Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Re-categorizing the queue

A lot of the backlog is previously declined submissions at this point. Editors resubmitting without fixing the problems in a real way seems to be the norm. Why don't we have two categories, one for new submissions that have not been declined, and one for previously declined resubmissions? We can probably keep up with the backlog on new submissions. It seems wrong to punish responsible users by making them wait for us to chew through thousands of resubmits (most of them pointless) before we can get to reviewing their new submission. Gigs (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gigs: Yes please. Would it also be possible to arrange articles by number of references? Then we could use AWB to auto-decline anything that is unreferenced. :) TheCascadian 20:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, but we should probably do one thing at a time. I think technically we could implement my proposal by getting AfC helper to use a different template for resubmits vs virgin entries. Both of these templates could probably transclude in the current template and just wrap it with a different hidden category. Alternately we can keep the current big category as it is, and just add an extra category to virgin submissions. Can someone who is better at templates than I am let me know if you think that would work? Gigs (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Anyone? This seems like it could really help with the recurrent issues we've had here. I'd hate to see this section archived with no follow-up. Gigs (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
See my follow-up suggestion re-categorization in the section below: A different kind of "Drive". Voceditenore (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, need advice

I noticed that a local "drama magnet" (Prime Prep Academy) had a pitifully small stub on Wikipedia currently, so I went out and got news references and prose for it. I'd like to get a few editors outside opinions to make sure I didn't fall on a "Relies One Source" type problem as I'm citing one news outlet (the local "indie" news) many times because their archives are easily searchable. I'm trying to make a run for DYK status on it. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Hasteur I think it needs further improvement. I'd suggest reducing the cites to blogs.dallasobserver.com and relying more on national press. e.g. NYTimes and brief coverage in the Washington Post Magazine. And what about the state-wide press-- Austin Statesman, Texas Independent, and Texas Observer, etc? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Do another backlog drive?

AfC submissions
Random submission
~7 weeks
1,445 pending submissions
Purge to update

The backlog is now once again at severe level, presently (as of this post) at 2775 pending submissions. While in previous relatively recent comments there was some concern about immediately opening another backlog drive after the March 2014 one, they sure do help to keep the backlog down. NorthAmerica1000 20:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No
  1. We still haven't fully moved over to the Draft Namespace, which was promised that would happen before the last drive. Are you saying that we skip that promise again?
  2. We don't have the AFC rewrite tool yet which I think will improve the reviewer's efficency
  3. We haven't yet decided how to make explotative points gathering not worth the while
  4. We still don't have enough volunteers to maintain a reasonable backlog length
  5. We still haven't hashed out a "Firm No" way to discourage hopeless submissions from rabbiting around and consuming time.
  6. We still don't have procedures in place to discourage editors from working from the back of the pending backlog and not sitting on top of the 1~4 days pending queues.
For these reasons I still say no to annother backlog drive. We must resolve the underlying issues. Hasteur (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. How hard can it be? To who did "we" promise this? First we need to either move them, or review them. And a pretty fast way of that is through a drive.
  2. It is out, just in beta...so practically it already out!
  3. I agree with you on this one...
  4. First we need to "eliminate" the current high amount of submissions!
  5. Why would we discourage any editing on Wikipedia?!? All help is good help!
  • How are we planning to keep the backlog at a firm low amount, if we don't get it down first?
(t) Josve05a (c) 21:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
We promised ourselves in addition to the Encyclopedia as a whole as part of the agreement to get the Draft Namespace (which was back in November). Several of these COI editors know that they won't make it, but because they're being forced by their boss to resubmit untill they get a firm "NO" they have to continue resubmitting. We can't prohibit them from resubmitting short of deleting the submission so we discourage them from resubmitting when they haven't fixed the problem or they are hopeless (which is why they keep coming back every few days fishing for a volunteer to give them what they want when they haven't remedied the problems).

I'll make a wager with you, simply because 5 AFC drives in the past year have made me extremely jaded, I wager that 1 week after the drive (if we do hold it) ends we'll already be at least 50% back to pre-drive levels. We have all our best volunteers burning themselves out on the drive time, only to have them take a review vacation for a week as a reward for their hard effort during the drive. Exerting exceptional effort is wonderful, but not at the cost of the base progress being destroyed. Hasteur (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm all backlogged out, I'm afraid. I haven't done any AfC work for a bit, preferring to get a few articles to GA, because I think I got a bit overwhelmed. I think the backlog is indicative that we have solved the quality problems that plagued us in the past, and consequently the average time to properly review a submission is much higher. Let's get the draft namespace up and running, where we can have as many drafts as necessary that any editor can see and work on. I think the backlog count is a bit demoralising. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
No Steps need to be implemented to eliminate the drafts that will never be accepted, including all the unreferenced submissions and blanks. Otherwise, editors are wasting their time reviewing and re-reviewing crap. After that, assuming there's a promise that next time I get my barnstar promptly, I might be convinced to do another drive. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe? As a naive, relatively new contributor to Wikipedia I'd love to see this backlog reduced. However, seeing all of the above comments about the preceding work required to make AfC backlog eliminations worth it makes me hesitant. That being said, a demoralizingly high backlog count helps no one, including those who may have good quality articles waiting that belong in the encyclopedia. What can we do to spur work to fix these problems? —f3ndot (TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP) 20:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Not having a backlog drive does not prevent you from reviewing AFC submissions currently... Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I personally plan to reduce some of the backlog tonight, but I have a community of around 20 people who I'd like to engage in reducing the backlog. Having a drive would be an incentive for them, I believe. —f3ndot (TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP) 20:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
So it's the Cookie and a pat on the head that they need? How about a barnstar for every single submission they review? How about adminship for all who complete a backlog drive? How about the keys to the WMF executive washroom? No. Those incentives only serve to get editors involved for a drive, only to have them fade away once the drive is over. Yes I'm being very sarcastic here, because I'm tired of Backlog Drive being the panacea that will solve all problems with AFC Hasteur (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Well clearly I entered into a hot topic, but I've haven't been around for years to see the controversy behind the Backlog Drive. I wanted to engage a community of hackers (MIT definition) & makers who've never contributed to Wikipedia before. The sensation of velocity and being part of a "Spring cleaning" I felt could help them decide to join me in a little "party". It's not the recognition, I think we're too new to appreciate that, but being a part of something. I'll drop it, though, bringing this up seems to evoke emotion. —f3ndot (TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP) 20:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I'd hope that after participating in the drive, they would be hooked with contributing to Wikipedia and stick around and participate in other places. It's happened to me, so why not them? —f3ndot (TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP) 20:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Danger Will Robinson - AFC is not a place for Wiki-newbies. If you trust your friends to not screw things up, fine, but be ready for "cleanup on aisle 3" if they go rapid-fire and either make the same technical or the same judgement mistakes over and over again. My recommendation: Start them slowly - maybe review 5 pages, then stop for feedback, then review 10 more and stop for feedback, then review 20 more (including at least 5-10 "accepts") and stop for a spot-check of a few random accepts and a few random declines, then let them get to doing some real work. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"How about adminship for all who complete a backlog drive?" - how did you guess Anne's modus operandi? :-D Anyway, in principle, there is nothing wrong with a backlog drive. The problem is, that the backlog is so severe and so regular that it seems that we'll never actually keep the level of pending submissions down unless we arrange continuous and permanent drives all the time. We need to find a longer lasting solution. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreeing with Ritchie and Hasteur wrote above, there is no need for a backlog drive until we solve all of our problems. Within a week of the end of the drive, you wouldn't even know we had one. The fact that the larger reviewers deal with complete assholes (please excuse the language, but that's what some of them are) and clueless editors that they are sick and tired of dealing with them is a hint that we should be strengthening the templates and trying to push editors to be more self-sufficient in their work. If you look at my talk page, I used to give more succinct answers, and now I just give "go ahead and resubmit it" ones so that I don't have to commit to anything, because it gets really bothersome to have to tell some editor to resubmit it again because you don't want to deal with it anymore. I am more than happy to participate in a backlog drive, but there are serious issues that need to be fixed before then, because each backlog drive not only clears the backlog, but it drives our experienced editors away. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I now tend to do just the opposite--to give fuller explanations so there's a better chance we do not have to deal with it again--that it will either be abandoned/withdrawn (most likely) or improved.(sometimes). But I absolutely agree that we should be strengthening the templates--and,equally, not using templates that ask for minor improvements which are not necessary for acceptable articles. And one very easy thing: nominating the hopelessly promotional or irrelevant submissions for speedy deletion.
And I agree with those who think the quality of reviewing during the last drive was so abysmal that it would be counterproductive to run another. It might help to set a throttle to prevent more than 10 reviews in a row, or even 5 , as davidwr suggested. I know that if I try to go much faster than that I start making overly quick judgments or downright errors, and I assume the rest of us are human also. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This just implemented: Whitelist checking for all versions of AFCH

