Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Misplaced Review Requests

Shocked!

I almost choked on my coffee when I saw the green bar with the word "Normal" in the pending submissions count box, I haven't seen it for ages! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Is this due to an increase in reviews or a decline in submissions? Has someone checked we haven't got a high volume-low quality reviewer bringing the number down unscrupulously (the sort that has popped up in former drives)? --LukeSurl t c 12:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a bit suspicious honestly... It was 700 before the weekend. Doesn't seem to be a software glitch so maybe we should check the recent acceptances and browse through declines and check for bogus ones... Preliminarily I see nothing. Hey just an idea, is it possible to have a list of number of reviews per editor so potential issues can be found? Like people just declining everything? It could just be the attention brought by the RfC and AN ... Well keep up the good work everyone! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
EoRdE6, I know that some people, myself included, periodically go through the recent accepts and recent declines in {{AFC statistics}} checking for suspicious patterns; at the moment, that's one of the best ways bad reviewers can be caught. There has been discussion about keeping a userspace log of AfC reviews (like the Twinkle CSD one). Nothing's ever come of those discussions, but I think it's a very good idea. APerson (talk!) 15:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Since mid-2013, a there have been a lot of extra submissions because of the new db-g13 criteria. Over the next year, the creators of more than 50,000 old declined pages were notified that their creations were about to be deleted, plus thousands more that hit the six-months mark during the year. I am estimating about 5,000 notifications per month. Naturally, a percentage of these users decided to fix up and resubmit their pages. Other editors have also been fixing up these old drafts and resubmitting them. Because most of them had already been through at least one review, they also took longer to review than some first time submissions because many of the most obvious flaws had been addressed. Since last fall, when the whole 50,000 had been notified, the number of notifications each month has been substantially reduced. This is likely one reason why the backlog has been gradually going down for several months.
Hard work by the reviewers has also been a factor. Also, I've noticed a number of reviewers conforming more closely to the aims of the project - to accept drafts on notable topics, which aren't advertisements or copyvio, and let them be improved in the encyclopedia. For example, if a draft doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria, has a few references but needs more, and a quick Google search shows that there are plenty available, or if it just needs the references placed as citations to non-controversial facts, then the article won't be deleted at AfD, so it should be accepted. You won't believe how many db-g13 nominated drafts on perfectly good topics have been declined for needing minor improvements and abandoned.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
One possibility is that more reviewers have come on board. A hard line against new reviewers, particularly from Kudpung has hopefully stopped inexperienced reviewers from wading in, which might mean that the place is taken more seriously now. Another possibility is that word has got around that AfC takes too long and you might as well run the risk of NPP instead (there was a time not too long ago I saw a lot of mainspace duplicates), which leads to less submissions, which ironically means what does get submitted is faster. Anyway, I can now use the submission list for the first time in ages; all I need now is OohBunnies! to come back and it'll be like the old days. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I cannot stress often enough that poor reviewing both at AfC and NPP contribute significantly to Wikipedia's poor reputation for reliability and internal management. It should also be clear to everyone by now ::sigh:: that poor reviewing is wholly due to such maintemnance areas being a magnet to new, inexperienced users. And IMO it's a shame that the community ostensibly prefers to let the crap arrive, create backlogs, and not care about doing anything concrete about improving it other than backlog drives that don't addrfess any problems, and maintaining a constant competition for 'best script editor' and what has become largely a place of a lot of talk (be nice though if we had just a bit of that at NPP...) - if there was so much discussion about every article to be reviewed at NPP the backlog there would be even more than 30,000. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's suspicious. Since I joined AfC in January, the backlog has been steadily going down. I have seen a number of poor new rewiewers but I and Kudpung and primefac cleaned up a couple of those messes, so it's not that they're being poorly reviewed. At the end of February it was at 500, went up to 800, and we thought it would never happen again. This weekend I vowed to help get it down to 300... It was maybe 400 or 500 on the weekend. It took me and some others 5 hours on Sunday but it happened! I think that it's very easy to work through the newest ones, clearing out quick fails (copyvio, unsourced, blatant advert etc) in order to just get the backlog under control which is really what I think happened. I think the hardest part of this area is answering the talk page comments from new editors who are rude, don't read edit notices, or don't read decline notices. As for this mass drop, I've been spending time in IRC who convinced me to join in the first place, and IRC itself seems to be very effective at getting it done. Now the question is - when one does not have several hours to spend, how do you keep it down? — kikichugirl oh hello! 09:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Not new to AfC, but rejoined after about a six month delay. Saw that there was a tremendous backlog, and thought I'd help out to get the backlog down. I try to err on the side of accepting, and keep an eye on those I do accept until a few other editors have worked on them, that way I can see if they get sent to AfD. Only have had a few (perhaps 5). Glad to know someone's checking on my work. What Kikigirl said above is true, the new ones you can go through quickly and get rid of the obvious declines. What I try to do is to make sure I get rid of (as in off the list, either accept or decline) 5 of the articles in the longest categories, then look at the newer ones. My issue is trying to stay on top of all the messages on my talk page which this project generates. I try to respond to each reply and give good feedback. The only time I stop is when someone becomes uncivil, or simply wants to argue. Anyway, glad to see the backlog is somewhat under control. Will continue to attempt to contribute, but I've been focusing on it for the last two weeks, and now want to put some time back into films and the city project. Onel5969 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Onel5969: I'd like to second your comment about the talk page messages. I've still got over 50 threads less than 10 days old, and it takes a lot of time to answer them. It seems as if I've worked out something with fellow reviewers Lixxx235 and primefac - they seem to enjoy answering my messages (and I can only answer so many before my patience runs dry, and it's not fair to give some people a really curt response) - that don't require me specifically to answer them, and when they do, I take the time to answer those myself. L235 did say the other day something like how I did the "grunt work" of actually reviewing the AfCs, and he would help out by answering my talk page messages instead... :P — kikichugirl oh hello! 19:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kikichugirl: ::laughs slightly at enjoy answering my messages:: Kikichu is an amazing prolific reviewer... but when she reviews on two hours of sleep, it tends to generate about five talk page threads per day :P For me, personally, answering questions about why Kikichu declined is a lot easier than reviewing myself, mainly because of the slow internet here and therefore the relative unreliability of AFCH compared to responding to talk page messages. Cheers, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC about Referencing tutorial

Pls see Help talk:Referencing for beginners#RfC: What method first -- Moxy (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Stop adding User Talk pages to "Category:AfC submissions declined as..."?

See Template talk:Afc decline#RFC: Stop adding User Talk pages to "Category:AfC submissions declined as..."?. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

G13

  • Question: is the G13 bot still running? It's been a while since I received notification. And are accepted afcs now showing up on NPP? Are they showing up as reviewed or unreviewed? Are they indicated there as being derived from AfCs? I've been reviewing the ones from the latest burst, and I think we may have sometimes sacrificed quality for quantity, in both directions. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC) repeated DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • DGG My time has been elsewhere. If you had pinged me, I could have responded to this sooner... Bot overall appears to be working as evidenced at Special:Contributions/HasteurBot. From what I can tell it looks like Task 1 (the perform the CSD:G13 nomination) is stuck again. Probably due to the known defect of unicode accented characters in the mysql database. When I arrive at my programming console I'll do a review and clean out the records that are preventing the nomination process from moving forward. Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • DGG Yep, the nomination bot had 50 unicode accented characters stuck in the front. Nothing I can really do about that except manually review and move them out. Same problem with the Interested Notify process (which can be taken down by a single accented unicode character). Hasteur (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Finding the review button is hard

I think there should be a prominently place button which lets the person clicking it review a random article. It is not at all obvious how a person should find articles which need review.

Am I missing this button? Has it been proposed in the past to make this button easier to access? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You could put {{AFC button}} somewhere convenient, such as your user page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, this is just to say that I recently stuck a button on CAT:PEND that sends you to a random submission, since I also thought such a button was needed there. APerson (talk!) 12:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Question from 176.252.177.220

There is still no article on the March 1st 2015 legislative and local elections in El Salvador - why not?176.252.177.220 (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@176.252.177.220: Because no one has written one yet. You can either write it yourself at WP:WIZARD or request that someone else write one at WP:REQUEST. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What the HECK????

Okay, there was a portal template draft here. I contacted the folks over at the portal group and asked them to take a look John of Reading was kind enough to respond. Unfortunately, I didn't take his instructions seriously enough, and did not request the move be made through WP:RM. You can see his response HERE. Instead, I simply hit accept on the draft. Here's the result: Portal:Tuvalu. I attempted to "undo" the acceptance, but it's still all screwed up. Can someone else fix it? The editor did a lot of hard work on this, and I hate to think I was the cause of undoing all that effort. Onel5969 (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Onel5969: The subpages didn't get moved over into article space by the tool. I moved them myself, but there are still a few (such as {{Tuvalu}}) that I couldn't find in draft space. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ahecht - For the life of me, I could not figure it out. Since I mentioned John of Reading above, hopefully, he'll take a look and be able to correct the rest of the issues. Onel5969 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio tool question

Hi. Here's a hopefully quick question. I use Earwig's Copyvio detector to check articles for violations. I've found it very helpful. However, occasionally, for whatever reason, it does not operate correctly (like today, it's given me 10 0% violations in a row - and it RARELY gives a 0%). Is there another tool that is as good? Thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have seen a warning about a problem with the database occasionally, so I suspect there is a recurring problem with the tool. Have you tried to contact User:Earwig about this? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dodger67 - No, I haven't, since it really hasn't been a major issue. It was just a problem when I was making a concerted effort to help on the backlog, and any delay was costly. Next time it occurs, I'll let Earwig know. Onel5969 (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It's The Earwig not Earwig. I have contacted him on IRC previously with this error and it appeared to be a memory glitch. He just needs to restart it when it happens. Just ping when it's happens again. (And no. This is the best tool ever. If you say something else, you're with the cabal!) (t) Josve05a (c) 15:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

user:178.132.216.139

FYI 178.132.216.139 (talk · contribs) has been deleting unprocessed requests off WP:AFC/R without closing or archiving them; I've reverted the deletions and issued a blanking warning. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

--Sdash095 (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to alter default decline wording for test articles

Hi, currently, when we are declining edits as test, This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any tests in the future. Thank you. is displayed. However, I find that many people are submitting out of their sandbox like this and therefore it's weird to ask them to go and use the sandbox.

I propose that we reword this, to This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any tests in the future, but do not submit them. Or any other alternative wording...? I look forward to everyone's input. — kikichugirl oh hello! 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

While we're revising that comment, we could also include a reminder to only submit drafts that are ready for review. I was thinking of something along the lines of Please make sure that your draft is ready for review in the future. APerson (talk!) 04:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not so much that they're not ready for review, its that they're not encyclopedia articles. What about Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit your sandbox for review until you have an actual article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that is the way to go. — kikichugirl oh hello! 09:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm using the right template, since I don't actually know where the decline template can be found as it's a mess of templates and I'm bad at template syntax, but... If there's no further objections, can we implement this? — kikichugirl oh hello! 23:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wording updated. Note: "sandbox" is no longer linked - is this intentional? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@MSGJ: No, I definitely think we want "sandbox" or "the sandbox" linked, as someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia or programming jargon would have no idea what we're talking about otherwise. The question is whether it should link to WP:Sandbox as it used to or to Special:Mypage/sandbox, but I guess in the interest of momentum it would be best to just restore the link as it was. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirects from one-time fictional entities from TV series

Hello. Over at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects a user has proposed several redirects for names of fictional products or one-shot characters featured in episodes of The Simpsons, proposing a redirect to the article about the episode in which they appear (for example Gorilla Man Scalp Blaster -> Simpson and Delilah). While I'm satisfied these titles aren't going to be needed for any real entities, this is very much in the domain of trivia, and these articles make at the very most only quick references to the subjects of these redirects, rather than discussing them in any detail. Do people think these are valid proposals? --LukeSurl t c 17:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If they were created, it is unlikely they would be deleted at WP:RfD as the generally consensus is "redirects are cheap" and such redirects would do no harm. So, as long as the subject is mentioned in the target article the request would seem to be valid. Whether it's a worthwhile of of time is another question, but as far as redirect policy goes they are unlikely to be questioned. (The example isn't even mentioned in the article. IMO, it would be best to just decline them as a waste of time if others are similarly obscure.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I will also note that there is no technical limitation preventing Pickuptha'Musket form creating them himself, so he too is wasting his time by requesting them at AfC/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that these truly one shot passing mentions don't need a redirect. The google search lists more than enough to figure out the context and SimpsonsWiki has a stub article about the subject. Now if it's a recurring bit (i.e. KrustyBurger) I could see a redirect, but not as a in passing mention. Hasteur (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I will only delete one-time entities because I've learned they're not necessary. However, if any recur, are mentioned in a different episode or are reasonably popular, then they'll stay. Sorry if I bothered anyone. --Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Pickuptha'Musket: I'm sure no one was "bothered" - my point was that you are free to create the redirects yourself without using AfC... If a one-time character is central to the plot of a particular episode, that would be a very good reason to have a redirect. If something just happens to be in an episode but isn't a significant part of the plot, that would be a good reason to not have a redirect. Such a redirect won't be of any use since the searcher won't find any information on the subject at the target anyway. Hope that clears it up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I need help with AFC helper script

I have been trying to work this out for 30 minutes. I checked to use helper script in my preferences and I cleared my browsers cache (Firefox). The next step says: To launch AFCH, click on the upside-down triangle icon in the toolbar on an AFC-applicable page and then on the Review (AFCH) link. There is no upside down triangle icon in the toolbar, so I am confused (and frustrated). Hopefully a patient Wikipedian can help me. Thank you. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I got it to work~! Thank you Afc Wikiproject! CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Finding pending submissions by subject

How can I find pending AfC submissions, but subject (i.e. by the category they will end up in)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing
Step 0: Get support for some sort of categorization scheme in the templates (as we want template inhereted categories instead of explicit categories)
Step 1: Go through every pending submission and dump it into one or more of the category buckets
Step 2: ....
Step 3: PROFIT
This is a perenial suggestion/request but nobody wants to spend the time developing solving this problem so no activity gets done on it. Hasteur (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
As Hasteur points out, we can't identify submissions by subject unless someone does the work of classifying them. That time is probably better spend reviewing submissions. All is not lost though. How about control clicking on this a bunch of times
Close tabs you've opened until you find one that interests you. --Kvng (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
You could always modify the article wizard to add categories based on keywords the editors supplies in a keywords box. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett, for some subjects it works well to use this custom search which only looks in draft space. By adding the words "Review waiting", you only find drafts which are up for review. For example, if you want to find submissions about politicians, try typing "review waiting politician" in the search box below. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

A solution, though a manual one, for this issue would be for an additional step to be added to the first review: "Add relevant WikiProject banners to the draft talk page with class=Draft parameter". This would help to sort those submissions that have been through the review sieve at least once. A more comprehensive process would be the equivalent of Stub sorting, replicate all the Stub categories and the associated template and icons, but replace "Stub" with "Draft". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Roger (Dodger67), I seem to recall an earlier discussion about this, and there was a problem because most Wikiprojects hadn't implemented "draft" in some process or other, what it was I can't remember. Does anyone know exactly what the problem was, and if it has been fixed? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah that would require some big collaboration to get the word spread between the 1,984 wikiprojects (not all active mind you) that exist. Also would it be added be the creator (a new/unregistered user) or the first reviewer? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@EoRdE6 most newbies will have no idea at all about WikiProject banners so the task would almost always fall to the first reviewer. Most WikiProjects already have an article rating system which includes a table that lists the numbers of pages by class. The active projects would notice the appearance of Draft-class pages on the list and the curious editors among them would click to see what it means. I think a mass posting of a message on all WikiProject Talk pages would be useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
(ec)@Anne Delong yes indeed, this issue is not new, however since we last raised it the "class=Draft" parameter has been rolled out to all WikiProjects by default, so we can and should now use it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Often when I'm reviewing I'll "skip" on drafts that I either don't feel skilled enough to review, or that I don't have the time/energy to do a quality review for at that time. I suspect I'm not alone in this, drafts in the "very old" lists are likely to have been seen by quite a few pairs of eyeballs.
Though I'm not sure about reviewing these, I'm sure I'd be capable of categorizing most into broad pots (especially if one of these was "companies"). If a straightforward categorization system could be implemented in the helper script, which would tie in the necessary Wikiprojects, I reckon we could find ourselves tapping into a lot of reviewer time that currently is wasted. In a sense we'd be creating a triage system, whereby straightforward passes and fails are done quickly (which kinda happens already), and the trickier cases are categorized rather than just languishing. --LukeSurl t c 14:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject tagging is already a part of the Accept "subroutine" of the script - maybe it could be made available as a separate process, like "cleanup" currently is? I know nothing about scripts, so.... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a cool idea. We've been making noise about shuffling around the buttons on the main menu, and this would definitely be a candidate for being on the "primary menu" (i.e. you don't have to click the << to show it). An idea I've been thinking about for a while is automating the process of sticking a notice on a WikiProject talk page about a draft and commenting on the draft with the notice; perhaps that could be somehow integrated.
Where would these WikiProject tags go on drafts? I feel like putting them on the talk pages would be a bad idea because reviewers just glancing at the draft wouldn't be able to see them. So putting them in a specialized comment - perhaps modifying {{Afc comment}} with a WikiProject tag-specific version - might be the way to go. APerson (talk!) 16:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a perfectly standard WikiProject Banner {{WikiProject Whatever|class=Draft}} that goes on the talk page. A reviewer "just glancing" at a draft isn't interested in seeing that information anyway. The real purposes of WikiProject banners are for the project itself, the banner and its parameters create a number of categories which are used by the projects to sort and manage their articles. I'm opposed to adding even more AFC clutter to the top of drafts pages, one of the main arguments for creating Draft-space in the first place was to give each draft its own talk page, so we should use them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope the proposal is to put these banners on the Draft talk: page associated with the submission. This is where they would eventually need to go. They will not further clutter the submission there. --Kvng (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Draft talk: is the obvious place for Wikiproject banners. There could be some merit to a short {{AFC comment}} informing the submitter (who is probably unaware of the talk page), along the lines of "The subject matter of this draft is in the domain of WikiProject Z. Editors from that WikiProject may be able to help you prepare this submission". Getting new editors to talk to and potentially join WikiProjects would be good for editor retention, and should help foster collaboration on drafts. Alternatively such a notice could be delivered to draft authors' talk pages. --LukeSurl t c 17:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll join the chorus saying that they'd go on Draft talk: like any other Wikiproject banner. I like the idea of adding adding an {{AFC comment}} as an option. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of IRC proposal

