Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Reviewing instructions
Helper script

Welcome to the main articles for creation WikiProject talk page
AfC submissions
Random submission
2+ months
3,441 pending submissions
Purge to update

WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.

Chart: Pending AfC submissions[edit]

Adding and making a sticky with a do-not-archive template:

--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Excellent!! --CNMall41 (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: - what is the definition of v.old? Nosebagbear (talk)
Very old is pending for 9+ weeks. What is labelled as 8+ weeks is really just 8 weeks (those pending for at least 8 weeks, but less than 9 weeks). --Worldbruce (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
"8 weeks+" plot should be removed. ~Kvng (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

AFCH should de-duplicate projects[edit]

I recently accepted Japanese influence on Korean culture. I entered "Japan" and "Korea" into the projects box. I hadn't noticed that the talk page already existed and it was already tagged with these two projects. Not the first time I've had that happen. Would it be possible for AFCH to check for duplicates before adding projects to the talk page? Even better, parse any existing talk page and pre-fill the dialog with those projects which are already selected. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been requested a few times over the years, and it's on the list of updates. I do like the latter suggestion, though, given that AFCH reads the existing cats listed - auto-filling in the existing WikiProject templates would be a nice addition. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
We’ve also talked about stopping the practice of adding WikiProject tags. WikiProject tagging should be left to the WikiProject. If they are not active or interested enough to participate in claiming new topics, why would anyone think the article would get some benefit from being tagged for the WikiProject? I can see arguments on both sides, but am most strongly concerned by the creation of an appearance of WikiProject interest when there is, in fact, none. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense. An article on (for example) a black hole is in the purview of WP:AST because it is an astronomy topic, not because they "want" it. How would a project even know the article exists if we don't tag it, especially if it's a smaller project that might not have the time or resources to keep an eye on recent changes, AFC itself, etc? Primefac (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Tagging drafts with projects seems like a good idea to me. One problem I can see is I'm not always sure I've put something into the right projects. But, I assume if I've mis-assigned something, the folks who run that project will figure that out and fix it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Bring HasteurBot back?[edit]

After a user asked on my talk page about bringing BasteurBot back, I filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14 asking to resume the "remind users at 5 months that their page could soon be eligible for G13", Nominate for CSD:G13 once the page does become eligible for G13, and "Notify editors who opt in at User:HasteurBot/G13 OptIn Notifications of any page that they've ever edited will soon be in danger of G13". I am coming back here to determine if there is consensus at the request of @Bradv:. Of note, I choose to uphold the strictest definition of G13 (absolutely no edits in the past 6 months) because "non-bot/trivial changes" is a discretionary factor that I'm more than willing to concede to other editors. Hasteur (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Support This is badly needed. Some admins are mass-deleting G13 drafts without reading them or issuing an advance notification to the creator. This is harmful to the project. Hasteurbot does the job better, by providing notifications before the deletion takes place. SD0001 (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

