Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Second opinion on a draft that I accepted?

I'm a new AfC reviewer so I'm trying to take it slow, but I'd like to make sure that I'm on the right track if anyone wants to give me advice. I feel a bit unsure a draft I accepted that's now at David Hervey Maxwell. I think that the article would survive AfD because he seems to be part of a legislative body for Indiana (WP:NPOL), but the sourcing isn't as ideal as it could be. I'm thinking that maybe a tag like refimprove might be useful? But I don't want to be discouraging, either, especially since I'm not completely certain that this is what I should be doing. Input would be appreciated. So far the drafts I've declined have been blatant G11s and one that was quite possibly an autobiography. So I'm still getting the hang of some of the more nuanced situations, I guess. I think that's something that will probably improve with time, but I wanted to make sure I'm actually on the right track here. Easier to fix a misunderstanding sooner rather than later, y'know? Clovermoss (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hey Clovermoss definitely notable and as you did not patrol (auto or manually) you can be sure NPP will review and tag if needed and give you that second opinion. In fact it has already been patrolled. I would not tag "refimprove" because although they can be improved it is not that bad and tagging does make it uglier and less reader friendly. Tags often don't get people to actually improve the issue so I tend to use them to signify to the reader that there may be issues. Adding inline tags such as and are much less intrusive and clearer to the reader and writers what exactly the concerns are. In short - good accept and no need to worry :) Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'd say don't be afraid to apply maintenance tags if you feel they're appropriate, it shouldn't be a thing that editors take personally, a maintenance tag is a pretty minor thing. Speaking specifically about this article, it has 24 sources so refimprove is not really the right tag here, in my opinion refimprove is usually for an article with like 2 sources and a bunch of uncited text. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Clovermoss Good of you to leave gentle explanatory comments in the edit summaries! -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks KylieTastic. Yeah, I did use an unreliable source tag for one source specifically. Also how AfC is mainly meant as a "will this survive a deletion discussion?" I didn't refimprove felt exactly right either, but some of the sources seemed like like they could be better so I wasn't sure if it might be revelant. I guess something that mainly came up to me was "is perfect the enemy of good" y'know?

@Novem Linguae: I do care a bit more about nuance in regards to NPP because I've been involved in NPP school and want to eventually be a new page patroller, so I guess that kind of thing is more on my mind. But I'm aware that the processes are different, yet similar in certain aspects.

Thanks for noticing my gentle explanatory comments asilvering. I wanted to be encouraging because I really do think they did well for the most part in figuring stuff out. I didn't want to focus on a few things that I would've done differently if that would detract from what was overall a really positive contribution. Clovermoss (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Putting my NPP hat on... The NPP flowchart has a step for applying maintenance tags. Completely routine and unproblematic, in my opinion. The step was recently made optional to reduce NPP workload, but a full review does include applying the top couple maintenance tags that are relevant to the article. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Novem Linguae! I haven't quite got to the flowchart yet, but I'm aware that it exists. Right now I'm more in the CSD part with G11s/G12s. Since we're on the topic of second opinions, do you think Draft:Catherine M. Klapperich passes WP:NSCHOLAR? I wanted to accept it because I thought the subject likely did pass that SNG, but another AfC reviewer already declined it so I'm hesistant. Especially since I'm not exactly super confident in my ability to contextualize everything. I feel like I understand how things like notability work in theory but it's more complicated when I'm actually trying to judge it on a case by case basis. I'm assuming that's a fairly normal experience, though? Actually trying to do these things and getting answers on the gaps of my knowledge seems like the best way of patching up those gaps. Clovermoss (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

With an h-index of 37, that one is probably a WP:NPROF #1 notability pass (my personal rule is h-index over 20). However after getting one of my professor accepts G11'd, I now personally only accept it if it has no other issues. These professor articles often have pretty meh citations, i.e university website staff bios, references to own papers, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Okay, thanks for the reply. What about criteria #2? Do the honours listed count towards that in your opinion or are those awards not really significant enough? Clovermoss (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any #2 passes from a quick glance. Those fellowships might be a #3 pass though. But anyway, passes #1 so we don't need to spend too much bandwidth on the rest of the NPROF criteria. Focus should switch to evaluating sourcing. I leave that in your capable hands :) And if you are unsure, leave it in the queue and watchlist it and see how a more experienced reviewer handles it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I'm unsure, so I'm going to leave it on my watchlist. So far the best source seems to be a blog but that might be reliable than it sounds because it appears to be affiliated with Nature (journal). There's one about a visit from White House staff to a COVID-19 project she headed, but it's very brief and doesn't go into much detail. It's also a primary source because she works at Boston University. The other source is from GenomeWeb which I'm uncertain about how useful it might be as a source (but the notability tag we have on the article isn't a good sign even if that's not conclusive evidence of its worthiness as a source). Anyways, ideally there'd be more sources (3 reliable independant ones that discuss her in depth), but I think it's likely that they exist since it seems like she's important in her field. Maybe I could look into improving the draft myself sometime if that's what I think. But as is, I wouldn't accept the draft just based off the sources. I was mainly wondering if WP:PROF as a SNG might overrule that aspect. But there's also the whole BLP aspect, so citations are important for that reason, too. Overall, my judgement is just to watchlist the draft and maybe improve it myself. Thoughts on my line of thinking? Clovermoss (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe SNGs do overrule the 3 GNG sources rule, but would be nice to have at least 1 good quality source for an SNG pass. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Yeah, ideally. I did change my mind about accepting the draft after I heard the original reviewer on the talk page that they would've accepted it themselves if they had known she was a fellow (which wasn't in the version of the draft they declined). I'll look into better sources myself but I have to do stuff like wash dishes and eat dinner :) Clovermoss (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe only WP:NPROF supersedes GNG at this point. All others defer with WP:NCORP being the other exception as it has stricter requirements. Slywriter (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The most commonly seen circumstances which can be in lieu of GNG are NPROF, NPOL, and (usually) WP:NGEO. WP:NCORP is usually much more finicky due to the nature of the content. Curbon7 (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The three culture criteria (NFILM, NBOOKS, and NMUSIC) have strict enough requirements that generally an article that meets those will pass GNG regardless, but in the case they don't meet GNG, they exist for that reason; this is cause anything that meets the strict culture guidelines is probably notable enough to be encyclopedic, even if specific coverage may be lacking. Of course, this is more on a case-by-case basis than the 3 criteria from above. Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Forgot NPOL. Music, Films and Books that have only 2 reviews but merit an article are rare, though I can think of at least one AfD that a movie survived on 2 reviews and nothing else. Those who win awards and have no reliable coverage are exceedingly rare, though for non-English publications, this is certainly possible. However, those three do have language of "may" or assume GNG met. For GEO, yeah I just leave those alone :) Slywriter (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

And don't forget that creatives with multiple notable works count as well without significant biographical coverage - authors, etc. Though that's not exactly a GNG exception so much as it is an exception to "notability is not inherited". -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Template:Awards table sorting - no idea

Can't work out what to do with this one. Well above my abilities even to know whether it is required! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave whether it is required to the gnomes; it's a valid template which has a reasonable use-case, so I've accepted. Primefac (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I was even having trouble working out what it did and when and how it was deployed! The examples given didn't appear to use it! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Sorry for the confusion. Seems the documentation wasn't adequate. Added a simple toy example at Template:Awards table sorting/doc that compares resulting output with and without use of the template. Does that help make the template's purpose sufficiently clear? – 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat better, thank you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Allan Kornblum (publisher)

This article needs some assistance to meet wikipedia's style norms, but the subject is clearly notable. I can't accept it myself because there's a redirect in the way. If someone wants to pitch in to improve it, or has the user rights to accept it over the redirect, that would be appreciated! -- asilvering (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Howdy. There's a couple ways to handle this. One is to place a {{Db-afc-move}} tag at the page that's holding up the accept (I went ahead and did this for you). Another way is to file a WP:RM/TR. The first way is cleaner but requires you to keep an eye on it and come back to it when it's deleted. The second way should be automatic, an admin would do the move for you, but it would just be a regular page move, and things like the WikiProject AFC banner would not be applied to the talk page. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I didn't realize there was a special speedy delete for AfC (or I knew once and then forgot). Is there anything wrong with using the regular G6:Move option from Twinkle to do this? -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

mostly the afc tag lets us ensure the AfC accept and clean up scripts get run. Otherwise, that has to be done manually and the banner is not added if done as a straight admin move. Slywriter (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Asilvering there used to be no issue with just using G6 but then we had an admin (maybe more) that kept declining if the draft was not ready to go for them to move it (all AfC tags removed etc). Even though it was explained multiple times that AfC just want the redirect removed so we can use the script to accept that will not only clean up the article but tag its talk page, notify the submitted and list at WP:AfC/recent etc. So {{Db-afc-move}} was created to get around this problem. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Huh boy. Thanks for explaining! -- asilvering (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I am doing the second way manually (to the extent of updating the talk banner and /recent) for the drafts that I encounter having this issue. Had also file a Github issue [1] to account for reviewers with the pagemover right. – robertsky (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Help desk reply function

At the help desk, a new thread often starts with links to the user and the draft, then comes their signature, and finally their question. This means that if you want to reply using the new talk page reply tool, it inserts your reply between their signature and the question, pushing the question further down, which doesn't make any sense to me. I then have to manually re-order the thread, or avoid this in the first place by editing the wikitext the old-fashioned way (which isn't a problem, but just seems a pity). Is this a 'feature' of the help desk or the talk page reply tool, and could it be fixed? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Because people cannot read directions, and despite making Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/preload as painfully obvious as possible to tell them to put their question in a specific place, NO ONE DOES. If anyone has suggestion for how to make it even more explicit, I am all ears. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This looks like a complicated workflow for a beginner. Perhaps the link to that page could be replaced with something like that Javascript-based tool that SD0001 made. Having trouble finding the link but I think the tool I'm thinking of is a Javascript-powered form that is an alternative to the article wizard. Information is collected and then the Wikicode is invisibly assembled for the new user. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I re-threaded you since it's somewhat a reply to my post, but if you'd rather it be a standalone feel free to move it (and this) back. I do realise it's both very specific and also very crowded, which is why I was soliciting opinions on how to improve it. I do agree that a tool like the new Wizard will help, but we should always have a backup available. At the very least, I can see that getting rid of the ALLCAPS would help for readability. Maybe we should model it off of the BRFA inputs, where things are asked more of a call/response question/answer; they could still be {{void}}ed out, but if it was something like {{void|What is your draft?}} it might make it a bit easier to parse. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae I think the JS-based tool you mention is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question?withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js. It uses MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js but I seem to recall there's some bug in it (I forgot what) because of which it has not replaced the preload (which newbies probably find too confusing due to the excessive syntax). Let me know if you find the issue (it should be easily fixable)! – SD0001 (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I suppose that you have done a couple of AfCs so far and I bet that you have got a feeling for who the "average submitter" is. Do you believe that the average submitter is able to comprehend instructions in English, and format a question at the help desk properly? I hope this answers your question. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello WikiProject Articles for creation,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 11961 articles, as of 16:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent influx of problematic articles on Arabian language novels

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Recent influx of problematic articles on Arabian language novels. The issue is described far better there than I can in a few words here. However I will make the attempt:

• Edit summaries tagged #KMUOS - a project led by an uncommunicative instructor, with uncommunicative students.
• A vast quantity of new articles which are or appear to be unattributed translations, see from the Arabic Wikipedia, others form elsewhere. Potential Copyvios (opinions vary)
• A move to Draftify, but concern that an AFC reviewer might unknowingly exacerbate the problem (Potential copyvios)
• Consideration of attention getting preventative blocks on individual editors

My apologies is this summary is incomplete or at variance with some of the views expressed at ANI. I have created it with good will. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

template:Rename detect

FYI, an WPAFC helper template {{Rename detect}} has been nominated for deletion -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in July 2022

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235 Online events: New: Alphabet Run: A to B | Baltic States Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green's Good Article Editathon: July 2022 – Women and the Environment Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

AFCH to also welcome newbies

Tracked in github.com
Issue #45

I think it would be more helpful to them that they also get a few helpful links along with the Teahouse link on their talk page. I manually welcome them as of now. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 06:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means — you want the helper script to welcome newbies, as in post a welcome message on the user's talk page? If so, under what conditions? Or when a draft is declined (etc.), the decline message should have a welcome note in it?

Most new users get a welcome on their talk page, don't they? And the Teahouse always welcomes them. Is that not enough? (Or have I caught the wrong end of this particular stick?) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Could have AFCH, when detecting a blank user talk page and also wanting to post the normal AFCH messages, add a {{Welcome}} to the top of the talk page. In fact there's already a ticket for this: #45. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I hope that's an option? Many editors have there own preference for which welcome(s) to use - I generally use {{welcome-graphical}} and {{welcomeauto}} most. Also if I'm going to report a user name violation or its an attack page I don't welcome as it makes no sense. KylieTastic (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This might be why we haven't gotten this implemented; it's one thing to send a generic Teahouse invite, but there are just so many Welcome templates - do we offer a dropdown menu, force the user to use a single welcome, allow for custom welcome template usage? Each option has its positives and negatives, and the more complex our output the more complicated the programming becomes. I'm obviously not saying that it can't be done, but rather that we should figure out the ideal outcome before someone spends time and effort programming it. Primefac (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I think including some helpful links in the Teahouse message itself can help here. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 08:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, attack pages and gross violations of username policy are dealt with Twinkle, not AFCH. The milder violations, like promotional contents/usernames are often those who don't know such policies exist here. Considering WP:DNB, I think there is no harm in providing them links to these policies. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 09:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn't be hard at all to add a checkbox for that, though at some point the interface will get kind of cluttered. If there's consensus for it I'm happy to do it when my other changes get merged, I didn't want to make too many new changes without feedback and they've been waiting for a couple months now. Rusalkii (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft MCU episode discussion

Relevant discussion about moving drafts and working on them in userspace etc in progress at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_task_force#MCU_episode_and_character_drafts Thanks, Indagate (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Query

Hello, AFC crew,

This matter is probably discussed somewhere in the 17 years' worth of talk page archives here but I was wondering if there was any rule about an AFC reviewer reviewing drafts that they either wrote or they sumitted. Last month (long enough ago that I don't remember who the AFC reviewer was), I came across a User talk page full of AFC approval notices signed by the editor themselves, thanking themselves for their approved drafts. So, they at least submitted the drafts and perhaps they wrote the drafts themselves.

Is this considered a conflict-of-interest or is it just busines as usual at AFC? It looked odd for an editor to get congratulatory messages from themselves on their talk page about drafts that had been approved for main space but maybe this is not uncommon. Please let me know as I'm now curious. And my apologies in advance if this is a frequently discussed subject. Many thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Howdy! There are a couple ways for an AFC reviewer to accidentally be targeted for messages by the AFCH script. One of them is AFCReviewer moving a draft in NewUser's sandbox to draftspace, then NewUser makes draft 2 in the sandbox (over the redirect), then AFCReviewer will show as the creator. So that's one scenario.

Speaking more generally, I don't think there's a rule against reviewing one's own drafts because it never comes up. Anybody that knows how to AFC review also knows how to move their own pages into mainspace or create mainspace pages. Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, draftspace is optional. If there is actually someone creating a bunch of their own drafts then approving them, I'd say this is not a good look for AFC and perhaps we should ask them to stop.

Got any diffs? This is kind of hypothetical until we get diffs :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, there is generally not an issue with reviewer approving their own drafts. Also, some reviewers improve existing drafts created by someone else and find it easier to submit it then approve it themselves as the AfC script does some cleanup along with other things. Its really only an issue if they are accepting subpar articles or something like that but that would be the case regardless. S0091 (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This is all helpful information as I'm really not familiar with the AFC script and how it works. You're right, I'm not sure why an AFC reviewer would submit drafts, approve them and post notices to themselves instead of just moving them to main space! It now seems silly unless they like to have complimentary messages about their work on their User talk pages. But I'm not going to go through a month's worth of my Contributions (most of which are motices to User talk space) to track this down further to find a comment I made to them since it seems more like a personal quirk than a problematic conflict of interest. Thanks for your patient explanations! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The acceptance notice is part of the AfC script and as far as I know not an option. The editors are not "purposefully" posting it their talk page like you do with most other notices. The more you and I discuss AfC the more I am recognizing how different it is from other processes. S0091 (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

AFC Reviewers and the AFC Script

User:Liz - A few days later, I will add to what the other reviewers have said. You asked:

You're right, I'm not sure why an AFC reviewer would submit drafts, approve them and post notices to themselves instead of just moving them to main space!

I don't think that an AFC reviewer will ever move a draft from draft space to article space using the Move button. The AFC script performs a number of useful behind-the-scenes functions in addition to physically moving the draft. I, and I think the other AFC reviewers, would always rather consolidate all of those steps using the accept script rather than using the move button. The AFC script removes any AFC templates from the draft, which include comments that are not appropriate in article space. It re-activates any categories that have been deactivated in draft space. It adds the AFC WikiProject to the WikiProjects. It does some other things, and we, the AFC reviewers, do not have a checklist of how to do these functions manually. So no AFC reviewer will ever physically move a draft into article space. That would either leave it to require cleanup, or would require the moving reviewer to do the cleanup. The script does the work for us. That is also why, a few months ago, we told you that it wasn't feasible for a reviewer to remove the tags and templates from a draft before requesting a technical move over a redirect.

So the real question is whether there should be a way for a reviewer to accept a draft without getting the stupid notice to themselves. I think that would be a good idea. What a reviewer can do, on submitting a draft for review, is to submit it as the original author, or as someone else. Maybe the instructions for reviewers should say to do that. And maybe it might be a good idea to have a mode for the script to accept without notifying anyone.

Does that answer the question that you didn't ask? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Notifying the submitter is actually optional, though the "Notify submitter" box is pre-ticked in the "Accept" and "Decline" windows, and in the "Accept" window especially it's easy to miss it. When you leave a comment without accepting or declining, "Notify submitter" is not selected by default, though.

And yes, I think the script is extremely helpful (for one thing, I really like the way any comments you type show up as you are typing them, in wikified form! I know that's not related to this question, but it is one of the reasons I wouldn't consider just moving the draft without using the script.). --bonadea contributions talk 18:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Script hanging

Tracked in github.com
Issue #237

File:AFC Helper Hanging.png I've had this sporadically and I'd chalk it up to a random wikipedia glitch, but in the last few days it's happening almost without exception. This is what happens when I try to decline Draft:Space for Visual Research. URL if helpful]. Mac Monterey 12.4, Firefox 101.01 if helpful. Grateful for any suggestions. Thanks! Star Mississippi 19:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Worked for me. What decline reasons were you trying to use? (I used corp.) What skin are you using? The next time this happens to you, can you do me a favor and open DevTools (usually you press F12 to open this), then click on console, then take a screenshot after the error has occurred (try to capture the error in the screenshot, it will probably be a row in red toward the bottom) and post it here? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I just created WP:CONSOLEERROR, which has detailed directions on how to grab useful errors from the console. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

thanks and especially for that how to. It just worked for me on Draft:Paul Yorke but I'm sure I'll be here to report an error based on the recent weird glitches. I unfortunately have no idea what skin I'm using. I was declining SVR on advertising, and when that failed sourcing. Star Mississippi 01:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Febo Screenshot.png

and here it is on Draft: Febo (company). Possibly relevent, I'd also moved it from userspace, although that was true too of Yorke. Tried advertisement, and improperly sourced.

