Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard

I have nominated Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard for deletion; please join the conversation at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 6. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Request

I would like to be an AfC reviewer. I also meet the criteria as according to my edit count (excluding deleted edits), it says 500, my Wikipedia account is 2 years old, and I have thoroughly read and reread the instructions on AfC reviewing, and I also have written down notes.ShadowFreddy1987 (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@SyndicaterUI78: - have a look here for applications. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Gordon Doherty

Hello. I would like to have the Gordon Doherty page to be created. I'm planning to do the Italian version of the wiki page myself.--Smashfanful (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Almost Certainly Copied

I have a question about something that I encounter from time to time as a reviewer. Sometimes, on reading, a draft simply stands out as having been written as part of a book and copied from the book. The Copyvio Detector doesn't find a copyright violation, but the Copyvio detector is searching against various web sites, and doesn't have any book that hasn't been put on-line (and putting a book on-line without consent of the publisher or author is itself copyvio). I can't decline or speedy the draft on copyright violation grounds, but as a matter of conscience I cannot accept it when I think that it is copyright violation.

I have three choices in such cases (since I have ruled out acceptance). I can decline it on grounds of suspected copyright. I can comment that it appears to be copyright violation, but neither accept nor decline, and let another reviewer decide what to do. I can find some other reason to decline. The third, when available, is the easiest. Does anyone have any suggestions about the choice between the first two?

The specific example is Draft:David Elwyn Morris. (I declined because the sources were not independent, so that made the choice easier.) It reads as if it was written by a historian in the twentieth century. (That is an improvement over some stuff that appeared to have been written in the nineteenth century, although material that has been plagiarized from the nineteenth century is not copyright violation, only plagiarism.) Comments, either on the specific, or on the general problem of material that reads like it was from a book? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Robert McClenon: I don't think it was written as a books chapter, or taken from a book ad-hoc. It is fairly well written, but is too uneven. I think most of it is been taken from the Imperial War Museum article. Also, it is definitely notable, although finding sourcing could be expensive in time. scope_creep^Talk 00:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Unicorn212

• Unicorn212 (talk · contribs · xtools · pages created · logs ^{(block • csd • prod)} · afd)

I would like to help with AfC. I have been around in here for more than 8 years and that's a good experience for me. Unicorn212 (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Unicorn212: - Hi, you need to ask here. However I'd suggest getting some experience in the other namespaces, beyond that on Articles. You will probably be asked how you can demonstrate the 4th criterion "a demonstrated understanding of the policies mentioned in the reviewing instructions, including the various special notability categories.". Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Missing Help Page Posts!

The help page has eaten all of the requests made on the 11th and I can't imagine there have only been 2 requests made today, so we must be missing some of those.

Not sure what has happened in the formatting to cause this problem Nosebagbear (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't the formatting; it was this edit. I'm not sure what the easiest way to get them back would be, but they're in the history. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Restored from history. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

declined requested article

Hi Whispering! On January 3rd you declined my requested article 'Draft:Impact Profile'. Could you help me getting the info out there please. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RimaPOD2018 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Please use the editor's talk page or AfC Help Desk. Thanks. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 02:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Userscript - Draft no cat

Hey. Just wanted to say that I made a new user script, User:DannyS712/Draft no cat, to help remove draft articles from mainspace categories by converting categorization to links. If you have any questions let me know. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 6#Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard

After this deletion discussion, Cydebot has been removing the category as expected, but it also changes the draft submitter to itself. When I decline/reject the draft, the script notifies Cydebot instead of the original author. Is this the best place to report this or any suggestions? Same for Koavf ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 01:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft talk:Jayender Kumar Dabas