Hey everyone! Just a heads up that I've deployed a change for all versions of AFCH (alpha, beta, and rewrite -- which, coincidentally, you should totally try out if you haven't already) that requires users to be listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants in order to use the script. Those who are not listed are shown an error and a link to the page. This has been done per the decision at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission implementation; thanks to Anne Delong for reminding me! :) Please let me know if you run into any problems. Theopolisme (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do I get an error message on every userpage or subpage I visit (as opposed to just AfC submissions) telling me that the AfC script can't be loaded because I'm not on the list, and shouldn't admins be whitelisted by default? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Userpages/subpages are "technically" AFC-space. As far as I can see, there wasn't a discussion about whitelisting admins; I think one of the goals of the whitelist is to maintain a better record of reviewers/active project participants...a bit harder to do if you don't even list some users. (I'm not 100% positive about that, though. If the project decides they want to whitelist admins that can be done very easily.) Theopolisme (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell:, if you don't plan to use the script, try checking your Gadgets under Preferences and uncheck "Yet Another AFC Helper Script". It worked for me. I started getting those error messages today as well. Voceditenore (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I did. The old-fashioned way. But thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
Oh, I'm so glad I happened on that advice. These days popup boxes fly out at me all the time from web pages and it is fine to be able to stop one of them. BTW I'd prefer it if AFC people didn't poke around at my userspace sandbox, etc. If what I have put is unacceptable, please speedy, prod or MFD (if you must) but I'd rather go without reviews until I put something to main space. Just giving my personal view, which I expect is a minority position. Best wishes to AFC folk. Thincat (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@Thincat: AFC reviews are limited to pages tagged with an {{AFC submission}}. If you don't place that template on your user pages (or remove them if they are present) your pages should effectively be AFC-free zones. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That's good. As you see I am not so familiar with AFC. I'm afraid I saw some extremely bad reviewing (historically) and that put me off. I never see what must be a welter of terrible drafts that are quite sensibly being prevented from going live. And, perhaps more constructively, potentially useful drafts that can be improved with perceptive help. Thincat (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Change starts with you! Get the script set up and try a few. No obligation to stick around, but you may like it, so give it a try. Gigs (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a consensus for removing from the list after two months of inactivity. In any case, it is unacceptable if the AFCH error starts popping up on user pages every time I go through a period of inactivity. Please fix this. SpinningSpark 14:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
There was a pre-existing removal to an inactive list, but I think it was a much longer period than two months, and in any case was only at the time intended to let new reviewers know who they could ask for advice, not to prevent anyone from reviewing, so this should be fixed, by making those on the inactive list eligible to review and maybe having them flagged for moving back onto the active list. There was no mention in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission implementation of people having to keep active to be eligible to use the script , so this should just be changed. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I am in favor of whitelisting all admins, ideally we could just auto-add them to the whitelist the first time they use AfCH, and then the whitelist would still be up to date. We're taking ourselves a little too seriously if we think our little toy whitelist would be much of a tool in the scenario of a rogue admin doing en-masse bad reviews, a situation that would inevitably cause huge drama, no matter how we've set up the whitelist. Best not to punish the 99.99% of admins based on a hypothetical 0.01%. Gigs (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Since all admins meet the experience requirements, there's no reason to prevent them from using the script. We could request this change in the script right away, even if the adding of names to the list is more complex and is done later. In the mean time, as long as admins see the notification to add themselves to the list, it really only takes a moment, so this is not a serious problem. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's necessary to add an exception for admins. The way the script works now, everyone who reviews AfC is on the list, so we know we have a complete list. I don't think it's worth giving up a complete list to save a few seconds for admins who want to start reviewing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
If we want to go that way, at the very minimum, we need to fix these popup error messages. Gigs (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Any admin who is not willing or capable of adding themselves to the list - or unselecting the script in their Gadgets menu if they don't want to do reviews - raises doubts about their suitability or competence to be an admin. It's not rocket science. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't really care if you remove me from your list. What is not acceptable is to pester people with pop up messages until they agree to uninstall a gadget. That is intrusive beyond the scope of this project. You have no business demanding an editor uninstall a gadget just because they have not used it for a while. If someone only does one review a year there is nothing wrong with that. If there is a competency issue that is a different matter, but that is not a matter for an automated process to deal with. SpinningSpark 23:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, doesn't this script do things other than AfC (FFU is one thing that's in the documentation and seems to be in the code)? If so, one might want to use it without wanting to sign up for AfC, and even if they do sign up just to get to the bits they want to use, get it revoked in time because they're doing AfC, even though they're using other parts of it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
FFU is a part of AfC, and those that wish to contribute to FFU just need to be whitelisted like any other. I also am in agreeance with Jack and Roger that there is no reason an admin that wants to use the script and contribute should be required to add themselves to the list and if they are unable to do that, I'm left to wonder. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 00:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion - The error message should be expanded to explain both options: Add yourself to the whitelist or remove the script in Settings>Gadgets. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Do I qualify?

Do I qualify for reviewership status? I have created more than 15 articles, expanded equal number of stubs and have over 3500 edits, almost all of them barring a few, unreverted. My user page gives more information. Your advice would help. jojo@nthony (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. You've got more than enough experience. Gigs (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gigs, Will go for it. jojo@nthony (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Do we really want to say "Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!" in the template telling them their copyright violation was declined and will soon be deleted? Gigs (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No. That's bugged me for a while too. I think we should add a parameter to that template and a checkbox in the helper script to control whether or not to display that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • can you be more clear and specific about what you are talking about? I think you are talking about the AfC template that gets left on the submitters' talk pages upon review, but the context here is just a little too vague for me to be sure. If I am correct, I agree and am thinking that the AFCH should add a parameter to the template call identical to the one it uses for the AFC submission template call on the draft itself and someone like me should go through the template and add custom text for each decline reason that is more clear and descriptive instead of just using the one size fits all message we have been using. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 01:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"AFCH error" box

Why am I getting a box with this text:

AFCH error: user not listed
AFCH could not be loaded because "Beyond My Ken" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there.

whenever I open anyone's user page? It's pretty annoying. BMK (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: This is due to the "AFC Whitelist Opt-In" being enforced now. [1] should prevent it from annoying you further. Hasteur (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
This is an incredibly bad idea. I have to sign onto a list I have no interest in being on in order not to get an error box when I simply go onto anyone's User page? That's absolutely fucking ridiculous, and I think you have better change it immediately. BMK (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
PLease point me to the consensus discussion that allowed this travesty to happen. BMK (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission implementation. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Beyond My Ken Please be respectful with your language. The RFC was conducted months ago, and the code monkeys finally got around to implementing it. Don't want to be part of the list and don't want the warnings? Disable the AFCH gadget.

When determining what course of action should be taken about a disruptive, tendentious or bothersome editor, the primary concern – more important than precedents, consistency, fairness or even AGF – is which option will best serve the building of an encyclopedia

— Beyond My Ken, Beyond My Ken Talkpage

Hasteur (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't you dare give me the damn schoolmarm bit, buddy, - you've screwed up here, and it needs to be fixed, that's what needs to ne addressed. You should be apologizing to me and the community, not taking me to task about being annoyed, and searching my history for quotes you can fling against me. Stop that shit, please, and fix the fucking problem. BMK (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
You implemented a system-wide change (badly) on the basis of am RfC which received the opinions of 14 people? That's just absolutley ridiculous. And why does it come up when I merely looked at a user page? That's not an AfC-related activity. BMK (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
(multiple ECs) If you have no interest in doing AFC reviews you can simply deactivate the AFCH script in your "Preferences > Gadgets" menu. If you have no interest in AFC reviewing why did you ever activate the script in the first place? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There's no problem, and most users are unaffected. You were only affected because you enabled the AfC gadget (which is opt-in). Some user pages are AfC submissions, so it tries to load on them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I may have done a AfC once or twice, I don't remember, neverthless a change in fuctionality was impelemented, it was done badly, and the response is "stop cursing". Is it any wonder that AfC has the reputation it has? You guys are part of a community here, you know, not some semi-independent principality. BMK (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If I'm understanding the situation correctly (and that's not a sure thing; I'm not involved in the script development), it is the case that people who have installed AFCH - which they would have done purposely, at some point in the past, either by putting the script in their JS or by enabling it in gadgets - will see this warning if their name is not also listed at the Whitelist page and they go to a page where AFCH "expects" to see an AfC submission. You, in particular, shouldn't be seeing this error anymore even if you keep AFCH installed, Beyond My Ken, because you've been added to the whitelist now. I do agree with you that the warning triggering on userpages seems to be excessive, though. I would have expected it to trigger in the presence of an AfC template, not just "anywhere where AfCs have existed in the past". Script devs, is it possible to change that? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fluffnutter: Acutally, the user decided to have a tantrum and remove themselves from the list and demand that we fix it another way. The lead developer indicated that it can be done, but it's going to slow the overall loading of any page down when it has to see if there's a AFC banner on the page. Hasteur (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) I agree with Hasteur here, BMK, you have two choices:
  1. Have yourself added to the whitelist and contribute to AFC
  2. Disable or remove the script that YOU enabled that says you intend to contribute to AFC.
On the flip side, Hasteur or Theopolisme, the error message should be more clear about why they are seeing the message and what they can do to fix it or eliminate it.
I have already disabled the gadget, but that's no longer the point, really. This change was made with no real consensus to do so. Hasteur even wrote on his talk page (in answer to a request of mine not to add my names to any lists without my permission, which he has now deleted, along with his snarky answer) that it was decided by the "AfC community." That's a telling remark. System-wide changes aren't made by a single Wiki-project, they're made with the consensus of the entire Wikipedia community, and cerainly not on the basis of an RfC in which 14 people participated. These are, I'm afraid, part of the reason that AfC has a bad rap, and why Hasteur was admonished by ArbCom for his battlefield mentality. I came here with a valid complaint, mildly annoyed, and instead of trying to placate me and explain the situation, Hasteur added my name to a list without my permission, and, yes, after that I was thoroughly pissed off. It appears to me that AfC, and Hasteur in particular, need to remember that they are part of the Wikipedia community and are answerable to it for this decisions and mistakes. I don't see that attitude here, I'm seeing "Oh, he's just an angry mastodon throwing tantrums, we don't have to deal with him." That's just wrong. BMK (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, there were over 60 people involved in the consensus that led to this change... Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission was the first big proposal on the subject. As far as Hasteur goes, most will tell you that him and I don't always agree (and we've gone head to head and aren't exactly on talking terms right now after our last disagreement), but on this I do agree with him and there was plenty of backing by the entire community as there were three RfCs that led to this, with nearly 100 participants in total, and there were consensuses in each phase of the proposal for this to move on down this path. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 00:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper:, FFU is a part of AfC (and technically so is categories for creation, redirects for creation, and templates for creation as far as I know). People wishing to contribute to FFU, should whitelist themselves (or get themselves whitelisted when the protection level on the whitelisting page increases so that it can actually mean something and be enforced). — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 00:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It honestly seems to me that he was paying attention to some angry mastodon that the rest of us didn't see. It's just a box, possibly appearing because of a bug, and bugs happen all the time. A very minor annoyance at the very worst. Elassint Hi 00:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a minor annoyance, I agree. The situation became a major annoyance the way my complaint was mishandled here. BMK (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I will now try to write as best as I can trying to figure this out, please do not SCREAM at me if I do something wrong here!
  1. The AfC-community (together with others) decided that the use of the tools wich is used for AfC should only be allowed to be used by whitelisted users, as with the AWB-tool. There were clear consensus for this!
  2. The programmers finally implemented this, which caused users which had turned on the tool, either in gadgets in settings or in their .js-page, see a message saying that they can't use the tool.
    • This did not cause a sytem-wide change, it only changed the tools, which these kind people have created, which is their right to do.
  3. Now multiple users are suprized of this message. All I can say is THIS IS NOT A BUG! or anyone's fault/problem! You choosed to turn the tool on, then you can turn the tool off or whitelist yourself, as multiple other tools have done it.
(t) Josve05a (c) 09:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
It's fine. At first my reaction was like BMK's (toned down a tad) but then I read through the reasoning and discussions and decided that doing a minimum of one review every six months isn't exactly an unbearable burden. --NeilN talk to me 13:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 May 2014

