Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList
ShowcaseAssessmentParticipants
Talk
Reviewing instructions
Helper script
Help deskBacklog drives
Welcome to the main Wikipedia Articles for Creation project talkpage
AfC submissions
Random submission
2+ months
3244 pending submissions
Purge to update


  • Please post feedback about the AFCH helper script in a new section on this page, or by creating a new ticket on GitHub.
Skip to the bottom
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.
 

Contents

Guidelines for rejecting[edit]

It looks like the rejection feature is going well so far, so we should start thinking about guidelines to put in the reviewing guide so the option to reject drafts can be pushed to the main version of the script. Any thoughts? I would favor wording mentioning AfD, like "would be a SNOW delete at AfD or a PROD, and is unsuitable for CSD", but a translation of that into plain English to improve accessibility would likely be better. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  • "Would be snow-deleted at AfD" is a good line. It is obviously subjective, but it carries a good implied expectation that the rejecting reviewer is confident with AfD. I think this is the same standard for PROD "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". No opposition means an AfD would result in a SNOW delete if people participated. Actually, it means an AfD would result in a unanimous "delete".
"Do not use Reject if a CSD criterion applies" may belong in the fine text.
Do not use Reject if a CSD criterion applies in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
A quick review of some pages in Category:AfC submissions rejected as non-notable finds no pages that I think could be improved by additional sources that I can find. Some, such as Draft:Chris Fussell (US Navy SEAL), would be hard work for me to be confident to slap with "rejected", but on close look and doing an AfD-style source search, I conclude that User:DGG was right to reject.
Running Rejected_Drafts like an indefinite PROD for drafts is probably a good way to run this. If there is no objection after 6 months, it will be deleted per G13.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned above, before placing a reject, it is important to consider whether speedy is applicable. The most likely are G11 or G12 . If it's copyvio, G12 must be used. Using G11 for promotionalism is a matter of judgment, and is much more likely to apply to articles on companies, and similar enterprises than to those on undefinable subjects. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
We need to be precise about the wording that it is unsuitable for CSD. That means that, as a draft, it is not subject to CSD. A draft that would be subject to A7, which does not apply to drafts, is a candidate for Rejection. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes. CSD#A*, in particular A7 and A11, do not apply to drafts but are good reasons to reject a draft submission. There may be some caveats, like looking out for where there is significance but the author clumsily failed to to articulate it, but these are exactly the same caveats for applying CSD in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd say that the basic test is something along the lines of No reasonable editor would advocate keeping this if it was an article after doing their due diligence on the topic. Additionally, if it meets a speedy criterion as a draft, they should so tag it in addition to rejecting it. Whether an draft would be speedied, PRODded, or SNOW deleted at AFD as an article is pretty irrelevant in my mind. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Blank and Nearly Blank Drafts - Rejecting?[edit]

Which rejection reason should I use for a blank or nearly blank draft? They aren't exactly contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, because I don't know what they are, and they aren't exactly not notable, because I don't know what they are. I can decline them and tag them as UFW, but is there a proper rejection message, or should they in fact be declined because the editor should get a second chance, or should there be a third rejection reason, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Declined, I'd imagine, since the user may wish to later add text and resubmit. Just because a draft is blank doesn't mean that title must no longer be used for a draft. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I reject them and I have taggged hundreds of blank or basically blank Draft pages CSD G2 Test. Never had an Admin decline a G2. It's just cleanup. If they submit a blank page they clearly don't intend for it to be accepted and if it is still blank by time AfC gets to it it is unlikely to get additional content added. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Sample text for the reviewing guide[edit]

If we add rejection to the script, should the following text be added to the reviewing guide, under the heading "Rejecting submissions"?

Drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia should be rejected. Rejection is a good choice for a draft that would likely be the subject of an uncontroversial PROD, or if an AfD on the draft would be an unanimous "delete". However, if the draft meets one of the non-article criteria for speedy deletion, an appropriate CSD tag should be added instead of rejecting. (Drafts that would fall under one of the article criteria, like A7 or A9, should be rejected.)

Suggestions & edits are welcome. Pinging Robert McClenon, SmokeyJoe, DGG, and Tazerdadog. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Enterprisey. I agree with the text for the reviewing guide that you have proposed, but would propose the following change: "Rejection is a good choice for a draft that would likely be the subject of an uncontroversial PROD, or if an AFD on the draft would be a unanimous "delete", or that would be subject to an article-oriented speedy deletion, such as A1, A3, A7, or A9. If the draft meets one of the not-article criteria for speedy deletion, an appropriate CSD tag should be added." Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I may be in a minority of one, but I will continue also to either reject or decline any draft that is also tagged for speedy deletion. That is just so that another reviewer will not look at it in the remaining hours before it is deleted. I also think that the decline or rejection comments may provide further reason for the nomination to the deleting admin. For instance, if the draft uses the first person plural "we", I point out that that is promotional and not encyclopedic, just to make clear to the admin what I have seen. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I will still occasionally use {{UFW}} when I have a little difficulty justifying a rejection, but that is just my choice as long as I have UFW, and I don't want it to go away. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


I'd suggest something like:
Drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia should be rejected. Rejection is a good choice if the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it was an article. This can be through a CSD criterion, PROD, or an overwhelming consensus at AfD. If the draft meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion as a draft, an appropriate CSD tag should be added in addition to rejecting.
This has one change that I would consider substantive, and a few I consider basically wordsmithing. The substantive change is instructing reviewers to reject a page in addition to tagging it for CSD if a criterion applies right now. I also made some wordsmithing changes: Unanimous AfD --> overwhelming consensus at AfD (the draft author would likely support no matter what for example), non-article --> as a draft (to clarify how the G series, and the nonarticle, nondraft criteria should be applied), moving some sentences around to combine CSD criteria with PROD and AfD as potential article deletion reasons into one sentence.
Edits and suggestions are once again welcomed Tazerdadog (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
including a referenced to other deletion standards confuses the issue. In practice, VSD in this context usually means WP:CSDA7. We do not expect a draft to immediately indicate significance at the first writing. And whether it would be deleted on Prod means nothing except that the author didn't show up to defend it. Using AFD as a standard will cause confusion with the standard for accepting a draft. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with the point on PROD, and we could probably emphasize CSD a bit less. I don't know how to phrase the AfD requirement in other words, though. We could try enumerating the various reject reasons, but that would be a pain to update when we add more reject reasons.
Drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia should be rejected. Rejection is a good choice when the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it were an article, for example if the page would be an overwhelming "delete" at AfD. If a draft meets a non-article CSD criterion, an appropriate CSD tag should be added in addition to rejecting.
Still needs a bit more work; the second part of the second sentence is still jargon-y to me but I'm not sure how to simplify it. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Put AfC templates and comments on the talk page?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
☑Y Consensus in favor.As Enterprisey sez:-)WBGconverse 12:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a proposal to put all AfC status templates, maintenance templates, comments, and such on the draft talk page instead of the draft page, where they currently are. This would enable reviewers and draft authors to hold normal conversations on the talk page, and would (as a side effect) retain all conversation if the draft is moved to mainspace. A general disclaimer-style AfC banner will remain on the draft page, informing readers that the draft is not an article yet. A script (or Lua template) can also be written to summarize the status of the draft so far, for use by reviewers and others interested in AfC reviewing operations. Robert McClenon was the most recent person to suggest this, and this issue has also come up in the past before then. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarification: The previous status of the draft will be summarized in the banner by default. Every decline reason and comment will appear on the draft page, except (of course) taking up less room. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support; I've heard this come up a few times, and I have not heard good reasons why it should not be done, except perhaps technical ones ("it would be difficult"). Given that this is being proposed by the maintainer of the AFCH tool, that doesn't seem to apply. This would train draft users that the talk page is the correct place to discuss page issues, and create more of a two way conversation. Seems positive all around. I think perhaps the most recent decline reason should be transcluded onto the article page; e.g. ("this page was declined because..."). Overall I see this as a positive change. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, we can always have whatever banner ends up on the draft page have a small summary of the templates on the talk page, {{Article history}} style, so that editors won't even need to use a script. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    It's doable from a technical perspective; we could LST the talk page onto the main draft page, and modify the decline notices so that when they're transcluded from the draft talk to the draft it would basically just display a small {{ombox}} for each previous decline. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Copying my comment from the last time this came up:
I agree that the best place for discussion/templates on any given draft is the draft talk page. Most of the information should be moved there to maintain consistency - We use the talk page in this way everywhere else on Wikipedia. That said, I'd like the top of the draft page itself to contain a few pieces of information without needing to click over to the talk pages.
1) A link to the draft talk page if and only if there's something to read there (a human-written message or a template that's intended for the author to read for example.) This can be along the lines of a talkback template with somewhat altered text.
2) A summary of the status of the draft (submitted, declined, rejected, never submitted). In particular, I'd like to know if I'm looking at a page where I need to be considering a MFD, so repeated rejections and perhaps declines should show up in some form.
Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I would like to see point 1 addressed, but it's not a dealbreaker. Point 2 can be adequately addressed by a script for reviewers. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, we can do both with either Lua or a script. I said "script" in the proposal, but Lua is more efficient, I'd think. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and maybe put a small template at the top of the draft to link to the talk page. L293D ( • ) 13:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be inconvenient for users to check if the draft is currently submitted. They also cannot see how many times the draft has been declined. Maybe we can design a small notice in the draft page that shows whether or not the draft is submitted and displays the number of declines and comments? (new template?) —AE (talkcontributions) 14:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    Yup, we could change the color of the banner or something. This would also help with the problem where a "pending" banner is inserted all the way at the bottom. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as cited above. I am not the original proposer, but have simply agreed every time that this has been suggested. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Talk goes on talk pages. Comments that could lead to a conversation should be on a talk page. I have seen many times newcomers confused by the comments and submit combination being on top of the draft.
I'm not sure whether we were leaning towards the review having the option to comment on (a) the draft, (b) the draft_talk, and (c) the author's user_talk page. On one hand I am wary of suggesting feature creep, but I can imagine good reasons to want to choose any one of the three. For example: (a) A draft page proper comment pointing to multiple articles where the topic is already covered; (b) suggestions for improvement; (c) suggestions for different topics the author might more productively contribute to.
If (c) were to be an option, it might need to assist the reviewer in choosing which author is the main author.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the established pattern for every other namespace. It would be better for new editors to get in the habit of having discussions in talk pages right away, instead of having to unlearn commenting practices specific to AfC later. — Newslinger talk 11:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't see a downside except that feedback is one click away. It is probably a good idea to get new editors used to using talk pages. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Makes sense to me. Only problem could be finding the feedback, though perhaps that could be explained in the AfC banner that would still be there. SemiHypercube 16:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We already put several barriers in the way of new editors - barriers that I largely support. However "hiding" things on talk pages until their article has been rejected (if it's ever reviewed at all when they can't find where to submit it) doesn't strike me as serving the needs of those editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: The plan is to just have comments go to the talk page. Editors will still get plenty of notice that there are messages for them (both on their talk page, as well as on the main page of their draft). The AfC template will still also be on the draft page (not just on the talk page). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Having discussed this with Enterprisey I think his intention is to transclude the talk template onto the draft page. In this scenario I could get behind the proposal once that change is incorporated into the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't like an uncollapsed straight transclusion, as that's just the current state of affairs. A summarized form with just the decline reasons is what I'm currently thinking of. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to be a reasonable change. (Summoned by bot) Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I have long advocated this change, and sometimes I copy AfC comments to talk for future reference when accepting new articles. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Apologies that I am not up to speed on previous discussion of this proposal. I have a couple questions.