Uncaught DOMException: The quota has been exceeded. Draft:Febo_(company) line 226 > injectedScript:166

Let me know if you need more and thanks again! Star Mississippi 01:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I tried it just now with your skin (Vector 2010) and your common.js. Was unable to reproduce. My googling indicates that this is an unusual error that can occur when your browser fills up its cache. Things to try. If the link doesn't solve it, yes, more details would be good. Can you press that little triangle and copy the info it dumps out? Would give some hints as to the specific user script and what line the error is occurring on. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you again, and for the tip on skin. Will do as soon as it pops up. Star Mississippi 17:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Here we go. Definitely seems to be a WP:CORP issue as this one (Draft:Silverlakes Equestrian and Sports Complex I also tried advertising and improperly sourced. I cleared my cache following the link you provided earlier today. My rationale: This does not tell why the complex is notable. Please add more sourcing about it, not just about events that took place. Here's the full error message with the drop down ticked:

Extended content

Uncaught DOMException: The quota has been exceeded. Draft:Silverlakes_Equestrian_and_Sports_Complex line 227 > injectedScript:1668 set https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Silverlakes_Equestrian_and_Sports_Complex line 227 > injectedScript:1668 handleDecline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Silverlakes_Equestrian_and_Sports_Complex line 227 > injectedScript:2406 addFormSubmitHandler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Silverlakes_Equestrian_and_Sports_Complex line 227 > injectedScript:1353 jQuery 3 getText https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Silverlakes_Equestrian_and_Sports_Complex line 227 > injectedScript:894 jQuery 3 _revisionApiRequest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Silverlakes_Equestrian_and_Sports_Complex line 227 > injectedScript:878 jQuery 3 getPageText https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Silverlakes_Equestrian_and_Sports_Complex line 227 > injectedScript:1166 jQuery 8 and this is just above it: Referrer Policy: Ignoring the less restricted referrer policy “origin-when-cross-origin” for the cross-site request: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Symbol_opinion_vote.svg/40px-Symbol_opinion_vote.svg.png

Let me know if anything else would be helpful and thanks again @Novem Linguae. Star Mississippi 21:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed steps to reproduce. Unable to reproduce on enwiki or testwiki. en diff. testwiki diff. You tried clearing your browser cache and that didn't fix it eh? What browser, operating system, gigs of memory? I'm out of ideas, but googling points to this being some kind of small cache size/small memory issue. Oh and thanks for the log, that does confirm that the user script throwing the error is AFCH. Specifically the submission.js -> handleDecline() method, possibly line 2318: AFCH.userData.set( 'decline-counts', declineCounts ); –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a bug report just now. In case someone has some ideas that I didn't think of. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Luckily there seem to be other categories the script and or cache like. I'll flag if I see it anywhere else in AfC declines. MacOS Monterey, Firefox 101.01. 32GB of memory. I cleared the browser cache and rebooted the computer as part of another software update and then ran into it. Thanks again! Star Mississippi 22:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Craig F Duffy

This promotional autobio has now been moved into the main space by the creator. I'm considering whether to move it back to drafts, or take it to AfD. Where did we land on the question of notability for cue sports players, and specifically whether those 1990 Aussie snooker wins make this inherently notable? I looked at the notability guideline, but can't say I managed to fully decipher it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it's a borderline case (lots of not-quite-winning on his record...) so AFD might be the way to go. Primefac (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It's been moved back to draft space again. This brings up an issue. At some point articles that are repeatedly moved between article space and draft space need to be sent to AFD. Move-warring is undesirable, and doesn't have an obvious end. My thinking is that there is language in the guideline on draftifying that says that the author can decline the draftifying, so that one move to draft space should be the limit, followed by AFD. That is my interpretation. Some reviewers evidently think otherwise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

A minor point regarding It's been moved back to draft space again - I am going to attribute the "again" to its location in the draft space, not the move itself, as it has only been moved now once out of and once into draft space (the other moves are dab-related). As far as I am aware, most NPRs have gotten reasonably good about not re-draftifying if a page has been moved more than once, though obviously I am not omniscient and can't speak for all NPRs. I think that is due to some discussions about the appropriateness of multiple re-draftifications and the hassle caused by copy/paste pagemoves and weird disambiguations. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay. You are correct in that I was a little sloppy in my language. By the way, sometimes "weird" disambiguations are done on purpose in order to confuse the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page (since you then went on to talk about "multiple draftifications"). Primefac (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

To complicate things further, this has been moved between 'Craig Duffy' and 'Craig F Duffy' a few times. I don't mind admitting that I've already lost track of where it is vs. where it should be. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm not sure why Praxidicae chose to re-disambiguate upon draftification, since the non-dabbed version makes it more obvious that there are shenanigans afoot. Granted, I don't care enough to un-dab it again, but I do think that if it becomes acceptable it should be moved back to the un-dabbed version (and yes, I'll happily drop the salt on the page if/when that happens). Primefac (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it was because it autofilled from a previous draftification when I was trying to type something else. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Here we go again, it's back in the main space. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Here we go again. I've sent it to AFD. In my opinion, it is not a borderline case, although it looks like one. There is no significant coverage, just database entries, and database entries have been deprecated for association football, cricket, and baseball, as well as for cue sports. It has a long history. It's already been salted at Craig Duffy, and was then recreated as Craig Duffy (entrepreneur), and went to AFD there. It's at Craig Duffy, the salted title, because User:Primefac moved it there from Craig F. Duffy. Was there a warning that you were about to move it to an admin-protected title, or did it allow an admin to override salting without knowing that they were overriding salting? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I knew I was overriding the salt, but admins don't receive warnings about such things anyway. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I would also like it if AFC reviewers knew when they were overriding an ECP salt, so that the reviewer would know that there is history. That, in my opinion, means that a conscientious reviewer should review the thing twice before accepting it, and should probably also review the thing twice before declining it. So maybe that is another feature request. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment About AFC Comments

Tracked in github.com
Issue #127

While I am on the topic of AFC comments, I have another meta-comment (comment about comments). Is there a reason why AFC comments do not get copied onto the user talk page of the submitter? I have been asking this for either months or years. AFC decline comments go onto the submitter talk page, but AFC comments just go onto the draft. Sometimes the reviewer would like to get the attention of the submitter, and experience has shown that the comment that there is a comment does not always get the submitter to look on the draft. I don't think that copying the comments to the submitter talk page would do any harm, and it would have a very slight benefit, so why not do it? It wouldn't do much good, but it wouldn't do harm. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I've also wondered about it when I previously worked for the AFC. One thing that I think could be a reason of this is that AFC comments left by a reviewer are visible to the other reviewers if they are on the Draft instead of the talk page of the submitter. Bears (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It is tracked, and you've mentioned it a few times, the most recent of which being March 2022 (other instances going back to at least 2020 are in the github ticket). It's a known request, and "as soon as someone does it" is the answer to "when". I suspect it's a slightly lower-priority task compared to some of the actual bugs we're still trying to deal with, but who knows, someone might fix it tomorrow. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

(for what it's worth, my comment above was not meant as any sort of chastisement or complaint about the frequency of this being brought up; if anything, feature requests being nicely re-requested every once in a while indicates what the Project finds to be higher-priority as far as new features go) Primefac (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I will probably ask again in a few months, but now I know that it is in a queue. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

If a copy of the comment were put on the author's talk page, the likely outcome would be that the author would respond on their talk page and that's not desirable. As it stands though, it is not clear how or where they should respond. We have also discussed moving these comments to the draft talk page. I think there was a concern that authors would be even less likely to see them there. Comments are at the top of the draft because AfC predates the Draft namespace and originally there was no talk page to put them on. ~Kvng (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Clumsy Notes from Authors

This is a comment about two clumsy methods used by authors of drafts for communicating with reviewers. Sometimes the author of a draft inserts a comment either at the top or at the bottom of the draft. Sometimes the author of a draft inserts a comment in the Short Description. In the first case the comment has to be removed manually if the draft is accepted. (The author doesn't realize that they may be slowing down acceptance by discouraging a reviewer from accepting it.) Should the instructions for reviewers say that comments by originators need to be removed? Also, should reviewers tell originators, on their user talk pages, not to put dialog in the draft?

Also, sometimes the originator of a draft uses the Short Description to communicate with the reviewer. Should the instructions for reviewers include checking that the Short Description is reasonable? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think "whatever makes the most sense" is the way to go. Of the "comments next to {{AFC comments}}" I've seen, most can just be thrown in their own AFC comment to be removed later. Some can be copied along with the reviewer's comments onto the talk page. I can't say as I've ever seen shortdesc "comments", but I would convert or move those as appropriate.

As for your later question, I don't know if we necessarily need to codify it; it's not like it comes up enough in discussion here to indicate that there is confusion or concern on the part of the reviewers. That being said, I don't mind if we can find a good/useful way to indicate it on the instructions. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If we moved these comments/discussions to the Draft talk page, authors could use the new (reply) feature (is this enabled by default now?) which would make things easier for everyone assuming everyone is aware of the existence and purpose of talk pages (not necessarily a good assumption). ~Kvng (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Overzealous patroller forced conversion to AfC four minutes after creation(!) despite being actively worked on

I was tidying up a dab page (Birds of a Feather) and in the process of moving some content that an inexperienced editor had wrongly placed there into its own article (edit 1).

It obviously needed improved and I'd already started work on it (edit 2) when a random patroller (TheWikiholic (talk · contribs)) jumped on it and converted it into an AfC because it wasn't (yet) of the required standard.

Well, obviously. Common sense suggests that something which had already been edited once since being uploaded four minutes prior might still be being worked on and not yet abandoned as-is.

I wouldn't mind if the resultant, tidied-up and referenced article was still deemed not good or notable enough on its own merits; as noted, it wasn't my content originally.

But that's not what the problem was here, and frankly it hacked me off that some overzealous patroller jumped straight in before I had the chance to carry out the required improvements, converting it without even bothering to apply common sense or clarify the situation.

Anyway, I don't see why I should have to legitimise a decision I disagreed with by being forced to submit it through the AfC process. But nor do I intend to give some officious type the excuse to use it against me if I simply placed the updated content at Birds of a Feather (US band) again).

Feedback appreciated, thank you.

Ubcule (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Ubcule three minutes is a bit quick but sometimes those patrolling Special:NewPagesFeed don't notice the times and just judge as is. It's an easy mistake to do (I've done it a couple of times over the years) and if you had asked TheWikiholic they could well have just apologised. It would be nice if the script warned the editor it was still very new to stop these issues though. However also as it stands Draft:Birds of a Feather (US band) only has discogs sources that is not generally a reliable source so it still fails WP:MUSICBIO - so maybe TheWikiholic had done a WP:BEFORE and was not convinced they were notable? Lastly you are not forced to go via AfC you can move back to main-space once finished and reliable sources added to show notability. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ubcule: the first thought that occurs to me is, wouldn't this be better taken up on the said editor's talk page, rather than here?

The second thought (and I'm very happy to be proven wrong here), given that you hadn't submitted your WIP to AfC review, it's not really an AfC matter, is it? If I had to guess, I'd say it's more likely an NPP matter.

As for being "forced" to submit to AfC, you're extended confirmed, so I believe you can just publish on your own, if you wish.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: - Thank you for the reply.

I've replied to the user in question, but received no reply.

The action was carried out by an "AfC reviewer", and since- as far as I'm aware- that power has to be explicitly granted, it seems reasonable to assume it was done under the auspices of the project.

It became an AfC matter *because* it was converted into an AfC, even if (as was my point) it should never have been so in the first place.

This page notes that it "is only for matters concerning this project's administration". I'd say that overzealous or inappropriate use of the AfC process by an AfC-er certainly falls under that banner.

I'm aware that- technically- I *could* bypass AfC and re-publish on my own (as I did in the first place, and have been doing for years without trouble). The question was whether I'd get some other over-officious type on my back for doing so.

The issues are (a) why it was forced through the AfC process in the first place, (b) whether that AfC-er was being overzealous and (c) whether I can ignore this nonsense.

Ubcule (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ubcule, tl;dr: This is not a AfC matter, but NPP. I suggest that you raise this up in the NPP talk page instead or directly with the editor in question.

I think you are confusing yourself with 3 different processes, WP:NPP, WP:WPAFC, and WP:DRAFT. The 3 processes may seem to be one, but they are not. Anyone can perform draftification. One can be either NPP or AfC reviewer, or both at the same time.

Anyone can perform draftification. There is no need for an explicit right to be given. As long as you can move articles (which any autoconfirmed editors can) and there is no blockage somewhere, i.e. additional page protections or existing article at the target title, you can perform the draftification. It may seem to be a reviewer doing that using an exclusive AfC or NPP tool, but it can be simply performed using User:Evad37/MoveToDraft, which can be used by anyone. The only added user permission that one may have is pagemover, but that's to suppress redirect creation. Even without it, the resultant redirect will be deleted by a admin since there should not be cross namespace redirects.

AfC reviewers are concerned predominantly with what goes into drafts, not new articles on the mainspace. NPP reviewers are concerned predominantly with what goes into articles on the mainspace, not into drafts. Thus, an NPP reviewer is more likely to draftify your article, not a AfC reviewer. TheWikiholic holds the both NPP and AfC rights. NPP rights is listed atSpecial:UserRights/TheWikiholic as "new page reviewer", while AfC maintains a list of editors who can utilise the AfC toolkit. – robertsky (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Robertsky:Thank you for the clarification, this makes it clearer. Ubcule (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: - I received no feedback from TheWikiholic, even though they've been active since I replied to them.

The Discogs sources have nothing to do with the decision to convert to AfC, as they were only added afterwards by myself. I'm aware that Discogs itself has issues (though I wasn't able to find out definitively whether it was an acceptable source or not), but the linked references are direct scans of the CD booklet rather than user-added/filtered text.

As for notability; yes, I acknowledged that it was questionable, and *if* it had been given time and *then* submitted as an AfD on that basis, I might have understood.

What annoyed me was that the whole thing was converted to an AfC when it *was* still a work in progress, and the user clearly couldn't have judged it on that basis regardless. Ubcule (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ubcule You could make this molehill into a mountain if you wish, or you could consider that whoever draftified it determined that it was not then ready for mainspace. They could not read your mind about what you were doing with it in mainspace in order to make it able to survive there. One should ask (I have not looked at the article/draft) whether it was actually mainspace ready.

They may or may not have followed WP:DRAFTIFY. If not then you have a different conversation you may wish to have with them.

You have no need to await a review. When it is ready please move it to mainspace if you have not already. Do, please, remember to remove the AFC artefacts that are created on draftification or it will show up in a category that draws active reviewer eyes to it.

You might also remember WP:AGF. Everyone does their best not their worst. And folk can make mistakes. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ubcule I have now looked at Draft:Birds of a Feather (US band) both at this permalink whcih you quoted above at at the current version as I make this reply.

Were I to review it in that state today I would decline it based upon the references used. I find the first newspapers.com reference interesting, but referring (as you state) to an album, not the band. Thus it is a supporting reference but does not verify notability of the band. References to scans of a cover may be problematic for copyright reasons; I am not a copyright expert, so I mention this in case it causes you issues later. The tool at my disposal highlights all Discogs references as red flags. You may wish to investigate this at the relevant WP:RS arena. I'd prefer more than one (large) paragraph from the Allmusic review. That leaves the second newspapers.com item, which is really an advert for a gig, and is not as useful as you may hope.

My conclusion is that I do not believe it passes WP:NMUSICIAN, certainly in its current state. I will recuse myself from making a formal review and I am aware you have not yet submitted it. I do view it as vulnerable to being proposed for one the the deletion processes, and I fear it would not pass as it stands.

I imagine you may now consider me to be overzealous or officious, but the reverse is true. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.

I wish you genuine success with this draft. I hope you find the referencing I believe you need to get it into mainspace and to make it stick. And please remember that this is only my opinion. The community may take a different view. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent:

"You could make this molehill into a mountain if you wish, or you could consider that whoever draftified it determined that it was not then ready for mainspace."

It's common for newly-created articles to be created across multiple edits, during which time they're frequently not "complete".

Yet the fact that the vast bulk of articles created in this way aren't similarly jumped on and (pointlessly) forced through "draft-space" suggests that the patroller was overzealous and operating contrary to standard practice.

And *that* was the main problem I had.

(If I'd left it in that state for several hours, it might have been reasonable to assume that was the final version, but three minutes? Seriously?)

Also:-

• The "newspapers.com" reference and later edits were not added by myself, but by Silver seren (talk · contribs) who made attempts to improve the article.
• "Officious" had nothing to do with Wikipedia's general requirement for reliable references- which I'm well aware of and understand- and was used in relation to the misuse of the AfC process. Specifically, thinking of someone who (might) complain if I bypassed the remainder of an AfC process, even if I thought that hadn't been justified or legitimate in the first place.
• I've been on Wikipedia for a long time and I'm well aware of the AGF mantra. I also think it's overused as a blind response to legitimate criticism like this where there was never any accusation of bad faith, simply (in this case) annoying overzealousness.
• The bulk of the referenced scans were factual content (i.e. lists of musicians and song names) and aren't in themselves likely to be copyrightable.
• To emphasise, the content wasn't mine in the first place- I was simply making a good faith effort to move it to where it was appropriate and tidy it up. If it *was* decided that the final version still wasn't acceptable (e.g. if it had been AfDed- rather than AfCed- on that basis) I'd have had less of a problem with that. But it shouldn't have been AfCed before it was finished.

Ubcule (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ubcule As you say, "To emphasise, the content wasn't mine in the first place- I was simply making a good faith effort to move it to where it was appropriate and tidy it up". I think you miscalculated with the location where you placed the text. So it is six of one and half a dozen of the other there. Looking at what was present after your placing it in mainspace I can't really disagree with the draftification, nor, had it been used, AfD. The "final version" never exists. What is seen is considered to be the final version. It wasn't acceptable for mainspace

Before we had Draft space we had user space. It was and is common for experienced editors to use the latter, only moving material to mainspace when ready. Give or take a couple of years you and I have been here the same length of time, I slightly longer than you. We, you and I, know our way around. I'm sure this caught you on the wrong day.

As Robertsky has said, this is an NPP matter. Many people use the draftification script who are neither AFC nor NPP folk. Please do raise it at NPP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ubcule Quick tip: one thing you can try for new WIP creations is to put an {{Under construction}} template at the top. If you don’t remove it after a week with no edits, a bot will remove it. I feel like NPP has respected this banner pretty well in my limited experience with it. -2pou (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If- as Robertsky (talk · contribs) suggests above (and explains more clearly than others did *why*) this is an NPP matter- I'll leave it there, (even if- from the infobox wording on that user's page- it gives the impression that they were doing so under the auspices of this project). All the best, Ubcule (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

According to my reading of Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Care, I don't think anyone is supposed to draftify before the 15 minute mark, except for maybe something really egregious. Patrollers may find my user script User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/NotSoFast.js helpful with this, it will highlight articles newer than 15 minutes red in the new pages feed. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I have dropped a note at WT:NPP to reqeust to the rest of NPP reviewers to be mindful about draftifying too soon. – robertsky (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment.I thought the page was not ready to be on mainspace for multiple reasons and that's why I had to move the page into draft space. I don't think it's a big issue as it can be brought back into the main space once it's ready.TheWikiholic (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic: - From my point of view, the problem was that you judged an article that wasn't finished, was still being actively edited (already updated once in the four minutes since its creation) and wasn't going to be left "as-is" for long.

