Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:AFC/SAND)
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
AfC submissions
Random submission
~8 weeks
1,816 pending submissions
Purge to update
Shortcut


Skip to top
Skip to bottom

AFC backlog

[edit]
AfC unreviewed draft statistics as of December 16, 2024


Bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted

[edit]

Are there any bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted? Ideally they would be able to autoreject or at least put them on a list. It might be possible to look at the previous reason for rejection, e.g. not meeting GNG, and if no new refs are added it is highly unlikely it will pass this time. Polygnotus (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, and if I remember correctly we decided not to have any sort of bot that does this. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think having a bot that does this would be a bad idea. One poor decline could easily lead to a series of them. -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, given @Ca's comment below, my comment is about putting them on a list. (Obviously, I think an autoreject bot would be even worse.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, bad idea. Sometimes it's reasonable to resubmit without changes if the decline was incorrect or the submitter has clarified something. C F A 💬 16:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about a bot that could add a Comment to the submission to let the submitter know that the submission has not changed and that they could continue working on it? Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree having any kind of auto-decline bot is a bad idea. However, simply putting them in a list, like this one, sounds reasonable. It would be useful for finding easy declines/accepts, provided that the reviewers check the circumstances behind the resubmission. Ca talk to me! 16:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

[edit]

Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

  • Option 1: Yes. The bot should automatically reject decline any such submissions.
  • Option 2: Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list, similar to the list of possible copyvios.
  • Option 3: Yes. The bot should notify the submitter and comment on the submission.
  • Option 4: Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list and notify the submitter and comment on the submission.
  • Option 5: No.