We need to think about what we want the talk page to look like after a draft has been accepted. Retaining the reviewer comments in a clearly-marked talk section is potentially valuable but a wall of pink AfC reject templates, probably not. What is the thinking here?

Who is going to do this work? There's not much point of approving a change unless there is a person or team that is actually going to implement the change. ~Kvng (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

We can probably remove the templates; people can find them in the history anyway. I will implement at least the helper script changes. Enterprisey (talk!) 17:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

How will some of our newest editors know to check the talk page to submit their article for review? I can tell you that even in the current system how to submit their article for review is something new editors sometimes need support with doing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The templates on the draft page and the decline/rejection messages should explicitly tell editors to check the talk page. If editors don't notice the message, we can bold it or increase its font size. — Newslinger talk 14:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
A button will be on the draft page banner for resubmission. We can also put one on the talk page templates. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Important We really should talk to the growth team at WMF before making this change. The new AfC tools that will be at Special:NewPagesFeed rely on categories present on the draft page itself (which are put there by the templates). I'm pretty sure they could rework it to go off of the talk page, but let's keep them informed. Pinging MMiller (WMF) MusikAnimal talk 02:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the optimal solution would be making the "banner template" add the proper categories to the draft page, so that the categories include only drafts; as a bonus, the rest of the AfC ecosystem (NewPagesFeed, SQL's tool, pending-subs) wouldn't have to change anything. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me, MusikAnimal. That's right, Enterprisey, the New Pages Feed will be keyed off categories on the draft page (not the talk page). If anything changes in terms of what or where the categories are, we should discuss. It's possible for our code to accommodate those type of changes, but we would just need to know in advance. Also pinging our team's engineering lead, Roan_Kattouw_(WMF) to make sure this all looks okay from his perspective.
I'd also like to add one other note based on the conversation above. The Growth team's research on new editors suggests that new editors frequently don't understand that talk pages exist, how to find them, and what they're for. This might be something to consider when moving templates from the draft page to the talk page. If the initial submission template, for instance, is on the talk page instead of the draft page, I think that many new editors wouldn't find it, and would be confused about how to submit. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
We would retain a banner on the draft page that has all of the information about draft status. The resubmit button and draft tools would also stay on the banner. The only reason the author would need to navigate directly to the draft talk page would be to respond to a discussion there, and the "I left a comment" template should indicate that. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Drafts with Same Names as Articles[edit]

Copied content developed here to Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles where development continues.
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 is a backlog of about 140 drafts whose names are also in article space. I am trying to work this backlog, but would like to discuss a few of the typical cases.

Draft Is Same as Article with Same Author (article okay)[edit]

The draft is the same, or almost the same as, the article, and both are by the same editor, and the article deserves to stay in article space. Decline the draft, saying that the article exists, as a courtesy to the author to put a note on their talk page. Then turn the declined draft into a redirect.

The reject will post to the author's user talk page so separate posting is not necessary. Quickly turning the draft into a redirect may confuse the author. I usually just let these fade. ~Kvng (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft Is Same as Article with Same Author (neither any good)[edit]

This is relatively rare but can happen.

  • If the draft is speedyable (probably G11 or G12), speedy them both.
  • If the article is speedyable (probably A7), speedy it, and decline or reject the draft on notability grounds.
  • If the article needs a deletion discussion, nominate it for AFD, and decline the draft but leave it standing. Deletion of the article will be a side-door draftification.
Also a possibility is a good draft and a lousy article. I've never seen this happen though. ~Kvng (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
If it's a good draft and a lousy article, nominate the article for deletion, or speedy it. Comment on the draft that it is waiting for the AFD on the lousy article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Article name is already used for a different subject[edit]

This happens frequently with biographies of people who share a name.

  • Disambiguate the draft
  • If you choose to also accept the draft, determine whether the subject or a new disambiguation page should replace the current article as the primary topic and, if so, propose reorganization. Otherwise add hatnotes or disambiguation page entries.

Article Name is a Disambiguation Page[edit]

Disambiguate the draft.

  • If it is not ready for acceptance, decline it as appropriate. This will take it out of the category of matches.
  • If the draft is ready for acceptance, accept it. Update the parent disambiguation page to include the new article.

Article Name is a Redirect for a section on the Draft Topic[edit]

  • If the draft does not merit a stand-alone article, decline it with 'mergeto' and suggest adding any new information to the main article.
  • If the draft now does merit a stand-alone article, this is a tricky case, because the redirect blocks the move. If you have the Page Mover privilege, do a round-robin move to get the redirect out the way, then accept the draft. (What do I now do with the orphan redirect? G6 it?)
I have tried that. I will report on whether a deleting admin agrees that is a valid G6. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes. The orphaned redirects can be deleted as G6. (If you don't have the Page Mover privilege, request a Technical Move. If you are an administrator, delete the orphaned redirect yourself.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
This is how I do it. Just put {{Db-g6|rationale=Make way to accept Draft:Example}} on the page that's in the way. ~Kvng (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft and Article are Different (but with same name)[edit]

Disambiguate the draft. Then either accept it (with the new name) or decline it. If accepted, add a hatnote to the original.

Making an accept/decline decision is not required. I often just do the disambiguation and let the review happen by me or someone else in due course. ~Kvng (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft Is Same Topic as Article but Different Text and Different Authors[edit]

  • Decline draft with 'exists'. If draft has information not in article, comment that author of draft can edit and improve article.
The author is already notified by the decline. In addition, I will leave a comment on the article's talk page:

Draft:Example[edit]

Please consider incorporating any useful material from the above submission into this article. The submission is eligible for deletion in 6 months. ~Kvng (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

What Else?[edit]

Thoughts?Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This all looks very reasonable. I would have mentioned the corresponding draftspace article if I know about it in my AFD nomination. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Mention that in declining the article. That isn't a situation I have seen much, but the law of extremely large numbers may apply, which means that anything that is not impossible, no matter how unlikely, will eventually happen. (A few years ago, there was a baseball game with a score of 30-3. An American, looking at that score, will ask whether that is American football, but it was baseball. The odds against such a high score in baseball, based on experience, appear to be approximately one million to 1 against, but there have been approximately a million games played in the so-called modern era of baseball, so there.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. I have made some inline comments. We should publish this somewhere besides the talk page. Maybe on the category page. ~Kvng (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Draft Is Same Topic as Article but Different Text and Different Authors
Alternative:
Merge the draft into the existing article, redirect the draft, add appropriate attribution. Even to the extent of a straight copy paste over the top of the existing article if the draft is that much better (keeps history intact and improves the article). Consider if history merge may be appropriate.
Do not move the existing article out of mainspace. If existing page is truly inappropriate (pure promotion or copyvio) then nominate for speedy deletion and then if deleted accept draft in its place. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I have placed a copy of this discussion at Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles. I am doing additional refinement on it there. ~Kvng (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2018 (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.