Implement the changes specified in this revisions exactly to the requested page. Purpose is to deprecate the WT:AFC prefix as a valid destination for pages that aren't in the WT:AFC prefix space or the Drafts namespace. The purpose is to get us away from having any de-facto endorsement of WT:AFC being a valid location.Hasteur (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I oppose this change and this opposition counts as the REVERT phase in the BRD process (The request here is the BOLD phase if there is any confusion). — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 01:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I ask that a different editor please re-review this request. How many times are we going to have this same dammed discussion? Technical 13 is substituting his own judgement over policy based reuqests. As per the above sections, we can't deprecate the WT:AFC prefix until the templates are changed, we can't change the Article Wizard's AFC destination until the templates are changed, we can't do many things untill the templates are changed. This is a baby step to remove the WT:AFC prefix as a endorsed destination. There is already significant support by AFC members to get us moved over to Draft space. Furthermore Technical 13 was already WP:INVOLVED with respect to Templates and the deprecation of the WT:AFC prefix as he closed the previous discussion for the exact same obstructionist reasons. I positively assert that Technical13 has now substituted their own judgement instead of the will of the community on 2 Template-protected edit requests and question their fitness for holding the template-editor privilege. Hasteur (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done for now: Asked and answered. B R D. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 15:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2014_1#Template-protected_edit_request_on_2_January_2014 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2014_1#Template-protected_edit_request_on_24_February_2014 in addition to the multiple discussions above with a clear consensus for deprecating. How many damn times are we going to have this same damn argument with the same damn obstructionists claiming they want time to fix things but never do anything? I'd lasso Anne Delong into fulfilling this request, but she's already expressed an opinion so she'd be disqualified as being involved. Hasteur (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd be interested to know upon what you base your assertion that only an uninvolved template editor can either make the edit or say no. And I also don't appreciate your tone. You get more flies with sugar, honey, so stop dissin' and start discussin'. It is obvious to me that this has not been discussed enough. Some want to move forward quickly and some want to move more slowly. As an uninvolved editor my best input at this point would have to be WP:TIND. And do please hold your fingers (keyboard equivalent to "hold your tongue"). Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 15:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There's absolutely consensus to use the draft space for AfC, and the RfC consensus was that AfC would be transplanted there "as-is", at least initially. What would require consensus are the additional improvements that Technical 13 proposes. We already have consensus to just move AfC to Draft, without making any other changes to the way AfC works. Obviously, after we do that, they'll be lots of opportunities to improve the way we conduct AfC, but the fact that we haven't hashed those out yet is not a valid reason to filibuster the implementation of the existing consensus for an "as-is" move of AfC operations. Gigs (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
There are other editors who can edit templates in this discussion. I appreciate that they may consider themselves exempt from making particular edits due to their involvement; however, I would at least like to hear from those like Jackmcbarn and Anne Delong before any movement forward in regard to this particular edit. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a proposal further up this page HERE in which a consensus appears to be forming. So far no one but Technical 13 appears to be worried about changing the Afc processes before moving new submissions to the new space. There are some imperfections left in the way that the Afc templates and script work in Draft space (see the thread further down this page HERE), but these are being worked on. I am in favour of the proposal, but waiting a little while to allow more editors to comment may be appropriate, since it was just proposed yesterday. Unless there is a sudden 180 degree shift, though, it's unlikely that the reviewers will agree to wait for the changes T13 wants, even if some of them think that those changes would be a good idea. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for shedding more light on this. I still have concerns about the desires expressed by Tech 13, whom I revere highly as one of the best template editors I know, and whom I've seen himself pitted against an "obstructionist" (in that case, myself), during which he, unlike certain edit requesters 'round here, was able to keep a civil tongue in his head. I would like to wait for more input rather than run the risk of opening a can of worms only to have to go looking for a bigger can. You have been most helpful, thank you! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't think the frustration was aimed at you specifically, at least I can definitely say it wasn't in my case. As a neutral editor coming in "off the street", refusal to carry out an apparently controversial edit request is the prudent thing to do. Gigs (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Gigs (that's an interesting nom de plume)! Frustration is an oddball animal, and we've all felt it at one time or another. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 23:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Prathamprakash29

AFCh error is showing on my page. How to remove it??--prathamprakash29 11:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, prathamprakash29. There are two ways: If you like to review submissions at AfC, add you name to the project list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. If you don't, remove the gadget "Yet Another AFC Helper Script" from your preferences. Either action should work. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Several users have asked about this in different places. At Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 126#"AFCH error" box I wrote that the error message at MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js/core.js could add something like: 'This message can be avoided by disabling "Yet Another AFC Helper Script" under "Editing" in your gadget preferences.' PrimeHunter (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
You're not allowed to review AfC submissions because you're too inexperienced. To fix the problem, you need to go into Preferences and disable the AfC helper gadget. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
@Prathamprakash29: Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
@Prathamprakash29: to elaborate on what the others said: While there isn't a rule that says inexperienced can't review AFC submissions, there there was a group decision made awhile back that inexperienced editors should not review AFC submissions until they gain more experience and as such they would not be allowed to use the tools that make reviewing submissions easy to do. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft: namespace and the review tool

Not sure if this has been mentioned before. When the gadget tells the editor where to find their current article, it assumes it is in the old scheme, not in "Draft:". This requires manual intervention, which is not a big deal unless one forgets. Fiddle Faddle 11:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I assume you're using the mainline AFCH gadget. Yep, we'd like to fix that, but because it's a breaking change to the {{Afc decline}} template (and the underlying {{AFC submission/location}} template) we can't move forward. If we could secure a consensus to move all of the pending AFC drafts to the draft space (see "Proposed: That a bot be allowed to move all Pending AFC submissions to Draft space" section above), to change the output of the Article Wizard for AFC creations (see "Proposed change: Make the Article Wizard place new submissions in the prefix 'Draft:'" section above), and change some of the underlying tools we use in the AFC process (see "Template-protected edit request on 7 May 2014" section above) we could make the change you invision, but of course we can't because we need more time to talk about our feelings and how to perfectly engineer a process and how to be the least disruptive to the least engaged users of wikipedia. So in short, your suggestion will never happen for the sheer bureaucratic inertia that we've gathered up around ourselves. Hasteur (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Er, ok, but no, not really ok. Many things can inspect the namespace and use a little coding to create the correct character string in the link to the document. Thus no actual consensus is required, just a clever bit of code. I do mean the AFCH gadget.
No-one needs a bot to clean up. All they need to do is work on the old AFC stream and the new Draft: stream. The category logging all AFC submissions is able to cope. Fiddle Faddle 12:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Or, I could just stop the new hobby I have, which is starting to go through the backlog of submissions because it is just too annoying. Or I could ignore the incorrect links, which makes the AFC process look silly and confusticates the newbies. Fiddle Faddle 12:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, time to lead you down the path... The gadget places a substituted version of{{Afc decline}} in the user's talk page [2] or [3]. So those work just fine because the path to the page is provided in the full parameter. If just the subpagename is provided as a relative parameter (i.e. parameter 1 to the template) we have to invoke {{AFC submission/location}} to put the presumed basepath in. We could edit the template to take out that, but we have to give a warning that it's going to happen. I announced the deprecation of that form at the documentation page for the template, so hopefully come July 1 we can finally fix this. Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
You could alter the template to be smart, too, I imagine. Fiddle Faddle 16:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Timtrent. Please don't stop working at Afc - we need all the help we can get! There are some technical issues with the two spaces being used at once, plus the helper script is undergoing a total rewrite, but there's been a steady improvement. I find that if I report problems at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Rewrite they are fixed up fairly quickly by Theopolisme and helpers. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I left the smallest of notes there. Thank you Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
You've talked about misplaced links when the draft is in Draft: space, but could you also please address the problem of misplaced links when the draft is in a user sandbox. I have lost count of the number of cases I've seen where the required manual intervention by the reviewer has not taken place, and I'm sure that the broken links must be confusing some of Wikipedia's new contributors. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The original script was never intended to be used on user pages. Until last year, all of the submissions were moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation. That's why the template says "This submission should probably be at..." For some reason, some editors have stopped doing the moves, likely because it takes a little more time. If this causes problems, the solution is easy: move the page to the review area, giving it an appropriate title, and review it there, where everything works as it should. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Articles For Creation At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at WIkimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Can a widget disable itself?

Can we make the widget disable itself if it detect no-whitelist entry, and an edit count below minimums? Inexperienced editors might not remember where or how they turned on AfCH, and auto-disable would reduce support requests like the one above.

Failing that, we should at least put some kind of link or warning on the widget page that they should do a little reading before turning it on. Gigs (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Urm.... That's a kinda shady action. I think it can, however I think we need to secure a cast iron consensus (one that was widely advertised (WP:CENT,WP:VPT, etc.)) to endorse the viewpoint that the widget should go behind the user's back and disable the the widget. Hasteur (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
This reminds me of a different sort of widget that switches itself off --nonsense ferret 21:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I subjected each of the 10 most recently approved articles to a single, randomly chosen, Google search, and was able to file copyright investigations on three of them.

Surely we can do better. (And this warning includes myself.) --j⚛e deckertalk 19:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've caught several previously-declined submissions that were copyvios that the previous reviewer didn't catch as well. I agree that collectively we aren't catching enough of the copyvios. Gigs (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we should have a standar of always checkin for copyvio before accepting/declining articles. Maybe we should have a point-system where if a user has found a submission which was a copyvio that another user didn't detect, that user should "lose" some points and when enough points has been lost, s/he isn't allowed to review submissions for x days. Or something....I am really tired. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Everyone has one or two slip through. Everyone catches ones others have let slip through. There is so much poo to sort through why wouldn't some get through by accident. And I check and I'm sure I've missed some. You could get Madman Bot check every AfC submission and raise a red flag. That would help. But not a points scheme and "you can't review any more!" I'm not going to do it (and I've only just started anyway) with folk looking over my shoulder. Life's too short. I'm more tired than you. ~sticks out tongue~ Fiddle Faddle 22:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep.
MadmanBot: Sadly, MadmanBot and the like are pretty much as a rule prohibited from using Google by licensing concerns, IIRC. This would be a place where the Foundation and a few bucks could probably make a real difference.
I agree that we don't want a point system to fix this, I started this thread and I'm sure I've let a lot of (redacted) slip. We're overloaded and we've got a lot of hard work ahead of us, it was my hope in starting this discussion that "a word to the wise is sufficient". --j⚛e deckertalk 22:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought there was a bot that was suppose to be patrolling for these and leaving some kind of indication that it was a copyvio? What ever happened to that? — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 00:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Ping Madman. (t) Josve05a (c) 00:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
      • MadmanBot does it; it only just started back up after a hiatus yesterday, though. (CorenSearchBot was running before then but I don't think it runs on articles for creation, as I got separate approval for that.) MadmanBot cannot use Google per its terms of service, but it does use Yahoo! which still provides excellent results when queried appropriately, and that is with the Foundation's support. Thanks, — madman 00:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Glad to hear the WMF supports, and I don't mean to suggest that MMB isn't doing a god job. I do still think there's a fair bit of stuff "left on the table." When we were starting processing G13s last year I spent a lot of time checking "promotional" pages for copyright problems by hand and found a lot that Google would pull up that Yahoo still wouldn't. Of course, most of those had survived MMB or one of it's kin, so it's no surprise that there was a huge selection bias effect. I guess my point is that if there were a way of getting Google to allow us to use it, there would still be some value to that. Probably not likely, though. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

time for a name change

With the move to draft namespace it occurs to me that it might be a good time to think about changing the name of the project. There is lots of stuff going on, and I anticipate this suggestion being roundly batted aside, but nevertheless it would make a lot of sense if this were named something like draft article review project, or perhaps even something that emphasizes the positive role of draft article coaching. --nonsense ferret 08:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

