What policy or guideline do we have that can be cited in declining (or rejecting) drafts on divisions of parent companies that have articles? We have WP:BRANCH, but that is about branches or local of associations and trade unions, not companies. We have WP:CHAIN, but that is about outlets of chain businesses, not companies within companies. I understand that divisions of companies normally do not need their own articles. We sometimes have persistent paid editors who keep resubmitting drafts, and I would like to be able to decline or reject these division drafts with an adequate amount of authority.
User:Primefac - You answered a reasonable question that I didn't ask, which was which option of the Decline options to use. I agree. But my question wasn't clear. I wanted to know what policy or notability guideline referred to divisions of companies. WP:BRANCH and WP:CHAIN are sections in the corporate notability guideline, but have to do with other similar situations. What I have is a very persistent paid editor who keeps resubmitting a draft on a division, and who repeatedly wants help in getting their draft to be accepted. I would like to be able to cite a policy or guideline. I have already declined the draft more than once. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon Imho a division qualifies for a seperate article only if it would qualify as a stand-alone company, thus CORP is the standard. Otherwise it deserves only a section in the parent company article. Look at the criteria for WP:SPLIT too as creating seperate division articles is tantamount to splitting the parent corp article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Maybe I haven't asked the question clearly, User:Dodger67. I am asking about large divisions of large companies. The division would satisfy corporate notability if it were a separate company. The parent company has an article. The proponents for the division say that the division satisfies corporate notability based on significant coverage. The WP:BRANCH and WP:CHAIN sections say that we normally do not have articles for branches of organizations, or for outlets of chains. Unless there is some similar rule about divisions of companies, do large corporations qualify for multiple articles? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the guideline you're looking for is Wikipedia:Content forking; if an article about a company is so big that it is reasonable to split off some of the content (e.g. a subsidiary/division) then that should be done. On the other hand, looking at my Anjunabeats example above, the main article was tiny, the draft was tiny, and thus there's no need to have such a content fork; there's more than enough space for the both of them. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
That is not my understanding of WP:BRANCH or WP:CHAIN at all. Does either of them say that a large notable division of a large company (that is what you are asking about) would not normally have an article? WP:BRANCH seems to be about non-notable entities and a large notable division is nothing like a local store or franchise. WP:GNG should (normally!) be the test and unless it is most likely the article would be deleted at AFD it should be accepted. AFC should restrict itself to getting rid of dross. Thincat (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
If the division independently meets WP:CORP, my default would be to accept it. You definitely should not decline and suggest a merge if a merge would create an WP:UNDUE issue in the existing parent article (e.g. the draft is large and the article about the parent company is small). After accepting, make sure there is a link to the new division article from the parent and maybe even leave a note on the parent's talk page. Editors there might want to organize things differently. Your acceptance doesn't in any way prevent that but declining may. ~Kvng (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Template:Userspace draft shows up by default on new users' sandbox drafts. I observed this when leading an edit-a-thon. It contains a button to submit your user draft to AFC. So we have a situation where newcomers are, by default, steered into the AFC gauntlet--where good-faith editors are often chewed up and spit out, in my view. Do we want new users to be steered into AFC by default? I'm not so sure. (I mentioned this above in a separate section but I think it deserves its own section, pinging Primefac (talk·contribs) to respond here.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Most new users don't create quality content. If they aren't steered into AfC, the new articles would be a problem for NPP to fix, which is likely to result in a lot of deletions. If, because of your inclusionism, you think that Wikipedia should simply accept more content then I would posit that your compassion for new editors is misguided and contrary to the ends of the encyclopedia. Chris Troutman (talk)18:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Chris troutman - While I largely agree with you about the quality of the content from new editors, your comment is unnecessarily harsh. While User:Calliopejen1 is an experienced editor and can be bitten, as you just did, it still isn't useful to bite an experienced editor; and compassion for new editors is not misguided, although we shouldn't allow that compassion to permit them to enter crud. I agree with you that we should try to steer new editors into AFC rather than directly into mainspace, but you were biting an experienced editor who is simply expressing an opinion that differs from yours. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Will some other reviewer please take a look at this draft and at whether it should be accepted as a separate article from Jio Platforms? I may no longer be objective about it or its author. We have a persistent civil paid editor pushing, who either wants a separate article for a division, or wants to add information to the parent article that would be a TV guide, or both. Should the division have its own article? How much information about the TV division, either in the parent article or the child article, if there is a child article, is in order? (If this is accepted, I think that it will almost certainly face an AFD. What would be the likely result?)
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, I concur with your view, and I understand your frustration with the creating editor, who has only made a COI, not a PAID declaration. I think your decision to stand away frm the draft and the editor is the correct one.
Since I share your frustrations even though I have had no interaction with the editor I will follow your lead and stand aside, too.
Based on what is being said above about allowing things to be cleaned up in article space, I intend to be accepting this draft -- even though it doesn't have a footnote, which is required for a BLP. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
It should have more references!! It should be WP:THREE refs as a minimum. That way they can be checked off of each to ensure it is factual and verifiable. One references makes for bigger chance of being wrong. Maybe 10 years ago we could get away it, not now. All it does is create more work for the crew, us, instead of the editor who creates the article. They are the best people to write and reference it. Work where it is most efficient. We really need try and improve the quality around the process. scope_creepTalk23:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
titleblacklist-forbidden-move
I tried to accept an article because I think that notability is shown, but I receive this message - "Error moving Draft:SCHOKINAG-Schokolade-Industrie to SCHOKINAG-Schokolade-Industrie: "titleblacklist-forbidden-move". SL93 (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
AFAIK, the title blacklist is some kind of MW filter that will disallow certain actions, like create, move, and edit on pages matching some criteria. I don't know more about it, though I have been told that the page-mover userright allows not only moving but also creating certain or all title-blacklisted pages. L293D (☎ • ✎)04:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@SL93, Zoozaz1, and L293D: You can use the API to see why the titleblacklist is blocking something: SCHOKINAG-Schokolade-Industrie (9 consecutive uppercase letters) and Saʿdiyya order (the non-Latin Modifier letter left half ring is in an otherwise Latin title). In particular, the title blacklist still applies to the new title of moves even if the old title itself matches the same blacklist entry. (Side note: when doing page moves manually, you get a much nicer message telling you the problem. Perhaps AFCH should be fixed to do the same.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Will some other reviewer please take a look at this draft? I declined it both as not having footnotes and as a biography of a living person known for one event. The author resubmitted it within a few hours with five footnotes, three of which are to Wikipedia. So this is a three-part question. Can someone else evaluate what they think of BLP notability? Can someone else explain to the author what sourcing we want? Third, is there any reason to accept this and let it be improved in mainspace, or should it continue to be declined?
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The lady is notable enough, though I agree with BLP1E. I am minded to accept it in its current state and to flag for cleanup and to allow the community to decide. I will note this on the talk page. FiddleFaddle19:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Timtrent - I don't see the comment, so will ask you. What are you asking be done about the redirect? Which entry do you propose should be disambiguated, and what should the hatnote be? (Also, it doesn't require admin rights; it requires admin or page mover rights.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Primefac, Thank you. It is now for the community to determine if this is a useful article about a notable person. Sometimes they make better judges than we do. RM suggests there is a Page Mover right I might benefit from? Advice, please (probably on my talk page)? FiddleFaddle19:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
PGM gives the option for redirect suppression, meaning you can do round-robin page moves whereby you swap (for example) Article:A and Draft:B. I'll tell you right now that occasionally needing to G6 a redirect so that a draft can be approved isn't enough to get the permission granted to you; I'd just stick with WP:G6 and/or pinging an admin. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Would it make sense to add "duplicates an article in mainspace" as a reject reason? I came across Draft:V. Ravichandran filmography, which I rejected since the material is already in the article V. Ravichandran. But I would also reject a submission if someone created a duplicate of an existing article. (t · c) buidhe00:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. That is currently a decline reason, and should remain one also, if only because rejection is harsh. I think that duplicating an article in mainspace should only be a rejection after the draft has already been declined once, but that should be up to the reviewer. Occasionally there are submitters who tendentiously resubmit a draft that duplicates an article, typically because they just don't understand how it works. Yes, that should be a rejection reason, but should also remain a decline reason, because rejection is unpleasant. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
agree thee is no need to use reject. But check first that it is actually a duplicate, rather than two versions with content that should be merged. True duplicates usually are generated when a draft gets rejected, and the contributor realizes they can add it directly as an article, and does that. So at this point, I generally look at the article. Sometimes its OK, but it usually needs at least tagging for problemsor trimming, but often it needs nomination for deletion, generally as G11 or A7 or both. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Overhauling draft submission process using javascript
The problem:
The way in which users submit drafts (looks like this) is crude and unsophisticated – involving a preload form that asks the user to scroll past the edit box without changing anything and hit the publish button (if they shouldn't change anything in the edit box, why show them the edit box?). This user interface may have made sense in the '90s, but not in 2020.
AFC-submit-wizard demo screenshot
Instead, a JavaScript-based wizard (compare for example the file upload wizard) can be used which improves the UI and also opens up a ton of other possibilities:
The submitter can specify the WikiProject tags to be placed on the talk page.
The submitter can specify if the draft is about a BLP or a company -- which causes it to be categorisedas such. Reviewers would be able to use tools (like wikipedia search, petscan, etc) to filter out these pages out of their workflow
The ORES topic categories (which was proposed above to be applied using a bot) can be fetched from the ORES API during submission itself. This saves unnecessary bot edits.
The wizard uses mw:OOUI, as such it is quite user-friendly.
All in all, this means that nearly every draft will be categorised with topics, tagged with WikiProject tags, and have short descriptions by the time of submission itself, at zero-cost to the reviewer community.
Possible future enhancements:
Allow submitter to declare a COI. All this while, there has been no easy and intuitive way to make a COI declaration.
Ask for the 3 best refs (would be an optional field like everything else). Articles with these refs provided will be separately categorized for speedier review.
I like the idea a lot apart from I'm not sure that the WikiProjects tags would not confuse a lot of editors. For that reason if kept I would move to the bottom as people tend to give up entry at the first obstacle. I would have the check boxes first as these are the easiest entry, then description then any more complex items. I would add a check box for having a COI. Maybe also encourage them to enter a tag by adding that saying selecting some may speed up the review process. Lastly would be what happens for a resubmit - Will it auto fill the previous values? Could if determine if there appeared to be no references and warn the submitter if it didn't it would just be rejected? Anyway Good idea and Good work. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
This has always been one of my bugbears with the AFC process from the user side (i.e. the process of submission itself). If we get something working that's better than our slightly-hacky method, I'm all for it. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with a new submission method for users with JavaScript enabled, as long as the old method continues to seamlessly work for users without JavaScript enabled. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm all for it. I'm not entirely sure "Draft title is needed" since that would be the page the user is already on. Short description should probably be first, and WikiProject tags can probably have a bit more context or be rephrased since "WikiProject" is not really a known term outside of Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}13:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I've used the File Upload Wizard, and I found it quite user-friendly. This seems like a much more elegant solution than what is in place. I don't know anything about all that code, but does it apply to {{Draft}} as well as {{AFC submission/draft}}? -2pou (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I broadly like this thinking and propose a radial button type choice among the following topic options:
Living person
Dead person
Business or non-profit that exists today today
Media (including video games, websites, films, television, songs, albums)
Commercial product that exists today (including software)
Geography, places, and buildings
History or social science
Science or mathematics
Other
Dead people, geography/places/buildings, history/social science, and science/mathematics have a high chance of being worthwhile and could ideally be reviewed with more care. Living people, existing businesses/non-profits, media, and products tend to be mainly garbage. I guess we'll see what ends up in "other". Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliopejen1 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Question on the above - maybe I'm misreading it, or Robert McClenon is misreading it (based on their comment below), or both (because in re-reading your introduction now you refer to two different things), but are we discussing a new Article Wizard or a new method of submitting a draft? The latter is, obviously, completely necessary, less so the Wizard, but it seems like the discussions above (and below) are flip-flopping between the two. Primefac (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
We're discussing a new method of submitting a draft. At first I was confused myself as I didn't know of the Article Wizard. Looking at it, I see that Article Wizard can only be used for creating a draft (not for submitting it). For submitting, I believe there's only one common way -- the "Submit your draft for review" (or "Resubmit") button on {{AFC submission}} or {{Userspace draft}}, both of which lead to a preload form like this I linked above, which is what this wizard will replace. – SD0001 (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for clarifying. Still a fan of making submitting easier (especially if it helps us remove all of the stupid "I'm resubmitting this" headers at the end of drafts). Primefac (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
A Miscellaneous Comment
My first comment at this time is that the majority of articles that are accepted via AFC come from editors who know enough about Wikipedia so that they do not rely on a wizard. Therefore improving the wizard will be helpful, but only to editors who are completely helpless without it and need help with it. It won't make much difference to how many articles are accepted. The benefit may be the indirect one of helping new editors become more familiar with being Wikipedia editors.
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
See response to Primefac above. This doesn't have anything to do with Article Wizard. (Regardless of whether the draft is created with Article Wizard or not, users will go through this new wizard while submitting the draft for review.) – SD0001 (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
That being said, it's still possible to manually submit by just adding {{subst:submit}}, and by using the submit option in AFCH gadget, both of which will bypass the AFC-submit-wizard along with all its categorisation schemes. While there's nothing we can do about the manual option, maybe we could edit the AFCH gadget so that its submit option leads to the AFC-submit-wizard, but I suppose we could discuss that at a later stage. – SD0001 (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Sidenote: Should that button be removed in favor of an explanation of how to get your draft into the encyclopedia in a different way? I think we need to steer good-faith editors AWAY from AFC as much as possible. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC) -- FYI, just started a separate thread about this below, please respond to this sidenote question there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
They run off the same subpage so if we changed that page it would get them both.
Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I was reading this as having to do with the Article Wizard, and User:SD0001 has explained the reason for my possible confusion, which is that I was not familiar with the Submit Wizard or whatever. Since I have the AFCH gadget, I issue a Submit command, and do not go through any procedure such as was described. So if we are talking about changing the Submit interface, rather than just the Article Wizard, would this change only affect users who don't have the AFCH gadget? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a plan to change anything for AFCH users. It's changing what users see when they click the "submit your draft" button. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I really like this idea. Not my ideal version, but very much better than we have currently. A question: will this work on mobile? I've noticed that on mobile, the editing window is much simpler, just containing the full wikitext, nothing else. All fancy editnotices and stuff like that don't work. Or will the submitters just have to go to desktop version to submit drafts? Regards, TryKid[dubious – discuss]21:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I suspect, much like some of our other script-based editing buttons, that it will default to text-based if the user cannot technically use it. Primefac (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I welcome any comments on this one, but this is basically a case where I declined rather than rejecting because I assume that the submitter didn't know what the history is, and there should always be a decline option because reject is bitey, except in rare cases where editors need to be bitten. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The current selection of decline reasons were set back in 2018. I think the decision we all reached was good and we have a well chosen selection of decline reasons. Those of us who spend a long time in AFC-land know that some of the most common categories of of declines don't map on perfectly to the decline reasons in AFCH, for example given an draft about a non-notable academic, we might reject with "BIO" and then refer people to WP:NPROF via a decline comment. For non-notable software we might reject with "NN" and then refer folks on to WP:NSOFT. It's not such a burden, but I do find myself doing it rather a lot. There seem to be a few categories of drafts that are declined very frequently for which we only have very general decline reasons.
I am wondering if it is time to review a sample of declined articles and try to determine if we can tweak the current selection of decline reasons to be more specifically helpful for common categories of decline. I'm not proposing a radical overhaul but we might (after some consideration) decide to add a small number of additional decline reasons. The benefit of offering more relevant decline reasons would (hopefully) be less wasted time at IRC-help, were much of our time is spent interpreting the general notability guides for specific categories of declined drafts. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
When/if reviewing this one needs to beware tl;dr
A great number of new editors fail to read even the shortest message, often asking at the AFC Helpdesk why their firstborn child was declined despite the reason being in plain sight, FiddleFaddle10:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Um... that's exactly what Salimfadhley is referring to. Also, if I remember correctly, while there was no "official" close, I did implement many of the changes discussed at that discussion. Primefac (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Where can I find the text for the decline/reject templates?
I had an idea to review the list of AFC decline/reject reasons to see if they match up to the daily reality of AFC patrolling. My idea was to make a proposal for possible new categories of decline reject reasons which seem to be all too common, for example computer software, internet personalities. In each case we could give specific guidance to address misconceptions relating to notability in these categories.
The AFCH script generates code like this when a page is declined:
the 2nd argument is "corp" which refers to some kind of sub-template that gets transcluded when the page is rendered. That "corp" text is intended to give specific guidance in the case of a non-notable corporation. This could be "bio" in which it would render the help-text related to non-notable biographies.
What I am looking for is a list of all of the templates/subtemplates which for all of the reject/decline reasons. I wanted to check to see if all of the reasons are correctly supported by AFCH, and what additional reasons might be helpful to patrollers. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I would like to call the attention of other reviewers to something unusual, at Draft:Albert Bourla. This is a case where a paid editor appears to be openly obeying the rules, by making the required declaration, and in addition by writing what looks on first glance (but without a detailed review) like a reasonable draft. A few paid editors do play by the rules.
This was submitted less than a day ago. We have a 2-month+ backlog. I don't think it should be reviewed ahead of other drafts that have been waiting. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
G13 5 month notices
Hey, AFC,
I'm not sure where to post this so I'll just post this question here. It used to be when I deleted a stale draft and a notice was posted to the talk page of the page creator informing them of the deletion and the policy about G13s, I'd see a notice that would be posted after 5 months of editing inactivity to let the page creator know that their draft was approaching the 6 month mark. These notices seemed to just be posted automatically. But I'm not seeing them any more. They seemed to be useful to me, to let editors know that their drafts were likely to be deleted if they didn't do some recent editing on them.
Do you have any idea why these 5 month notices ended? Because I think they served a valuable purpose to remind editors about drafts that might have forgotten about. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!23:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
It was Hasteurbot that previously did the 5-month notices, but with the operator's death that stopped. I approved MDanielsBot to run the same task, which does appear to still be active. Pinging the operator for a status check/update on this task. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Will someone please take another look at Draft:Lilia Buckingham and comment on whether it was handled properly? I haven't evaluated the sources and the filmography in detail, and it isn't obvious whether she does or does not satisfy acting notability. I declined it in January because I thought that there needed to be discussion of whether her roles were significant. Then yesterday a new account popped up to make minor changes and resubmit the draft. In looking at the history, I saw that the previous submitters have been blocked as a sock farm. The new account looked like a duck flying back to the pond. The new account has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and is appealing the block. That isn't the question. I made a note on the talk page of the draft that it has a history of sockpuppetry, and should only be accepted if a neutral experienced editor has worked on it. Does that seem like a reasonable way to handle such drafts, where the subject may be notable, but there are doubts about the neutrality or integrity of the submitter?
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I find it questionable to say the least when a teenager is described as an "author and influencer"; there are some unsupported statements in the draft about her relationships that would definitely require a source per BLP, or at least better sources than Twitter and Instagram posts. BD2412T22:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. The special issue in her case however is the history of sockpuppetry. My thinking is that when there is a history of sockpuppetry, we need to be wary of any submitter who is not an experienced neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
In answer to your original question, I am with you completely. I haven't checked date of creation vs Sockmaster banning date, nor if the case was proven when you declined it (thus whether it is a CSD candidate).
I noticed a CCP template on the draft, so have moved it to the talk page, and flagged the draft as possible UPE. That is the extra step I hope I would have done had the CCP template been present had I reviewed the draft.
The long and short of it is that my distaste for any form of block evasion means I take great pains to root it out. The mechanism you have chosen is perfectly valid in my view FiddleFaddle07:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
All of that aside, I just had a look at the references, and it looks like she is bona fide notable, regardless of the history of sock puppetry. Isn't the issue, "Is she notable?" Because if she is, shouldn't we have an article on her? I am not sure how Wikipedia benefits by denying the notability of an actress who actually is notable, regardless of who makes the notability claim. It strikes me as a bit spiteful, really. I say this as a neutral editor who has no vested interest in the article, either way. A loose necktie (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I have expressed an interest on the draft talk page in accepting this article. I am not an AfC reviewer, but believe this particular subject is notable. I think I know how to move the draft into mainspace without making a mess, shall I try? If no one has any objections, I will give it a go. A loose necktie (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2020
== Old drafts ==
Old drafts, drafts that have been unedited for more than six months, are routinely deleted (see [[WP:CSD#G13]]). Once deleted, they can be recovered per request at [[WP:REFUND/G13]].
A chronologically sorted backlog of draft articles impending deletion can be found at the [[:category: AfC G13 eligible soon submissions]].
A bot reports pages eligible for deletion daily [[Wikipedia:Database reports/Stale drafts]]. These can be reviewed and nominated for deletion or improved for mainspace.
AFCRHS.js, when creating categories, currently treats subcategory entries as parent categories, and adds them to the set of parent categories when creating a new category. This is clearly a bug, and leaves category contents miscategorized, as parent category material will appear in the tree of what should be subcategories.
Perhaps the script can scrape and divide
Example pages which belong to this category:
<!-- List THREE examples of pages that would fall into this category -->
where subcategories end up
and
Parent category/categories:
<!-- Would this category be a subcategory of any other categories? If yes, list them here -->
where parent categories end up
to determine which are parent categories and which are subcategories?
I'm somewhat confused. Mediawiki software allows the creation of categories and the insertion of articles (etc) into them, but it pays no heed to a notional hierarchy, for the category system, is not hierarchical, except insofar as human design constructs a pseudo-hierarchy
@Timtrent: It sounds like the issue is that if someone requests that Category:Foo be created, and says that Category:Bar should be in Category:Foo, the script will incorrectly put Category:Foo in Category:Bar. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
"Here we go again." For the information of Britons, Indians, Europeans, Australians, etc., the subject is a candidate for the United States Senate from Iowa. It is my understanding that the usual application of notability policy in Wikipedia on candidates for politically notable offices is that we do not consider them to be generally notable based on their campaigns. If the politician was notable before becoming a candidate, they of course remain notable. If the politician was not notable before the campaign, they do not become notable unless and until they are elected. In such cases, we redirect from the name of the politician to the article on the campaign, as 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. That is my understanding of how the combination of political notability and general notability is applied. There has been an AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield, which resulted in the usual conclusion to redirect to the election article. There have been not one or two but three Deletion Reviews, which endorsed the redirection, and the redirect has been protected. (There was discussion at DRV of listing the title at WP:DEEPER, but that step was not taken (so a fourth DRV can be submitted, and will probably further annoy the DRV regulars.) A request for page unprotection was just made, and the request was declined, so that the redirect is still protected. The draft has been submitted again; the only real choices that a reviewer has are to decline the draft, reject the draft, recommend that the redirect be unprotected, or do nothing. On the one hand, I think that rejecting the draft would be wrong, because that would add one more step to the work that would need to be done if she is elected. On the other hand, I think that recommending acceptance, before the election, would be an exercise in nothing. (If I were being sarcastic, I would tell the submitters to go to Iowa and establish residence to vote for her on 3 November, but we know about sarcasm on the Internet.)