Straw poll on a new backlog drive[edit]

Just checking to see if people are interested in holding a new one as the backlog nears 4K. Consensus here means I'll start serious work on resurrecting the scoring bot, and we can start talking about specific rules for the drive. This time around, extra emphasis will be made on making sure reviews are high-quality; this can be done with the re-review system that is used during drives. I believe with the right set of rewards/penalties, we can ensure that people don't just grind through reviews as fast as possible. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - The backlog is large and slowly growing. We need to focus some energy on the project. I prefer a lightweight structure for the backlog. Lots of rules, in some sense, just invites people to game them. I suggest there's no need to score anyone. Let's keep it like an elementary school soccer league and just give everyone participation barnstars. I do really like the review-the-review component of previous backlogs and hope we can bring that back to life. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    I think rewards at the end, and feeling like one has earned them, are important to the overall "gamification" of the drive. I would prefer if we didn't remove them, since reviewers will be more motivated if score-based awards are present. Sort of on-topic food for thought: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/10/06/should-every-young-athlete-get-a-trophy. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Update: Backlog is now slowly shrinking but I still support a backlog drive. ~Kvng (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I proposed this a few months ago and I highly support this. AmericanAir88(talk) 23:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Early in the year NPP was very successful with its backlog drive. The awards I sent out can be found here. The hard part about running it was re-reviewing a couple dozen articles from everyone who participated to make sure that I wasn't awarding sloppy work. From memory I only had to make one chastisement for minor mistakes, so the fears that a backlog drive would lead to sloppy reviewing seem to have been largely unfounded. Someone needs to commit to using the AFC stat tool to check a sub-sample of each reviewer's reviews to make sure that everything is above board. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    I really like those awards, and may be stealing some of them for the awards this time around. Face-smile.svg Enterprisey (talk!) 00:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The backlog is growing and perhaps we can attract new volunteers to help, who would stay after the drive is complete. The sooner the better, and we might want to have an IRC channel dedicated to helping new reviewers, as well as a process to fast-track new applicants who are qualified. Acebulf (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I just came back from vacation and see the number of entries almost doubled? Maybe I had too much to drink on break. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support — let's do this thing. The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-afc connect already exists and can be used to help and encourage each other. Bradv 00:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Things are definitely piling up CAT:VERYOLD is over 500 submissions and likely to hit 700 in a week or so Tokyoyo (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and support barnstars also. AT NPP they did a backlog drive in July which dropped the NPP backlog from 3000 to less than 500. That was impressive. L293D ( • ) 12:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: So it's a bit late to start an October one, but I think targeting November is a good idea. I'll get a scoring bot together, and I'll be holding one or two test drives (with no awards) to get all the bugs out before the real drive starts. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support We need it.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2018[edit]

{{AFC submission|||ts=20180924093759|u= Draft:Kietaviškių gausa |ns=5}} Paulius0605 (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Currently, when we notify a user with empty talk page about a decline or accept, the {{Talk header}} is automatically placed on top of the user's talk page. Should we remove it? I don't see the need for it, and the user has the final decision on what is put in their talk page (or maybe they don't even know what the talk page header is for). —AE (talkcontributions) 12:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Desimartini[edit]

I had a person request help on #Wikipedia-en-help about this draft. I think there's some notability in the first couple sources, but there's some spammy text, so I would like to have a third opinion about it before taking any action. Thanks, L293D ( • ) 12:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Reduce it to a short few paragraphs and merge with HT Media. It's a subsidiary brand without independent notability. 90% of the article is unsourced or cited to primary sources. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

AFCH Request for Access to the AfC helper script/Articles for creation/Participant[edit]

Hello. I am requesting to start helping with Articles for creation again. I have read the rules and understand the rules. Thank you. Schwartzenberg (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Schwartzenberg: Use Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants please. Regards —AE (talkcontributions) 13:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Active[edit]

Hey all, you can move me to the active list. Sorry for the delay in starting after my request. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October!



New: Clubs Science fiction + fantasy STEM The Mediterranean

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Promotionalism[edit]

I happened to run across Draft talk:EOS Group#Promotional terms, in which a highly experienced editor gives this sentence as an example of inappropriate promotionalism: "The EOS Group has more than 55 operating companies with locations in 26 countries"

(The editor who left this comment says on that talk page that s/he doesn't want to invest more time in this, which is perfectly acceptable, so I'm not pinging him. Also, this is not an unusual comment, so it'd be unfair to single out one person.)

It seems to me that this sentence is very similar to sentences that are found in the lead of several Wikipedia:Featured articles, including:

  • BAE Systems:  "Its headquarters are in London in the United Kingdom and it has operations worldwide."
  • Cracker Barrel:  "As of September 1, 2018, the chain operates 645 stores in 44 states."

My question for you: Do we have any decent pages that explain what "promotionalism" is, and (importantly) how promotionalism differs from reporting positive facts? When the subject actually is the biggest, fastest, first, etc., then it's not promotionalism to say that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  • It's completely up to you, the wording "more than" is not encyclopedic and the entire sentence lacks definition. Consider "As of 2018 the company operates 55 subsidiary companies in 26 countries". This basic problem pervades the entire article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Really? I don't find "more than" in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, and I do find that phrase several thousand times in real encyclopedias. I see, for example, that Spain is "rather more than twice the size of Great Britain", that there are "more than 1600 [hours] per annum" of bright sunshine in England, and that a Greek writer, "in more than one place", expressed his views on slavery. This notion that the phrase "more than" is unencyclopedic tone appears to be a personal opinion rather than an actual rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Used in this context it is common as dirt promotional language, streaked like a skid mark through Wikipedia. "X is more than twice Y in size" is a bad faith thing to respond with -- like claiming that instances of "eat shit and die" (used as an invective) are the same as "My dog was mentally ill and ate shit and died and we are all so sad". Articles about academics consistently contain the promotional language "Dr. Impressive has more than 900 peer-reviewed publications" (often copied from promotional faculty web pages) which I regularly change to "around 900 publications". This thing: "FantastiCo sells more than 800 kinds of gadgets" or "has more than 55 subsidiaries" is exactly the same promotional crap. Jytdog (talk)
      • And I will add that of course there are no "rules" here. Finding a bunch of "more than"s used this way is a sign of advocacy or PR editing or an editor who has read way too many press releases. It is not definitive but rather one thing to be considered among others.Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)And none of those are describing companies. You also have to consider that we are neither the Britannica or in 1911. Addressing the three you bring up, the first is a comparison and approximation (more than 2x rather than 2.41718322755x - we also have MOS:UNCERTAINTY, but you were giving a specific figure already), the second is also an approximation, and the third is a short phrase meaning multiple (also potentially indicating they didn't bother finding the exact number, which may also be approximation). This is in addition to what Frayae said about definition, and "more than" is frequently used in promotional statements - words to watch is not inclusive of every phrase that may be promotional. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The draft definitely has a promotional tone. However, in isolation, I personally don't find a promotional or non-encyclopedic problem with "more than". Specifying an approximate number seems even slipperier. "More than" seems like a reasonable and more robust construct than an exact number if a/ it is a mathematically true statement and b/ the quantity is expected to change and is more likely to go up than down. {{As of}} is a valid suggestion but may introduce an unnecessary maintenance burden. ~Kvng (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I haven't read the draft, but I assume, in my "guilty until proven innocent" way, that it is meant to be promotional from start to finish, and that any non-promotional sentence in it was an error. I just don't think that saying "It has more than 55 companies" is actually promotional. I completely agree with Kvng: This exact sentence is not promotional wording, and trying to pin it down to exactly one number creates a pointless maintenance burden on us.
(Tangent: There are other potential complications, if you think about this example. What counts as "one operating company"? Alphabet Inc. is a holding company; it holds the operating company Google LLC. Google LLC, in turn holds YouTube, Inc.. Is that "one operating company" (Google only) or "two" (Google + YouTube)? Saying that there is "more than" the smallest accurate number neatly sidesteps all of those complications about how you define boundaries between heavily inter-related companies.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

New Pages Feed ready for use by AfC reviewers[edit]

After several months of development, the New Pages Feed is ready for use by AfC reviewers! Reviewers can now use the feed to find and prioritize drafts for review, instead of choosing randomly or by category from this page. To use the New Pages Feed:

1. Go to the New Pages Feed.

2. Select the "Articles for Creation" toggle at the top of the feed.

3. Select a "State" to filter the list. These are the available states, all of which exclude redirects:

  • Unsubmitted: drafts that have never been submitted for review.
  • Awaiting review: drafts that have been submitted for review and correspond to this category. This is the option to select to find drafts to review.
  • Under review: drafts that have been marked as under review with the AFCH gadget, and are therefore being reviewed at that moment.
  • Declined: drafts that have been submitted and declined, but have not yet been resubmitted.
  • All: all drafts in English Wikipedia. This adds up to the other four categories combined.

4. Sort the list by a date:

  • Created date (newest): drafts created most recently are first.
  • Created date (oldest): drafts created least recently are first.
  • Submitted date (newest): drafts submitted most recently to AfC are first. Only available when "State" filter is "Awaiting review" or "Under review".
  • Submitted date (oldest): drafts that have been waiting the longest for AfC review are first. Only available when "State" filter is "Awaiting review" or "Under review".
  • Declined date (newest): drafts that were declined most recently are first. Only available when "State" filter is "Declined".
  • Declined date (oldest): drafts that were declined least recently are first. Only available when "State" filter is "Declined".

5. Click the title of a draft to open it in a new tab.

6. Review as usual, using the AFCH gadget.

As announced above, this is the first of three enhancements happening over the next month to improve the toolset for AfC and NPP reviewers. The next one will be deployed as soon as Thursday, October 4 (or in the days that follow), and will add ORES scores to the feed so that drafts can be prioritized based on how likely they are to be high or low quality. The final enhancement will add copyvio detection to the feed, and is expected during the week of October 14. You can actually test out both of those upcoming features in Test Wiki!

Please comment here or on the project talk page if you find bugs or have any thoughts or reactions. We're hoping this work makes it easier to be an AfC reviewer, so that high quality drafts can make it into the article space faster!

Thank you to the many AfC reviewers who weighed in to shape this project over the last many months, and who were patient with our team as we learned more about the AfC process. Our team really felt like this has been a partnership with the community.