Can someone please advise me what to do about Draft talk:Jayender Kumar Dabas? It seems that the author of this autobiography has managed to move it to a draft talk page, with a redirect from the draft page. It is an autobiography, and they are strongly discouraged. However, it needs to be moved back to the draft page before it can be declined. Also, can someone please advise as to whether the subject is ipso facto notable under political notability guidelines? In particular, has the subject been a member of a state parliament in India? (Autobiographies by people who actually meet an ipso facto notability guideline are an edge case.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh. I think I know what to do using the Page Mover privilege. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)  Done Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Aliases of 76.66

Per CfD, I have made this list. I am not sure where members of this WikiProject will find it most useful (personally, I prefer deletion). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom and User: Crouch, Swale

Just to keep you folks in the loop. The Arbitration Committee have heard an appeal from User:Crouch, Swale to lift his article creation restriction. He had developed some articles in his sandbox ([1]) as evidence that he could create meaningful articles that complied with inclusion and notability criteria. In discussion our feeling was that before fully lifting the restriction it might make sense that his submissions came via AfC rather than allowing him to create them directly in mainspace. We didn't wish to increase your workload too much, so decided on a maximum of one submission per seven days. See the motion here. We're not asking you to do anything different with Crouch, Swale than any other user. There is no requirement or expectation for you to prioritise his submissions, nor to keep a check on how many he is submitting. I'm just letting you know as a courtesy. He is fairly organised and methodical, and I fully expect him to monitor and honour the seven day submission limit himself. SilkTork (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sending all userspace drafts to AfC?

Input is welcome in the following thread: Wikipedia talk:User pages#Sending all userspace drafts to AfC?. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Script tries to write to User talk:Cydebot

Within the last few hours, I have sometimes gotten an error message: Error while saving User talk:Cydebot: "protectedpage".

It appears that this is happening on drafts that were recently edited by User:Cydebot, and the decline script is trying to notify the bot that I declined the draft, because the script is treating the bot as the originator or an originator of the draft.

If other editors are seeing the same error, I suggest that they either ignore it or report it to the bot operator. It isn't your fault. (At first I thought that it was the result of templates that I was using to include canned text in the decline messages, but I now see what the issue is.) Any fix needs to be made to the decline/reject script so that it recognizes that the bot isn't an originator of the article and that the bot's page is protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: See the above section. The script is totally fine, but I don’t know why when the bot edits the page, the submitter automatically changes to Cydebot. Moreover, see what you did at User talk:Koavf, same problem. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Abelmoschus Esculentus - Well, the bot has edited about 20 pages that had been dormant for years, and is changing their status to submitted. I have not seen this behavior in the past. The bot is finding drafts that have been abandoned in user space for years and is touching them and causing them to be pending review. I am declining or rejecting them, depending on whether they are merely not ready for article space or crud. Since I am moving them to draft space before declining or rejecting them, they should all be eligible for G13 on 14 July 2019. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I have asked the bot author why the bot did this, whether the bot was working as designed and whether the rules changed.

Unexpected Discovery of Abandoned Drafts

I think that the editing of abandoned drafts by the bot, causing them to be tagged for review, was an accidental benefit. It found abandoned pages that had been gathering dust for a long time and brought them into a condition where they are subject to natural death. They had been zombie drafts, that should have been dead, like zombie processes in Unix and zombie debt (which is sometimes bought by collection agencies, even though it is not legally enforceable). Does any other reviewer know of any other dustbins that have abandoned drafts in them that can be cleared out? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: There is a big list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts --DannyS712 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, well. I see that there about 13,329 abandoned drafts. I had no idea that we had that many zombie drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yeah. At one point I went through and tried to G13 a lot of them, but some were rejected because they didn't have official "AfC submission" templates. I was thinking about nominating a bunch at MfD if the owner hadn't edited in a while, but moving them to draft space could work too... --DannyS712 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with Stale Drafts