In the spirit of full disclosure, I have made a financial donation to Greenfield's campaign, and also donated to about a dozen other Senate candidates the same day. It might be expected that I would therefore support accepting this draft. I don't. Robert McClenon has done an excellent job summarizing the existing consensus. I see no evidence that she is notable outside the context of this campaign. The article can be created promptly without controversy if she wins. The draft should be declined and the redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa should remain. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. After the November election in the United States, it might be appropriate to review whether the current interpretation of political notability and general notability should be either formalized or revised. I don't think that it should be dealt with on a piecemeal basis before the election. In the meantime, as I said on the draft talk page, I don't want to have to read the riot act, but the applicable riot act is WP:ARBAP2. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Absent a change to policy on this matter (which I would support for major-party nominees to U.S. Senate seats who receive national coverage), I agree that we need to hold until after the election. Otherwise, the question becomes, what's the rush to have an article on this subject in the nearer term? BD2412T04:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
User:BD2412 - I think I know why the rush, and I disagree with them. I think that the reason for the rush is that they may be concerned that whether the subject has her own Wikipedia article could affect a few votes in Iowa, and that could affect which party has the majority when the Senate is organized in 2021. Whether that attributes more importance to a Wikipedia article than is in evidence is a valid question. But the reason for the rush probably has to do with a desire to influence the election. Is that an answer? I am not arguing with you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
In my professional opinion as a fifteen-year Wikipedian, the influence that having a Wikipedia article has on elections is at best overstated, and most likely nonexistent. BD2412T19:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
So maybe the influence of having a Wikipedia article about a second-tier company is also overrated, and the amount of money that companies pay paid editors may be a waste also. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I tend to think so, yes. The "prestige" of having a Wikipedia article among the millions that have been made on Pokemon and high schools and one-appearance pro-footballers is just slightly above that of having a Facebook group. BD2412T21:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I'm way too tired to sort this out myself now so thought I'd just flag for other to see... Knemodynerus is a potter wasp but the two recently accepted subs are about stingrays!? There are several others submitted drafts in this group such as Draft:Knemodynerus albolimbatu that the source even links to this with Phylum Arthropoda that would go with the insect not phylum Chordata for a stingray. I declined all I could find. Something is wrong here, ping Gpkp who already accepted two, and if not sorted I'll look again tomorrow after work. Also other accepts from this submitter look wrong - unless I've missed the point bigtime! Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Also others such as Zagella flavipes - flavipes is an insect not a stingray. This looks very wrong to me, but I know from experience when to stop editing and that was half and hour ago. KylieTastic (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
KylieTastic, Special:Contributions/Senegal_Parrots shows a prodigious output over the past very short time. The user name is somehow familiar to me, and not in a positive way. I'm fairly sure I've seen it at SPI, so I am pinging GeneralNotability who plays in that particular pond to ask if my familiarity with the editor's name is associated with a sock drawer. There appear to be some useful edits and some unusual ones FiddleFaddle21:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I have stood too close to this draft to be impartial. There is a history of paid editing, sockpuppetry and UPE. I feel we must look beyond that history and I suspect the draft to have notability, but I would like that to be verified or not by another reviewer, please.
I've given it a templated decline as being written from the company's point of view and not focusing on what third parties say. The company may be notable. I didn't evaluate it in detail. But I have a template, {{compsays}}, for articles written from the corporate point of view. This one was better than many, in that it doesn't also contain a lot of puffery, but that is a quick test that many corporate drafts fail. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't be asking about this draft except that the comments recently have been ranging toward accepting drafts about which we are not certain. This draft, Draft:Justin Paul (professor), in my opinion, is an overblown puff piece, and consists mostly of stuff that needs to be removed, but ... the subject almost certainly passes academic notability. I am asking this question sort of at two levels, one having to do with this draft, and one having to do with similar drafts, that is, puff pieces written to praise a professor who probably is notable as a professor.
The author has not responded to an inquiry about conflict of interest. Should I decline or reject for that?
I previously tagged the draft as being written to praise its subject rather than describing him neutrally. The author removed the AFC decline template and the tag, and has resubmitted, with some of the puffery removed but most of it still there.
The author has added a strange equation which is unsourced which is probably fringeoriginal research by the professor. I have collapsed it.
If it's something I can clean up myself (i.e. two paragraphs of obvious nonsense that I can condense down to a sentence of two) I'll do it myself and re-evaluate; it's also fairly straight-forward to mass-remove FLOWERY language if doing so fixes the issue(s). If it's something like your draft, which is full of anecdotes, quips, and nonsense like he did not have $6 to drink a coffee in Australia, which inspired him to work hard, I would decline as advert and let them clean it up. We may be here to guide and help folks, but at a certain point they need to learn for themselves how it works (plus, that would be a borderline G11 in the article space). Primefac (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
According to this page here:[1] he is notable. I could perhaps slim it down as wee bit into a three line article with three references, then somebody could then review it. What do you think folks? scope_creepTalk14:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I thought I would give as forgot it the first time around. I couldn't confirm him. I couldn't find a single page, i.e. an academic reference that would link him to the University of Puerto Rico. Perhaps he might be confirmed as a an academic at the Rollins College, Florida according to this [2]. scope_creepTalk08:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this is just a rant on my part. Maybe I have already said my say in the past. However, I think that Draft:Sheye Banks is an example, first, of correct draftifying, but of, second, completely wrong explanation for the draftifying. It was moved from article space to draft space by User:Jikaoli Kol with the notation "Undersourced, incubate in draft space", and a statement on the submitter's talk page that says the same thing somewhat longer. It is not undersourced. It has 20 sources of varying quality. There was a deletion discussion three years ago that found that the subject was not notable at the time. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheye Banks. So the issue still is not sourcing, but notability. If reviewers move pages for non-notable figures with large numbers of low-quality sources to draft space with the notation, "Undersourced, incubate in draft space", we, the community of reviewers, are simply contributing to the myth that more sources will always eventually get an article accepted. Most versions of the draftifying scripts have some option to move to draft with some other explanation, or allow the reviewer to write in their own explanation, such as that the page as written does not establish notability.
I see your point, but sometimes "undersourced" means "not counting sources that do not help demonstrate notability, the page is undersourced." 999 sources with 998 being mere mentions and 1 being iffy in the "reliable, independent source providing significant coverage" category has 1 iffy source when you count the sources that count in assessing notability. That said, I do see your point, perhaps a better rejection would be "most or all sources did not contribute to helping me, the reviewer, determine if this subject is 'notable' or not. Please use the talk page to highlight a handful of sources that, taken together, would make it obvious that the topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines." That's a long way of saying "I think I need more sources, because the ones that are there, while important for other reasons, are next to useless for assessing 'notability.'" davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The issue is created by the well meant, script based, editable suggested rationale. I am reminding myself to edit that more often than I do. Thank you both for your insights FiddleFaddle22:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I would like to mention that in many cases, when I suspect a COI/UPE then I also draftify notable subjects without changing the suggested rationale. But I see your point here so next time I will put custom rationale. JK (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Major AFC failure at Korean literature: action is needed, now.
For the sake of brievity (!) let us focus on the first of these pages. As an author, Yu_Sun-ha has been reviewed -inter alia- in Kwon Young-min (2004-02-25). 한국현대문학대사전 [Korean Contemporary Literature Dictionary]. Seoul National University Press. ISBN9788952104618. This dictionary itself is described at "Book.naver.154489"..
For those who know nothing about Kwon Young-min, this guy is born in 1948 in Boryeong, Chungnam. After graduating from Seoul National University, he received a doctorate in literature from the same U, and served as a visiting professor at Harvard University in the United States and a visiting professor in Korean literature at Berkeley. He has won the Contemporary Literature Critic Award in 1990, the Kim Hwan-Tae Critic Award in 1992, and the Manhae Awards in 2006, as well as the Seoul Arts and Culture Awards. Currently, he is a professor of Korean literature at Seoul National University. Clap your hands: Harvard and Berkeley! W.E. can be reassured, this guy (the critic] is quite an U.S. since he was an assoc.prof. at two places we can locate on a map.
As can been read at https://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId=333659&cid=41708&categoryId=41737, the critic says: Yu Sun-ha, born in Kyoto, Japan on August 30, 1943. In 1968, the play "Everyone Anyone" was awarded the Rookie of the Year Award. The novel "Heomang and Pian" was awarded the Rookie of the Year Award in the Korean Literature in 1980, and the Fairy Tale "Time Bank" was elected as the Rookie of the Year in 1986. He [Yu Sun-ha] maintains a critical view of the docile real society, and is known as an artist who pays attention to the shabby and deceptive but solemn problem of survival [etc. And a large list of books follows].
But, like as in a mirror, the en:wp article about Yu_Sun-ha is engulfed in a shabby and deceptive problem of survival. Its author, User:GoldenAlpha77, should have read the policy, as stated at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. The policy says:
Once you have had an account for about 4 days and have made at least 10 edits, you will be allowed to start new articles, rename pages, or upload images. Therefore, except when a COI exists, the genuine process is (1) register, (2) make some gnomish edits to football.porn.whatever articles, there are ever blank spaces to add or to remove. (3) Wait four full days. (4) Publish your article. And you are done.
But User:GoldenAlpha77 has been derailed into submitting her 16 (sixteen) articles on Korean literature to an unnecessary process. As a result quite all of these articles are on the verge of destruction: the so-called reviewers have quite recused the whole series. And when repeteadly pointed to their errors, they are keeping to wait for the deadline instead of correcting their poor moves. Seeing In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia, as stated by User:Liz on the talk page of the precious one who has written sixteen great pages for this encyclopedia... is what is unsuitable.
@Pldx1: if you make a list of all the drafts that should be published in your opinion, I will publish them on the basis of your review. You will need to confirm to me that you have reviewed the BLPs and that they do not contain negative unsourced information. (Side note: do you think those four myth articles should be published, or are they redundant of the existing articles? I think those were the most difficult.) You can also move these to mainspace using the move button. (Im not sure why you had issues with this earlier. Don't put a redirect from mainspace to the draft, start on the draft and move to mainspace.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Clarification: for goldenalpha, you can just confirm that there is no un sourced negative information in BLPs. When I was asking for a list, I meant any other drafts. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
What is the probability that the author of 16 well researched articles will keep quiet when these articles are discarded by a panel of anonymous 'let us AGF' ? This probability is exactly 0. And therefore the probability that User:GoldenAlpha77 could be the real author is exactly 0. A simple search leads to
side-remark: discarding "Foundation Myth of Gaya" by arguing there is already an article about Kim Su-ro would be equivalent to discard articles about the Gospels since there is already an article about the guy depicted in these Gospels.
FYI, I have been in touch via Facebook with someone involved in this project, and they told me that this was a project of the Literature Translation Institute of Korea. (So the same people who were writing on Wikipedia were writing those articles at litkorea.or.kr.) I'm going to try to set up a zoom call with the project lead to talk about best practices etc. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Also, the fact that these passed copyvio checks strongly suggests that they were posted at Wikipedia first, and then at the ltikorea.or.kr site later. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I have now accepted several of these, as have other reviewers--essentially, the ones that appear to have acceptable references. Basically, AGF means to me that we assume the good faith of those who contribute referenced articles. There's more to go, and at some time soon it will be time to make a table of the remaining problems. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
There is an interesting pattern here. Two weeks ago, a list of 30 Drafts has surfaced. They are well researched articles, ready to publish in an English speaking encyclopedia. But they were discarded as unworthy drafts, by robotic revizors, using the same parrot-like templates, like {{AFC submission|d|essay| u=Minheepark33|ns=118| decliner=***| declinets=20200130134257| reason2=npov| ts=20190930035329}}. After a minimal enquiry, it appears that these 30 drafts belongs to a series of at least 90 articles that were submitted by at lest 8 different users. When searching the web, it is easy to find that all these articles were already published on https://library.ltikorea.or.kr. Exemple 'Kim Naesung'. https://library.ltikorea.or.kr/node/41361 says: last update on 2019-11-21. 90 copyvios, what a great success of the AfC process ! Pldx1 (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Like I said above, I have been in contact with this project and the same people who have that website posted the drafts. I believe that the website was updated after the drafts especially because I copy vio checked a great many of them using earwig. I will speak to the people involved in this and discuss the website issue with them. I do not believe there is need for any drastic action at this time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, searching for the string Kim is famous as the first detective novelist in Korea. He was loved by readers not only for his mystery novels but also for popular novels results into... guess what ?
About 'drastic actions': these 90 articles are worth publishing. Since they have already been published in LTI-Korea, this point is proven beyond any doubt. Concerning the special case of Inhyeon wanghu jeon, I have written the above review, with the conclusion "endorse and publish". Indeed, I was quite infuriated by the rejection of this article, and the more by the arguments used for this rejection. And then the obvious question has surfaced: how to explain why the supposed authors of all these well researched articles were not infuriated themselves? Having found the answer, I don't endorse any more the publication HERE of this article, and I have required the deletion of this republication as a copivio. Any other "endorser/decliner" will do what she wants (here 'she' is the generic pronoun). Pldx1 (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Interesting that Earwig isn't picking up these sites for whatever reason. I just emailed the project lead and will keep you updated as I hear more. The LTI site indicates that this has been going on for years and is a multilingual project (including other non-en, non-kr WPs) so it would be good to have them understand how to write suitable articles and add the necessary CC-BY/GFDL licensing statements to their website. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI I heard back from the project lead. Apparently they started posting these on their own website after they posted them here, because they were getting rejected for publication here. I'll get the copyright issues straightened out with them. The articles are written by professors and literary critics in Korean and then translated into English before publication. There are 300 more articles in the works (!!), 100 about classical literature and 200 about modern literature. I'll continue communicating with the project lead, who semi-recently took over from someone else, so we can get the most policy-compliant, best formatted articles possible. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Dear User:Calliopejen1. Felicitations for this great result! YOU ARE THE BEST! 300 articles of this quality, what a treasure!
By the way, about https://library.ltikorea.or.kr/node/33860, i.e. about Hanjungnok 한중록, The Memoirs of Lady Hyegyeong. The 1795 Memoir was written as a letter from an aunt to a nephew. It only occurred that the aunt was the leader of her generation, writing to the leader of the next coming generation in the Hong family... which was a leading family of Joseon. This was not only a description of the 1735-1795 events, but also an injunction about how these events were to be described. Moreover, one cannot ignore that 1735 was also the year of birth of Sado, so that 1795 was also the 60th anniversary of Sado, as celebrated by the Hwaseong Procession and, obviously, by the Hwaseong Fortress itself. It could be interesting to examine if the 1795 Memoir has been used, or not, by Jeongjo himself to "leak" his own version of the events, in opposition to the Silloks.
On the other hand, Haboush suggested that, even in it's Asami version, the 1805 Memoir has only survived in a largely rewritten version. One cannot ignore that from 1860 inwards, the Joseon dynasty was so deprived of a legitimate heir that secondary children of Sado have to be involved, who were not "protected" by an alleged ancient adoption (like Jeongjo by Hyojang). It could be interesting to examine if the Asami version, that providentially surfaced in the 1880, has been used, or not, to "leak" a more decent version of the 1762 incident, describing the illness of Sado as the result of a long term psychotic behavior of Yeongjo, the killing father.
As a resume: Dear LTI Encyclopedists, be kind to write and publish more details about the 1805-2020 history of the Hanjungnok manuscripts! Pldx1 (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Pldx1: I just heard back from the project lead who said they don't have the staffing/budget to adapt their writings to our purposes, and they plan to post on their website instead going forward (which seems to be what they've already been transitioning to). I've asked if they would consider freely licensing future articles they post on the LTI website so that Wikipedians can port the text over. I'll let you know what they say. Calliopejen1 (talk)
Saving old drafts
Hello, AfC,
There has been some concern expressed to me about reevaluating drafts that are approaching their 6 month of inactivity when they would get tagged G13 and deleted.
An edit to those drafts appearing in the G13 category will cause it to be removed from the category. The SDZeroBot lists are only updated every 3 to 4 days so an edit to a draft one of the lists on the page will not remove it from the page but any editor who checks out an old draft will see the new edit and not tag it for deletion. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!19:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Just as a note, I would encourage people to not just wantonly edit every page in there, as I don't think that's the purpose of this post. If you feel that a soon-to-be G13-eligible page should be saved, then make an edit to take it off the list. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure if User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon sorting is that useful. Here are some of the other pages which SDZeroBot updates which may be of interest:
User:SDZeroBot/Declined AFCs - submissions declined the previous day. For people who fancy looking for bad declines.
User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon - without sorting, this lists pages that would become G13 eligible in exactly a week from now. This is the list I recommend for people who want to save old drafts.
In all these 3 pages, drafts tagged as {{promising draft}} are at the top. Unsourced, rejected, very short items are at the bottom. For the rest, a combination of ORES quality predictions and text size is used for sorting -- so that trash comes below and the good ones come above.
This is a low-priority request and a medium-priority question about this draft.
Request for Review of Draft
The low-priority (that is, at the same priority as everything else) is that someone take another look at this draft. It was AFDd in January 2020, and the close was Draftify as WP:TOOSOON. The group has enthusiastic fans who keep submitting the draft, and it has been declined three times since it was draftified. I have asked the submitter to indicate in an AFC comment exactly which of the musical criteria is satisfied. When it is ready for acceptance, the second question becomes important.
Question About Redirect History
The second question has to do with history. If a redirect is replaced with an article, and the redirect did not have significant history, the redirect is deleted as G6. In this case, however, the redirect has history. The primary history is that of the draft, which has been built up gradually. But the redirect has repeatedly been expanded into an article by unregistered fans, and has then been reverted back to a redirect, because the real work is on the draft. The redirect has been expanded twelve times and reverted twelve times, and was semi-protected, and then the semi-protection expired, and the edit-warring resumed, and it has been semi-protected for one year now. So that is a non-trivial history. So if I were accepting the draft, I would request a history merge between the draft and the redirect. But the histories are parallel histories. What should be done? Should the redirect with the history of edit-warring be deleted anyway when the draft is accepted, because the history is just a history of disruptive editing? That's the second question.
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
That does bring up the question of "what do we do if we DO need to keep the history"? There is no "clean" answer but one thing I have seen done is that the "not kept" redirect is renamed PAGENAME (2) or something similar. If this is done, {{copied}} placed on the relevant talk pages and the renamed "(2)" page and its talk page fully protected. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
If the history needs keeping, do a page swap and put {{r with history}} on the draft. We shouldn't be creating pointlessly-named duplicates in the article space if we can help it. Primefac (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
He points out that the topic is likely notable - which should encourage the writer.
He points out the specific problems - references and puffery.
He points out that the author has at least two GOOD references, which should encourage the writer.
He points out WHY this is important - to stave off deletion.
He points out specific Wikipedia-project pages that should help the author re-submit an acceptable draft.
He strongly suggests, truthfully, that if the issues are dealt with, the odds of the writer's work making it into the main encyclopedia and staying there are quite high. This should be very encouraging to the writer.
Davidwr, sorry to nitpick but if the subjet's notability is established with two reliable sources, that can't be the reason for the decline. The statement Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation is more stringent than what we have WP:BLP which requires citations for contentious material. WP:NPOV is a valid decline reason and Timtrent does link to WP:PEACOCK but also calls the article a "puff piece" which is arguably WP:BITEY. I don't think the author has clear direction from these comments. The only major foul I see is the second paragraph of the lead Dr. Tomabechi is the most famous researcher in the field of "brainwashing" (religious, terrorist) in Japan. I would have simply deleted this and accepted the draft. ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Kvng: What about the CV style section sitting in the middle, that will take about 5-10 hours of work to fix. And considering the fact that a good chunk of the references that are primary. Fundamentally its short cv, similar to cv profile page, tarted up to make it look, somewhat like article in an attempt to pass draft. scope_creepTalk15:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Scope creep, would you expect the article to be deleted because of this content? If the content is inappropriate, any mainspace editor can boldly delete it. We're not fundamentally here to improve article quality - that's done in mainspace. We're here to accept reasonable drafts on notable topics. ~Kvng (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that this is not a good decline. I'm not sure about notability and stay away from academics, but if this person is notable, this is a reasonable first draft. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with User:Calliopejen1 that this is a reasonable first draft, but for that reason I think that it is a good decline, and that User:Timtrent was right, in an area where the comments here result in there being no right answer. It seems that anything that a reviewer does will result in being dumped on. So do the editors who are quick to dump really want to have submissions like this simply sit in the queue for three months because the reviewer knows that they will be dumped on? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I happen to think that in cases where a draft contains language that appears to have been written to praise its subject, the draft is more likely to be cleaned up in draft space than in article space. In article space, what will probably happen is an AFD, and AFDs do a good job of deciding notability, but a poor job of tagging for cleanup. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, despite our best efforts, feeling dumped seems to be a persistent part of the WP experience. I apologize if davidwr or Timtrent felt dumped on here.
We do already have AfD where we request consensus. There's plenty of editor-on-editor dumping there. I don't think a Drafts for Discussion forum would be fundamentally different.
We have a known problem with reviewers afraid to accept marginal drafts. You're right, also giving them a reason to fear declining them may have the effect of increasing the length of the tail of difficult submissions in the queue.
There are a number of us who do most of our reviews in the tail area so you can be confident these won't languish forever. If we can get most reviewers to make all the easy calls quickly, we will have improved the AfC experience for most authors.
NPP appears to do a lot of good work tagging for cleanup. I think most of our AfC accepts are now going though NPP. This will probably help. ~Kvng (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, I think that my finding it illuminating is a good synonym for feeling dumped upon 🌷
The editor had also uploaded a huge tranche of self publicising files to Commons, none of whose licencing appears(d) to be in order.
The word "likely' seems also to have passed folk by.
I am not one to shy away form accepting the marginal draft. I refuse to review to perfection, but I will always hold COI editors to the highest possible standard because I view their edits, unless very carefully judged, not to uphold the standards of Wikipedia, and to be counter to its purpose. Most of them are WP:NOTHERE.
I am old enough and ugly enough not to be concerned when folk disagree with me. I make choices about things I learn along the way, and adopt those that seem to me to be useful. I view my track record as showing some errors and reasonable track record of being correct when I review. My errors are in declining and in accepting.
"Susceptible to potential challenge" works very well for the new editor. The word "controversial" is less easy to define.
I was not going to revisit this thread until I saw your post. Thank you for the additional consideration you have brought to bear on the area. FiddleFaddle07:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Timtrent, I see many others at AfD and AfC with a special attitude towards suspected COI editors. I didn't appreciate that was in play here and I don't object to reviewers following their noses on such things so long as they indicate that's part of their calculation. I personally tend not to take that into consideration until a COI is actually declared. Perhaps I stretch WP:AGF (especially for WP:SPAs) a bit too far. Perhaps I'm just too lazy to review an editor's history and their draft.