JJPMaster (she/they) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I changed Option 1 to decline rather than reject, as reject is a very specific term in AFC and I don't think that is what was meant here. Reject means the draft can never be resubmitted, due to violating WP:NOT or having extremely obvious and egregious non-notability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose option 1, per the discussion above this is a very bad idea. Support option 2, this seems harmless and seems worth tracking - as long as it is made absolutely clear that being rejected previously is not a reason to reject - if the original reason was correct and still applies then it can be rejected again for that reason. Neutral on the other options, but any comment/notification must make it clear that it is informational only and not a rejection. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5. AfC reviewers make mistakes. We should not be prejudicing someone's future AfC chances based on those mistakes any more than we already do - namely, that there is already a gigantic decline message on the draft. AfC is frequently a dispiriting, demoralizing, and baffling experience for new editors, mostly one of waiting and then receiving templated replies they do not fully understand. I oppose this, and I oppose any other efforts that would further increase new editor alienation in this way. -- asilvering (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4, but as with Thryduulf, the comment on submission should be marked as informational and a reviewer will come by to assess the submission. – robertsky (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 2. Whether any changes have been made since the last decline is often something I look for when reviewing an article with declines, as it helps to see if the concerns from that last decline were addressed (if I feel like they are appropriate to the article as I see it), and this would be a benefit to a reviewer without being additionally "punishing" to a new editor. Reconrabbit 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as someone who doesn't review drafts but very occasionally comments on them, I think an {{AfC comment}}-like mention at the top would be easiest to work with, so I guess I'm at Option 3 or 4. Very dubious that a bot could reasonably handle the "(much)" in the preceding section header without unacceptable false positives and negatives, but detecting completely unchanged submissions would be both feasible and useful. —Cryptic 20:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option 5 - No. Oppose Options 1, 2, 3, 4. Support based on Asilvering's comment. Opposes are my own, doubtless with others. As a reviewer I declare myself capable of checking, and I do. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 but instead of adding to a list, add to a category (preferably a hidden one). Yes, definitely notify the submitter and comment on it, but having a list may discourage the submitter if they see that their draft is listed on a list. Having a hidden category would be better (at least imho) where a parameter of Template:AFC submission can add the draft into the category. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though with all options, the reviewer would still do the same work... Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I wouldn't oppose a bot that automatically leaves a comment, but I don't really see the point either. Reviewers should be evaluating based on the current state of the draft — previous declines really shouldn't matter in most cases. I think this would encourage summary "no change" declines without actually looking at the content of the draft. C F A 💬 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. It would encourage reviewers to "decline" the draft just because it hasn't changed since last review. However, thinking now, it might encourage editors to keep working on the draft because they see that "it hasn't changed since last review". If that's the case, reviewers should "wait". So perhaps after the bot leaves a comment, reviewers should wait at least a couple minute before reviewing in case the editor wants to add content? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My position is that if they did not see being declined as reason to keep working on the draft, they are unlikely to have a positive view of an automated message telling them that the draft hasn't changed. -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No too easy to game. The simplest bot would just compare revisions. A submitter would then just have to add like a space or a few words to change it. A more complicated bot would flag changes that were too small or simple, but then that just encourages submitters to ramble. A bot can't assess the quality of a change, only editors can. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Oppose to 1 as bad reviews do exist. Also, sometimes submitters have discussed it with the reviewer and been told to resubmit for a second opinion etc.
Weak Oppose 2, 3 & 4 as I'm not convinced a bot will accurately determine what no substantive change is and I see little value in just flagging straight re-submits
Support 5 as de-facto option left KylieTastic (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 or 4 especially with several disruptors (and one dynamic IP so block doesn't help) who just do drive by submissions. Frustrating to the editor to receive another decline through no fault of their own. Having them in the queue is a waste of reviewers' time though when it's a quick decline because the improvements haven't been made. I think it's less wrong decline and more no discussion about why the feedback was wrong that's the red flag. Star Mississippi 23:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I lean towards Option 5, but for those pages/editors engaged in a problematic level of drive-by submissions, I wonder whether a completely different approach might work better. For example: If you think the previous decline was correct, and you also think it's a drive-by re-nom, then move the article to the mainspace and send it straight to AFD. If it's kept, then the submitter was correct, and the previous decline was wrong. Also, it's now out of the AFC queues. However, if it's deleted, salt the page name(s) in both Draft: and mainspace for the next year (or two?), so that AFC can be done with it. Either way, it's no longer AFC's problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Option 1. Frankly, trusting fellow reviewers to check how much a draft has changed since a previous decline is reasonable to do. Letting a Bot do something creates an option to game the system. We don't need that. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 00:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option 2, neutral on Option 4, and oppose the rest. I do not see the point in notifying submitters when they already are aware they did not make any changes. Perhaps they wanted another review. Putting unchanged drafts in a hidden list like the copyvio one seems optimal as it reduces complexity and unnecessary messages to submitters. It would make finding easy declines and disruptive drive by submissions easier to find. I also support adding a verbiage that being unchanged should not be the sole reason to decline again. Ca talk to me! 00:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5 - Reviewers should be instructed, more clearly if necessary, to check whether the draft has been revised since the last decline, and to use human judgment in deciding what is enough improvement. There is no need for automated aid, which could make mistakes and could be gamed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2, at least, option 4, at best. Yes, reviewers make mistakes, but they make mistakes in both directions, and should also consider the guidance inherent in a previous rejection. BD2412 T 15:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 preferably, but I'm okay with option 5 as well (TBH, I don't think this is a major problem in the bigger scheme of things, and the details could be tricky). Also oppose option 1, regardless of whether it was intended to say 'reject', or merely 'decline'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: When I say details could be tricky, I didn't mean in a technical sense, but rather in defining what the trigger condition of "changed (much)" actually means. Size change doesn't always tell us much: only a few kb might have changed, yet the draft was completely rewritten; conversely, a large kb change could mean that the author simply deleted the earlier AfC templates. Number of sources, ditto: adding ten new rubbish sources to the earlier rubbish sources still adds up to only rubbish; whereas using the same sources but citing them correctly might have resolved the decline reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5. AfC reviewers sometimes make mistakes, particularly when dealing with areas that they are not familiar with. (I can't count how many drafts on academics have been rejected and told to supply GNG, and I've also seen rejections of drafts on politicians that clearly passed NPOL.) Creators should always be allowed to ask for a second opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5 Per asilvering and Espresso Addict. I would further that; reviewers often make mistakes....specifically declining articles for reasons that are not decline criteria. Also some reviewers tend to pass only unusually safe passes. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5 per Asilvering. If a reviewer makes a mistake (which often happens), the submitter shouldn't be even more penalized for it. Same if they just want another opinion on their draft. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 or 4 per Star Mississippi. I'll add: Resubmitting an unchanged draft is a sign of a problem even if the declining reviewer had made a mistake. And it will rarely be the case that they have made a mistake given a creator who resubmits an identical draft, which very strongly correlates with the draft being poor in the first place and not deserving of acceptance.—Alalch E. 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5 (do nothing). Like Primefac below, I'm surprised this got the RfC stage given the overwhelmingly negative reception in the original discussion, and hope the closer of this discussion will take that into account. AfC reviewers make mistakes but, more to the point, people can have good faith disagreements about the suitability of an article. If the submitter disagrees with a reviewer, they have every right to ask for a second opinion without edit warring with a bot or making pointless changes. – Joe (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 or 5 - Given the unevenness of reviews, authors have legitimate reasons for seeking a second, third or fourth review. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC discussion