To read more about this project, check out the project page here. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

AFCH removing full stops after a ref rather than moving them[edit]

Towards the bottom of this edit, made using the Cleanup function of AFCH, it appears to have removed a full stop that appeared after a ref tag - but this now leaves the sentence with no ending punctuation. Perhaps it should have moved the dot to before the ref rather than just removing it? – numbermaniac 08:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Enterprisey. Primefac (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Tags on Drafts[edit]

I occasionally encounter drafts that have been tagged with one of the notability tags, or one of the style tags, such as 'advert', or a POV tag. My question is: Am I correct that these tags are being applied in good-faith error, and that they are not really appropriate for drafts? Certainly, a concern about notability is a reason, and the most common reason, to decline a draft, but the tags are really for articles, and can serve as a caution to the creator that someone else may choose to AFD the article. I can see that cleanup tags are reasonable on drafts, but am I correct that notability tags should not be used on drafts, because comments and declines are in order instead? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

My take: Drafts can be declined for notability, sourcing, copyright violation or NPV. Maybe there's a valid reason to tag rather than decline for these reasons but these issues need to be resolved and these tags removed before accept. There are plenty of other less serious cleanup tags that can be appropriately added to drafts and retained through accept. ~Kvng (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
So are you guys raising the bar for draft acceptability above and beyond the WP:Criteria for speedy deletion? I've seen drafts declined for subjective reasons like "not enough reliable sources". Now, if that's a valid reason for declining a draft, then we need to rethink {{Unreferenced}}, a template that should only be used on articles that have no citations or references at all. If none of the 195,000 articles with no sources would make it past the AfC reviewers, then maybe there should be a criterion for speedily deleting them all. If not, then your standards are too high. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Seeing the multiply-declined draft Draft:Cedar Knolls, New York is what prompted me to come here. What speedy-deletion criterion would knock this one out if it was moved to mainspace? wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
NPV and reliable sourcing are in our reviewer instructions so I mentioned them above. Of course the primary and overriding criteria is how a draft is expected to fare at WP:AFD. Reviewers without a lot of AFD experience probably should stick to the instructions. This means there are (a lot of) times we reject potentially acceptable material. My observation is that this is the will of the AFC community. We're a lot more conservative than the WP:LIKELY to survive criteria. ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Article in Quartz[edit]

This article is making the rounds of social media today. Any thoughts on it? Kaldari (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Was wondering when that'll hit the press. I've complained about AfCers not accepting people who pass WP:NPROF before. My advice to reviewers is, for people in the sciences at-least to just google the person's name in google scholar; if they have more than 500 cites on a paper they'd usually pass the "likely" survive Afd bar IMO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
personally, I don't really understand how it's a big deal. All we really have done as a project is ask for more sourcing for an individual. I understand that the subject is clearly notable, but we can't really claim to be infalible. I find it a little unlikely that, with 4000 articles in the queue, that we should be doing a WP:BEFORE search on every article that comes through AfC. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
You don't need to do a before search, just a quick google on google scholar on any academic to see if they've done anything important Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I recently accepted an article on a notable professor and it was deleted almost immediately as G11. These drafts are often highly promotional, copy from faculty sources, have no independent references and are otherwise not suitable for approval. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean obviously decline drafts that are promotional even if they may meet WP:NPROF (something I've erred on too unfortunately)Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't that article's headline be "Journalist Forced to write own article, unable to copy biography from Wikipedia." ? Cabayi (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
There's some more discussion of this at Talk:Donna_Strickland#Notability Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Let me copy what TonyBallioni said there here

V and BLP do not require independence, they require reliability, which a professional bio published on the site of a professional organization is. It is independent enough to verify that she wasn’t making up the claims, which is the purpose of independence in these cases (i.e. they’re not going to publish her biography claiming she was a fellow if she wasn’t. It wasn’t a personal website.) PROF does not require as strict independence as other guidelines in that it is a merit based standard for people where intellectually independent coverage is difficult. This met the basic requirements for promotion to mainspace. It wasn’t the best article, but that’s not the purpose of AfC: the purpose of AfC is to determine if an article has a more likely than not chance of surviving AfD, which this clearly did as there was proof of notability under PROF in the references.

Since he's made the point more eloquently than me and this should be read by AfC reviewers. I don't think we can bury our head in the sand regarding WP:PROF (lack of) acceptances which has been raised as an issue before. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I then clarified a bit more: PROF wants independence in that it wants to avoid personal websites making claims that can’t be verified, but a biography on an academic society’s website claiming she was a fellow of that society is independent enough to verify that she indeed wasn’t making up the claim to pass PROF3. We need enough independence that we can be confident that someone isn’t just making crap up, but we don’t need WP:ORGIND or GNG level sourcing here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Let me add that, even if you really dislike WP:PROF or whatever, the fact is that it is a guideline and the standard used at WP:AFD and so what WP:AFC needs to use, and is in general interpreted pretty broadly at WP:AFD in my experience, hence my comment regarding "any paper with more than 500 cites" being enough to accept an article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
On that point, one of my personal biggest issues with AfC (and why I stay away from it) is that the standards applied by long-term reviewers tend to be significantly higher than the standards applied at AfD. WP:NOTPERFECT is often forgotten: if we have reasonable grounds to believe someone is notable, we have enough sourcing to satisfy V and there are no BLP violations or PROMO issues, we should be promoting to main space, where NPP can deal with it and if need be take it to AfD for the community to decide. Declining a notable individual because the proof of her notability was a biography on the organization that made her notable (where she happened to be a board member) isn’t great: once moved to main space more people will see it and hopefully it will be improved, but stuff like this makes the Wikispeak definitions of AfC ring true. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. There's a reason in mainspace that unless an article is utterly non-notable it generally requires at-least a few people to look over an article rather than one person vetoing the existence an article. AfC has artificially high standards belying the stated goal of Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined. Issues that do not affect the likelihood of success at AFD (e.g., halo effects like formatting) should not be considered when making this fundamental calculation.
I also find here that there's a tendency where bad accepts get complained about while bad declines get ignored or dismissed. But complaining doesn't do anything to help so.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not our fault that academics suck at PR or that the generaĺ media cares more about the Kardashians than Nobel laureates. Quartz has one hell of a cheek to be bitching about our lack of an article on a subject they have never even mentioned before. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, Kaldari, I personally think The Atlantic article is a better read and covers more of the issues: [1]. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
One thing I don't understand is why Bradv and others say that the draft didn't have adequate reliable sources. Wouldn't the OSA page be sufficient? (And for the record, I don't mean to demonize Bradv. I think he does great work and everyone makes mistakes.) Also, I agree with the sentiment that standards for Draft promotion should not be higher than AfD. In fact, I think they should be lower, personally, as the article will be re-reviewed by new page reviewers anyway. AfC should just be a sanity check to screen out obvious spam, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Kaldari, WP:NRV, which requires independent sources, applies to all articles regardless of which notability criteria is used. The difference between AfC and AfD is in the WP:BEFORE check, which would have established whether such independent sources are available. At AfC, the expected practice is only to determine whether they are already in the article, and if not, to leave a message for the reviewer on how to improve (i.e. decline). Bradv 18:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bradv: Got it. Thanks for the explanation. Hope you're weathering this storm OK. I'm sure it's incredibly stressful. Kaldari (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I just wrote this on Bradv's page on the topic: I'm honestly confused by the notion that an organization's own statement of its membership is not a reliable source, regardless of external verification. Indeed, what would that "independent" verifier rely on other than the organization's claim? IOW, an organization is and must be the only authoritative source of its own membership. This might need explicit recognition. --Eponymous-Archon (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Eponymous-Archon: Independent reliable sources generally gather information from a variety of sources, including the subject, their acquaintances, and their organizations. Are you arguing that membership in The Optical Society should be an inherently notable thing? FallingGravity 08:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@FallingGravity: I think my question was clearly put. It had nothing to do with what defined notability, here or in other cases. In fact it doesn't include the word "notable" at all. Let me try again: how is an organization's claim regarding its membership not reliable on its face? Where else would anyone reliably get membership information except from the organization, including the members themselves? So if one finds from organization ABC (e.eg, via its website) that X is a member of that organization, that alone should make that information reliable --Eponymous-Archon (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Eponymous-Archon: It probably depends on the organization's credibility. For most scientific organizations we can usually take their word at face value, but for more opportunistic organizations we'd want independent confirmation. For example, just because ISIS says Stephen Paddock was a soldier of the Islamic State doesn't mean it's true. FallingGravity 18:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@FallingGravity: I'd say we can safely make an exception for terrorist groups (opportunistic?), but otherwise virtually always accept what an organization says about its membership.--Eponymous-Archon (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
All of this is covered by WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. If you're proposing a change to that policy then you should take your concerns to that page's talk page. FallingGravity 06:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@FallingGravity: Are you saying that WP:PRIMARY covers such a case of an organization listing its membership or the contrary?--Eponymous-Archon (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I think so, but maybe WP:SELFPUBLISH or WP:ABOUTSELF are more relevant for this case. FallingGravity 00:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@FallingGravity: Sorry, still confused here. You think what, that WP:PRIMARY covers this kind of case, and if so, in which way? Again, my thought is that organization membership is basic, factual info for which only the organization can be a reliable source (excluding the unusual cases like ISIS that you mentioned above). The idea that I was responding to is that such a claim by the org (not by the member) is not reliable.--Eponymous-Archon (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I just said that WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:ABOUTSELF are probably more relevant to this case. What does this have to do with WP:Articles for Creation (this talk page is for discussing AfC)? FallingGravity 18:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

BEFORE[edit]

To repeat a point I've already made elsewhere: We probably wouldn't be having to have this conversation, if AfC applied something equivalent to AfD's WP:BEFORE.