The relevant bit from WP:BLP is contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. We can't be leaving any of that in an accepted draft. Contentous is defined as challanged or likely to be challenged. Likely is defined as 50%. I have encountered editors that insist everything needs a citation from the getgo because they intend to challenge everything. I guess that's solid lawyering but I don't think it reflects the sprit of the policy. ~Kvng (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a request for another look at Draft:Alitho Saradaga and Alitho Saradaga. It appears that the draft was created several months ago. It was then moved into article space, and then moved back into draft space as undersourced. Another editor then created an article. The difference appears to be that the article is adequately sourced, and the draft is still undersourced. I have declined the draft as being duplicated by the article. The article does not appear to have been copied from the draft, so I don't see a history merge problem. I have tagged the draft to be merged into the article, that is, to have the two pages compared and folded together. Comments?
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment that a histmerge is not needed. Not sure if there's any useful information to merge into the article from the draft, so I'm not really sure the {{merge from}} templates are needed. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
There should be a BFDI article
If you do not know already, BFDI is a web series where living, talking objects battle for the chance to win a luxury island. Jacknjellify is a youtube account shared by Cary Huang and Michael Huang.
Firstly, Siivagunner, a musical parody group YouTube channel, has their own page. They have less subscribers than Jacknjellify. And, are certainly less famous.
Now to coverage. Technically, Cary Huang, one of the owners of the channel, has made a Flash program that became super popular and featured on news sites like ABC and on the NASA site.
You could make a page about Cary on its own, to be honest.
Now on to the coverage.
Firstly, there's a Scholastic book about BFDI. Scholastic acknowledged that BFDI exists, and they are a very famous book publisher.
Secondly, the Fight of Fantasy Foods competition held by Fandom, which had the fictional food Yoylecake, from BFDI, win the competition.
Thirdly, the most obscure things like some really small town in like Iowa or something, or some really obscure shows, have ARTICLES, while BFDI, with more than a hundred thousand views across all videos, gets no article.
Anyways, my real question is, what happened to the BFDI draft? The one that was the longest, with lots of details. I checked the deletion log, and it said it was deleted in 2019, but I could have sworn that I accessed the draft AFTER April 2019. Pomegranatecookie (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make any draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. FiddleFaddle22:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, why does Siivagunner have their own page but not Jacknjellify? Jacknjellify has more subs. ALSO, Fight of Fantasy Foods is independent from BFDI. 173.70.224.219 (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, BFDI should be excused from the self publisher and primary rules. Because BFDI is not a "real world topic", it has no in-depth papers on it, only information from the wiki. The only sources are the wiki, fan videos, fan things about BFDI, and the creators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomegranatecookie (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
My involvement is that I do watch the show sometimes, but I am not related with the creators. I believe that it should be excluded from certain rules, along with any other form of web series, as it is not a topic that is researched, unless you count the Fandom wiki's editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomegranatecookie (talk • contribs) 00:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a novel. There was a draft, and the title of the book was redirected to the author. There was also a record of a deletion discussion, but the deletion discussion said that the film had not been produced. So the deletion discussion was irrelevant. The book meets book notability. I moved the redirect and am accepting the book.
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Two copies of articles about this Moroccan footballer have been moving between draft space and article space for a few days. The two versions are not entirely consistent, as to what day in 1996 he was born or what position he plays. A naive Google search is consistent with the version that is currently in article space. I am satisfied to leave it in article space. I have taken the controversial action of tagging the draft version for MFD in order to get some community input and to get a sort of closure. I know that there are editors who will say that I should have just redirected the draft to the article, and I am fine with that being the final result, but with the amount of swirling and whirling that there has been, I would like to get some sort of closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I am about to accept this draft unless another reviewer advises me not to accept it. However, I would like another reviewer to look at it, because it is a conflict of interest submission. It looks to me to be neutral, and I see no question about notability, because the subject organization has received two Oscars for documentary films. Another pair of eyes will be appreciated, or otherwise I will assume that there are no objections. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
"ILC" reason code in AFCH does not say what you think it will say
The AFCH script puts reason code "ILC" under the category "Vandalism" with the description "Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements". If you look at the template that actually gets rendered when you choose this category the text reads:
"The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."
In other words, this has nothing at all to do with BLPs or vandalism. It's just a friendly message to inform new editors that they have an incorrect citation style. Given that this seems to be the case, would it be appropriate to make a pull request to tweak this aspect of AFCH? I propose to re-categorize "ILC" under the category "Invalid submissions" with a description which reads "Submission has incorrect citation style". This makes sense to me because any kind of draft can have incorrect citations, not just BLPs. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Salimfadhley - I disagree. While footnotes are encouraged for all articles, they are required for BLPs, and 'ilc' is only a valid reason for declining of biographies of living persons. Drafts that are not BLPs that have substandard citations should be accepted, but can be tagged as needing the citations improved in article space. BLPs that do not have footnotes should be declined. So it does have to do with BLPs. At least, that is the way I have understood it. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
This is probably the best place for me to ask for advice about how to handle an unusual situation. There has been a draft, Draft:Budots, about a form of Filipino electronic dance music for about two weeks. A different editor has now created a two-sentence stub in article space, Budots. They are about the same genre, so this is not a case for disambiguation or redirection. I have not reviewed the draft in depth, but the draft clearly contains much more information than the stub. I don't want simply to decline the draft as 'exists', which would bite the submitter and lose most of the information. I can't accept the draft. This is not really a history merge situation. What should I or we do? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
If the draft is worth publishing, I would just swap them (at WP:RM/TR or here), and the stub can be merged into it the other way, then serve as the leftover Draftspace redirect. -2pou (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Major AFC fail re: Korean literature
Hi all, I wanted to call the group's attention to a major failure of AFC to approve appropriate articles and welcome valuable contributors, who somehow soldiered after having article after article unfairly declined. There seems to have been an educational or WP:GLAM project about Korean literature. I am no big fan of the AFC review process because I think many articles are inappropriately declined, but I have not seen anything quite like this before. The articles are largely sourced to the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. This is often the single source for the article, but the inclusion of a topic in a significant, serious encyclopedia means that the topic is something Wikipedia should have an article on as well. Or at least that the community, rather than a single reviewer, should consider whether the article should exist. Possibly at least half of these articles were both declined and G13 deleted, usually meaning three different people were involved, and no one saw their value. And no one thought to write a message to any of the contributors welcoming them and suggesting how to improve their valuable articles. Anyways, I invite discussion about what went wrong here and how we can prevent it from happening again. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Articles that I have approved, often after undeletion
I have read the statement by User:Calliopejen1 and I mostly agree. I agree with the principle that too many of the Korean articles have been declined. I have spot-checked some but less than half of the articles, and I partly agree and partly disagree on the specifics. I would suggest that the more general concern is that some reviewers are applying a hard standard consistently, and that reviewers should instead be applying a standard that takes into account the specific subject area. In particular, some reviewers apply general notability strictly and require multiple independent sources. (A side effect of the over-emphasis on multiple sources is that submitters of drafts on non-notable people and companies think that multiple sources are the key to it, and will reference-bomb their drafts with low-quality sources.) In my opinion, we don't always need three sources. We often should require three sources, but sometimes one source really will do. We really should apply a different, more stringent standard to early twenty-first-century people, companies, and bands, all of whom have publicists, than to nineteenth-century people, or to species, or to chemicals.
I have spot-checked some of the articles that User:Calliopejen1 listed. I agree that all of them satisfy notability. Not all of them were declined for notability. Some of them were declined for tone, and we really should not accept drafts with tone issues in areas where there is little attention, because a non-neutral article may remain non-neutral for years. The reviewer and the author may be the only editors who work on it for years after it is accepted, so I agree that a non-neutral draft should be declined. In most of the specific cases, I agree with the reviewer and not with Calliopejen1. But there is a problem.
1) Notability and referencing. On the issue of one excellent source vs. three good sources, I think people need to keep in mind that at AFC, you're acting as judge, jury, and executioner. If you decline, you should assume that the article will not be resubmitted and will be deleted. Where there is a borderline case, the article should be accepted so that the community can evaluate it. This is especially true where the article couldn't have a promotional motive (e.g. numerous declines of 18th/19th century Korean novels). One more note: I'm embarrassed at our reviewers' evaluations of specialized encylopedias. Specialized encyclopedias are some of the best sources to give a biographical overview of a person and to establish notability. So many editors looked at the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and discounted it (for reliability and/or establishing notability) because it is an encyclopedia. I understand that there could be some confusion because it is hosted by Naver, which also has some social media branch, but no one reached out to WikiProject Korea to ask this question. Where a specialized encyclopedia has determined that it is worth having an article about something, probably our AFC reviewers should not be judge, jury, and executioner and decline the article. I also note that one reviewer said that s/he was declining "out of an abundance of caution". This should never be happening.
2) Tone. I think there is also a problem here with the standard being applied re: tone, or possibly whether people's processes for reviewing are adequate to identify good-faith contributors as opposed to WP:SPAs. I agree, there are some tone problems, particularly in the articles about living authors. I tend to apply a stricter test for tone with BLPs because of the possibility of promotion. But in most of these articles, the issues with tone are fixable and what was criticized as "ad-like" or "promotional" may in fact be the critical consensus about these authors. I say that because the people writing these articles seem to have some expertise in Korean literature judging by their contributions as a whole. Sometimes where I have a borderline case, I click contributions to see what else the author has been up to. Where there is an author drafting numerous articles in a legit subject area (e.g. here where any single author was drafting articles about 18th/19th century Korean novels, dead Korean authors, and living Korean authors), they should get more leeway for tone -- because the problem may be simply one of attributing opinions of critics (e.g. author uses vivid prose) rather than a PR person writing a promo piece. These sorts of contributors are very unlikely to be PR flacks. It seems that no one (or virtually no one) clicked "contributions" to see what else these authors were up to. I think that most of the tone-declined articles would have been a net positive even accepted as is. Normal WP editors can also edit for tone where we're not dealing with a PR person writing an ad. (Anyways, they're motivated to edit and resubmit until it's up to our standards, so we don't need to worry much about losing that sort of content to G13...)
3) Involving Wikiprojects and using our heads about good-faith contributors. I think this is one big problem here that relates to the notability issue, and a bit to the tone issue. No one ever mentioned any of these drafts to WP:KOREA, ever. And never asked WP:KOREA about sourcing. How is this possible? And how did no one connect the dots about this project? There are many editors who reviewed multiple articles that were a part of this project. I'd really encourage people to start checking submitters' contributions where you see good-faith submissions. I started with a couple folktales that had been unfairly declined. Then I noticed an 18th-century novel that had been unfairly declined. At that point, it was obvious to me that there was some broader pattern of contributions that needed to be investigated. WP is awesome at tracking down bad contributions but why are we not using that same energy to foster good contributions? These are the sort of contributors that we desperately need here! Anyways, some of this is not exactly responsive to what Robert said, but I really think we need to be discussing AFC more broadly. I know there has to be some sort of gatekeeping function for crap articles, but if this is our success rate for good articles, it's almost at the point that we need to blow the whole AFC process up. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's an exemplary decline that shows what is wrong here: Yu hyogong seonhaengnok. Has one general reference, to the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture (not hyperlinked in article but easily findable). Article notes that a "[r]ecent[]... discovery ... [has] allow[ed] scholars to slightly narrow down the time in which Yuhyogong seonhaengnok was written to early 18th century or earlier". Mentions that "[t]here are over 10 handwritten editions of Yuhyogong seonhaengnok, including the ones housed at the National Library of Korea, Harvard University, [and] Kyujanggak Institute for Korean Studies at the Seoul National University" (bolding mine). Article declined as improperly verified and was heading to the G13 trash heap. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC) (By the way, a Google Translate of the cited source shows that the facts I highlighted are not entirely verifiable in the cited source, but I would nonetheless accept and mark citation needed for the portions that are not found in the cited source. I doubt the draft author invented this... Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC))
This article have some problems. "It seems to have been written before the early 18th century". Contradicted by "was written early 18th century or earlier." And the wording is wishy washy sort of feels OR. There are no inline cites, but things like "is considered a work .. " beg an attribution - considered by who? The single source should be wikilinked to Encyclopedia of Korean Culture using {{Cite encyclopedia}} with |type=CD/DVD since it was born and lives on CD/DVD. I can see why this was rejected, though I have no opinion either way, given the singular source, seemingly contradictory statements, OR-language, poorly formatted citation - and of course the source is not available online and only Korean language, which makes it impossible to verify for most patrollers. -- GreenC18:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Calliopejen1 et. al. - As the above already contains a lot I thought it would be clearer to respond in a separate section - no particular order just points while reading through above:
TLDR version Yes the AFC project is still failing: we have too many submissions, too few reviewers and the community is very split as to the actual rules/actions we should take. We qare criticised for not accepting "probably ok" submissions, we are criticised for accepting "probably ok" submissions. IMHO we need a fundamental change.
Yes there are many problems and reviewers make mistakes, but most are doing the best they can and we learn by mistakes
I'm always surprised that those that organise educational or WP:GLAM projects etc don't: give AFC a head's-up; give participants people/a place to ask for help if they hit a wall like this; don't have people to keep an eye/follow up on submissions; don't get experienced editors/wikiprojects related to the area to help, comment, or sign up at AFC to smooth the process. Is their a how to organise an event checklist somewhere that we could add "Inform/Join/Watch AFC" as a recommendation? And maybe all drafts in an event should be told to add a category to track?
If there had been some pre-input or active feedback then AFC would have been able to help the event be a better success.
Not everyone in AFC is a fan of AFC as it is either, however things are so hard to change as too many appear to be encamped in "leave it alone" or "dump it" camps. I'm a fan of the concept, but not the implementation.
There are many more submitters than reviewers so I feel submitters have to take responsibility there own work, many just appear to stop at the first decline with little or no attempt to discuss, ask for help/feedback, or try to address concerns. I've always found it odd that someone would care enough and take the time to do these then just give up. In an ideal world, we would have enough reviewers with the time, experience and knowledge to give every submission more time and effort, and mentor "good faith" submitters - but due to the current reality of the project often we have to do our best and hope the submitters work with us, and the help desk, teahouse etc
I check a few of the "Articles that I have approved, often after undeletion" and most had been created rejected, and just abandoned. Yes many could/should have been accepted in the original state, but most were not declined for notability but for sourcing and a large problem appears to have been confusion about using Naver rather than a direct link to the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. I would note that we get (from what I have seen) just as much complaints for accepting things that are under-sourced; badly referenced; badly formatted than those they say you got it wrong and should have accepted x,y,z. Basically for everything but the easy/clear accepts and declines there are people who tell us we are wrong, most who don't help or suggest achievable improvements (Unlike Calliopejen1 who thankful does a lot for AfC/the submitters being one of the top 25 acceptors).
Calliopejen1 I'm confused by the list "Articles that have not yet been approved but probably should be..." In your comments you seem to be suggesting that such articles should be accepted and let the community decide - So.... if so why haven't you accepted them?
Calliopejen1 Again I'm confused by the list "A few tricky ones..." you thought they are notable enough to un-delete but have not accepted of merged into the main articles. I really don’t understand how you can complain the reviewers got it wrong, but have just put them back into limbo. If they are worthy enough to be un-deleted and used in a complaint surely by your own comment "Where there is a borderline case, the article should be accepted so that the community can evaluate it" you should accept/merge and let the comunity evaluate?
"Another depressing tidbit" if you're making a comment about a particular reviewers review, is it not polite to tell the person (in this case Sagotreespirit) so they have the ability to respond? If reviewers don't know about issues they can not accept and learn or reject and defend their actions.
"If you decline, you should assume that the article will not be resubmitted and will be deleted." Really! Why? Not counting the complete endless fountain of garbage, many do address concerns or rebut why they think the reviewer was wrong. If submitters are thinking this (and I don't believe the majority do) then the problem is with the decline notes. I think they should be clearer a decline is not a reject, and I think "If you would like to continue working on the submission... " you be changed to something like "If you think the subject is notable please continue to improve the article and re-submit and please seek help if required. Also I would add the teahouse to the "If you need extra help" links to get more eyes outside AfC onto issues.
I personally think if I was submitting I would rather have quick feedback that gives me something I can work on, address, discuss, than be one of the poor suckers who sit waiting for months. Even if then accepted they have probably already been put off for good. In these cases if I had been told declined due to sources, I would have either added sources/clearer referencing or commented "it's in the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture why is that notable enough?" Whether in school, or work or private projects I've always expected and been expected to take responsibility for my own work and if you get feedback fixing or seeking help yourself - never have I just dumped and excepted the teacher, colleague, fiend, publisher etc to sort it for me!
"Where there is a borderline case, the article should be accepted so that the community can evaluate it." this is the crux of the problem. In the reading of WP:AFCPURPOSE some say it means if it has a better than 50/50 chance, but in reality wrongly accepting gets complaints: we had a reviewer (now blocked) who use to have a more "accept it let the community decide" attitude to the backlog and they were removed as a reviewer for just (approx) 1.4% of their last 1000 accepts being deleted, and in a RfA recently-ish lots complained just about a single bad AFC accept that I noted not a single one of the complainers who thought the acticle was obvious spam draftified or AfDed. This is and always has been the problem with AfC - there is no real consensus of what rules should be applied.
I personally think the project is failing due to this divide in opinion and in it's current form consensus on this will not be achieved. I think it's failing both Wikipedia and decent new contributers badly. I think the project needs a more radical change. There are ideas but there is such huge reluctance to change or compromise. Personally I will support any changes I think can achieve two primary goals: [1] Keep the spam, attacks, copy vios, BLP vios, jokes etc out of mainspace [2] Let everything else go through as an accept, or a pass and allow consensus to deal. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
User:KylieTastic - Having just read your above comments, I mostly agree, if we define spam expansively. If you aren't sure if something is spam, it probably is. Otherwise let the stuff that we are not sure of go to AFD, knowing that will increase the workload on AFD. I will comment more in a while. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@KylieTastic: Thanks for your comments. To respond to a couple of comments: I have not passed all of them yet because I have not even had time to read them all beginning to end. There are a lot of them. I have undeleted them so they can at least get further consideration and be viewed by non-administrators. I have put them on my to-do list for later. Also, I didn't name the reviewer because I didn't want this to be about any particular reviewer. There are dozens of editors involved here.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Calliopejen1, I don't think I have accepted nor declined any Korean drafts. I may be wrong in that statement. I find most to be outside my competence, Google Translate notwithstanding.
The project is not so much failing as not succeeding well enough in attracting sufficient reviewers to make up for folk like me who feel unable to review some drafts, unless they are blindingly obvious pass/fail candidates
I have very little hesitation in accepting drafts that I view as having a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process, unless, of course, I suspect UPE, when I am substantially more rigorous. It is having the confidence to be challenged over a borderline acceptance. I view the community as wiser than I am. FiddleFaddle22:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the question in bullet 2 on whether WP:AFC/RBS and WP:AFCSORT are helping/working, I think they are. AfC sorting gets 1100+ monthly page views which is quite a lot -- and that's just the main landing page (not including the subpages). WP:AFC/RBS has 130 monthly page views, which also sounds healthy to me for that kind of a page. – SD0001 (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with Calliopejen1's premise. Wikipedia has too many articles already and most of them suck. If the notability of a subject hinges on some specialist understanding of the sources and references then you cannot expect the dilettante reviewers to understand that. We also don't have enough reviewers with subject-specific knowledge to take on these drafts. The declination of those drafts is a feature, not a bug, of our content curation system. It is a privilege for our established editors, not the random students and IP contributors, to write article about such not obviously notable topics. The fact that most articles suck only draws in more would-be editors who seek to add their dreck, resulting in a race to the bottom. If, however, we seek to "hasten the day" let's abolish AfC, let NPP sort new entries to prevent another Seigenthaler incident and either the encyclopedia's decline in stature or a lawsuit against W?F will finally bankrupt the project. I essentially stopped editing mainspace so I don't care how this website meets its end; maybe you do. Chris Troutman (talk)23:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Chris troutman insofar as a fair portion of the blame for this "failure" must be borne by whoever organised this editathon/event. It should be incumbent on such organisers to at the very least talk to AFC as well as relevant wikiprojects to ensure that the neccessary subject and language competence is available to do reviews and assist the article creators. Generalist AFC reviewers cannot be expected to flawlessly handle a sudden influx of drafts on esoteric subjects sourced entirely in foreign languages. AFC gets very little respect and practically fuck-all co-operation from subject-specific projects. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dodger67: As an active member in several WikiProjects, I am happy to help when asked to review a draft, but that always never happens (see the case study of Korea articles). Nobody asked that WikiProject for feedback until User:Calliopejen1 did so, in the meantime, numerous good drafts were declined for spurious reasons (as I showed in my analysis of 10+ samples where close to half had totally bogus decline rationales, like a claim of no footnotes on a draft that clearly had many, or a claim that all online encyclopedias are unreliable as sources - since you are so vocal about people being competent, how would you comment on this glaring incompetence seen here?). I well understand that many reviewers are overworked, this is Wikipedia, we all are. But the problem is the clear lack of competence on the subject of some reviewers, who instaed of asking for help from more experienced volunteers at WikiProjects or such decline drafts on totally baseless grounds, resulting in a potential loss of content that would suvive any competent AfD, but due to existence of the draft system is being sneakily deleted due to incompetence of some. I am hoping what happened here is an exception, and does not represent the average quality of the draft review system, but frankly, I am far from impressed. We have a problem. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
If there are reviewers giving crap reviews, we need to tell them that (nicely, of course). If they continue to give bad reviews, we need to cut them from the project. It's as simple as that. Primefac (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
To Christroutman: You don't need to be a specialist in Korean literature to realize that if something has an article in the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture it deserves to have one here too. To Roger: Ah, yes, the excellent "blame the newcomers for not knowing our arcane processes" conclusion. And no one from AFC ever reached out to WP:KOREA about any of these drafts, so also a great to blame them for AFC's failures... Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, User:Calliopejen1, you said in your opening There seems to have been an educational or WP:GLAM project about Korean literature which implies that not even you have been able to 100% confirm the true organization of such an initiative. Not trying to absolve the failures of AfC (I've been disappointed here as well, I work in Africa topics where unfamiliar users often decline when they shouldn't), but just a little more effort on the part of whoever organized this apparent event surely would have gone a long way in helping here. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I have now confirmed that the institution behind this is the Literature Translation Institute - Korea. I agree that they should have made more of an effort, but most people starting on Wikipedia don't know how to do this, and we certainly did not invite them to do this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Calliopejen1 Quite frankly anyone who is not familiar with "our arcane processes" has no business running an editathon or education project. (BTW please ping when responding to specific editors.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
And I've closed it. There's nothing wrong with cross-posting and notifications, but starting multiple full-length discussions on multiple noticeboards falls afoul of WP:FORUMSHOP. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been involved in AFC for a couple of months now. I started reviewing articles there when I realised the extent of the backlog there, which I wasn't previously aware of. I am very concerned about AFC becoming the place where articles (and new editors) go to die. These are some of my problems with it:
When new editors have to wait months for a draft article to be reviewed it is inevitable that some of them won't hang around long enough to improve it if it's rejected first time.
The process by which one editor can reject a draft on their own subjects drafts to a higher standard than AfD does. When an article is proposed at AfD it will require at least one editor to give a policy-based reason to delete the article, it gives other editors an opportunity to make counter-arguments, and then an administrator would have to decide to delete the article. Additionally articles get rejected at AfC for reasons such as tone which would rarely result in an article getting declined at AfD. Also the principle of WP:BEFORE doesn't seem to apply at AfC.