There is a proposal related to Wikipedia's live help at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#IRC help channel disclaimer. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Joining

Hi, I need some advice. Do I just need to sign and I will be a participant of the project? Willy Weazley 23:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

First get up to 500 edits before signing up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
More importantly, you need to have a good understanding of the basic article inclusion policies and guidelines on Wikipedia (primarily notability, verifiability and suitability) and the ability to communicate well with new editors. That's far more important than an arbitrary edit count, in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

{{WPAFCInvite}}

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation#Advertisement, maybe also mention {{WPAFCInvite}}. Currently there's basically not a single WP page that mentions the template. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe there's a way to hide the template's "We need YOU!" heading from the Contents? Although probably not, since the heading is built in to the template and we're transcluding the whole template. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 Fixed With this edit to the template, and this edit to the page. Thanks for noticing that! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I've updated Template:WPAFCInvite to document your new feature. ~Kvng (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

AfC/R backlog

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects is suffering from a bit of a backlog at the moment. Could any helpers please use the script to process some requests? Rcsprinter123 (commune) @ 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do it with the script - or if it's even possible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
This requires the old script (which can be simultaneously loaded with the new script). Once at AFC/R, choosing "Review" (not Review AFCH) will load up the helpful interface. --LukeSurl t c 07:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Can someone fix this backlog? Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion (drafts) (Proposal to have a PROD system for drafts)

Given the work AfC does with Drafts, I thought it would be important to inform everyone there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion (drafts) about whether there should be a PROD system for Drafts. Interested editors are asked to respond there. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Buzzfeed

Regular reviewers will probably have encountered Buzzfeed put forward as a source for proving notability on quite a few occasions. This Reliable Sources Noticeboard search leads to some past discussion of Buzzfeed's reliability, with an overall feeling that it can be used as a source but with considerable care. However, the following article may cast further doubt on Buzzfeed's reliability, especially with regard to commercial and computing topics:

  • Stack, Liam (April 19, 2015). "BuzzFeed Says Posts Were Deleted Because of Advertising Pressure". New York Times. Retrieved April 21, 2015.

Another thing to watch out for is the text "This post was created by a member of BuzzFeed Community, where anyone can post awesome lists and creations" in Buzzfeed content. This of course indicates that the post in question cannot be used in proving notability. Such posts don't appear to be easily distinguishable by URL or title. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer comments lost on creation of the article

When a page passes review all the reviewer comments seem lost. I wish they could be posted to the newly created article's talk page. Is there any discussion about where these comments go, and the future development of AfC tools? I expected that at least the AfC creation template on the talk page would link to the reviewer comments, but it seems that they vanish. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We have had discussions in the past. I am neutral over it since the commentary exists in the history anyway. I forget whether we came to a conclusion. Fiddle Faddle 12:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
After the creation of Draft-space we did discuss the idea of moving the AFC "stuff" to the draft talk page but iirc the consensus was that doing so would inconvenience many (most) newbie editors as they often have no idea about Talk pages. Perhaps we could have the Accept script copy the review templates and comments to a hatted and suitably labelled section on the talk page when the draft is moved to mainspace? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I would be wholly in favour of that. It preserves in semi-plain sight but does not produce talk page clutter. Fiddle Faddle 07:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I like Dodger67's idea. Onel5969 (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I also support Roger's idea - the comments are useful if the article needs to be looked at again if it goes to AfD, for example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I predict it will be rare for this information to be useful to editors improving and maintaining an article. As Fiddle Faddle points out, the information is available in the submission's edit history; We just need to make it a bit easier to find. I would suggest including a link on the new article's talk page to the submission as it stood immediately prior to being accepted. Maybe the link could go in {{WikiProject Articles for creation}}. Maybe a separate info box along the lines of {{Merged-from}} is needed. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I was just about to suggest we include a dropdown box in {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} (the talk page banner for accepted submissions) that includes the reviewer comments. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Before we get too excited(!) by this, do we have a willing person who can an will implement whatever solution is both neat and simple? If so we might move to pilot mode on an arbitrary version as a bold edit, quote possibly to the live script. No-one, I think, is going to be upset with a positive outcome as long as it is neat, and does not intrude. The information is not of huge use, and is simply historic. If the draft is moved without the script it will be "lost" anyway. 15:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Fiddle Faddle
Sure, I'd be willing to implement solutions that involve changes to the AFCH script. APerson (talk!) 16:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The comments in some articles involve questions of copyright violations, often on articles being created by students using their real names to edit. I would rather not see that immortalized on the talk page of an accepted article. A choice of whether or not to include comments is one way to handle this. But I would prefer not having the mistakes of new users put on the talk page. We want to encourage new editors. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that often the comments would no longer be helpful (for example, if the page was blank the first time it was submitted). However, occasionally, a comment is still relevant, since we don't insist that drafts be perfect. Even if we don't get a consensus or an easy process for moving all the comments, a reviewer could choose to copy a specific comment to a talk page (ie: AfC comment: Please place the references as inline citations ---SomeReviewer) —Anne Delong (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Let's not put the comments directly on the talk page of the accepted article. Let's put a link to a version of the submission that includes the comments on the talk page. ~Kvng (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree we should not indiscriminately "preserve" all review commentary, most of it is meaningless once the article is accepted. Only comments that remain relevant to the mainspace article should be put on the talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The advantage of adding a link to the last version before acceptance is that it could be done automatically, whereas reviewers' time would be taken up by selective preservation of comments. However, it may not be as straightforward as it seems at first glance. For example, will the link still work if the article is moved to a new title? Also, some of the AfC templates do something totally different when they find themselves in mainspace (here's an example:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riley_Senft&oldid=602178758). The decline reasons are no longer visible, including comments that were added to them using the custom decline. Comments saying things like "issues noted in the last decline have not been resolved" would be meaningless.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If possible, we should modify these templates to do something more useful when they're viewed in the context of the history of an accepted submission. That may be less work and less error prone than having the script move them to the accepted article's talk page. With the templates as they are, it is difficult to interpret the development history of an AfC article and this is a problem. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The AFCH script already grabs the current revid before it makes any changes, so it shouldn't be too hard to add a link to that from the talk page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I modified {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} so that it can take an optional |oldid= parameter. When this parameter is supplied, it adds a link to the last draft in the "This template was accepted..." line, as you can see at Template:WikiProject Articles for creation/testcases. This uses {{oldid2}} to bring up the old draft, so it shouldn't be bothered by things like page moves or histmerges. Is there consensus to have the AFCH tool fill in this field when placing the banner? I've mocked up the necessary patch here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahecht, if you make a pull request, I'll merge it. APerson (talk!) 18:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 Merged. Now all we need is for Theopolisme to get around to updating his userspace version, which will then update everyone else's version. APerson (talk!) 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This is live; thanks for the ping. Theopolisme (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This does the trick. Thanks Ahecht and APerson! if someone could make {{AFC submission}} do something more reasonable when it ends up in mainspace, that would be great. ~Kvng (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Kvng, sure - do you mean something like showing the decline comments and users in a smaller font, perhaps hidden by a {{hat}} box? APerson (talk!) 18:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Have a look at this example or Anne Delong's example above. The "reviewer is in the process of closing the request" message generated by the template is incorrect and I'm not sure what the purpose of this is. I think it would be fine if the template rendered as they do in Draft: or Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ namespaces but I'd be careful about making that change unless you understand the reason for the current behavior. ~Kvng (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
When the page is moved to mainspace, the AfC templates are supposed to be removed, but occasionally for some reason or another there is a delay or the process doesn't complete, and this prevents the decline text from showing in mainspace until the removal is done manually. Since the page is now picked up by Google, non-editors will likely start viewing it right away and may be confused by the pink decline templates. Instead they get a message that the page is new and will be fixed up shortly. Perhaps the template could be changed so that it only showed the mainspace message when it is on the current revision, and reverts to its lovely pinkness in the old revisions.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I have proposed the change to allow the template to function in mainspace when viewing previous revisions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2015

it is a violent gun game 73.8.224.148 (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 02:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Aging on articles

Not that it makes much difference, but there seems to be an issue on the aging for the submissions. Don't know exactly when it started, but it looks like between 2-4 days ago. There are many articles on the 0 days list which were actually submitted a couple of days ago. Onel5969 (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Onel5969: this is a known issue - the article's have a "null edit" every few days, which corrects the count. Mdann52 (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to add global JavaScript

There is an ongoing discussion that watchers of this page may be interested in on Proposal to add global JavaScript and add an extra step for new users to get live IRC help. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

IRC Nick parameter for helpees causing confusion

Hi everyone, I'm an active helper on #wikipedia-en-help connect. Many helpees reach us from their declined and/or pending drafts. In my experience, there seems to be informal consensus among helpers to remove the "WPhelp" nick parameter. I noticed this first done by User:Logan on {{Helpmessage}} not long ago. I attempted to apply this change in a bold edit to another AFC template, but I was reverted by Technical 13. I and users such as User:PhantomTech believe that we should remove the parameter and make them choose their own usernames.

I perceive the following benefits:

  1. Helpees with similar numbers would be able to easily tell themselves apart. We already have a problem with helpees thinking we are a private chat room. I have seen many helpees say "I can't tell my number apart from the other helpees unless I look closely."
  2. Conversations in IRC would be easier to follow. Currently many of us use the autocomplete function but autocomplete the wrong helpee's nick, accidentally addressing our messages to the wrong person. This inevitably creates more confusion. If we don't use the autocomplete function, and carefully copy the nick every time, we often still make typos. When we make typos, it doesn't ping the helpee about the fact that there's a message addressed to them.
  3. Ideally, helpees will choose a nick identical to their username, reducing the number of times we have to ask "What is your username?"

I know that there are some people who believe that they may end up choosing a generic name, and since enforce is set on their nicks, they will be automatically changed to Guest### or whatever, but we already experience this issue and it does not seem more problematic than WPhelp####. While it won't solve the problems behind us wanting to remove the WPHelp parameter, it won't create any more problems, either. In fact, many of the links elsewhere on the site use Freenode's webchat instead of KiwiIRC, which does not have a prefilled nick parameter at all. It is better than Freenode webchat because helpees sometimes can't figure out where to type, but they can on the user-friendly KiwiIRC.

  • User:Σ also proposed via IRC that the nick parameter could be replaced with {{#invoke:Random|item|Potato|Kartoffel|PommeDeTerre|Iwashi|Tameru|Rinngo}} creating a nickname randomizer of some sort not unlike the Google Docs-type Anonymous Cat, Anonymous Dog, etc. nicknames. So, that's also another option.

I appreciate anyone's thoughts and comments regarding this matter, especially comments from people who are active helpers in the IRC channel and familiar with the usual day-to-day events and questions that we deal with there. — kikichugirl oh hello! 21:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Having helped in that channel very heavily (some years ago), I agree that having the generic nick#### can be confusing with multiple guests in the channel. I like the idea of inputting code into the link that would make a randomized nick a la Google docs. Killiondude (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I understand the issue, but see problems with the proposed solutions. If users are allowed to choose their own names it will typically be their own first name, and the majority of the common names are already registered on freenode. If you randomly generate them a name I can see that being confusing for them. This is another thing to add to my list of reasons we need a non-IRC live help tool though. Sam Walton (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
As Kikichugirl said, having usernames picked by users would make it a lot easier to help them. Even if they pick registered nicks and fallback to Guest#####, that's not much (if at all) worse than WPhelp#####. If possible, this is how I think IRC nicks should be set for users looking for help:
  • If the user is logged in and their username is only alphanumeric characters, it gets trimmed to 11 characters (if it's long) and "-WP##" is added to the end where ## is a random number
  • If the user is not logged in or their username has non-alphanumeric characters, a random word or name is used from a list of usernames (like Σ suggests) and "-WP###" is added to that where "###" is, again, a random number except with 3 digits this time
As long as we can get the wiki usernames checked and passed to the link we give users, this allows helpers to get helpee's usernames easily, identifies users as having come from Wikipedia and allows helpers to use autocomplete easily since the start of helpee usernames is not likely to be similar to other helpees. I've looked at Samwalton9's non-IRC live help thing and think that a similar solution could be to have an on-site chat box that connects to the current IRC channel but only shows the user their own messages along with messages that start with their nick and were sent from users with a Wikimedia/Wikipedia/etc. cloak. It's not as great of a solution but it would probably be easier to implement and would allow a wider range of people to help. A form could be filled out that would immediately send information to the channel when they connect so that when "User-WP32" connects, helpees would see:
User-WP32 has Joined #Wikipedia-en-help
User-WP32: Related article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD
User-WP32: Coming from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk
User-WP32: I don't understand Wikipedia's policy on being bold
"Coming from" would be what page they were on when they clicked the link, "Related article" would be optional and the last message would be whatever they put in a "What's your question?" box. This doesn't solve the issue of people being unavailable at certain times and users without enough experience might still try to help but it gives helpers a lot of the information they need to know to help people and lets helpers decide if they're familiar enough with the topic being asked about before starting to interact. PhantomTech (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I think PhantomTech's name-picking proposal is great and should be implemented as soon as possible. APerson (talk!) 19:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I second that. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Since this propsed solution would require global JavaScript and affects not only this project but all other projects that use IRC channels or have links to -help, I suggest this discussion be moved to a more global and universal discussion page to prevent a local consensus issue and the risk of this project dictating what the teahouse, help desk, reference desk, etc must have. -help is certainly not an AfC only channel. Also, the WPhelp nicks were implemented by a wider than AfC consensus on IRC in -helpers and a wider consensus would be needed to overturn that. Finally, this discussion is very fragmented with discussions also on my talk page and the templates talk page. To prevent further fragmentation by an individual discussion being started at HD/RD/THQ/Etc, I suggest moving it to WP:VPR. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure I must have read you wrong in reading that there was a consensus in irc that determined an onwiki change. There of course isn't any such concept. --nonsense ferret 23:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The only onwiki discussion I can find for that specific templates was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 8#Template-protected edit request on 5 November 2014. Still not the point. Unless you are claiming that -help is ONLY for WP:AFC, then this discussion that changes the behavior of the visitors to that channel needs a discussion at a central location for all projects that use -help. I suggest an RfC at WP:VPR. As I've suggested multiple times, I would be happy to make changes to all of the relevant templates so that each template will pick a different nick depending on which template the user comes from. It can either set the username based on the template used or it can be make to set the user's nick to the name of the page they clicked the link on. Not entirely helpful in cases where the pagename is longer than the max nick name, but it could be truncated to fit and would offer a little more specific name to respond to. As Sam said, asking visitors to pick their own nick is a counter productive way to go. A random nick generator doesn't help much either, since it doesn't offer any information to who the user is. I'm entirely open to the idea of change, as long as it is a forward movement in making it easier to help visitors. If right now there are 7 WPhelp and 3 Guest nicks, this change will have the benefit of there being 0 WPhelp nicks and 9 Guest nicks, that doesn't help the very reason that you are asking for change here and is actually counter productive. Anyways, please ping me if you need my help in applying changes that set the nick to either AfC<template type>## or <pagename> and I'll get started or if you have another idea that helps identifying what visitors need help with, I'll happily implement that as well. Going back to 90% of visitors being Guest isn't helpful and I'm hoping to be able to back to IRC in -help soon. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
WPhelp nicks are primarily used in these AFC templates under this project's jurisdiction. I have no interest in altering the status quo of other templates. There has not been consensus to implement the solution using JavaScript, only that there is approval for it. I still believe that the random-item solution would be best. However, I would not be opposed to having an RFC on this, providing that the people who actually participate in the RFC are people who are actually helpers on the channel and can understand pros and cons of changing or not changing. — kikichugirl oh hello! 03:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Break