It was somewhat frustrating to have it jumped on, dragged off into draftspace and forced through AfC before I'd even had the chance to finish that.

Others here are arguing that "incomplete" articles technically shouldn't be in the mainspace at all, however briefly. But honestly, lots of articles are created in this way, and as I've never seen it being a major issue before, the implication is that it was tolerated and accepted on a "common sense" basis.

Anyway, although I did disagree with your decision in this case, no hard feelings, and all the best. Ubcule (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

One Reviewer's Analysis

Okay. Okay. I agree with User:Timtrent that User:Ubcule is making a mountain out of a molehill. I also think that a minor apology is in order, and we should then move on, but I will state my opinion as to who should apologize. First, the real error was by Funkysax music, who inserted a stub article into a disambiguation page, and Ubcule was cleaning that up, for which thanks are due. However, Ubcule was making a good-faith error that had two parts. The first part was creating an article in article space piecemeal. Some editors create articles in article space piecemeal, which leaves stuff in article space that is not ready for article space, and some New Page patrollers will leave it alone, some will quickly move it to draft space, and some will tag it for deletion. There are different views among New Page patrollers as to how aggressive they should be in moving stuff out of article space that isn't ready for article space. The second part of the mistake was that the article probably didn't belong in article space anyway. It isn't clear whether the band passes musical notability. So my analysis is that User:TheWikiholic was correct in moving the page into draft space. So my analysis is that User:Ubcule owes TheWikiholic a minor apology for being overzealous in saying that they were being overzealous. They were both trying to clean up a mess, and the mess should have been in user or draft space. Now it is in draft space, and we should move on. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't often comment here these days since I'm doing my best to maintain my state of semi-retirement, but a crisis at NPP (it's backlog) has brought me from volunteer reserve back into active service. Ubcule, I must concur with Robert who sums it up nicely. It's a pity that this issue developed into such a long and rambling thread when it's specifically something to be discussed at New Page Patrol. With only a tiny fraction of the 700+ New Page Reviewers doing all the work to reduce a monumental backlog, it's inevitable that errors will occur. That said, TheWikiholic is an experienced reviewer ad was doing what I would have done. There is no shame in having an article draftified; it's much better than it being tag-bombed or sent to one of the deletion venues and it gives the creator time to develop the article in peace. An article is not 'forced' into the AfC scheme of things. Editors may also optionally submit drafts for review via the articles for creation process by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft page, a draft does not necessarily need to be submitted to AfC and a competent user can move it back to mainspace if it is ready. It will of course come under review again at NPP. Although similar in many respects, AfC and NPP have some fundamental differences: NPP is triage, while AfC is the field hospital. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:

• Funkysax music may have been in error, but their contribution was the epitome of why we have WP:AGF; an obviously genuine attempt only hindered by lack of experience. That's why I wasn't inclined to simply remove it (even if, in hindsight, I maybe should have).
• In resolving a matter that- I agree- has got way out of proportion, it's probably counter-productive to inflame things by discussing who owes who an apology or to use that against me when I'd never asked for one from anyone else(!) I still disagree with TheWikiholic's original decision, but that's done and I have no hard feelings against them.
• My problem was never criticism of the finished content, but that (regardless) it was judged *before* the tidying up was finished. If the tidied-up version still isn't good enough (which may well be the case), fair enough, but that *should* have been a separate issue.

Ubcule (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic

If you realize that you've let your misplaced anger run well past its course, it is beyond the pale to start whining about somebody owes you an apology. Wikipedia is not your private social club so you need not take offense at other editors getting the job done. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC) @Chris troutman: If you'd actually paid attention to what I said instead of jumping right in with a self-righteous lecture, you'd have seen that the whole point I was making was that- contrary to what was implied then used against me- I hadn't demanded (nor expected) an apology from anyone else in the first place. (The only person doing so was Robert McClenon who seemed to think I owed TheWikiholic one.) Ubcule (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC) I think Robert is right on that count.Come to my talk page if you want to continue feeling sorry for yourself. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC) It is true that User:Ubcule was not asking for an apology from User:TheWikiholic, but they were finding fault with TW for being "overzealous". Maybe I should have said that if anyone owed anyone an apology, it was Ubcule for the sloppy claim that TW had been overzealous. It is "interesting" that Ubcule is commenting on the conduct of two editors, one of whom was improving the encyclopedia, and one of whom was not, and is complaining that TW acted hastily or overzealously, while not criticizing the one who had introduced a need for cleanup. As I said, I think that two editors made mistakes, and one, TheWikiholic, did not. It is permitted to draftify obviously incomplete stuff in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Not sure what- if anything!- the scare quotes around "interesting" are supposed to imply. The person was clearly a newbie editing in good faith, so I cut them some (well, quite a lot) of slack because of that. Maybe a bit too much in hindsight, but whatever. Not much more to it than that. Ubcule (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC) @Chris troutman: Well, I guess everyone's entitled to their opinion, however little value I place on yours. But I'm quite entitled to call out anyone misrepresenting something I never said- either due to laziness, maliciousness, incompetence or all three- particularly if it's likely to be used against me (e.g. as the basis for the misdirectedly judgemental screed above). "Come to my talk page if you want to continue feeling sorry for yourself." Is this supposed to be snide or threatening, or both? Ubcule (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Your sad effort to garner attention/ sympathy has wasted everyone's time. If you insist of filing a hurt feelings report how about you do it somewhere else the public doesn't have to observe? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC) For someone who purports to be tired of it, it's odd that you were the one who's tried to throw fuel on the fire by painting it as "attention seeking" and "hurt feelings" and are clearly happy to keep it going in the least productive manner possible...! Ubcule (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Free online access to newspapers

This has probably been discussed before, but I'll say it anyway: online access to newspapers and similar content is becoming more and more limited, and this is hampering AfC (and NPP etc.) work. Sites that were free are moving behind paywalls, or at the very least are requiring registration and/or limiting the number of articles you can read, and many US publications block access to European visitors for legal reasons. It's impossible to assess notability if you can't easily verify sources, and especially in borderline cases that one NYT or FT article could be the deciding factor — if only you could read it! Now, I realise I don't have to review that particular draft, I can just move on and leave it for others, but that's not really the point. The LIBRARY gives us access to many good sources, but not to newspapers. Do we know if there are plans to extend the coverage of that service, or otherwise anything being done to address this issue? Or is there some trick that I'm missing? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library actually does have a lot of newspapers—they can just be a bit hard to find. ProQuest is particularly useful: it contains full-text access to The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Financial Times, and literally hundreds of other local, national, and international outlets. Let me know if there's anything particular I can help you find. WP:REREQ is also a great resource: if you're looking for a particular article, someone with a subscription can often send you a copy very quickly, sometimes within just a few minutes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I have a "bypass paywalls" add-on for my browser, however its not something I suggest doing necessarily but that is how I am able to access many newspapers. Hitting the "escape" key several times right after the page loads before the pop-up is another trick but does not work for many. Like Extraordinary Writ says above, Proquest is great and there's also Newspapers.com through the library but mostly useful for historical or local newspapers, not the national ones like NYT. S0091 (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, both. I think I haven't explored the Library fully, and clearly need to look into Proquest again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing another trick I read somewhere around here recently is using Earwig access the source. S0091 (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Third trick, use Web Archive or similar to access the page. If it already exists, great, if it doesn't, you can have it archive it (which is great). Primefac (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Category for disambiguation drafts

What has gone wrong with this talk page? Instead of creating a new section like a normal talk page, it just scrolled to the bottom of the existing page and mixed current discussions with an add-a-comment screen, as if this were Facebook. The constant auto-modifications to the preview of my typing are visually distracting. When I typed tab-space to save my comment, the highlighting shifted to a link in the preview instead of to the publish-changes button, so I almost navigated to another page and lost my comment! It's very confusing and user-unfriendly.

Would it be possible to have a category for disambiguation drafts? I just wrote a draft disambiguation page, and it went into Category:AfC submissions on other topics with tons of other pages, many of which probably were written by people who didn't try to find a category. If a disambiguation template is on the draft page, the wizard could automatically override the topical classification and put it into Category:AFC disambiguation submissions. This would probably be easier for reviewers who want to do something quickly, since most disambiguation drafts should be easy to evaluate. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

First, take your feedback about the talk page tool to Wikipedia:Talk pages project. This is an ongoing, project wide change and not limited to just this talk page.

Second, there is already such a category: Category:Pending template and disambiguation AfC submissions. – robertsky (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way that this category can be populated from the beginning of the process? If you look at my submission at the time I submitted it, the only disambiguation-related category is transcluded by the disambiguation template. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Not immediately. The relevant submission JavaScript needs an update for this. Pinging @SD0001, @Novem Linguae. – robertsky (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like drafts get added to this category only if the {{AfC submission}} template has |type=template or |type=dab. Code. However does anything ever actually set this? –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Can't publish draft as there's a redirect on the main space page

Hi, I found a recent draft which had been moved into main space before ready so I moved it back to draft and improved it. However now that it's ready to publish there is a redirect on the main space page back to the draft. Can someone please investigate and untangle this? Many thanks! The draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sarah_Wood_(businesswoman) MurielMary (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@MurielMary are you asking for an AfC review, or someone with a pagemover right to move the article for you? – robertsky (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Robertsky the latter - someone with pagemover rights to move it. I'm an AfC reviewer; I've improved this draft ready for publication. Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@MurielMary it is done. – robertsky (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Robertsky thanks very much! MurielMary (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Another option in the future would be to place {{Db-afc-move}} on the redirect page. That will summon an admin to delete it for you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I have two comments. First, when accepting an article that has been disambiguated, such as Sarah Wood (businesswoman), please check the primary page to see whether either a hatnote is needed, or an entry is needed in the disambiguation list at Sarah Wood. I have added the entry to the disambiguation page. Second, it appears that User:MurielMary had created the redirect by draftifying the article. Exactly when can one move over the redirect? This would seem to be a case where that would have been useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both for your comments. On reflection I could have avoided the whole situation by improving the article in main space rather than moving to draft, improving, and moving back again! MurielMary (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Jason Moore (writer)

Tracked in github.com
Issue #238

I think there's a problem with the AfC templates at Draft:Jason Moore (writer): AFCH is not letting me accept (though the "Decline" and "Submit" buttons work). I've tried two different browsers and it lets me click the "Accept" button on other drafts. Does anybody know what the issue is? — Bilorv (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

There's too many templates on the talk page. It was causing an AFCH bug. I've blanked the talk page. Go ahead and accept, then unblank the talk page. I'll file a bug report. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for getting to the bottom of it, Novem Linguae. — Bilorv (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Another Round-Robin Move Question

This is about Draft:Moshe Shoham, and it is about any other draft in a similar situation. There is a stub in article space, Moshe Shoham. Normally I would decline the draft but suggest that it be merged into the article, and tag the draft and the article for merge. However, since the stub is essentially useless, and is tagged as needing additional citations, what I would like to do is a round-robin move, to move the stub into user space, then accept the draft, then move the redirect in draft space aside and tag it for G6, then move what had been the stub into draft space and point it to the article. Is there any reason why I shouldn't do that? Is this a reasonable approach when a draft is completely superior to the article (and is about the same person or other subject). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

eh... I would like to think that this is an useful and easy application of HISTMERGE even if the draft is not of a cut and paste move, since the edits on bother versions are disjointed but yet the draft can be seen as an improvement on the stub (and there are no edits in recent histories of the pages as well). But if that's not possible, I would prioritise performing a merge over doing a page swap. Despite the mainspace article being a stub, it is still a work by another editor and a page swap may seem to disregard the work of that editor. Then again, that editor seems to be inactive for 3-4 years now, so it may not be a hill to die upon if a page swap is performed. – robertsky (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that the work of the other editor is retained by the page swap, which puts the stub in draft space. I am also concerned about disregarding the work of the author of the draft. I can decline the draft and tag it to merged into the article, but that may be seen by the author of the draft as disregarding their work, or telling them to do more work by updating the stub. In some cases where I have declined a draft because there was already an article, the article and the draft may stay tagged for merge for some time rather than being promptly merged. In this case, I will do the swap unless someone gives me a reason why I shouldn't. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

My concern with a history merge is whether the administrator would merge the draft into article space in a state pending AFC acceptance. Again, it would need to be cleaned up. The problem again is that too many administrators don't understand the utility of the AFC script. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: HISTMERGE - no, no, and a third time no. Histmerge is for copy/paste pagemoves, NOT because someone happens to write a newer/better article on the same subject in a different location.

If there is a duplicate (but better) draft, either a) decline as merge and make the submitter do the work, b) pop a {{merge}} template on the article and see who bites, c) merge the content and {{r from merge}} on the draft and {{merged from}} on the article's talk page, or d) do a page swap. I suppose technically you could use an {{db-afc-move}} but someone might get tetchy that it's an article and not a redirect.

In this particular instance, I think (d) is best, because as mentioned the article is only a stub and there isn't really much there to "merge" that isn't the entire draft. If it were a larger article, I would probably go with either (a) or (c). Primefac (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Primefac. That is sort of what I thought. So are you are saying, first, to answer my question, that pageswap is a valid approach to this situation, and second, some editors have misunderstood about history merge? If so, I will go ahead and do the swap within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

In this particular instance, a page swap would probably be acceptable, since there really isn't much at the current article. A surprising number of editors misunderstand the point of the history merge tool, yes, but when possible I try to explain why any given invalid request has been declined. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Accepting draft when redirect has substantive history

This question just came up, and I don't know the answer, but I know that it is a question. If a reviewer reviews a draft, and determines that the draft should be accepted, but there is a redirect at the article title with substantive history, exactly how and where should the reviewer request a round-robin move to accept the draft while preserving the history?

This happened with Michael Phillips (historian). There was a draft, and User:BuySomeApples concluded that the draft should be accepted (and I agree). There was a redirect from the title to a book by the historian. If acceptance of a draft is blocked by a redirect, the reviewer normally can tag the redirect with {{db-afc-move}}, and an admin will delete the redirect to allow the reviewer to accept the draft with the script. But if the redirect has substantive history, which may be a previous article on the same topic that was then cut down to a redirect (known as BLAR), the redirect should not be deleted, because a round-robin move is needed. How and where should the reviewer request the round-robin move? It needs to be done by a reviewer who is a page mover. Where should this request be made? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I suppose the request can be made are WP:RM/TR as per current norms, or drop a note here for another reviewer with the pagemover right to assist in making the move. – robertsky (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

My concern with using WP:RM/TR is, as we have seen, that some admins do not understand the AFC script or why it is important, so that the draft might get moved into article space with a Move command, which, as we have seen, requires that it be cleaned up afterward. I don't want to have the draft moved into article space with a Move command, which is what the RMTR queue is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not think that's why round-robin is done. At any rate, there is no point to preserving mainspace history in the draftspace. If the history is necessary to preserve (because it contains attribution for content that has been merged to another article), I would think WP:HISTMERGE would be the thing to do, though I have never seen it done for that reason. Otherwise, the page can just be deleted. We delete articles all the time, in which place a new article on the same topic is often created without issue. A redirect with article in its history is no different, as long as it contains no attribution for live content. And, if the draft to be accepted was developed from content in the history of the redirect, again the draft could be histmerged. Again, I have never seen that done, but histmerge template allows you to make the case to the responding admin, so I am confident they will do it when you make a good case for it. Perhaps ping admins working histmerge or post to WT:HISTMERGE? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Put {{db-afc-move}} on it and call it a day. Deleting a "redirect with history" is no different than deleting a redirect with previously-deleted history, assuming it's being replaced by something better. Primefac (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Primefac - I'm not sure I understand. This is a case where we have decided a page swap is needed. The question is how to request the page swap. Or maybe I have misunderstood something. If I just put the {{db-afc-move}} on the redirect, it will be deleted, not swapped. Did I misunderstand something? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not. There is no reason to keep the pre-redirect content of the article unless there was some sort of copy/paste or attribution needs to be maintained. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Primefac - Now I think I am the one who is confused or puzzled. So when is a page swap or round-robin move needed? I think that the question is specifically, when does attribution need to be maintained?

I thought that I had understood that when there was a previous version of the article, it should be kept to preserve attribution, which typically means a page swap. Are there situations in which the previous version of the article can be deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Attribution needs to be maintained for a diff if there is something it needs to be attributed to.

• Example 1: Page X is merged into Page Y, and X is turned into a redirect.
• Example 2: Page A is converted into a redirect to Page B. Someone copies Page A into the draft space, and its is later accepted (inadvertently) as Page C.
• Example 3: Page A is converted into a redirect to Page B. Someone creates Draft C, which is the same subject as Page A, but is entirely rewritten (i.e. no copy/paste). Draft C is slated for approval.

In Example 1, attribution needs to be preserved, so a page swap is appropriate. In Example 2, a histmerge is needed because there was a copy/paste. In Example 3, the original Page A does not need to be kept because the older/original text has not been used or re-used anywhere.

In your original post here, there is a redirect that has history, but that history is not significant (i.e. no merge or copy/paste) so the redirect (and its history) can be deleted. Primefac (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the AFC Participant application of user Q28

Hello, I am LuciferianThomas, rollbacker and WikiProject AFC participant of the Chinese Wikipedia. I am writing (as an individual) to express my concerns for user Q28's application into the English AFC project. I have to write here due to the ECP on the application page, my apologies if this is not the right place to be. Please help forward or provide a link to this comment under his application if possible and allowed.

Q28 has been recently removed from the Chinese AFC project due to consistently failing to abide by the reviewing instructions of the Chinese AFC project (which is exactly identical to that of the English version), and made inappropriate reviews on drafts, such as rejecting due to the lack of images, categories or the tagging of translated pages, and also placing notability tags on articles that he himself passed through the project.

The user is also known to be a hat collector on Chinese Wikipedia, and he always tries to request for specific permissions once they reach the requirements, inconsiderate of whether he can properly handle the permissions.

I do not believe, from how he acted in the Chinese AFC, that he can properly take on the roles of an AFC participant in the English AFC, and could do more harm than good to the WikiProject. Please consider my opinions when handling his application.

Thanks with regards, LuciferianThomas 01:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I've left a note on the application page so that your feedback can be considered by the reviewing administrator. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks to both of you. I had not seen their application and would likely have abstained from handling their request based on my past history with them, but if the general consensus here is to not grant them access I do not mind declining on those merits. Primefac (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

See zh:WikiProject_talk:建立條目/參與者#移除審核員Q28, here's a rough translation:

1: Testing the AFC Helper script at someone else's draft causing confusion for the draft author. 2: Declining a draft because it had no pictures, which is not a valid reason for declination, WP:BITEs the draft author, and goes against the purpose of AFC.