DARP? "Articles for creation" is a positive framing already, we're helping editors who can't create articles on their own the framework and components necessary for a article. I am fairly certain the community that haunts WT:DRAFTS might have some things to say about our project expanding our reach to include the maintenance of the Draft namespace. Hasteur (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe, "Draft, Analysis and Review of Project Articles?" (just kidding). You have just entered another segment of the community that should have a say in all this. Kudos! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation sounds better and more accessible to new users, I think the name of the project should stay as it is. Elassint Hi 18:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The more important thing is to find a way to remove all references to "review" and "reviewed" visible by article creators, to avoid the constant and ongoing confusion with other, almost entirely unrelated, Wikipedia processes that use those terms in ways visible to article creators. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with "Articles for creation" - thousands of editors know what that is and might be confused if it's changed. The fact that the submissions are in Draft space doesn't change what they are. Besides, I can't think of anything better. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm for leaving the name as-is. It has significant precedent, and a name change could confuse people, "What happened to AfC, where did it go?" NorthAmerica1000 12:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
+1 for removing "review" and "reviewed" from the templates visible to article creators.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem with accepting article

Please look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pattenrai!! ~ Minami no Shima no Mizu Monogatari where I have attempted to accept it. The helper script seems to fail at the point of moving the article to main namespace. IT may be, but does not appear to be, a protection issue.

You may disagree with me over whether it should be accepted, and that is fine, but I am unable to accept it! Fiddle Faddle 13:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

 Checking... Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: I just tried to accept the article you mentioned but i didn't run into any issues doing so. The only "oddity" is that the edit summary for the move is truncated due to the long article name. Did the AFCH script report any error when you attempted to accept this page? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
It reported no errors of any description. I tried and failed about 4 times. We shall declare it to be a gremlin and move on! Thanks. Fiddle Faddle 13:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Playing in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old

I'm new to AfC reviewing, so I tried to work out where best to work. This seemed like a good place, the old submisisons. They seem to be held in the category in date order, so I'm working down the left hand column. Looks like it gets refilled overnight and at a few other times as well.

One hurdle: Many of the top left hand corner articles were old AfD failures. I'm not an admin, I can't check whether they meet re-creatable criteria

Another hurdle: Some are salted. Again, not an admin, can't unsalt. We must be able to do something about that? Maybe enter them with all review data intact into an AfC Admin queue?

Another problem: declining an IP submission. Mostly these IP addresses are not fixed and are never seen again. What cam we do about that? Some articles just need a tweak. And no, not by me. Maybe a queue of decline IP submissions for editors with passion to bring up to standard?

There's a pretty terrible ratio of acceptable to rejectable. That sucks

Who's coming to play in this pond? Who needs reviewing drives? Let;s just have a crack at it! I'd love to see this cat with fewer than 20 members when I quit for the day Fiddle Faddle 20:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your enthusiasm, Timtrent. I can comment on some of your concerns:
  • Old submissions that just need a little boost over the top: There's a process for that. Any submission that hasn't been edited for six months is placed in this queue: Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions, and after a waiting period these are deleted. Willing reviewers then use the script to "postpone" the deletion of ones that seem promising, which puts them Category:AfC postponed G13, sparing them for six months. Quite a number of these have been fixed up by various editors and are now in mainspace, but as you see, the sheer number of these means that some will be deleted anyway on the next round. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Salted titles: If you come across one and you have a reason that it should be unsalted, by typing the title into the search box you should be able to see who salted it. The first step would be to contact that editor on their talk page and request an unsalt. I would also place the article you are trying to accept "under review" so that other editors won't be duplicating your efforts. If there is no reply (maybe the editor is no longer active), you can ask another admin to check into it. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Previously deleted titles: Although so far I am Wikipedia's least experienced admin, I have figured out how to view deleted pages. I am around most days, and I would be happy to compare a submission with the deleted version of the same title if someone asks me, and report whether it's mostly the same or has been substantially improved.
  • Perfect, thanks. For the moment I'm treating prior AfD as "Hmm, can't do this until..." tough I have taken, recently, to a talk page note suggestin CSD is in appropriate and that I think it is notable, and take it to a further AfD is required
  • With salting, would a bot be able to flag them as salted, so someone like you with admin power can consider unsalting?
  • I shall post this type of stuff in the project in future :) Fiddle Faddle 17:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't think there are enough of them at any one time to require a bot, but you could discuss a way to flag them with the helpful fellows at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Rewrite. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Add me to the list of admins who are happy (when I'm around, I'm irregular) to try and help with questions related to salting, protections, and viewing old content. If you have a list of the fellows that are salted, I can target them specifically, too. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Joe DeckerHave you considered adding some more fiber and water to your diet to help with the irregularity and the salt? ;)Hasteur (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Ha! I've ordered me some Colon Blow, we'll see how that works. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
@Joe Decker can we create an 'approved category' Category:AfC submissions which could go live but are salted? Obviously I could create one now, but having it official(!) would mean that folk like you who can will look at it. I am also not precious enough to think that my opinion on an article's ability to go live should do more than suggest to the unsalting admin that I'm right. They may disagree with me at will and without comeback from me! Since we are all under pressure, some decisions will be poor as a matter of course. My view is that a poor acceptance will be worked out in main namespace. Fiddle Faddle 05:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Way to miss the point... There is a way to break a Page title protection already WP:RFPP, typically the page is watched closely and if the creation is reasonable an admin will usually take care of it rather quickly as it's one of the Admin dashboard tasks. Your creation of a new category is yet another thing admins would have to check that is duplicating a already existing use case. Hasteur (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Hasteur, it's not surprising that Timtrent wasn't aware of this, because the policy page instructions, Wikipedia:Protection policy#Creation protection, don't mention it, and suggest something else instead. And while WP:RFPP lists create protection at the top of the page, it doesn't have a section for reporting pages needing unsalting; I'm presuming that you would put them under "Current requests for reduction in protection level". Have you had some titles unsalted in this way? And, if so, should we ask for an addition to the policy page to direct editors there? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hrm... I think Any type of protection or unprotection may be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. indicates exactly that. I will agree that the specific instructions under the Create protection aren't as clear. Because the page is a hotbed of change I'm proposing clarifying the language before I make the change to the page to see if there's objections. Hasteur (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; that's bound to be helpful. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I got here late, but yeah, RFPP will work. Still, if I'm around, I'll be happy to take a look, too. 'sall good. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
More basically, we need to give up the idea that people will in general fix articles, and be prepared to fix them ourselves, of , if the problems arerelatively minor, leave them to befixed by normal editing. Some will, but experience has shown over the last year there about a 10% minority. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed: That a bot be allowed to move all Pending AFC submissions to Draft space

Putting my money where my mouth is, in addition to finally deprecating the "Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/" prefix, I ask if there is consensus for me to design and run a series of automated edits to relocate every pending AFC page to the Draft namespace. For the purposes of this discussion a page is eligible to be moved IF

The page shows up in the Category:Pending AfC submissions based off the AFC Submission pending template is active
The page has the prefixing location Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/

The bot will relocate the page to Draft: with the remainder of the title unless that title is already taken (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Jimmy John Doe becomes Drafts:Jimmy John Doe)

in which case we will put a postfix hatnote (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/John Doe becomes Drafts:John Doe (botmoved)) and adds a category to the bottom of the draft for an editor to review the title and properly disambiguate it)

The bot will use "Relocating AFC space to Draft Namespace" as it's move message

I see a great many moves initially as we have ~2.5k pages that would qualify but after that I see running this bot perhaps 2x a month so that resubmited drafts, restored G13s, and unchanged scripts that default dump in the old location are relocated to our new home.

I'd like to start writing this bot on the 9th with a speedy run through BRFA (as it's affecting a lot), therefore I ask that you keep your comments brief and to the point. Hasteur (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a terrific idea. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
So what held this up so far was that the AFC reviewing tools did not work with the Draft namespace. Is that still the case? Moving them all seems like a bad idea if the tools for reviewing don't work. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The tools have supported draft namespace since before the January Backlog drive. Hasteur (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Cool. My other question is this: How are we going to make sure only AFC submissions get reviewed? Many people, including experienced editors with previous userspace drafts, have been using the Draft namespace. These editors don't want AFC reviews for their work. It needs to be made really clear that drafts without AFC templates/categories should not be reviewed. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
It's already built-in to the system: Only pages with an AFC submission template on it will show up in Category:Pending AfC submissions (shortcut: CAT:PEND). This is also how we recognize userspace drafts that are really AFC submissions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Before we do this, we need to update the AFC end-user documentation and any new-user-assistant scripts to create NEW AFC submissions in Draft: instead of WT:AFC. If we do that, the need for a bot may take care of itself in 5-6 weeks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Those are fixable within 10 minutes, not the 2~3 weeks it takes to get a BRFA approved. Hasteur (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
One reason for having new submissions in "Draft: instead of "Wikipedia talk" is that if they are picked up by mirror sites they won't appear to be Wikipedia articles. It's too late for that for the ones that are already in Wikipedia talk:, since pages are often picked up within minutes of creation. Moving thousands of pages makes a lot of unnecessary redirects, especially for those which are soon to be moved again to article space (I'm thinking of the size of my watchlist, for example). Why not just start moving all of the new ones now? Also, although the script and also the new script were modified several months ago, a testing period on a small number of submissions at first was a good idea. I presume since Hasteur is calling for large numbers to be moved, that all has been going well in this regard. If others think that a mass move is a good idea, these are only minor objections and I would be happy to go along. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Anne's idea has merit. Instead of performing thousands of potentially disruptive moves it might be better to simply close WT:AFC/-space to new entries and direct them to Draft-space - by editing the Article Wizard. We can then systematically deal with whatever remains in WT:AFC/-space and finally shut it down when it's cleared. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Dodger67 Perhaps you missed it, but as I mentioned above to Davidwr, redirecting the input pipe that creates new submissions in draft space is a 10 minute fix. Getting the bot coded and the BRFA approved is going to be at least 2~3 weeks before its approved and then the bot will run at a slow rate (no more than ~6 moves/minute) so it will take a while to port everything over. These submissions may have already been reviewed by an AFC reviewer (and consequently left a message on the submitter's talk page) therefore it's reasonable that the submitter might use that link to get back to their work. Per WP:R#KEEP these would constitute reasonable internal inbound linkages. Per the advice from the Wikimedia sysops, Redirects are cheap so it doesn't hurt. We have plenty of "double redirect" solving bots in addition to reminders to administrators that when they delete a page they need to also clean out any redirects that point to the page. Hasteur (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Convienence break (Bot Moving pending AFCs)