[edit]

Um... didn't this get fairly roundly shot down in the original discussion? Why does it need a full RFC to work out any further details? Primefac (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that only Option 1 was outright rejected in the above discussion. The rest were counterproposals that seemed to have at least some support. JJPMaster (she/they) 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, RFC just seems like a lot of bureaucracy for something that didn't really have a lot of discussion and could have probably been dealt with in-house. Carry on I suppose. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second your 'meh'. Why are we going through this extra layer. If it ain't broke don't fix it! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to be Devil's Advocate for an RFC I've opposed, but I think we've got more, clearer answers to the question in the few hours since this RfC opened than we had in the entire earlier discussion, so there's that. And I do think AfC is pretty broke and needs some fixing. I just think this is tinkering in the wrong direction. -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here and talking about reviewers making mistakes, let me make my perennial plea that, if you see, this, you go ask the reviewer about it on their talk page. We all have to learn somehow! And if the reviewer is making lots of mistakes, it will be easier for any single editor to figure this out later if there's a track record of them on their talk page. By the way, for those who haven't learned this trick yet: the AFCH script will allow you to resubmit drafts as though you were the original submitter. If you think something was inappropriately declined, you can resubmit it to the queue yourself and then immediately accept it, or resubmit it and leave a comment explaining why you did so. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you want to resubmit a draft on behalf of another user so they get the AfC communications rather than you, such as the Accept notification, you can use {{subst:submit|Creator's username}}. The other option is to click the Resubmit button then change the User (u=) from your name to theirs. S0091 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AFCH script will do this for you automatically. -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh..ok, I see now. You review on an already declined draft. I had never clicked the Submit button because I assumed it worked the same way as the Resubmit button in the decline message but the AFCH script gives you options to assign the submitter. I can't tell you how many times I have resubmitted drafts using the manual methods I outline above. The more you know! :) S0091 (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-RfC: Add mention of search engine indexing delay in TM:AfC accept

[edit]

Should the following warning be added to {{AfC accept}}?

Your article may not be indexed on search engines for up to 3 months until your article is reviewed.

