed to be actual category entries, a very muddied process. The bot might use an edit summary like the one I used for the mentioned hand fixing of entries in one of them (example).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why we should oppose this. Could we also have a look at this proposal? Oh, and I'd also love to be able to append stub templates at the bottom of article like we used to, but that's just gluttony! Where is Theopolisme? Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I oppose a bot-run. I do however endorse having editors use AWB to evaluate every single page to evaluate if the category is appropriate, and if so to save the changed page. Without knowing what suprises are out there I am extremely uncomfortable (both as a bot operator and as a AfC member) to do this bulk removal. Hasteur (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You mean because there might be actual userspace drafts under this category besides decline rationales? Why? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually I just realized that the userspace "Your article was declined because X" messages were substituted in. I was thinking about stumbling across one that had an {{AFC submission|d}} on it. In that case the category won't show up as text to be removed from the page (becasue it's being sneakily transcluded from the submission template). No objection now because anything that has the text available in the User talk space could only have been a subst-ed decline message to the user. I would however like to see it chew through ~300ish articles at a slow pace before going at a higher pace. I could see the justification for a weekly run that crawls 1k pages a week to remove and waits for feedback. Hasteur (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
If I brought it to WP:BRFA I would propose only running on one of the smaller categories (such as "BLP violations") first as a test. After that, I like your idea of smaller weekly runs. Instead of artificially limiting it to 1000 pages, I could manually run just one category per week in order of size, so the last categories would be "non-notable biography" and "lacking reliable third-party sources". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 04:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
1k articles a week makes this ~20 weeks of scrubbing. Considering that the bad categories were being added for ~40 weeks, I think this is a reasonable level of burn for the burn rate it took to get us to that level. Hasteur (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I brought this up last week (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#miscategorisation) Since then I have gone through a couple of the smaller categories and done the removal myself with AWB, but after having AWB scan the categories, there are 19925 user talk pages in the combined categories that are miscategorised. That's quite a few manual edits there... - Happysailor (Talk) 18:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Face-surprise.svg At 100 daily each we could tackly this in under 4 months! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Surely there is another way. Can we not modify the template itself to sense what namespace it is in, and solve the issue with the editing of a template instead of a bot? Fiddle Faddle 13:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah no. Subst: causes that to be a great idea that failed it birth. Fiddle Faddle 13:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)