I would be open to T13's above proposal that we set the default nicks to the page that the helpees came from. Here's the code, for example, I would use to replace WPhelp: {{#ifeq: {{SUBPAGENAME}} | sandbox | {{BASEPAGENAME}} | {{SUBPAGENAME}} }} This would set all nicks to the page name, except when the page is in a user sandbox, where it would default to the username. This allows for ease of finding drafts and/or usernames. The other alternative would be something like {{ifeq:{{SUBJECTSPACE}} | Draft | {{PAGENAME}} | {{BASEPAGENAME}} }} in which if the namespace is draft, then the page name is used, otherwise, the base page name is used. One more alternative would be to combine all of them to say userspace would give usernames, draft space would get draft names, and all others would give WPhelp or the base page name or something. This would be for all links under the AFC jurisdiction. Finally, User:PhantomTech seems to be almost done with a function that would allow us to grab their usernames, so I would defer if it comes to that, and works well. — kikichugirl oh hello! 20:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe to simplify it all, {{#switch: {{SUBJECTSPACE}} | User = {{BASEPAGENAMEE}} | Wikipedia = {{BASEPAGENAMEE}} | Draft = {{PAGENAMEE}} | Template = T-&#123;{PAGENAMEE}} | {{PAGENAMEE}} This is very namespace dependent, and if the namespace is not applicable, it would return the simple page name (and probably get truncated by IRC. Pinging an IRC op in invitation to comment. — kikichugirl oh hello! 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about this, and the biggest challenges would include first the IRC nick length and second the right for user's to stay somewhat anonymous (as they perceive it)(which was brought to my attention by Legoktm in a discussion someplace that I can't seem to find right now). SO, what I'm thinking is it could set the nick by default based on the following syntax: AfC|(Draft status)|(Page ID) where draft status is a one letter representation of the status of the draft based on the AfC submission codes (Declined, Reviewing, DrafT, Pending (since pending is actually no character)). {{PAGEID}} can be used with a script to quickly access the page by helpers or it can be set up with a key in -helpers to quickly get to the page. Alternatively, {{REVISIONID}} could be used and anyone could enter in the revision number using Special:Diff/1180768284. I'd be happy to implement either one of these, I'm just opposed to merging all of the WPhelp nicks into the Guest nicks as that is a backwards movement. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 10:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's the important bit of the javascript to change the usernames, it would need some minor changes depending on how it was implemented
if (!mw.user.isAnon()) {
    // really this next line is the only one that's important
    var userNick = mw.user.getName().substring(0,12).replace(/\W/g, "_") + "-WP" + Math.floor(Math.random() * 89 + 10).toString();
    var ircLink = document.getElementById("ircLink").href;
    ircLink = ircLink.replace(/WPhelp\?/, userNick);
} else {
    // do something random...
}

PhantomTech (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The current new system, that results in nicknames like "P-659769291", is not the solution to the problem. The names generated this way are far too long, and the names will tend to be very similar. Helpees may have a very hard time telling what messages are for them. The system allows for quick finding of drafts, but I think it will hinder the actual process of helping. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • How are these 11 character nicks too long when the proposed replacement (If the user is logged in, their nick is the first 11 characters of their username with anything non-alphanumeric characters replaced with an underscore and "-WP##" added to the end) is the full 16 character NICKLEN restriction? Also, I'll note that a good majority of usernames have spaces, which this proposed replacement doesn't allow and means the new nicks will be useless for helping the helpee since helpers won't be able to find the page that the helpee is asking for help with. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The length isn't the only issue. The main problem I have is that the names will be very similar. Also, I have not stated my opinion one way or another about the proposed replacement. I think what exists now should be, for now at least, reverted to what existed before this discussion began. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about processes at WP:COIN

Hi - would folks active in this project please have a look at this discussion at WP:COIN, No COI in Draft space?, and comment? I work at COIN and would be very interested in your thoughts there. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Well versed Wikipedian for an article

I'm old school and trying to grow my plumbing company (at a snails pace). It has proven to be much harder than expected; the two choices I have encountered are fork out a ton of money or ask for help. Asking for help has brought me here tonight. I would ask a well versed Wikipedian to generously write an article about my plumbing company with a link to my Google page in hopes of creating a stronger appearance. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.227.196 (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@67.191.227.196: The place to make article requests is WP:REQ. Just follow the link and you'll be set. However, I'll let you know first that Wikipedia has a standard that articles must meet—essentially, an eligible subject must have multiple reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss it in significant detail. There are other rules for companies too, but at the end of the day, an article needs reliable, independent sources with significant coverage in order to make it onto Wikipedia. If the plumbing company doesn't have those sorts of references yet, it may be too soon for an article.
Also, it's worth noting that, if an article is written, it will be written in a neutral tone so as to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. That means that it won't be an advertisement for the company, and over time, the article could conceivably contain not only positive facts about the company but also negative ones. Something to keep in mind! wia (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability of sports players

I've noticed a few sports players on here, who's articles haven't been accepted due to notability concerns. However, sportspeople have their own criteria for notability, WP:NSPORT, which is generally easier to achieve than WP:GNG. Just wanted to inform reviewers that if drafts are about sportspeople, they should look at this criteria as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

there remains incomplete consensus on the relations of the two guidelines. While it is true that almost all AfDs for people who meet NSPORTS but not the GNG have closed as keep, results have been divided for players who meet the GNG but not NSPORTS. There might possibly be a trend to accepting them, but nobody cannot predict what the case will be in the future. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we need to try and read the AfD crystal ball here. We don't need to be fully confident in articles we accept, we just need to believe they stand a >50% chance of being kept. I think it is reasonable to assume that WP:LIKELY is satisfied if either notability criteria is met. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If a subject passes GNG an SNG cannot be used to excluded it, or i.o.w an SNG can never be more restrictive than GNG. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
In practice at AfD it seems to me often that any coverage for sportsmen which do not pass SNG tends to be dismissed as 'routine coverage of a non-notable sportsperson' or 'passing mentions', so to simply rely on GNG without looking at SNG won't give you a helpful picture of the standards applied --nonsense ferret 16:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Take it easy, all --

Just wanted to say take care to you all. I've been asked to stop participating in the AfC process by someone with far more experience than I, Pigsonthewing. Good luck to everyone. Onel5969 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Unless I'm missing something, Pigsonthewing never asked you to stop participating in the AfC process, he just pointed out an improper rejection and asked you to review a few policies. Frankly, that article was a close call, because although it met criteria 4 of WP:ARTIST there were no independent sources. It would be a shame to lose you as a contributor here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Onel5969: So, you made a mistake. It happens. Andy caught it and offered you advice. That's fine. Show me a good editor here who has never made a mistake!
Now, take a deep breath out, then in, then out, and breathe. And review your next draft. Just do it with a little more research. Get back on that horse. Fiddle Faddle 21:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Making mistakes is awesome! ~Kvng (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Onel5969: Please don't quit. We make mistakes all the time, and making an improper review once in a while is totally fine. You're a really dedicated review who has almost single handedly kept the backlog down. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 03:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello all! Just left a little nudge here, not to raise any eyebrows but to offer some advice. Now let's cheer up and do some responsible reviewing. PS: we all need a break from time to time...heck I've been away for about a year! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Wondering why an article was accepted...

I discovered List_of_American_ethnic_and_religious_fraternal_orders today, and it has not been substantially worked on since it was approved. I discovered the following items:

  1. The majority of the entries are sourced from three books. That's it. It's effectively just copies of the information in those books.
  2. The author placed all the Jewish fraternal orders in the "Ethnic" category. I think that's open to debate.
  3. There's both a "Hispanic" and "American Indian" section - we don't use those terms here.
  4. Categorization of groups - The Knights of Pythias are not African-American, except this list thinks so. The "Association Canado-Americaine" is listed as "French", but it is obviously Canadian from the name, and in fact is said in the entry to be heavily Catholic, which might make it likely French-Canadian, but that distinction is not made here.
  5. The author did, however, make sure to discriminate between three groups of Slavs.

As far as I am concerned, this is poorly researched copy/paste work that shows POV issues, and likely should never have been created until somebody who knew the fraternal org area could look at it. MSJapan (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@MSJapan: Ideally you should ask Lor who accepted it, followed by Bellerophon5685 who has worked in it since. No-one here can tell you why Lor accepted it. If you feel strongly that it ought not to be present please feel perfectly at liberty to take it to WP:AFD, or clean up the mess you perceive yourself. If you think Lor made a mistake please remember that all of us are human (0.9 probability). Fiddle Faddle 22:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The Knights of Pythias link goes to an African American order of the Knights of Pythias; I have never been aware of a ban on the use of the terms "Hispanic" or "American Indian"; the "Association Canado-Americaine" seems like a matter of semantics - French, French-Canadian, French Canadian America etc. I believe that their primary ethnic self - identity is French; Jewish fraternal groups come in both religious and secular forms - ergo the Workmans Circle, which identifies itself as ethnically Jewish, but is a secular group as far as I am aware; As for the sources - I went to the sources of my sources in each case as far as I could trace them - Axelrod, Scmict, Preuss and Stevens, oftentimes they were quoting from each other. In some cases I was able to find independently names sources ergo the Christian Cynosure. In anycase, each source qualifies as WP:PS, do they not? --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Checking submissions

I don't even work in or near this project but this is the second time I've seen a random IP user going and putting the submit tag on drafts that they themselves have not worked on. Why would they do that? Is that allowed? It might be necessary for reviewers to check who added the submit tag. I reverted two of this IP's tags (here and here) because those drafts had not been edited since they were last declined. Was I right in doing that? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @JMHamo:. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they did anything wrong per se. Anyone can add a template. I don't know what their intentions were, and that's what is bizarre to me. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jeraphine Gryphon: I think there are two things here. The first is "Who may submit a draft?" to which the answer is that anyone may submit any draft they perceive as being ready, though, and this is a courtesy, user sandboxes are seen as, broadly, inviolate.
The second is "Who is this random IP editor?" to which the answer is the named editor themselves, who has forgotten to log in (0.8 probability).
As a reviewer I don't care about the who. I care about the what, which is the article content. Fiddle Faddle 12:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No, reverting the re-submission of drafts in a collaborative project was not the right thing to do. Anyone is allowed to submit or resubmit any draft they see fit and inclusion worthy. Draft space works very much the same as article spacing in this regard, no-one WP:OWNs a draft. I've reverted your revisions, so there is no harm done here. I may suggesting asking first next time before making such reversions (as I suppose they could be considered bad faith against IP editors). I'll also note that TimTrent is likely right that the IP is likely the person that created the drafts in the first place and either forgot to log in or was logged out and didn't realize it (happens to me once a month). Anyways, like I said, no worries, you didn't break anything, and it has been a learning experience for which you are now a more knowledgeable editor. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jeraphine Gryphon: We're supposed to have infinite good faith with respect to requests for review. If it were me, I would strongly suggest that the submit tags be restored and given a fair hearing in terms of review. If there's been no substantial progress since a previous decline, then indicate that. If the request for re-review is after a decline from a few days ago, then I would quietly dispose of the new review request. Bulk submitting/reverting only causes problems. If you give justification for what you do then you put the burden of proof on the advocate's shoulders. Hasteur (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent and Technical 13: -- Guys, did you look at this IP's contributions? Like last time, they just went in and submitted random drafts by different editors. I left them a message which they didn't react to, and not too long after the IP was blocked for several reasons, including that. And if a submission is declined then it doesn't make any sense to submit it again without making any changes to it.

I don't know why anyone would go and do what those IPs did but apparently it happens, so maybe there should be a rule like "don't submit a draft if you haven't been involved with it and it has not been edited since it was last declined". — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jeraphine Gryphon: How would you even start to enforce that? We have a huge job to do even when there is no backlog. I dn;t think knee jerk rule making because of a few wackos is likely to bear valuable fruit. We have wachos. I quite enjoy them, barbecues with a decent sauce. Fiddle Faddle 13:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, it could be an unwritten rule, and if you see someone break that rule then you would simply revert their addition of the submit tag and leave them a message. Like I did. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The thing to remember about IPs is they are typically dynamic, which means they are always changing. If you think that a specific IP is being intentionally disruptive, then take them to WP:AIV, but it doesn't do the encyclopedia any good to revert the re-submissions if any kind of progress or change has been made to the draft or the draft is of a quality that it is borderline accept and a second opinion might not bear fruit (some reviewers actually spend time researching draft topics and improving them to be passable so a first reviewer might decline because they don't want to invest the time but a second might go find a source or two and copyedit the draft to be able to accept it, which is not only acceptable but encouraged). If the draft has had no improvements at all and is borderline, then reporting and letting an admin block the IP and revert the submission is the best way to go. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, if a different user submits to the main article creator, then the immediate assumption would be dynamic IPs or users editing whilst logged out. If an IP is causing a problem, then report them to AIV, otherwise it's just one more thing for AfC to look out for. As per WP:OWN, anyone can edit a draft, so I don't see the problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

How one can become New page petroler?

How one can become New page petroler?Zarghun11 (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zarghun11, the page you're looking for is WP:NPP. This page is for help with Articles for Creation, a different type of review process. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Old drafts

How does one find drafts that are over 6 months old? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions, although it appears to be empty at the moment ... ? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Is it the "AfC submission" template that makes them show up in that category? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I've nominated 1000s for G13 deletion myself and postponed any I think had a chance. Could somebody please tell me when new G13 candidates are included in the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions category as there are eligible G13 drafts that aren't showing up in the category at the moment. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Lots of draft submissions without a template that are eligible for G13 can be found at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation. APerson (talk!) 12:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I am asking about those draft articles with a submission template that are G13 eligible but do not show up in the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions category. JMHamo (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps Category:AfC_postponed_G13 is what you're looking for. ~Kvng (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I guess my question is what causes eligible G13 drafts to be included in the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions category. What criteria must a draft meet? It's not just be six months old. JMHamo (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good question I've been asking myself for some time. However, Category:Declined_AfC_submissions is a good place to start. I've found some good drafts there. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Usually it is 6 months since the last edit (which is calculated by the template - as pages without an AfC template are ineligible AFAIK, then these do not matter ). Pages sometimes have a delay showing up, as they need to be null edited to update the count, which is done once a week or so by a bot. Mdann52 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @JMHamo: Two answers for you: First, if you always want to know if there are pages in that cat awaiting attention, you can use {{User:Technical 13/Userboxes/G13}} anywhere in your userspace you are most likely to see it. I'll note that since it's empty, it's unlikely there will be anything in there long as I believe there is a bot that will nominate up to 50 per batch for deletion indiscriminately. I do not know what the current time threshold per batch is, what the current batch size is, or if the bot is even currently running as it may have been disabled. If that bot is still running, I'd think it would be worth the members of this project discussing a minimum level for backlog where the bot won't run if there are less than #### Drafts. Second, there are multiple mechanisms putting drafts into that category from stuff coded inside the AFC submission templates that add the category if the last edit on the page was 6+ months ago with the help of a nulledit type bot and I believe there is also another bot task that looks for eligible pages that don't have AFC templates on them but are in the Draft or AfC project spaces and tags them accordingly, but that will need confirmation from someone more active here as well since I've been away. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks Technical 13, I knew all that. HasteurBot is active and it's been G13 nominating as recently as 30 minutes ago. JMHamo (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@JMHamo: A couple points: There are 2 tasks that HasteurBot does related to G13 eligibility:
  1. The first is to search through Category:AfC submissions by date and it's subcategories to look for AFC submissions that are eligible right now for CSD:G13 (i.e. In WT:AFC/ or Draft: spaces). When the bot task finds such a page, it gives notice to the author of the page (and potentially a few interested editors) letting them know that the draft is eligible right now for CSD:G13 (but not actually nominate for G13 at this time). The bot also makes note of the date/time that it gave notice to the author of the page that it is in danger of being nominated. This first task kicks off at around 1:30 AM UTC.
  2. 30 days after the "notice" the bot reviews the page to see if G13 is still valid and if so, performs the G13 nomination process (Nominate for G13, give notice to the author that their page has been nominated). If the page is no longer eligible for G13 then the bot removes the listing from it's database and moves on. The bot will only nominate enough stale drafts so that it raises the membership of the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions up to 50 nominations (so as to not overtax the administrators reviewing CSDs) in a single run of the Nomination script. The idea of waiting 30 days after eligibility is to give editors who had forgotten an opportunity to improve the submission in addition to ameliorating some of the concerns of a bot Nominating engine. The second task is oblivious to editors jumping on the eligible submissions and nominating them in advance of the 30 day grace period.
Now that we're only at 170 eligible submissions and 50 active CSD nominations, I think giving the grace period of 30 days is well within reasonable tollerances. Perhaps initially when we had ~17k pages that were eligible for G13. The bot does not touch User space as technically it's under a wishy washy rule. A while back I did run a task that was driven off a list of "pages in WT:AFC subspace that are missing a AFC submission banner". There was some drama regarding tagging the previously un-noticed submissions and so that task is suspended indefinitely. There was discussion of a stale Deletion regime for Draft space, but at this time the only automation authorized model is for AfC submissions. Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

New drafts sorting

Hi, is there any way in which the drafts are sorted subject wise? I want to review the drafts which come under Wikiproject:India however often I find myself unable to go through the list of all new drafts. Please help so that I can contribute more effectively. Mr RD (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't think so, it'd be good if there was, so I could pick out all the sportspeople. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I've got a test widget here I knocked up some time back, which is dependent on WikiProject tags being added correctly. It doesn't seem to work anymore due to deprecated API functions, but the source is there for anyone else to pick up and run with. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Mr RD, It's not a complete answer, but you could try typing "India review waiting" into the following custom search box. At least that will eliminate drafts which don't mention India at all. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for all your suggestions. Ritchie333, your work is really incredible but as I do not have any knowledge of JavaScript, I'm unable to help you. Anne Delong, thank you for showing me the search alternative. I'll use that from now on. However, I've an idea if we all can work on it. Similar to WP:AFD, we can also categorize the drafts according to Wikipedia projects. We do not need to build any more categories, just design a structure similar to it. Mr RD (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd love to see that implemented! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-English redirects

The English Wikipedia has a lot of non-English redirects, so saying redirects that are not in English are not needed is unnecessary. 75.166.160.217 (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Uniquely American Human Right Self Defense

do not paste article drafts here

The 2nd Amendment protects the Uniquely American Human Right Self Defense which allows all Natural Americans to Defend Self from Rape/Murder which are violation of Self.