(previous discussion) Ca talk to me! 01:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime I see someone asking about appearing on a search engine I suspect COI/promotion issues. In several cases it actually gets the article moved back to draft, deleted or edited for POV. The trouble with trying to answer follow up questions is you can just move onto a new question or rephrasing. I would think many who see that notice would just ask what it means as they thought it had been reviewed and accepted but now says it still needs to be reviewed. Trying to explain AfC reviews vs NPP patrols in a short sentence to new editors is not likely to work. KylieTastic (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I was convinced enough during the previous discussion to change my on-the-fence position, in that it might be useful, but really all we are doing is punting the ball into badgering NPPs. Based on the previous conversation, it looks to have been asked only a half-dozen or dozen times in the last five years, so the potential confusion of "why are they telling me this?" seems more of an issue than the handful of people who just must have their article appear in Google now. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically avoided mention of NPP in my proposed text per this feedback. When I made my first article, I was excited my work is showing up on Google(because very few actually uses Wikipedia's search). Ca talk to me! 22:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If including I would probably drop the until your article is reviewed bit as well and just say it might not appear in search engines like google until 3 months have passed. There's a very small chance of confusion ("but hasn't my article already been reviewed?") and it's not that informative if we don't mention NPP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Is this wikiproject also for articles that exist in other languages but not wikipedia? For example i am planning to translate the chinese article on the PLANMC 7th Marine Brigade [zh] when i have time Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thehistorianisaac: if you're asking whether you can translate an article into English and rather than publishing it directly, put the draft through AfC review, then yes, by all means; we see quite a lot of those. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask if my draft is a translated version of an existing article in another language, do i need to go through any extra procedures? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Please indicate that it's a translation in the first edit summary, for copyright reasons. You can also add a {{Translated from}} to the talk page. More details at WP:CWW. Thank you for asking :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome template

[edit]
Tracked in github.com
Issue #386

Howdy folks. I'm about to approve a patch for AFCH that will give you the option to add {{Welcome draft}} to user talk pages when declining and rejecting. In the patch, the check box for this feature is ticked by default but untickable on a per-draft basis. Does this sound OK? Or would folks like this to default to unticked? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like on by default as I like to choose different welcomes depending - most notably for non-English submissions. From discussions on Twinkle in the past a lot of people do not like to be told to use particular welcomes. In particular I have seen many, including me, who do not like welcomes that encourage coming to the leavers talk page.
"untickable on a per-draft basis" - Yes you need to be able to override on a case-by-case basis, but also there would need to be a config (preferences) setting to change the default behavior for a user. I don't mind if the default out of the box is on, but people need to be able to turn off depending on workflow.
As the script is available to many by default I would guess many 'reviewers' do not pay attention to this page so any change will probably get feedback only when live. KylieTastic (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so any change will probably get feedback only when live. Known in some circles as the "scream test". Change something and see if people scream. A staple of software engineering :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather the box be un-ticked by default (i.e. opt-in) as I rarely even leave the Teahouse message if the user already has a talk page (and especially if the draft has already been declined). Primefac (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rosamond Jacob

[edit]