The AfC standard that an article should be accepted if it would have a 50% chance of passing AfD is too high. We shouldn't be declining articles that have a fair chance of passing AfD without subjecting them to a process similar to AfD.
The AfC process doesn't prevent competent spammers from introducing articles into mainspace. A competent spammer/sock-farm/UPE can easily meet the requirements to be able to create articles in mainspace. AfC only serves the purpose of restricting newbies (good or bad faith)
Bad quality drafts tend to get rejected at AfC quickly because reviewers can trivially determine that they don't meet requirements. It's the good drafts that require the reviewer to actually read the sources and check the content that tend to sit at AfC for weeks or months. Surely the new editors who are creating good quality articles are the ones that we should be doing the most to encourage to stay and contribute, but AfC has the opposite effect.
AfC isn't a good platform for articles to actually get improved. Articles that could be improved (i.e. reliable sources exist but aren't adequately cited, or tone of the article could be changed) are habitually rejected with template messages. Pi(Talk to me!)18:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Cross posting proposal (edited) from above AfC discussion :
I think the problem is that if AfC doesn't accept articles with in the 50-75% chance of surviving AfD one group of editors will complain, but if they do another set of editors will complain. Apparently some editors are calling for getting rid of AfC completely it seems to show they don't understand the level of crud (100+ a day) that is submitted, which I assume is a fraction of what would be created if not having to submit to review. It seems that these editors mostly see the failure to accept "OK articles" and not the crud, and those on the other fence mostly see the crud and not the missed good articles . Although ideally I would just like to see many more reviewers, and more wikiprojects involved so the AfC reviews are done better and quicker I think that is a pipe-dream. I think a possible solution is too take reviewers partially out of the marginal accepts. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Proposal 1 redefine AfCs role from "judge and jury" of articles (as Calliopejen1 and others have said), to crud rejectors, speedy acceptors and improvers. This could be done by just saying if an submission is not accepted, declined or rejected in x weeks a bot automatically moves, tags, categorises and adds talk page notes so it's status is clear. The clearly good and bad would still be accepted/declined hopefully in the first few days of submission, and it would be worth people making improvements to make possibly notable but terribly formatted more acceptable if auto-moved to main-space. If AfC has come to no conclusion in x weeks, effectively NPP and consensus takes over. It's a compromise between the two camps that seam to exist at the moment, that hopefully addresses the worst concerns of both.
Proposal 2 same as above but each article needs to be tagged by an AfC reviewer in some way to effectively say "this is not a clear accept/decline but has been reviewed" - this would stop things just being missed and auto-moved. We would need a bot to stop random people adding the tag.
Proposal 3 as either of above but also clarify as per TryKid @ AfC:Before This Hits the Fan that the key checks are just notability/source checks (and basic formatting, i.e. not all caps in bold) - make it easier for reviewers to accept marginals without the abuse and complaints.
Note 1 This should preserve the non patrolled status meaning it would just add an evaluation delay to non autopatrolled additions and be picked up by NPP
Note 2 We could start at the current AfC backlog (9 weeks) and slowly reduce to 2-4 weeks
Thanks KylieTastic for cross-posting this. My intention here was just to provide a pointer to the relevant discussion at WT:AFC. I propose that further discussion happen there, so all of the discussion is kept in one place. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I think I did not include enough detail in my original posting, and I'm not sure this was the best place to post it, so I started a new discussion at WP:VPP. Please have a look at my description of the situation there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AFC recently had a major failure assessing the contributions of a quite-good apparent education or WP:GLAM project about Korean literature. I really couldn't have designed a better test of AFC's competencies, and it failed miserably. Based on some IP edits that snuck in (not specifying because I don't want to be accused of outing), I believe this was a project of a quite prestigious Korean university. Though many of the articles were about topics that had entries in the Encyclopedia of Korean Cultureand cited these encyclopedia entries as references, the majority of the submissions by the project were rejected and deleted. We're talking dozens and dozens of articles that generally were of higher quality than the average existing Wikipedia article. Not a single AFC contributor inquired with WP:KOREA about any of these drafts to ask questions about their sourcing. And despite the sudden influx of articles all on the same topic, no one reached out to the article authors to ask whether a particular project was going on, to try to engage these very valuable contributors. Instead, we sent them templated decline messages and deleted their work. Here are their user talk pages so you can see how they were treated: User talk:Kumquat30, User talk:GoldenAlpha77, User talk:Njoyseon, User talk:Serendipity217, User talk:Seray Lim, User talk:Sojungyang, User talk:Shinewer01, User talk:Benlawrencejackson, User talk:AsterYomena, User talk:SeanLinHalbert, User talk:Minheepark33, User talk:Chaekbeolle. There has been discussion at WT:AFC and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea#A_lot_of_drafts_to_tweak_and_publish about this project in the last week, but I wanted to get more eyes on this, because we have a major gatekeeping failure here. I'm not saying that every single article below deserves a Wikipedia article, but the vast majority do, and in almost every case they deserved an evaluation by the community rather than a single reviewer. If this is how AFC is treating valuable good-faith contributors, I wouldn't want valuable good-faith contributors touching AFC with a ten-foot pole. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Table of drafts apparently contributed as part of project, compiled by Calliopejen1
The article needs more inline citations from reliable secondary source and some internal links if it is to be accepted
Four general references, including entry specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and entry specifically about subject in Dictionary for Traditional Korean Literature
Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several reliable sources cited in proper format. I think that the topic is notable, based on a google search, but please link the references to the proper sections of the article. Feel free to resubmit after these changes have been made. Thank you.
Unsourced (except now-dead link to apparent discussion board) at time of submission
Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several reliable sources cited in proper format. Feel free to resubmit after some changes have been made.
"Famous as the first detective novelist in Korea"; died 1957 so unlikely to be advertising. As it turns out we had an article about this person under a name variant; these now need to be merged.
Three general references and three additional references in footnotes, including entry specifically about article subject in Encylopedia of Korean Folk Culture
Four general references and four additional references in footnotes, including entries specifically about article subject in Encylopedia of Korean Folk Culture and Dictionary of Korean Language and Literature
Please add a lead to the article and properly source the article. For more information, see WP:CITE.
Three general references and two additional references in footnotes, including entry specifically about article subject in Encylopedia of Korean Folk Culture
Article needs more WP:RS sources showing this folktale's significance in Korean culture.
Three general references, three "further reading", and eight additional references in footnotes, including entries specifically about article subject in Encylopedia of Korean Folk Culture and Encyclopedia of Korean Folk Literature
Six general references, four "further reading", and three additional references in footnotes, including entries specifically about article subject in Encylopedia of Korean Folk Culture and Encyclopedia of Korean Folk Literature, and Encyclopedia of Korean Language and Literature
Article needs more WP:RS sources showing this folktale's significance in Korean culture.
Three general references, eight "further reading", and three additional references in footnotes, including entry specifically about article subject in Encylopedia of Korean Folk Culture
The content is ok, but I can't find sources that establish its notability. Also, some sources like Naver and Korean Wikipedia aren't RS.
25 footnotes and one general reference, including entries specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and Dictionary of Korean Language and Literature, and entries about various works by article subject in Dictionary of Modern Korean Literature. Article subject won National Academy of Arts Award and Korean Literature Award.
Custom: "Likely notable, but the format is messed up at the moment with the sectioning and spacing. Also concerns that it might be copy-pasted from somewhere."
Do not reference Korean Wikipedia. That is not a reliable source. Tone is also of concern since it makes POV statements about the author without attribution of who said it.
Single general reference to entry specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture (but listed in "see also" section rather than references section)
Vastly undersourced and uses non-encyclopedic language (flowery, promotional). Please summarize reliable, secondary sources for the article content. If you have affiliated with Kim, you need to declare this.
Pls provide inline citations - see WP:REFB (User:CaptainEek later added: "Agree with Cass, needs inline citations. Please provide before resubmitting.")
Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several reliable sources cited in proper format. I think that the topic is notable, based on a google search, but please link the references to the proper sections of the article. Feel free to resubmit after these changes have been made. Thank you.
Two sources (entries specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and Encyclopedia of Korean Folk Culture) listed in "further reading" section, but "references" section is empty
Most of the claim of notability hangs on Munhakdongne; the Korean-wiki article is an unsourced list, so I don't think there's any notability gained there. Any publishing company can tout authors it publishes. Subject otherwise fails WP:ANYBIO.
Some of the claims made in this article are not verifiable by the sole given source. Please cite sources, especially for the plot description. Suggested sources to look at: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/658635/summary
Naver Encyclopedia should be WP:RS, but more specific references are needed, and the article needs to be more navigable. Reliable Wikipedia articles rarely cite everything from Britannica, for example.
Ten general references, including entries specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and Encyclopedia of Korean Folk Literature
Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several reliable sources cited in proper format. I think that the topic is notable, based on a google search, but please link the references to the article. Feel free to resubmit after these changes have been made. Thank you.
Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several reliable sources cited in proper format. I think that the topic is notable, based on a google search, but please link the references to the article. Feel free to resubmit after these changes have been made. Thank you.
Single general reference to entry specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. Resubmitted without changes and declined by User:Frood on the basis that no changes were made.
Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several reliable sources cited in proper format. I think that the topic is notable, based on a google search, but please link the references to the proper sections of the article. Feel free to resubmit after these changes have been made. Thank you.
Single general reference to entry specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. Resubmitted without changes and declined by User:Frood on the basis that no changes were made.
Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several reliable sources cited in proper format. I think that the topic probably is notable, but please link the references to the article. Feel free to resubmit after some changes have been made. Thank you.
Custom: "To assist reviewers in assessing this article: On the Talk page, please list the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability for this WP:BLP."
Two separate declines on 4/5/20 by different users (without resubmission by author): NPOV; custom: "To assist reviewers in assessing this article: On the Talk page, please list the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability for this WP:BLP."
Phrases like "To him, essays are as important as novels" aren't very formal. Perhaps request a copyedit at WP:GUILD. Also, previous comments have not yet been addressed.
@Calliopejen1: You have also started a discussion at WP:VPM, so this is at least the 4th discussion on the same topic in different places. Please keep discussion in one place instead of starting multiple discussions on the same topic. RudolfRed (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I got involved with AfC about ten years ago and remember having the same discussions then. At this point I've accepted that it's essentially broken by design. AfC is a sump for articles we've excluded from mainspace because they're overwhelmingly likely to be bad. Sometimes good articles end up in there, but it's not surprising that they don't fare well in a process that mostly functions to explain to new users why we don't want they're selling. Any proposal geared around those few good articles is going to fail because 99% of what AfC reviewers have to look at (and it's not a popular job) isn't worth the effort. I find it helps to think of it as a spam filter. You accept that sometimes real emails end up in the spam folder, because you don't want to sort through all of it manually. What you do do is check it every now and again for mistakes; i.e., watchlist an article alert or WP:AFCSORT category for the subject you're interested in and fish out any good drafts; or if you're running an editathon, get the participants "whitelisted" by telling them not to use AfC. – Joe (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
That is the crux of the matter - do everything you can to avoid good-faith editors interacting with AfC because it simply does not work for good faith editors. We should not simply accept this however - we need to reform it or replace it with a system that actually works. As a project we need more good faith editors, especially those who work in underrepresented topic areas, even if they aren't perfect from the start - yet imperfect editors working in minority topics are among the worst treated by AfC. AfC reviewers are experienced at determining whether XYZ Corp, Joe American Businessman or Random Garage Band are notable, they've become familiar with the majority of good sources and mistakes are accordingly relatively rare, which is helped by there being relatively few missing encyclopaedia articles in these topic areas. General sources in these topic areas with which the reviewers are unfamiliar are more likely to be low quality than high quality. Assessing the notability of pre-1900s Korean literary works however is very different - all the sources (good and bad) are unfamiliar, there are limited articles to compare to and (English language) information on Google is limited so the process breaks down. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
An example of Thryduulf's point about good-faith editors working on articles in obscure fields may be this query about turnaround time from a recent new editor who has been using AfC to create articles in free jazz areas, with two accepted this year and a couple more in the queue. AllyD (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe there was an education or WP:GLAM project relating to Korean literature. They generated a lot of draft articles, many of which were unfairly (in my opinion) declined. I have accepted a significant number of them already, and there are more to check over and tweak/approve as appropriate. Please have a look at the following drafts to improve/accept them (or possibly in rare cases determine they aren't worthy of articles -- I doubt this often applies):
There are also a few more drafts that are trickier; they were declined as duplicating existing content, but I don't know if the myths themselves deserve separate articles. They are as follows:
@Calliopejen1: You are right, many of them should have been published.
I have reviewed Draft:Yu Sun-ha. The reviewer, User:SamHolt6 , published a helpful rationale for decline, noting that many sources are hard to verify. This is true - up to a point. I was able to verify one ([3]) and I have no reason to expect the rest would be hoaxes. The problem is that the creator did a cardinal sin of murderinzg the references by 1) translating them to English and 2) not providing original Korean name nor links. So of course attemtping to verify whether a reference "Kim, Pyo-hyang. “Baboaje by Yu Sun-ha Wins EBS Radio Literary Award.” Chosun Ilbo, December 11, 2013" exists is hard, as a google search for it procudes nothing but Wikipedia mirrors, since google doesn't understand that is Kim, Pyo-hyang is 김표향 or 'Baboaje by Yu Sun-ha Wins EBS Radio Literary Award' is 유순하 작가 '바보아재', EBS 라디오 문학상 대상 수상 and so on. Pretty much all the refs used are Korean, and they need to re-Koreanized (and linked). If some are offline, like the newspapers from the 80s, this is... very challenging. Unfortunately, my Korean is only rudimentary and fixing all the references would be very time consuming, but if most other drafts have the same problem, well, it is fixable, and the topics appear to be notable, and I support mainspaciong them promptly. I would do it myself but I find draft-related procedures arcane so I am afraid to tackle them (outside just deleting all the draft code and moving the article 'the normal way'). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here06:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Continuing, I have reviewed Draft:Yoo Juhyun today. The article is badly formatted, but he seems to have biographical articles in severla Korean encyclopedias (linked in the article). He is therefore obviously notable, and the article, while badly written, would not be deleted per WP:TNT if it was created in the mainspace. It should be moved to mainspace and left there until someone fixes it. It is still informative (just underlinked and with bad citation style). (It was declined by User:KartikeyaS343 for unreliable sources, which is bizarre, as the article clearly cites books, encyclopedia and reliable newspapers, all just badly formatted). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Also reviewed Draft:Yeom Seungsuk. Identical case as above, this one was declined by User:Whispering for not using footnotes. Again, if it was mainspaced it would not be an issue. I am increasingly coming to believe the Draft system is resulting in a net loss of a lot of valuable content. It would take 5 minutes to add references here, and clerly writing this article took someone much longer (and the topic is clearly notable).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Continuing. Draft:Woodblock commercial publication in Korea is the worst so far, it cites a reliable encyclopedia but has no inline references and it is not clear if the content is adaquately supported by the references. As such, I cannot criticize User:Sulfurboy, who rejected in the ground of insufficient RS. This could be rescuable, as it is informative, but it should be referenced better. Of course, if it was submitted to the mainspace, would it be AfDed? Would it be deleted? Hard to be sure. I do think that by deleting this we will loose helpful and likely correct information, on the other hand, I do agree that we need to enforce higher standards than a decade ago. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Draft:The Black Leaf in My Mouth declined by User:Sulfurboy as "not adequately supported by reliable sources". I really don't understand this. Every paragraph is referenced. Referenced are mostly reliable (one reference is to Korean Wikipedia, but others appear referenced to Korean newspapers, encyclopedias, databases or books). Many references suffer from the problem of having their titles transcribed or translated instead of retaining the original Korean title, and ISBNs were not provided, which makes verification hard for the few books without any URLs, but overall, this is clearly supported by reliable sources (AGFing the book references as not hoaxes just badly formatted, and anyway, this one is rescuable: [4]). It should be published ASAP and just tagged as {{dead end}} since the submitter forgot to add hyperlinks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Seong Mi-jeong declined by User:Theroadislong due to failing RS and GNG. The article has partial footnotes and some unreferenced content warrants a {{peacock}}. They are reasonably well formatted , and seem to be reliable (Korean newspapers and books). I don't see good discussion of awards and reception, and frankly I think that as written the article has borderline notability. However, the claim of unreliable sources is plainly wrong. As for whether this would survive AFD or not, well, as I said, this seems borderline. I can't fault the reviewer for declining it on the grounds of notability, but I don't understand why the references were judged unreliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Seo Joon-hwan declined by User:Theroadislong due to not having footnotes, which seems to me like a totally wrong reason. We have {{nofootnotes}} for that. What is even worse is that the article CLEARY has footnotes, 13 at that, and they are clearly formatted, maybe not ideally, some are references and some are more like notes, but overall, there article seems based on some reliable sources which are properly linked in footnotes. That said, if the reviewer failed this due to GNG I would agree, as the article does not seem to explain how the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. Only the first refs seems to be about the subject, but it is unlinked, and I failed to verify it exits (the odds are it does, but it is in Korean, and the title and author's names were translated, which makes finding the original next to impossible unless someone speaks fluent Korean and gets lucky with search terms). On a side note, I noticed that this entire article has been republished here, considering formatting, it seems like it was copied from Wikipedia and not the other way around... Anyway, I don't think this draft should have been published due to failing GNG BUT I find the decline reason wrong. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here07:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Park Cheong-ho declined by User:Cerebellum due to being an ad, which is not the best rationale to use here. I read the article and I don't see obvious WP:PEACOCK or promotional language. The reviewer should cite specific examples in their decline comment, otherwise this is too subjective of a criteria. Other than that, the subject seems to have won two awards, but I have no clue if they are major (they are unlinked and one is unreferenced). The subject is probably notable subject to several in-depth academic articles, but as too often here, the references seem to be badly formatted - they don't have any URLs AND seem to be translations from Korean, meaning that google and google scholar search fail to produce links. I can't even verify that there is a journal called Literature and Society, I guess even the name is in Korean and translated into an English title unused outside Wikipedia :( As such, whether to accept this article or not is based on whether we AGF that those sources exist and this is not a hoax. I hoped that a corresponding Korean Wikipedia article would help, but the Korean name of the subject is not given in the lead, sigh. It seems to be 박찬호, but ko:박찬호 is about Chan Ho Park. Frankly, I'd user user-draftify it (not delete it) and tell the author to add working links to references to prove this is not a hoax. This is likely a notable writer, but accepting articles with such unverifable references invites submission of hoaxes too... :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here07:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Piotrus: This is 박청호, not 박찬호, though he doesn't have a kowiki or namuwiki article either way. The sources referenced are:
Kang 1995: This is <추억과 상징의 시, 그 희망 없음의 세계-유하․박청호론>, in 『문학과사회』 32호. DBPIA link.
Kim 1996: This is <환멸ㆍ억압ㆍ복수로서의 글쓰기 - 박청호론>, in 『문학과사회』 35호. DBPIA link.
U 1996: This is <‘장난스러운 절망’과 ‘절망적인 장난’ 사이에서 - 박청호 읽기>, in 『문학과사회』 35호. DBPIA link.
Jang 1996: This is <분화해가는 환멸의 담론들 - 박청호의 소설에 대하여>, in 『문학과사회』 35호. DBPIA link.
Son 1999: This is <글쓰기가 감추고 드러내는 인간의 욕망에 대한 소설적 탐구의 세 가지 사례 고찰 - 조경란 『가족의 기원』, 박청호『소년 소녀를 만나다』, 송경아『테러리스트』>, which I can't find the original journal for but is included in 손정수's 2002 anthology 『미와 이데올로기』.
(Continuing after a short break). Draft:Min Gyeong-hyeon. Declined by User:Bkissin de to tone (essay), lack of RS and NPVO issues. Uh. I rad the article. It seems to be written, to me, in an encyclopedic tone, with correct structue. I don't see an serious issues with neutrality, maybe a bit of peacock-phrasing in the 'crticial reception' ("uniqueness of his writings", lack of attributoion for sentences - only end of paragraph one), but it is hardly serious. The references are badly formatte (as in many cases here, they are Korean works whose titles and other elements have been translated, making verificaiton hard where no ISBN/URL/etc. are present). Now, the references need better formatting, and the subject's notability is borderline (particulalry as the main reference used for the claim of significant reception is badly formatted and hard to verify). In fact, I would decline this myself due to poor reference style and insufficient notability, but I take an issue with the decline n the groinds of tone/RS/NPOV - none of those seem like the factual issues found here, suggesting tha the reviewer did not read the article, or does not understand the cited policies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Back at it after another break, this time looking at Draft:Kim Youn Bae, declined by User:User:KartikeyaS343 as 'too much of an advert', which seems to be a generic template decline. The article does suffer from a bit of peacockish issues and needs some grammar fixes, but doesn't strike me as an ad. The relevant policy is GNG - is the subject notable or not? If they are, than this article is in line with an average article about an artist or writer. Neither the Korean Wikipedia nor Namu Wiki have an article about the subject. The references used seem to be from the publisher, with a bit or newspaper coverage but the latter appears minor. I see only one sentence that calls him "acclaimed", but again, it seems to be based on the publisher website. I did not locate any better sources, through some may exist in Korean, and my Korean skills are very rudimentary. Anyway, right now I conclude this should be declined, as a bio of a GNG-failing subject is an advertisement. I'd just recomment that the reviewer should make it clear that it is notability which is the primary issue here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here11:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Kim Sa-i (Poet) declined by User:AaqibAnjum due to tone and layout issues. Let's see. ... Another bogus decline, another example that way too many AfC reviewers don't seem to be competent enough for this task. Neither the tone nor the layout seems out of order here. Sure, the language is not up to FA standards, and there are minor issues with formatting (lakc of bullet points in list, etc.), and few sentences need inline referencing, but those are minor issues. The main issue, yet again ignored by the reviewer, is whether the subject is notable, and this is unclear. None of the sources cited seems to be in-depth about her, outside a single interview, and I am not seeing anything better - but my Korean skills are limited. I don't think she has an article on Korean Wikipedia or namu wiki. So I am not recommending this for publication, but at the same time, the reason for declining it is 100% wrong. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here06:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Kim Kyoungin Here I concur with User:Sulfurboy. Notability is a problem, although there is supposedly one academic article about her work, but I couldn't verify it really exists (it probably does, but can't take it for granted, and it's the author's fault for not linking it and translating the title without providing the original title in Hangul). TOOSOON, but I suggest keeping it and reviewing in a decade or so.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Kim Joong-sik Declined as an advertisement, but is not written like one, language-wise. And it meets NBIO, if borderline. Several newspapers profiled him after his second book was published: [7], [8]. His work also got some coverage in Korean literary journals/magazines, at least if I can trust Google translate here: [9], [10], [11]. Can't figure out how to access those works or how to judge their reliability, but anyway, if someone thinks the sources are too poor this deserves and AfD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here10:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Kim Chong Kwang was declined by User:MurielMary for not meeting "Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations" despite having 21 footnotes (granted, badly formatted). So the decline reason is totally bogus and like most examples illustrated above shows that the draft review system is a failure, with articles being reviewed by people not familiar with basic policies and declining them with faulty rationales. The subject has a corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia and some news coverage, although I wasn't able to locate academic coverage outside few mentions in passing. This should have been accepted, perhaps tagged with {{notability}}. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Choe Dooseok declined by User:I dream of horses due to 'non-neutral language'. I have read the article and I don't see any major problems, few sentences can use tweaking but nothing seems particularly bad, and all assessment seems attributed or referenced. The subject is notable, has article on Korean Wikipedia and has been included in the Dictionary of Modern Korean Literature . Why was this declined? Pure subjectivity. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Agreed. On a cursory glance, every single one of the rejected drafts easily passes notability guidelines. They are admittedly poorly researched and in need of copyediting, but this can and will be fixed in time. Rejecting them out of hand is not doing anything to help WP:SYSTEMICBIAS.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that the article when I reviewed it was submitted with only a single source. No article of that length entirely dependent on a single source could be considered reliably sourced by current standards. All because the content is considered "valuable" does not warrant it being on Wikipedia. Articles must be amply supported by sources to show that it is actually valuable. It should be clear that the burden and responsibility of ensuring that valuable sources reach the mainspace falls largely on article writers to adequately cite sources. GeneralPoxter (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm currently on break from wiki as my field of work is on the frontline of dealing with the COVID pandemic, but I thought I'd quickly chime in. First and most importantly, there is a distinct difference between an article being rejected and an article being declined. I didn't go down the list, but I noted that the article I was referenced about someone said I "rejected" it when I in fact declined it. The difference being a decline allows for an editor to make the appropriate changes and resubmit, whereas a rejection is a final and done in instances in which there is no hope in establishing notability or in some other way fails what Wikipedia is.