0xDeadbeef 06:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like points are already noted above. I will keep the courtesy link for review. 0xDeadbeef 06:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I promise I won't do anything bad like zhwiki, On the contrary, if I screw up, you can be removed from the list for any reason without prior discussion. Q28 (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the Wikimedia community should no longer trust any of your promises, your events on zhwiki are hard to trust. SunAfterRain 12:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

They have created 30 articles of which 29 are deleted and nothing in their edit history gives me any faith they are remotely ready for reviewing submissions. KylieTastic (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

And all of them redirects (I know it says "Exclude redirects", but these are/were in fact redirects, and another editor converted the sole surviving page to the dab page it is now.) So it wouldn't really be fair to Q28 (or anyone else) to make him an AfC reviewer, with no experience at all of article creation. --bonadea contributions talk 15:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "has created an article" is not a prerequisite for acceptance as an AFC reviewer, though I do tend to look for such content when reviewing applicants. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Primefac, but while not having created any is not an issue, having created and had deleted (even redirects) does show a lack of understanding in the policies and guidelines that is a criteria we expect. They also have very little AfD experience, or NPP, or any that I can see that shows an understanding of the guidelines. As AfC also reviews redirects the amount or redirects created and deleted is an issue. They have also had 400 out of 422 templates created deleted! Finally much of their main-space edits appear to be creating redirects and adding {{Unreferenced}}. KylieTastic (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ, 0xDeadbeef, KylieTastic, Primefac, and Bonadea: Additional note for your reference: Q28 is now blocked for 3 months on zhwiki for disruptive behavior in almost all namespaces (not vandalism, just disruptive). Might as well just notify you guys if you'd check on his behavior in enwiki as well. With regards, LuciferianThomas 04:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The discussion at zhwiki's ANI can be found here, if anyone wants to use a translator. Citing misbehavior such as telling someone to insert a WP:G7 equivalent template on their draft. [2] 0xDeadbeef 05:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I've formally declined, for the record. Primefac (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio or no? Text published in 1917

Hey, could I get a second opinion on something? I think that Draft:The Scarlet Letter (1917 film) would survive AfD as a stub if necessary, but I declined (after an initial accept) as a gross copyright violation since Earwig was triggered by the entire plot against IMDb. However, this text was actually published in 1917 in its original publication, so it is actually public domain now. (See original text here on p. 908 - the ref used in the article goes elsewhere, but it is still the same issue.) Then again, just lifting public domain text doesn't seem desirable... Thoughts? -2pou (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I added attribution for the public domain material using {{PD-notice}} (and fixed the citation so that it was actually referencing the page where the plot was copied from). With the attribution template, this should now be okay from a plagiarism point of view, so I think it's ready to be evaluated on other merits. DanCherek (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @DanCherek. I never knew about PD-notice until now. Good tip! -2pou (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Self-written but seems notable, Draft:Shahi Kabeer

The draft Draft:Shahi Kabeer, initially created as Shahi K M (same as author name) I've moved the name to shahi kabeer as it is his stage or pen name which references mentioned. The article is self-written and that is the only contrib: from the account. Little confused, any help ? What decision should I take? Why? Onmyway22 talk 08:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Evaluate for POV and notability. If passes, you can consider putting on the COI banner. When moving to mainspace, drop a note on his talk page that as there is an apparent COI, he is strongly encouraged to submit edit requests instead of editing directly. It can go two ways generally. 1, in the future new edits from him will be just just edit requests; 2, he will be belligerent and continue editing on the page directly until someone raises it up to COI/N or AN/I, and/or getting banned eventually. – robertsky (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to reiterate on robertsky's point, very occasionally we do get people writing about themselves in a more-or-less neutral manner that demonstrates notability enough to be acceptable through AFC. A COI in and of itself isn't enough to prevent a page from being accepted. Primefac (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, only place the COI tag if there are actionable problems because of the COI. If they managed to write a neutral article with no remaining problems, it should not be placed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all Onmyway22 talk 20:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

What Should Be Done With an Out-of-Process Move?

What should be done in the case of Draft:Grace Van Dien/Grace Van Dien? Therealdeepi, who submitted the article to WP:AfC has subsequently unilaterally moved the article back into mainspace, before a formal AfC review has taken place (it has been waiting for a couple of weeks, but still). Personally, I object to this as clearly an out-of-process move – the article should not be moved until an WP:AfC reviewer has OK'ed it (or rejected it). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:DRAFTOBJECT allows any user to move a page back out of draftspace, so, for better or worse, I don't think the move is considered out-of-process. If you don't think Van Dien is notable, feel free to bring it up at WP:AFD. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that it is incredibly borderline – I thought so, which is why I moved it to draft in the first place, and the first AfC reviewer that looked at it even commented the same which is why they didn't approve it. It's pretty ridiculous that an editor can submit to AfC, and then just move it on a whim themselves in the middle of the process – that's not a good process. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

AfC is a voluntary process. No editor is required to go through it or stay in the queue for review unless they are under a community restriction to do so. Otherwise, the creating editor (and ostensibly any other editor as well, though it's a bit rude to do so over the head of the article writer) can move the draft to mainspace at any time for any reason they feel like. That doesn't mean the article will survive in mainspace, but they are free to move it there. Silverseren^C 03:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

AfC is voluntary. See WP:DUD for advice on not using it at all. Unless the author has a COI, or the page was draftified by AfD, there is nothing improper with the author or anyone mainspacing it.

The obvious option is to list it at AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in August 2022

Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239 Online events: New: Alphabet run: C and D | Indigenous women | Refugees | Comedians, Comics and other Performers Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration focus on UEFA Women's Euro 2022, August 8–21 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Started an essay about (not) using limited scope/distribution sources

See User:Dodger67/Essays/Big fish and feel free to expand it or give your opinion about the topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting essay. You give four examples. I think 3 of them are true (college newspapers not independent enough when covering their own school, trade magazines not independent enough, coverage on a website is not a reliable source) and 1 merits further discussion (local newspapers). Let's say you have a mayor who receives in depth coverage in the local newspaper 3 times, once every 5 years, maybe centering on his election/re-election but also going into biographical detail about him. My instinct is that this is a GNG pass, but your essay seems to argue that there is a non-local requirement in GNG similar to NCORP. Who knows, maybe that's the voting trend at AFD nowadays, but figured I'd bring it up. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae It's also mentioned as a criterion particularly about small town mayors, but yes I think there is a trend emerging to require non-local sourcing for many topics, though I haven't done anything like a rigorous analysis of recent AFDs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of our notability guidelines is to ensure there is adequate reliable coverage of a topic to write a competent article. I don't see that restricting local coverage (presuming it is reliable and independent) would improve the quality of our articles, it would just limit the breadth of coverage of the encyclopedia. Not a good achievement IMO. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The point of requiring non-local sources in some cases is to show more than trivial significance. For example, every book published by a local author will be covered to some degree in local papers no matter how insignificant, just as a college's alumni magazine will cover everything published by their alumni. Another area where we rejected local coverage is high schools--and high school sports contests. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

AFCH errors on user pages

Starting this morning, every User page I go to gives me a pop-up with "AFCH error: user not listed ..." error. What's going on here? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I finally got around to clearing out the inactive reviewers from the AFCP list. You can either disable AFCH (if you do not wish to review drafts any more) or (since you're an admin) just re-add yourself to the list. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense, but why is this showing up on user pages like User:RoySmith? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, AFCH loads in the User and Draft spaces, since those are the two locations that AFC submissions are generally located. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, that also makes sense. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse problem - AFC checks NPOV before notability, but the drafter should do the opposite

I am a Teahouse regular, and we often get editors whose draft was declined, who ask how to make it pass. Among those, some drafts get declined because of NPOV concerns - for example, the most recent case that reached the TH is Draft:International Professional Security Association (IPSA), (correctly) declined by Slywriter.

I am not very happy with the way such cases unfold, due to the canned text of the decline:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The problem with that is that NPOV is a fixable concern but notability is not. While notability is mentioned (and wikilinked) in the decline, it is not very prominent. Therefore, the Teahouse standard reply is something along the lines of "before we talk about NPOV, you should make sure that (notability yada yada), so that you do not work on an unfixable draft". I feel this could be fixed on the AfC side, via canned text (vs. the Teahouse where we try to personalize the message every time).

One option would be to require the notability decline to take priority over the NPOV decline, but I realize that means a whole lot more work (since advertisement is a quick-fail criterion which can be assessed fairly easily unlike notability).

Another option is to change the canned text... somehow... to include discussion of notability without saying clearly that this is a problem with a draft. (Yes, I am asking for a rather unclear change to templates that you folks have been optimizing for quite some time now. Sorry.)

Yet another option, of course, is to do nothing - after all, a very small fraction of NPOV-declined drafts become a question the Teahouse, so maybe it’s ok to still deal with those "manually".

(If this has been discussed before, feel free to dismiss me, but give me a link for my education.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. Maybe just a simple addendum something like "Note that the subject must also meet Wikipedias notability requirements". However if experience has shown anything trying to get consensus on such things is ridiculously hard and things hardly change (example). KylieTastic (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• If you read the reviewing instructions, you see that notability is step 2 (step 1 is copyright violation). If you look at the accompanying flowchart you would get the impression that you should look for encyclopedic before notability. NPOV is further down. First, I think the diagram needs to be updated to more closely match the text. Second, I agree that we should have precedence order for decline reasons and notability should come before NPOV. It is possible for AfC reviewers to decline for multiple reasons and I frequently see reviewers declining for notability and NPOV. I'm curious how authors interpret that sort of decline. ~Kvng (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  Well, the flowchart does have "encyclopedic" and "notable" before NPOV, but the instructions have multiple quick-fail criteria in step 1, one of which is "advertisement". Possibly that is meant to mean WP:G11-worthy rather than simply "not good for mainspace". At any rate I agree something should be done so the flowchart matches the text. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think that the quick-fail criteria are supposed to mean CSD worthy as you suggest, not "promotional". A lot of the time I see editors use "advert/promo" to mean "not totally npov", and I've interacted with some new users who (understandably) find this utterly confusing, since what they've written doesn't look anything like an advertisement to someone who isn't familiar with wikipedia. I think we could easily confuse fewer people simply by removing the first sentence of this canned decline text. I don't think that would fix the problem Tigraan identifies though. -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  I regularly see reviewers apply "advert/promo" to drafts with a COI issue in play regardless of whether the text has NPOV issues or not ~Kvng (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Updating the flowchart

I looked into updating the flow chart. It was created by Crisco 1492 in 2014 and they retired from WP in 2018. The version we're using is PNG but was apparently created using LucidChart. I can do Lucid. Any hope of me getting the LucidChart version to do an update? ~Kvng (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll take silence as a no and will recreate it ~Kvng (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Quick-fail flowchart

I've drafted up a portion of an updated flowchart - Quick-fail criteria. Before going further, I am hoping for feedback. This is based on the text of the reviewer instructions. There's more going on here than in the original flowchart. I don't know if this is because the original flowchart was abbreviated or because the process has become hairier since 2014 when the original was created. If I continue with this level of detail, the complete flowchart will be intimidating and potentially not readable on a standard computer screen. One way this can be addressed is by dividing the flowchart into three pictures: overview, quick-fail and content review. ~Kvng (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Dividing the flowchart seems best (in my opinion). -- asilvering (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks a bit more complicated than it was before. I like the old flowchart's conciseness. I'd suggest trying to incorporate that conciseness, if possible.

Tracked in github.com
Issue #91

By the way, tagging with {{Db-attack}} automatically blanks the page. Maybe we can get AFCH to help with tagging {{Db-attack}} in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, the existing chart is "concise" because it documents an older simpler version of the process, combines some of the decision blocks, leaves out some steps and doesn't distinguish different flavors of deletion. The exercise here is to come up with a new chart that is consistent with the written instructions but it doesn't and doesn't need to show everything. If we want it to be simpler, I can go from 5 back to 1 deletion block and combine Nonsense, Advertising and Blank decision blocks. ~Kvng (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

AFC workflow

Written instructions now have some former content review steps in the quick-fail review. Content review is now smaller than quick-fail. Also, the existing chart indicates some special treatment for BLPs. Since I'm trying to make the new chart match the written instructions I've not included those. Are we missing written instructions specific to BLPs?

I now have it all in one diagram to see how it all fits. The existing chart has additional flow documenting the interaction between authors and reviewers. I can work to put that in or we can leave this focused on the reviewer's perspective. ~Kvng (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I am warming up to this chart. Good job with it, it's looking good. "Suitable" seems a bit imprecise, maybe replace it with some of the most common criteria under that heading such as WP:NOT, BLP, and NPOV. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae:This decision block is documenting Step 3: Suitability which has 8 diverse things to check. It is arguably the squishiest part of our process. The old chart does have some detail in this area – more detail than the written instructions, actually. I've taken the approach of summarizing the written instructions in my chart. If we want more detail in the chart, I'd suggest we first add more detail in the written instructions. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng, @Novem Linguae In my opinion, as someone who reads the Teahouse and Help desk for fun, I think this chart should be "advertised" to new article creators -- I think it would go a long way toward educating new editors about what WP looks for. Great chart. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@71.228.112.175: if the chart is to be helpful to authors, I should include flow details outside the review (submit, queue, communication between author and reviewer). I appreciate that not having a clear (visual) understanding of the AfC workflow would be frustrating to authors. I'll take a crack at it. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Backlog Drive

Hi, when will there be another backlog drive? There's been one a little more than a year ago, but as a fairly new AfC reviewer I never got to experience one, and neither have many other reviewers. I think another drive will help spur everyone's spirits in AfC reviewing. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You do realise that backlogs, and therefore the need for backlog drives, is kind of a bad thing, right? :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the need of backlog drives, but the actual experience of backlog drives is, in my opinion, a fun way to earn barnstars and other awards while still reducing the backlog. I know this from experience with other blitzes and drives. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Does the AfC department consider backlog drives to be showing signs of weaknesses when competing against the NPP department?0xDeadbeef 17:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the NPP drive has been quite successful, even if it the same 90% of the editors who are already doing the work, they get recognition and a little competition. Slywriter (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it's probably the recognition part. And if an extra 10% of people join, that's 10% more work that gets done. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I think a backlog drive would be a good idea, but..

One of the things we might do before is improve our messaging to new editors. A large part of our backlog is due to people not understanding notability and sourcing and we do a poor job of explaining it to them. Would be nice to tackle the structural issue first. (got some ideas drafted, would be nice to have somebody to work with this on). Femke (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I have been noticing the template text and limited options at AFCH. I'd be happy to help. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, what kinds of processes would we have to go through to get the ideas implemented? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

First coming up with good wording (on the talk page of my ideas page), and then we'd propose them here to see if we can get consensus. I'm waiting for the first proposal to be closed. Femke (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, right now I'm creating headers and subheaders so we can discuss each proposal. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Support. The backlog is not as high as when we started our last drive. But 3000 / "4+ months" is still a good backlog to clear. I agree with OP about backlog drives also being fun and building a sense of community. Also, last time we got the backlog to 0, which was a fantastic achievement. Waiting 4 months for a review sucks on the draft writer's side, so 0 backlog is great. The only downside to backlog drives is it causes our top reviewers to take a break after, which creates a temporary dip in the # of reviews. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I am trying to avoid getting fatigued by slowing down my review pace for NPP during this backlog drive. If AfC has backlog drive as well, and right after NPP's done with its drive... – robertsky (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd recommend spacing the two drives out by at least a month. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to give a hard support or oppose to this proposal (as I have been proven both right and wrong in the past), but if you note the timeline at the top of this page we reached "4 months" almost exactly four months after we reached "0", but since then we have held it steady at ~3000 drafts for review. While this isn't "great" the fact that it has held steady is a Good Thing, even if the time/numbers we're holding at are higher than ideal. In other words, we have reached an equilibrium, and with the recent downward trend I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that we are exactly where we should be; we have enough reviewers to make sure that the numbers are starting to slowly drop, which avoids an undue burden on NPR and means we aren't pushing folks to burnout. Primefac (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

And as a minor note, a backlog drive isn't the only time that one is allowed to give (or receive) barnstars, so if you see someone doing a good job, let them know! Primefac (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me it's slightly better than just equilibrium: I was away for a couple of weeks, and when I came back I noticed the backlog had dropped by a few hundred. If this can be sustained, we might soon not need a drive at all! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Support. I've participated in the (still ongoing) New page patrol drive, and I've loved reviewing articles and getting to know the other patrollers. If there is a drive happening in September 2022, then I'll definitely sign up for AfC to help out. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Perennial Support I support backlog drives as a matter of religion.I counsel that they be limited uration based on the actual volume of the backlog. Sometimes I will participate. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Were there consensus for a backlog drive, you ought to have me run it, as I'm a bit frustrated with the mis-management of our other volunteers. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Change AFC status template color spectrum to start at green and end at red?