*opposed Do note a 6 month staled draft article would be either nominated for G13 or postponed of G13 for potential draft. Deleted G13 draft articles are those does not meet notability guidelines and admin would check the nominated drafts prior deletion. If the subject is so notable, many editor will create the article anyway and in addition G13 drafts would be get a WP:REFUND by the creator. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    • @CASSIOPEIA: with respect, your justification for your oppose is so confused as to suggest you haven't read the CSD:G13 rule. I do concede that some G13 nominations both by the bot and by humans may meet notability, however G13 does not deal with notability. It only looks at the time from the last edit (or non substantial edit). I remind you that notability is not supposed to be tested as a CSD criteria on draft space. Hasteur (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Hasteur I am not confused. I merely stated if a draft is deleted via G13, it always can be REFUND by creator. And if the creator does not ask for refund and other editor can create a page for the subject and if the subject is notable enough, it will be published in mainspace. No all abandoned darft need to be G13, they can also be postponing G13. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
      • CASSIOPEIA, while you are correct that a draft deleted via G13 may be restored via REFUND, many novice editors do not know that, and no one automatically notifies them. Why do you object to a bot notifying editors that pages they created will be eligible for G13 in a month? It might induce soem to resume work and actually produce fini9shed drafts that cam become articles. And for those where it has no such effect, what is the harm? It doesn't delay G13 deletion at all. I do not understand the basis of your objection to such a bot. I wish you would explain further. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • DESiegel Greetings. An automatic message indications "If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code and "REFUND" link' is sent out to creator on their talkpage when a G13 tag on the draft page. So they know they can either continues to work on the draft or if the article is deleted, they can get a REFUND. - example HERE 1. When the draft has been deleted and if the creator click on the draft link or search for the draft name it will lead them to the daft page where by the "REFUND" message could be found again. - see HERE-2 CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
        • CASSIOPEIA My understanhding is that such notices are often, but not always sent. If a user manually places the G13 template, no notice is sent unless the nominating editor sends one manually. If Twinkle is used, a notice is sent by default, but a parameter settignn on Twinkle can prevent this. But in any case, you seem to be overlooking the factor of time. The notices you speak of are sent whrn the actual G13 template is applied to the page. From that point, the actual deletion will oftne happen in minutes to hours. A person who does not log min to Wikipedia every day is very likely to find the page already deleted. Yes REFUND is available (although it can be declined) but that is an additional step which I think many new editors do not understanhd and find offputting. Compared to this, a month's warning, during which period the editor, if he or she so chooses, can just start editing again, seems more likely to motivate at least some proportion of editors to resume work. But in any case, you did not answer my question: what harm will such notifications do? Even if one assumes that the notifications by the suggested bot are redundant, what is wrong with them? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
          • DESiegel From my experience, an automatic message is sent to creator if tag with CSD via Twinkle. There are a number of places as pointed out where creator would get a refund. If a refund is not granted by admin, admin would have the reasons (they could view the draft content and my understanding is usually is promotion/copyvio draft or other issues). It is not harm to delay the G13, however, it is not all staled drafts over 6 months is automatically G13, on average, we have over 1K staled drafts in our system and tagger needs to go through each draft to see if it should be tagged with G13 which will be checked by admin prior deletion for admin could decline G13 if the G13 doesnt apply to the draft, or proposing G13 for potential draft or moved to mainspace or accepted the draft (by reviewer) if subject pass notability guidelines. Secondly, for those drafts have submitted by creators and declined, reviewers have indicated what is needed/what is missing/ why it is declined and for a creator does not want to do what is needed or nothing could be one since the subject is not notable (in many cases) which means 6 months frame is a enough for the eligibility of G13. In AfC we dont go through AfD and usually decline if a subject has not show meeting the notability guideliens and allow 6 months to improve the article, in addition, autoconfirmed editor can always move the draft to main space in regardless the subject notability is met and we have to go through either PROP or AfD for such articles. The current system, allow many different venues, AfC help desk for creator to seek help, Refund, auto message on the draft of what is needed after a decline, message on creator talk page after a decline, reviewers comments on draft page, REFUND, a 6 month time before eligibility for G13 or proposing G13, move to main space for autoconfirmed editor, for creators to work on the drafts and an extra month's warning would do anything different? I doubt so, even those editors granted REFUND of their articles do not work on the draft, as from my experience, as many the subjects does not pass notability guidelines for many creators edited in Wikipedia with single purposes, crating an article of the subject who they know that is not notable, (by the time G13 is tagged, many creators have long gone from Wikipedia) and a second G13 would be tagged again after 6 months. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would very much prefeer to have the bot back, and to have most G13 noms made by the bhot, if possible. Strongly support. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Noting that the bot will uphold the strictest definition of G13 and not address drafts that are in userspace. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hasteur which is just what it did before, correct? Yes I would favor thst. Whether manual noms of other pages would continue is a separate issue, the bot would not prevent such noms. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
That is correct, I'm just wanting to make sure that expectations are set appropriately. Feel free to comment at the Bot task. Hasteur (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I am evaluating this discussion, and based on what I am seeing, I believe there is a consensus to have the bot resume it's activities. Absent a significant change in consensus, I intend to go back to the Bot request and specifically ask that the task be approved and the bot be re-flagged in no less than 24 hours. Hasteur (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support This bot provided a valuable service as it triggers our contributors into action. Otherwise they are triggered to action when the page is nominated for, or deleted, and it is probably too late, and makes more human work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This will avoid new editors needing to negotiate WP:REFUND. Anything that prompts more editor activity is good. ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - an essential feature of AfC and the draft management process. Per Graeme Bartlett: 'a valuable service as it triggers our contributors into action'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Good news everyone, we've released the flesh eating slugs... Wait, that's not right... Let's try again. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14 has been approved and the bot has regained it's Bot Flag. I'm re-activating the Notify script and running a batch right now. Keep in mind that we have a minimum 30 days between notification and bot nominating for G13. I'll start the BRFA for "If a page is in the notification window and it still shows as pending AFC submission, put an {{AFC comment}} in noting that issue and encourage people to not nominate for G13 while it's AFC that's holding up the issue. Hasteur (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I have now added a request to undo the latest edit to your bot's user page, knowing that your bot has been reactivated, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#User:HasteurBot. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@GeoffreyT2000: Please dont. Read WP:UP#PROTECT for reasoning why. Hasteur (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hasteur, I believe the intention was to flip the bit from "retired" to "active", which has been done here. The post needed to be made there due to the page protections. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