User:DannyS712 or anyone else: I see that the drafts that are listed as abandoned fall into several classes. A first is drafts that have not been edited for a year or more but belong to an editor who is active or semi-active. The most reasonable approach on them is to leave them alone and let the editor decide whether to do anything with them. A second is almost the opposite, and that is drafts that have not been edited for a year or more and were created by an editor who has been indefinitely blocked. They can either nominated for deletion at MFD or submitted and moved into draft space. It is my understanding that they will then expire if they are left alone for six months. I would suggest that the submitter should go ahead and decline or reject them, unless they actually seem to be worth reviewing. If they are reviewed, they will expire six months after they are declined or rejected. (Of course, if one of them is accepted, then it is accepted, and that is good if it adds actual knowledge, however little.) A third is drafts by editors who have gone away. Is it considered reasonable to move such drafts into draft space, submit them, and review them? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: What if we tried to expand G13 to include drafts created with {{Userspace draft}}? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:DannyS712 - I would support that. If they are tagged as userspace drafts, they are drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: yes, but currently g13 says it applies to:

Draft namespace,
Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

This does not include userspace pages with the userspace draft template, so getting it expanded would likely require an entire RfC. I can draft one if you want... --DannyS712 (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:DannyS712] - Yes. I agree. An RFC is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Is it okay if I write it? This has been nagging me since I mis-applied the tag after getting twinkle - see me removing them from my CSD log to avoid clogging it up with a misunderstanding. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:DannyS712 - Yes. I will support. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I have a busy next few days, but I'll get back to you with a draft --DannyS712 (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: See draft at User:DannyS712/rfc3. What do you think of the phrasing? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:DannyS712 - Yes. Go for it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I will tomorrow --DannyS712 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Flawed Draft

I am not a reviewer, but occasionally I prowl new articles for ones that can & should be subject to a speedy delete. In this process, I have encountered the article Draft:Mia Stegner, which has several minor flaws (WP:COMMONNAME, mainly), but more importantly several major ones, but ones that I believe are sufficient for a delete but not sufficient for a speedy delete. Most of the sources fail WP:IS, but there are two, from 2014, covering the subject from independent and regionally notable entities, and this is where the issue with nominating for speedy delete occurs. I believe that these fail WP:SUSTAINED, as they are both relatively minor pieces covering a single event, the self-publishing of her first book as a 13 year old. The article also has issues with WP:POV, and the creator has a clear WP:COI but these issues are not fatal blows; that comes down to the notability. Is there anything I can do to help the AfC Reviewer program in regards to articles like these, or should I just leave them to be stumbled upon and rejected naturally (assuming that I am not wrong about this failing to meet notability)? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:NoCOBOL you can and should comment on the Draft talk, CSD or MfD the pages depending on the issues. Legacypac (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Legacypac; CSD isn't applicable here, and it doesn't appear like MfD is either. PROD would be if it was outside of draft space, but it isn't, and wasting AFD time on this seems silly. I guess I'll just go post the above concerns on the talk page then... -- NoCOBOL (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Legacypac; I see I misunderstood what MFD was for - it's just AFD but for draft (and similar) space. Thank you for nominating it there. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• User:NoCOBOL, you are too fresh for reviewing drafts. Draft review is a lone-person exercise, and you need to be competent with decision making across many areas with respect to the deletion of articles. You need to be conversant especially with WP:N, WP:NOT, and the WP:N sub-guidelines. You need to be well acquainted with the requirements of sourcing.

I personally believe that to do draft reviewing, you should be required to qualify for, and get the New Page Patrol Reviewer right. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol. However, before considering that, at this time they would reject you, I strongly recommend getting a lot more experience at WP:AFD. WP:AFD has the advantage to being a group exercise in deletion decision making - you can see what others are saying, and you will often need to defend your opinion.