AfC submissions Random submission

~5 weeks

985 pending submissions to update

Howdy folks. Please see the template I've placed on the right of this post. It is a color coded template, with colors corresponding to the severity of our backlog, but in my opinion it is not doing its job of conveying urgency when the backlog is high. Black just looks like a background color. And the other extreme, a low number of pending AFC submissions, uses blue. Also, the color above black is white. Template:AfC status#Original version. I find this unintuitive. I propose that we change the lower extremes to lime green, and the upper extremes to bright red. Bringing this here because I've tried this before and been reverted, so consensus is needed. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I had indeed interpreted the black as a background colour. The proposed colours make more sense imo. Femke (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Concur that a change would be nice. Curbon7 (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Whatever colour you decide to paint the bike shed, just let me know and I'll implement the changes. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Support a better signal. Maybe not simple green to red for accessibility reasons? Pale green to dark red maybe? Valereee (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

So I'm going to ask one stupid question and then I'll lurk, but... do we need this many splits? There are 13 levels (the "day" cats are grouped into 1-week batches), but we could probably cut that in half by doing "<1 mo" then "1 mo" to "6 mo/broken". When we're at the 2/3 week level it probably doesn't actually matter if it's two or three weeks, but "1 month" is fairly sufficient to give a timeframe. Again, happy to lurk and implement the outcome, but I thought I would throw it out there if it makes colour-selecting easier. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

No, we don't need this many splits. It has been a year or so since we started tracking the number of backlogs visually through the graphs. Other than during the backlog drive and the short time after, we don't see the backlog duration going back down to the 'weeks' category. I agree that we can do just three splits, and do it the way you suggested, < 1 mth, 2-5mth, 6 mth and beyond (green, yellow, red). if we are considering assessibility, cool green/warm red or warm red/cool green ([3]) is one recommendation. We can also include symbols or emojis (🙂😐☹️) to represent the categories in a different manner. – robertsky (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

+1 to this Valereee (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know that black was not the background color but used for indicating status. I support a change. 0xDeadbeef 04:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It changes? Definitely agree with the colour change. Gusfriend (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like to see a distinction within 2-5 months. I'd say 5 months is definitely broken, while just over 1 month is okayish. But 13 levels is definitely over-the-top. Femke (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Implemented

This seems like plenty of consensus to make a change. I've switched us over to green/yellow/red, and spaced it relatively evenly, via this edit. There is a more human readable format here. Thanks all for your feedback. If additional changes are needed, feel free to discuss here or be bold. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Are those red/greens going to look like the same color to people with colorblindness? Can we make sure to specify colors (per robertsky above) that communicate the message to everyone? Valereee (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

this tool says ok that colours used by Novem are ok ([4]). – robertsky (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Valereee (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Martin Anderson

I would like advice about how to deal with a detailed draft when there is already a satisfactory article, but the draft is more complete. The draft is Draft:Martin Anderson, and it is something very rare, which is a draft that appears to be B-Class. B-Class articles usually either are built up from Start-Class through C-Class rather than directly created. However, I can't accept the draft, because it is Martin Anderson (economist), which is a satisfactory article on this person, who was an advisor to Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. I have tagged the article to have the draft merged into it, and have declined the draft as 'exists'. What I want advice on, if someone can advise me, is how to facilitate the process of upgrading the article from the draft. I don't very often see this, and want to be able to give the best and most encouraging advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If there is no opposition to the merger, I would copy the relevant content from the draft into the article, use {{Merged-to}}/{{Merged-from}} on the appropriate talk pages, and redirect the draft to the article (tagging it with {{r from merge}}). Primefac (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I've seen something similar once or twice, although not such an extreme case — this new draft of yours really is a magnificent beast, isn't it? Call me hard-nosed or worse [replace with your favourite insult], but I think the problem lies with the creator of the duplicate article for not checking whether one existed already. As such, I think it's beyond the scope of AfC to do much more than decline and let the creator merge it or otherwise incorporate their input into the main space article. A bit tough, I know, but what else can we do? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello WikiProject Articles for creation,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Onmyway22 blocked as sock

FYI a current probationary reviewer Onmyway22 has been blocked for socking. According to my last scan in the last month they have done 165 review (28 accepts). apersonbot review list here. They have asked for a User_talk:Onmyway22#Blocked review claiming innocents but it is a checkuser block, on the other hand I have been mistakenly blocked so we can see. On a side note for those reviewers that have accepted at least one article 160/1,783 (~9%) have been indef blocked which is rather sad. KylieTastic (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Article acceptance table below, with days since acceptance as a proxy to determine if it can be draftified if necessary (given that now there's a 90 days limit for draftification for new articles in mainspace). Feel free to mangle the table. – robertsky (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Article	Date of acceptance	Days since acceptance	Remarks
Draft:Animal (2023 film)	2022-08-06T09:01:40Z	827
Ori Nee Prema Bangaram Kaanu	2022-08-06T07:12:01Z	827	Indian language film with actual critical reception review references and awards listed and referenced, seems fine SilverserenC 01:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Girl Friend (2002 film)	2022-08-06T06:52:50Z	827	Same as above. Less content comparably, but still actual reception references, so better than 99% of drafts. SilverserenC 01:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Victim (2022 film)	2022-08-06T06:02:23Z	827	Same as above, actual references and reviews, among other coverage. SilverserenC 01:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Taarak	2022-08-04T13:03:28Z	829	Film, reviews, references, seems fine. SilverserenC 01:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Fools (2003 film)	2022-08-03T16:01:05Z	830	Thinner coverage comparably, but it's still there. SilverserenC 01:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Ramma Chilakamma	2022-08-02T15:12:26Z	831
Anaganaga O Kurraadu	2022-08-02T14:56:51Z	831
Training school	2022-07-29T08:30:13Z	835
Sarkari Kelasa Devara Kelasa	2022-07-28T18:06:25Z	836
Tuglak	2022-07-28T18:02:19Z	836
Sembattai	2022-07-28T17:41:09Z	836
Yugam (film)	2022-07-28T17:28:24Z	836
Khadak (2022 film)	2022-07-27T06:38:16Z	837
Mr. Errababu	2022-07-21T07:42:48Z	843
Preethi Geethi Ityaadi	2022-07-20T17:13:23Z	844
Nenapinangala	2022-07-20T16:22:17Z	844
72 Model	2022-07-20T09:46:10Z	844
Iniya (2009 film)	2022-07-19T17:46:21Z	845
Sau Jhooth Ek Sach	2022-07-19T12:17:44Z	845
Daisy Belle (film)	2022-07-19T10:30:45Z	845
Dosti (2014 film)	2022-07-19T10:03:29Z	845
Shivajinagara (2014 film)	2022-07-19T03:59:49Z	845
Melody (2015 film)	2022-07-18T19:45:29Z	846
Savaal (2014 film)	2022-07-18T15:12:11Z	846
Thirudathey Papa Thirudathey	2022-07-18T07:56:11Z	846
Patra Vaitha Nerupondru	2022-07-18T07:40:00Z	846
College Days (2010 film)	2022-07-18T07:29:00Z	846

The first one on the list is a declined draft, just so you know. Silverseren^C 01:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think I need to go through and leave remarks for each individual one. All the film articles are decent, with reviews in some major paper, such as The Times of India, The Hindu, The New Indian Express, or Deccan Herald or Deccan Chronicle. The only odd ones out are Draft:Animal (2023 film), which was rejected by the editor in question, and Draft:Training school (United States), which was approved but never moved it seems? And is now submitted again, so is still a draft at the moment. Other than that, I'm not seeing any fundamental issues with these film articles. Silverseren^C 01:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

AFCH: next "very old" submission

Tracked in github.com
Issue #242

Novem Linguae, any chance you can figure out what the definition of "very old" that AFCH is using and the category(-ies) it should point to. In the 6 mos or so I've been helping at AfC, very old has always been at zero. Thanks for all you have been doing Slywriter 13:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Very old should absolutely, always, 100% be at zero, otherwise something has broken. Very Old is "over six months". This is all stated in the documentation. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, it's linked to the template. I had only seen the category when completing an AFCH action and getting choices of random, zero, very old. In that particular instance, it's virtually useless if it should always be zero, perhaps the script should be directing to oldest filled category. Otherwise just taking up screen real estate with little benefit to reviewers. Slywriter (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that particular line of code was when "very old" meant "anything older than 8 weeks". It's such a low priority that no one has bothered removing or updating it. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I wrote a patch for this just now. Easy peezy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Serbia articles

I know this has been discussed before (here and elsewhere), and maybe there's nothing that can be done, but still: this never-ending stream of drafts, translated from the Serbian wiki by someone/something out of Ontario, is a real drag! Usually it's pretty clear that noteworthiness is borderline at best, but notability cannot be easily disproven, due to the fairly opaque referencing. There are so many of them, and they make up such a big part of the draft pool, I'm not sure this is really sustainable. Is there no solution? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Well I'd argue that notability is given in most cases because of the (typical extensive) coverage in scientific literature. The problem though is the poor copy pasting which breaks the referencing in these articles. A good solution to such problems in general would be limiting the number of active drafts per editor to a certain number, let's say 3. Then, the editor would be forced to fix the drafts before he could create new ones. But in this particular case, WP:CIR applies. Blocking 216.x is the only solution to this problem; just blocking this person out of the main space has clearly not fixed the issue. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to add some data we currently have 67 submissions mentioning Serbian of which 37 appear to be from 216.. For comparison the current list of submitters with more than 5 submissions is....

1. FloridaArmy - 65 Submissions
2. Filmforme - 13 Submissions
3. Immanuelle - 10 Submissions
4. 24.209.152.112 - 8 Submissions
5. 216.8.166.112 - 7 Submissions
6. 216.174.103.121 - 7 Submissions
7. Kingofstillport - 7 Submissions
8. 47.232.204.213 - 7 Submissions
9. DareshMohan - 7 Submissions
10. 216.8.171.220 - 6 Submissions
11. QueenofBithynia - 6 Submissions

No surprise for number one as usual.... Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes, fair enough, FA is also prolific. But for whatever reason, rightly or wrongly, I don't find their draft output quite as... overwhelming. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I find both similar: they both are driven and have passion for their areas (a good thing), but also have the same issue of not improving on some things and submitting articles with the same issues over and over. I work on FAs legislators and I fix up some of the Serbian reference mess and mostly just try to ignore the rest. I work on the assumption that firstly we have no hope in changing some people and secondly that together we work through these issues eventually. FA is supposed to be limited to 20 submission in the hope they would work to improve submissions but that hasn't worked at all. Personally I would like to see users with accounts limited to 20 and IPs to maybe 3 and a bot that auto declines when over with instructions to either wait or de-submit another first. KylieTastic (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleting Redirects that are blocking accepts

I think that this is primarily a request to User:Primefac for instruction or clarification. I think that there is still a lot of confusion, mainly among non-admins, but even also among admins, about when a redirect that is blocking acceptance of a draft can be deleted. There are at least two different situations:

• A. The redirect is to another article, but the history is there was previously an article on the subject, which was then cut down to a redirect, a process known as BLAR for Blank and Redirect. If so, the reviewer should check whether the BLAR was done unilaterally, after talk page discussion, or after AFD. My thinking had been that this calls for a page swap, except that if the previous article was redirected by AFD consensus, the redirect should probably be kept (so the draft should be declined).
• B. The redirect is to a related article, and has never been anything but a redirect. My thinking had been that this is what {{db-afc-move}} is for.

Am I completely off the mark? I think I encountered a mistake by an admin recently when I tagged a redirect for {{db-afc-move}} and the admin declined it because the redirect had been there since 2004. I wound up doing a page swap, but I think that the consensus was that the admin made a good-faith mistake in declining the G6. By the way, the redirect was from the name of a fictional place to the show that is set in the place, so they are related articles.

Also, as we can see above, there is uncertainty as to when a reviewer can G6 a redirect that has a previous article.

I think that some of us can benefit from explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the question should be clear and bold: Does the redirect have creative content behind it? If yes, it should be ineligible for G6 and any sub-flavour of G6 like db-afc-move. The history needs to be preserved, or deleted only with care for good reason. If there is no creative content in the history, then G6 away. The question is of creative content, attribution-worthy content, and this does not include the age of the redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I gave a longer reply above, but "having creative content" is not the same as "needs to be kept for attribution". In Robert's situation A it does not sound like the content needs to be kept for attribution purposes, so it can be deleted as "deleting a redirect that is holding up a page move". Primefac (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. So, first, history merge is only needed and should only be requested when there has been a copy-paste, and copy-paste is something that "should not" be done, and happens either through good-faith error, or to try to gain credit for something. Second, it appears that both User:SmokeyJoe and I were mistaken, and we both thought that creative content should be preserved. The answer seems to be that creative content should only be preserved in the history if it is relevant to the content of the article. So the history of a previous version of an article is not required if the previous version of the article is in the bit bucket. Is that sort of correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with Primefac on Example 3. While I agree that it is nit required for attribution, it is inconsistent with deletion policy, including CSD, to delete creative content behind the redirect without a deletion discussion. G6 is misused to delete creative content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank u Ozzy1145 (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

db-afc-move info in template

Tracked in github.com
Issue #243

Could information on what a db-afc-move is and perhaps a bit on how to use it show up in the case that the approval is stopped due to the existance of a mainspace page? And would it be possible for the script to be smart enough to tell whether the mainspace page that it is conflicting with is a redirect (in which case db-afc-move *might* be appropriate) or not.Naraht (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Great idea. Ticket created. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Potential db-afc-moves...

In other words, is there an easy way to see which AFC submissions have mainspace equivalents that are redirects? Even if there is an easy way to see which articles in draftspace have mainspace equivalents, we should be able to quickly trim those down to AFC submissions based on a cat in the draftspace or even the text review waiting.Naraht (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If you are thinking of preemptively request for db-afc-moves before the draft has completed its reviews, I think it should not be done so for couple of reasons. The draft may end up not being accepted and no one work on it for the six months, which more often than not is the case. Preemptive deletes of redirects, no matter how brief may leave redlinks on articles that would be otherwise currently, perfectly linked to other relevant articles via the redirects. – robertsky (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If you are not thinking in that direction, there are a couple of ways. One could probably write a Quarry to find that information (and once it's written, it can just be re-run to refresh), or you could convert Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles into a list of articles and use User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js to quickly see which ones are redirects.

I suspect the redlinks are due to the / in the title. Looks like all but about 20 are redirects. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Quadrifoglio di Ameno (Four-leaf clover)

I came across this Draft:Quadrifoglio di Ameno (Four-leaf clover). I agree with the last reviewer Numberguy6's comment that this is not suitable for Wikipedia. The sources also seem to be primary, and in most cases quite close to the subject. Accordingly, I was going to reject this, but then noticed that it appears to have been created as some sort of student project from a nearby university, and I thought maybe I was being too harsh, and wanted to get a second opinion. Any thoughts? Ta, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

PS: I meant to also say that I do think an article on this subject could be accepted, but IMO this isn't an article, it's a travel guide, so would need to be blown up and rewritten (although even then the lack of secondary sources would be a problem). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I would reject it with a kind note and refer them to Wikivoyage where the content is likely more appropriate. S0091 (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll just comment that the identity of the user is somewhat irrelevant; an intelligent squirrel can write a good (or bad) draft and we wouldn't really care. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. I just suddenly felt bad thinking they may be expecting some course credit for this, and then I hit them with a rejection, they all fail their course and have to drop out of uni and become hoboes... It's a lot to have on my conscience. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't feel bad - if they are required to do something they cannot do in order to get a good grade, then that is the course instructor's fault. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Problems with university class projects are common, and are usually the fault of the instructor. As User:Primefac said, if the instructor expects the student to do something that is not permitted, that is not our fault. If the student has to drop out of university, then probably other students will also drop out of the same class, which makes it the university's problem. We reviewers often encounter stupid class assignments. It is a problem, but it is the way it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac I might change my Username to Intelligent Squirrel.:) S0091 (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hah! Primefac (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Question to know

If there is a (disambiguation) page exists without any bracket Example like this article also Draft:Example exists which is an article about something how to move that draft Draft:Example to article as already a disambiguation page exists which is Example. {If I move Example to Example (disambiguation) it will automatically create a redirect page as I am not a page mover} what is the appropriate tag to delete the redirect page Example so that I can move Draft:Example to Example. NP83 (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

A page mover or a admin can help you out. 103.52.254.163 (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

If Draft:Example needs to be accepted, but the disambiguation page Example already exists, then the draft page should be disambiguated when it's accepted. To give a more generic hypothetical, if Joe Bloggs exists as a dab and Draft:Joe Bloggs needs to be accepted, and the latter Bloggs is an artist, the the draft would be accepted as Joe Bloggs (artist). We should not be moving dabs out of the way just because there is a new draft. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Primefac Joe Bloggs is a article page but I'am saying what if Joe Bloggs is a disambiguation page?. NP83 (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

NP83 Primefac did say "if Joe Bloggs exists as a dab" - but if you want a real example a good one is John Smith and Draft:John Smith where if Draft:John Smith was accepted it's title would be John Smith (whatever) or John some-middle-name Smith etc. KylieTastic (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

User:NP83 - As User:Primefac and User:KylieTastic said. If there is an existing dab page, then any draft that should be accepted can be disambiguated and added as a link to the dab page. For instance, if John Green is a dab page, and Draft:John Green is about an artist, they should be disambiguated to John Green (artist). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Primefac said:

We should not be moving dabs out of the way just because there is a new draft.

My only issue with that statement is that it should be in bold face. Dab pages should be added to if there is a new draft. Is there some further explanation that you need? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Labeling a Draft for DAB

I have a template that I use to put an AFC comment on a draft to say that it will be an entry in a DAB. If you are reviewing Draft:John Green, and there already is John Green (which there is), you can put a comment on the draft, {{adddisamb|John Green}}, as in {{adddisamb}}, for the benefit of future reviewers. Either disambiguate the draft at the time, or let the accepting reviewer disambiguate it. The only limitation to the use of this template is that the comment gets stripped off when the draft is accepted after disambiguation. I would like to put the comment on the draft talk page, but that is a known low-priority request. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Another Copy-Paste Question: Draft Copied from Another Draft

I have yet another copy-paste question. I still think that we need clearer and more complete instructions about how to deal with copy-pastes, but this is one specific question. A draft of a BLP exists in draft space, and has not been submitted for review. Another editor copies the draft into their sandbox and submits it for review. What should I do? I become aware that it is a copy when I try to move the sandbox into draft space. I know of several wrong answers. Requesting a history merge is one of the wrong answers. The copy-paste is (if I understand correctly) a violation of the rules of attribution. I Rejected the draft as Contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia, and noted that it was a copy-paste. Is there a different better answer? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Your "wrong answer" is actually the correct one; if User B copies User A's draft, then it absolutely should be either histmerged or deleted. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Primefac - I rejected the draft with a statement that it had been copy-pasted. Is that sufficient, or should I go back and tag it for deletion? One of the problems with tagging copy-pasted drafts for history merge is that it normalizes copy-pasting, by saying that copy-pasting is okay, because we can always clean it up with a history merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

In this case, A worked on A's draft after B copied it. Would a history merge create two competing drafts with a common history, a sort of fork? Or would the fact that A was still working on the draft be another reason to reject or delete the draft.

I will again say that I don't think we have clear instructions on how to deal with all of the different copy-paste situations. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, reject B's and/or redirect it back to A's draft, especially if there are parallel histories. As we've just seen, there is no "one size fits all" set of instructions because there are always weird and edge cases that need evaluating. My check would be delete, histmerge, redirect, in that order, depending on circumstance. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Primefac You mention delete as an option, sometimes a preferred option, for copy-paste. What speedy delete code should be used to request deletion of copy-pasted material? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I just did a {{db-move}} for a user that copied a draft to their userspace improperly - the copy was the last thing that happened so a straight delete-and-move to fix the improper edit. It's kind of the old-school method of doing a histmerge but it makes for a more obvious edit (since the histmerge logs are hard to find). Primefac (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

When you find a copy-paste? Good options are WP:G12, Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, or speedy redirect back to the source for trivial cases (barely no further work done with the copy-paste). On WP:RFHM User:Anthony Appleyard (RIP) was very efficient. I think REJECT is a wrong option when G12 or RFHM should be used.

I wonder whether a bot that searches new pages for unattributed copy-pastes is feasible? I know that an edit filter is decided to not be feasible. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

{{AFC submission}} has a check for existing drafts over a certain size, which pops the page into Category:Possible AfC copy-and-paste moves, but I do not think there are any other automated processes. I do suppose someone could clone User:CorenSearchBot and have it only search the Draft space for duplicates, but I wonder if there's a cost/benefit risk (usually these things get picked up pretty quickly). Primefac (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, requests to bot writers assumes the bot writers do a cost-benefit analysis. In real life, I’ve had two near equal requests, I thought, and one was done right in front of me, and another I heard months later “do realise what you were asking for?!” SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The recurring example that always irks me is this: A draft exists, for some time, and is more than a stub. A new editor begins work on that draft. After they’ve improved it, they copy-paste the contents to mainspace. They then MfD the draft with the rationale “article already exists”, which if agreed to, loses all information on the prior authors. I asked, can we have a bot read new articles and query whether it is a copy of a draft article under the same title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I have seen this scenario that User:SmokeyJoe mentions, "article already exists", too many times at MFD, and I agree that it is completely wrong by the nominator. I don't think that I have ever seen the draft deleted improperly. We have Speedy Redirect for the purpose. When I see a request to delete a draft because the article exists, I usually think that the nominator is trying to steal credit. More generally, many copy-pastes are attempts to steal credit. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

In that example the MFD folks should realise it was a copy/paste job, decline to delete, and ask for a histmerge.