So, now that the consensus discussion regarding redirecting the "Create to AFC" output from the Article Wizard has concluded, I ask again, is there consensus for a bot to programatically move any pending AFC submission from the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ prefix to a parallel Drafts: location. Moving pending submissions will resolve a great many of outstanding issues in addition to cleaning up the old prefix location. Initially I see running this twice every day to help us move items over, then after a few weeks dial it back to once a day, then progressively dial it back to once a week. This will have the side benefit of any AFC submission that had been previously G13ed/restored/resubmitted will be relocated to our new home as well. I am not considering the declined or draft level AFC submissions, because they could be on the path to G13 nomination, so resetting the clock is not a good idea. Thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Question - I understand that it takes about six weeks to get a bot approved. Won't most of the current submissions have already been declined or accepted by that time? If new submissions are being moved to Draft already, which ones would the bot move? Resubmissions? Submissions moved to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation" by users who haven't heard about the change? Any others? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    • @Anne Delong: Resubmissions, Restorations of G13s, Users who suddenly decide to resubmit when they get notified that their submission is eligible for G13, etc. The set initially will be fairly large, but as time goes on the diminishing returns will eventually make this task a quick run. Conceievably we could have a singular hold out in the AFC prefix that is submitted, gets declined, stales out for 6 months, gets the "This page is eligible for G13", submitted again loop for years. Obviously we don't want to add code to the AFC reviewing gadgets to move the submission to Draft space during the middle of the review, and we don't want to perturb the stale clock on drafts that are already declined (to let them coast gracefully into G13). If we positively take account for the ones that are pending, we know there's at least 1 more edit that will be conducted on the page (either to accept or decline) after the move so resetting the G13 clock on these only gives more time to something we know will be extended a little further.Hasteur (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Automatic white-listing - admins

There appears to be a strong consensus for not whitelisting Admins Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal To prevent "surprises" like the ones above, I recommend that all administrators be immediately white-listed by the AFC Helper Script. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Support (Automatic white-listing - admins)

  1. Admins are qualified to do reviews, by our own definitions of qualified. If we want the white list to be an exhaustive list of people performing reviews, then we should add admins to the whitelist automatically, either all of them that have the script turned on (next time the load it), or the next time they perform an action using the script, if we only want active reviewers on the whitelist. As Anne pointed out, the easiest way forward would be to bypass the whitelist with the admin flag in the short term, and then write the auto-adding code later. Gigs (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Yes. If you have the chops to be an admin, you will know how to use this tool. If you don't, you should be desysopped PDQ before you cause some real damage, though I sincerely hope that affects nobody at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support: I've been doing occasional reviews on and off for a while. It seems strangely perverse that I'm trusted by the editorial community to delete articles and block contributors but not to review AfC submissions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose (Automatic white-listing - admins)

  1. An admin that wants to do AFC reviews with the assistance of the script should enter their names on the list. How do we know that a random admin who walks in from the street knows all the things to check for an AFC review? Admins promoting drafts out of the AFC space run the small problem of having to designate an "ADMIN" (i.e. one that needs discussion before it can be reversed) action vs a action performed by any random editor. I'd much rather the admin have to take positive action for the AFC tools to work than to have it be a "fringe benefit" of the Janitor's Closet keys. I do think that having the tools display an alert to the effect of "Per consensus established at .... usage of the AFCH tool has been restricted to those editors who have signed up at ..." would be judicious as it informs the editor how to go about having the tool be enabled. We may want to change the language in the Preferences->Gadgets option to indicate what the user must do to have the gadget fully enabled as a proactive method when a user is thinking about enabling the tool. Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Per Hasteur. Anyone wanting to do reviews can simply sign up on the list - admins are not a special class of reviewer. If an admin is unable or unwilling to do so it makes one wonder how they got their mop in the first place. Signing up is a trivial step that allows a reasonable level of quality control as agreed through a solid consensus - we've had admins do significant damage here before. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Per Hasteur. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Per Hasteur and Roger Dodger67, admins are not a special class of reviewer. Elassint Hi 22:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. There's nothing preventing them from whitelisting themselves, why should we go through and pre-whitelist them if their not interested in contributing. For those admins that have an issue and need help disabling the script or want to be whitelisted but aren't sure exactly what needs doing, just ask, there are plenty of people that can help. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 00:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Adminship does not automatically confer mastery of all Wikipedia processes and scripts used within Wikiprojects. Better to let those interested sign up, just like everyone else. NorthAmerica1000 06:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per above users, like Hasteur and Roger Dodger67. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose there is some merit in having to opt ones self in. An admin (in general) isn't going to avoid dealing with an AfC just because the AFCH doesn't work, there is a message on how to fix it, and it is easy enough to do (hey even I managed to do it). Being an admin doesn't automatically make you proficient in the AfC process, despite being qualified to review. There is a difference between the two, and I think it is worth making any user have to think about having to opt into the process. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (Automatic white-listing - admins)

  • My first though on this matter: Why? Sure, most admins will be capable of reviewing article's, but so are many other long term editors who have opted against running an RFA. Why would we need to add a group of editors pro actively if it takes mere seconds for an editor to add him or herself to start with? In my opinion automatic white-listing is pretty much a solution looking for a problem. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The "why" should be obvious, because we don't want admins who occasionally do AfC to just go untick AFCH to get rid of the annoying messages, making them less likely to ever do AfC again. Gigs (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Sure, but isn't that an argument against the annoying warning, rather than being an argument to whitelist all admins? After all, what about the longterm editors who only review occasionally? @Theopolisme: Would it be possible \ feasible to display this warning only on pages where an AFC template is actually present? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
        • @Excirial: That is *theoretically* possible. The thing is that one big point of the whitelist check is that it is done as soon as the page loads, to prevent unnecessarily loading other pieces of the script that won't be used; checking submission state requires a fair bit of code/api requests/etc... Meh. Kind of surprised at the uproar about this; if you're an AFC reviewer, fine, add you name (it takes ten seconds)...otherwise just uninstall the script. But yeah, as always, Code Monkey here is happy to implement whatever y'all decide. Ah, the joys of volunteering for an open project ;) Theopolisme (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to support or oppose, but as an admin, I do want to say that I'm perfectly capable of adding myself to the list, in fact, I did that when I saw the message, it probably would have taken me longer to figure out where to untick AFCH. So my own view is that it's a very minor thing either way. *shrug* --j⚛e deckertalk 20:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Admins probably do not all have the ability to do good reviews, but, quite frankly, if someone is not capable of it I wonder whether they are qualified for the mop in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. To reiterate what I said above, I would expect admins to have some experience of our notability criteria and deletion policies; indeed, experience at AfD is often asked at RfA. Even if one had never seen AfC or the tool before, they should be able to quickly understand what's involved, just like an admin should be able to quickly adapt and understand any situation in order to mediate. I see this just an extension of assuming good faith. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - If the script is changed so that those on the inactive list are also accepted as AFC helper script users, so they don't have to come back and add themselves periodically, then occasional users, admins or not, shouldn't be pestered by these error messages more than once, and there should be no problem in the long run. The number of returning reviewers from before the change will gradually taper off. It's not just admins who would be annoyed by being dropped from the list; changing this should keep our long term occasional reviewers happy too. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2014 (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.

Accepting in draft namespace

I'm not familiar with procedures in the draft namespace. When looking into Wikipedia:Help desk#Publishing from sandbox I posted to User talk:S.M.Samee#Draft:Medical Technology Group accepted? Was User:S.M.Samee supposed to move Draft:Medical Technology Group to mainspace? I don't see the point of "accepting" the draft and removing the AFC tag with the associated categories [4] if the page stays in the draft namespace until somebody happens to discover it and do something. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  • When an article is accepted in Draft it should definitely be moved to mainspace. Both the old and the new version of the script appear to have the correct mainspace title of an article in the "Title" field when accepting an article. Has anyone else had this happen, or was it possibly a misunderstanding on the part of the reviewer? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting... Looks like the reviewer did some of the accept portions but didn't target it correctly. I restored the banner and accepted it again into mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it. S.M.Samee has moved other pages from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ to mainspace but only reviewed this page in the Draft namespace so I guess it was a misunderstanding of the procedure. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this was due to misunderstanding. I apologise for the inconvenience caused. - sms- talk    07:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
If a draft article has an AFC submission template placed on it by the author (or with the obvious consent of the author) it should be treated just the same as if its name started with WT:Articles for creation/. The only difference is the page title. If the draft article does NOT have the AFC template on it, then AFC procedures do not apply. See Wikipedia:Drafts for information on how to handle such pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not clear whether there are any differences except for G13 not applying to draft namespace (for the moment, anyway; I think it should , and will probably propose it.) The page you link to makes it clear that authors do not own drafts. Whether or not they should be permitted to prevent their move into mainspace if they think them not ready is an interesting question---it might sometimes be reasonable to let them keep it there, but not always. If one person can make usable content out of what someone else has done and abandoned, it would seem to benefit WP. As far as the AfC procedures go, there is and should be nothing to prevent anyone from moving anything into mainspace without using any of them unless prevented by protection or the specific prohibition at an XfD. The rule, which AfC tends to neglect, is NOT BUREAUCRACY. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
DGG G13 applies to any page that has a {{AFC submission}} template on it that hasn't been edited in at least 6 months. The bot takes the more narrow view and only nominates ones that are in the "WT:AFC/" prefix and "Drafts:" prefix that meet those requirements. Hasteur (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur, what about submissions that are still in userspace? I had thought that the bot would nominate these too. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The bot doesn't pick those up because there's more discretion in what a user has in their userspace. The bot will take care of the easy ones but the harder ones are very much a judgement call. Hasteur (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Hasteur that the bot should not be checking userspace, for exactly the reason he gives. I think we might figure out a way to use a more rapid method than MfD on these, bit it would require manual checking and nomination. It's not our highest priority. I know there are people , myself not included, who do check userspace versions for mfd nomination from time to time, but I do not know if this is being done systematically, or only to follow up individual problems. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
All the more reason to move submissions into the review area (whether WT:Articles for creation or Draft) as soon as they are submitted. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
@Anne Delong:@DGG: I sometimes patrol Category:Pending AfC submissions in userspace to see if there's any submissions that have a chance. If it looks like it has a chance I move it to the Draft namespace (leaving behind a redirect) and get it cleaned up for a reviewer to evaluate. If it doesn't seem reasonable, I typically change the AFC submission to "draft" status (The big grey box indicating it's not yet submitted) or remove the AFC submission banner if it appears that the submission is not ready. Hasteur (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur, I would hope that if you are "unsubmitting" new editors' work, you are leaving them nicely worded messages on their talk pages explaining why. Otherwise this would definitely be confusing and disrespectful. Removing the draft template altogether without explanation may leave an editor not knowing how to replace it later. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The next backlog elimination drive