There also seems to be a misunderstanding of why an article may be declined. We do not approve of every article if it is determined to be notable. Our standard is "likely to pass an AfD". That standard is very open to interpretation, some believe that means any article that is likely notable should be approved. Others, myself included, take a WP:BUILDER approach and believe that it should be able to likely pass an AfD in its current state. I imagine from the context of the comments that most of these would require WP:HEY or some level of someone else doing work to right the ship. This is problematic because, after approval, many of these articles will not be seen by another editor for months, years, possibly ever. As such, AfC in some capacity serves as a last hope of getting an article to a bare minimum level of acceptance before it's tossed into the wild. If I'm needed for additional comment, be sure to ping me, because like I said I'm basically inactive for right now. As to the at times flippant and negative comments towards AfC, I would encourage any editor to volunteer their time in this incredibly very overworked process. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Piotrus notified me, because I have been accepting, or at least postponing the deletion, of such articles. At first when I encountered them, I didn't: they were not written in our usual style, they were over-heavy on plot, the references were relatively scant and totally unfamiliar. But as I kept seeing them, I realized I was applying overly restrictive standards. The style could be fixed. The contributors seem to have been learning to shorten the section on plot, and increase the discussion of reception. Gradually they have been adding more references. I intendto check the ones mentioned above, and it is highly likely that I shall accept many of them.
I don't think I agree with some of what Suflfurboy has said above. I have seen over time many of his declined articles that I think should be accepted, and if I think they will pass AfD I have been accepting them, or if I think they are fixable trying to fix at least a little and then accepting, or if I cannot immediately fix or if the decline reason is invalid, at the least postponing the deletion. (Though most of the ones I have disagreed with him about are ones that he declined months ago, and I definitely do agree with most of the declines that he did in the last few weeks of intensive work here.) I think that he is in fact working closer to the standard used by most other reviewers than he used to. I had intended to postpone a general discussion with him on this until he had the time to engage in it, but I'll give the basics of it now. When he wants, we can have the discussion on the proper place, the AfC talk page. If in the mean time I accept articles that he thinks I shouldn't, there's afd, either now or whenever he has the time. If this discussion had not arisen, I would not have even mentioned the issue now.
I do not know Korean. The standard for foreign language references has always been one of our basic prinicples: Assume good faith. If someone says that a reference exists, we do not say they are a liar unless it is truly impossible to verify at all. If a reference is malformed, someone will fix it--I've perpetrated over the years many incomplete references working on the basis of what I have, and they do get fixed, just as I have fixed probably thousands entered by other people, in this hopefully cooperative enterprise. Cultural bias does exist--we will always have relatively weak coverage from some geographies, but we should try to minimize the effect--not by formal rules, for this is a fluid situation which depends as much of who comes here. and how hard people work, but by a relatively relaxed interpretation. How far to relax it can be a valid matter of disagreement, which is what consensus processes are there to decide, not each one of us individually and independently.
The one matter agreed above, is the standard for accepting AFC: that it will probably pass AfD. It was decided many years ago when we first had AfC, that this did not mean a bare 50%. Most reviewers then used somewhere between 60% and 90%; I think it has stabilized at somewhere like an 70%-80% chance of passing, and at least 80% of accepted afcs that are challenged do in fact pass AfD, which meansthe process works as it is intended to. (I use a standard of 80%, but in fact fewer than 5% of what I've passed has ever been deleted or even merged.) It's argued above that the standard means it would pass as is, but that's not the way afd works: articles often get improved during afd, and this seems to apply particularly to ones that had been drafts. Whether something will get approved, means whether it will be approved at the end of the discussion, just as in all other consensus decisions--it's the final consensus that counts. Myself, if I list something for AfD, and it gets improved and kept, I do not regard it as a mistake of mine--I regard it as a success. The deletion process exists to get acceptable articles into WP as much as to keep unacceptable ones out.
We certain do accept articles on the basis of a single reference if it is good enough. An entry in a national encyclopedia or major subject encyclopedia has always been regarded a fully sufficient for an article--we consider them authoritative. A bio with a bare but good reference that someone has a seat in a legislature or has won a major prize is acceptable also. It's not ideal--it counts as a very low quality stub and I will always try to find at least something additional. (obvious, a bio with only a first party reference or a newspaper mention is another matter entirely, and I think none of us would accept it.) Bios with a verifiable fact showing notability but no reference for personal details can still be accepted--but the practice is generally to stubbify them to what can be referenced.
I do not accept every article if i think it notable. That's not the standard. Thes tandard is whether the community will think it notable. That means having some convincing amount of content and references, and to that extent I do agree with what Sulfurboy said. I will sometimes even decline for style, if the style is so utterly terrible that people who look at it will think rightly or wrongly that it shouldn't be accepted into our encyclopedia. I think it is possible for reviewers to work to a common, but not identical, standard. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
And, Piotrus, something where you might be particularly helpful--we are currently having similar problems with articles of Serbian and other Balkan area politicians and writers. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: I can try to help with the Balkan ones, but for now I am busy reviewing the Korean ones listed above. And I would like to ask: when will the ones I reviewed above and said they are acceptable be published? Can I publish them myself or do we need some sort of discussion? And if I can publish them, is there a good script for that? I use some script but it does a good job of hiding the 'accept and publish' button... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
You have to sign up for AFCH, if you haven't, but I'll add you. The instructions, unfortunately, are a little complicated. ("complicated" is the wrong word, I meant "bizarre". However, I was planning to add them tomorrow, It's usually best to have a second person if there's likely to be a dispute, so I'll make a point of linking to your statement also. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: I think I have this script (well, it calls itself beta in the drop down menu), but it is not user friendly. I understand comment, I left one recently somewhere, but there is no publish/accept button, just submit (submit what? Where?). Then there is a third button "Clean submission Mark as under review". Bizarre, yes. There is a reason in my published academic reviews on teachign with Wikiepdia I tell readers "use sandbox and stay the hell away from the super complex and super backlogged draft system", which, sorry, I believe should be pulled down. Good intentions, I understand, but it is too buggy /unfriendly -> not working. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here09:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
what you have to do is first submit it, and let the macro add the necessary headings for accept/decline, and then accept it as a separate operation. The options to accept or decline only show up when the article is submitted. But it's generally better if one person nominates and leaves it for another to accept--that part of the functionality is a deliberate feature, but if I think it's clear enough I will do both, especially if the article has been neglected. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: On the topic of the single encylopedia entry being sufficient, I agree with you, but I don't think it actually works that way in practice given how these articles were evaluated. Look at the chart I compiled below. Most articles about a topic covered in a major encylopedia were in fact declined. And the only editors who approved articles in any significant number were you and User:Missvain (who, by the way, has come out of this fiasco looking very good!) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
FYI, here is a table of all of the articles that I believe are associated with this project, whether accepted, declined, or never submitted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The article needs more inline citations from reliable secondary source and some internal links if it is to be accepted
Four general references, including entry specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and entry specifically about subject in Dictionary for Traditional Korean Literature
Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several reliable sources cited in proper format. I think that the topic is notable, based on a google search, but please link the references to the proper sections of the article. Feel free to resubmit after these changes have been made. Thank you.
Unsourced (except now-dead link to apparent discussion board) at time of submission
As this was nearing G13 deletion, DGG added a comment "might be fixable" to delay deletion ; I have now accepted it DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
10 footnotes. Entry specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Modern Korean Literature listed in "see also" section.I have now accepted it DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several reliable sources cited in proper format. Feel free to resubmit after some changes have been made.
"Famous as the first detective novelist in Korea"; died 1957 so unlikely to be advertising. As it turns out we had an article about this person under a name variant; these now need to be merged.
Three general references and three additional references in footnotes, including entry specifically about article subject in Encylopedia of Korean Folk Culture
Four general references and four additional references in footnotes, including entries specifically about article subject in Encylopedia of Korean Folk Culture and Dictionary of Korean Language and Literature
Please add a lead to the article and properly source the article. For more information, see WP:CITE.
Three general references and two additional references in footnotes, including entry specifically about article subject in Encylopedia of Korean Folk Culture
Article needs more WP:RS sources showing this folktale's significance in Korean culture.
Three general references, three "further reading", and eight additional references in footnotes, including entries specifically about article subject in Encylopedia of Korean Folk Culture and Encyclopedia of Korean Folk Literature
Six general references, four "further reading", and three additional references in footnotes, including entries specifically about article subject in Encylopedia of Korean Folk Culture and Encyclopedia of Korean Folk Literature, and Encyclopedia of Korean Language and Literature
Article needs more WP:RS sources showing this folktale's significance in Korean culture.
Three general references, eight "further reading", and three additional references in footnotes, including entry specifically about article subject in Encylopedia of Korean Folk Culture
The content is ok, but I can't find sources that establish its notability. Also, some sources like Naver and Korean Wikipedia aren't RS.
25 footnotes and one general reference, including entries specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and Dictionary of Korean Language and Literature, and entries about various works by article subject in Dictionary of Modern Korean Literature. Article subject won National Academy of Arts Award and Korean Literature Award. I have now accepted it on he basis of the award DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
15 footnotes, generally things that look like good-quality sources I have now accepted it, regardless of coi; there are enough good references. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Custom: "Likely notable, but the format is messed up at the moment with the sectioning and spacing. Also concerns that it might be copy-pasted from somewhere."
Do not reference Korean Wikipedia. That is not a reliable source. Tone is also of concern since it makes POV statements about the author without attribution of who said it.
Single general reference to entry specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture (but listed in "see also" section rather than references section)
Vastly undersourced and uses non-encyclopedic language (flowery, promotional). Please summarize reliable, secondary sources for the article content. If you have affiliated with Kim, you need to declare this.
Pls provide inline citations - see WP:REFB (User:CaptainEek later added: "Agree with Cass, needs inline citations. Please provide before resubmitting.")
Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several reliable sources cited in proper format. I think that the topic is notable, based on a google search, but please link the references to the proper sections of the article. Feel free to resubmit after these changes have been made. Thank you.
Two sources (entries specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and Encyclopedia of Korean Folk Culture) listed in "further reading" section, but "references" section is empty
Most of the claim of notability hangs on Munhakdongne; the Korean-wiki article is an unsourced list, so I don't think there's any notability gained there. Any publishing company can tout authors it publishes. Subject otherwise fails WP:ANYBIO.
Some of the claims made in this article are not verifiable by the sole given source. Please cite sources, especially for the plot description. Suggested sources to look at: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/658635/summary
Naver Encyclopedia should be WP:RS, but more specific references are needed, and the article needs to be more navigable. Reliable Wikipedia articles rarely cite everything from Britannica, for example.
Ten general references, including entries specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and Encyclopedia of Korean Folk Literature
Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several reliable sources cited in proper format. I think that the topic is notable, based on a google search, but please link the references to the article. Feel free to resubmit after these changes have been made. Thank you.
Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several reliable sources cited in proper format. I think that the topic is notable, based on a google search, but please link the references to the article. Feel free to resubmit after these changes have been made. Thank you.
Single general reference to entry specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. Resubmitted without changes and declined by User:Frood on the basis that no changes were made.
Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several reliable sources cited in proper format. I think that the topic is notable, based on a google search, but please link the references to the proper sections of the article. Feel free to resubmit after these changes have been made. Thank you.
Single general reference to entry specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. Resubmitted without changes and declined by User:Frood on the basis that no changes were made.
Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several reliable sources cited in proper format. I think that the topic probably is notable, but please link the references to the article. Feel free to resubmit after some changes have been made. Thank you.
Custom: "To assist reviewers in assessing this article: On the Talk page, please list the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability for this WP:BLP."
Two separate declines on 4/5/20 by different users (without resubmission by author): NPOV; custom: "To assist reviewers in assessing this article: On the Talk page, please list the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability for this WP:BLP."
Phrases like "To him, essays are as important as novels" aren't very formal. Perhaps request a copyedit at WP:GUILD. Also, previous comments have not yet been addressed.
Calliopejen1, you have succeeded in showing that some AfC reviewers work too rapidly, and others are incompetent. The AfC messages are inadequate, and a number of otherwise good know this, and add their own prewritten summary, without considering whether it actually meets the situation. It's always a temptation when overworked, to deal with things very briefly, and only give real explanations when someone complains. The reviewers we need to educate or remove first are the ones who don't even give personalized explanation when asked for. Screening drafts is a teaching process, and I'm sure everyone here has encountered enough poor teaching that they should know not to imitate it.
In judging the proportion of bad reviews, we'd need real statistics, but the classification would be personal. I am , in a complementary project to yours', screening all 5+ moth declined or never-submitted articles within my competence (everything but sports or popular culture). There are about 100 a day; I look at 50. Of these, about 5 can be rescued, though most of them need a little work first. 10% articles lost is too high a proportion, but not hopelessly high. Our overall quality of screening now isn't good, but compare it with the sort of stuff we accepted 10 or 12 years ago. (It's much harder to look at what we didn't accept but should have accepted back then, but my impression at the time was that it was about 15 to 20%. ). DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear User:Piotrus. Thanks for your three posts [12] of this months. Concerning Kim Joong-sik, this article has been declined 2020-02-04 by User:Praxidicae as "Submission reads like an advertisement (AFCH 0.9.1)" and proposed for speedy deletion 2020-08-04 by User:UnitedStatesian. In the Real World, this is called a strong rejection. Thereafter or not, it has been published at Digital Library of Korean Literature, both in Korean and in English. This page says 'last modified 2020-03-13', while the English text is --Like a Camel Crossing the Ocean-- in identical form as the former draft. This should appear somewhere in front of the reader. Pldx1 (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Pldx1, I am not sure what are you asking for, exactly, although this was discussed before (I just can't remember which talk page). The articles were created as a batch, submitted to Wikipedia by a drive-by submitter (several accounts all of which went dormant), and clearly, the article(s) were also submitted (and published) on this Korean website https://library.ltikorea.or.kr/ . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here12:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear User:Piotrus. Your are right, I am not sure of what should be asked for! May be a mention, in the "See Also" sections, that these articles are also published, in identical form, in English and in Korean, at LTIK. Pldx1 (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Pldx1, We don't usually acknowledge the existence of mirrors, particularly when they don't acknowledge our free licensing. We could link to them in the 'external link' section, but I am not sure how to describe it. "A mirror of this article on Website X", is', again, not a recommended practice AFAIK (since most mirrors are low-quality Wikipedia+ads clickbait sites). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here13:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Korean Drafts Comments 3
I lost all respect for the AFC process when G13 came in. That happened because AFC was entirely unable to cope with its backlog. By my estimation, around 10% of the articles deleted in that enormous first tranch of deletions were salvageable. That amounts to tens of thousands of good pages deleted. My estimate is not a guess. It is based on the percentage of articles I personally removed the G13 and put them in mainspace. As I recall, there were hundreds of thousands of pages put up for G13 deletion in a short space of time and very few editors trying to save them. So of course, the vast majority were deleted without a proper review. As far as I know, none of the pages I saved has ever been deleted, or even challenged. Nothing much seems to have changed in the intervening years except the deletion rate has become gentler.
The fundamental problem is the scope creep of the reviewing process. The criterion should be "will it survive an AFD", but instead submissions are judged by many reviewers essentially against GA criteria. AFC should not be an obstacle and submissions should not be required to be perfect. Many new participants are only likely to submit an article once, not keep coming back to service reviewer comments.
In my view, we are better off without AFC. It does more harm than good and is against the founding principles of Wikipedia (anyone can edit and their work is immediately visible – that's what wiki-wiki means). So either abolish it entirely, or reserve it just for editors with a COI. SpinningSpark 13:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC) This was copied from my talk page (Special:Diff/980257418) Primefac (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be better if the criterion were "will it be taken to AfD", because even if the end result is the same (keep), we should hope that AfC reduces the workload of AfD. A little bit of QC is nice. Just because a crap article is notable doesn't mean we should accept it in crap state. Even a horribly promotional article can survive AfD because the topic is notable, but AfC should not encourage such submissions. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
It's counterproductive to hold up articles about notable topics in draft space due to quality concerns. The quality concerns are much more likely to be addressed if the article is moved to mainspace than if it sits in draft space, where instead of being worked on by everybody, it'll only be worked on by the original author, who is the person that wrote the poor quality draft in the first place. The fundamental premise upon which Wikipedia is built is that crowdsourced editing is better than single authorship. It strikes me that rejecting a notable AFC draft for quality is the very opposite of how Wikipedia works. Lev!vich05:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: Point taken about mainspace increasing eyes on an article, but I still think in instances like promotional material we should not be encouraging the users who submit them by saying that promotional language is accepted. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
That's true, we don't want to encourage promo writing by accepting promo submissions. I think there are "best of both worlds" alternatives, such as tagging and accepting, or even (perhaps in extreme cases) stubifying and accepting. If it's a notable topic, if there are two GNG sources, we should move the title from draft space to mainspace ASAP in some acceptable form. I actually think it would be better to cut an entire article down to one sentence, accept the submission and move it to mainspace, and block the author for promotion, than to reject a notable title and send it back to the promo-author and wait for them to fix it. I think of it this way: I'd like to have AFC reviewers "touch" notable titles only once, and then never have another AFC reviewer have to deal with that entry again. As soon as an AFC reviewer sees a notable title, get it into mainspace and let the editing begin. Send the non-notable ones back for the author to find two good sources for it. Lev!vich05:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
What to do with this "Articles for Chuckle" process ? Simple: delete and salt. It has been clearly established that these articles were *wrongly* put aside. But the Chucklers haven't corrected their mis-behavior. How long will we have to wait before seeing these articles moved to the article space? I have tried a simple move, this doesn't work. I have tried a redirect, but this wasn't the opinion of User:Fastily. You know, a speedy deletion is more expeditive, and less burdensome. So that Queen Inhyeon (1667 – 1701) will wait some more time.
As a general summary, only stupid beginners are going through this "Articles for Chuckling process". You only have to wait a full week, and publish in the main space ! Pldx1 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
That really could have been said in a way that was much less insulting to our colleagues who volunteer their time at AFC. Lev!vich23:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm very unimpressed with these declines and I do know rhat these aren't even close to the only worthy articles that were declined. While I disagree with how Pldx1 phrased their comment, I do think that there is a good point mixed in - that articles are being declined that shouldn't be and it doesn't seem to be changing. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I think Spinningspark has hit it on the nose: The criterion should be "will it survive an AFD", but instead submissions are judged by many reviewers essentially against GA criteria. Many of the declined AFC submissions I've seen that should have been accepted on simple notability have been wordy, poorly formatted, badly referenced (but referenced), or full of puffery. Hardly the best kinds of articles to have. But this batch is not the only batch I've seen that on balance met the notability requirements, largely by meeting one of the slam-dunk criteria for acceptance, and yet was declined. That shouldn't be the answer - after all, we have malformed/poorly-written/badly-formatted articles all over the place, and our answer to such cases is to expect the articles to be improved, not deleted.
Two ideas: one, reform the process so that anything that meets simple notability requirements is passed through, regardless of quality (with the usual restrictions in re: copyright, etc.) Tag them up the wazoo if need be, tag the creators' talk pages if need be, but at least get the article into the encyclopedia so that it can exist and grow, if possible. The other: encourage a process of chainsawing problematic articles before passing them through - removing the worst, messiest stuff and otherwise performing triage. Neither suggestion is ideal, but both would at least get more topics into the public arena. Which should, I think, be the main concern currently.
I'm afraid I'm coming in rather late on all this but I recently spent quite some time looking carefully at several of these Korean articles. It certainly appeared to me that there was frequently no good reason for refusal or deletion as in most cases the content of the article was backed by good secondary sourcing. Another more general reason for the deletions appears to me to result from the fact that we are dealing with the literature of a language which is unfamiliar to nearly all the editors of the English Wikipedia and no doubt all of those on AfC. When they use the English version of Google search, they come up with very few hits in English, if any, and if they find any in languages other than English, they ignore them. I have experienced the same refusals for articles documenting biographies or literature in the Scandinavian languages (Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish) which I frequently try to cover in English. While English language searches often reveal very little, searches in the Google versions for the other languages with appropriate search terms in the language in question reveal far more. There are also a number of excellent databases and bibliographic dictionaries which seldom show up in English-language searches but can be used as solid secondary sources. Maybe we should introduce special rules or "exemptions" in AfC policy to avoid the refusal or deletion of valid contributions in the less familiar languages?--Ipigott (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I do not have too much to add, as I have zero participation in this area of the wiki, but I would say that What to do with this "Articles for Chuckle" process ? Simple: delete and salt. is a completely unfair characterisation. AfC does great work, and whilst confirmed is not the biggest restriction, it is working at a time when the number of promo editors is increasing and the number of Wikipedians able to cleanup stuff is going in the opposite direction. I suspect our other venues could not deal with the increased flow if the AfC process did not exist. The most obvious failures in notability etc tend to be addressed within minutes/hours from what I've seen. I suspect the ones taking time are the ones requiring closer inspection, and those are maybe the ones held to a higher standard of review than should be. In that sense, I suppose the issue is the same as pending changes reviews - if one 'approves' something that isn't quite perfect, or later turns out to have an issue, someone else will be on your case about it. AfC may not be perfect, as some of the points/cases above indicate, but nothing ever is. I think it's inappropriate to diminish the solid work AfC does for the encyclopaedia by considering it solely on some of its less perfect aspects. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
It's very evident from the number of discussions like this over the years that the AfC process is very and fundamentally broken, and that we have trainers and GLAM coordinators, etc. all advising people never to touch AfC with a barge pole is further evidence of this. It seems that the attitude of those who support it is "well it gets rid of a lot of promotional rubbish" and success seems to be measured only in terms of how much promotional material doesn't make it to mainspace, regardless of whether it was salvagable. This is fundamentally wrong - success at AfC (or whatever functional successor replaces it) should be measured in terms of how many articles are not deleted under G13. Evaluating drafts based on the criteria "Will it survive an AfD?" would be a good start as long as everything with the answers "yes", "maybe", "probably", and "possibly" are accepted and only those where the answer is firmly "No" rejected. However as long as AfC patrollers regard the purpose of the task as fighting back hordes of spammers and not as making sure that as many good and potentially good articles get in as possible then I don't have high hopes of an improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Thryduulf, Part of the problem is a feeling of being required to review to perfection, when we are absolutely not. I review to "having a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process" in almost every case. We all should.