As far as the request goes, I'm not saying we can't have a bot that does this, but WP:BOTREQ would be the better place to ask. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

When you find a copy-paste? Good options are WP:G12 ... Can G12 be used for internal copy paste moves though? I've never seen that. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and I'll learn something today. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixing attribution failures of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia does not document G12 as a solution, but it is a good solution of a trivial worthless copy-paste, eg someone copy-pasted something, and did nothing serious with it, and subsequently the source page was developed. In this case, the unattributed fork represents a WP:Copyrights compliance hazard, and nothing good can come of it, and it fits G12.

In terms of G12 wording, where “there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving” is true because it is all on the source page, and it is some work to fix the copyright compliance of this worthless page, I think that’s a reasonable G12. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on G12

So to clarify, is G12 the proper CSD code to use in requesting deletion of a copy-paste? Will admins recognize that a "bad" copy-paste is a reason for a G12? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not think there is a yes or no answer to whether it is "the proper CSD code". It is a code that can be used, but there are many options when dealing with a copy/paste. Personally, I use G12 for deleting copy/pastes when it is the only reasonable option; specifically, if a page has been copy/pasted from draft/userspace (by a different editor) and is not in any way suitable for mainspace (at that point in time), but doesn't meet any of the other CSD criteria, I will use G12 to delete it as a copyvio. If the page has previously been draftified, then a G12 probably isn't appropriate per WP:DRAFTOBJECT and either a {{db-move}} or a histmerge is in order. I know it's nice to have a perfect lovely flowchart that gives every possible scenario, but unfortunately most the issues surrounding copy/paste pagemoves come down to administrator discretion, and are largely predicated on what has happened before the article was copy/pasted. I cannot give you a better answer than that. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Primefac said that if the page has previously been draftified, then a G12 probably is not appropriate. Okay. But do you mean that the page was draftified and the author then copy-pastes it from draft space into article space? In that case, there is a disagreement as to whether the page should be in article space. Isn't AFD in order? You also mentioned {{db-move}}. Please clarify what would be requested to be moved where. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

If a page has been draftified and the author copy/pastes their own draft into the article space, then it needs to be brought to AFD per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Whether or not there should be a histmerge is dependent on whether anyone else added content that was later copied over, and whether anyone added text after the copy determines whether it makes more sense to histmerge or just hit it with a {{db-move}}. I genuinely can't tell you which scenarios to use which because I have done probably a dozen of each over the last week alone and couldn't separate out which fell into which category; I look at every page on its own merits based on what someone tags the page with. Sometimes I will agree with a histmerge and do it, sometimes I will decide a db-move is more appropriate, and sometimes when there's a db-move I might determine that a histmerge is more appropriate. As long as the page is flagged for some sort of administrative review, that is the important part. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:G12 notes that the "mere lack of attribution" of freely licensed content" isn't a reason for deletion, so it doesn't apply to internal copy-paste moves (unless, of course, the original source was itself a copyvio). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with this; the very (very) few times I have G12'd a page for being a cross-wiki copy, there has been a healthy dose of IAR involved. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Another Specific Question

If User A creates a draft, and then User A copy-pastes the draft into article space, is a history merge required? I had thought that the answer was no, unless User C had made some edits to the draft while it was in draft space. Some reviewers, trying to do the right thing, routinely tag for history merge. I assume that it is better to tag for history merge when in doubt, and let the administrator decide. But I also would like to see the guidelines that administrators use in deciding whether to do the requested history merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

They do routinely tag for a histmerge, and I routinely decline it. That being said, I would rather decline a histmerge than not, but if there is only one content editor then there are no attribution issues and thus no histmerge required. The guideline at WP:CUTPASTE is When a cut-and-paste move is done, the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages. This is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons. (See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.) This is why when there is only one editor there are no attribution issues; we only require that attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page (from WP:CWW). Primefac (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

In a situation such as this, if it is obvious to me, while a hist-merge is requested, that it is a single user case and so does not require a history merge, may I, as another reviewer, remove the history merge tag with an edit summary explaining why? Or should I wait for an admin? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, if you feel comfortable doing so. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Question About a Possible Bot

My question for User:SmokeyJoe or anyone else who has asked about a bot to detect possible copy-pastes is: Exactly what tests should the bot apply? A bot cannot make any tests or comparisons that a human cannot make. What a bot can do in this case that a human cannot is to monitor the queue of new pages created either in article space or in draft space and examine them as they come in, and make the tests. What should the bot compare or test against what? The less difficult question then is what the bot should do if it "thinks" that the page is a copy-paste. The bot can put a tag on the page that flags it for human review by adding it to a category. The important question is what comparisons or tests the bot should make. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

A possible algorithm for a copy paste detection bot would be to do what Earwig does. That is, search some random pieces of text on the page (in this case using Wikipedia's native CirrusSearch instead of the Yahoo search API) and see if it gets any hits. It should probably monitor the new articles stream and filter on mainspace only. And its searches should probably check draftspace only. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Another Wrong Answer on a Copy-Paste

I have just seen what I think is another mistaken good-faith effort to deal with a copy-paste. A page was created in article space, and was moved by a reviewer back to draft space. It was then copied by the article author back into article space with the addition of more references. An editor then tagged it for A10, recent creation duplicating an existing article. I think that is a mistake because A10 only applies to articles that duplicate articles, not that duplicate drafts in review. There isn't an attribution issue because the two pages have the same author. Am I correct that A10 is a mistaken answer to that problem? (Also, a valid A10 should usually be redirected rather than deleted, by the admin, but that isn't the issue.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep, A10 applies only to articles that "duplicate[] an existing English Wikipedia article"; here's the most recent discussion. This issue seems to come up fairly frequently: I suppose it's off topic here, but perhaps it would be possible for the template to display an error message when the duplicated page isn't in mainspace. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought the issue was familiar, seeing who asked the question seven months ago. The situation was exactly the same then, an editor copying a draftified article back into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Article wizard

FYI WP:article wizard has been proposed to be renamed; see Wikipedia talk:Article wizard -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Can't access sources in a draft

Greetings,

so I'm hopefully posting this in the right space – if not, trout me. I'm a new reviewer and decided to try a random submission, landing at Draft:Daydream Hotel. I looks to me as not an easy one, i.e. neither obviously bad nor clearly ready. To make matters worse, I can't access these two sources used in the article at all, because I'm accessing from the EU. Could someone kindly take a look at these and tell me whether or not they are any good? -- LordPeterII (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The first one you linked does not have a page author and looks like a press release follow a template of some sort. The second source only said "student-based production" and does not support the fact directly. Might be OR. By the way use Wayback Machine it should bypass the geoblock. [5] [6] 0xDeadbeef 13:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef: Ah now that is a clever idea, it worked! I can read the sources myself now, thanks. I am leaning towards a rejection then, since many of the sources are not about the article subject directly, but things related to it (director, location). Since this is my first review, would you mind telling me if you disagree? --LordPeterII (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: Did you mean decline? Rejecting it would prevent it from being resubmitted. I would agree with a decline but not with a reject. 0xDeadbeef 01:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef: Oh yeah no I meant decline, mixed up the terms. Alright, will do that then. --LordPeterII (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi WikiProject Articles for creation,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Archiving and date headings

I noticed that no date headings had been added to the help desk for a few days (I just added them manually). This is something normally done by scsbot. scs posted a heads-up at Wikipedia talk:Help desk#Archiving may be interrupted – I assume this is the same issue? In any case, it looks like manual archiving will be needed. I don't have the time to work out how to do that right now. Any volunteers? :-) --bonadea contributions talk 12:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right, it's the same issue. I'm hopeful that the bot can be repaired in the next couple of days. If you can tolerate some temporary extra volume, you might not need to worry about manual archiving, which can be a pain. —scs (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue is resolved now. —scs (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks, scs. May you receive kittens and beer (or whatever makes you happy). --bonadea contributions talk 16:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

German politician bios

Good afternoon my AFC colleagues! So, I'm a little suspicious about the number of BLPs coming in about past members of the Bundestag. Draft:Wolfgang von Geldern, Wolfgang Lüder, Reinhard von Schorlemer, Knut von Kühlmann-Stumm as examples. They are done by a couple different editors but look similar, which makes me worried about a sockfarm, but it very well could be a drive on a WikiProject that I am unaware of. I think I'm being too suspicious, but I would love a second opinion. Thanks! Bkissin (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Two of those four are deceased, it looks like. I don't think UPEs would write articles for deceased people. Probably a false alarm :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Gorutna

Just noticed a new editor Gorutna with 49 edits doing manual reviews! KylieTastic (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Wonder if they were doing so as an unregistered user before? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• unsurprisingly blocked as a sock but no note of any named sock-master - however their "accepts" should be considered dubious: Sprengplatz Grunewald, Swoop Aero, Jaida Lee and Odelya Halevi but appear to have nothing in common. KylieTastic (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  The rules currently say something like non-approved AFC reviewers doing reviews is "strongly discouraged". Should we change that to something firmer such as "not allowed"? Seems counter intuitive to have a WP:PERM-like background check process then allow people to ignore it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think so, yes. If someone wants to move a draft into the main space, there's nothing to stop them, of course, but at least they shouldn't pretend to be an AfC reviewer when they're not; that's just plain dishonest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what this would accomplish; non-AFCH users are allowed to determine whether an AFC-submitted draft is "acceptable" and can move things to the article space; I see nothing in the three articles above wherein the user is somehow "pretending" to be an AFCH user (though I have seen our default edit summaries copied by other editors before). Even if they aren't on the AFCH list, it's not like we can reverse the action purely because they said so. Primefac (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  May not have been this user, but I've certainly seen earlier someone issuing AfC acceptance notices on the creators' talk pages. That was my point: we can't stop anyone moving articles into the main space, but if they try to make it look as if it's a legit AfC outcome, that's where they cross a line, IMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  PS: Just remembered, it was one of Stevence SA socks (who issued AfC notices). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough, though I guess my primary thought is that people will (mis)use our templates regardless of what we tell them. I'm getting distracted with other thoughts below though. Primefac (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, so this is me probably rushing and missing something obvious, but where in our rules do we use the phrase "strongly discouraged"? If you're talking about the WP:AFCP notice tucked under all of the other stuff, that seems like a pretty obscure place to indicate this. Primefac (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  I was thinking of this: WP:AFCP: PLEASE NOTE: Editors whose usernames are not on the list are strongly cautioned not to review AfC submissions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  In that case, I will stick with my earlier sentiment, in that folks not on the list are able to review drafts, and we cannot prohibit it. Primefac (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  It does seem strange to have an admin granted permission for the script but to allow anyone to actually pretend to be a reviewer. However the problem is not really with the accepting as we have WP:NPP... or the mover is auto-patrolled so 'trusted'. However the issue is probably more with the declines as they could be declining notable articles and putting off good editors and by updating the submit as the script would it looks like a sanctioned review. KylieTastic (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  You can say we have WP:NPP, but the backlog is seriously growing. The backlog drive helped, but we've back to over 10k pages unreviewed. I guess what I'm saying is we need help at NPP to keep things efficient. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Just spotted JabrinUttu, an account created on 30 June, whose 11th edit was declining a draft, and all their 26 edits since have been manual reviews (all declines apart from Resonai). Any connection here? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

They're not a technical match to Gorutna if that's what you're wondering. I haven't had a chance to look, but are the declines wrong? Primefac (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Just as you were posting your comment I filed this SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gorutna after I concluded the behaviour was identical. Interesting they aren't a technical match. I will update the SPI to remove the CU request. I will go through the declines. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Consumer Compliance would be a tricky review for a beginner - serious article, on a subject that would appear appropriate for an article, with lots of sources, maybe a bit essay-like, and possibly trying to synthesise a definition where the author is clearly struggling to find an authoritative one in reliable sources... but harsh to decline for notability with a standard template. Needs an experienced reviewer... Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This has no doubt been discussed before, possibly even by yours truly, in which case apologies for repetition!

The decline reason 'v' - Submission is improperly sourced seems to cause confusion. It gives an explanation stating This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources, which I interpret (rightly or wrongly) as meaning one of two things: either the sources are not reliable, or the referencing is inadequate, ie. doesn't support all/enough of the article contents (and/or doesn't verify the information). But — possibly because the explanation then goes on to elaborate on what reliable sources are — it seems to give the impression that it's only the quality of sources why the draft was declined. The user then comes to the help desk confused, as they've cited only legit RS sources... but are overlooking the fact that half the draft is unsupported.

I know many add comments to their decline in any case, but I think this is one situation where it is particularly helpful to explain which of the two issues is the actual reason for declining. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I suppose an extra sentence adding that all content must be verified would work. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: MUST all content be verified? My understanding is that for purposes of AfC acceptance, the important thing is that notability has been established. Inadequate referencing for additional material beyond the criterion for notability is another issue that I always comment on, but it is not a reason to decline, or so I thought. Doric Loon (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, all content must be verified. If a draft is being declined because the content is not verified, then the decline notice should reflect that. Do we accept drafts where not 100% of the content is sourced? Sure, but we also aren't declining those drafts under v. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Accepting a draft over a redirect

Draft:Xdinary Heroes looks to pass WP:NBAND #2 [7][8], and I was going to accept it, but there is currently a redirect in place. Should I copy the draft article over the redirect, request a deletion of the redirect and accept the draft per usual, or tell the editor who wrote the draft to copy it over the redirect to maintain contribution history? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• ScottishFinnishRadish "request a deletion of the redirect" use {{Db-afc-move|Draft:page to be moved}} – for pages that are currently holding up a non-controversial or consensual page move as a result of an Articles for creation (AFC) review, typically for articles in draft space. KylieTastic (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Disagree with this. It is a misuse of CSD#G6. The old redirect history should stay in the history. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, it really shouldn't, because "the redirect target was changed" is trivial history, and is explicitly exempted from preventing a G6. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Disagree. WP:CSD is at fault with way too liberal use of G6. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  That's your prerogative, but at the moment it's perfectly acceptable to do so. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the assistance, and thanks to Primefac for deleting before I had the opportunity to tag the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Acceptance comment

Would it be possible to add a facility to the BOT so that we can write a comment when we accept a draft? At the moment this only seems to be possible when we decline. The point is that since we accept a draft when it satisfies notability criteria, even though it still has a lot of work needed, it can be helpful for us to leave a note suggesting what to do next. I often do this just by leaving a message on the author's user talk manually, but it would be better if, as in the case of rejections, this comment was already built into the banner that is put there automatically. Doric Loon (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

If this is something that is desired, it could probably be coded in. I am somewhat ambivalent myself, but then again I find that going to the talk page after an accept is not the most onerous of activities. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The author's page is not ideal because they don't WP:OWN the article and the information is probably useful to other editors. Add some maintenance tags to the article/draft or comments on the talk page. This can be done before or after acceptance. ~Kvng (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in September 2022

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241 Online events: New: Alphabet run: E and F | Women writers and their works Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Request for help: Participate in preparations for our trend-setting contest in November Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

August reviewer statistics

I know it's been a while since I've done one of these (time, effort, etc), but with a bunch of new reviewers lately (and the backlog slowly decreasing) I thought I would give some statistics for the month that was August.

• Total listed reviewers (including probationary members): 400, of which:
  • performed at least 1 review: 195 (49%)
  • performed more than 10 reviews: 73 (37%)
  • performed more than 50 reviews: 22 (11%)
  • performed exactly 69 reviews: 2
  • performed more than 100 reviews: 10 ( 5%)
• Probationary reviewers: 39, of which:
  • performed at least 1 review: 22 (56%)
  • performed at least 10 reviews: 8 (20%)
  • performed at least 100 reviews: 1 ( 3%) well that's unfortunate; user was blocked

In total, we reviewed at least 5,328 pages (my numbers don't include deleted pages), which averages out to about 172 reviews per day (or just under 1 per active reviewer per day).

A huge thanks to all who dedicate their time and effort to this project, especially those in the top 22 who have done 2+ reviews a day. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet draft reviews

Hello, AFC,

I just saw that DavidEfraim was blocked as a sockpuppet and he recently did quite a few draft reviews. Do you have any policy about rereviewing drafts evaluated by blocked editors? Just curious. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any particular re-review policy that's done (since AfC is optional), but usually the articles are listed here and given a look over to see if they do meet AfC review guidelines, as was done here. If the articles look fine and have proper sources, then they're left alone. Any particularly dodgy ones might be re-draftified (though if the article creator reverses that action, then it can be considered them publishing the article anyways and should be left alone after that point re:draftification). And if they're just outright not notable topics, then AfD would be the better course of action than re-draftifying. Silverseren^C 05:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy links: DavidEfraim (talk · contribs), Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alphaonekannan. Things that should definitely trigger more scrutiny are any hint of UPE, and/or possessing autopatrolled. According to the SPI, looks like this does have a flavor of UPE. Thoughts? Worth doing some kind of review? Or let NPP handle? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm going to retract my flavor-of-UPE comment: given the checkuser results, this is probably just run-of-the-mill block evasion. I spot-checked a few of the accepts and didn't see anything too concerning, so I don't think we need to go through them all methodically as we sometimes have in the past. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the above. David did over 100 reviews, so it's silly for us to check all of them, but if we spot-check the acceptances we should get a fairly good idea of his intentions (whether simply avoiding a block or also doing UPE). Disappointing, too, because he was quite prolific! Primefac (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Please excuse I don't know how this works

I made some mistakes on the project page here. Trying to add a category request. Now I cannot even undo. Trying to request a category for articles where the website URL is intentionally omitted. Thank youTeeVeeed (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@TeeVeeed I reverted your edits so you can try again. At the top of the page, click the "Click here to request a new category" button (under the one in blue for a redirect) which will launch the wizard. S0091 (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank You! TeeVeeed (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

New user information template: notability

I'm a new pages reviewer, and after finding a repeated need to explain the notability requirements, proceeded, with the assistance of others, to develop a new user information template: uw-notability. Feedback on its usability and suggested improvements are welcome. The template is intended to be a standardized beginning explanation of notability: intentionally, it does not answer all questions, as that would put it into tl;dr-land. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Nice find. I made a couple tweaks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Something odd with AfC user talk page notice

Any clue as to why the AfC decline notice did what it did at User talk:Fernan808, related to my Draft:Commodore 1701/02 decline? S0091 (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

S0091, you didn't close the brackets for the WP:GNG link. Curbon7 (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ahh...thanks Curbon07! S0091 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Backlog duration?

Just out of curiosity, how is the backlog duration calculated? It's clearly not based solely on the number of drafts in the backlog, as that has been gradually going down, yet the duration has just jumped from 4 months to 5. Does it calculate some sort of running average etc. of daily reviews, and divide the backlog count by that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe it goes by Category:AfC pending submissions by age, which as of today has two articles in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/5 months ago or however the age is calculated to populate the categories. S0091 (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Time is a fickle mistress, if a draft isn't reviewed for 5 months, it ends up in the 5-month category. Wild!

Counter's back down to 4. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh okay. In that case I was way off the mark. Yet again.

So that would mean that just one draft sitting in the pool for 6 months, for whatever reason, would push this number up? And conversely, by clearing those (< 30, currently) drafts that are 4+ months old would drop the duration to 3? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing Yes! KylieTastic (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

And no! The counter only changes if there is more than one draft in any particular "aged" category. This is because occasionally someone will submit a really old (and previously-unsubmitted) draft, but the timestamp will show the wrong date. Since this is technically wrong, it gives me time to fix the issue rather than throw everything out of whack (and panic people) when that happens. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Help, intervention, advice required...