Could someone please take a look at this draft to advise on what to do about it? It is a copy of Rosamond Jacob and has already been declined as such. The question is not whether to accept it, since it has already been declined, but whether it should be redirected to the article (the obvious action), or whether it should be deleted because of copying without attribution. The draft appears to be the work of an editor who has done nothing but copy the article. My first thought is to blank it and redirect it to the article, which I have done hundreds of times, but I want another opinion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon My view is to redirect and also assist the copyist to understand the rules. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a copy, large amounts/most of it are different. Some new editors think if they are making a fundamental rewrite that AfC is the way to go. Although this is not just expansion as they also drop valid content. Why not just leave it, blanking and redirecting could just confuse them and I fail to see the purpose unless someone keeps resubmitting and is not-listening. KylieTastic (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was a better analysis than mine. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:KylieTastic and User:Timtrent. If this is a substantial rewrite, then I agree that the draft itself should be left alone, but the originator has misunderstood how AFC works, and should be advised to discuss their changes at Talk:Rosamond Jacob with normal editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we need an essay giving advice to editors who try to use AFC to revise an existing article. In this case, we have a new contributor to Wikipedia who should be encouraged to edit, and is making a reasonable effort to contribute, but has taken a reasonable wrong turn. I have given advice to the editor, who should be encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it need a whole essay, or three well crafted paragraphs, do you think, Robert McClenon? I'd read three paras before I'd read an essay. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go further: Does it need three paras? Maybe an extra sentence or two on the 'exists' decline if some think more clarity is required. What needs to be said other than maybe something like: "AfC is not for article change approval. If you want input before making changes discus on the article talk page where you can link to a draft as a proposal if desired". Which is another reason not to blank a draft, submitters should be able to use a draft as a proposal for big changes. KylieTastic (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I'm kind of a fan of three sentences... Primefac (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please précis my thoughts to what ends up being agreed, if anything! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or KylieTastic's. Or both! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may not, but I've drafted a shirt piece. It's below the line here. Please edit mercilessly, or ignore, or do whatever makes sense. Itls always easier to start with something than to write from scratch.
----
Hi **username**. I want to thank you for starting work to edit the content of **article**, and I would like to save you some time and effort.. You may not know that the article it able to be edited by anyone at all. Yes, you are able to edit it. And you really should.
There are some things you need to know first. You may know them already.
  • References, citations, for facts you add are essential
  • Removing cited facts is frowned upon even if the fact is incorrect, provided that the citation supports the ‘incorrect fact’. Yes, this sounds odd! Wikipedia is happy to have two, cited, contradictory facts in the same article, though the prose must draw a distinction, but never a conclusion
  • If someone disagrees with your edit, they may remove it, or edit it. If you disagree with them then please start a discussion on the article’s talk page. Whatever you do don’t go into battle on behalf of your edit.
Taking a copy, and working on the copy in Draft space or in your user sandbox might feel reasonable, but Wikipedia does not work that way. Every edit here is attributed to the edit who made it. Youy might think that copying your draft of what you are sure is am improved article should be copied and pasted over the existing one, but this loses the attribution of the edits. Please don’t do that, because it causes a lot of work for other people. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Misunderstanding by a Submitter

[edit]

This is just a case to let reviewers know that, no matter how clear you think your advice was, there will be weird ways that it can be misunderstood in good faith by an inexperienced submitter. I just reviewed a draft BLP that had been declined once. It had no references. It had previously been declined as 'v' and as 'bio'. It had two unreliable sources. I looked at the history and saw an edit summary, "I took out the sources". That was clearly a good-faith action, but was a mistake, making it worse than before. I declined it as 'v' and 'ilc', and advised the originator to ask for advice at the Teahouse before resubmitting. There are good-faith errors that inexperienced editors can make that a reviewer cannot anticipate in advance. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Robert, misunderstanding must always come. Even when I was new to Wikipedia, only God knows how I was ignorant to people's ideas. Infact I would do as advised in good faith, but it won't clearly define what the editor is asking of me. The better way is to help in whichever way we could. For example I would barely decline a draft because it is promotional, when I know that my "small experienced editing" could take it to mainspace. Thank you for reminding us about this very thing some of us have forgotten or ignored in the name of "we must always go down for a newbie". We can't hide the truth that everybody deserves explanation, we often see our words [reviwers] twisted everyday. People don't know that reviewers sacrifice alot and others wouldn't care for a reviewer rather a new editor's wish to either quit or continue editing WP. No matter what goes on, love and kindness are always helpful to all. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Active sock alert

[edit]

Please do not continue to create redirects for mass anime and comic/graphic novel redirect requests. These are all being requested by banned user Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TotalTruthTeller24 and should be reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TotalTruthTeller24 .-- Ponyobons mots 18:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe:, please be aware of this pattern. You have proxy created hundreds of these redirects over the last couple of days.-- Ponyobons mots 18:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I only accept plausible redirects. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I accept non-anime and non-comic/graphic novel and disambiguation redirect requests, and i only accept plausible redirects. Thanks. Ampil (Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns) 03:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I'm pretty pissed at myself. I know their patterns and habits, yet I was oblivious from what was right before my eyes. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette

[edit]