Like all of us I also make mistakes.
It is impossible not to fight spam since we are the declared COI/PAID gateway, and it can take time to do this well
None of us should ever forget that this is a hobby. If it feels like a job we need to step back for a bit.
However as long as AfC patrollers regard the purpose of the task as fighting back hordes of spammers and not as making sure that as many good and potentially good articles get in as possible then I don't have high hopes of an improvement. To be fair, I think part the issue is general culture, rather than reviewers' attitudes alone. As I mention above the case of pending changes, I've seen on many editors' talks someone get on their case about accepting something that later turned out to have an issue (even if it was a merely technical issue). This attitude I think discourages people from approving something they haven't 'fully vetted'. I personally think the philosophy is somewhat backwards - the content would've reached mainspace anyway, so (say) a 10% 'problems get through' rate is more than fine. This makes reviews faster, and reduces the 'standard' required as well. But when that feeling looms over your head, it's harder to fault people for ignoring a review / reviewing for perfection, rather than taking a decision on it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I don’t agree with a lot of the comments above. I think the ‘’Mad dash for content’’ that we had before is the surest way to disaster and will re-introduce the race to the bottom. I believe AFC is working well and is not broken and the fact that block of articles has never made it through, just proves it. It’s is doing its job. Since it has been created, the quality of new articles has gone up drastically and the number of references these articles’ have, has gone up as well. The overall look and quality are much better than 10 years. So for me, AFC has generally succeeded in its design, by ensuring a higher quality output. Personally, I think its educated new editors sufficiently, to enable them create pretty decent articles without any input. It does have problems, so it should be tightened up to ensure all articles go through it and tighten up the criteria. I would like to see the editor be responsible for the article. I want them to finish it. We have 100thousands to millions of articles, that will never be updated or improved, have never been looked at since they were created. Endless numbers of stubs. The sad fact about it as I am continually reminded, is Google graph and search can do a better job, in pulling together information on these subjects than what we can offer and it’s the clearest indication yet that a lot of these are junk. And the reader trusts it. So what is the point of them? We are getting older and it scunner’s me that we are still getting new users coming in with new unfinished work, that is often junk. Why is it not contingent on them to complete the article they started? We should be working on the 100thousands that need expanded. Instead we are 18-20 years into the project and new editors can still come in and create wee two-line articles. We should be looking to drive quality in at the beginning of the process. Not opening doors and loosening control. Looking at promo, it worries me most. Currently about 60%-80% of new articles are now paid and the majority of paid editors don’t care about standards on WP. I see it time and time again. They will add sources sufficiently to ensure it survives. It is more NPP certainly, but it is two sides of the same coin. They worry about Google ranking. They’re currently singing from ceiling, happy in their work, in what is now a mature industry with its own nomenclature, processes and methodologies. I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t have their own awards and honours. Even without the paid crowd, they are still huge amounts of promotional content going into a lot of these articles. Are they supposed to go straight to mainspace and then be checked by NPP? We don’t have enough folk for it. Afd has employed a bit of renaissance in the last year or two, but we don’t have enough people for that either. What we should be doing is strengthening AFC with new criteria and putting all articles through it. scope_creepTalk13:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
This confirms it. On Category:Articles lacking sources in the September category Category:Articles lacking sources from September 2020 it has around 2000 new articles with no sources. So it is being front loaded. 10 years ago, that list stood at 203k entries, now it is 175k entries. To be fair a good number of them are old articles that have been recently identified but there is lots of new articles that have recently been added. scope_creepTalk13:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Have you looked at the rejected drafts? They generally either have significant numbers of footnotes (generally 10-25) for BLPs or general references to reliable sources like the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture for the articles about literary works. These were not promotional articles either. So I'm not sure why you're saying that the declines of this "block of articles" (assuming you're referring to this set of Korean literature articles? not entirely clear) proves that AFC is working. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Calliopejen1: Mistakes get made, we are volunteer workforce, but there is not been any large mishaps in Afc in the last year or so. Afc has been ticking along quite nicely, for the most part. I think the reason this happened, is due more to a lack of experience or lack of mentorship, than due to a particular directed or coordinated effort. The other main reason is that Afc has professionalised since it was created. The idea of promoting an article when it is only half-finished is anathema to most Afc reviewers, unless it is absolutely, clearly notable. All it does it push the effort back onto themselves and we are already beyond capacity, as evidenced by the mountain of stubs that are never worked on and never will be. Even now, new stubs are still arriving, getting missed in the initial rush of improvement, will never we worked on again. Also, a lot of those Korean articles had single ref's. 10 years ago it was frowned upon, but not now. You still see editors saying it OK. They are not at that sharp end. scope_creepTalk11:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Scope creep: I'm not entirely understanding you-- possibly English issues. That this failure may have occurred because of lack of experience is no excuse-- if we keep up this way, the next batch of submissions like this will have the same result. (Why wouldn't they?) Which is completely unacceptable. I don't understand your point about single sources. A single source to a reputable specialist encyclopedia (what we saw with many of these drafts) is absolutely sufficient to get through AFC, and if others think it isn't then we need to educate them about that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
there is not been any large mishaps in Afc in the last year or so - I disagree. This is a large mishap in my view. The idea of promoting an article when it is only half-finished is anathema to most Afc reviewers, unless it is absolutely, clearly notable. But does that have consensus from the rest of the community? I'm just one editor but I'm surprised to learn AFC is rejecting notable titles for quality reasons. All it does it push the effort back onto themselves - I don't understand this point. What is "the effort" and who are "themselves"? AFC reviewers? How does approving a half-finished article push anything onto AFC reviewers? And what is a "half-finished" article? Which articles on Wikipedia are finished? Lev!vich15:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: I agree. I am still reviewing the Korean cases and most are clearly bad declines, suggesting that several involved reviewers were very much not qualified for this, to put it mildely (like declining an article claiming it has not footnotes when it clearly had them). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Korean Drafts Comments 4
This discussion gives the impression that a large chunk of the AfC people will not learn from their errors, since they don't give the impression of willing to do so. One of the articles alluded to by User:Piotrus is Draft:Seo Joon-hwan. This one was submitted by User:Minheepark33 on 11:23, 27 September 2019, and was never edited afterwards by the submitter.
On 7 October 2019, this article has been rejected to the limbo by User:Theroadislong, and is now waiting for the required 6 months before being destroyed as "unworthy" of the glorious Encyclopedia. And guess what was the reason given by the Galactic Revizor, patrolling on the proverbial dead horse alluded to by User:Robert McClenon ? The reason given was does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. In the submitted article, there were 13 (thirteen) footnotes. Yes, one can argue that we can get articles with 30 void references, and even articles with 40 random references, generated by a generic google search, and then attributed by order of appearance. This has been proven beyond any doubt at ArbCom. One can even argue that the reference https://library.ltikorea.or.kr/node/41374 was missing, that would have proven the quality of the draft. But pretending that ... is rather "inventive".
As a resume, advise people never to touch AfC, even with a barge pole. Better wait the required week of penitence. Pldx1 (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The draft was NOT rejected it was declined because his own books, blogs, namu.wiki and his publisher are not suitable secondary sources for establishing any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
"Rejected" would mean that it would not be considered again by the reviewers, whilst "declined" means that if it was improved, (in this case with better references) then it could be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This draft was not rejected under the pretense that his own books, blogs, namu.wiki and his publisher are not suitable secondary sources for establishing any notability, but with the comment please cite your sources using footnotes. And that while the draft was submitted with 13 footnotes. Do you have a reference for the assertion ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I always find it rather depressing when someone or sometimes multiple people have a rant about how something has or has not been done 'correctly' with an article (or draft, etc) pointing fingers at editors, projects, processes etc but then fail to take any action to resolve that issue. If the 'correct' action to take is so damn obvious - take the action. KylieTastic (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Tagging confirmed paid editor pages
Twinkle has {{COI}}, but if a user has used the {{paid}} template on a user page confirming that they have been paid, is that still the appropriate tag/template to put on the article? I was unsure since Twinkle's summary says "creator or major contributor may have a conflict of interest". Thanks, 2pou (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe the problem is that template {{AFCHD Archive header}} makes use of utility templates {{Yester}} and {{Tomorr}}, which were rewritten last May with theseedits to take the year as an additional parameter, which the AFCHD archive header isn't passing. That would explain why the problem started last May. I think this will be a straightforward fix; I'll attempt it for the archiving run tomorrow night. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I got denied recently for not meeting the edit count requirements. However, the criteria calls for 500 live edits, and I currently have 756. Does the requirement mean amount of articles edited? That of which, I have 135. Le Panini(Talk tome?)00:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Le Panini:This tool can show you your edits by namespace. It shows less than 300 live edits to articles. Don't be in a hurry, it's far better to wait a couple more months and learn more about the ins and outs of Wikipedia than to rush things before asking for specialized tools. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
This comment is in response to a comment on my talk page. Another reviewer and I declined the same draft at the same time, and did not get an edit conflict, and she commented on my talk page. I replied that I don't think that the AFC script recognizes edit conflicts, and so they are a race condition, but I don't think that most scripts (including many of the scripts that reviewers and other experienced editors use) recognize race conditions, so race conditions simply happen. As the name used by engineers implies, the result depends on who gets there first. So, first, my question is whether other reviewers agree that the AFC script does not detect edit conflicts, so that they are a race condition. My observation is, second, that edit conflicts between reviewers are not uncommon. I won't say that they are common, but they are common enough that reviewers should be aware that they occasionally happen. Fortunately, they are usually not problematic, because usually they are two reviewers declining the same draft for similar reasons with slightly different comments. Also, there is a capability to mark a draft as under review. It appears that reviewers often use it if they are planning to accept the draft, or if they think that it needs a detailed review. Maybe it should also be used if one is planning to write long comments (so that another reviewer doesn't come along and do the same decline but without long comments).
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
This has been discussed in the past (feel free to search the archives for when), but no, AFCH does not do any sort of edit-conflict-check. It doesn't happen often, but keep in mind that "mark as under review" is an option. I guess, either use that, or make sure you refresh the page before taking any script-driven action? Primefac (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Helper script malfunctioning?
I just accepted Yazmin Aziz (musician) using the helper script, filling out all the fields for the biography. It looks like what it did, though, was add a bunch of duplicate categories. Meanwhile, I don't see any short description created, even though I filled out the "Description of the subject" field. It also created duplicate banners on the talk page. What's going on here? Courtesy ping maintainer Enterprisey. {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The helper script is doing exactly what it should. In order:
The script only recognizes commented-out categories (e.g. [[:Category:Foo]]), so it won't auto-populate "real" categories (e.g. [[Category:Bar]])
AFCH does not add a short description - "Description of the subject" is a throwback to when it filled out persondata. Has nothing to do with {{shortdesc}}
The script will add a WikiProject banner if you tell it to. If there's already a banner, it just adds a duplicate. It's up to the user to ensure the project tags aren't duplicated.
I wouldn't necessarily say these things are "user error", because you clearly didn't know about them, but it's not an error with the script itself. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC) (please do notping on reply)
Thanks for the explanations. It would be nice if the script could be improved so that it spots and handles these sorts of things, but recognizing that it's still marked as beta, that may take a bit. However, in that case, it's pretty crucial that the script's documentation (or instructions in the helper itself) note the duplication limitations, neither of which currently do so. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I for one am grateful to have a script. Back in the old old days, right after they made it so unregistered editors couldn't create articles, everything was done by hand. Read through the AFC history pages if you want to get an idea of what it was like. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Davidwr, I'm certainly grateful to have a script, too, and developers universally deserve praise for their difficult and often thankless work. We should still offer constructive feedback when code needs improvement, though, which is what I'm trying to do here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I see incubate being used when editors/patrollers WP:DRAFTIFY an article. Are there really editors that work through drafts and make improvements? My observation is that some reviewers will touch things up before accepting but we don't really see community improvements in draft space. If we want articles to be improved, mainspace has always been the place for that. Has that changed?
I think it is fair for NPP reviewers to give authors the choice of AfC or AfD. I don't think articles should be sent to AfC unless that's the author's preference. To do otherwise makes WP:DRAFTIFY a a backdoor route to deletion which we have agreed is not the intent. ~Kvng (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps it's time to change things up so that if a page was in main-space less than, say, 90 days and meets other criteria like "fewer than X editors" or "fewer than X edits, excluding bot edits, edits by the main contributor, and edits by the creator" and it is sent to AFD, a bot will put a note on the AFD page alerting people that the page is new enough that draftification may be better than deletion.
By the way, I see "draftify + 6 month wait + G13" as a very slow near-WP:PROD when it comes to new articles. They are both REFUND-eligible. The main difference is that in practice PROD explicitly invites de-prodding, moving to Draft is pretty much the opposite, the implication is "if you move it back as-is, it's going to AFD and will probably be deleted with prejudice." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Kvng: In a word, yes. WP:Drafts needs to be consistent with itself. WP:Drafts#During new page review already says As part of the review of new pages, an unreviewed page may be moved to draft if:..... On the other hand, two sections up, in #Moving articles into draft space, it says [Draftification] is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion..
Until now, I hadn't really paid attention to criteria 3a of the new page patrol criteria for moving to draft space, There is no evidence of a user actively working on it. This seems to be self-defeating, since any new article will by definition have evidence of a recent edit, even if that edit is the only edit.
Davidwr, I don't think articles unsuitable for mainspace should be sent to Draft: unless that's the author's wish. If there's no indication that the author intends to make improvements, it's unlikely anyone else will and it just becomes a convoluted, lengthy and (mostly) hidden deletion path. Why not just use prod or AfD? ~Kvng (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@Kvng: If you are asking why WP:Drafts gives the option, I would have to research that page's history and the page history of WP:NPPDRAFT and read through the relevant discussions. If you are asking when I would use my editorial judgement to kick a new article back to draft-space and why, here are some common reasons I use. This list is not exhaustive.
The page author created an unacceptable draft of a marginally notable topic, then he or another inexperienced editor moved it to the main encyclopedia. Kicking it back to draft is less WP:BITEY thank AFD or PROD, it doesn't "burn" the one-time-use of PROD, and it's better than leaving it in the main encyclopedia for someone else to nominate for deletion. Note that if the topic is clearly notable then improvement-in-place is the way to go, and if it's clearly not notable, AFD or even A7 (no indication of notability) is the way to go. Yes, I do this even if there is evidence the author is actively working on the projects, which is admittedly out of process. If questioned on it in a given case, I'll either say "fine, off to AFD" or "fine, I'll drop what I'm doing and find sources to show notability and improve it in place" or "fine, this is one of those rare cases where WP:Ignore all rules puts results over process."'
The topic notable enough to survive AFD but I've got more than a strong hunch that sock-puppetry or other schenannigans are involved but I can't prove it yet. Typically, these are also moved by the author or someone I suspect is in cahoots with them. In these cases, as well as cases of pages created in the main encyclopedia I MAY kick it to Draft, sometimes I will just leave it alone or tag it with "advertisement/promo/COI"-related tags. If I have enough evidence, I may launch an WP:SPI. Sometimes kicking it to draft can put the suspected COI-editor on the defensive and they make a mistake which can prove sockpuppetry. Note that this is an UNCOMMON reason but I do use it. I think I've used it less than a handful of times in the last year. When I do use it, I have an obligation to watch the page, if it is abandoned and I no longer suspect WP:NOTHERE-type behavior, it's my responsibility to clean it up and move it back - after all, if I make a mistake of this nature, I have a moral obligation to the editor and to the project to make it right. This rationale is also "out of process" but when it applies I think it falls squarely under the banner of "follow established procedures when you can, WP:IAR when you must, but do so with humility and knowing that your wiki-reputation is at risk, and make the time to do the necessary follow-up and correct your mistakes if you are wrong."
The page is on a marginally notable topic which is likely to be nominated for AFD by another editor due to notability concerns, but I'm going to improve it myself but not in the next 7 days, or I am trying to recruit others - usually from the relevant WikiProject - to do so but they might take longer than 7 days. This one is iffy, it is just as valid, perhaps more valid, to send this to AFD with a specific request that it be sent to Draft to buy time, or to PROD it and tell the primary editor NOT to "unprod" it but rather wait until the PROD expires, then ask that it be WP:REFUNDed to Draft: space so he can continue rounding up suitable references to make it AFD-proof.
Again, this is only a partial list. I'm sure other editors have their own similar "personal list of reasons" to kick things to Draft under certain circumstances.
From one editor to another, thanks for asking the question. I didn't realize until I thought about hit how "out of process" my own reasons were. That is, how often I have to use - and use properly I should add - WP:Ignore all rules. This also forced me to remember that when I do invoke WP:IAR I have to be ready to defend myself not just to my own moral compass but to the community. I also have to review things later and correct myself if it turns out I am wrong. I knew those things already, but it's helpful to be forced to put them at the forefront of my "editor's mental checklist."
Davidwr, thanks for the reply and for your transparency. Although I've tried occasionally, I don't think I've ever been able to make WP:IAR fly with other editors. I do support this pillar of policy.
I'm happy to see that you make efforts to personally improve or recruit help inprove draftified articles. That addresses my main complaint. I still think it is rare for the community to improve drafts and, as I'm sure you've experienced, most authors can only get the quality and referencing up to a certain level, often below the level many AfC reviewers are willing to accept.
Finally, there's a lot of personal judgement being applied all three of your bullet points. I suspect this is the case with most draftify decisions. My concern is that some editors have better judgement than others and, in our processes, there has to be a check on individual judgement at some point. I have been patrolling G13 drafts recemetly and I have seen cases where judgement is not great, the article is moved to Draft: and the author promptly abandons a promsing draft and 6 months later it is silently deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Draftification Issues
This thread is not just a response to User:Kvng's concern, but is a discussion of issues about draftification in general. So I will offer a few more comments on moving articles to draft space. What all of these comments illustrate is that there is no consensus about draft space. Some editors would like to use it more, and some editors would like to get rid of it, and some editors would like to clarify the rules on its use. I belong to the third camp, and would like to clarify the rules on its use. I am not optimistic that the rules about draft space will be clarified, but I will try to state some issues.
First, I think that, although the standard script explanation is a reasonable default, it is often wrong. The standard edit summary of a draftification is "Undersourced, incubate in draft space". But I have repeatedly seen it used when the page was adequately sourced, just questionable as to notability. I have even seen it used when the page had been reference-bombed with low-quality sources in order to justify a non-notable person or company. Reviewers should override that default message or enter a real reason. Saying that a page is undersourced will too often just result in the submitter adding more low-quality sources.
Second, it is common for an article to be moved into draft space twice, sometimes even three times, sometimes by multiple reviewers. In my opinion, an article should only ever be moved into draft space once. Moving it twice is move-warring. If an article is moved into draft space once, and the submitter moves it back into article space, and it should not be in article space, a community decision is what AFD is for. I have written an essay, WP:Repeated Draftification, on the subject. Don't move-war.
Third, there is a thread at WP:ANI concerning a complaint about draftification by a New Page Reviewer. I have not read the thread in detail.
There are significant differences of opinion about draftification. They need more discussion. Thank you for raising the issue again. It will probably be raised more times before the pandemic is over, and after it is resolved.
some of this is immedately fixable. There could very easily be a number of more appropriate draftification messages to choose from. This had been requested ever since the draftification message was first introduced. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, thanks for explaining where the "Undersourced, incubate in draft space" message comes from. I don't think patrollers or authors should be given the impression that the article will be improved through "incubation". Thatt just doesn't magically happen unless someone has already signed up to do it and knows how AfC works. ~Kvng (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, I certainly agree that we shouldn't be move-warring. There's two possible cases of something getting moved draft -> mainspace -> draft -> mainspace. If it's the original author who moved it, that's tantamount to the author saying, "I'm willing to give up the protection of the draftspace comfort zone; judge me by mainspace criteria". In that case, we should oblige them by bringing it to AfD. The other possibility is that it was moved to mainspace by reviewers who don't know what they're doing. Or, I suppose, moved back to draftspace by patrollers who also don't know what they're doing. Either way, we need to do some remedial training. -- RoySmith(talk)21:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
RoySmith I've seen sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and good-faith non-AFC/NPP editors be involved in moves that were inappropriate. The sockpuppet scenario is the same as a self-move, the meatpuppet might or might not be depending on things we can't know, namely, how much is "puppetry/coordinated editing" and how much is "people independently pushing the same agenda." Since both of those are "not good faith" I'm pointing them out just for the sake of completeness. Good faith non-AFC/NPP editors doing this does happen from time to time. I think a disproportionate number are newly-autoconfirmed and they can finally "move" something and are eager to help out, sometimes too eager. I'm not sure if I've ever seen one go draft->main->draft->and all the way back to main again entirely from good faith editors who were not heavy contributors to the page and not in NPP or AFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with User:RoySmith that an author who moves a draft back into article space is accepting the risk of AFD. I think that in some cases the problem is indeed a reviewer who needs some remedial training. In particular, at least once the reviewer said that they didn't want to tag the page for AFD because they didn't want the page deleted. They wanted it in draft space to be improved. If the submitter pushes to have the page in article space, Draftify is a valid outcome as an alternative to deletion, and AFD is the mechanism by which we make that decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
when the page was adequately sourced, just questionable as to notability This should never be an acceptable reason to unilaterally draftify. If sourced but challenged on notability, the author and most reviewers won't know what to do. AfC reviewers won't want to engage on already disputed notability, and there is no notability testing forum, except WP:AfD. If sourced, but of dubious notability, AfD it. At AfD, you can recommend "delete" or "draftify", but if you really think the article is on a non-notable topic, you should be arguing "delete" (assuming no merge target). If you are not sure, leave it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Does someone want to put together a policy proposal? I strongly agree that AfC articles should not be sent back to draft. Improve them yourself or ask that they be deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
On the subject of draftification in general
I hate to shut down a useful conversation, but from my read of the initial/top-level discussion, we're trying to change NPP on the WP:AFC talk page. Shouldn't the discussion about whether NPRs are doing draftifications "correctly" be done there? I know we're two sides of the same coin, but it would seem to me like we can't really "fix" any of the concerns initially brought up. Primefac (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Recently I've been bumping in to a good few copyvios in submitted drafts. So I decided to do a little something about it.