The American Human Right Self Defense is based on Natural Law.

Rape and Murder are violations of Self.

http://www.holmesivonline.com/2015/01/21/administrative-details-for-the-human-right-of-self-defense/ 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai6pg (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ai6pg: What relevance does this have to this page? Wikipedia is not a social network. Fiddle Faddle 18:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Fiddle: - It's an article for creation. I've documented that the 2nd Amendment Protects a Uniquely American Human Right Self Defense. I've tried to add it the the 2nd Amendment Page (USA) but people keep deleting it as it's unique research. They screwed up. It's based on Natural Law. Read and understand, if you are an American.
@Ai6pg: This is not the place for it. Go there, not here. and accept consensus if it goes against you. Fiddle Faddle 23:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Unicommerce

Can I get a consensus on something? Mr RD wants to accept Draft:Unicommerce, but can't because I salted that title after too many speedy deletions. I don't think it's ready to be accepted yet; corporation articles need a lot more source coverage and my impression on reading the draft is it doesn't really tell me much about the company that's of encyclopedic importance. I don't want to unsalt until there is a consensus that we have an AfD-proof article ready. So, what should we do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I think 4 sources is too few to show notability, need to find a few more sources. I personally wouldn't currently accept it. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks non-notable to me --nonsense ferret 20:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, please check out the references I've found here. It is a custom search tool for Indian subjects. However I could not add all the citations directly to the page because somehow ProveIt was not working on it. Mr RD (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
These look mostly like press releases. Are you working for the firm? --nonsense ferret 20:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
No I'm not working for the firm. I just came across the page while searching for India related AFCs. Found references from the tool so tried to improve it. Mr RD (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
After reviewing the submission and references, I could go either way on this. But given past mischief on this topic I will support Ritchie333's preference to decline. I have another suggestion. How about merging into Snapdeal since Snapdeal recently acquired Unicommerce. ~Kvng (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Ju Xiaowen listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ju Xiaowen to be moved to Xiao Wen Ju. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Kristina Satter listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Kristina Satter to be moved to Tina Satter. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

AfC community: Thank you

I just wanted to tell all my AfC co-workers that you are all wonderful! Since starting with AfC, I have grew to understand what AfC is about. It's about helping new comers to our wonderful community! I like to help them out and explain why their draft can't be accepted at a point in time. I have grew to see many AfC submitters grow, and become a vital part of community. I just wanted to talk about one of my good Wikipedia friends, Jmorange. He created the article Somerset Trust Company through our wonderful AfC process. When then draft was first submitted, to be honest, it was a mess. Formatting of the article was wrong, promotional tone, etc. I declined, gave them my reason why it was not accepted into the main space. I offered to help them work on it with them. They posted on my talk page saying that they did need help, so I decided to get started cleaning up the article. We both worked on the article for days. Than when it was finished being cleaned up, it was resubmitted. Jmorange had a frustrating time at AfC, like most editors do at first. My good friend and AfC co-worker Winner 42 than accepted the article into the main space. It was a proud moment for Jmorange and myself. They finally created a wonderful article for the main space. It was frustrating process at first, but we worked together, and the article was published. Jmorange has long really well in our community, and I hope they become an AfC member and reviewer. This is just one story out of many. I thank the IP addresses and new users and AfC members for bringing this AfC process together, which is so vital to our online Wikipedia community. I am hoping to expand my expertise with AfC, and am thinking about doing a Signpost article on why AfC is so vital to Wikipedia. I wish you good luck fellow Wikipedians. Thank you for having me as a AfC member. Please read my AfC introduction and make sure to contact me if you have any suggestions for my future Signpost article about AfC and its influence on the Wikipedia community. Cheers ya' all. CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Watch out for student's papers - they copy and paste

It's the end of a semester and student papers are coming in as articles. Unfortunately many students are used to writing papers by copying in blocks of material from online sites. After spending some time improving an article I discovered that it was entirely made up of copied material. So check for copyright problems early on. Earwig's tool doesn't always look inside pdfs, so check references too. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right, but I also advise some of these papers are actually excellent submissions. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Really Wikipedia?

I really want to review articles and help those poor 989 article's be reviewed, but apparently, I haven't been on long enough. Is there any way around that?--Airplane Maniac (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done — Airplane Maniac, Thank you for taking interest in Articles for creation! However, you don't meet criteria for becoming a reviewer. You're account must be 90 days old, but your account is only 27 days old. Also, you need at least 500 undeleted edits to articles. You don't pass that criteria. You also have only created 1 article. We want reviewers who are experienced at creating articles, but you have not demonstrated that. It's really nice that you want to help out, but I am afraid you need much more expertise. After your account is 90 days old, you have had more than 500+ undeleted edits, than you are very welcome to come back, I encourage it If you have questions, feel free to post on my talk page. See ya soon in AfC, Cheers! CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to be an article creator but we just want to be able to make sure somehow that you know how things work around here. Having more reviewers here would be great but we also don't want reviewers who create more problems than they solve. The reviewing process is not easy, except for obvious declines on unsourced or blank drafts and obvious spam/adverts, etc. But most of them are borderline and need fixing up according to Wikipedia's standards. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@Airplane Maniac: If you want to prepare yourself for eventual work here at AfC, articles for deletion is a good place to hang out for a while, even if only to observe. See what sorts of articles tend to get deleted and brush up on the application of Wikipedia's core content policies. /wia /talk 10:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Industries Businesh growth of Aligarh (India)

Hi please confirm the last year business growth of aligarh Locks & brass industries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.40.204.245 (talk) 09:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is the Articles for Creation project, where we discuss matters related to reviewing new submissions. If you would like some help with referencing this company's growth, you can ask at the Wikipedia reference desk. Thanks, /wia /talk 10:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Backlog

Can someone fix this backlog? It's getting high and might become severe. SONIC678 (span style="font-family:Aharoni; color:#FC1B23">Let’s hang out!/See the stuff I’ve done) 02:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

From what I've seen of the project, there are some very dedicated reviewers here! Contributing to the backlog are the number of drafts submitted daily and the relative difficulty of reviewing some of the older ones. I wasn't around for the last one, but perhaps another Backlog Elimination Drive could be scheduled? /wia /talk 02:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
We also need someone to bring about world peace. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The main problem is there seem to be about 5-10 editors who review almost all the articles. I tend to review about 5-10 articles a day, which on those numbers mean at most 100 a day can be reviewed- pretty sure there are over 100 drafts being submitted a day, hence the worsening backlog.
Would definitely support a Backlog Elimination Drive, although also don't know how to set one up. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm mainly going to focus on this for a few days. An official Elimination Drive would be super though. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It is also the end of a semester. Articles that look like student papers are coming in here and at AfD. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's getting to a point where it might be severe, guys. SONIC678 (Let’s hang out) 20:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it's increased almost 200 submissions in last 30ish hours. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I try to get through about fifty of the newer submissions a day (mostly declining for obvious non-notability or CSDing) but I had to take yesterday off. I'll try to get through some tonight.
Perhaps some form of recruiting drive would be helpful? One of my wiki-friends has recently joined the reviewing team and seems to be enjoying the work, so I think it is possible to get more people involved. /wia /talk 21:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We should be able to review some of those 989 submissions within the next few weeks. I know we can do it. SONIC678 (Let’s hang out) 01:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like it's becoming severe... SONIC678 (Let’s hang out) 18:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Weird glitch

This draft has a review pending tag but when I open AFCH then it only gives me options to Comment or Submit. I'm not sure where the problem is. — Jeraphine (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually tag got removed when you commented, see here. Supdiop talk 07:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there is some problem. I added the tag but it still doesn't give accept and decline options. Supdiop talk 08:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that, I didn't notice. The initial decline tag was removed by the author and I added it back -- maybe that somehow caused the glitch, though I don't see how. I've now removed that tag again and now it's possible to review it. — Jeraphine (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
See here, {{AFC submission|||ts=20150601154452|u=Unixt17|ns=2}} is same in first submission and current submission, the problem is that Unixt17 added the same previous tag again. Normally we get new tag for new submission but since the user copied it from old version, script is only showing submit and comment options. Supdiop talk 08:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I just saw another case where an editor basically reverted my review (and so) re-added the old submit tag. I reverted them and said that it's not okay to revert reviews -- but I'm not actually sure of that, I haven't seen any guidelines saying that editors can't remove old decline tags. :/ I don't think that it should be okay though to undo reviews and pretend like they didn't happen. If an editor wants a second review by someone else then they should probably post about it somewhere and communicate. — Jeraphine (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It's disruptive, given old declines are useful for future reviewals. I always try to AGF, because perhaps they think the process starts anew with each new submission template. A warning is generally enough to stop them repeating that behaviour. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Better sourcing

I don't know if this has already been addressed, but stuff like [1] this isn't very helpful. It just leads to articles being tagged with {{No footnotes}} or similar cleanup templates, and to the addition of unsourced later material that cannot be readily distinguished from material that was apparently sourceable originally.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to what your complaint is specifically about, e.g. the reviewer is not adding references him/herself or you're not happy about people adding unreferenced information as a whole at a later point. As for reviewing, we ought to review articles based on their quality and notability. The article's subject appears to be widely discussed in the field of veterinary science, so it passes notability. As for referencing, a reviewer can often make minor tweaks to improve its overall quality (or major overhauls if he/she has the time), however we either focus on reviewing or focus on copy editing. There are other editors focusing on improving articles as a whole; our business is to review submissions and deem them worthy or not. I agree that the article contents should be extensively copy edited, but if the reviewer has no time to copy edit the article, they should tag it appropriately and move on. That's how it is, especially with severe backlogs. I have previously posted messages about such problems (lack of categorisation on new articles being accepted, etc.) but by and large the quality of articles being accepted is decent enough, and these issues are minor in comparison to what our goal is. Anyway, that's my two cents. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the complaint is that the Draft was accepted even though it completely lacked inline citations. The bad news is that the absence of inline citations is not a valid reason to decline a Draft. By contrast, the Wikipedia:Did you know project requires a minimum quantity of inline citations... one per paragraph... in order to encourage better sourced articles. But Articles for Creation does not, because, after all, what would you do if you came upon such a newly created article in the main-space? You could not nominate it for speedy deletion on those grounds, and would have little chance of it being deleted at Articles for Deletion either.
The good news on this front, however, is that the great majority of Articles for Creation submissions are either about living people, or subjects open to promotionalism such as people, organizations or companies. Being in any of these categories makes it exceedingly likely that the absence of inline citations would result in such a Draft being declined either for not meeting Wikipedia:MINREF or for some closely related reason such as making potentially promotional claims not backed by inline citations.
Therefore most Drafts without inline citations do not get passed, and the examples such as this one are rare, this one being not about a living person nor a topic open to promotionalism nor apparently controversial nor making claims about medical topics related to humans. Its being fairly short and clearly notable helped as well.
I agree that it's fine to approve Drafts that need a lot of copy-editing, so long as the Draft can be understood by someone trying hard enough, but I wouldn't quite agree that we pass things that we wouldn't otherwise pass, merely because of a large backlog. When approving Drafts in need of copy-editing, I think the reviewer should add the copyedit template after approving.
The reviewer did actually put wikify and refimprove templates on the Draft after approving it, making it clear that there were problems that needing fixing. They should perhaps have used the no footnotes template instead. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, most drafts that lack inline citations also lack something else needed by the article, and therefore can be declined, with an additional notes "inline citations would also be helpful". Joseph2302 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely did not say we should "pass things that we wouldn't otherwise pass, merely because of a large backlog." I did say that we should focus on reviewing articles and not linger on a notable stub that was tagged as per required, etc. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, OK, my point is simply that the presence or absence of a backlog, or its size, is not a significant factor on whether something gets passed or not. It shouldn't make a difference. I think we are agreed that there are certain minimums for acceptance, but some other aspects of article quality are not things we use the Decline button to enforce. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. What I meant was that in an ideal world where we have all the time possible, perhaps us reviewers could substantially improve all article submissions. At present, due to the severe backlog we cannot improve the citation style of every stub we come across; hence we tag them and move along. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It's getting severe...

I hope the backlog doesn't become severe, so we have to review the submissions. Good luck! SONIC678 (Let’s hang out) 17:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

1.4k submissions? Severe? You haven't been around for long? I can remember the days of 4k submissions in the backlog. Hasteur (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Also posting messages here every 2-3 days saying there's a severe backlog is no actual help, since everyone can see that anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I offended either of you. Please let me know if you did, OK? SONIC678 (Let’s hang out) 19:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Eastern News Agency

Please would folk offer this draft and its editors some help. I have failed to get them to understand what we need. Fiddle Faddle 08:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Tim, I've suggested a possible way around this Gordian Knot at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Eastern News Agency. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
That would work. It's probably wise to let the dust settle first. Fiddle Faddle 15:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Persondata deprecated

Persondata is now considered deprecated (and removal is imminent) as per this RfC. Is it possible to remove it from the AfC creation process? Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Msmarmalade How does a newbie editor create a Wikidata entry for a new biography? Alternatively we AFC reviewers would need a (semi)automated method to create the Wikidata item in place of the current Persondata template as part of the draft acceptance process. I'm afraid the RFC considered only the process of migrating already existing Persondata information to Wikidata, without taking into account the need to create Wikidata entries from scratch for new articles. Many Wikipedians are not familiar with Wikidata, I'm a highly experienced en.wp editor but I've never intentionally done anything on Wikidata. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to answer; I'll ask at Wikipedia talk:Persondata for input. —Msmarmalade (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no need for Wikipedia editors or reviewers to worry about wikidata. It can be considered a separate project that people may wish to be involved in or not. Obviously, we would like more people! There are various bots running that will create the necessary Wikidata items from Wikipedia. However, there is a guideline that bots only process articles at least a month old - this helps prevent adding non-notable items from short lived articles. Also note that Wikidata has been running silently for about three years creating a Wikidata item for every Wikipedia page. The demise of Persondata has not changed the way Wikidata works, so really it is business as usual. Periglio (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, so I recently removed the capability from AFCH to add Persondata. When Theopolisme updates the onwiki version, AFCH won't add any more Persondata. I've discussed my reason for this in a bit more detail on the Persondata talkpage. APerson (talk!) 04:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, good to know Wikidata doesn't need intervention at the article creation stage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The AfC script which currently creates persondata and categories would be well-suited to starting a Wikidata item. It would be a shame to loose that possibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Do we know when that will be? User:Theopolisme hasn't edited for a couple of weeks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Does this mean when we accept biographies, there's no longer a need to add the biographical information (birth date/place etc.)? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

That's correct. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me like a loss of valuable information. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@FoCuSandLeArN: It's been replaced by Wikidata- not exactly sure how Wikidata works, but I think it's a similar thing transferable throught all Wikimedia projects. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
How does it transfer the data without any input? LOL, maybe I'm too blockheaded. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't. I don't really know how it works, but you have to manually transfer the persondata to Wikidata. And in time, I think every article with person data is going to have the person data manually deleted from it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
But then wouldn't the new information be lost henceforth? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, how does a new Wikidata entry/page/item/whatever get created if there is no Persondata source to transfer? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
A registered editor creates a new item for the given article, then fill in the fields manually. -- numbermaniac (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Can that be added to the script? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Four day delay period for G13 deletions

It has been proposed that a dealy period of 4 days be introduced for G13 deletions. The discussion is taking place ar WT:CSD#4-day delay period for G13 deletions. 103.6.159.179 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

subst:submit in VE

I've just helped a user on IRC who was having issues adding {{subst:submit}} as a result of them using the Visual Editor. They copy and pasted the template code from WP:AfC, but VE didn't understand that it was a template and so added nowiki tags either side. We could do with adding a line about how to submit the article in VE (Insert > Template > subst:submit > Add Template > Insert) but I'm not sure how best to word that, especially given the fact that if they type it out in full rather than pasting it the box will pop up after the {{, probably adding to confusion. Sam Walton (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to add an autocompletion feature to the "VE -> Insert Template" dialog box? I think in terms of usability, users should not be required to write subst:submit but rather simply submit and the template would pop out.