Hi. I'm an occasional AfC reviewer myself (too occasional—I keep losing access!), but not at the moment, and in any case it would still be an ethical conundrum. Viz, can I move a restored G13 draft (that I requested) into articlespace or should it be reviewed at AfC first? I assume so, to maintain proprieties, but it's never arisen for me before (and admittedly may not again!). Cheers, SerialNumber54129 17:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only time you need to go through AfC is if you have a conflict of interest (or if you aren't autoconfirmed). Otherwise you're free to skip the extra review and move it to mainspace yourself. C F A 17:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a draft you wrote, I'd say make sure to move it rather than approving it with the helper script. In general one should not use the helper script on one's own drafts.
For a g13 that you are rescuing, I don't see any conflicts of interest here. You are simply using your experience to decide that someone else's draft is worth rescuing.
You are a new pages patroller, so as long as that perm doesn't expire, you will remain an AFC reviewer. The two are linked. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CFA and thanks Novem Linguae; I'll move it now. Novem, re. the NPP, I see what you mean, but I assumed the AfC was different because I used to see the AFC script in the twinkle drop down tab, but it's not there anymore? SerialNumber54129 19:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the AFC script link is in the "More" menu (Vector 2010) or "Tools" menu (Vector 2022) rather than the Twinkle menu. It also requires that the "AFC Helper Script" be turned on in Special:Preferences -> Gadgets. Hope that helps :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't activated in preferences... *facepalm* In fact, nothing was. Except of course the 'Rollback confirmation' which hardly ever seems to work!  :) Thanks for the help, yes! SerialNumber54129 20:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion on Draft: Revival (Zach Bryan song)

[edit]

I am requesting a third opinion (not a yThird Opinion} on Draft: Revival (Zach Bryan song). A reviewer has said that it should either be redirected to Elisabeth (Zach Bryan album) or merged to it. My opinion is that it should either be declined or accepted. I disagree with redirection because the redirect already exists. It seems that some reviewers don't notikl,ce the Warning at the bottom of the yellow Review Waiting panel. I disagree with merging because, in looking at the album article, I see that there is no detailed information about songs, so that merging would change the format of the album article. Can someone please review this draft, with regard to whether it should be accepted as a standalone article on the song? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and accepted the draft. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:SafariScribe - I thought that it might pass musical notability, but thought that another opinion was in order after what looked like a well-meant but mistaken comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning That Title Already Exists

[edit]

The above section is an example of something I sometimes see, which is that a draft is being reviewed, and the title of the draft already exists in article space, and there is a previous review that apparently indicates that the reviewer didn't pay attention to the Warning in the bottom of the yellow Review Waiting panel. For instance, an article may already exist, but the reviewer may have declined the draft for notability, rather than as 'exists'. These reviews in which the reviewer appears not to have seen the warning have one of two explanations. Either the reviewers don't notice the Warning, in which case maybe our instructions for reviewers should say that if there is a warning, look at what it says, or perhaps some reviewers don't get that warning. Is there a skin problem, so that some skins display the warning in extra-small text that can be ignored, or is there a stupid option that suppresses display of the warning? Does one of the script experts know whether there is a reason why some reviewers don't see the warning? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AfC submission/tools seems to be working properly, and it's just transcluded into {{AfC submission/pending}}. I suspect those who do not notice a pending draft is a duplicate do not look at the bottom of the submission template. I could always make it bigger and louder, but I tried doing that with Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations and it doesn't work half the time either. Primefac (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Master log?