Every 12 hours (ish), my bot User:NoSandboxesHere (which normally removes invalid templates in draftspace) will edit a page in its user space - User:NoSandboxesHere/copyvios - with a table which contains the drafts, a link to the highest confidence copyvio, the confidence percentage and the link to the copyvios report from Earwig's which the script uses. The bot goes no further than this as 1. It would require a BRFA and 2. There is no way of determining a WP mirror based on what Earwig's tool does.
Rich Smith, are you basically saying that your bot is auto-running thousands of copyvios searches twice a day? If so, it needs to stop, because I've been hitting the "too many searches" limit a lot recently, and this would explain it. Primefac (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: Apologies, should have clarified this. To answer your question no it isn't running thousands of searches. It takes the list of submitted drafts from the Category:AfC pending submissions by age subcategories, shuffles them up, then runs them through at a hard limit of 200 per 12 hours. If Earwig's tool returns less than 50%, it doesn't look at that draft again on the subsequent runs. - RichT|C|E-Mail19:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I originally asked Rich about it here when I first noticed we had been regularly hitting our quota, and usage from that bot is down to a more reasonable level. Primefac, have you seen the tool hit the limit in the past few days? I just checked and activity over the past week seems normal. — Earwigtalk21:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
When Earwig stops working, I stop reviewing. Is there any plan B for reviewers for checking CV issues? ~Kvng (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Google catches some things Earwig misses. Step 1: Earwig default copyvio search. Step 2: Look for phrases that give you that "gut" feeling of a copyvio and put them through the Google test. Step 3: Have Earwig do a specific comparison against pages Google turns up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
My article was declined
My article was denied yesterday. Could you do me a small favour and tell me the errors and how to work it out. I couldn't understand the entire meaning when I read in my userpage.You can also do necessary edits yourself if you please. This is really important for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assassin7177 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Atlantis77177: (formerly User:Assassin7177) Unless something about the topic itself has changed since the last deletion discussion with respect to the WP:Notability of this topic, then it cannot have an article no matter how well-written it is. Please read the general notability guideline I linked to and any relevant related special notability guidelines linked from there very carefully. If you have found references, even offline ones and non-English ones, that are both WP:Reliable sources and WP:Independent sources, and those sources collectively show that the topic has received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, THEN you might have a shot. If you think this is the case, read Help:Your first article for further instructions. Remember, it's the quality of the references that counts, not the quantity. Too many "mere mention" or "non-reliable" or "non-independent" references gives the impression you are trying to impress the reviewer, which almost always backfires. 2-3 independent, reliable-source references that show significant coverage are much more likely to convince an editor that a topic is notable than 10 non-repeating/non-duplicating/non-overlapping quality references where each one has only a paragraph or two. My recommendation: Spend time improving existing articles, or find something truly notable that hasn't been written about, such as an important figure in Indian history that somehow never got written about or whose article was deleted for some reason other than lack of notability (e.g. a copyright violation). Plant and animal species and legally-recognized towns and cities are other things that are almost always considered notable enough for Wikipedia. Note that this "near automatic" notability doesn't apply to neighborhoods or to "unincorporated" (having no legal status) villages, and it doesn't apply to breeds, hybrids, etc. Although those topics MAY be notable, the notability is not "presumed until proven otherwise" like it would be with a city or species. The English Wikipedia would benefit greatly if someone took the time to make sure every qualifying town, plant, and animal in India had at least a WP:Stub if not a full-fledged article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
On my second attempt after the article was declined yesterday, I have provided notable sources like The Hindu, The Indian Express etc..., . I believe that the subject is relevant, as it has received a high amount of popularity even after belonging to the Malayalam language, which is a scheduled language in India. Even a film was released by grouping the series, which was released on Youtube. But is it justified to just deny the article, because it was nominated for deletion in the past. I need your valuable comments. Please respond--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
November edit-a-thons from Women in Red
Women in Red| November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181
Is any reviewer interested in writing a short biography of a living person who satisfies academic notability from a draft that is too long? The subject of this draft satisfies academic notability. The submitter of the draft has declared that they are being paid by the University of Memphis. The draft is too long, and mostly contains information that isn't needed either for the subject or for the university. I have declined the draft as 'npov'. The two options at this point are to let the submitter resubmit it, possibly getting it down to a manageable size, or for a neutral editor to extract a much shorter article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Kvng - I agree. Where does the template go? On the draft, or on the reviewer talk page? And what do you mean by a template? What bells and whistles need to go in the template for it to count? As we know, a template is a file containing text and markup which may contain programming. Is there a template that I should be using instead of just using {{COIinquiry}}? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
{u|Robert McClenon}}, I have not used {{COIinquiry}}. It has reasonable messaging but I think some of our inexperienced authors will not be able to navigate all this. Ideally, the template would put the draft on hold until the author clicks on something to answer a multiple-choice COI question - no/yes/paid. ~Kvng (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Proposed addition of AFD links to "pending" and "review in progress" templates
Links to previous AfDs already show up in an orange warning box as part of the helper script. Does this do something better than that? ~Kvng (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Kvng:Ah, it is kind of buried and it only shows up once you activate the script. I frequently do "research" before I use the script. Knowing there have been past AFDs without having to fire up the script would be helpful. I also think it would be helpful prominently point out past deletion discussions to everyone, not just those using scripts. This could be done just as easily by changing the scripts so if there are past deletion discussions they are added as an AFC comment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Davidwr, There is an option to have the script fire up automatically on any draft you view. That does not seem to impede my "research" activities. You may have a legitimate justification for wanting these links in more than one place and I don't oppose that. I just don't need it myself. ~Kvng (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
OK now that I know where to look, I don't need this change. It would be nice from a cosmetic standpoint but it's no longer required. However if we ever want to expose the XfD history to non-script users, at least now we have some diffs to go back to. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions
A day or two ago this category had several thousand of items-- about 100 per day for the 30 days . At the moment it has 518. What happenned to the other 2 or 4 thousand? did someone go throuhg them all, moving to mainspace or postponing everything? The deletion log shows no unusual activity, and no apparent mistaken efforts to delete before the 6 months are expired.
I suspectthat somethign was changed in hte definition of the macro,.
I relly rely upon this. I know of no equivalent way for finding ones about to be deleted G13 that have never been submited for review, and there are always a few in each bdaily batch that should be rescuable. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: A few days ago I noticed SDZeroBot tagging a lot of drafts in my watchlist with dated {{Drafts moved from mainspace}} templates. I'm guessing that reset quite a few timers for pages that came from NPP draftification vice pages that started as drafts to begin with. Here is an example. -2pou (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, apologies for the disruption. I had no inkling that so many of the drafts moved from mainspace were between 5-6 month unedited period, and thus get removed from that category as a result of the bot edits. FWIW a static copy of the category as it appeared before the bot edits can be seen in this version of a bot page, though I know the topic sorting here can be annoying. – SD0001 (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC) ETA: here's a copy with no sorting if it helps: User:SD0001/AfC_G13_eligible_Oct_2020. – SD0001 (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I think what this means is that on April 20, 2021, there are going to be a TON of G13 eligible drafts coming up on their 6 month period rather than the standard 100-200 drafts/day. LizRead!Talk!22:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Note that WP:G13 specifically says that bot edits should not be considered to reset the six month countdown. So while these edits do remove them from the category and tracking pages and prevent AFCH and the AfC templates from marking them as eligible, they do still remain eligible. Someone just needs to manually go through and mark all of them with speedy tags using something like Twinkle that doesn't care about edit dates. Nathan2055talk - contribs23:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Nathan2055, I don't think this is a good idea as it shortcuts the deletion warnings given to authors and patrolling by editors trying to rescue promsing drafts from G13. ~Kvng (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
DGG and I discussed this on the BRFA. For anyone here: see a Quarry I wrote and perry refined, if interested. It fetches all G13 eligible drafts excluding bot edits, if you want to get ahead of the April 20 queue. Someone could probably export the Quarry results and regex a wikilink around the entries to make it easier to go onto the pages onwiki, rather than copy-paste. Might help? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, i created a article Article. I work hard. And i submitted my Article but that still declined. I added reference too. Please help me where is my mistake explain me. That's will help me for my skill growth. Warmthain (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Suggested change to article wizard
As a reviewer, it would help a lot if I had the "best 3-5 references" that, all by themselves, demonstrate "notability."
Can we modify the article wizard to give the editor an opportunity to enter these references BEFORE composing the draft? Make it clear that reviewers are likely to look at these FIRST and may reject the article outright if they don't demonstrate the topic's notability.
This will force the editor to at least try to demonstrate notability before starting.
For editors who use {{submit}}, add parameters to it and related subst-only templates that accomplish the same thing, e.g. |notability-reference1=, ... |notability-reference5=. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Where would those be placed? Just trying to figure out what that would even look like (to me, seems like unnecessary clutter, but I've never been one of those THREE-type people). Primefac (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
One way to do it would be to make the user's list of references an AFC comment. This would have the added benefit that they could easily be added "by hand" later with or without access to the AFC tools.
I have two requests for features to add to the script, and would be interested in any comments from User:Enterprisey or anyone else.
First, if the reviewer enters a Comment, can the script either automatically copy the comment to the talk page of the submitter, as it does when declining a draft, or can it have a checkbox that copies the comment (as opposed merely to notifying the author of the comment)? There are cases where I do not want to accept or decline the draft but would like to be sure that the submitter, if active, sees it. An example would be a request to provide a reliable source verifying that the subject served as a senator in Alberta or held a commission as an admiral in the navy of Venezuela. If the source is provided, the reviewer can accept the article.
Second, when s draft is accepted, would it be possible to copy the AFC comments to the talk page, or to give the reviewer the option of copying them to the talk page? Sometimes they call for improvements to the article, and sometimes they call for improvements to another article (such as including the name of the subject of the article in a disambiguation list of people with the same name).
Robert McClenon, I am concerned that if we put a copy of comment text on the author's talk page, the author may respond to the comment on their talk page. I don't think that's what we want.
It would be helpful to retain the reviewer comments when an article is accepted.
In any changes in this area we should try to work towards encouraging reviewer-author communication on the draft's talk page, not at the top of the article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Kvng - Thank you for replying. So we mostly agree about moving the comments to the talk page.
Your point about not putting the comments on the user's talk page makes sense, but there are submitters who seem to ignore the comment that "You have comments". Maybe we, the reviewers, should assume that if the submitter doesn't respond to the comments, the draft isn't that important to them. I have also concluded that a few questions, in particular the question about whether the submitter has a conflict of interest, should be put on the submitter's talk page anyway, and that the reviewer should go to the submitter's talk page for the purpose. If the submitter then takes a ten-day wikibreak, nothing is gained or lost.
Communication between reviewer and submitter can be either on the talk page or at the top of the draft, as long as it gets saved/moved to the talk page if the article is accepted. At least that is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I have been requesting this for several years. I think the absence of this function is a major deficiency, leading to suggestions for improvement not being effectively called to the attention of the contributors. Robert McClenon, we need to make every reasonable effort to get possible articles improved. If some contributors have a tendency to not go back once their article is declined there is all the more reason to encourage as many as possible to do so by making it easier to see the comments. This is so important that at present, I often add this information manually; I could do more, if it were automatic.
In addition, for at least the last year, many of the comments have been prior to the first review, by reviewers and other editors who want to ask for preliminary improvements before a formal review. This is an excellent idea, permitting us to deal with defects in style format , and referencing, which impair the article, and make acceptance less likely, but would not really be cause for a formal decline.Some of the articles I review have benefited from this work . At this stage, the contributor will generally not have gone away, and will read the comments if they are called strongly enough to their attention. Putting the full comment on their usertalk page as wll as the article is the most effective way of doing this. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)`
I would appreciate any suggestions on what to do about an article that is a special case, which is Draft:Rio Monterroso Culvert and Rio Monterroso Culvert. The author has created it both in draft space and in article space. It was moved from article space into draft space by a reviewer, and then back into article space. The problem is that, on the one hand, it is very unready for article space, both for verifiability and for style, but, on the other hand, it does appear to be geographically notable. Normally when a page is in both article space and draft space, and not ready for article space, the solution is to nominate it for deletion. But the article does not need deleting. It needs cleanup, and it is not at the stage where it should be cleaned up in article space. It should be cleaned up in draft space, but the AFD would be likely to annoy editors who say that deletion is not cleanup. So the first question is what should I do. The second question is whether someone can explain the issues to the author in Spanish. (We may have an author who simply cannot read the feedback.)
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
If it's definitely notable and wouldn't be deleted, either fix it yourself or let the gnomes handle it. IAR and TNT only go so far towards improving articles; at a certain point someone needs to put in the work. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Primefac - What is shows is that you and I acted wisely by doing nothing. I was annoyed that the originator created the article in both draft space and article space, but that is only an annoyance. I wasn't sure whether to nominate the article for deletion because it looks on its face as if it may be notable. So we left it to other reviewers to decide whether it is notable. So to answer the question of what we know, sometimes we should know that with hundreds of editors, we can let other editors decide on notability.
I think that I will participate in the AFD, and will recommend either draftification or Soft Delete, because the article does not establish notability, but there are enough plausible statements made for notability that someone should be allowed to find sources without having to go through Deletion Review.
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
WikiProjects
If I Accept a draft, the script asks me for WikiProjects. I sometimes supply one, and I more often supply them using the {{rater}} thing. But there are hundreds of WikiProjects, and I don't know or claim to know or want to know all of them. I think that I don't have AutoPatrol or whatever it is called enabled, so that pages that I create go into the New Page queue as unreviewed, which is fine with me, because I am glad to have another editor look at the page. My question is whether either there are a group of editors who will perform the wikignoming function of assigning new articles to WikiProjects. I see that if I accept a stub, it is likely to get stub-sorted, so this is really a question about how the comparable sorting is done for Start-Class and C-class articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I have tried to touch on this question from time to time, and maybe other editors don't want to discuss it. We implemented the ability to Reject a submission, which is meant to be final. So my question is what should we tell a submitter to do if their submission has been rejected and they disagree or want to try again. If a rejection is to be a rejection, resubmission should not be routine, but if there is no further alternative available for the submitter, we are giving more power to one reviewer than we normally do. For comparison, an even more emphatic (and not uncommon) rejection of a submission is to tag it for G11, which requests that it be deleted, but there are two further steps. First, the draft (if a draft) waits for an administrator, and then the administrator decides whether the page is spam. Second, if the administrator agrees that the page should be deleted, the submitter has the right to appeal to Deletion Review. (I have seen deletion reviews of G11, and one possible action is to send the page to AFD.) So G11 isn't just one reviewer throwing a draft away, but one reviewer saying that a draft should be thrown away. So my question is whether there should be a step after a draft is rejected. In fact, an experienced editor can resubmit the draft; we just don't tell them how.
There are also abusive ways that a tendentious editor can resubmit a rejected draft, especially gaming the name by adding an initial or an occupation. That is dealt with by deleting and salting the title, and sometimes by blacklisting the title, and is also dealt with by blocking the editor and their socks. But those procedures are already in place, and that isn't my question.
My question has really two parts. First, what should a submitter be advised to do if their draft was rejected, and they disagree? There should be something that they can do other than gaming the name, although it should not be too easy. Second, what should reviewers do if an author asks in good faith what to do about a rejection? There should be something that can be done.
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
The case that has made me ask this question at length is Draft:WRBD, but I have been trying off-and-on to ask this question for months. Maybe I haven't clearly explained in the past why there needs to be some good-faith procedure beyond Rejection. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I think that we, the AFC review community, need to implement a policy or guideline concerning resubmission of rejected drafts. The main point of the guideline should be simply that resubmission of a draft that has been rejected is tendentious and thus is disruptive. We don't need to go into more detail about what sanction is used, because it is well established that disruptive editing is subject to sanctions. (Maybe one-third of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines amount to "Don't be disruptive" and another third amount to Don't be a jerk, which is another way of saying that, so that is two-thirds.) My questions here are, first, does anyone have a specific suggestion as to what policy or guideline this should be included in? What policy or guideline if any refers to rejection of drafts?
I have recently seen editors who submitted drafts that were rejected take two different approaches. The first has been to resubmit anyway. (I think that the script is supposed to prevent resubmission of a rejected draft, so telling how to resubmit a rejected draft is saying where the magic beans are kept.) The second is to try to discuss with a reviewer. I think that we should encourage discussion; we should encourage discussion of editing issues in general because this is a collaborative effort. I am not really sure what a resubmitter thinks is likely to happen when they resubmit a rejected draft anyway. Do they think that they will find another reviewer who doesn't read the history and just accepts it?
Your ideas are good for the vast majority of rejected drafts. However, there needs to be an appeals process for the rare case where a reviewer makes a mistake in judgement and the reviewer isn't around to listen to good-faith editors asking for reconsideration.
There also needs to be a process for allowing re-submissions when a WP:TOOSOON topic meets WP:Notability. Sometimes, crossing that threshold can happen "in an instant" such as when a not-fully-professional athlete gets "called up" to the fully professional leagues and plays in a fully-professional match, or a person is appointed to fill a vacancy for a high-level office. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Let us take an example. From 2019-10-07 to 2019-11-27, User:Chaekbeolle submitted 24 drafts to the AfC process. Nine of them were accepted (average delay= 80 days), 14 were rejected (average delay= 60 days) and one Draft:Bujangyangmullok (The Story of the Bu & Jang Families) was deleted by User:Liz. For the anecdote, an internet query using any variant of 부장양문록, i.e. "Bujangyangmu[ln][rl]ok" leads to a lot of academic research papers about this manuscript. One can even use this query to obtain the corresponding hanjas 傅張兩門錄, and make another query, which provides... guess what ?
But let us remain centered on the 14 rejected papers. Top and foremost, they were so worth being published in an English speaking Encyclopedia, that they have been published a great year ago at Literature Translation Institute of Korea. Moreover, they have been finally accepted and published here, at en:wp (after an average Purgatory period of 330 days). This has been done without any modification of the submitted drafts (except from the usual gnomish work of various bots).
And what is proposed to deal with such a failed process? User:Chaekbeolle should be branded as a disruptive jerk for, willing or not, putting AfC in disrepute. She even dared to resubmit one of her fucking drafts. Are you really proposing to oust her from here... and even to SALT her grave, to be sure? Pldx1 (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Pldx1 - Exactly who are you using profanity at, and what point are you trying to make? The point that you are making is simply that you are using profanity, and therefore are clearly angry about something. If, as it appears, you are cursing at the person whom you think was the victim of an injustice, then you are just using profanity in public. If you are suggesting that something be done, then what? If you are just angry, at whom? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Pldx1 - I see no evidence that any of the drafts were rejected. I do see that many of them were declined, but that is a different action, and I am specifically asking about rejection. If you think that they should not have been declined, that is a different question. If any of them were rejected, please say which ones. The one that was deleted was deleted as G13, an abandoned draft, where it appears that the G13 process was working. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon. You are saying I am angry, but I am not. There was a large set of people like User:Chaekbeolle, resulting into a very large set of articles about Korean Literature. Quite all of them were rejected under improbable reasons, even with obviously false ones. Try an English-Google search about Ku Jung-seo. The first item obtained is Ku Jung-seo. This article was submitted 2019-10-07. And the first ACK to this submission was an HasteurBoot message, 2020-03-08, saying In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. As a result, it seems that Chaekbeolle and others have abandoned any hope of a reasonable and timely answer. Am I angry to see you using this abandon as an argument? No, I am only surprised. Pldx1 (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon. You are asking if I am angry about the proposal you made at the beginning of this section. I would be if I was perceiving that as a voluntary move to silent the dissenters. But I am not. Once again, I am only saying that such a most probably involuntary coincidence of this proposal with the massive reappearence of all these rejected drafts could appear as amusing, and even bemusing. And can only drop a shadow on this proposal. Pldx1 (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, no, we can't automatically label an author WP:DISRUPTIVE because they had a draft rejected by a single reviewer and want someone else to take a look. Maybe we can after an appeals process as davidwr is suggesting but I don't support adding more process here. If we're so inclined, we can use WP:DISRUPTIVE to try to sanction authors who repeatedly resubmit after decline or reject without improvements or discussion. That option already exists at anyone's discretion but I personally haven't yet found an occasion where it's worth the effort to do. ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Kvng - You say that we should not label an author as disruptive because they have a draft rejected and want someone else to take a look. I am asking how they should ask that rather than just resubmitting it stupidly. You are saying that we should not label the author as disruptive, and I agree, but am saying that we should provide the author with an appeal process or some other reasonable way to request that second look rather than just banging and kicking. I think that we are mostly agreeing, not disagreeing. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Sidebar to Kvng: I have found cases where authors repeatedly resubmit after decline without improvements, where I would have taken it to ANI or a similar place but for the fact that they were blocked for other reasons first, most often because they turn out to be WP:SOCKpuppets, but sometimes for other reasons such as WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I think that you are combining two different matters that have very little in common. Your concern appears to be about the Korean drafts, and I think that we agree that there was a major failure. The Korean drafts were declined and not rejected; I agree that they were apparently mistakenly declined. The proposal that I made at the beginning of this section would not have changed the Korean drafts and has nothing to do with them. If you think that I was trying to label the authors of those drafts as disruptive, then you misread what I wrote.
Maybe you misunderstood what I was discussing and thought that it was about resubmission of declined drafts. It is about resubmission of rejected drafts, and the Korean drafts were not rejected. If you think that there has not been enough discussion of the failure of the Korean drafts, then maybe you are right, but this has nothing to do with rejected drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the Korean drafts are relevant to this discussion. The idea that you should not be able to resubmit a rejected draft presumes that editors doing the rejecting are correct 100% of the time. Editors have less than 100% accuracy (the Korean drafts establish that there is WAY LESS than 100% accuracy when declining), and this applies even to rejected drafts. I personally have seen rejected drafts that were suitable articles, but I don't recall offhand what they were. Both for rejections and declines, the idea that resubmitting without changes is disruptive/tendentious presupposes that the first reviewer's judgment is infallible. Which obviously isn't true. But there are plenty of declines/rejections on the basis that no changes have been made since the last submission. It may well be true that the first reviewer's judgment was correct, in which case that is a good basis for the decline -- but no changes since last submission as a basis for a decline/rejection means that all reviews are final -- which can't possibly be right. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Brahmin Gotras Article
Hi all! I have added a significant amount of new information to the Brahmin Gotras article and it was linked to this wiki project previously. I am not sure where to go to ask for it to be reassessed. I would like for a reassessment to be done. Kindly help me out. Thanking everyone in advanced. TheHumanEncyclopaedia (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Template names
Okay, so I'm going to be really esoteric here, but there was a page move for one of our templates made this morning that made me remember we have templates with all sorts of names and capitalizations; something in the neighbourhood of ~400 templates (including redirects and subpages) starting with either AFC, AfC, or afc. I'm more than happy to do all the gruntwork in standardising these (I've already got them all on my watchlist) but I wanted to get general opinions and thoughts before I did anything.