Orschiro (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Reminder regarding template testcase pages

Just because a page is eligible for G13 because it has a {{AFC submission}} template and it hasn't been edited in 90 days doesn't mean it should be automatically nominated for G13. Please exercise discretion and not use mindless bulk speedying. This is being motivated out of the nomination of Template:AFC submission/draft/testcases which is an obvious exception as we want to test changes to the template before we nominate them. Hasteur (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that more care needs to be taken in nominating for G13, I also modified the testcaes page to use the demo=yes parameter, and modified the template not to add categories if that parameter is present. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. This is another tool to help the AfC team assess if there is any plagiarism in new articles.--Lucas559 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! Thanks for letting us know. Could we have a few more details? I.e. how often does it run, and does it include Draft or user spaces? Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Lucas559 - just a courtesy ping so that you see the above post. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
FoCuSandLeArN the bot dumps batches of possible copyvios every 1.5 hours. So, it is likely you can get to an article before the next user makes edits and can revert copyvios easily (with comments and explanation sent to the editor of course). That also means sites mirroring Wiki info are less likely to be 'caught' in the plagiarism checker. It does not recognize block quotes, but that is actually a good things since we want to discourage their overuse and favor paraphrasing. It does not include draft or user spaces. Thanks for your interest. --Lucas559 (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
But draft space is exactly what we are interested in here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Lucas559 until your bot is updated so that it does work in the Draft and User spaces it is completely useless for AFC and cannot replace CorenSearchBot which is integrated into our tools and workflow. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett,Roger (Dodger67) we will continue to improve the bot, baby steps. CorenSearchBot and EranBot have overlapping mandates, but are not necessarily competing for supremacy. I will add your suggestion to the "improvements" column on the Eranbot talk page [2].--Lucas559 (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Lucas559 - Excellent, let us know when it's ready and we'd be happy to give it a test run. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Tony de Peltrie

Hello, I received the information This submission appears to be taken from http://proxy2974.my-addr.org/myaddrproxy.php/https/de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_de_Peltrie. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly exists under a compatible licence and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to

I, Maxim Pouska, did write the article in German for the WP:DE - I own the copyright. The I translatet the text from German into English for the WP:EN- also my copyright. Then I fixed the text on my user:maxim pouska space. After this I asked user:Philg88 on his talk site for help. After all correction I submited the text to review. User talk:Philg88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim Pouska (talk • contribs) 07:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC) PS I was to fast - and put on the save page and not on show preview - sorry.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Maxim, the article has been created at Tony de Peltrie. It appears that the original reviewer had not realized that the site allegedly copied from was actually a mirror of the German Wikipedia. All's well that ends well. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Voceditenore, thanks for the help. I just started to read Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks so I can the next time the information use. Best wishes,--Maxim Pouska (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It was Philg88 who pointed out the mistake and Sulfurboy who then moved the draft to article space. I was just the bearer of good news. Voceditenore (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad it's all sorted out now! Well done, Maxim Pouska, an excellent addition to the Encyclopedia. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 09:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Tool

Hello there! Just wondering if there's a specific tool (similar to afdstats) that summarises how many articles were approved by an editor at AfC and how many of them, if any, were subsequently nominated/deleted. Appreciated, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN, I'm currently working on a tool to display a user's history of AfC reviews here; eventually, it'll display statistics like % of articles reviewed that were eventually created and so on. A major limitation of any such tool, though, is that unless the user running it can view deleted revisions, deleted drafts won't count in any totals and so users who frequently accept copyvios (for instance) wouldn't be discovered. APerson (talk!) 04:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@APerson: Oh no, my brain just exploded! I'd have no idea how to use that, but good on you for making that happen! I'm not sure I understand why you say deleted revisions won't count. Wouldn't there be a way for the tool to recognise if the page is a redlink? In any case, I thought there was a tool already in place, given people are usually commenting on the % of reviews that were deleted...I guess they must be personal statistics then. Thanks for taking the time to answer, and I'll look forward to learning how to use that eventually . Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It could detect the redlink, but it would have no way of knowing who reviewed it (unless the AfCH tool started logging reviews somewhere). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Ahecht, the main problem with such a log is that it would get really big, really fast, but it shouldn't be that bad to implement, if someone wants to make a pull request or something. APerson (talk!) 18:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@APerson: I guess I was thinking of something more along the lines of Twinkle's CSD and PROD log, that would be per-user and in each user's namespace. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ahecht:, yeah, that's what I was thinking too. My problem, again, is that even the logs for each user would get way too large: for instance, FoCuSandLeArN has 3,375 reviews listed; at an average of 50 bytes per entry (random guess), that turns into around 169 kilobytes. APerson (talk!) 02:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
FoCuSandLeArN, the tool is now up and running at https://afchistory.herokuapp.com/https://aperson241.github.io/afchistory/. (Enjoy!) APerson (talk!) 02:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Tool moved. APerson (talk!) 21:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@APerson: It doesn't seem to work for me. First it says that it found "731 draft-namespace edits, of which 200 (27.36%) were reviews", but it lists 738 pages as "Reviewed" and 344 pages as "Declined", which total to more than 731. Then it says I have made 0 accepts and 200 declines, but I know I have accepted articles and it lists 344 declines on the page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 06:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If it is looking at Draft-namespace edits, then it will plausibly not see any articles that you have Accepted, because after being Accepted, they are no longer in Draft-namespace. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, same issues here. It just shows declined articles, and reviewed articles, which I suspect are submissions in which I commented. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ahecht and FoCuSandLeArN: Should be fixed now. APerson (talk!) 16:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Now we're talking! What a beauty! Although I have to say it takes a while to amass all edits, so don't touch the page for a while; be patient. Mine froze when I tried. Cheers for that, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ahecht and APerson: I'm wondering, couldn't the tool follow through and if it counts a submission as accepted, check its name on mainspace and see if it still exists? If it doesn't, then the page has been deleted, for which a new statistic would be tallied, i.e. % of accepted submissions which have been AfD'd. What do you reckon? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
FoCuSandLeArN, I've been runnin' through the 6docs with my woesquestions and trying to get it less laggy. I'll probably get that done in the next 10 minutes. On the AfD question, that's a wonderful idea. However, again, unless the user running the tool is an admin, the tool can't see deleted pages. The tool works by snarfing up all the user's edits in the article, Wikipedia talk, and draft namespaces and checking which ones were reviews. Since deleted pages don't show up in the contributions, if a draft the user reviewed was deleted, the tool will never know that the user even edited that draft. APerson (talk!) 21:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
APerson Ha ha, no worries. So you're effectively saying that the tool doesn't count all accepted submissions because those which have been subsequently deleted cannot be accessed a posteriori and therefore can't be quantified? I think I understand this now; I didn't know deleted pages were removed from one's history. This is quite problematic... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
FoCuSandLeArN, it might be bad if we're using the tool to check for problems with a user whose accepted drafts are regularly speedied (and, of course, won't show up in the tool's history), but we can check their talk page anyway. For other purposes, I guess it works pretty well. APerson (talk!) 22:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Regarding performance, I just discovered that each edit the tool examines is checked - unnecessarily - 10 times on average for the average editor. This, as one would imagine, slows down the tool quite a bit. I'm working on a solution now. APerson (talk!) 22:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
APerson No, it would just make for an interesting statistic. I for one would like to know if any draft I approved was deleted. But I guess this is not something that's easy to achieve in shorthand. As for performance, etc., I commend you on your work! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
FoCuSandLeArN, I just uploaded a new version which should be much, much faster. APerson (talk!) 00:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

APerson Jolly good! Only difference is it now seems to count less edits, although I can't confirm that now that the old hostname is no more. From the top of my head, I think it previously said something like 8k, while it's now at 3363. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN, that's because, as Josve05a reported and I fixed, the tool was displaying way too many rows. Also, the tool no longer shows how many edits it's examined (which I assume was your 8K number); it only shows how many reviews it found. APerson (talk!) 00:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I see, that makes sense. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Well FoCuSandLeArN, you have had 22 of your acceptances with AFCH deleted.

Robert Steven Kaplan Marko Mihojević Samir Radovac Kerim Memija Amir Hadžiahmetović Besim Šerbečić Riad Bajić Dean Santangelo Sean Kelly (footballer) Massacoe Forest Pavilion International Journal of NanoScience and Nanotechnology Dan Perrins Vobasan Telehomecare Journal of Mobile Technology in Medicine Paul Summerville (politician) MiRandola: Extracellular Circulating microRNAs Database Momentum (company) Body by Vi Challenge HSE Faculty of Sociology Mike Ryan (music video producer) Marchioness (ship)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That's awesome! How did you do that? Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I looked at your deleted contributions, selected article talk pages, then pasted the output into a grep for the letters AFCH and then used a sed to top and tail the lines, replacing with wikilink brackets. I could have also used the article page but the sed command to trim the name correctly was more difficult to enter. Only admins can do the view deleted contributions. I will see if there is a method using the move log for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=FoCuSandLeArN&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1&hide_thanks_log=1 for red links. However note that some of your acceptances were deleted and then later recreated, and these are not obvious. Do you know some other editors that need examination? PS anyone else is welcome to ask me for the list of their deleted acceptances too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Thank you very much for your help with this. I don't know of anyone else who would like that right now, but I'm sure if they watch this page they'll be able to see this. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

New REDIRECT preload needs fixing

Hello, the new WP:AFC/R redirect preload template is incorrectly formatted. In the sources line 

|<!-- Unless it is obvious, please enter a reliable source which supports your reason below this line -->

this clearly does not work properly if the source is an external link that includes an equals sign. Instead it should be: 

|4=<!-- Unless it is obvious, please enter a reliable source which supports your reason below this line -->

where the parameter is explicitly stated, as this will make sure the template parser does not interpret a later URL equal sign as separating a template parameter name from parameter value -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to name all the parameters, in cases where the target or the redirect pagenames includes equals signs -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done @67.70.32.20: Thanks, good catch! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to auto-decline certain redirect requests at WP:AFC/R

I created a template at User:Ahecht/sandbox/AFCR Template for creating requests at WP:AFC/R that would automatically deny requests that are blank, have a missing title, have a missing target, have a title that already exists, or have a target that doesn't exist. This wouldn't change the appearance of WP:AFC/R at all, except that automatically declined entries would show (Automatically declined) instead of the reviewer's signature. You can see it in action at User:Ahecht/sandbox/AFCR Template/testcases.

The preload when a user submits a request would change, and instead of the current preload they would see the source of User:Ahecht/sandbox/AFCR_Template_preload (Template:AfC_editintro/redirect would need to change as well): 

{{subst:User:Ahecht/sandbox/AFCR Template
|<!-- Enter the title of the new redirect you would like created below this line -->

|<!-- Enter the name of the existing page that you want the redirect to point to below this line -->

|<!-- Enter the reason for the new redirect (e.g. alternative name, common misspelling, etc.) below this line -->

|<!-- Unless it is obvious, please enter a reliable source which supports your reason below this line -->

<!-- Do not change or delete this line -->}}

I haven't done a lot at WP:AFC/R, but from what I have done it seems like a very significant fraction of requests are denied for being incomplete, so this would save a lot of work on the part of reviewers. I just went and closed 10 such requests, and the three requests submitted since I did that are also incomplete. This might also help requesters not submit blank requests, as I think many overlook the title bar and therefore don't see where they are supposed to enter the title of the redirect that they want created. Are there any comments or objections to this approach? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@BDD, Joseph2302, Josve05a, Rcsprinter123, Vincent60030, and Samee: I just wanted to ping some of the more active WP:AFC/R reviewers (I apologize if I missed anyone, this list was just based on a quick glance at the recent revision history). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This seems like a fine idea to me. I see no problem with it. Of course, the template would have to be moved to project space. Rcsprinter123 (confess) @ 15:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I like the idea. My main concern would be that some requests that appear "empty", especially to a bot, are simply malformed, and sometimes it's entirely clear what's being requested. I know backlog maintenance is one of the motivations here, and I appreciate that, but is there any way we could check against false positives? Maybe delay the archiving or something so a human can overturn and implement such requests as appropriate? --BDD (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: What about a two-step implementation? I modified the template so that it just prints an error message instead of actually closing the request unless a |close= parameter is present. We can run it that way for a while and evaluate the false-positive rate before adding close=yes to the preload. My hope is that malformed requests will decreate with the new preload, but I know it won't be zero. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the above is a good idea, use it for a trial period to see how many malformed requests it finds, and how many false positives. Then, if the false positive is low, allow it to just remove them as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I thought about suggesting that, but didn't know if it would defeat the purpose since it still involves a human step. But I guess that's what I'm asking for anyway. I think that would work well, and we can always revisit it later. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes! This is a great proposal to remove unwanted blank submissions, advertisements and more. I would also suggest if a person wants to create an article but unintentionally submitted here, why not have a not detecting the number of characters or smth and if it exceeds a certain no. of characters, the submission will be deleted and a notice is automatically sent to the person who made the submission saying that they should have submitted at that correct place (provide a link). About this template, it's worth a try so why not use it for a trial period? Vincent60030 (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@Vincent60030: I could add another check to flag submission greater than, say, 2000 characters, but I don't think it's worth it. Those submissions will likely either blank the preformatted template (in which case they couldn't be automatically flagged) or they won't specify a valid target (in which case they would be flagged for that already). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Well then, it's alright. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It's been a week since the pings, so I'm going to implement phase 1 (change the preload template, but not use close=yes). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ahecht: There is a bug for the template. It says redirect target 'not' is not specified. There is an extra not. Vincent60030 (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@Vincent60030:  Fixed. Thanks! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ahecht: You're welcome! :) — Vincent60030 (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Highly relevant ANI discussion

There's currently a discussion at ANI in which members may wish to have some input, or should at least be aware of. It concerns a scam where users are contacting multiple people who have had drafts rejected and offering to fix them up and/or accept them on payment of $150–300. Sometimes, they actually create an article or draft and then threaten to request speedy deletion per {{Db-author}} unless a "ransom" is paid. The scam has involved impersonating both administrators and experienced editors. In at least one of the emails received by a hapless "customer" the person claimed to be a Wikipedian with "high privileges" and a "member of Article for Creation review department". The full discussion is at WP:ANI#Someone may be impersonating me. – Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Another excellent reason why AfC should be disbanded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This is an opinion you've expressed many times before, but is not shared by the wider community. The members of this WikiProject are generally doing a great job and you would do well to work with the project rather than sniping about it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I will think about disbanding AfC when somebody comes up with a better solution than this, this, this and this. I don't see how the incident is relevant to AfC, since the perpetrators scammed editors claiming they can "undelete" or "unrevert" articles in mainspace. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I posted here because the ANI discussion is highly relevant to this project. The scammers are claiming to be AfC reviewers. Several of the articles involved were moved by them into article space from draft space. They also appear to be monitoring the AfC Help Desk to look for future victims. My suggestion at ANI, currently supported by at least two other editors, is that prominent notices should be placed at the AfC help desk and Wikipedia:Articles for creation, Wikipedia:Article wizard, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation with something like:
Bonafide Articles for Creation reviewers will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on the Articles for Creation Help Desk or contact Wikipedia's Volunteer Response Team.
I'm surprised that so far no one here feels there's any need to comment at the ANI discussion, read it thoroughly, or do anything to protect the reputation of the project and its members. But there you have it. Incidentally, I am a member of this project myself, and my notice here had absolutely nothing to do with me arguing for the project to be disbanded. Voceditenore (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The link to the discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard is useful, and I have read that discussion fairly thoroughly. I am considering adding a notice about this to my userpage, which already has a set of answers to frequently asked questions about other common misconceptions and problems. I would also support adding the above warning on Articles for Creation pages as suggested. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I concur. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Voceditenore, I think your original topic was derailed by a less constructive member of the community. Rankersbo (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
PS Thanks for alerting us to this. Rankersbo (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome :), although your PS should have been your first point and your first point should have been the PS. A topic gets derailed only if people actively choose to ignore it, let alone try to think about its implications. Until Arthur and Focus commented, that was precisely what the active members did. But onward and upwards. Rankersbo, what do you think about putting up the disclaimer notices? Voceditenore (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't comment at the ANI discussion simply because I had nothing to add to what had already been said. I see WMF Legal are looking into it, and that should hopefully alleviate the problem. In terms of noticeboards, I think they should have a wider visibility so that people anywhere on the project know that scammers are around, and can manage them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
So does that mean that you think this project should put disclaimers on the pages I suggested, Ritchie333? WMF legal are not going to be able to "alleviate the problem" in the short term, although they may be able to do something about the known scammers. One of the biggest problems is that what ended up at ANI is probably only the tip of the iceberg. The principal way to help proactively is for this project to put clear notices up on its relevant pages. Not only could they prevent someone falling for the scam, they could also encourage more victims to report it and give Wikipedia a clearer idea of the extent of the problem. Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Well I don't think it'll cause any harm to add them, so I guess I support that, I'm just not sure its enough. If I knew of a good way to resolve this rather unpleasant development, I'd mention it, but I don't at the moment. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Claiming to be a WP editor with special privileges is a matter that ought to be of interest to WP:LEGAL. I alerted the WMF about this but have not had even an acknowledgement. I would not expect rapid action unless they think the matter is important enough by their own priorities. DGG ( talk ) 13:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Given how much Jimbo jumps up and down about paid editing, I am very surprised by that. In fact, I'm surprised Jimbo has not made a comment strongly condemning this somewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone pointed it out to him? Trustees of large nonprofits shouldn't (and he doesn't) get involved in the day-to-day running of the organisation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's posted about it on his talk page. He occasionally takes notice of arguments there, but mostly he has other fish to fry. I can't remember the last time he commented at ANI. In any case, Ritchie, not doing "the good" because it's not "the perfect" is, well... not good. Like it or not, the AfC process is the locus of the scamming. Surely, the project which looks after that process ought to at least do what's possible in their own back yard rather than waiting for the entire country do something. Voceditenore (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Just as a side note as well, I'd like to point out that if submissions were kept at a healthy and reasonable number (~500 or less), these things would a) be less prone to happen; and b) if they did happen they would be easier to spot. An endemic backlog is indicative of deep-rooted issues with AfC as a whole, and this is just one of its many consequences. I've been here for about 2 years or so, and not much has changed, to be honest. This could've been going on for years on end for all we know, and I've only once or twice seen the numbers dwindle to manageable levels. The tasks we take on here are so extensive we can't possibly cater for all contingencies, one of which is disruptive editing behaviour. We should count with more manpower for starters. A significant portion of newly created articles pass through our hands, and that's a generally good quality portion, mind you. We should be given more attention and respect. I'd be deeply disappointed if this turns out to be something that actually brings about the opposite reaction from the community. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I have been the victim of this problem; three editors have contacted me saying that I have e-mailed them and offered to fix up their articles; who knows how many others did not take the bait. All were articles that had already been declined, not active submissions, so the size of the queue would not be a factor (although of course I agree with FoCuSandLeArN that a small queue is a good thing....)—Anne Delong (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but having less articles queued makes watching already-declined articles easier. We should be able to detect dodgy behaviour, which needs constant patrolling, like Whac-A-Mole. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