So how can that be achieved, and what should the guidelines say? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess the argument is that the authors should be doing the draft development, not the reviewers. Less work for reviewers is good because of WP:VOLUNTEER and because of the backlog. I'm not sure these are good arguments. I admit, I don't always do WP:BEFORE declining. But when I do, I list the sources I found on the draft's talk page before accepting. This gets information gets carried to mainspace and can be used to improve the article there and potentially ward off unproductive deletion proposals and nominations. ~Kvng (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The essential difference is this. Supposing we have an article that has detailed coverage in 15 sources across 5 years, but the article cites none of them. A mainspace version goes to AfD, a draft version goes to review. The former would presumably get closed as "keep" even if no sources were added (while I greatly prefer people to add citations before !voting "keep" at AfD, it's not mandatory), while the draft would get repeatedly declined because "no sources added". That's basically where the disconnect is between the two.
So, do we need to change the AfC process to say, "if the article is unsourced, but you can find plenty of sources yourself, pass it"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
This is already covered in the WP:LIKELY to survive WP:AFD directive that presumably trumps process. We're going to get some incorrect declines by reviewers who do not think bigger than the process or who don't have a lot of AfD experience. My read is that this is working as intended because the community is more sensitive to crap coming out of AfC than we are to myopic declines (excepting cases like this where we receive outside criticism). ~Kvng (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Kvng: I'm not sure I'd call it "working as intended". I've seen and heard a fair bit of negative feedback over the years from new editors about having good drafts rejected for overly-pedantic reasons. And at least one of those new editors gave up on editing because of it. (You won't see the draft in their User Contributions because it was eventually abandoned and deleted, and I know for a fact that the draft was about a historical figure not connected to the editor.) Personally, I would support adding WP:BEFORE to the AfC review process. I don't do much AfC reviewing myself, but I've always practiced WP:BEFORE when I have. Kaldari (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm just giving you my read on the current sentiments here at AfC. I don't agree with it but it makes sense. Authors should be stakeholders here at AfC but they're not really because they're generally inexperienced and more likely to go away than argue against a bad review. Because of their inexperience, some will argue against good reviews. On the other hand, if, as a reviewer, you're going to accept a diamond-in-the-rough kind of draft you need a thick skin because you'll get criticism at AfD and often here at AfC too. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
What evidence is there that "one of those new editors" gave up on editing because of "rejection of their draft"? The editor concerned began editing on 5 November 2014, and continued visible edits to 19:41, 4 January 2016, so not exactly a new editor. On 12 January 2016 they created a sandbox for Joseph Ishill, though they could simply have created a new article. On the same day a template was put on their talk page saying the "recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time." The template goes on to encourage improved references to show notability. The author didn't return to make improvements, on 6 September 2016 the draft was nominated for deletion with an invitation on their talk page to resume editing, and ask for undeletion if they wanted to go back to their draft. The topic looks reasonably notable, so it's a shame they didn't just add it to main space, but the draft was hardly "rejected". The template looks a bit more helpful than "submission declined", but people can stop editing for many reasons. I'd like to see thought to making templates more encouraging, but that wording looks ok. Maybe "your draft still needs some improvement"? . . . dave souza, talk 10:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for Post in Portuguese[edit]

Can someone please tell User:Pipo.bizelli, in Portuguese, not to submit his draft in Portuguese any more? I declined it once, both as inadequately sourced and as in Portuguese, but now it has been resubmitted. My guess is that the submitter doesn't understand the English decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion requested[edit]

Could one of you give me a second opinion about Draft:Shaun B. Coleman? I'm inclined to accept it, but it's partly due to polite interactions I've had with the creator. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) L293D ( • ) 14:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Of the 19 cited, which are the 3 best sources for establishing notability? ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see many of the sources being good. One of them is a citation to Wikipedia itself. Several are company 'about' pages. These should be removed regardless. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, those should be removed but not as a condition for AfC acceptance. ~Kvng (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see anything much good in the sources and the article looks promotional, with things like "CloudVolumes was named one of the five strategic acquisitions that reshaped VMware" and "several premier events" with the whole thing looking like native advertising Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the above opinions User:L293D. Perhaps if he had won something as a race car driver, he might have squeezed-in under sports, but as the draft reads now, he appears to have a really good job and made some good investments. Atsme✍🏻📧 16:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Oops - screwed up the ping - L293D - there, that's better. Atsme✍🏻📧 16:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
One more for not notable. I don't see any of the sources as being indepth reliable independent articles about him as such, they're either short mentions of him in articles about other things, boilerplate forms, or blogs. I am also amused that source #2 (Bloomberg boilerplate) has the title "Terms of Service Violation". Face-tongue.svg --GRuban (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
At first glance it looks like the article has plenty of good sources, but after looking closer, you'll see that most of them are either unreliable, non-independent, or don't actually cover the topic at all. There are one or two OK sources, but overall, I don't think it passes yet. I'd probably lean towards declining as well.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 18:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Can you identify the one or two good sources for us? ~Kvng (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I declined this before seeing this discussion, not that it would have changed my mind but there isn't a single useful source in that draft. Praxidicae (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
And L293D I have to seriously question your judgement. What of any of the sources did you base your "inclined to accept it" on? Crunchbase is a basic profile that anyone could have, same for this, is mostly an interview in an unknown, not widely read website, a random text file, perhaps you can enlighten me as to what this and this is supposed to be, a non-notable companies about us, rehashed press garbage, user submitted forbes content, wikipedia, worthless announcement, an image of a patent, a photo montage from someones personal unreliable website, an about us from another unreliable source....should I continue? Praxidicae (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't forget the Bloomberg source which had its title set to "Terms of Service Violation"! – numbermaniac 13:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • and there is WP:COPYLINK violation with the newspaper article posted to somebody's linkedin profile. Please don't move policy violations into mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Non-notable: promotionalism-only on a nn individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

"Predicted class" and "Potential issues" added to New Pages Feed[edit]

We have now completed the second part of the three part project to improve reviewing tools for AfC reviewers.

Here is what has changed in the New Pages Feed. These additions are meant to help reviewers quickly find and prioritize drafts that need review soonest:

  • All drafts are scored with two sets of predictions (more explanation of how this works is below):
    • Predicted class: this estimates a class for each page (Stub, Start, C-class, B-class, Good, Featured).
    • Potential issues: this identifies which pages are most likely to be spam, attack, or vandalism.
  • The predictions are listed along with each page in the feed for reviewers to reference.
  • Reviewers can filter the feed to only pages of certain predicted classes or with potential issues.
  • As pages change, so will their predictions. For instance, if a reviewer removes spam content from a page, that page would likely stop being shown as potentially spam in the feed. Or if an editor keeps working on their draft, it might improve from "Stub" to "Start".

For instance, right now there are 40 drafts awaiting review that are predicted to be "B-class" or better. Those might be good drafts to review first because they are likely to have high quality content that could be delivered to the article namespace quickly (and they might be written by eager newbies who could use the positive reinforcement!)

Below is more background on where these predictions come from. As this community updates any documentation around the New Pages Feed and how to review pages, our team is happy to help with any explanations or screenshots. Let me know!

ORES is a system built by the WMF Scoring Platform team, led by Halfak (WMF), that automatically classifies edits and pages using machine learning. ORES models are in use at the Recent Changes and Watchlist feeds, where they estimate "content quality" and "user intent". We have added two different models to the New Pages Feed, which estimate the "predicted class" and whether an article has "potential issues". The models are built by looking at existing examples of articles that have been given a class, or shown to have issues, and then the algorithm learns what it looks like when future articles have those same characteristics.

It's important to note, as was referenced many times in the community discussion around planning these enhancements, that these predictions are only predictions. Because they are only suggestions from an algorithm, they are often wrong. Reviewers are meant to use them to find pages that are more likely to have those characteristics, in order to help make reviewing work more efficient. They can also be taken into account when doing a review. But at the end of the day, as several experienced reviewers emphasized in the community discussion, human judgment is still what should be deciding whether a page is of high quality or not.

As reviewers work with these models, cases will come up where the models seem to be wrong. It is really helpful to the Scoring Platform team to report those cases! They can use those to recalibrate and improve the models. Here is where and how to do that.

Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, or bugs with the new ORES classifications. Our next (and final) enhancement to the New Pages Feed will be the addition of copyvio detection, planned for the week of October 15 or October 22. I will be back with more information on that. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC: requiring a BEFORE search when declining drafts[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Going from the general flow of the discussion, it seems that the consensus is to oppose this proposal, mainly on the grounds that:

1. Notability alone does not determine an article's suitability for the encyclopedia

2. The sources cited in the article should be sufficient to establish notability -- otherwise the draft is not ready for the encyclopedia

3. Requiring such a search would further increase the backlog and add unneeded bureaucratic procedure

There's really no need to keep piling on opposes here. Therefore, I think this discussion is ready for closure. All the best, ProgrammingGeek talktome 21:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)


Should a BEFORE-style search be part of the AfC workflow when declining drafts? Bradv 14:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not. Most drafts are crap and/or paid spam. The onus should be on the author to demonstrate suitability. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I expect this would be prohibitively time consuming. A real BEFORE can take something on the order of 20 or 30 minutes. GMGtalk 14:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support brief search - So long as the draft does not A) immediately qualify for one of the CSD criteria, or B) is so unfinished that it would need to be fundamentally rewritten; a brief search is advisable. Spending 20-30 minutes digging isn't practical, but a quick perusal of Google news/books is often enough to give a quick "yep its notable". If you don't even bother doing a brief search, you won't know this. For more borderline topics that require in depth searching in old newspapers, etc. to find anything resembling a good source, these can be declined as normal as it isn't reasonable to expect this level of searching from reviewers. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 14:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I’d rather see higher standards for acceptance of reviewers, and higher standards of acceptance for article creators rather than an on-the-job training approach.. Atsme✍🏻📧 15:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Brief search - If you are declining a draft on notability alone, you should be required to do a single google search on the topic to establish it's lack of obvious notability. If you are declining on other reasons instead of or in addition to pure notability, this should not be required. Further searches after the first google will not save enough additional drafts to be worth the requirement. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - Many drafts are not even worth declining. The reviewer should not be required to waste time doing a search, which will simply consume time verifying the obvious. Even on reasonable-quality drafts, the burden should be on the submitter to include the appropriate references in the draft before submitting. Requiring a BEFORE search before drafts are declined will work in the favor of spammers, who will know that their drafts cannot be declined quickly. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Many drafts do not qualify for any of the CSD criteria, because of exceptions to G1 and G2, or because they are simply crud, and can hardly be said to be "unfinished" because the submitter doesn't have a clue. There is no way that the reviewer should be burdened with a search, e.g., to verify that a high school student is only a non-notable teenager. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Every editor is entitled to an occasional genuinely terrible idea. If User:Bradv is actually trying to add this to the flow, they have used their quota. If they were just asking, the question has been answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, crap. If each editor is limited to one genuinely terrible idea, I'm way over quota. I hope I don't get voted off the island. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This proposal would bring the workflow used here more in line with how things are done at NPP. There are respected editors who would like to see AfC abolished and this is not considered a genuinely terrible idea. It is, however, an idea that that has not been well received here at AfC. ~Kvng (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
If AfC were abolished, what would replace it? -- RoySmith (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
How would abolishing the process even work? New users can't make new articles other than via AfC. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
If AfC were abolished, all new articles would go through NPP. It's true new users can't create new articles until they're WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, but, with our ongoing 2+ month backlog, that's a process that potentially takes less time than getting an article reviewed here. ~Kvng (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the onus is on the article's creator to demonstrate notability. Declines are not AfD noms, where BEFORE is suggested (not required). --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose but I occasionally do a before search. If the notability is borderline I prefer but the page is otherwise good I prefer to pass it to mainspace and see how it fairs. If there is clearly no notability from what I see in the draft a BEFORE search is very unlikely to turn up a reason to keep the draft. If the creator can't be bothered to include the main reason anyone ahould care about the subject than it is not my job to find a reason. As for abolishing AFC - that has merit. Anyone unwilling to make 10 edits across 4 days has no business creating a new page. Invariably these newbies are only seeking to promote themselves or some topic they are attached to, or they are not newbies but are not willing to use a previous account for good reason. Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think WP:BEFORE searches should only be required before rejecting a draft on notability grounds (without an option to resubmit), but checking the sources cited within the draft should be enough to decline it. — Newslinger talk 12:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Accepting a bad article simply because it meets WP:GNG shouldn't be accepted either. I have always expected AfC to be a training wheels style operation, where experienced Wikipedians (once you take out the paid advertising, spam, and completely incompetent drafts) can gleem information to new writers about how to create a suitible article. A declined draft is not a deletion... A notice saying that your article doesn't show it's notability should be a good way to tell the author that they have to demonstrate notability on their work, not just expect others to do so. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose too bureaucratic. pbp 13:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are currently 4000 drafts, and this would markedly increase the time it takes to review a draft. Let's not encourage the backlog to balloon. Natureium (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose largely per Natureium but also because we seem to be forgetting that AFC reviewers, like others, are volunteers and in addition to a massive AFC backlog, we have over 100,000 under or unreferenced BLPs already in main space which shows that the philosophy of "throw it into main space and someone else will fix it" is horribly misguided and isn't working. No one is asking for GA or FA drafts but notability is not the only criteria by which we are judging drafts, particularly BLPs. And like what several others said, WP:ONUS. Forcing reviewers to be the sole decider of notability is stupid and defeats the purpose of ACPERM. Praxidicae (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
And I'll note since it's repeatedly been brought up: I almost never decline on the sole basis of notability unless it's something absurdly and unequivocally not notable. I think the issue that many people are running into is the belief that V or ILC decline is a notability decline. It's not. It's stating that it's not appropriately sourced or has not appropriately demonstrated the subjects notability based on the current content of the draft. Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose (not currently an AfC reviewer if that matters Well that changed quickly.) The onus is on the person writing the article to show that the subject is notable. If the reviewer wants to tag it with a CSD tag for notability reasons, then a WP:BEFORE is reasonable, but not for just declining a draft that doesn't show notability. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 18:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed and I think it's important to make the distinction here that not demonstrating notability is not the same as not being notable. Praxidicae (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Couple thoughts on the /comments decline reasons[edit]

Shifted these from Template talk:AFC submission since this is watched by a few more folks. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

declined revision: Warmer language about resubmission[edit]

Proposed change:

"your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted" ---> "your draft will be declined again".

The former discourages any resubmission, especially for newbies who might think it's better to have a draft up than to resubmit and have it disappear. (This language also matches that next to the resubmission button.) – SJ + 18:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd go for this one. The potential biteyness of the current language exceeds its benefit. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. I don't think that we need warmer language on a decline. The fact that there are more than 3700 drafts in the queue for review seems to imply that we are not discouraging resubmissions. Do we really think that it is important to have more resubmissions? (Well, I guess some editors think that we need to pressure the reviewers to accept the drafts, including the clueless ones, as evidenced by the suggestion that a BEFORE search should be required prior to a decline. I don't think that we need to pressure the reviewers into accepting many more drafts, and I don't think that we need to be warmer in our decline language, but evidently some editors think that most drafts should be accepted unless we can demonstrate that they shouldn't.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I do think promising drafts should end up in the main namespace when AFC is backlogged. In particular, being stuck in draft space means other people (who don't browse AFC) will never see your work. Wikipedia works when people who don't know eachother asynchronously find and improve one another's work. When there's a backlog, the process should be simplified to quickly send on reasonable drafts. If it looks like something that a thoughtful autoconf editor might create, don't let it stay hidden in a less-visible namespace behind less-understood policies. – SJ + 18:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

declined comments revision: lead with positive request for improvement[edit]

All of the declined comments read as though they are a final rejection. Only after you make it through a few sentences describing the failings of the article is there a positive suggestion of ways to make it better. For a new contributor, this looks like a form rejection slip, and discourages further work.

Proposed change: move the last sentence of each comment (detailing how to improve the article) to the top of the comment. Condense the criticism (which is redundant to the positive suggestion) so that the focus is on what to improve. Something like

"Please add better references. These should be (independent, notable, secondary...).
As the article stands, its references do not demonstrate notability."

I am happy to draft specific revised text, but this is a lot of edits to a widely-used template, so I'd rather the changes be made by people who are actively handling AFC and using them in practice. – SJ + 18:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I would really prefer not to see the language made warmer and more saccharine to encourage more resubmissions. The fact that we have more than 3700 drafts awaiting review seems to mean that we aren't being that bitey after all. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
It is up to the recipient to read the whole rejection. Most submissions should be summarily deleted not reworked and resubmitted. Changing wording to encourage the hopeless is not desirableIn fact, I believe no one should be able to create a draft without 4 days and 10 edits (auto confirmed) which shows a little bit of dedication to the improvement of Wikipedia before they promote themselves or their pet organization. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This argument seems somewhat incidental. Too many drafts means the process could be working better; it doesn't determine what's wrong. Any draft that isn't speediable couldbe converted to a main namespace article with cleanup tags, instead of a draft with rejected-tags. Deciding where those drafts should sit while potentially being improved is a mid-sized open question for the community; AFC just one of many options. The number of open drafts speaks mainly to the scope of the problem. – SJ + 18:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually we lack some important CSD tags for Drafts like A7 and A11 (no credible claom of significance). Drafts are exempt from the Notability requirements. There are thousands of rejected Drafts every month that do not qualify for a CSD tag but have no business in mainspace. We use G13 (mainly) to sweep them up. Legacypac (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Previously the decline language was seen as saccharine, encouraging the submitter to improve and resubmit. I will take another look after I do my next round of reviews, but I think it is still saccharine, encouraging crud to be reworked, which is why we now have Reject also. This is yet another case where the rule not to bite the newcomers is treated as a commandment, even overriding policies, because many editors tie themselves in knots to avoid being bitey, but some newcomers do need to be bitten. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, for a significant proportion of submissions "Fuck off" would be an entirely apropriate response, but WP:CIVIL prevents. So we devised the "Rejected" language in place of "Declined" when we really do not want to see the draft again. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Which Disapproval for Advertising[edit]