As far as where to place them, the one place I would prefer not to go is Template:AFC... because it is also used for the Asian Football Confederation templates amongst others. So I guess the question is, do we go with the "easy-to-type" afc, the "correct" AfC, or just leave everything as it is because no one except me cares, and we have redirects to cover all use cases anyway? Primefac (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Primefac, I support a standardised format as this would bring consistency in the titles so you can include me in the caring part haha. I think the "correct" AfC might be better even though it looks a bit strange, but if I had to choose between AFC and afc, I would prefer the capitalised format as it looks better and matches how you would pronounce it, saying it in the decapitalised form sounds odd (even though I pronounce AfC in capitalised form), but that's just my view on it anyway. Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Given the general apathy (i.e. "one response") I'll start moving all "Template:afc..." pages to "Template:AfC...", and likewise for relevant "Template:AFC..." pages. Being "correct" seems to be the preference (which I mostly agree with anyway) and there will be redirects left regardless. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Primefac, I support these changes. This sort of stuff can be done WPBOLDLY without discussion but at the risk that someone comes up with a clearly better suggestion and then it gets to be done all over again. ~Kvng (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@SD0001: it isn't fixed clearly. I yust tried hitting the submit button of Draft:The Old Normal yust for a test, and it produces #REDIRECT [[Template:AfC submission/Substdraft]]. Yust fixing the submit template is not sufficient, you also have to alter the code that produces the submit button. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
For that remark, you get a small pitchfork to eat your thank-you cake with. Template maintenance - it's sometimes a messy and error-prone job, but someone has to do it and the rest of us are grateful for people like you willing to step into the muck. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Heh, thanks. Okay, we should be good. These are all of the drafts which were an attempted-submit. I was going to mass-resubmit them when I removed the REDIRECT, but noticed that a good portion are garbage. Should I/we go through them and resubmit the ones that are worthwhile, or just trust that those submitting will try one more time? Primefac (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: IMO you should submit them for review and immedately decline them for the appropiate reasons. If you are capable, you can also manually fix all templates. Note that there appear to be more Templates affected, see the section immedately below this one. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
It was more than I strictly needed to do, but less than I was worried about. I went through and changed every template to only use the "AfC" calls (thereby avoiding all redirects, though clearly from below I missed a couple non-obvious ones), fixed all of the borked submissions, and found a few leftover places where the template calls could be cleaned up. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's broken, I'm not that knowledgeable about templates. Just looking at the recently created drafts awaiting review feed, it looks like the "Draft article not currently submitted for review" template is not being removed when the article is submitted, it also looks like this is confusing editors. For example, see Draft:Leonidas Anthopoulos, Draft:Inside the Green Room and Draft:Idina World Tour which were all submitted 3 times. Dylsss(talkcontribs)22:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I suggest, while we're at it, we change "How to improve your article" to "Improving the article". The template is protected so it will take an administrator to make this change. ~Kvng (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Fair point. To keep from editing this over and over, I'll leave for another 24 hours or so to see if folks have issue with that. Primefac (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
We either accept Azertus's point or we twiddle with words. The words are fine enough. The question is do we work to avoid a WP:OWN misconception or do we optimize for engaging the submitter. I think the WP:OWN risk is the more important issue, especially since we're working with new editors. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Question about G13s & bot edits
According to CSD G13 guidelines, "Any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months" are eligible for G13 status. In this past, this has meant that any edits done by bots could be disregarded and we dated the six month period from the time of the last human edit.
Right now, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions has drafts that had been edited by User:SDZeroBot to indicate that a draft moved from main space to draft space and they were then categorized into Category:All content moved from mainspace to draftspace. Were these drafts then supposed to bypass this "no bot edits count rule" and therefore are eligible for G13 status? If we are to ignore this guideline for this particular bot's action, then this should be more widely known. If this bot edit's are just like any bot's edits and don't count, well, I'm just asking you all to confirm this because I've been wondering about this since October when this bot started recategorizing drafts moved from main space. Pinging UnitedStatesian who is the most adept at spotting bot edits to drafts. Thanks for any clarification you all can provide. LizRead!Talk!21:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Liz: thanks for the ping: my understanding was, just like any other bot edit, the SDZeroBot edits were not supposed to reset the G13 clock, and that as long as a human had not edited the draft in six months, the bot edit was ignored and the draft was G13-eligible (of course, a human still has to FIND such drafts and tag them . . .). But awaiting other comments in case my understanding is incorrect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense, UnitedStatesian. I was skipping those stale drafts recategorized by SDZeroBot because I understood that AFC editors were interested in setting up these new categories for drafts that had been moved over from main space, probably so these drafts would get some extra attention and consideration. But it is a bot edit and probably should be treated the same as those by other bots. I hope to get some feedback here over the next couple of days. LizRead!Talk!00:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I really, sincerely, don't mean to sound like an arse here, but this has already been discussed multiple times; the bot is a bot and so there is no reason to treat it any differently; it removed all of the pages from the automatic categorization but that's a technical limitation and one we've already gone in circles about (including blocking the bot unnecessarily).
In other words, if it's been six months without a human edit, it's G13-eligible, regardless of whether a bot has edited it in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Example 1. Draft:Bujangyangmullok that has been G13 deleted due to a robotic rejection, followed by the usual "wait six months and brand as unworthy". Despite the fact that the smallest diligence provides a not so small set of academic sources about this article. Example 2. Ku Jung-seo was submitted 2019-10-07, but had to wait 2020-03-08 for an ACK by someone at AfC. The non sleeping one was HasteurBoot. You robot, you are the best ! Pldx1 (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Um... your second example was submitted 12 September 2020 and reviewed on 1 Oct. If you're going to try and point blame at someone (which I don't even see what your point is) you might as well use the right information. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Dear User:Primefac. Submission of Ku_Jung-seo was 2019-10-07, while the first ACK by AfC project was 2020-03-08 by HasteurBoot. This doesn't diminish the merits of User:Calliopejen1, but this is another story. I have provided these two examples in order to help the present discussion about the G13-process. As you have already pointed to, using the right information can help. If you want to add a comment about Draft:Bujangyangmullok, you are welcome. Pldx1 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
To reviewers: sorry if this is an amateur question, but if there's a submission that clearly meets the notability threshold but misses the threshold for writing quality - do we reject it or accept it and place maintenance tags on it? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If it's clearly notable, accept it and add maintenance tags - the gnomes can handle the rest. Of course, if there are "easy" fixes like reference formatting, headers, etc, you could always do those yourself. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Clearly notable being the operative word here - the thing to avoid is a trip to AFD. Also make sure it's not a WP:Blow it up and start over submission before moving it. If you aren't nearly 100% sure it will survive AFD with at least a "no consensus to delete," 1) put an AFC comment on it to reset the 6-month countdown and notify the author, and 2) if you think it might be an abandoned draft and don't have time to fix it up yourself, consider recruiting help on the appropriate WikiProject's talk page or from other AFC reviewers. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Davidwr, accptance criteria is likely not clearly. Reviewers need only be 50% confident. Having an accepted draft taken to AfD for a notability discussion does not mean you're doing it wrong. ~Kvng (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that's really not good advice davidwr. If you don't understand our reviewing instructions, please don't confuse others. Primefac (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kohlrabi Pickle. Try fixing some things on your own and see if the subject meets the notability criteria. If the content is fine, and not anything like essay or related; it is fine to accept it. Add copy-editing curation tags. Done. Leave it to others. ─ The Aafī on Mobile(talk)20:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Twitter just dropped their guidelines to be verified (get that sweet, sweet, blue check) and it is going to hit AfC hard. Having a Wikipedia bio with 3 references is enough to be verified under some conditions.
In response to current events, we may verify accounts meeting only criteria from Column B due to their expertise or public role in matters of high public interest, as well as their susceptibility to impersonation. For example:
medical professionals during epidemics or other public health crises;
activists and local political leaders in times of protest or in connection with a significant cultural event;
public safety and journalist accounts reporting on natural disasters; or
organizers, proponents, or founders of campaigns in support of civil or human rights.
User:Guerillero - I don't use Twitter. Does the blue check mark indicate that someone is an authoritative or trusted Tweeter? Does Column B include being the subject of an article in Wikipedia? If so, as you said, it will increase efforts by paid editors to get articles into Wikipedia. This will increase the load both on AFC and on AFD. I know that the crud will include BLPs. Does this also involve corporate articles? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually, their requirements are not all that different from ours: For te moment, see their [https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/about-twitter-verified-accounts page about the system, "Important: Please note that our verified account program is currently on hold. We are not accepting any new requests at this time, however we plan to make it possible to apply for a verified badge starting in 2021. You’ll find more information on that in our FAQ article, and you can read more about our new approach to verification on our blog.
Their standards, as listed on that p., only include WP as one among many possible factors, and show an approach to notability, which I consider to be (within their scope) at least as good as ours'. For them., see also [13]. and ,Looking in more detail at [14]:
for officials, Accounts of key government officials and offices, including heads of state, elected officials, appointed ministers, institutional entities, ambassadors, and official spokespeople. Official candidates for state- or national-level public office may also be verified in certain countries, where available resources allow us to do so fairly and equitably. That amounts to ours, plus the often-debated addition of the candidates,
for companies and organizations, it's a little broader than ours, but not all that much so. Our application of the criteria in this field is deliberately very narrow at WP:CORP, in order to keep out COI editing, and won very strong support as our best defense against paid editing in that field. Twitter of course doesn't care about that, and isn't intended to be NPOV.
News is much broader than ours, but it has a different purpose,and seems reasonable for their needs.
Entertainment organization ditto; entertainment performers, in practice should come out only a little broader than ours' in most fields.
Sports seems about the same as ours'
Activists has a completely different purpose: they want advocacy, which is reasonable for them but not for us, and even so their criteria for content are reasonable.
I patrol new page creations by new users and occasionally I come across content on a User page that appears meant to be an article (or an attempt at one). Recently, I have been moving them to the User's sandbox and adding the Userspace draft template. However, I have noticed other editors moving sandbox pages to Draft noting it is the preferred name space for AfC. Should I moving to these Draft rather than their sandbox? S0091 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey S0091, it depends if your talking about submitted ones. If its just a article they are working on in there main user page then their sandbox is fine, but if submitted then draft is preferred. Saying that though I stopped doing any move that leaves a redirect as you then end up as the creator if they do the same again. Which is double bad, as I don't want to be credited with crap creations, and many very much care about being the 'creator' so they can be discouraged. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@KylieTastic: thanks for the rely. These are not yet submitted. I do not quite follow the redirect issue. I go back and delete the redirect from their User page. Are you saying if they create something on the their User page again it is attributed to me? Or if their User page is moved again it ends up attributed to me? I certainly do not want something in my name I did not create, good, bad or indifferent. Eeks! S0091 (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@S0091: The normal thing is if you move a submitted page from a users sandbox to draft, leaving a redirect (as you as the creator), then if they do the same again and write in their sandbox and submit you would be the creator. If you "go back and delete the redirect" (I assume you mean you G7 it) then it is not an issue. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@KylieTastic: Oh I see. I am referring to moving from their main User page to their sandbox which does leave a redirect on their User page and I have simply been deleting the redirect (ex. [15], not G7). If I am following, I should request G7 regardless if moving from main User page, sandbox to draft, etc. I was hesitant to do that with someone's main User page. This is all good information, Kylietastic. S0091 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@S0091: yes I have always been dubious of doing a G7 on a users area, seems like it could confuse the user, and I'm not sure it admins would have issues with it. It would be better if the software ignored the first edit it the page was blank or just a redirect, that could be submitted as an idea but I doubt would be a high priority. I just stopped moving things, and leave it to those who either don't care or have Wikipedia:Page mover perm. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it depends on the quality. If it's clearly an article about them, U5 it. If it's not absolutely terrible (or worthy of G11) I'd move it to Draft. If it's still very rough ship it to the userspace as you describe. Basically, there is no "right" or "wrong" way of dealing with it.
As a note regarding redirects; I personally wouldn't worry about them. Anyone doing any serious digging into your page creations will see that you made one edit that was the creation of a redirect and nothing else. If it's really a concern, find a page mover or admin to suppress the creation of a redirect upon moving. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
December with Women in Red
Women in Red| December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183
Robert McClenon declines of drafts re: future films
Robert McClenon declined Draft:North of Albany as he has done other drafts of films that have started filming. This has happened several times already, despite Robert's self-admitted failure to comprehend WP:NFF and WP:GNG. While he has brought it up on WT:NF, he has not engaged further. As evidence of his misunderstanding of the guidelines, he supported deletion of Dear Evan Hansen (film) as seen here, yet it was snowball-kept. The editor's attempt to delete The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent was also a failure. A discussion can be seen at WT:NF#Future Film Comments where for some reason he created a new subsection after I already replied to him. He did not reply to me in his new subsection either. This editor should step away from drafts about films undergoing filming. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)21:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Film Notability Dispute
There are at least two parts to this dispute, a content and policy part and a conduct part. The first part is about content, and is issues about the notability of films, in particular unreleased films which are in production (principal photography or animation) or have completed production, but have not been released yet. The cause of the dispute is, in my opinion, an ambiguously worded portion of a notability guideline, in particular the guideline on unreleased films. I have been trying to have that guideline clarified. Perhaps I have not been making enough of an effort, but I seem to be one of the few editors, maybe the only editor, who thinks that the issue is due to an unclear guideline. Other editors find the guideline clear, and simply want it followed, but there are two different interpretations of the guideline. (That is, some editors think that the guideline says one thing, and some editors think that it says another thing, and very few editors seem to realize that this indicates that something is wrong.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The second of the dispute is the personal attack by User:Erik in labeling the dispute as misconduct. Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia for a reason, to permit content to be discussed in a civil manner, even when editors disagree, which they do.
I think that the guideline on film notability needs to be discussed, and either clarified or reworded. In order to do that, we first have to recognize that there is a policy dispute, and to agree to be civil and refrain from personal attacks. We also need to decide what is the proper forum for this discussion.
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack. I'm sure you are a good person. I take issue with the continued conduct regarding drafts of future films. If there is confusion about the future film guidelines, then there should not be involvement with drafts about future films and declining drafts applying a particular take on the guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)18:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Erik - Perhaps you need to think about how you would read a post if it were about you. How would you react if I referred to misconduct by User:Erik? Your statement that it was not a personal attack is not even a non-apology apology, and I still do think that it was worded personally. If you only meant that we had a content dispute about the film notability, you should have stated that there was an issue about the interpretation of the guideline, which there is. Do not accuse another editor of misconduct unless you are accusing them of misconduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, if I was accused of misconduct, I would explain my actions and actively engage in discussion. You have not commented at WT:NF since November 4th. Instead, you've found time to decline drafts of notable topics applying your unsupported interpretation, even when the consensus has been against you. Can you please explain why you have not commented, and why you have continued to decline drafts when you had to ask for clarity about the guidelines? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Let me try again. I've been frustrated about the reasoning for the declines, and I apologize to you for making it a personal matter. I would like to see further discussion at WT:NF about the guidelines, where some other editors have commented. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)23:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of how this notability dispute is resolved, I don't think it is good form for any reviewer to decline a draft again just a couple weeks after it was resubmitted. Please give our authors the opportunity to get a second opinion. We all make mistakes. ~Kvng (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, I agree here. I'll admit I don't always live up to this, but my general philosophy is to not get too involved in any particular page, user, incident, etc. Backing off and letting somebody else handle the next step reduces the chance that I'm acting on tunnel vision. -- RoySmith(talk)02:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
It will probably be obvious within the next hundred edits if he's a "natural-born Wikipedian," a "special purpose account," or just someone who got lucky. If he's the former, I hope he joins us when he is eligible. If he's the latter, I hope he's already here under his main account. If he got lucky, I hope he decides to stick around. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Davidwr: there has been at least one IP editor maybe more that have been submitting rugby union player profiles this year - so it could be one of those. For privacy reasons peeps that swap from IP for account may choose not to indicate they have done so. On the other foot, this submission is better than most of the rugby union player profiles I had to tidy before approving, so maybe not the IPs I'm thinking of. Hopefully just a good new addition. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Either way, it's a breath of fresh air to have something about a clearly notable person written well enough to be accepted without de-spamification or having to hunt down references to make WP:N obvious. Compare to Draft:Pooyan Parsa which I nearly rejected out of hand a few minutes ago. I only "declined" because it's possible it's a case of a fan-boy of someone notable who isn't good at demonstrating the subject's notability. Very unlikely, but possible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree it is so nice to see any easy accepts when the general standard is so very bad. The pinnacle for me was finding a first submission (admittedly not done in two edits) that was both an easy accept and a C-Class article, and almost a B. We have to keep a mental hold of these gems while shovelling the endless shite. I just wish there was more gems and less effluent. KylieTastic (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
You set your sights too low my friend, the real goal is higher still, and that's just a stepping stone to being this and this within a week of the first edit (preferably the next day, but let's not push our new editors too hard). Hey, a man can dream, can't he? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Davidwr - Not every single-purpose account is any kind of a sock. Most SPAs edit under one account only, and there is nothing wrong with being an SPA, assuming that one follows Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as civility and neutral point of view. However, a likely explanation for an account that immediately starts doing excellent editing without going through a learning period is that they had been editing for a long time as an unregistered editor, possibly with shifting IP addresses, so that they were not previously recognized as a single human who was learning Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am getting entries from chemical dictionaries that have no articles. These chemicals were important in first half of 20th century. Anyone is welcome to make pages off that list. Bismuth tetroxide is one with a high number of incoming links. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I haven't had much experience with the AfC process other than leaving comments on drafts occasionally, so I wanted to sound people out about the correct procedure. I noticed Draft:Paul Busch (physicist) in a new-article bot report a while back and did some work to make the WP:PROF pass clear and address the reviewer's stated concern (one section was unreferenced). It seems like it would be frowned upon to promote it to mainspace myself, since I'm not officially a reviewer. Am I right on that? XOR'easter (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
User:XOR'easter - I would rather have an article moved to mainspace by a neutral editor who isn't a reviewer than by a non-neutral editr. You can become a reviewer for the occasional need for it. Anyway, if the subject clearly passes academic notability, my thinking is to accept it, and let it be improved in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
XOR'easter technically there is no reason you cannot or should not move to main-space yourself if your happy it's notable. However why not sign up and join, even if you only do the odd review they all help. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
On a more serious note, 2 years might be on the outside edge of where WP:BLP applies, probably depending on the context and the ability of false information to cause reputational harm to the deceased and those associated with him. I would argue that for very serious allegations, like felony crimes or high-level professional misconduct that could damage the reputation of institutions affiliated with this person, the "time after death" before BLP no longer applies extends well beyond 2 years. Minor things that are little consequence if we get them wrong probably cease being BLP issues within a few weeks of the person's death. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Draft has been accepted, thanks for the work on that. For the record, there is nothing prohibiting a user from moving a draft to the article space if they feel it is acceptable; we encourage folks to go through AfC for that "independent review" mentioned above, but remember we're more designed to be the floodgates keeping the worst of the drafts out of the article space. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I will add that, after a draft has been submitted to AFC for review, if it is moved to article space by a simple Move command, then there is a template left on it that needs to be removed. That template populates a category, so that it is likely to be reviewed. If the draft is accepted, then the Accept script not only moves it but does certain useful cleanup on the templates. So if you are planning to act as a neutral reviewer and move a draft to article space, it is helpful to install and use the script. In this case, I had confidence in the judgment of the neutral reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
"Bob, I think the alternative to using the script is to follow all the manual steps to do the necessary cleanup, not leave them undone-- the directions are still at [[16]] I i remember when manual was the only way, and in consequence I rarely worked at AfC because it was too tedious. Much as the AfCH script needs improvements, it's a lot better than manual. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
On thinking about the discussion about rejection of drafts, I thought that there were actually three questions that the reviewers and the community should address. I think that I can break it down into at least six questions:
1. How should the reviewers and the community deal with tendentious resubmission of rejected drafts? (This was my original question.)
2. How should the reviewers and the community identify resubmission of a rejected draft as tendentious?
3. How can authors appeal from or discuss a rejection with the reviewers or the community?
4. How should the reviewers and the community deal with tendentious resubmission of declined drafts?
5. How should authors and the community identify resubmission of a declined draft as tendentious?
6. How can authors appeal from or discuss a decline with the reviewers and the community?
I still don't think that the issue of the Korean drafts has anything to do with the question that I was trying to raise. Perhaps my detailed breakdown will illustrate that they are unrelated.
To the best of my knowledge, none of the Korean drafts were rejected. Some of them were deleted as G13 because the authors became discouraged. I still respectfully disagree with User:Pldx1 and User:Calliopejen1 if they are saying that there is a connection between the Korean drafts and my question about resubmission of rejected drafts. Are they saying that we should not sanction tendentious resubmission of rejected drafts when we have issues about whether drafts should be declined?
As to question 2, I think that resubmission of a rejected draft is tendentious if the author simply resubmits it rather than discussing it. I think that tendentiously resubmitted rejected drafts should be nominated for deletion, and that a partial block or topic-ban may be in order.
I don't have an answer to how to appeal rejections, but they should be discussed, not simply resubmitted.
The resubmission of a declined draft is tendentious if it is done quickly without addressing the comments of the reviewers, and without discussion, either in AFC comments, or on the draft talk page, or on a user talk page. Tendentious resubmission of declined drafts is what rejection is for. Occasionally I see a draft that is resubmitted unchanged, almost immediately after it was declined, without any discussion with the reviewers. I see that as insulting to the reviewers, apparently thinking that the second reviewer will not notice that there was a previous review.
The problem with the Korean drafts has at least two parts, neither of which has to do with rejected drafts. The first problem is that at least some of the drafts should have been either accepted, or left for other reviewers. The second problem is that the declined drafts were not discussed, possibly because there is no explanation of how to discuss declined drafts.
I still think that there are two unrelated problems, each of which can be addressed without addressing the other one.
I'm annoyed at the drafts that are constantly resubmitted with no fixes, even when there are prior comments from reviewers that are clear on how to fix the issues. I don't know about blocks, but I think that those drafts should just be deleted. Those drafts certainly don't help the backlog either. SL93 (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
User:SL93 - I agree that too many drafts are resubmitted without addressing reviewer comments. I think that they should be rejected. That is why we have the ability to reject drafts. I don't usually think that it is necessary to delete those drafts until they have been rejected, unless there is some conduct issue (which there often is). Those drafts often come from editors who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia in a slightly different sense than trolls, flamers, vandals, or POV-pushers. There are editors who are not here to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Usually they eventually get tired of being ignored and go away, but they waste volunteer time. I think that we agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
There is too wide a variation between the apparent criteria different reviewers use for rejection to make a general rule. We cannot assume that newcomers know our practices, especially when our practices vary. I treat "rejected" as meaning nothing more than a very strong decline. I will not use rejected for a single unimproved resubmission. It's not totally unreasonable for a submitter to think that the first review was an error. In many cases I will decline adding an additional reason--typically the first reviewer commentsonly on notability , and I think promotionalism is the equal problem. A second review of that sort often convinces people. And on occasion I have accepted unchanged resubmissions if I think they should have been accepted in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Archive for a decade?
I am still reviewing some Korean literature drafts from last year, and in the case of Draft:Kim Kyoungin I think this is a classic WP:TOOSOON, but it would be a waste to delete it. Maybe we should have a category for 'archive now and review again in a decade'? Well, it would still need expansion but it is possible better sources will be available then, and if we delete this draft the new article needs to be written from scratch... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Fixed. Primefac (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Done. Primefac (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey, a man can dream, can't he? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)