I came across and accepted Boehmeria grandis after removing the inappropriate personal blog twice and attempting to point the user to read WP:RS and WP:NOR after the previous level 2 & 3 warnings by MrOllie had had no effect. The editor knowns their subject and has a strong interest and could be a good editor, however they have re-added their own blog as a source again and stated on their talk page here "I'm not sure why I need to justify myself as a reliable source"... and they are as important or more than the University of Hawaii and POWO :/ I was contemplating a final warning but if we could get them to understand the importance of independent reliable sources and WP:NOR there is possibility here. I really wasn't sure where I could bring this up so thought I'd have a stab here and see if anyone had opinions how to deal with or would like a stab at communicating with them. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@KylieTastic I would recommend they take it to RSN to get consensus they are a reliable source. I suppose it is possible. Until then, the source should not be used. S0091 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

They can't seem to wrap their head around how they themselves could not be considered a reliable source based on their education. I'd say WP:RSSELF applies here. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I tried to stress on their talk page that it is about the self published nature of the blog and the conflict of interest, not about their own knowledge or training. MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks S0091, Hey man im josh and MrOllie hopefully they will finally get the idea of the guidelines and either quit or hopefully use their "expertise" to write more articles with consideration to Wikipedias ways. I'm just burnt out from dealing with similar people as customers, staff and bosses recently and felt I should step back (but not ignore) so happy to have the backup - So Thanks again. KylieTastic (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I commented there as well suggesting they take it to RSN. I am sure they are frustrated as they appear to be (or at least claim) they are an WP:EXPERT. Will see if giving them an option helps. S0091 (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

User:KylieTastic, User:MrOllie, User:Hey man im josh, User:S0091 - If the blog is inserted again, I suggest a visit to Requests for Page Protection to ask to have the page Extended-Confirmed Protected for a few weeks. He isn't extended-confirmed, and we are, and know that a blog, even by a Ph.D., isn't a reliable source. I'm not going there now because the reference isn't currently in. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Focused ultrasound for intracranial drug delivery error on acceptance attempt

I tried to accept this, and got this error message. I believe thsi meets the standard of having a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion

Error moving Draft:Focused ultrasound for intracranial drug delivery to Focused ultrasound for intracranial drug delivery: "badtoken" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I was able, eventually, to accept this, but a string of "Bad token" errors were reported. The AFCH script failed to complete 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I suspect a one-time, server-side glitch. If it continues happening we can look into it more. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

participant list

The new version to let admins use afch didn't work, at least for me. I reverted to the previous version DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the bug report. I mentioned it on GitHub just now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this an actual issue with the script or a cache issue? I greatly suspect the latter, as I cannot imaging it's only my account that doesn't have issues. Primefac (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I also suspect a caching issue - it works fine for me. firefly ( t · c ) 08:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It's working fine for me, as well. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

User scripts don't normally cache, I think they load fresh every time. Sometimes a page loaded by a script, such as the list of authorized AFCH users, could in theory be cached if you did the API query right (uselang: content, smaxage:, maxage:), but I'm not seeing those keywords in the codebase. How mysterious. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like firefly and Ks0stm aren't on the participants list, though Novem is, so it isn't that.

Can you (1) bypass your cache and try again and (2) if that doesn't work try with other userscripts disabled? I don't really have a theory for why that would help but I can't think of what the problem might be if it isn't something like a caching issue or interference from another script. Rusalkii (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Just so it's clear for DGG, what do you have in mind for bypassing the cache? Ctrl-F5 the page? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bypass your cache, so Ctrl-F5 unless he's on a Mac. Rusalkii (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft in order to Edit-War

I just encountered a draft, Draft:Lim Yi Wei, which almost duplicates an established article. In looking at the history, I see that what happened is that an IP, who has hinted that they are working for Lim, was edit-warring, and was being reverted. The IP then registered an account, and then after another round of edit-warring, submitted a draft which I think is the version of the article but making the edit-war changes. In the past, when I have seen drafts submitted to replace existing articles, it has sometimes been a good-faith mistake by classes to expand our articles on certain biological species. Expanding of articles, as we know, should be done by normal editing. But my question in this case is just how emphatically the reviewer should decline or reject the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with working on improvements to a page in the draft space. The decline as exists is appropriate, and the correct course of action is for the user to merge in the content if they feel it is superior to what is in the article. I'm not sure how emphatic statements come into play - a decline is a decline and nothing's going to get the draft accepted while there exists a perfectly valid article on top of it. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I try to be emphatic about the proper way to revise an article when I see a class submit multiple drafts that revise and expand articles, typically on species, because we want to expand our articles, but in those cases the instructor may have given good-faith wrong advice to the class. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

AFC logging

PSA: as of five days ago, you can now enable userspace logging of your drafts in the AFC helper script preferences. You can find them at User:Example/AfC log, e.g. User:Rusalkii/AfC log. Please come throw rotten tomatoes at me if anything isn't working properly, though I've just started a new job and can't promise to be prompt about fixing anything. Rusalkii (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations on starting a new job! – robertsky (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! So far it's a lot of waiting around, but I'm told I actually get to look at code next week. Rusalkii (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This is probably me missing something obvious, but... how? Primefac (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Took me a while to locate... there is a preferences link on the tool itself at the top. KylieTastic (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh goodness, yes... stare at a menu for years and never even notice the (preferences) text. Talk about banner blindness! Primefac (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I spent an embarrassing amount of time trying to figure this out. Please add a note explaining that preferences can only be accessed via the tool in draft space from a diminutive link to the right, as depicted in the screencap. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, once you know its there, its like DUH! Cool stuff @Rusalkii!! S0091 (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Add a note where? Rusalkii (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It would probably make a sense to have a "#Customising AFCH" section at WP:AFCH. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a preferences lin... wait, how long has that been there?! DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Preferences? Donkeys. Review logs? About three days. Primefac (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this should be a DYK on the mainpage. :) S0091 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Duplicates in different name spaces, and the 'wrong' one is submitted

It happens often that I try to move a submitted draft from sandbox or other user space to drafts, only to find that a draft by that name already exists there. If that draft has been submitted for review (whether as-yet unreviewed or already declined), then that's easy enough, I just dup-decline the new version. But if the draft occupying the correct name in the draft space hasn't been submitted, is it still okay to decline on the basis that the submitted draft duplicates an existing draft in the system? I'm asking because the decline notice says the other draft is waiting to be reviewed, which it clearly isn't when it hasn't even been submitted. (Why someone would create one draft at the correct title and another in a sandbox and submit the latter, I've no idea, but I guess ours is not to reason why...) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

If the other draft isn't submitted for review, then no, it should not be declined as a duplicate. I would definitely leave a note indicating that there is a second page, though. If they're identical (and/or the same author) I would actually just redirect the unsubmitted one to the submitted one. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Then I've done a fair few of them wrong (one just now!). Dang. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

2O on draft

I declined Draft:Validated Entheses-based Reconstruction of Activity back in April 2022 (this is what it looked like then) as a somewhat-neologism that was unsupported by references that weren't from the researcher who coined it. It's now at the back of the queue again, and I am finding myself in a similar position: having gone through all 13 references, there are only two that even use the words "Validated Entheses-based Reconstruction of Activity". I guess I want to check that I'm not missing something obvious, but I feel like if there are a dozen references about a subject, it really should be at least mentioned in those references. Primefac (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

If not a neologism, I’d call it an invention. Invented by Fotios Alexandros Karakostis. To test for notability, all sources by Karakostis have to be ignored. Separately, many or all are primary sources for it. Not notable. If in mainspace, it might survive for a long time before eventually being deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I have rejected, and am attempting to engage the author in discussion. As I think is a not uncommon thing, we have an expert over-focused on an over-narrow topic (here, a new method), while there is a lack of mainspace content needed to contextualise what the method is used for. In other words, I want to encourage them to improve content where this method could get its first mention. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Rejecting

I've noticed quite a wide variance in what comes to rejecting drafts. Some reviewers seem happy to reject drafts that I would only decline; others decline ones that I would reject without too much hesitation. And I know I dither on this myself, sometimes rejecting a draft that on a different day I would only decline. Putting aside the really flagrant cases of spam, hoax, vandalism, etc. and talking only about drafts which look reasonably viable works-in-progress, one draft might go through half a dozen declines or more without rejection, while another gets rejected straight off the bat. This could, of course, be down to genuine, material differences in the drafts... or it could be because of inconsistencies between reviewers, or between how a reviewer feels one day versus the next.

The instructions say Drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia should be rejected. Rejection is appropriate when you genuinely believe the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it were an article, but that doesn't tell us a) how 'entirely unsuitable' is determined (other than the most obvious cases, perhaps), or b) when in the process is rejection appropriate (eg. should all non-flagrant drafts be allowed a certain minimum number of declines before rejecting?).

I suppose this mainly presents a problem when a draft gets rejected 'harshly'; eg. someone comes to the help desk to ask why their draft was rejected, and I look at the draft and struggle to come up with a sensible answer. I feel like some further clarification in this area would help. Thoughts? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I seem to reject more than other users (https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/27659) maybe because I often take the low hanging fruit of the day. Recent rejections include Draft:Kitesurf Kompetition Kalendar and User:Idontgotmonkeypox/sandbox. Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, maybe Kitesurf Kompetition Kalendar can be filed under 'obvious cases'. :) Although even there it's not inconceivable that if the creator is a newbie who doesn't know better, once the issues are pointed out to them, they could go on to develop this into an acceptable draft. Which isn't to say you shouldn't have rejected it, but further illustrates my confusion.

And thanks for the stats link showing rejection %ages ranging from 0% to 50%+; pretty much my point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Idontgotmonkeypox/sandbox is one I would have CSDed as promotion, which means even if rejected it would no longer show in the stats. KylieTastic (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I take the stance that after you remove those that CSD is appropriate for then a reject, especially for a new user, can be rather harsh so it's rare I reject the first submission. I try to treat people the same as if it was face-2-face where most would politely point out why someone's work was not good enough rather than say stop and give up. So many times although a reject is technically valid, I just choose not to overly use at least on first submissions. I still do with some like recently Draft:Harvey Sullivan and Draft:Shahriar Chowdhury. KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2022‎ (UTC)

Personally I've been wishing for a while for a template less harsh than the reject templates that nevertheless does not encourage the editor to resubmit. Some drafts are clearly not going anywhere, but the editor is working in good faith, doesn't really known better, and doesn't deserve the bright red stop sign and all the other bitey template verbiage. As a result I only reject really obvious cases that have either gotten a softer decline before or look like vandalism or blatant promotion (i.e. the kinds of editors we want to discourage). Rusalkii (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you can look to WP:NOT for the meaning of entirely unsuitable if that's any help; I don't think it is in many cases because there is wide range of interpretation. Experience at WP:AFD can help gauge uncontroversially deleted; also a wide range of interpretation on display. So there you at least have an explanation for a wide range of reject criteria.

Reject was created by reviewers who felt their time was being wasted by unpromising resubmissions. I'm not sure it solves that problem - it should take less time to just leave these in the queue. It does seem to create other problems. ~Kvng (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

When I first advocated for REJECT as an option, the intention was to reject most obviously unsuitable submitted drafts. Before the REJECT options, even joke submissions would receive the saccharin advice the edit and resubmit, which hapless newcomers would read at face value and do.

Immediately, the REJECT option included also reject for “non-notable”. I was initially unsure of the wisdom of this, but on seeing it work, I think it was obviously a very good thing to do. Non-notability goes to the topic, not the state of the writing or formatting, nor the current list of references. If a topic is non-notable, then it is not suitable for mainspace, and to DECLINE to encourage the author to try harder is not appropriate, it would be to waste their time and then more reviewer time.

What be improved is the wording delivered on a REJECT. Calling “non notable” is usually somewhat subjective, and often arguable. It might be a good idea for the wording to state that it is the opinion of this single reviewer (other reviewers may second or third the opinion), and that there are options. They may attempt to argue the point with the reviewer. They may remove the “reject” notice and submit again. They may follow WP:DRAFTOBJECT and unilaterally mainspace the draft themself. Usually, these are all bad options, but it it ethical to hide options from newcomers?

Other options that I think are better include:

• Note that their efforts are not good faith efforts to contribute to the project, making a record that may assist later reviewer dealing with them; or
• Encourage them to consider re-scoping their chosen topic. Often, something is non-notable due to being too narrow, but generalising the topic up a level (or two) may solve that problem. The thread above, about a method for analysis of dry skeletal remains, is an example. The single method is not Wikipedia-notable, but “Anthropological analysis of skeletal remains” may be, and if not, surely “Skeletal reconstruction techniques” would be.; or
• recognising that they are a good-faith wishing-contributor, encourage them to get more experience by improving existing content, as finding completely new missing topics is actually relatively hard (harder than improving content on topics of their interest).

SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts y'all; I've certainly gained some new insights into this, which I will be digesting. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Pending AfC List issues

Hi all,

Getting back into AfC reviewing, and went to my normal route of clicking on the pending drafts list, but it's showing something like 98% reviewed (which shouldn't be showing on it at all) - known issue? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: It looks like that page hasn't been updated in over 10 months. Pinging Enterprisey, the maintainer, to see if they can investigate. eviolite (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Nosebagbear there is still Category:Pending AfC submissions for all, or Category:AfC pending submissions by age by age, and Wikipedia:AfC sorting by topic as well as the hourly updated Template:AfC statistics/pending. Probably why no one noticed. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, yes, - I ultimately went for the latter. But we should either fix or remove the non-working list. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - and welcome back! KylieTastic (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Nicholas Sansbury Smith

Could I ask for a second opinion on this; I encouraged the creator (who appears to be a subject expert) to work on this and another similar draft after some bad experiences soured them for editing. They submitted it, but it was declined as "needs more independent sources not primary" -- but there is an encyclopedia source [9], plus 7 newspaper/magazine. Surely the sentence only supported by GoodReads and the like could just be chopped out? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict Skimming through the references. I am very unsure about the Encyclopaedia of Science Fiction. An en cyclopaeida is, to me, a tertiary source, as is Wikipedia. Looking further on, Amazon author pages are created by the author or their agent, Blackstone is a site selling the books, the Iowan pice is an interview with the author, I have firm doubts about the DM Cityview as useful in that it is about self publishing, not really about the author, Iowa Source is an interview with Smith, Aethenn books is a press release, Publishers Weekly is a selling site, Goodreads is generally self generated and I can't find Smith mentioned, and the remaining citations are rinse and repeat of thise I've mentioned previously. So I see nothing to assist verifying that he passes WP:NAUTHOR

I will leave this as a comment on the draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Very early articles on forthcoming elections

Please see Draft talk:2026 South Australian state election where the creating editor has opened a discussion after my review suggesting it was too soon. Your input would be appreciated. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2022

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244 Online events: New: Alphabet run: G and H | Women in STEM / Ada Lovelace Day | Geofocus West Asia Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green's "Wildcard Edition" Good Article editathon Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Draft:Sony α7 IV - "titleblacklist-forbidden-move"

I was trying to accept this draft but getting the "titleblacklist-forbidden-move" error which I have never encountered. The title appears to be line other articles in the series, ex. Sony α7, Sony α7 III. Any clue? S0091 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I seem to have moved the page... I'll leave you to do the notifications. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You have "special powers". :) Thanks for the help! S0091 (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Incidentally I was trying to figure out why it was on the title blacklist, didn't actually mean to move it :-p Primefac (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The only thing I could figure was the "α". I briefly skimmed the docs which took me to the Mediawiki blacklist but did not get a hit for the exact title and only one for "Sony" which was not this title. However, there is the local blacklist as well. I also found Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 150#Title blacklist. Who knows but clearly an admin or some other permission you have can overcome it. S0091 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It's the "DISALLOW PAGE MOVES TO MIXED-SCRIPT TITLES" section of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist: you generally can't move a page to a title that has both non-Latin-script characters (like α) and Latin-script characters. The title blacklist can be overridden by admins, template editors, and page movers, so if you run into this situation again feel free to post either here or at WP:RM/TR. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Something odd happening with Draft:Mone_Symone

Tracked in github.com
Issue #245

Both myself and another editor in the edit history find that when clicking "review" on this draft the page goes unresponsive. I've read it and want to decline it for not meeting the notability criteria, but the "review" tab just doesn't work. Does anyone else have this same problem? MurielMary (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Something on the page is causing a "too much recursion" in the parsing but I can't spot what. KylieTastic (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• Found it! There was a line of spaces after the Career section that was causing the issue. After much playing in my sandbox it appears to need a header then lots of spaces then anything. So the minimal case I've got is (note between A and B is 100+ spaces)

{{AFC submission}}
==A==
                                                                                                             
B

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• This page has driven me mad since it was created. Glad Kylie has tracked down what was causing the issue. Is this a bug that should be reported in phab? Slywriter (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. I went ahead and created a ticket. https://github.com/WPAFC/afch-rewrite/issues/245 –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Where to Advise Draft Author to Go to Discuss Declines

At the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard we get a number of disputes that are not about article content, and so we are not the right forum, but we try to tell editors where to go with disputes. This is about where to go about the decline of a draft. I normally advise the author of the draft to request advice at the Teahouse. But the Teahouse is mostly for inexperienced editors. In this case the author whose draft was declined is a paid editor, and so should not need new editor advice. (Well, we know that most paid editors think that they are better editors than they really are, but that is not our problem, except that it is our problem.) So where would be a good place for the author of Draft:Paul M. Sparrow to discuss their draft? I closed the request because they had not listed or notified the other editors, who were User:Theroadislong, User:Greenman, and User:Curbon7. I haven't reviewed the draft. I can see that the author is too quick to complain about bullying and harassment. So where should authors of drafts go to discuss them, or, where should paid editors of drafts go for discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

If they have a question or concern about their draft, they should ask at WP:AFCHD, or IRC. If they have an issue with the conduct of editor(s) with "bullying and harassment" then they should go to WP:ANI. Of course, they can always discuss a decline with the reviewer in question, but from your post it sounds like that has either already been tried or would not be helpful in this case. Primefac (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. If the question or concern is about the draft, they should go to the draft_talk page, which is where the decline comments should go from the start. Any question or concern about any page should go to the page’s talk page.

If the draft_talk page is quiet, they should be advised to go to the article talk page of the parent topic.

If it’s bullying or harassment, specific to an editor, yes ANI is right, except they should go to the editors user_talk first. If it is inherent to the process, WT:AfC is appropriate.

Teahouse, AFCHD, and IRC are possibilities for where they could go, but should? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

While in general I would agree with you on the page's talk: who can you honestly say is going to even see that? I know it's the primary venue for discussion, but as it is almost guaranteed to have a page-watcher count of 1, it's just wasting the reviewer's time for a comment that won't ever come. I did somewhat give my reply in no particular order, but I did try to imply that talking to the reviewer/user first is a good precursor to ANI.