  • FoCuS, Anne is right. The honey pot for the scammers is the rejected drafts, not those pending review. I don't think AfC project members should beat themselves up over what has happened. It's the AfC process itself which is the problem. It was initially designed for COI editors and IPs to start articles. So by its very nature it's going to attract paid editors or those who have hired them for "help". It was never meant for all potential new articles by registered but inexperienced editors without a COI. It's grown like Topsy until there's now too much work and too few qualified people willing to do it. That's not going to change as long as the AfC process remains what it has become.
It's not the AfC project's job to monitor for chicanery in addition to everything else. Plus, you can't usually "see" it because it goes on by email. But there a few simple things that can be done by the project itself to potentially reduce the problem or at least make it more visible so it can be dealt with on a Wikipedia-wide level. The primary one is to put up the type of notice I suggested and then perhaps work out the best way to go about reporting chicanery if you do stumble across it in the process of reviewing, or if you have been impersonated by a scammer.
But neither of those things are going happen unless the members make them happen. Putting the notices up requires you all to reach a quick consensus now and someone with the skills to edit the AfC pages which contain complicated edit notices, etc. Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Side note There is an attempt to address the problem of insufficient competent reviewers by getting "content" WikiProjects more actively involved in reviewing drafts within their respective subject areas, but technical barriers such as that very few projects recognize the usefulness to the "class=Draft" parameter in Project banners, are making it difficult to routinely notify projects of the creation of new relevant drafts. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning users

This discussion has gone a little off track so I'd like to bring it back to the main thing that needs deciding regarding this issue: Should we add a warning notice (or multiple if appropriate) somewhere to warn editors about this scam, informing them not to accept any offer of editing for payment they receive by email? Sam Walton (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes such a warning is justified, but where would we place it? The Article Wizard, AFC Help desk, Teahouse, Decline templates, a Welcome template, all seem to me to be reasonable venues, but such a "scatter" approach might cause more alarm than really necessary, so we need to figure out which is the best to reach the most vulnerable. Do we know for a fact that these scammers are picking their targets from Help desk posters, as some commentators have suggested? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Header addition at Help Desk

Emboldened by this week's very flattering commemorations, I have made a start by adding a basic warning to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/header. Please feel free to critique or improve the Latin or the English elements of the warning, and consider where else information needs to be added. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Seems OK to me, Arthur. Maybe to also go in the opening blurb on WP:AFC? From my conversation here with Maggie Dennis, the Senior Community Advocate at the Wikimedia Foundation, the WMF might be persuaded to issue a statement on this which the AfC notices could also link to (eventually). But be aware that the mills at the WMF can grind exceedingly slow. Voceditenore (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Has the legal department of the WMF officially responded to this issue yet? It's been six weeks since this issue was first raised. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles not included in Pending by Age

Why are some pending articles (well, hundreds of them) not in any of the Pending by Age categories on the first page of AfC? What is the difference between the 3 categories by age (which today all read zero) and the articles that are pending but are not in any of those categories? And which should we prioritize for review? Thanks, LaMona (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@LaMona: Do you have any examples? It may be that the articles would be added to the category after a null edit, and that without that edit the servers don't know that the pages need updating. However, without seeing examples it's hard to say for certain. (I looked for a few, but they all seemed to be working ok.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: Yes, as I said, there are hundreds of them. If you look at wp:afc you see the three "by age" categories at zero, and above that a statement that there are 420 pending articles. Here's a random-ish one: Draft:Jamie_Lynton. It looks like it was marked for review on July 11 -- and thus would be in the 3-4 week category, but it isn't. Is there something meaningful about this discrepancy? LaMona (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@LaMona: - that page only mentions the "problem" categories - 3 weeks, 4 weeks and "very old" - the rest of the articles are distributed among the 0 to 20 days categories. The complete set of categories is at Category:Pending AfC submissions. IMHO WP:AFC is a fairly useless page itself, it's only purpose is to link to other pages where the "real action" is. The only time a pending submission is not in a "dated" category is if there is an error in it's datestamp, in which case it will be listed in Category:AfC pending submissions without an age, but this is a rare aberration. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Dodger67: Thanks! That explains it. I've been mainly paying attention to the ones you refer to as problem categories. I'll turn my attention to the more recent ones. LaMona (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The new request template can't handle multiple redirects with the same target

Please add a few "additional redirectX" parameters. Or even better, switch to Lua, that should simplify things considerably. 85.178.192.71 (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Which template are we talking about here? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Mr. Stradivarius, I thought this was at the wizard's talk page. Anyway, the problem child is the new WP:AFC/R redirect preload template. 85.178.199.248 (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
So, I take it you mean Template:Request redirect? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
No, that's the old preload. After some sleuthing, I found that I meant {{AfC preload/redirect}}. All the same, I noticed that the request edit page has a box which allows submitting multiple redirects to the same target, which is collapsed by default. Aaargh. Sorry for the distraction. 85.178.195.180 (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, {{request redirect}} is the template that the new preload calls, so it is what needs to be looked at. Which is probably a good job seeing as I've started writing Module:Request redirect already. No support for multiple targets yet, though. One reason for this is that the proposed redirect page goes in the section heading, so we would have to either create multiple very-similar sections, or get the AfC people to agree to changing the page format. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
What do mean by "changing the page format"? Until now, multiple redirects were no problem. Several examples can be found here. Maybe Ahecht can shed some light on the issue? 85.178.195.99 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The current template can support multiple redirect targets. The instructions are included in the hidden box, which is the same place that they were for the old template and preload. This method isn't optimal, but it is required to avoid breaking the reviewing tools such as the old AFCH Beta (which is no longer being maintained, but the new version doesn't support redirect creation). PhantomTech's script is being maintained, but it is much more cumbersome to use since it requires the redirect title and target to be typed in manually and the page must be reloaded after each redirect is processed. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@85.178.195.99: I modified Template:AfC_editintro/redirect to make it a bit clearer, and added code to avoid the extra brackets that used to appear. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hm. When I tried that the first time, I got "Redirect request: redir1, redir2" instead of "Redirect request: redir1, redir2". I'll file that under "brainos of mine". Thanks! 85.178.195.99 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Resolved

Script

Do we have a script that does this?

  • Moves userpage to draftspace without leaving redirect (prompting for draft name)
  • Tags draft with username who created draft
  • Notifies user

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That certainly needs to be made! I "draftify" draft user pages all the time after softblocking them. Mr. Stradivarius what do you think about including this in your spamublock script? I think your script has all those options, maybe we could make it so that instead of deleting the page you can draftify, and also not perform the block+notice unless we want to, and instead just add a notice that the page was drafified. From my own experience that would cover a lot of ground from patrolling the spambot edit filter hits, which I think is what Anna is doing. What do you think? I'm happy to help with development — MusikAnimal talk 22:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
This certainly sounds like a worthwhile script to make. I'm not sure how we would integrate the new functionality into SpamUserPage's UI, though. Perhaps have two different tabs, "delete/block" and "draftify"? Or we could just make it a separate script with only soft-block options. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
A separate script would be easier to use, if it is no extra trouble to making it. That way there would be less messing about selecting options. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
A separate script would be easier to write than adding the new functionality to SpamUserPage because I've done it before, and the user interface would be very similar. Updating SpamUserPage, on the other hand, would require rethinking the existing UI and testing it to make sure it works nicely, in addition to adding the new features. That wouldn't be prohibitively hard, by any means, but it would definitely take more work. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: About the blocking part: after thinking about it, I'm not sure it makes sense to have a script to soft-block and draftify. If you block someone, even if it's only a soft block, they are not that likely to want to continue editing. Saying "I've blocked you, but please work on your draft in this new location!" probably won't result in the best outcome. It would probably better to not block, and to leave a message saying "I've moved your draft, and you need to change your username." — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Suggest leaving the redirect as it makes it easier to find the article. (And there is no harm in leaving it, is there?) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not leave redirects. I post at the usertalk and provide the link there. Here is an example. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
What is the problem with leaving the redirect? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is something that may confuse the new editor once redlinked. If the draftspace draft gets moved to the mainspace leaving a redirect behind, then the userpage redirect becomes a double redirect. It is something left over from a move to later clean up, so why not zap it in the script. And from the opposite perspective, what is the problem with removing it? What purpose does it serve? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
This can be made a configuration setting in the gadget, so you will be able to choose whichever you think is best before each page move. If I do it like SpamUserPage, you will also be able to define your own personal defaults if you don't like whatever the global default is. We will need to decide something for the global default, though. I'd be inclined to leave redirects by default, as that's the standard MediaWiki behaviour, but I could be persuaded to suppress them by default if there's a convincing enough argument. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there a standard template for notifying users that their drafts have been moved? I couldn't see anything at {{Single notice links}}. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Stradivarius, I do not think there is a standard template yet. As for the redirects, as long as I can default to "no", I'm happy. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes such template needs to be made. Anna want to take a stab at it? You are mighty good with your words :) @Mr. Stradivarius: Do you think we could still add a block option? I agree it can be a deterrent for some users, but it has it's time and place. For the draftify template, I envision:
  • A polite message stating why the draft was moved and where
  • Parameters such as |oldpage= and |newpage= that would modify the copy e.g. "oldpage was moved to Draft:newpage"
  • A |softblock=yes parameter that would modify the copy to say why the user was blocked and to create a new account, much like {{uw-softerblock}}
  • A |rename=yes parameter that can be used instead of softblock. That would modify the copy to say why the username is against policy, and how to request a new username
I'm happy to add the parameter stuff if we can get someone to come up with the wording.
I'm with Anna on leaving without redirect by default. Particularly if it's a promotional username you'll want to delete the original userpage, as if they do change usernames it's going to move the redirect from it's original place, leaving a double redirect to the draftspace, and then (triple?) redirect to mainspace. Albeit a common newbie mistake, userpages are not for drafts, and we shouldn't have redirects lying around suggesting otherwise.
Just to list it all out, for the script I envision:
  • Checkboxes: (a) leave redirect, default unchecked (b) leave draftified template, default checked (c) inform how to change username, default unchecked (d) perform softblock, default unchecked; And finally an input field for the page name. (c) and (d) are exclusive and can't both be checked (not sure if radio buttons will be as pretty)
  • Issue the draftified template to the user, with the appropriate parameters passed based on options chosen
  • Omit visibility of (a) and (d) for non-admins
  • Script can be invoked on any existing page in a userspace (where mw.config.get('wgRelevantUserName') exists and mw.config.get('wgArticleId') is > 0)
  • Draft is tagged with {{subst:AFC draft|username}}
How does that sound? — MusikAnimal talk 04:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Yep, I am in agreement with almost all of that. One thing I'm wondering about, though, is how practical it would be to add a block notice to a your-draft-has-been-moved template. We should probably keep the border and the blue background of {{uw-softerblock}} to keep the style of blocking templates consistent, and I don't think the additional message of "your draft has been moved" would stand out enough, as people would be too busy reacting to "you have been blocked" to notice it. How about just leaving blocking out of the draftify template, and if we block users, adding both the draftify template and uw-softerblock, one beneath the other? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
You're probably right. I would put the drafify template first, followed by softblock. That makes it evident we want them to continue working on it.
I'm pretty busy at the moment, but feel free to reach out to me if you need help with the script. Many thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 14:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I've started Template:Uw-draftmoved. Feel free to copy edit it, expand it, etc. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. Do you think it would be beneficial to add the rename and softblock params as described above? They could be added as separate templates, but it's kind of more human-like/friendly and not template-like to get it all in one message, I think. I realize this complicates things because you'll need the username when adding the {{AFC draft}} template to the draft article. So perhaps this is best left as a two-step process, not sure... I was only hoping for this functionality because the username vio + userpage draft is so common. — MusikAnimal talk 20:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
If you can think of a good way to word it, then go ahead. :) I'm not sure why you're worried about what to use with the the {{AFC draft}} template - is there a problem with just using the old username, given that a username change won't happen straight away? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal and Anna Frodesiak: Do you often find users creating drafts in the userspace of non-registered users? MusikAnimal, perhaps accidentally, suggested that we don't allow the gadget to load on such pages (wgRelevantUserName is null). However, I'm wondering if it would be worth it to do the extra work to make the script usable on these pages as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No. Almost always it is a registered user. I don't think it's worth extra work to accomodate IPs. We can do those by hand. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: Sorry, I should have been more specific. I wasn't talking about IP users, but about user pages that look like they belong to a registered user, but in fact the user is not registered. These pages have the warning "User account "XYZ" is not registered" at the top. For example, should the script work on a page like User:Not a registered username fasjkdgsw? (Assuming another user had created that page as a draft.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. My fault. I did not read carefully. No. Almost always it is a registered user who works at their own userpage. I may have seen what you are referring to, but I cannot remember. Very rare, I think. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding an article to the AFC queue

If an editor created an article in draft or user space without using the article wizard, what do I need to do to add to the AFC process so the editor can submit it for review? --NeilN talk to me 13:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: If you want to submit it on their behalf, add {{subst:submit|username}}, replacing username with the draft creator's username. If you just want to add the button for them to submit it themselves, use {{subst:AFC draft|username}}. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! That was easy. --NeilN talk to me 14:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Backlog

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

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

Co-op officially open, looking for mentors

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

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

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

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

Creation of a warning template idea.

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

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

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

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

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

Concerns about the acceptance of Alleged Clinton Controversies at AfC

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

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

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

Project banners supporting "Draft" class etc.

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

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

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

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

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

An RfC worth participating in

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

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

Draft:Medford Knife and Tool - M.K.T

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

  • being too cautious
  • accepting this in error

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

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

Template:MovedtoMainspace

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

template:AFC Request

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

Request to waive reviewer requirements

I am interested in reviewing AfC submissions, but my user account doesn't meet the reviewer requirements (90 days old and 500 edits to the article namespace). For a number of reasons, I am requesting that I be permitted to review submissions while not yet meeting these criteria. First, I have created 10 non-redirect articles under my current account; from my (legitimate) former account, User:Millelacs, I created 37 articles and amassed 1,666 article-space edits ([5]) under the usernames Theodore! and DCI2026. Additionally, I am well-versed in Wikipedia policy; under my current account, I have participated in 58 AfD discussions ([6]) and NAC'd several others. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation

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

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

Alerts to Wikiprojects about AFCs

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

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2015

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

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

Suggestions

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

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

An article talk page eligible for db-g13??

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

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

Redirect PRELOAD error

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add "antimetaphysics" article

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

miscategorisation

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

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

Sounds like it would be a pretty easy AWB task; I'll file a BRFA as soon as I'm done with the teahouse invite stuff. APerson (talk!) 03:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, forgot to mention that the BRFA got approved; however, given the discussion below (Consensus for bot to clean User talk: pages from "AfC submission declined as..." categories?), I'll hold off on running it. APerson (talk!) 23:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Can i add my name to the reviewer's list?

I have been in Wikipedia since February 2013, created more than 39 articles and more than 600 edits.I also mark articles for review using page curation log.I have thoroughly studied the Wikipedia reviewing guidelines. Can i add my name to the Wikipedia reviewer's list? Please guide me.Zarghun11 (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Zarghun11. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. At present, you do not meet the criteria, so it would be best if you did not add yourself. As well as just the raw numbers, some of your article creations, for example Sardar Mohammad Abdul Qayyum Khan, seem not to meet Wikipedia's requirements for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There is a possibility that you might find it difficult to detect such problems in Drafts that you are reviewing, too, until you gain rather more experience. This is just my opinion, and others may disagree. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking for Volunteers to help Notability Detection project

We're building a tool to help reviewers make better decisions, and we need your help! We're looking for volunteers to decide if article topics are notable or not. We'll use these decisions to train an automated classifier that will score new articles based on how notable it thinks they're likely to be.