[edit]

Is there a log of AfC-everything – submissions regardless of whether they've been reviewed or are pending, reviews regardless of the outcome and the reviewer, the whole shooting match? And if so, is this log searchable, if I wanted to know, say, whether anyone has submitted a draft with a particular word in the title (or better yet, title or content)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is, as far as I am aware, no. We have categories for every page submitted that is still undeleted (part of the reason why we put AFC tags on the talk pages) and we have {{AfC statistics}}, but nothing like a database report of everything. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe @The Earwig's bot (which updates the {{AfC statistics}}) maintains a (private?) database on toolforge which has more details than what is saved to the template, though even that may not contain everything. – SD0001 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No but you can use the categories as Primefac says such as searching incategory:Pending_AfC_submissions, incategory:Declined_AfC_submissions or incategory:Draft_AfC_submissions in the draft and user spaces but that wont show you the deleted or accepted. While the Accepted articles talk pages are mainly in Category:Accepted AfC submissions I'm not aware of any "talkpageincategory:" search facility so it does not help. You can also search all three cats with insource:/\{\{AfC submission\, but since that is most drafts often just searching draft space is easier as it also won;t catch the oddities such as {{AfC_submission}} with an underscore. KylieTastic (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could also use Petscan to combine cats and title searches in various namespaces. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there's no "talkpageincategory:", there does exist "inproject:", added 11 days ago (phab:T378868). – SD0001 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh! nice! Good work SD0001 KylieTastic (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the hunt for socks? If the "content" you're looking for is an unusual URL, https://spamcheck.toolforge.org/ will do you. -- asilvering (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you ask a more specific question, we can probably craft a WP:QUERY for you. For example, "any page currently in draftspace containing the word Bob". –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Razorpay

[edit]

I need some help with this review. I'm having a hard time establishing whether the sources make this subject notable. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechie no Declined, with a full rationale. Some might, but I sample checked a significant number and each, chosen as randomly as I was able, failed as a reference.
Good call asking for other eyes. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 05:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk new question page

[edit]

I often see the same editor asking multiple questions @ the help desk and they are often told not too by others, sometimes in a bitty way. I wondered why so may did this and I think the reason is the userpage decline template links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/New question with the draft title filled in but it seems non-obvious, for new editors, how to get from this page to the help desk without posting a new question. Should we add a something like "If you have already asked a question about this draft recently please continue that discussion at the help desk here" to the top? KylieTastic (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that could indeed explain this. (I always assumed it was because users didn't realise it's a threaded forum, and not a chat stream etc.) That seems a good suggestion; worth a try.
And one of my new year's resolutions will be to make an effort to be less "bitty" to those opening multiple threads, now that I know why they do it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I fully understand what's happening here, could someone provide a diff/example of this happening? Primefac (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors keep opening new questions on the help desk rather than continuing with one that's ongoing, often one after another. So I'm proposing that these may be the editor coming back to the help desk from the link on the decline on the users talk page. That goes to a page like this and I'm saying that it encourages asking a new question everytime and many would not see or understand using the breadcrumb link to the help desk at the top. KylieTastic (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we adopt the pragmatic solution of not worrying, and answering questions as they arise, but tidying up sweetly prior to answering?
Unless, of course, someone writes a gadget so we can highlight threads to merge, and we do that? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have ignored for years but after seeing it again a couple of times recently I engaged brain to wonder why it was happening. Updating the gadget to work out if there is an active question is a nice ideal solution but too much work for the problem. Is it not better to tell editors they can continue a discussion rather than open a new question rather than give give them an interface that encourages it then tell them they are wrong. Just adding a simple explanatory sentence and link seemed like a quick, simple easy solution..... KylieTastic (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, something like this. I see two (maybe three) options here. First, we change nothing and politely merge/combine duplicate sections. Second, we make the decline link a direct link to the HD and hope that editors use the "Ask a new question" link at the top if they have a question (which, if I recall, did not work, and the whole reason we have the script in the first place). Third, we could add an additional line as proposed, saying that existing questions will be answered without a new question not needing to be filed. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is the sort of thing that happens most, but I failed to find a diff for one of the cases of more than 2 or the sometimes bitty remarks not do do it. Not that I hang about the HelpDesk much. On the current page GwnftLight and Sukdev Mahapatra also had two back to back posts. KylieTastic (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a variant of that text to the top - feel free to copyedit. – SD0001 (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. It seems the script replaces it altogether. Will need a script update as well. – SD0001 (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed – SD0001 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SD0001 KylieTastic (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J-1 visa vs J-1 visa