My friends, I see the backlog has once more reached the infamous 2000+ mark. I would like to take point on the next elimination drive. May I begin proposing parts of my plan? The drive would begin three weeks from this day. Cheers, TIM(Contact)/(Contribs) 01:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that we had the memory of a guppy. This is already discussed above in the "Do annother backlog drive?" section which is at most 7 days old. Please don't open a new section without considering if there's already a active discussion... Hasteur (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Without intending any disrespect, what I see up and down this page is an awful lot of bold accusatives (bold and italics used as sarcastic disarmament, hinting at their use in and the perhaps coincidental lack of productivity of the conversations above) and nobody sticking their neck out like this to do anything about it. I am looking for serious collaboration here. I might not be up to speed on whatever melodrama is causing this much strife at AFC these days, but I see a problem and I want to fix it. However I can help, right now. Unless somebody pries me off of this with a crowbar, I am looking for volunteers, not asking for permission. If it means grabbing a coffee machine, a library office, a couple of buddies and doing it on our own, I'm cracking the backlog. I'm almost more disturbed by the downright bitter, jaded, "who gives a shit" attitudes I'm hearing from some regulars here, than I am the regularity and size of the backlog. I don't especially care if a few downright adversarial editors think it's hopeless, I'm willing to take another stab at it. I'll coordinate it in my own userspace and award my own barnstars to volunteers if push comes to shove... There sure ain't any rules or restrictions I've happened across that punish well intentioned, productive editing in general. I hope you can understand I won't be stopped from trying to be a positive force. -TIM(Contact)/(Contribs) 03:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I can see we're making some inroads into addressing the longer term issue of how AFC backs up in the first place. Might I point out it would make the technical implementation of those suggestions a damn bit more feasible if there were not 2800 articles to categorize?! -TIM(Contact)/(Contribs) 04:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @The Illusive Man: If you want to take a stab at reducing the nearly 3k backlog more power to you - ill be quite happy if that ever increasing number finally enters a downwards spiral again. I would - for the moment - suggest against an "official" backlog drive though (If i may describe it as such) as there are some fairly extensive changes in the works. One of them is finally moving over to the Drafts namespace, the other is the suggestion to implement categorization. I also know that Technical13 is advocating a restructuring of the way reviewing is set up (Eg: Using Draft and Draft Talk as one would on a normal article, instead of using a Wikipedia Talk page for everything related to a draft).
Those changes have the potential to be somewhat disruptive in regards to the current process and the tools being used ro review. For example i have no idea how well AFCBuddy would react to the new namespace. It might work a-ok with minimal changes, but it might also come crashing down and require some extensive maintenance to work again. I would say it is better to discover that before a drive rather than running into it halfway during an active drive. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 08:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Hasteur, we should never have another backlog drive until everything about this project is fixed and we don't incur backlogs anymore - sarcasm. Opposing backlogs forever for this reason will result in an unsurmountable backlog, major decrease in collaborator retention, and we'll end up another joke of the wiki kind of like what WP:RA currently is where people will say, "You can create your draft, but it will probably never get approved." Yeah, I obviously support a June, August, October, and December/January (two month) drive. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 14:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Technical 13: Why not put your money where your mouth is with wanting to improve the process? Oh yeah, I forgot, you oppose making changes to the process because you want to have the perfectly designed process before implementing it, but we can't implement changes to the process unless we're out of a backlog drive, and no less than 1 week after the drive ends we're right back where we started. The vicious cycle of intertia means we never improve and "doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results" (as Einstein so suscintly put it) Hasteur (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I see consensus for a June-drive, and I will try to create one. (t) Josve05a (c) 08:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove name from whitelist

Proposed: Only remove names after 1 year of no reviewer activity

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

The current page says 2 months of no editing or 6 months of no-reviews. This is probably too short, since many active editors take breaks longer than 2 months. 1 year is a good conservative number while still retaining the idea that if they haven't reviewed in a long time, they should probably check to see if the practice here has changed before resuming reviews.

A lot of these "length of time" RfCs wind up with fractured consensus due to everyone proposing their own length of time, please consider whether you could live with "1 year of no reviews" as the criteria, not whether it's your ideal outcome. Gigs (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. As proposer. Gigs (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Departed editors can always be re-added when they return. I see no reason to extend the time period for expiration. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. As I say below, 6/12 is more appropriate than 2/6 or 12/12, and as Chris mentions above, they can always be re-added upon return. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 08:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Opposing as written (12/12) . I'd heartily support the 6/12 option if it were available... Hasteur (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose names being removed from the main reviewer list unless the inactive list is also a whitelist. When the list was divided into active and inactive, there was no thought of not allowing those who had been inactive to review. The only purpose was to help editors wanting to contact a reviewer to see who was active and might respond. Ideally the the script should allow users on both lists to have the script activated without receiving any error messages. As an added bonus, the script could move a username from the inactive to the active list if the user actually performed a function with the script. If this isn't practical, then the two-list system is a nuisance and we should just combine the lists. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC
  5. Oppose per Anne Delong. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Since the original question stated "Is a 1 year limit tolerable?" i supported that change as the currently listed 2/6 month variety is definitely not. But Anne voices my actual thoughts quite well: No automatic removal based on time whatsoever is vastly preferable over any form of automatic removal. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 06:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Anne says. As a comparison, though we remove inactive admins because of the danger that someone can inadvertently do if they are not familiar with current policy; the damage from an incorrect AfC review is relatively trivial. The purpose of the active list is just so people will direct questions where they are likely to get answers DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • I support the idea that 2/6 months is too short, I oppose the idea that 12/12 months is better. Currently, there is a consensus that 6 months is enough time to delete an abandoned draft per G13, and I believe I saw somewhere that a year of inactivity may be reasonable to desysop someone. So, using those existing consensuses and logical reasoning, I think the perfect middle ground is 6/12 months inactive/reviewless (making sure to look for things like FFU and other AfC related activity other than just article reviews). — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 01:04, 7 May 2014 (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.

Alternative proposal: 6/12

To remove user after 6 months of no edits or 12 with no reviews. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as alternative. Gigs (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    I should add that I am also OK with an outcome of "no time limits", as I do not have a strong opinion on the matter. Gigs (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support as conceptualizer... — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 10:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Hasteur (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose - Why should reviewers be removed after a time limit at all? The whitelist is a list of those with not enough experience to review. Editors don't become less experienced as time goes on. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Anne, the list has to be loaded every time the script runs, load time will increase every time a new name is added. Failure to keep the list clean of inactive people will eventually lead to 2 minute load times for every page, then 3 minutes, then 30 minutes if it isn't taken care of. Do you want to wait 30 minutes for a draft to load? — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 14:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That's like saying why should driver's licenses require renewal on a regular basis? Why should we desysop people after a year or three of inactivity? Why should we remove special userrights when editors die? The answer is to keep a maintainable list of active users. Otherwise chaos takes over and the world ends (okay, maybe a little overly dramatic, but I think it makes the point). — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    Where I come from, drivers' licenses don't require renewal on a regular basis. Except for old people. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    I just want to say that on svwiki admins must renew their aminship once a year to keep it. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Demi, are you saying old people don't review drafts? My point was the license isn't good for from the day they get it at age 12 until they die at 97 from old age, which you've reinforced. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 21:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    We don't really desysop people. We remove the user right from their account, specifically because having a bunch of inactive user accounts with admin rights on them is less than ideal for user account security reasons. The user is still an admin, it's just their account has had the admin flag removed. The account security implications for a user being on the AfC project participants list is fairly minimal: it's about the same as if there's a user who continues to have rollback even though they are inactive—i.e. it's not worth worrying about. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Tom, since this is a whitelist instead of a userright, it is more like the whitelist for having AWB access, which is cleared for inactivity. Also, a list with 20K people on it isn't useful, so keeping the list cleared of inactive users is a good idea to keep page size down and maximize script speed. With a userright, it isn't an issue that would effect the speed of the script. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 14:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I would like to wait 30 min to review an article. Or why not take it one step further, 1 year, or maybe 3? (t) Josve05a (c) 14:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Technical 13, you have brought up a point I had not considered. With your expertise in this area, please tell how many names would need to be on the list before the slowdown was noticeable (say, more than 1/3 second)? I don't mind if people want to have a time limit; I mainly started this alternative proposal because no one was voting for the other one. There are ways, though, to deal efficiently with big sorted lists; I'm sure you know more of them than I do. If an intelligent search algorithm doesn't help, breaking the list into smaller lists by letters of the alphabet would. Also, one of the ways that the AWB list is kept small is by not requiring admins to sign up. I must confess that when I proposed the whitelist I had envisioned that the check would come when someone attempted to add the script in their preferences, rather than every time a page is loaded. Since this would be so much more efficient, I am presuming it turned out not to be practical. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It's hard to say exactly, but names seem to be about 25 bytes apiece. This calculates to about 41 names per KB. There is also quite a bit of overhead on that page with the headers and banners and tabs for the project (seems to be about 2k non-expanded). I'd take an extremely wild guess and say about 1 second per 1000 names, so, 333 names per 1/3 of a second. There are currently about 265 names + 30 or so bots (that take up about 100 bytes each). — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 16:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Technical 13: This actually raises a question for me. A while earlier people complained that they saw warning messages regarding the AFCH script once they opened a talk page. Am i correct to infer that the script downloads the entire list of users every time a page in a valid namespace is opened? Even if that page is just a few KB in size it feels like a waste of resources to me to check it that often (Not even taking into account the cumulative added wait time). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That's the way the whitelists work on the short of it. If it didn't then people could load a page and stop the script from checking and still be able to use it, which is against the consensus. The only way to avoid this minor extra load is to have an actual 'userright' flag (which can be added to some existing userrights, so we don't need to make a new one for the hat collectors). — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 22:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Where apparently the list doesn't need to be confirmed before people can use the script making the list worthless for any purpose than annoying legitimate users. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 01:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • Reserving my viewpoint until the first question is resolved. A lot of these "length of time" RfCs wind up with fractured consensus due to everyone proposing their own length of time... Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I debated whether to close the 12/12 discussion after Josve05a proposed an alternative because it doesn't look like 12/12 is headed toward consensus at all, but I didn't want to effectively suppress the editors who commented that there probably shouldn't be an inactivity limit, rather than merely opposing 12/12. Gigs (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, I closed my original proposal since I was the only one left in the support column. I am not bold enough to refactor the "general opposition" comments from my RfC down to this one, but failing that, the closer of this RfC should definitely take those comments from that one into account for the closure here. Gigs (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: no time limit

Well, I guess someone should do this:

Proposal: That editors on both the active and inactive AfC reviewers lists have access to the AfC Helper Script, and that the division into two lists be for information purposes only and not affect the operation of the script.