The following tool link will tell you how well you are doing. https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=NoCOBOL&max=500&startdate=&altname=

At this point, you need more AfD experience.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe. I recognize that, it's why I have not applied for those positions yet. At the same time, I do not believe I am stepping out of line by nominating certain articles for a speedy delete - so far of the half a dozen I have nominated under this process all have been wiped - am I wrong about this? As for this article, I saw one that I believed should be deleted but didn't know where I could nominate it. Should I not have done that? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with helping out, and as much as being a part of the AFC reviewer process is a "lone wolf" exercise the majority of the time, there's nothing wrong with asking for advice or opinions here from time to time. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Quite right. Sorry CoCOBOL, I was speaking to you reviewing drafts in the accept/decline/reject region. Yes, speedying G11 and G12 should be easy to start with, and is probably very good practice to get good at the CSDs early. Quick speedying of bad drafts is good for all.

You don't seem to be logging your PRODs and CSDs? You are using Twinkle, very good, Twinkle is massively easier than doing things manually. However, it is a good idea to enable logging:

Go to your preferences

Go Gadgets

Enable Twinkle (already done?). Go to the end of the line and follow the "preferences" hyperlink

Enable the keeping of logs.

"Keep a log in userspace of all pages you tag for PROD"

"Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations"

At the bottom: "Save changes"

If you do this, it makes it very easy for others to review your CSD and PROD history. I wish the logs were turned on by default. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Done, thank you. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Draft:Mia Stegner is not, in my opinion, speediable. The nearest usual CSD criterion is WP:CSD#G11. I will tag G11 if ever a page includes promotion, and there are no reliable third party sources. Even if blatant promotion, if there are reliable third party sources it can be a tough question as to whether some content is redeemable, or reusable. Draft:Mia Stegner has too many sources that appear reliable.

If you can't speedy it, it is probably best to leave it, until you have more experience and confidence in saying why its sources are all not good enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

List of AfC drafts by date?

Can someone tell me if there is a way to view all drafts submitted to AfC on a particular date? I see that the as-yet unaccepted drafts are all available at Category: AFC submissions by date/[date], but this list includes no accepted articles. Also, I can see that this category also gives me the Talk pages of all articles accepted on that date, but nearly all of these were submitted for review sometime before then. Is there a way to see a list of all drafts actually submitted for review on a given date, whether or not any of them were accepted? Or is there a way such a list could be put together from a number of existing category lists? Please let me know. Thanks in advance. A loose noose (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The short answer to this question is "no". The current functionality of AFCH, as near as I can tell, is to put the accepted timestamp onto the talk page of the accepted article. Only Drafts will show up in a specific date category for the date they were actually submitted. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hm. Is there a long answer? <grin> I wondered if this wasn't the case. Do you think it would be possible to get the "bot" to start marking drafts this way? Something like "AfC drafts and articles first submitted for review on [date]" and have it apply as a hidden category (or something) to all newly submitted drafts, regardless of whether or not they end up being published? Might this be a good idea? (also: I don't know anything about bots other than that they are bots). A loose noose (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 at Women in Red

February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111 Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. February events: Social Workers Black Women February geofocus: Ancient World Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman2019 Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage: Socialites Twitter - Forgotten African American Suffragists Women in Red image uploads to Commons Image attribution: Johntex (CC BY-SA 3.0) Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Seeking second opinion on whether a passed article should have been

I came across a recently passed AfC article, but have doubts whether it should have been. Seeing as the reviewer appears to be somewhat new, is there some place where I can ask for a second opinion and/or suggest the reviewer to seek advice? --Paul_012 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Paul 012: - did you raise it with the reviewer? If nothing else, knowing their justification would help any future discussion, and reduce possible tension? Nosebagbear (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I plan to do so, but wondered about where to suggest the reviewer seek advice, if needed (as mentioned above), so thought I'd asked about this first. Please see this as a general query on the process and not the specific case. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Without specfics there is nothing much to say but remember the basic criteria for a AfC pass is a) should it be speedied (G11, G12 most commonly) and if not, is it likely to survive an AfD discussion? If the answers are no and yes, the page should be passed. Legacypac (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Paul 012: What is the name of the article in question? Next time post put up full the details of the question instead of making us do the work. scope_creep^Talk 13:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it would probably not be polite for me to go into details here before reaching out to the reviewer. I've taken another look at the article, though, and it's pretty borderline, so I've changed my mind about this specific case, and further discussion shouldn't be necessary. I would still like to know, though, where it would be appropriate to discuss such cases. (I probably misnamed the title of my query. Instead of "seeking a second opinion...", I should have asked, "where should I seek...?") --Paul_012 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