This isn't a particularly urgent or critical question, but I will ask it anyway. The question is whether submissions that are purely advertising or are spam should be declined with 'adv' and tagged for G11, or should be rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and tagged for G11. I am in the habit of declining them, usually with 'adv' and 'corp', and tagging them for G11. I have been doing that for a long time, since before there were multiple reasons, so that I would use either 'adv' or 'corp' and would decline them, and would also tag G11. Now that rejection has been implemented, that is an alternative disposition. My first thought is that "Contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" is too harsh a judgment, and that a decline and a G11 is good enough. However, on second thought, advertising does violate Wikipedia is not for advertising, and that is fair after all. It doesn't really matter which type of disapproval I provide if the G11 is agreed to by the reviewing administrator, because the offending article is only there for a matter of hours. So is there a definite reason why I should reject it and G11 it, or a definite reason why I should continue to decline it and G11 it? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:G11 is for articles or drafts that are unambiguously and exclusively for promotion. Most of the drafts I've seen declined for 'adv' could be fixed with WP:STUBIFY quickly which G11 says is preferrable and which I would do if there were good evidence of notability which there rarely is. Anyway, it sounds like you use G11 regularly. How many of those go through for you? ~Kvng (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Kvng - It has been a very long time since I had a G11 declined. I don't use it as much as some other reviewers do. I do use it on submissions that are not written in the third person. If the submission is written in the first person plural, it seems to me, and to the deleting administrators, that that is promotional. If the submission is addressed to the second person customer, likewise, that seems to me to be G11. I also see a number of stubs about companies that don't contain the basic information about the company except for a link; that is just a spam link, and is G11. I decline a lot of a corporate ads with 'adv' and/or 'corp' because the draft tells what the company says about itself and not what third parties say about it. That isn't G11; it just doesn't satisfy notability and neutrality. I have very seldom had a G11 denied. Either I see a moderate amount of hopeless stuff, or other editors get a chance to review the Start-Class drafts on companies. I very seldom see Start-Class drafts on companies. The Start-Class drafts that I do see are on other topics than companies, and I think that is because companies don't want to have neutral articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
This relates to my question above at #Promotionalism. I think that we need some additional educational pages that explain what an "advertisement" is. It always surprises me when someone declines an article about a business as "spam" or "advertisement" when it says what a company does, when they were founded, where the headquarters are, who works there, and nothing else. It's like some editors think that there are only three options: big companies I've personally heard of, spam (=all positive articles), and attack pages (=all negative articles).
Or: An advertisement is that thing from the grocery store that tells you what's on sale this week. It's not a short, factual description of the who/what/when/where of a business.
I don't want to repeat this, but Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/New pages experiment is probably worth reading and thinking about every now and again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

So: If I am tagging the submission for G11, should I decline it with 'corp' and/or 'adv', or should I Reject it as contrary to Wikipedia (and probably not notable besides)? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't come around to this talk page often (maybe this is the second time) but happened to be here and saw this discussion. I had independently started a discussion at CSD on this topic a few hours ago. I am pretty strongly opposed to G11 being used on drafts and certainly on drafts that have yet to be submitted or have only been rejected once. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm guessing Barkeep49 has little to no AfC/Draft experience because they want to remove an important spam fighting tool. There is no value to th le project in leaving SPAM to sit around in Draftspace regardless of its AfC submission status. Why the heck would Barkeep49 want to turn part of Wikipedia into a free webhost for spam or send tons of obvious cases to MfD? Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Legacypac, Barkeep49 is one of our most prolific NPP reviewers, so I doubt that their intention is to increase the amount of spam on Wikipedia. But I've pinged them now, so they can respond to your question. Bradv 04:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Bradv for the ping as I was not watching this discussion.
@Legacypac: As Brad pointed out I spend a couple hours a day 3-5 times a week doing new page patrol and am also frequently acting as a helper on IRC while doing that patrolling. Between these two tasks even if I am not regularly reviewing as part of AfC I am interacting in a substantial way with a half dozen or more drafts a night (some of which I've put there as part of NPP). I actively work to fight spam, as you do, and to keep the standards of the encyclopedia high, as do you. I do this because I think Wikipedia's reputation matters. I also see the human cost of what it means to keep those standards with those whose drafts are rejected - even among people whose intentions don't align with with what I see as the volunteer ethos of the encyclopedia. However, I believe those people will leave their interaction with Wikipedia with some take away and perhaps share that experience with others. I'd like that takeaway not to be a rant against their unfair treatment but instead some knowledge that Wikipedians are fighting hard to have a quality source of knowledge. I view the opportunity for someone to submit their draft, and receive feedback upon it, and to try submitting again, as helping, not harming our reputation and thus our project.
I fundamentally believe there should be a space for new editors and even editors with COI to learn and grow as Wikipedians. I think that space is draft space. At some point, and I don't know where for me that line is, if people keep resubmitting SPAM it does just become a time sink for volunteers and the article should be G11'ed. But I think that line is beyond 0 or 1 submissions.
So I will continue to take what I consider to be a pretty hard line in ensuring the quality of what ends up in mainspace. And I will continue to appreciate the efforts of people like Bradv and you Legacypac who review drafts, help to nurture editors where appropriate, and maintain our standards. Wikipedia is not a webhost but it is a place where anyone can edit and where we treat each other with respect and civility. It's all three of these pillars of our encyclopedia I am trying to promote when I suggest that we need to be a little gentler with G11s in draft space. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thanks for the detailed explanation. I think we are already gentler with G11 on Drafts. Check out the 2500 pages that have not been declined rather than G11'd here Category:AfC_submissions_declined_as_an_advertisement Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
As a practical matter I occasionally go through AfC submissions declined as an advertisement and G11 most of the ones I look at. I very very rarely have any CSD declined and when it happens it is usually the declining Admin's failure. I figure there is no point waiting 6 months to G13 when it takes exactly the same effort to G11 the page now. Also when processing G13 CSDs I try to tag G11 or G2 etc whenever I can because it closes off te easy REFUND of G13 and leaves a record on the creator's talkpage that helps others identify problematic patterns. Legacypac (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2018[edit]

Pir Syed Muhammad Ameen Shah 177.15.10.134 (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants[edit]

Hi, I'm interested in being a reviewer. Please add my username to the list. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi K.e.coffman, Add your name here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants after reading the these:Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Hope that helps. scope_creep (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Communication with editors[edit]

I recently had a look at Peace Uzoamaka Nnaji and moved it into article space as an adequately sourced article on an elected member of a country's government (and thus clearly notable). It had been rejected twice at AfC, and five different editors had edited it, but no-one had welcomed the editor to Wikipedia or made any comment on their talk page about the progress of this, their first article. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they have not edited the encyclopedia since that first article creation (and a simple message on their own talk page). I see that the Project Goals don't include anything about providing a friendly welcome to good-faith new editors so that they will be encouraged to continue their editing. Perhaps the project should consider adding something like that to its goals? (Yes, I know the instant response will be "You aren't an AfC editor so don't tell us how to do things" or words to that effect: I WikiGnome away in various other areas like stub-sorting, each to our own. But the work of AfC can be the first interaction a potential new editor has with Wikipedia, so you can make a huge difference by how you respond to them). PamD 08:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

As this is the place were a lot of editors make their first contribution, I support adding welcoming as a project goal. I propose we should do some some brainstorming here on ways we can improve communication with authors. AFCH make a lot of it happen automatically but I'm not sure canned automatic communications have a positive effect on editor retention. ~Kvng (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
At present the AfC process does not involve any proactive communication with the draft authors. All the messages left on their talk pages are fully automatic and don't involve even visiting their talk page. Any communication that does happen is normally initiated by a draft author asking questions about a decline on the help desk or reviewers talk page. Other reasons for contact are questions about why they have been waiting so long, and the occasional thank you for reviewing. I suggest that the draft authors are welcomed automatically when they submit the draft, possibly with information about what else they can do while waiting. Welcoming several weeks later when the draft is reviewed is not going to be very helpful. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There have been efforts to welcome new editors generally. Seems to be a perenial debate. I don't know why we should focus especially on welcoming AfC submitters - a disproportionate number of which are here for SPAM and self promotion. New Editors that start by making corrections and improvements to existing pages are much more likely to become good contributors me thinks. Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Legacypac Obviously there is something that you and I do not understand. It is the accepted position of the larger Wikipedia community that new editors must be welcomed exuberantly (not merely welcomed), and that various smaller communities within Wikipedia are remiss in not meeting and greeting new editors with the proper enthusiasm, and that we are losing a vital resource because the new editors are not being sufficiently welcomed. That is known to be the truth. You and I see clueless and self-serving editors in AFC and elsewhere, but that obviously means that there is something wrong with our perception, because it is known to be the truth that the new editors only need to be properly greeted, and they will be up and running. Obviously there is something that we do not understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
If we could just make the new editors happy by approving their non-notable autobios or garage bands they would go on to write featured articles on other topics. Legacypac (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Seriously though, I wish we were saying: If you go and spend a while improving exiting content, we will spend time considering your suggested topic. I don't think newcomers should be writing new pages on new topics. Newcomers should learn to walk first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Is the Editor Retention project still running? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is representative of how reviewers feel about new editors, we should not be welcoming them; If you can't say something nice... ~Kvng (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Kvng - Whether something nice should be said to new editors depends on what they have written. Some should be welcomed and some shouldn't. Of the ones I see, more should not be welcomed than should, but Your Mileage May Vary. We should welcome ones who write about a plausible topic. We should not welcome ones who write about themselves, or who have some thought on the meaning of life. In any case, there is always a class of wiki-critics who say that some particular class of volunteers should be fulfilling the meeting and greeting function. Maybe there does need to be a meeting and greeting role. It shouldn't be dumped onto editors who are already trying to do a useful job such as AFC or NPP. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
With this approach, I think you fail to appreciate the potential benefits of WP:AGF. I personally find is easier for everyone if I don't make judgements about contributors intentions, just deal with behaviors and the content of contributions. What's the worst that will happen if we cheerfully welcome editors who make crappy early contributions? ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I assume good faith. My comments above are about their behaviors, not their intentions. Sometimes their behaviors are useful, and sometimes they are not useful. The downside to welcoming clueless self-serving new editors is that they are likely to continue to clog the review pipeline longer with their crud before they go away. Some new editors really should just go away. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: You may, in fact, have accurate judgement about which new editors have the potential to become positive contributors to Wikipedians. Even if so, I would still be uncomfortable with individual editors making these assessments for the community. ~Kvng (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Individual editors and Admins constantly make judgement calls. No one is required or not required to "welcome" anyone. If a Spammer's welcome is a Decline, CSD notice and block for a promotional username, well that is what they earned. Anyone else is welcome to give them a plate pf cookies and an encouraging word, but I'm on to the next page in the backlog that hopefully will be an interesting one like Mark. Legacypac (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Rejection in main script[edit]