If you're interested, please sign up here and take a look at the hand-coding form to get an idea of what you'll be doing. We'll let you know as soon as we're ready for you to start. Comments and suggestions are very welcome!Bluma.Gelley (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Stuck article

The article Draft:Nature's_Art_Village has a script problem and cannot be reviewed. I've tried various times and different browsers and I get an unresponsive script message. Does anyone know how to fix this? (I'm trying to reject the article, btw.) Thanks, LaMona (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@LaMona: Looks like Mdann52 has sorted it out. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Just tried again and it froze again. Could someone else try to decline as "does not meet CORP" and see if we can get it out of the queue? Thanks. LaMona (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 Done @LaMona: Declined - Found out the problem, User:Callmemirela has curly brackets in his sig, which is screwing the script up if he's left a comment. I've left him a message at User talk:Callmemirela#Your_signature to change it so it stops happening. - Happysailor (Talk) 17:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I have also jsut run AWB and fixed any other drafts where he's left a comment, so if he changes his sig, this shouldn't happen again. - Happysailor (Talk) 18:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Happysailor! LaMona (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer requirements

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

@KSFT: Waiting the week out is not a real hardship, though it may seem pedantic. You might find spending some time at WP:AFD gives you some extra insight. When you start to review please give as full a review as you can. We try hard to be useful to the editors as well as accepting or pushing the draft back. I use a (continually modified) set of paragraphs to help, which you are welcome to use, plagiarise, etc, located at User:Timtrent/Reviewing. A helpful colleague added some headings in, but I have unadded them because I use the page as a scratchpad. Every time I update it it comes from a text file elsewhere on my machine and the headings just get overwritten. Their thought process was good, and genuinely helpful, but doesn't match the way I use the page. Fiddle Faddle 09:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent: I completely agree with your first sentence. I have read several AfDs and contributed to a few. What insight does it give? Do you just mean what kinds of articles get deleted? By "give as full a review as [I] can", do you mean that I should explain to draft authors why pages were rejected? The reviewing instructions don't seem to mention that. Does the AfC helper script have an interface for doing that automatically?
In less than ten minutes, it will be the day (in GMT) when my account will become three months old. I'm going to assume I don't need to wait for the exact minute unless someone lets me know otherwise before then. KSFTC 23:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@KSFT: The script allows you to leave a comment. Comments are the best help we can give an editor who may well succeed with advice. AfD shows you the arguments used for deletion and retention. These arguments allow you to learn what will delete and what will retain an article. It is helpful for reviewers to be very AfD aware, because our role is to accept drafts that have a better tan 60% chance (some say 50%) of surviving an AfD. Fiddle Faddle 16:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I have shamelessly copy/pasted your material in User:Timtrent/Reviewing into my Wikipedia Boilerplate Notebook to use as I start at AfC. Thanks for the leg up! Cheers. JbhTalk 21:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Asking for a review

Hi Wiki crew ! It's been 2 weeks since I asked for a review of this article. Can someone help me ? Thank you very much. Jim

Here is the draft :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Price_We_Pay_(2014_Film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supe.jim (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jim. Did you mean to ask this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk ?
It has not been two weeks, you only created the page a week ago.
The page is correctly submitted for review, and a reviewer will review it when they get round to it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

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

In July 2014, the Afc decline template was modified to present a full decline notice to users on their talk pages, complete with the decline rationale. One of the side-effects of this was that the user talk pages got put into the "AfC submission declined as..." categories that are intended to only house draft articles. I tried fixing it in March of this year, but due to opposition from an editor who is no longer on Wikipedia, a fix wasn't implemented until May. In the meantime, thousands of user talk pages ended up in those categories. At the time, I didn't propose bulk removal of those pages from the categories because a certain outspoken editor (who is no longer on Wikipedia) insisted that User Talk: pages were valid locations for drafts. This issue was recently brought up on my talk page, and User:Fuhghettaboutit manually went through all 349 pages in Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations and not a single one was an actual draft. Therefore, I wanted to see if there was a consensus now to do a one-time manual Pywikibot run to remove user talk pages (but not subpages) from all the "AfC submission declined as..." categories before I proposed it at WP:BRFA. I've tested this in simulation mode (running python pwb.py category.py -simulate -log -pt:10 remove -from:AfC_submissions_declined_as_non-notable -match:"^User.talk:([^/]*)$", for example) and it seems to filter pages correctly. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I would just add that these categories are important for the administration of the AfC project. Having thousands of user talk pages cluttering the categories makes taking action on what are supposed to be actual category entries, a very muddied process. The bot might use an edit summary like the one I used for the mentioned hand fixing of entries in one of them (example).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why we should oppose this. Could we also have a look at this proposal? Oh, and I'd also love to be able to append stub templates at the bottom of article like we used to, but that's just gluttony! Where is Theopolisme? Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I oppose a bot-run. I do however endorse having editors use AWB to evaluate every single page to evaluate if the category is appropriate, and if so to save the changed page. Without knowing what suprises are out there I am extremely uncomfortable (both as a bot operator and as a AfC member) to do this bulk removal. Hasteur (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You mean because there might be actual userspace drafts under this category besides decline rationales? Why? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually I just realized that the userspace "Your article was declined because X" messages were substituted in. I was thinking about stumbling across one that had an {{AFC submission|d}} on it. In that case the category won't show up as text to be removed from the page (becasue it's being sneakily transcluded from the submission template). No objection now because anything that has the text available in the User talk space could only have been a subst-ed decline message to the user. I would however like to see it chew through ~300ish articles at a slow pace before going at a higher pace. I could see the justification for a weekly run that crawls 1k pages a week to remove and waits for feedback. Hasteur (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
If I brought it to WP:BRFA I would propose only running on one of the smaller categories (such as "BLP violations") first as a test. After that, I like your idea of smaller weekly runs. Instead of artificially limiting it to 1000 pages, I could manually run just one category per week in order of size, so the last categories would be "non-notable biography" and "lacking reliable third-party sources". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
1k articles a week makes this ~20 weeks of scrubbing. Considering that the bad categories were being added for ~40 weeks, I think this is a reasonable level of burn for the burn rate it took to get us to that level. Hasteur (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there a way to easily limit pywikibot to edit only 1000 pages per run? If I did one category per week, the most I would do in one run would be 3,000 (the final run). The affected pages in the largest three categories are here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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

At 100 daily each we could tackly this in under 4 months! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Surely there is another way. Can we not modify the template itself to sense what namespace it is in, and solve the issue with the editing of a template instead of a bot? Fiddle Faddle 13:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see what the bot could trip over here. Get a list of pages in the user talk: space, then just remove the categories. I could quite happily get an AWB bot going on this, I just need the full list of categories. I would run it at ~6 edits/min, giving around 55 hours of running. Of course, this won't be constant, but at least it will provide some time for feedback from other editors if anything does go wrong. Mdann52 (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    The categories are in Category:Declined AfC submissions. There's no technical limitation to doing it right now (with AWB or pywikibot or whatever), it's just a matter of getting consensus and opening a WP:BRFA before making 20,000 automated edits. I have the scripts ready to go otherwise. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Just going to note that as a result of the "miscategorization" discussion linked above, I already got a BRFA approved for this task using AWB, so I could run that with consensus here. APerson (talk!) 23:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds easier than getting a new bot approved. I think there's a pretty good consensus here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
APerson Notice that Slakr also echoed the "Go Slow" sentiment I asked for. Hasteur (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
So if anyone wants to check the first 300-talk-page run, I'll hold off on running the rest for a few days. (Pinging Hasteur, who I think was interested.) APerson (talk!) 18:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The random-ish 6 I've looked at seem to be OK. Well done! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

AFC Comment not formatted correctly

I've just posted a comment at Draft:Accredo Business Software Ltd but it is not formatted correctly, the template code has not been parsed, it is simply displayed instead of being converted into the usual formatting. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Fixed - this was caused by you closing a link with }} instead of ]]. This causes MediaWiki to freak out, and parse neither the template nor the link. I've fixed this now. Mdann52 (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I hate how such "trivial" typos cause such problems, and they're so hard to see! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Userspace draft template

If anyone would like to comment, there is an edit request at Template talk:Userspace draft about whether users should be able to tag pages in the Draft namespace with {{userspace draft}}. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Incongruous text of Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation when declining a submission

When declining a submission, I can select that I want the user to receive a Teahouse invitation. In this case, the user receives a message purportedly signed by me saying that I have declined the submission, followed by a message, also signed by me, saying 

* "Hello! xxx, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. ..."

This give the impression that I have just noticed that I did something. I presume this is a matter of a simple change to Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation but may need to be coordinated with the script. --Boson (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Rankersbo (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm generally not really comfortable with template message texts that use first person active voice "I" to ascribe the text to the user who happened to "trigger" the post. In this case we could simply delete "I noticed" without affecting the sense of the message at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I also think removing the words "I noticed" is a good idea, in order to keep the tone in line with some other maintenance messages I've seen. APerson (talk!) 03:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that "I noticed" is great, because it's personal and friendly (and there's good research into user retention that supports striking that personal note). But I fully agree with Boson that it's inappropriate in the particular context: I don't merely happen to "notice" what I did to the draft; I actually did it myself! The standard template text is great for third parties and therefore should be kept for them. When the invitation template is being posted by the person who is declining the article, then it needs text that takes more ownership of the action. Maybe "I'm sorry that I had to decline your article, but I believed that it would have been deleted otherwise" or something like that. This will require writing a separate template for use only in that situation, and adjusting the script to use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Private request for review

As a regular around here, I know that I could create an article in mainspace, however because I'm interested in the subject and I volunteered to create the article if sources were fetched, I decided to use AFC to help immunize the potential COI that I may have. If people could take a look at Draft:GORUCK. I'd like to see what people thing before I actually put it into the AFC review queue (or just move it to mainspace) so that I can have a very successful page creation. Hasteur (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur, the "mission statement" in the first sentence of the "Equipment manufacturing" section should be dropped, if no independent source mentions it, then "nobody cares". Generally I think the draft lacks context; you mention no dates or places (not even the country!), it could do with more specific details such as the actual nature of the "events". The section headings are not in sentence case. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Categorizing AfC submissions?

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

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

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

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

cat=M Media and music
cat=O Organisation, corporation, or product
cat=B Biographical
cat=S Society topics
cat=W Web or Internet
cat=G Games or sports
cat=T Science and technology
cat=F Fiction and the arts
cat=P Places and transportation
cat=I Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic
cat=U Debate not yet sorted
I think "Biographical" will need to be subdivided as the overwhelming majority of "not obvious junk" submissions are biographies. However if multiple categories can be used on a submission the intersections could be useful; Athlete = Biography + Sport, or Politician = Biography + Society, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
That would be a good idea if it were possible to easily look at category intersections on-wiki. Maybe you just use the rest of the categories but have a separate flag for 'biography'? (And another one for 'living'? The resulting list of 'living people associated with organizations, corporations, or products' is probably low-hanging fruit for handling the backlog....) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
A "biography flag" within the topic categories makes a lot of sense because a biography is never only a biography, it always belongs to another topic category too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
As I suggest below, this could be done via the AFC Wikiproject template. It would be draft-class "task forces" so to speak and pages could be in multiple ones. Basically we follow WP Biography's sorting mechanism rather than AFD's. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

See also

Some old related discussions that went nowhere:

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

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

Implementation

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

Thanks, glad to hear! With the caveat that I don't currently use the AfC script and therefore don't know what I'm talking about: the final parameter should be any category except "bio", right? "bio" is a separate flag independent of the other categories? Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Add it as a step in the Decline routine, except when the decline is for one of the quick fail criteria: hoax, test, blank, copyvio or attack. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
There should be capacity to add a category without failing the draft, i.e. for cases where you think "I'm not sure about this one, it could do with a reviewer more knowledgeable in this topic than myself". --LukeSurl t c 08:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes indeed, the ability to add the category without completing a review would be useful - perhaps in the Cleanup routine? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
But the cleanup routine doesn't work if the reviewer only adds a comment, or does it? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Cleanup runs either as a separate process or with decline, not with comment. Perhaps "Add draft category" should run with all processes except Accept and the Speedy declines? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Can something easy like HotCat be used, i.e. so that we don't have to type the whole thing? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a short list of only ten categories, so selecting one from a menu makes even more sense. HotCat doesn't distinguish between valid and invalid categories, it "accepts" any category that exists. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yup, a drop-down list would work just fine! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Is anyone now working on this? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Anyone?????...... This is exactly why all the previous proposals have come to nothing. Where are the script coders? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Dodger67, I'll try and hack away at this, but Theopolisme is really the one who does major work on the script. APerson (talk!) 01:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I haven't seen him around for a while, but given the current status of our backlog I think we can be lenient on deadlines, no? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Not too relaxed, baclogs have a nasty habit of suddenly blowing up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Just pinging the topic to keep it out of the archive. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It looks like Theopolisme is on a long break, is there anyone else we can ping for this? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
We could just try WP:RAA and hope for the best, or try Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
What we actually need is a competent script writer, not a random admin. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I know, but that doesn't seem likely to happen. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this would be a good project for the WMF Community Tech group? Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Good idea! We cannot allow progress to be held up by the unavailability of only one editor. Creating the categories is trivially easy, the hard part is updating the script to implement the categorisation correctly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The AFCH scrip source code is at https://github.com/WPAFC/afch-rewrite if anyone might be interested in updating it to add the categorization feature. The main contributor User:Theopolisme last edited en.WP in August. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest an alternative implementation below. My only concern is that this information would be lost when these articles are posted to mainspace so I suggest using the AFC Wikiproject template instead. That's more straight-forward and we'd basically be set up similar to how the biography project set ups its articles (but only within draftspace for now). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Once the article is in mainspace the issue is resolved and thus the sorting will no longer be relevant - the relevant subject WikiProjects will handle it. AFC information is supposed to be "lost" once a draft has been accepted into mainspace. Once it's out of draft-space it's no longer our baby - only the AFC WikiProject template is left to show that the article came through the AFC process. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Alternative implementation proposal

Can I make an alternative implementation proposal? There already exists Template:WikiProject Articles for creation and in particular Category:Draft-Class AFC articles. Instead, we can have the AFC Wikiproject template contain the categories and create subcategories within the Draft-Class category so that only the draft-space articles are categorized. It'll be like what WikiProject Biography does, is less complicated than a wholesale change to the AFC template and we can just ask them for help on setting up the class mask for our template. It'll be an additional step on the back-end but we'll also have better stats on the former AFC articles that get approved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The major problem with this idea is that the vast majority of wikiprojects do not correctly handle or even recognize Draft-class at all, so they will never actually get the "message" that drafts relevant to them exist. Basically we would have to convince each project to properly implement the relevant class mask, but even finding someone that knows what a class mask is, in each and every wikiproject, is a huge problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly the problem I started off with. There are too many wikiprojects with overlapping interest areas, for one thing, and a lot of them are only lightly active. Updating class masks for wikiproject banners for any project that doesn't a) already use draft-class, or b) explicitly opt out is another thing someone ought to do by bot eventually, but probably won't. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm just suggesting implementing this categorization using the AFC wikiproject template and just that template for now. Adding a "draft-class=" parameter to Template:WikiProject Articles for creation and Categories like "Draft-class AFC articles (biographies)", etc. would be relatively straight-forward, easier I imagine than changing the main AFC template. I'm suggesting it because it would be pretty easy to add that template to every page as people categorize articles. The fact that many other projects don't use this isn't relevant, not every draft is going to have every single Wikiproject associated with it (most articles are severely lacking). The other option loses that information when it's put into mainspace. Here, because the template would remain, it's possible if there's interest in keeping that around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • But your idea misses the entire point of what we're trying to do here - getting experienced members of subject area wikiprojects directly involved in improving and reviewing drafts relevant to them. Currently if we need a subject specialist's help we have to identify a relevant project, check if it is actually "alive" and then post a request on the project's talk page - which all takes far too much time, particularly during backlogs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying we do anything with other wikiprojects. I don't care about them, it's an alternative implementation for the sorting. The AFC Wikiproject tags are already being used automatically when the page is published. We could add it to the helper script as part of the review on the page itself. All these articles would qualify under the AFC wikiproject. All of these already could already be placed under the draft-space of the wikiproject. Then I'm suggesting we add a workforce to so speak for the AFC project of "Draft-class" or "Draft-group" or "Draft-bio=" or whatever (allow for two or more categories for various articles if we'd like) and then categorize the articles via the AFC Wikiproject (which is a subset of all AFC submissions at the moment). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Not doing anything with other WikiProjects" makes absolutely no sense at all - that it the entire point of what we're trying to do here. The whole objective of this sorting scheme is to get subject specialists involved in reviewing by presenting subject-specific projects with sorted lists of drafts so that they can pick out the ones relevant to them. Sorry, Ricky81682, you're really not understanding the point, the only reason for sorting drafts by topic is to get subject specialists involved. This issue has a very long history here going back several years, I surmise that you're probably too new/inexperienced at the inner workings of AFC to really grok it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No I understand the point: we create subject specialties here and have people review the articles here on a subject-specific basis. I read all the prior discussions. My point is that instead of looking at how AFD does their subject specialties, we can look at how WP Biography does it and implement their system. AFD has specialists but it's very transitory as those discussions last a week or a few at best. AFD also only allows for a single category per article. In contrast, here our work will be months if not years and most articles can be in multiple categories. I agree with you on the premise but instead of adding to the complexity of the AFC template, I'm suggesting an alternative that I think could be implemented fairly easily (one that is already done). Look, if we're looking for specialists only for the review stage of articles, then I agree that the Wikiproject template seems unnecessary and exceedingly complicated. However, if we're looking for specialists to assist overall on articles, then I'm making another suggestion. Looking at APerson's suggestion, I'd say that adding it as the second parameter in the middle of the template (absent a default to ignore it) could mean that every page will pop up a weird error since the second parameter isn't current set that way. It's a minority opinion here and to me, more likely to be done to me than just waiting around for someone to go and edit the AFC template but it seems like there's no interest in it so I don't see we're doing much other than arguing past each other here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Change the article name

how can i change the article name that i created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lentech23 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This wouild have been a better question for the help desk, but I have changed the name to Jason L. N. Campbell. Once you have been here long enough to be come autoconfirmed you will see a move tab that will let you change the name of things. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Repeated Resubmissions