[edit]

I declined Draft:Internship_and_Trainee_J-1_Visa_Programs as a duplicate of J-1 visa, however, on my Talk page the editor is (I think) indicating they are different topics and I should re-review the draft. To be honest, I don't entirely understand. Given my lack of understanding, would someone else mind taking a second look at both the editor's comment to me and the draft and, if appropriate, remedying any error I've made? I may be missing something. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this might be one of the subcategories of the J-1 visa? Primefac (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was going to say the same. Mind you, it's been years since I've dealt with any US visa issues, so could be some newfangled stuff I don't know about. In any case, don't see why different flavours of J-1 (or even J-class) would require separate articles? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft does get rather far into the weeds of the specifics of that visa type. The article is pretty long as it is, though, so a full merge might not make sense. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Barron Trump

[edit]

I am reviewing Draft:Barron Trump, and I have two mostly unrelated questions. The first is about reviewing a draft when the title in article space is a locked redirect. This is a question that I have asked before, but the answer has not always been entirely clear, and I would rather ask again than not ask and make a mistake. The title is a locked redirect because there was a previous AFD (the third AFD) and the consensus was to redirect and salt. Am I correct that I should compare the draft against the deleted version in the history, and consider whether there has been enough of a change so that it is reasonable to consider making a request to Requests for Unprotection? If so, my thought at this time is that it is not much of a change, and the submitter has not met the burden of overcoming the consensus of the AFD, but I will review it one more time. Are there any particular rules that I should follow when reviewing a draft where the title is a locked redirect due to an AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: yes. If the draft isn't significantly different, then it's not worth accepting. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the draft. This is a case of notability is not inherited. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly Constructive Edit with Vandalism

[edit]

The second question has to do with one of the edits to the draft. The edit appears to have been mostly constructive, but it introduced sneaky vandalism to an item in the infobox. I have reverted the vandalism and warned the editor. Should I be satisfied with assuming that the other edits were constructive, or should I revert the entire edit? I would have reverted the entire edit, except that there had been a subsequent edit that appeared to be constructive. What should be done if one discovers that an edit was mostly constructive but made a destructive change? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a mix, and it's not obvious what was good and what was bad, I'll revert the whole thing. That's just my philosophy, but I'm not going to untangle a complex edit if "vandalism" is part of it. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The only reason that I didn't revert the whole thing is that there had been another edit after it. It now appears that the change may have been a sloppy error rather than vandalism. The editor changed the height of the subject from 2 m to 2 cm. 2 m is 6 ft 7 in, which is what the subject's height has been reported as. The two possible explanations are both implausible, either that it was sneaky vandalism or that it was an error, so assume good faith applies. So I think that the draft is now correct. If the subject becomes individually notable in the future, his height is likely to be 201 cm or 202 cm. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

drafts are too long

[edit]

Please see discussion: link. -- Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 00:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Fluoride Action Network

[edit]

This draft seems on the edge of violating NPOV to me, especially since its author has a 16-year history of anti-water fluoridation POV-pushing, but I'd like another pair of eyes to determine if this article may be acceptable. JJPMaster (she/they) 21:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I'm not seeing any evidence of notability there. And for the coverage that does exist outside of the very recent court case, it's certainly not positive coverage. Which isn't reflected in the article as it is currently. And that does seem like an NPOV problem. SilverserenC 21:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluoride Action Network. The draft doesn't persuade me that anything has changed in twelve years except the government in Washington. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian state symbols

[edit]

It seems we have a new instalment in the series of bogus Indian state symbols, this time with Draft:List of Indian state vegetables. Different IP from the previous ones, but probably the same user. Just flagging this here to avoid a repeat of the earlier sich. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleared up the rest of the related junk edits from them. KylieTastic (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&oldid=1263576900"