Rationale: The purpose of the whitelist is to prevent brand new users from becoming reviewers. Once editors have the required time since registering and number of edits to get on the list in the first place, there should be no need to requalify based on inactivity, since there is very little chance that their edit count and time since registering would decrease.

Support:

  1. Support as proposer. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support makes sense to me --nonsense ferret 17:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support To put things in context: Administrators won't lose their bit unless they have not made a single edit for a year - any edit will do. Additionally, if an admin actually loses his or her bit it a reinstatement with no questions asked can be requested up to two years after it was lost. Effectively we entrust an editor who has not edited Wikipedia in 3 years to make sane judgment calls regarding user blocks, article deletions and so on - having more stringent criteria for the usage of a script just seems plain weird in that context. Or to use a less waxy argument: If we deem an editor capable of reviewing, don't we inherently trust them to read up on recent policy after some away time? Do we truly need to enforce this by removing their script access forcing them to relist themselves? (Remember: Relisting is all they need to do). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support It would seem rather perverse that were I to take an extended vacation for the next 366 days and not warn anybody on Wikipedia that upon my return my account would have had the ability to review AfC submissions removed, but the ability to block users, delete pages and revisions and so on would still be there. Too much bureaucracy. The issue you guys are trying to solve is preventing incompetent people from reviewing and thus harming newbs. Inactive users aren't causing any harm. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support As noted above, I support either the idea of no time limits, or the 6/12 proposal. Gigs (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. No, we need some mechanic for figuring out who should/should not have access to the tool (as per the previous RFCs), but at the same time we do need some way of discouraging users who haven't reviewed in a while from juming right in the middle of new reviews when they may not know the mechanics. Hasteur (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. oppose per Hasteur and the fact that even administrators and bureaucrats loose that status if they don't contribute for an extended period of time. People that don't use AWB or contribute that are on that whitelist get removed for inactivity. People that don't contribute to the ACC process loose their associated privileges for inactivity as well. So, there are many precedents of consensus that these types of whitelists aren't all inclusive and once you're on it you're good forever. Finally, it is so easy to re-add people, that there is no reason to not maintain the list and keep it from becoming chaotic mess of every account on the wiki that one time wanted to contribute. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Neutral/conflicted: While the proposal has merit, it conflicts with the general principle that "only those who need access to keys should have access." There are a few places in Wikipedia, such as the account-creator user-right, that explicitly take this principle seriously. Most others don't. Personally, I'd like to see all newly-implemented user-rights or pseudo-user-rights (such as access to scripts) take this principle seriously. Begin off-topic discussion: If I could go back in time to the early 2000s and wave a magic wand, all of Wikipedia's user-rights would, by policy, be "administratively deactivated" if they were not used after a reasonable period of time (usually 1 year) and/or if the editor did not log in for 1 year. Like the G13 speedy deletion, re-acquiring these user-rights would just require the editor to request that they be restored. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well, guys, we have to do something about this, so those who don't wish to support this proposal should scroll right up and support the proposal above, with the time limit, or reopen and move your votes to support the one above. My feeling is that there may be a lot of editors who don't want to review regularly, but may want to have the script installed for the occasional case where they want to leave an AfC comment on a draft. I also foresee in the future, when AfC is in Draft space, that the script could be used to add Wikiproject banners to drafts well before they are accepted, and this may attract occasional reviewers. Although I personally prefer no time limit, I am quite prepared to go along with one, provided a consensus can be developed as to what it will be. Also, if those on the inactive list are not able to review without moving their names to the active list, the inactive list perhaps has no function and should be just deleted to simplify the process. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The mere access to the script does not prevent anyone from reviewing, or doing the equivalent. Anyone can comment on an article, or move it to mainspace, or list it for deletion, without using the script. We will need more active measure than this to keep people from harming new editors. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes; the whitelist is only a first step, and we need to make up our minds whether or not to have a time limit so that we can lay this to rest and turn our attention to other concerns. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Try this out

Dear reviewers: It appears that the bug in the new search that affected redirects has been fixed. Try typing something like "football review waiting" (replace "football" with your favourite search topic; "review waiting" is text that is only in the AfC template of active submissions, not declined ones or unsubmitted drafts. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

...Hmmm. I forgot to mention that I have the new search enabled in my preferences. I'm not sure how well it will work without that. With it, I am able to check only the active submissions. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Where's that option? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
FoCuSandLeArN, it's in Preferences under Beta. Apparently over 8000 people are using it so far, and it's pretty good, but to make this search work they had to fix a bug, so it's not perfect yet. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Anne Delong Keeping in mind the goal of getting us to Draft Namspace, would you mind if I removed the "Search in WT:AFC/" option? Hasteur (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Not yet, Hasteur; the sooner the ones in WT are reviewed, the sooner it'll be empty. Also, it's good for searching the old declined ones if you don't add "review waiting". Being able to search in WT shouldn't slow down any migration. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16-May-2014

Implement the changes specified in this revisions exactly to the requested page. Purpose is to deprecate the WT:AFC prefix as a valid destination for pages that aren't in the WT:AFC prefix space or the Drafts namespace. The purpose is to get us away from having any de-facto endorsement of WT:AFC being a valid location.

Previous Consensus Establishing

For these reasons I consider that a consensus is already in place that we want to move to the Draft namespace, therefore not providing the option to move submissions that are not in WT:AFC or Drafts to WT:AFC is a reasonable baby step in further deprecating the WT:AFC option for where the submissions live at. Please note that this change does not make the articles that live at the WT:AFC prefix be in error, it simply removes the option of moving the submission to WT:AFC. Hasteur (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

information Administrator note Would you synchronise the sandbox and then reapply the proposed changes? There have been other changes in the live template that would be lost. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
@MSGJ: This is the synchronize and this is the changes to re-apply the logic provided previously. Hasteur (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I don't like that change. Give me a minute... Hasteur (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
@MSGJ: This is the changes as they should be. Doesn't start nagging users about submissions in WT:AFC, but at the same time makes sure to encourage users to put submissions in Drafts:. Thank you for your patience. Hasteur (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: AS admitted on the AFCH rewrite page, the AFCH does not support accepting drafts that have anything on the talk page, by the end of this week, all drafts will have comments on the talk page (and submission templates on the /editnotice page) as they are suppose to. Therefor, I warn that once this is completed, there will be no way to review anything in draft space. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 13:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Technical 13:

  • Q: Please explain exactly how all of the submissions will come to have comments on the talk page by the end of this week and who is going to be creating the comments. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
A: As I said, I will manually be breaking all of the comments and AfC submission templates out of the draft content and putting them on the talk pages and editnotice pages as is appropriate. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 14:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13, The AfC review queue is weeks long, and this problem in the script will be addressed shortly. The older submissions are mostly in Wikipedia talk and will not be affected by this change. If you plan to review articles far down in the queue, there is at most a small inconvenience for the next few days of moving the talk page manually, if there is one. If you don't care to do this, you have the option of confining your reviews to the older submissions in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation until this is fixed. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, Anne, I don't have the luxury of waiting as having all of these broken drafts is holding up creation of the new article creation wizard script. Due to the consensus to do it now, instead of waiting a couple of weeks or a month for that script to be completed (and for the reviewer script to be capable of handling split page drafts) this is going to get exponentially harder to accomplish. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 14:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: I don't remember any consensus of moving the templates and comments to the talk page, not yet anyways. Please give me a link to where this discussion took place where clear consensus was made that this was supposed to happen. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
What Josve05a said. Link, please. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've already linked it. The consensus to create the namespace in the first place is where the consensus exists that talk page comments belong on talk pages. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 19:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
To the reviewing Admin/Protected Template Editor: Please observe the objection by Technical 13.
Please observe that as a Protected Template editor Technical 13 could fix underlying problems with the template.
Please observe that this same argument of AFC banners/AFC comments/Wikiproject tagging location was raised in the "Change the output of the AFC action from Article Wizard" debate and was rejected as a valid reason to hold up moving forward with the previous consensus
Please observe the actions and objections to changes by Technical 13 with respect to this template before.
The goal of this edit request is solely to discourage the usage of the WT:AFC prefix when relocating AFC submissions. For these reasons I strongly urge that you consider Technical 13's objection to this edit request as a !vote Hasteur (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 Done – Babe steps are good. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 08:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving to Draft:

A visual representation of the smooth transition of the AfC process to Draft space so far. Let's hope it's not too drafty there...

Well, it looks as though more and more of the AfC submissions will be moving to draft space. There's one small piece that still needs a little work: The new script has been working well, but doesn't yet move talk pages when drafts are accepted. This should be fixed shortly, but for the next couple of days, please check to see if articles that you accept have talk pages with content that should be kept, and if they do, please move the talk pages manually. Most will be empty at this point, but not all; some may have content discussions.

Please remember to report any additional problems with the operation of the script at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Rewrite. Other types of problems related to the move should be reported at this page, and I hope that you will comment on your experience after you've reviewed some submissions in Draft space. Thanks, everyone, and happy reviewing! —Anne Delong (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding self to avoid error

I see above that at least one person got very irritated by having to come here and add their name to fix the error. I'm not annoyed, but I wanted to drop a comment here to the effect that I think this design was less than ideal. If I understand it correctly, the effect is that every single active editor will see the error when they visit certain pages and they must take an action -- adding their name, or disabling something or other in preferences -- to avoid seeing it. This seems to be a poor design decision, from what I know; if I'm missing something, please let me know. I guess my main point is: please don't do this again, if a similar design decision should arise in the future. I'm sure this has been discussed several times, so need to reply; just add me to the list of those who would like their vote implicitly registered against a repeat of this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I might be totally wrong of course, but Mike my understanding was that the error only appears for users who have opted to load the reviewing tool in their preferences, but did not add themselves to the list of reviewers. This isn't enabled by default, so the error won't afaik affect every single active user. Perhaps if not already done, we could be doing with a warning on selecting the tool in prefs that adding also needs done. --nonsense ferret 20:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
That might be the case -- I don't recall enabling the gadget, but may well have done so. I retract my comments in that case. Thanks for the note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
And I agree that a note when selecting the tool would make sense; and I'd also suggest expanding the message in the error box to let people know that they can disable the gadget in prefs, and don't have to come to AfC to add their name, as I did. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-participant participation in AfC drive

Sorry if I being stupid but reading this page made me wonder if non-participants (users without autoconfirmation) are allowed to participate in the AfC drive. Can they? I would love to help. -24Talk 03:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry back, -24, it's a little too soon. You can see the minimum experience requirements at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Please come back later, though, when you've had a little more experience. In the mean time, you can prepare by reading some of the policy pages, such as WP:Notability and WP:RS. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

A different kind of "Drive"

Per the problems listed above concerning backlog drives and the need to solve some of the other AfC problems first, I suggest a drive whereby AfC members manually go through all the current submissions and categorize them. Perhaps have separate drives for each of the two parent categories proposed below.