If direct discussion with the review is not satisfying, you can discuss it on this talk page or you can nominate the accepted draft for deletion and discuss it as part of WP:AFD and maybe post a link to that discussion on this talk page. It's nice of you to want to withhold identifying information but frankly Wikipedia is not that polite. ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep this in mind for next time I come upon such a case. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

How do I submit a Wikipedia Entry for a Music Recording Artist?

Hi there,

My bio page for my recording artist has been rejected?

Why has this happened? I followed the same structure as the other music recording artist bios on this site?

Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockPhotoGirl (talk • contribs) 14:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@RockPhotoGirl: Your contribution was deleted because an administrator considered it to be Unambiguous advertising or promotion and using Wikipedia as a free web host. These things are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Please read WP:MUSICBIO. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft and Redirect to Parent Article Question

I have again encountered a situation that is sometimes encountered, in particular when working from the list of drafts where the title already exists in article space, .

I made a list of various cases to consider, and that list was for a while on the category page and has since been moved to a Help page. However, I have encountered a situation that doesn't seem to be addressed. There is a redirect in article space, and the draft appears to contain enough information for an article. So far, so good. The first thought then would be to request a technical delete of the redirect and promote the draft into article space. However, the further issue may be that the redirect has history, and in particular may be that the redirect was previously an article which has been stubbed down to a redirect as an alternative to deletion, either unilaterally, or following talk page discussion, or following AFD. Is there a right approach? I see the following options:

1. Decline the draft with 'Mergeto' to the article. Sometimes this is right, but sometimes, if the draft looks adequate, declining the draft with 'Mergeto' seems too mechanical, locking in a previous redirection.

2. Accept the draft, with a technical deletion of the redirect. (I have the Page Mover privilege and can move the redirect into neverland and then request a housekeeping deletion.) This is right if there isn't a previous history, but in the cases in point there is a previous history.

3. Request a discussion. In the uncertain cases in point, I think that requesting a discussion seems like the best answer. What is the mechanism for requesting the discussion? Is it Redirects for Discussion?

I am not asking about (or naming) the specific draft at this time, because, if I did, I would be likely to get answers about the specific, and in this case I want to clarify the process. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I was advised at Redirects for Discussion that the discussion in question is a splitting discussion, and that it should be on the talk page of the parent article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Miyano Hiroshi

to create the article Miyano Hiroshi--84.121.118.68 (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you asking for advice about Draft:Miyano Hiroshi? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

That draft has not been submitted for review. If it is submitted for review, it will not be accepted in anything resembling its current condition. It needs reformatting and copy-editing for grammar, and has reference errors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Major Music Competition

I was hoping to get a second opinion on Draft:Glitoris.

Their secondary sources functionally all fail independent, with the remainder falling down on reliable. Thus they don't pass on the usual review etc criteria.

However, in 2016 they did win best live act at the National Live Music Awards - these, while obviously not on the scale of Grammis or Mercury, must at least be big enough to warrant an article.

I was hoping for some thoughts on whether they passed WP:BAND criterion 8:

"Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award."