So yes, I absolutely think that AFCHD and IRC are where they "should" go if they are not satisfied with a reply from the reviewer. Primefac (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

And now that I think about it, there is no one right answer to this question. There are only combinations of "places to edit" and "chances of getting a response". Draft talk page: Good place to edit, horrible chance of getting a response. AFCHD: good place to edit, good chance of getting a response. The reviewer's talk page: reasonable place to edit, good chance of getting a response. ANI: not a great place to edit, but a good chance of getting a response. We cannot force a user to go to any of these venues, we can only give what we feel is the best advice, which is why I discount going to the draft talk as a first option. Primefac (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Rightly or wrongly, I practically never look at the talk page of a draft (published articles, yes of course, but not AFC drafts), so any discussion there would go unnoticed by me at least. If the review comments went automatically to the talk page, that would make it a natural place for discussion, but they don't.

Leaving aside the bullying and harassment claims and the like, otherwise I would have thought the AFCHD is the natural place to discuss most AFC matters; better even than the Teahouse — and certainly better than posting the same query at both places, which some do. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the draft_talk should be the main forum for talking about the draft, and having posted there, if no response, the author should only then post elsewhere, and link back. The lack of people noticing draft_talk posts goes to my main criticism of people drafting without ever editing mainspace parent articles. The drafter needs to engage in mainspace, and the mainspace talk pages, about their draft, when it is a newcomer’s dubious draft, which is likely it’s a declined draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioned AFCHD. It is the forum that is provided for this purpose, and so is the answer that I was looking for. But I either don't understand a recommendation of IRC or I disagree. Isn't IRC Internet Relay Chat? Isn't that a chat facility that is commonly used for off-wiki discussion that has many of the advantages and disadvantages of off-wiki chat, including that it doesn't leave as good a historical trail as on-wiki discussion, and that you don't know what other editors will be in the chat room at any given time? I wouldn't think of IRC as a recommendation that a DRN volunteer should make to an editor who has a dispute for which DRN is the wrong forum. Am I missing something about IRC, or is it just that some editors use IRC and some editors don't use IRC? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that we all agree that posting the same query in two or three places is undesirable. 20:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I will add, about the claim of bullying and harassment, that I think that an editor should be advised to read the boomerang essay before posting to WP:ANI about almost any conduct issue. In particular, although bullying and harassment do exist as problems in Wikipedia, complaints of bullying and harassment when there is no harassment are more common, because some editors are thin-skinned or hypersensitive to criticism. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Weird one, Huntsville Gazette

Anyone mind having a look at the histories of Draft:Huntsville Gazette and letting me know what went wrong? @Robert McClenon correctly declined it as a dupe, but it shouldn't have been a dupe because I'd already accepted it, yet doing so created another draft? (See first edit in Draft's history). To be clear, not saying Robert did anything wrong. I think there was some weird tech glitch here that I haven't seen in reviewing AfC. Any ideas?

(Courtesy ping @FloridaArmy since I'm talking about their draft, but this has nothing to do with their editing) Star Mississippi 13:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

From the history, it looks like you were using HotCat on the draft and not on the article (i.e. you might not have refreshed the page before doing so?). That would have cached the page and caused you to recreate the draft. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Primefac. I did notice when adding categories that I appeared to be on the draft, but thought it to be a cache issue in my view. (If it wasn't clear already, I'm way better on content than on the not even quite so technical stuff). Sorry to make a mess of the histories and thanks for clearing up so quickly. Star Mississippi 14:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I made a comment in declining the draft saying that there had been a race condition. That comment only went onto the talk page of FloridaArmy. A race condition is the computing and electrical engineering term for what Wikipedia calls an edit conflict. I don't know exactly what caused it and didn't try to research it, but, as you know, I declined the duplicate draft, and then redirected the draft to the article. Does this leave things as they were? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

If by your last question you mean "do we need to do anything further", then no, there is nothing to do here. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

other than keeping me from breaking shit o:) Star Mississippi 02:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Helper script development updates (new contributors, repo transferred)

A warm welcome to Novem Linguae and Ingenuity, who have recently been added as maintainers on the AfC helper script's code repository. I appreciate their willingness to help out. Development should go a bit more quickly now. I have also transferred the code repository for the AfC helper script to wikimedia-gadgets, an umbrella organization for various gadgets on Wikimedia wikis, which should open up access to more contributors. While we're here, now is as good a time as any to get involved with the helper script! We certainly have enough bugs and feature requests that need work. And heck, the AfC helper script is how I got into user script development in the first place. Since it's evidently worked for me, I encourage you to try it out as well if you're thinking about getting into user scripts. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the warm welcome Enterprisey. I've mostly been focusing on creating tickets since that is what I have time for at the moment. In a couple weeks when my schedule frees up I may be able to work more on approving of PRs and writing patches. Ingenuity has been doing a fantastic job approving patches. They tested and approved 5, which lowered the PR backlog considerably. Having more maintainers should help get patches out quicker, which will motivate developers to write even more patches :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Patrol?

I thought articles accepted at AfC get autopatrol — was I wrong? Or does it depend on something? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Only if the AfC reviewer has autopatrolled permission. – robertsky (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That occurred to me also as a reasonable explanation, but then I unreasonably dismissed it as unlikely. As in, unlikely that a reviewer wouldn't have autopatrol. Okay, now I know. Ta, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, even though I have AP I mark my accepted drafts as unreviewed; I would always prefer a second set of eyes. Primefac (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I do the same in a more selective way. Clear passes get a free ride. Those where I feel them to be borderline I mark as unreviewed. I wish we had a higher proportion of clear passes. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. My pass threshold is probably relatively high (as evidenced also by my low acceptance %), meaning I only accept what I consider to be 'clear passes'. I don't then feel the need for a second opinion, in fact this never even crossed my mind until now! My way puts pressure on the AfC pool but not on the NPP one; with you both, it would seem the other way around. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Elijah Green

Was about to accept this draft when I realized the mainspace version was a redirect. I did some digging into the history of the submission and I am slightly concerned that WP:TOOSOON may apply here. I could use a second set of eyes on this one. Eternal Shadow Talk 04:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove G13 functionality

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.

---

Please remove G13 functionality from the AFCH script per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Are CSD tags edits for the purposes of WP:G13? if the consensus is that we should not be tagging drafts as G13. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I just searched the AFCH code for "g13" and was surprised to find some. Apparently AFCH displays 2 extra buttons when a draft is G13 eligible. Guess I don't patrol the back of the queue enough. Anyway, no consensus yet, but please keep us posted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that AFCH should keep the functionality. The buttons only show up when a draft is over six months. I frequently use AFCH for that purpose and I don’t think that it is a bad thing even if there is not much overlap between AFCH and G13s otherwise. Eternal Shadow Talk 04:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that adding a G13 tag resets the G13 clock, which is absurd. Not to mention that AN isn't even the right venue to make changes to CSD policy. – SD0001 (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

If I wanted to tag a draft for G13, I'd do it using Twinkle. (Not that I've ever felt the need, mind.) So what would removing it from the AFCH achieve? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2022 (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.

Draft Blanked - An Explanation

This is an explanation of something that another reviewer didn't understand fully, because it requires explanation.

A draft had been in review, and was then blanked by a different editor. A reviewer then reverted the blanking, and noted in the edit summary that they didn't know why an uninvolved account had blanked the draft. The previously uninvolved account had blanked the draft and copied it into article space. This was a form of copy-paste move that could be called a cut-and-paste move. I tagged the article to have the history of the draft history merged. The good-faith explanation is that this was a clueless attempt by the pasting editor to accept the draft, as a non-reviewer. A more clueful way to do this would have been to Move the draft into article space, which would leave the AFC tag on the article for cleanup.

So that's the explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

In fairness to this unnamed reviewer, I believe if I came across a blank draft with no indication of why it was blanked, the first thing I would do is revert the blanking as well (potentially not going any further if I wasn't thinking about the copy/paste aspect). However, your explanation is a good one, and something for folks to keep an eye out for in the future. Primefac (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in fairness to the unnamed reviewer, I think that the reviewer did the right thing in reverting the blanking. The editor whom I said was clueless was the one who cut-and-pasted the draft into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Template for Discussion

Some of you have used the templates that I have written to put standard comments on drafts. One of them, Template:Talkspin, which requests discussion on the parent article talk page when the draft is of a child article, has been nominated for deletion. It is at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_3#Template:Talkspin. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Molecular-strain engineering - eyes on my review, please

I have just reviewed this and am slightly out of my comfort zone, If you have anything to add or to offer to the creating editor please add comments to the comment list there. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - I have a degree in chemistry, and I would have declined it. I have tagged it as needing more links, the purpose of which would be to give me a better idea of what to merge it into. It doesn't contain enough information to be a useful stub, because it is sort of an expanded dictionary definition. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Thank you. It doesn't look to me as if the editor is ever coming back to do a thing with it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

If the editor doesn't follow up, it goes G13 in April 2023, and that is the way things work. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Battle of Svatovo - ?Move warring?

A brief look at the history will show that the same editor has moved this twice to draft space, once after acceptance at AFC by an experienced reviewer. I have asked the editor who moved it to correct their double draftification on their talk page. That is not my purpose in posting here.

My purpose is to ask experienced reviewers to take a look at this draft, whether submitted or not, and to consider where it belongs. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I have accepted the draft a second time. If the editor who has been doing the draftifying still wants it in draft space, they know how to start an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That seems fair and equitable. Thank you for resolving the immediate difficulty, Robert McClenon. We've all redraftified by accident, but not, I think, on purpose. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - Some reviewers do draftify more than once because there is a good-faith lack of understanding of the rules about draftification. Some reviewers think that a draft that is moved out-of-process into article space two or three times should be redraftified each time. They, unlike the editors who will move it back to article space two or three times, are acting in good faith to maintain the encyclopedia. The rule about contested draftification is not universally understood. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

It ought not to be hard to understand, though. WP:DRAFTOBJECT is not exactly ambiguous. As with all rules we can justify exceptions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

It is that hard to understand, for at least two reasons. First, I think that many reviewers have not read that guideline, or skimmed over it so that they did not grasp it. Second, some reviewers think that that guideline applies to "normal" draftification, but think that there are cases where draftification must be repeated. In particular, I think that some reviewers think that some draftifications are like reverting vandalism and may be repeated as often as necessary. The guideline is not ambiguous, but it is that hard for some reviewers to understand that it is usually applicable. That rule is not well understood by many reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That guideline says that if anyone objects to the draftification, it must be moved back to article space. I have never known an editor to state that they objected to the draftification. They always object silently, either by moving the page back to article space, which is somewhat disruptive, or by copy-pasting the draft back into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that moving the page back to article space as a means of objecting is disruptive (though not the most helpful/clear). But I would agree that a clarification on that in DRAFTOBJECT would be good Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Nosebagbear - I should have been more clear. Moving an article back to article space twice is disruptive, and is all too common. There are other circumstances in which moving a page back to article space is disruptive, and other times when it is just uncooperative. Copy-pasting the article back to article space is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

South Asian poetry blitz

Just worked through 10+ userspace drafts, all effectively unreferenced, on Indian / South Asian poetry etc. They all appeared practically at the same time. Must be some sort of student project going on again? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

At least they're going through the draft space and not clogging up AFD. Primefac (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

And they are not submitting drafts that expand on stubs, which is another error made by classes. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Maira Gatti de Bayser

Would someone like to take a fresh look at Draft:Maira Athanazio de Cerqueira Gatti? This appears to be an autobiography. I have trimmed it a fair bit and cleaned it up, but since the last decline the author the author's additions still don't appear to me to meet any of the WP:NPROF criteria. The professor has an h-index of 15. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

A Comment About Moving Drafts

I looked at a draft BLP which had the same name as a disambiguation page, and then moved/renamed it in order to disambiguate it. The author of the draft thanked me, and said that they had noticed the conflict, but didn't do anything about it because they were not sure if moving/renaming the draft would complicate the submission status. My reply was that we, the reviewers, move/rename drafts, including submitted drafts, all the time, for various reasons, primarily either to disambiguate them, or because they were incorrectly named. (There are different degrees of wrongness. Some are miscapitalized, or have honorifics in the title, or other MOS issues. A few are completely wrong until we rename them.) So some submitters don't know that drafts can easily be renamed/moved, and that we do it all the time, as just part of the cycle, and it isn't a problem, just part of the cycle. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Copy-Paste from Draft to Article Space

I may have already asked this question and been answered. This has to do with copy-pastes from draft space to article space. Copy-pasting in general is undesirable (but common). I would like to review (maybe again) what the options are when a reviewer finds that a draft has been copy-pasted into article space. As I understand it, the options include:

1. If the author of the draft and the copier are different editors, and the article should or probably should be in article space, request a history merge.
2. If the author of the draft and the copier are different editors, and there are questions about whether the article should be in article space, nominate the article for deletion. (If G4, G5, G11, or A7 is applicable, tag it for speedy.)
3. If the author of the draft and the copier are the same editor, there is no need for a history merge. If the article should be in article space, leave it alone, or mark it reviewed.
4. If the author of the draft and the copier are the same editor, and it does not belong in article space, nominate it for deletion.
5. Are there situations when the copy in article space can be tagged for speedy deletion?
6. Have I described 1 through 4 correctly? What other cases are there?

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

In order:

1. Yes
2. Yes, though a merge will still be needed
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Sure, any of the normal A or G categories; e.g. something can be an A7 but a suitable draft.
6. More or less, though it is important to note that it is "same editor with no other contributions" in 3 and 4.

This basically boils down to "same editor, no histmerge; different editors, histmerge". Primefac (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

On #5, thinking WP:UPCOPIES. This is a virtual-always delete at MfD, except for bad nominations. I had considered proposing UPCOPIES as a CSD, maybe a new criterion, maybe a favour of G12, but decided against it, on the basis of frequent misidentification at a UPCOPIES. In particular is the not infrequent bad nomination of a userspace copy of an article, where the userspace version predates the article. I think these cases fail WP:NEWCSD, and often are well fixed by redirection, and often require mfd or history merge. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Another Copy-Paste Case

Here is another copy-paste situation. There is a draft, which was declined on its last two submissions. Another editor then copy-pastes it into their own sandbox, and submits it. It is declined twice as duplicating the draft, and the copier is told to work on the draft rather than resubmitting the sandbox. The sandbox is submitted for review a third time, and is rejected. My interpretation is that the reviewers were right in first declining and then rejecting the sandbox. Is there any other action that should be taken about the attribution failure and the breach of copyleft? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The reviewers were not right, in my opinion. If someone copies Draft A into User Sandbox B, then edits and submits B repeatedly, without any indication that they intend on editing A, then the content of A should be histmerged into B and B moved back to the Draft space. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

We could so with some flowcharts here. My brain is starting to hurt. 😳 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I have a concern and a question. My concern is that requesting history merge in cases such as copying a draft into a sandbox sort of normalizes copy-pasting. I think that copy-pasting is a practice that we should be strongly discouraging, rather than just saying, "Please don't do that, but we will clean up." The notice that a history merge tag suggests be put onto the page of the editor who did the copy-paste is sort of namby-pamby. It doesn't send a strong message not to do that again. My question is whether there is any way that the reviewer can request deletion or isolation of the copy-pasted material, rather than normalizing it. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Can't disagree with you there, but we have no mechanism (other than ANI) to stop users from doing this (i.e. there is no CSD category for copy/pastes because attribution is easy to deal with). If we want to crack down on copy/pastes, then we should be ruthlessly redirecting any copy/paste back to the original source (which I have done for a few drafts where the editor just doesn't get it). Primefac (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean that redirecting from article space to draft space is permitted when there was a copy-paste into article space? Does that mean that the redirect can then be tagged for R2, which is a CSD category? If so, I will try to remember to do that as the usual way of dealing with copy-pastes if I am not sure whether the draft is ready for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

What? No. You were talking about copies to sandboxes. You never said anything about copying to the article space. That requires a histmerge. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Copying to article space requires a history merge. We disapprove of copy-pasting into article space, but that is not reason for speedy deletion. So I assume that we should review drafts that were copy-pasted into article space strictly, and tag them for notability (and anything else) if appropriate, and nominate them for A7 or G11 if appropriate, and nominate them for AFD if appropriate. That is, we should not allow the history merge to be a free pass to get into article space, which I think it sometimes becomes. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Primefac - How do we request that there be a version of the copy-paste warning that is less pleasant than the standard one that says, "Please don't do that again, but we will clean up your mess." Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Bring up the matter at WT:UW, WT:CWW, or possibly WP:VPP. Primefac (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Foreign language vandalism

Hey, AFC reviewers,

As I go through stale drafts, I'm noticing an increase in what I term "foreign language vandalism". I think what happens is that a new editor will use Google Translate to translate a word, sentence or paragraph from English to a different language to get by the edit filters. They never return to edit the draft, it's just one or two edits and they are done although they can always return and show it off to their friends as sneaky vandalism. They don't always submit the drafts for AFC review but sometimes they do. Creating a foreign language draft seems to give their vandalism six months of life on Wikipedia that it wouldn't receive if it were done in the main space of the project.

So, I'm here because I've noticed that when you are doing a review and tagging a draft as not being in English, some reviewers use the Google translate feature (I think this might only work with Chrome) to translate the content and say things like "Maybe you should try editing on the Indonesian Wikipedia" or the Arabic Wikipedia or the Greek Wikipedia, to personalize the message to the editor. My request to you is if you do do a quick translation of the draft and find it has inappropriate content, please tag it for speedy deletion for vandalism and we can get it out of Draft space as soon as it is spotted. Thanks for all of the work you do reviewing drafts in Draft and User space! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Liz will do! Thanks! MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Criteria for requesting permissions

"I would suggest rewording the criteria under Participants as it confused me. I would suggest changing it to "main space edits", as that is more common terminology. Toast (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggested changes to pre-submission template

The current template editors see before submitting a draft, {{AfC submission/draft}}, does not talk about notability. Which is a shame, as notability is the most common decline reason. The current template is quite full, so had to make further changes to include a discussion of notability.

Major changes

• All 'technical info' now above line, all 'article writing info' below horizontal line
• Removed note about submission-received box. I think it may have been a remnant from when the submission template moved to the bottom of the article?
• Tried to emphasize by using shorter bullet points, rather than bolding everything.
• Removed picture on the right, as it makes reading on mobile uncomfortable.

Femke (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Demos

Diff: [10]

Discussion

I boldly made a few tweaks. If someone dislikes, feel free to undo. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Despite the extra words, I like it :). Femke (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Better! I think the changes provide more relevant guidance. A suggestion for COI/Paid, maybe something like "It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, your business or a subject with which you otherwise have a close or financial affiliation". S0091 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from (more categories of COI), but I think the wording is unwieldy, especially considering the large amount of ESL editors we now have (affiliation is quite a difficult word, "with which you otherwise have" a difficult phrase). I prefer the current wording, but open to more suggestions. Femke (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I see your point. Hmmm...so how to overcome complex language (and policies/guidelines) and still get the point across. I would like some other editor's experiences and thoughts but what I see regularly are people writing about their employers (or some other UPE) which is not about themselves nor a business they own so if I were them, I would not click on the links (nor the "strongly discouraged" for that matter). The language used in the policy states Editors must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contribution to Wikipedia. (that's where I got "affiliation") but I think that is too wordy for this purpose. How about "yourself, or your business or employer" and do away with the "with which you otherwise have...."? S0091 (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good :). Still missing some other COIs, but those cover the most prominent ones. Femke (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Done :) Femke (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)