Category:AfC submissions by review status. This would allow reviewers to prioritise (if they wish) articles which have never been reviewed. Currently, the queue is hopelessly clogged with self-promotion/paid promotion articles which have been multiply declined and are relentlessly re-submitted. See this horrendous example. Sub-categories:

Category:AfC submissions by subject. The categories below are based on the general categories used by AfD. Once this is done, reviewers could more easily find and choose to review submissions in their area(s) of expertise instead of randomly plowing through 2500 uncategorised submissions whose titles are often no indication of the type of subject matter. It would also enable members of subject-based WikiProjects to easily scan these categories to see if there are some drafts worth developing/accepting. Note that in some cases more than one category could be added to a draft. An example would be biographical articles which would also have the category for the area in which the person is active/known. Sub-categories:

An example of a submission in two categories would be Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/L.J. Sealey (AfC submissions (Biographical) and AfC submissions (Fiction and the arts))

It would be a relatively painless and quick way to help, pave the way for more focused reviewing and/or drives, and it's something that experienced editors who like to help out at AfC but aren't project members could do without all the fol-de-rol of "automated scripts". Fifty editors doing 20 categorisations each could get them all done in a couple of days. I'd be more than happy to help out. Voceditenore (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this an excellent idea. When overwhelmed with patients needing care, triage is implemented. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
This sounds like a really useful idea. If we did this, and then maintained doing it for all new submissions in the future, as well, it would be much easier to attack the backlog each time. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Giving yet annother way for people to drill down the backlog (when there's already 5) is unnecessary. Want to make a difference Category:AfC pending submissions by age is the category you should be focusing on. Work from the very oldest pending submissions! Hasteur (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a tool that will allow people who want to review only within a particular subject area the opportunity to do so. All current regular reviewers have to be generalists - sorting by topic area could attract additional reviewers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur, I disagree that simply insisting that submissions be reviewed from the back of an uncategorized queue is sufficient. Without some kind of subject classification, it's like trying to eat a skyscraper. More than one editor here has noted the problem of burn-out. If reviewers had a way to find submissions quickly on topics where they have an interest and a certain amount of expertise, I suspect you'd get more reviews done. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and people are more likely to volunteer for tasks which they find potentially interesting. I think it would also improve the quality of the reviews and attract wider participation. I'm not a member of the AfC project but I have moved quite a few obviously suitable submissions into article space, sometimes after cleaning them up a bit and/or adding further references. Where I would decline the article, I leave a comment to that effect, with reasons and suggestions for improvement (if improvement is possible) to help the actual reviewer. Currently, I rely on members like FoCuSandLeArN to alert me to relevant submissions in my area (some examples here). I simply do not have the time to plow through 2500 uncategorized drafts and have no intention of doing so. However, I would go through a relevant category. I suspect I am not unique in this respect. Voceditenore (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Excellent idea. It will pave the way to a much more efficient reviewing experience and hopefully bring new editors on board, as long as we advertise the changes made. I suggest if such categorisation drive takes place, we implement a rather simple one-barnstar-fits-all prize scheme so that we end the gaming attitude once and for all. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Pardon the digression (which I'm small-ising to minimize derail of the thread), but: I know you guys have been having a lot of discussions about barnstars and how/when to give them, but I can't help wondering: why must a drive come with a (set of) barnstar(s) at all? Clearing a backlog is a pretty big rush in and of itself. Is the concern that people won't want to help unless they can get a shiny symbol as a reward? Because I would venture to say that those people are exactly the ones likely to do the system-gaming y'all have been discussing a few sections up. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Makes sense; there's no downside to categorization. NorthAmerica1000 16:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Having considered this throughout the day my conclusion is that this would actually be quite sensible. Have a look trough the oldest submissions waiting for a review: The pages that are listed there are categorically article's that require above-average effort to review since they have decent sourcing and no issues so glaring it would warrant an immediate decline. If we were to categorize them and ask their respective Wikiprojects - if they are active - for some assistance, i am sure a few people would be willing to take a look at them. The advantages of working like this are numerous:
  1. Editors who are normally not interest in reviewing a bulk of new article's may actually take up reviewing article's specific to their interests.
  2. Wikiprojects could assist with the most difficult and time consuming cases, which arguably tend to be the pages on the brink of being accepted. This would save AFC members oodles of time, while allowing the Wikiprojects to work on near-complete content without having to sift trough the silt to find that one gem.
  3. Specialist knowledge really helps at times. If someone were to submit a page on Single-strand conformation polymorphism i could likely infer that it is notable, but i would have no idea if it would overlap another article or have other issues.
AFC would work like a sieve as it would filter out the worst submissions and categorize the rest so that people can select pages they are interested in to review. I know that a few reviewers - myself included - tend to work at the front of the review queue in order to filter out the worst cases and let the rest pass for another reviewer. It would be fairly trivial to categorize the ones that pass that quick review at the same time. I suppose we can ask the more active Wikiprojects if they would be interested in this review format. If the reactions are positive i see little reason not to implement it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
And even at the end of the day with all the sieves, we'll still be left with a collection of pending reviews that nobody wants to touch. One thing to consider is that all of these new categories will need to be wired into templates (so we can figure out which ones are reposts versus fresh posts, which categories a page belongs in, how many pages can a single page belong in), remembering to make the tools ignore these categories, having a "Needs some specialization categories" category, having someone take time out from reviewing drafts overall to categorize the drafts to begin with.

I say again, this a great hullaboolh for little improvement. Others, like Anne, have made multiple attempts to reach out to affected wikiprojects, with very little success. Do we really think that the only thing holding back volunteers is the lack of subject specific listings? Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No, i don't believe that the lack of categorization is the only thing that holds editors back from contributing to AFC. That said: If we were dealing with a simple cause-and-effect scenario we would have found and dislodged the key log that keeps editors from contributing to AFC long ago. Even so, i genuinely believe that there are editors out there who may not particularly enjoy reviewing pages but will happily lend a hand if the subject of the page is something they enjoy. I've asked assistance from Wikiprojects on several occasions and in general the responses are helpful - a few times i received little response but most times i did receive helpful advice or even a hand cleaning up a promising page.
Additionally, consider the composition of our backlog. Some pages are being reviewed extremely fast while other pages linger in the queue for an eternity. I don't believe for a second that the pages that linger were never looked at - instead they were challenging or boring to review and editors who read and skipped over them for the time being. (And yes, i am guilty as charged for doing so myself). However, if one just read a page categorizing it would only require a few extra seconds. True, the infrastructure to allow that to be done would take time to build but then again: Once a house is build it should remain standing in place with little maintenance for quite a while. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
In regards to the proposed categorization: "we'll still be left with a collection of pending reviews that nobody wants to touch". That's the idea. If we sort out the biweekly re-submissions of previously rejected crap I think consensus can form to address those problems. I think many editors would rather take their time with articles just waiting for their first review, or target articles of a specific subject. WikiProject Good Article sorts nominated articles for the same reason. I don't know what kind of work will be necessary to make the categorization process automatically, but if the aggregate here can agree to go forward we can begin manually categorizing drafts along the lines proposed. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Excirial, I don't know what projects you contacted, but I'd like to add that WikiProject Opera, WikiProject Classical Music, and WikiProject Plants have also lent considerable support and input when contacted by Anne or FoCuSandLeArN as has WikiProject Architecture. Hasteur, I can't understand why you keep characterising this as a "hullaboo" with no perceivable benefit. There's no reason why this can't be done manually at first (it would take just a few days if members are agreeable) and then later sort out coding it into the tools. You have to start somewhere. Simply telling people to get cracking on the backlog and discouraging any other solution has obviously not worked, has burnt out or discouraged several reviewers, and leaves promising new drafts languishing for weeks or months in an ever-lengthening completely unsorted backlog. I'm also going to be frank here, I have been astonished and dismayed at the number of valuable, well-referenced classical music drafts which have been rejected out-of-hand as "non-notable" (some two or more times each) and which I have subsequently rescued. Lord knows how many more there have been in other subject areas. This is detrimental not only to the encyclopedia itself but also to the retention of new editors. I'm not going to name the articles I rescued, because it would be unfair to single out the reviewers who were acting in good faith in a deeply flawed process. Your current process makes finding vital subject-specific support and guidance random and unnecessarily difficult. What you're doing now clearly isn't working, why not try something new? Voceditenore (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support at a minimum, the categorization of articles that have never been reviewed separate from declined ones. I think this is going to be important going forward so that we can give priority to those who are either first experiencing AfC, or are producing good work (that mostly can get approved on the first review). The subject categories seem like a less pressing need, but could come in handy -- Only worth doing if we can get the article creators to categorize by subject, I'd say. Gigs (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • While this is a good idea, it may be unnecessary. The new search engine has been rolled out, and it will read text inside templates. It will shortly be possible to search just the current submissions for any keyword. There is a small bug, to do with timestamping of redirects, which hopefully will be fixed shortly. See this discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 126#New search. However, if this fix doesn't work, then manual sorting may be necessary. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • We already have a good mechanism for categorizing new articles, and we need only expand it to draft space: see User:InceptionBot and the list of fields searched at User:AlexNewArtBot (an earlier incarnation of the bot) -- examples are at User:InceptionBot/NewPageSearch/Education/log and for a more compact listing, User:AlexNewArtBot/EducationSearchResult. We dont have to reinvent things. (Tho there might be a reason for combining many of these) DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know those existed. I guess that's a great automated way to find the articles, although I'm not sure if this method accomplishes the described goal. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
why not, for the subject part? we undoubtedly want broader categories, but we can either combine them or , better, write new broad ones based on the logic of the existing ones. The sort of regex used is pretty elementary. I agree,, however, that the separation of the first-time submissions is a higher priority. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Support. Categorization at two levels, as suggested, would really assist in accomplishment of one's job as per the deemed priority. jojo@nthony (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Implementation idea

I think we could adopt categories similar to WP:Stub categories - basically by replacing the word "stub" with "draft" in the category titles. Initially we should probably only want to adopt the top level stub categories - finer subdivisions can come later - as Wikiprojects become used to the system. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've always viewed stub sorting as a mostly useless waste of time. I've got mixed feelings regarding whether we should even sort drafts by subject matter after further consideration. For the most part, the criteria we judge drafts against are based on Wikipedia guidelines, which shouldn't require specialist knowledge. There is even some downside to a subject matter expert reviewing articles, they may accept an article that lacks sufficient context for the non-specialist to determine what the article is actually about. I still strongly support a separate category for never-reviewed submissions. Gigs (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but "insufficient context" is not a valid reason to decline a draft. Such issues are supposed to be fixed in mainspace. We are not supposed to be releasing only "perfect" articles into mainspace - the threshold of "good enough to accept" is actually quite low: if it doesn't fall foul of any of the G# speedy criteria, is properly sourced, written in coherent English, and passes notability, we are supposed to accept it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Insufficient context is a speedy deletion criterion. Gigs (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_20&oldid=1144526987"