This is a proposal to add the rejection feature to the main script, allowing all reviewers to use it. To provide guidance on when to use this feature, the final wording in #Guidelines for rejecting above will be added to the reviewing guidelines. I won't add the feature until we've agreed on a set of guidelines, of course, so you can support here while suggesting changes to the guidelines. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please - I think we are at the point where we are ready to roll this out to everyone.Tazerdadog (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Anytime I created the Not Suitable for Wikipedia template because this was a hole in our system. There are enough very different reasons to use the rejection I don't think we need much instruction. If we mention CSD we need to be careful how we word it. CSD G11 or G12 are preferable to tagging as Not Suitable. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Enterprisey, Tazerdadog, Legacypac--I will note that a few days back, I created a template roughly for the same purpose and was jotting some usage-rules. WBGconverse 11:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
No, seriously, we do need written guidelines, approved by consensus, on how to use this before deploying it more widely. ~Kvng (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Kvng, but you do think we should deploy it once guidelines are agreed upon, right? Enterprisey (talk!) 18:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, in principle. The guidelines have to somehow prevent abuse of this new reviewer power and you know what they say about power. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The Reject feature reduced the workload at MFD by one draft last night. I reviewed a draft that was being tendentiously resubmitted without significant change after being told twice to clean up promotional language. Previously I would have sent the draft to MFD. I simply Rejected it on grounds of Wikipedia is not for promotion as not consistent with the purposes of Wikipedia. So thank you for including this feature. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Creation sorting[edit]

I've read this essay with interest: User:Bradv/Strickland incident. There was one idea there that I thought would be helpful to the project:

AfC sorting: A system of sorting and tagging AfC drafts based on topic area or potential notability would help draw experts into AfC, which could help improve drafts such as this. WP:DELSORT, a similar project at WP:AFD, could be used as a starting point.

It AfC-sorting may seem like busywork, but quite a few people do it at AfD, so I assume there may be people willing to sort drafts. It would improve the efficiency of the process, as people would be able to focus on the areas that interest them and / or where they have experience establishing notability. Any feedback? --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest something automated like the NPP browser, which sorts by keywords found in the article, would be more useful (and less time consuming to maintain). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
User:SQL/AFC-Ores sorts by subject, just not with much accuracy. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
One piece that played into the incident that BradV just touches on is the AfC backlog. In the 2 months it took us to get to this review, the author probably forgot about it. The only way they receive notification of a completed review is if they actively return to Wikipedia and sign in and notice the flags at the top of each page. This problem could be addressed by reducing the AfC backlog or through a more active (email) notification system. ~Kvng (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorting AfC drafts is regularly brought up but is a huge waste of time. By time you classify a Draft that needs a decline you can assess it and decline it. Classification work requires a generalist volunteer that knows how to do it, the perfect volunteer to accept or decline whatever they come across. Further classifications can not be categories (Draft NOCAT) and would therefore go away on approval.

I suggest using the NPP browser which has recently been expanded for AfC. It gives a short part of the page intro which, along with title, usually gives you a pretty good idea what the topic is and if it is something you feel ok reviewing. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the feedback; seems like a non-starter. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

nppbrowser equivalent / keyword search?[edit]

Thanks for the tip about the https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/. I found the ability to search by keywords to be very helpful.

I don't see this functionality in the Special:NewPagesFeed. It does include AfC but seems to lack the functionality / view of tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser. Is there perhaps a way to have the same keyword search for AfC drafts? The current options are

Show: (_) articles; (_)redirects; (_) both

It would seem to be fairly straightforward to add a "(_) drafts" option, but I'm not sure what would be involved. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Information I found with Google suggests that Rentier is the person responsible for the NPP Browser software. I don't know how to submit a feature request, a message to Rentier may suffice. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Meeting and Greeting of New Editors - A New Role, or the Usual Dump?[edit]

There is, above, yet another suggestion that the AFC volunteers are collectively at fault for not being sufficiently enthusiastic in their implied function of meeting and greeting new editors. I have been saying from time to time for maybe two years that we should consider whether there should be a separate volunteer function of meeting and greeting new editors. That way, it wouldn't be necessary to dump on the AFC or NPP volunteers, who are already doing a job that the overall Wikipedia community thinks is important, for not also acting as the meeting and greeting committee. We need to decide whether meeting and greeting is a sufficiently important role that we need to ask for volunteers for the purpose. If it isn't important enough to call for its own volunteers, then maybe we don't need to dump on the AFC volunteers. (Oh, never mind. It is very much the Wikipedia way to dump on some other group of volunteers than one belongs to and say that they aren't doing enough. Dumping on another group of volunteers makes the dumper feel better, that they have accomplished something. Whether it annoys the dumpees is not important.)

Seriously, if meeting and greeting is so important that it is worth dumping on other volunteers, then maybe it is important enough to have volunteers for the purpose.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • No change appears to be necessary. Not all new editors start immediately writing new articles and submitting them to AfC, so members of this project would not even be aware of these editors. If the draft is declined, the AfC script invites the authors to the Teahouse. So that's a "meet-n-greet" right there. Overall, it does not seem to be the role of AfC volunteers to welcome new editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No change the value of posting welcomes on talkpages is debatable. Twinkle has a bunch of options for that. Anyone who thinks it is important can devote there volunteer time to posting welcomes, but trying to badger others into doing that instead of working on the next Draft is not appropriate. Getting an answer on a submission in a reasonable amount of time is better than waiting 3 months but getting a canned welcome message. A real welcome is a thanks or a positive comment recognizing an useful contribution not a canned welcome. Legacypac (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Maybe I was misunderstood. I was not implying that the AFC reviewers should be tasked to do the meeting and greeting. I was saying that wiki-critics (other Wikipedia editors) should stop dumping on AFC reviewers for not doing the meeting and greeting. We, the AFC reviewers, already are doing a volunteer job. I was saying that if meeting and greeting is thought to be important, then there needs to be a separate volunteer function to do it. I agree that we already have scripts that post to talk pages, but I have seen critics who say that the scripts are too cold and mechanical and that someone needs to provide real human greetings. If so, you, whoever you are, can do it, rather than dumping that the AFC reviewers should do it. I was not proposing to expand the scope of the AFC reviewers, but to create a new scope in order to reduce the dumping. I don't know about other volunteer editors, but I get tired of wiki-critics who constantly dump that some other group of volunteers are not doing enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No change - I agree that this should not be added to the AfC review process. But I will reach out to the Welcoming Committee and see if there is anyone over there interested in monitoring the head of the AfC queue and being warm and fuzzy. ~Kvng (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Get ready for November with Women in Red![edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives



New: Religion Deceased politicians Asia

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Pending List not removing reviewed?[edit]

Hi,

Can I check whether it is just me for which the "Pending AfC Submissions List" isn't removing reviewed articles - it seems to have vast hoards (thus not recent changes) of articles with a reviewed status still sitting there, which seems contrary to its purpose as a pending list.

Not sure if just me, some error from the large number or something else.

Cheers, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Just happened to check this page; I maintain that tool so ping me for further problems. Not sure why it wasn't updating, but I restarted it manually. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio detection ready for testing in New Pages Feed[edit]

Hi AfC reviewers -- the third part of this project to improve prioritization tools for AfC is now ready for testing by reviewers. In the vein of how "potential issues" were added to the New Pages Feed in a previous update, we are now adding the potential issue of "Copyvio". Drafts will be flagged in the New Pages Feed if a revision in the draft has been flagged by CopyPatrol (via the Turnitin service) as potentially copied from another source. This feature should make it faster and easier for AfC reviewers to find and deal with drafts that have potential copyright violations. Here is how to test:

  1. Go to this URL, instead of the usual New Pages Feed URL.
  2. Choose the "Articles for Creation" option at the top of the feed.
  3. Open the "Set filters" menu and select "Copyvio" under "Potential issues".
  4. This will filter to the drafts that have been flagged by CopyPatrol (via the Turnitin service) as having revisions with potential violations.
  5. You can click the "Copyvio" link in each entry to inspect the potential violating text in the CopyPatrol interface.
  6. Sometimes, the reviewers working in CopyPatrol will already have deleted the violating text, deleted the page, or marked the page as "No action needed".

This testing period will continue into next week, at which point we'll decide whether we're ready to make the feature available at the usual URL. If you have feedback, reactions, or questions, please post here or on the project's talk page. And to read more about the specifics of this implementation and the rules behind how it works, check out this project update. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • By selecting All pages (unsubmitted etc) I got 15 hits. Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Legacypac: thanks for trying it out! Yes, that sounds about right. We are not running the bot retroactively over the 40,000+ existing drafts, so it will increasingly populate over time as new drafts are created and edited (starting from a couple days ago). The way it works is that if any revision in a draft is flagged by CopyPatrol, that draft gets flagged in the feed. I'm now seeing two drafts that are "Awaiting review" that are flagged as potential violations, with 18 total across all drafts. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)