An RfC the project may be interested in[edit]

An RFC has been created to clarify the interpertation of the CSD:G13 rule at WT:CSD. Please feel free to review and comment as you see fit. Hasteur (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

AFC/R script seemingly broken[edit]

Howdy Enterprisey, the script appears to be broken as any time I try to enact changes using it, it comes back with Error info: notokenIVORK Discuss 04:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: line 1153 of User:EnterpriseyBot/AFCRHS.js needs updating to use mw.user.options.get('csrfToken') rather than mw.user.options.get('editToken'), as the latter has been deprecated and removed. SD0001 (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 Done Enterprisey (talk!) 16:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Script User:Enterprisey/draft-sorter.js displays an error upon clicking Save:

Couldn't save due to error: {"error":{"code":"notoken","info":"The \"token\" parameter must be set.","*":"See for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at <> for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes."},"servedby":"mw1276"}

The script contains the code token: mw.user.tokens.get( 'editToken' ), so perhaps this is another manifestation of the same underlying problem. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and so do 212 other user scripts. I've opened a thread at WP:IANB about the issue. SD0001 (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


It's been a little slow on this talk page but I know there has been a lot of behind-the-scenes editing because we're finally below 1000 drafts in our very old category (as of last purging it's at 1009). There's still a lot of work to do to keep trimming it down, but I wanted to thank the editors who have put in the time and effort to bring us back down to a slightly-more-reasonable backlog. We've still got a ways to go to clear out that category (officially, the oldest draft at the moment is 4 mo 2 wk old), but it looks like we're headed in the right direction. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

G13 deletions process[edit]

How does the G13 deletion process work? Does a bot nominate them for deletion that I can exclude from the page? Is it done by humans? I'm wondering because I recently received a notification that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Redirect is about to be deleted, which it probably shouldn't be. Is there anything I need to do to prevent it from being deleted, or will everyone have the sense to not let that happen? Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The bot hunts for pages based on Category:AfC submissions by date and subcategories thereof. Your page was listed, but not in any of my exclusions. I've put it in and converted that talk page to a redirect to this Talk as that's where the WP page redirects to. Hasteur (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Box that disappears[edit]

Mystery: this revision shows the {{AFC submission/draft}} box at the top ("Draft article not currently submitted for review."), but the very next edit causes it to disappear. Why is this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: That's a head scratcher, but the draft was submitted. Hasteur (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Author Gargsociology clicked the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button in the grey "Draft article not currently submitted for review" box at the top of the draft. That action transformed {{AFC submission/draft}} into {{AFC submission|||ts=20191020121226|u=Gargsociology|ns=118}}, which displays as a mustard-yellow "Review waiting, please be patient" box (now at the bottom of the draft). That is the intended and expected behaviour (well, don't really know if it's intended to be at the bottom, but it has been that way for at least five years). --Worldbruce (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes a box (headed "Review waiting, please be patient.") was added at the bottom, but that edit did not remove the {{AFC submission/draft}} which should still have displayed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)