Sometimes when I review an article, I see that it has already been submitted and declined multiple times, and that the concerns of the reviewers have not been addressed. Maybe the editor just doesn't understand the guidelines for acceptance, or maybe the editor is hoping to get an easier reviewer on resubmission. In any case, resubmitting an article multiple times without addressing the concerns of the reviewers wastes the time of the reviewers. Is there any criterion for deleting such draft articles? (Should I ask this at the Wikipedia Help Desk?) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would you delete such draft? We should create a template for warning the editor on their talk page that they should not resubmit a draft without addressing the issues. Supdiop (T🔹C) 20:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon and Supdiop: There is a point when one makes a decision that WP:MFD is going to be the next useful step in the development of the draft. It results either in the deletion of or the improvement of the draft. Either is fine. We cannot save them all.
A template for the user's talk page sounds fine, but good, even elaborate, comments on the draft itself are far more helpful. We have to accept that some editors are, or chose to be, unable to make the changes we need in order for the draft to have a better than 60% (some say 50%, but I aim higher) of surviving a deletion process after acceptance. Specific advice is always better than a template.
One could also take the draft forward one's self if one wished. Fiddle Faddle 21:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean that the author of a draft can take it forward by directly moving it into article space, or that a reviewer can take a draft forward? The former is true, in which case the author is taking the risk that the article will be nominated for deletion. It is true that a reviewer can take a draft forward, as in by accepting it, but only if the reviewer thinks that he or she has improved the article to where they are willing to be an author of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
My real question is indeed about when a draft article should be taken to WP:MFD as a last resort. I agree that MFD is a last resort, but a few editors just don't seem to understand how to respond to comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that specific advice is better than a template, but, as noted, specific comments in the draft itself are more helpful than comments on the author's talk page. (For one thing, comments by previous reviewers are seen by subsequent reviewers.) Putting specific comments in the decline beyond the menu-selection is helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The real question is whether there is a rule of thumb as to how many declines or how much time indicates that the draft isn't getting anywhere and should go to MFD. Maybe if the article has already been declined three times, on the fourth submission, should it be MFD's instead? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
"One could also take the draft forward one's self if one wished" I was referring to the reviewer, though any editor after achieving confirmed status may move any unprotected article anywhere.
My view on timescale is that this is an individual judgement call. If I believe there is no sensible other option, I consider MFD. This is very context dependent. It is not fatal to a draft, after all. If I am in error then the community tells me quite quickly. Fiddle Faddle 22:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
If the reference was to the reviewer taking the draft forward, that would imply that the reviewer had improved the draft. That, of course, implies that it is a draft that the reviewer thinks deserves an article, but needs improvement first. In some cases, an article isn't deserved, and those are the cases I had in mind. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Often, it doesn't matter how responsive or how much work an author puts into a draft, it is not going to be an acceptable topic for a Wikipedia article due to WP:N, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOT or other such guidelines. If the author is unresponsive to this reviewer feedback continues to resubmit, I think WP:MFD (with ample consideration for WP:BITE) is an appropriate step. As a reviewer you should research the topic and make the case for deletion WP:BEFORE nominating. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It's been my operating procedure that if I see the draft has been declined for the exact same reason multiple times, I take a peek into the history of the draft to see if the submitter is making progress towards the draft being acceptable. I also look to see if the submitter has been warned before that the next time they submit it without resolving the decline reason that the draft will be taken to MFD. If I don't see forward progress and the submitter has been warned already, I nominate for MFD as it's already wasted multiple volunteer's time in reviewing it without improvement. If the submitter hasn't been warned, I give them a stern warning about what could happen the next time they submit it without fixing the issue. The idea is to discourage submitters for shopping around looking for someone to approve their draft. Hasteur (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that editors usually can just create the article in articlespace anyways and ignore all the warnings. For example, Draft:NanoHealth was rejected twice as promotional but the editor didn't wait on a third submission and instead created it at NanoHealth. I deleted the draft under G13 but instead had to restore and merge the whole mess together. It was still promotional and has been cleaned up but still it's a nuisance. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Shrevin

So looking through User talk:Drvasanthms' talk page and its all on the same thing: Shrevin. They keep making articles and draft pages on that subject for years, with them always getting deleted. I don't know what to make of that but its overall unproductive. But I don't know if that violates anything. I thought it would be best to make a comment on this here because more than likely after Draft:SHREVIN and Draft:Shrevin get deleted another draft about Shrevin will be made. GamerPro64 16:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GamerPro64, I have sent both to WP:MFD and offered a suggestion on the user's talk page about the creation of inappropriate page. Fiddle Faddle 16:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2015

113.167.90.189 (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Is this the same IP that's been doing this every so often? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

How to submit a draft

Sorry for this basic question but I've looked all over this WikiProject as well as the Article Wizard and I can't find information on what template is used to submit a draft for review. I'm reviewing a lot of abandoned AFC drafts and I found one in good shape that had never been submitted for review and I'd like to get it in the pipeline in case it meets your criteria. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If you look at {{AFC submission|T}}, you'll just need to add {{subst:submit}} to submit it. If there's no header, it's kind of confusing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ricky81682. Here's a second question. I was working on Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and Template:AFC submission/draftnew/testcases and Template:AFC draft/testcases appear in the category when they are obviously not abandoned drafts. But I'm afraid that an admin who is not alert might delete these pages. Is there any way to remove these templates from this category? Liz Read! Talk! 12:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't know, asked at Template_talk:AFC_submission#Templates_in_Category:G13_eligible_AfC_submissions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User pages showing up at CAT:GFOO

Can someone figure out why User talk:Anthony Bradbury and User talk:JMHamo/Archive 9 shows up in CAT:GFOO? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

They were both transcluding Draft:Maryann Krieglstein. I've fixed them both.[7][8] — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Mr. Stradivarius. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC participants may be good administrators

AfC participants constantly evaluate draft articles. They have to be good at deciding what is viable, what is a copyvio, what should be deleted, etc. Well, that is exactly what administrators need to do a lot.

So, please consider watchlisting and taking a look at this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations one and all

5,000,000 articles is a heady total and we, those who review and those who submit at AFC have helped hugely. Congratulations to all folk here and thank you for the hard work. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Add moves to Article Wizard

Liz has a point above. Currently, neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation nor Wikipedia:Article wizard mention how an active user here could submit an article to the AFC process (namely, to use {{AFC submission|T}} if it's not ready for submission or {{subst:submit}} to submit it). There's over 49k articles within Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard so a lot of help can be done with just "adopting" old drafts and taking them to AFC. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean superloading the backlog to 49k submissions? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
In a sense. I'm preparing it as a backlog drive for WP:ABANDONED DRAFTS rather than here (this place is active enough with the review and submission system, that seems to be better for people interested in finding and working on inactive drafts). Manual review of course, no mass tagging would make any sense here. I don't think there would be too much of an objection if reviewing that backlog and I find (a) a plausible draft (i.e. not complete U5 junk or MFDable nonsense or anything that could be Template:inactive userpage blanked) (b) where the editor hasn't been active for say 1 year [taking active user's drafts is just wrong] and (c) I 'adopt' that not by moving it to my userspace but donating it to draftspace with a new unsubmitted header and I or others can work on it. Looking at the time it takes me to review a draft, check if the topic hasn't already been created and if it's not the same editor who failed to history merge, history merge if needed (being an admin), cross-check the editor's history, decide whether a nudge to a current user is helpful or if MFD is needed or move it to draftspace, do some cleanup and formatting and possible work, all for the possibility of maybe 1/10 articles fit those criteria (probably even less in reality) so another 4500 or so at least decent drafts, we're clearly talking about a multi-month if not multi-year drive (especially since new drafts will always follow). It took me many months to cull the 1500 or so pages from Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from October 2009 to the remaining two. Either way, the fact that it wasn't immediately clear to at least one person on how to add articles from another place to here means it's not something that's obvious. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea, but of the potentially hundreds/thousands of drafts that would result, where would we put them, and what would we do with them? I can expect to work on improving or accepting a few per week, but we couldn't possibly take on the drafts as creators ourselves for the indefinite future; I think this would be a reckless goal overall. What we could do is what we're currently doing, going little by little and rescuing as many as we can, which of course could be adapted towards a drive for fun's sake. Or perhaps this is what you're proposing already? Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
It's for fun's sake and to check on old pages. That project is basically dead at the moment so one more person helping would be pretty optimistic. At the very least, does anyone else think we should include some language on advising people who wish to donate drafts already created elsewhere to the AFC project (presuming that's something that is wanted)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It's time we got to them. We've cleared up other large backlogs--the key point is not to be intimidated with the number, but just keep at it. I'll be glad to work on them a little. The first step I think will be an automated check for duplication. Rather than MfD, I suggest moving into Draft, and waiting six months for G13. If there's any question whether its applicable, this can be clarified at WT:CSD. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
(A) I'm working on this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts but (B) as to whether the Article Wizard should include a mention of how to add drafts via moving them, should we include that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
As to DGG's second suggestion, maybe a bot can work out the list itself (check each blue link on the page, read the bold or header) and print that next to it? Sorting out Category:Userspace drafts (the parent category), we're going back to drafts from 2004 with a lot in the 2008-2009 timeframe being basic copy-and-paste whenever an article was for up for deletion then (template:video game is used on those extensively). It's the same reason I have four "draft" versions of Spider Man 4 up at MFD, the article was made into a redirect and people desperately wanted to "save" it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Gilles Gorriti

I commented on the submission and it now appears blank. Can anyone tell me what's going on? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: SuperMarioMan deleted page Draft:Gilles Gorriti (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: https://www.gilles-gorriti.com/; earliest version was a copy of Pablo Picasso missing attribution) JMHamo (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah...they must've done it while I was precisely checking for that on Earwig's tool; when I came back it was blank and since I hadn't refreshed the page it seems the script added the comment to a now-new page. Thanks! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I've G6'd the new page as requested by JMHamo. SuperMarioMan ( Talk ) 17:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

G13 eligible AfC submissions issue

Why are there articles not tagged for G13 deletion in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions, such as Draft:EatBlue.com and many, many more.. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems Hasteur's Bot has performed a null edit to eligible G13 articles and has removed the template, but they still appear in the eligible AfC submissions category. I guess they are still fine to G13 nominate? JMHamo (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a real problem. This version shows up in the category while the next edit does not. I think Hasteurbot is pulling the history to do the creator notification but is doing a null edit by accident there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
For the ELEVENTY BILLIONTH TIME in the past 5 days... there are multiple components to how the bot and templates work:
  1. The bot scans Category:AfC submissions by date and it's children to evaluate if there are any pages that are eligible for G13. If it finds one the bot performs a null edit so that the {{AFC submission/draft}} and {{AFC submission/declined}} templates will display the red warning banner that the page is eligible for deletion (but not nominate it) and to get the template to include the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions category from inside the template.
  2. There is a difference between the pages being eligible for G13 and the pages being nominated for G13. The bot still waits 30 days from the notice date that the page is eligible for G13 before it goes about and nominates.
  3. The null edit is intentional so that the template parameters get re-evaluated. Hasteur (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

See also User_talk:JohnCD#G13_cases Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I was just wondering why they are showing up in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions without a red warning banner. So there is no issue with nominating drafts older than six months old already. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@JMHamo: The pages are eligible for G13 right now, however the bot is procedurally obligated to wait 30 days in case the user talk message does spur the user to come back and edit their draft (best case). While it's perfectly fine for human editors to go ahead and start nominating from the eligible category, it was my understanding, that these pages weren't really hurting anything and letting them last the 30 days until the bot comes through and cleans them up won't hurt much in the grand scheme of things and therefore there was a suggestion that human editors not perform the nominations themselves as the bot has a very good track record in following the (6 months + 30 days minimum) rule. Hasteur (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, how are humans supposed to nominate them from Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions if pages don't show up there? I'm confused on implementation here. Are pages only going into Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions after seven months? I don't think it's manual move (via the bot)? Draft:EatBlue.com was last edited on April 8th making it eligible on October 8th. Will it only go into the G13 eligible category on November 8th? Either way, since this comes up so much, we should just ask it as a common question to the top of this talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the real answer is that the Bot messed up (but we'll live)... I've never seen Drafts that are G13 eligible have the red warning banner removed when they were already included in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions It's very messy... JMHamo (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Question for @Hasteur: in good faith. Could the 985 Drafts included in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions that will not be nominated for G13 for another six months by your Bot be moved to Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions, where they should really be? JMHamo (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: @JMHamo: How many times to I have to say it! THE BOT IS NOT BROKEN!!! Looking at the page RIGHT NOW you can see the "This draft has not been edited in over six months and qualifies to be deleted per CSD G13" in red inside the Submission declined template ({{AFC submission/declined}}). This means that right now either of you could apply the CSD:G13 nomination template ({{db-g13}}) to nominate it for deletion because the CSD:G13 qualification is valid right now. Per the bot's implentation rules, the bot notified the creator of the article on November 1st. At least 30 days after that notice, the bot will come back and see if the draft is still CSD:G13 eligible. If it is, then the bot will perform the CSD:G13 nomination. The AFC submission template pulls in the Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions category at 5 months unedited. and pulls in the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions at 6 months and includes the red bar notice at 6 months too. Before you go on to demonstrate even more ignorance, please go look at the related discussion recently at JohnCD's talk page, the Template source, and the Bot Requests for approval petitions 1/2. Hasteur (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I had a feeling you wouldn't answer the question, so I will repeat could the 985 946 Drafts included in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions that will not be nominated for G13 for another six months by your Bot be moved to Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions, where they should really be? JMHamo (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@JMHamo: You have failed at comprehending the text multiple times... HOW many bloody times to I have to repeat the instructions. The 985 drafts included in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions will not be moved in 6 months because that's not the right place to put it.
  1. At 5 months unedited the template pulls in the Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions because that's the purpose of that category (to let those who might want to save the drafts time to work on them without the looming threat of CSD:G13).
  2. At 6 months unedited, the pages are eligible for CSD:G13 immediately.
  3. At 6 months, the bot will perform a null edit to the submission so that the AFC submission template will add the red "notice banner" and sneakily get the template to include the G13 eligible submissions category. At that same point the bot drops a friendly notice to the page creator that their draft is at risk of being nominated for deletion.
  4. At 6 months + 30 days if the draft is still eligible for G13, the bot performs the CSD:G13 nomination and delivers a notice to the page creator that the draft has been nominated for deletion.
At this point I invite any other editors besides you and Ricky81682 to opine on this because both of you have some radical minority viewpoint that is not supported by consensus and I am on the edge of saying things that will get me slapped around for civility. Hasteur (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Why can't you answer a question without the passive aggression. Thank god you are not an Admin, you wouldn't be much good at editor retention. There are still unanswered questions but you will not be able to manage to answer them without being rude (or leaving snide edit summaries). There is obviously a reason as stated on your User page that you've been 'drug to the Administration Noticeboards 9 times'. JMHamo (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Specifically the code in the template looks like this
<includeonly>{{#ifexpr: {{#time: U | {{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}} +6 months }} < {{#time: U}}|<div style="text-align: center; background-color: #FCC; border: 1px solid #FAA; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;">This draft has not been edited in over six months and qualifies to be deleted per [[WP:G13|CSD G13]].</div>{{#if:{{{demo|}}}||[[Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions|{{padleft:{{#expr:(({{#time:y|{{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}}}}*12)+{{REVISIONMONTH1}})}}|3|0}}]]}}}} {{#ifexpr: ({{#time: U | {{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}} +5 months}} < {{#time: U}})and({{#time: U | {{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}} +6 months}} > {{#time: U}})|{{#if:{{{demo|}}}||[[Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions|{{padleft: {{#expr:(({{#time:y|{{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}}}})+{{REVISIONMONTH1}})}}|3|0}}]]}}}} </includeonly>
Now for the line by line playback:
If the most recent revision timestamp plus 6 months (as counted in Unix Epoch time) is less than the current timestamp (in unix epoch time), then Add the "This draft has not been edited in over six months" and include the G13 eligible submissions category and include a sorting parameter to it so that the most pages that are the most eligible are at the top of the list.
If the most recent revision timestamp plus 5 months (as counted in unix epoch time) is less than the curent timestamp (in unix epoch time) and the most recent revision timestamp plus 6 months (as counted in unix epoch time) is greater than the current timestamp (in unix epoch time) then apply the ""AfC G13 eligible soon submissions" category and use the sorting parameter to push the the ones that will transition into the 6 month category to the top of the list)
Hope this clears up your questions. Next time read the provided sources Hasteur (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No actually, it does not answer my questions, but I am not going to bother any more as I've said you are just too passive aggressive and you suck the life out of me... I'd rather move on and let others suffer you. JMHamo (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You question has a false premise, the bot will not wait another 6 months. It will nominate for deletion in 1 month or less. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Pre-production starts for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons tutorial videos

We are excited that pre-production has started for a series of motivational and educational videos that will introduce Wikipedia and some of its sister projects to new contributors.

Over the past several years, many videos have been produced to train new contributors. This series will feature VisualEditor and the new citation tool called Citoid. Additionally, the series will include an introduction to the Wikimedia Commons repository of freely-licensed media.

The video series and associated materials will help students and instructors who participate in the Wikipedia Education Program. The series is also designed to assist the professional staff and volunteers of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs) with understanding how their content gains exposure on Wikimedia sites, and how to document or upload their content for direct viewing on Wikipedia and its sister projects.

The video content will be available in segments that can be viewed, translated, or updated individually.

There are currently volunteer translators for Arabic, Armenian, Czech, German, Greek, Odia, and Spanish. Additional volunteers with high proficiency translation skills are welcome to sign up on the talk page.

We are currently seeking feedback on the outline for the scripts, as well as suggestions for an attractive name for the series. Please leave any comments on this talk page!

Regards,

Pine✉

Series director and screenwriter

Notes

This series is funded by an individual engagement grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. A big thanks to the community, the IEG Committee, and WMF for their support.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_27&oldid=1180768284"