Nosebagbear (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• It looks like the NLMAs are a competitive nation-wide Australian award that gets plenty of attention. It may not be a Grammy, but this looks to me like it satisfies Criterion 8. A loose noose (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Per WP:BAND, that is insufficient; "conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion." - there actually needs to be sufficient coverage, even though an article that passes criterion 8 will generally have received sufficient coverage, passing criterion 8 is insufficient. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Aashish Kaushik

Aashish Kaushik (born 27 July 1994, age 24 years) is a Indian Playback Singer from Khera Khurd, Delhi. He sung his first punjabi song One Piece in 2016, In 2018 he released the haryanvi song "Haryana". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.49.116.227 (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@103.49.116.227: - hi there. I wasn't sure if you are a new IP editor or one of the draft's registered editors who hasn't logged in. In any case, if you'd like to add/ask about the content then the draft's talk page is the place to go.

If you're asking about why it was rejected, then you can ask on our help page

If you have a question and aren't sure whether to go, then just comment here and I'll try to help :)

Nosebagbear (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing a WP:1E draft

How should a draft like Draft:Dorothy Connor be reviewed? the subject is remarkable only for having survived the sinking or the Lusitania. At AfD I would vote "Delete per WP:1E and do not redirect to Sinking of the RMS Lusitania, as she is not mentioned there." The standard notability decline reasons do not apply because she has significant coverage; I don't want to suggest mergeto; and not is not appropriate. —teb728 t c 07:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

As a side note, if she has suitable coverage, wouldn't a merge and redirect be a more logical option? A starting presence in the merge target isn't obligatory Nosebagbear (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I could see adding a one-line item to the survivors list for her to the sinking article but not a substantial merge. Are you saying a reviewer could convert the draft to a redirect and accept it as such? —teb728 t c 01:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:1E discussions at WP:AFD are rarely a slam-dunk. You could consider accepting the article as having at least a 50% chance of surviving AfD (despite the way you would personally !vote). Alternately you could reject as mergeto and let the editors of the proposed target work out how much or little to incorporate. ~Kvng (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Resubmission of Rejected Draft

Occasionally I review a draft that is a resubmission of a rejected draft. It may be a sandbox copy or userspace copy, when the previous version is in draft space and is rejected, in which case one of the first indications of the problem is that the usual move to draft space cannot be done. I recently reviewed a draft that was the original rejected draft, which had been resubmitted anyway. Resubmitting a page that has already been rejected is a bean salad; that is, we won't say how that is done. My question is whether there is agreement that nominating the draft for deletion is the most appropriate way to deal with resubmission after rejection. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think MfD is a good option for resolving a dispute over an obviously inappropriate draft, and an obstinate resubmitter. But first, double check that the draft is indeed completely unsuitable, and that a plain text message was delivered to the resubmitter (if a single talk page message solves the problem, that is good). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - What do you mean by a plain text message? Do you mean to check that there is a message on the user's talk page that is reasonably clear?

In the case of an editor who has figured out how to stuff beans in their ears by resubmitting a rejected draft, I am not sure what more should have been explained. ('DO NOT MESS WITH THE PROCESS'?) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I mean, as a general point, watch out for things like conflicting messages. The reject message says to not resubmit, but was there a custom reviewer message that negated the clarity of the standard message? The reject standard message is pretty clear, probably making a user_talk message superfluous, but the decline message is not so good. In short, my answer was “yes”, use mfd if the submitter is ignoring previous responses. Excepting one case I remember where the topic actually looked notable following my BEFORE investigation, I think we all immediately support a deletion nomination of an unsuitable draft repeatedly submitted without a good attempt to fix problems, and I thing the mfd discussion gives the obstinate resubmitter the required firm message of finality. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• MfD is appropriate for some drafts, but should not be an automatic response to a draft resubmitted after rejection. Reviewers sometimes reject something they shouldn't. Such drafts should be resubmitted (after improvements, if necessary).

Draft:Kiddle makes an interesting case study.

1. It was rejected as not notable when it cited independent, critical, significant coverage by the BBC News, The Next Web, and The Independent.
2. The submitter asked for advice at the AfC help desk. I felt the rejection was unsound, particularly when a quick search found a fourth independent source, a 3-page review in a scholarly journal. The sources were all from a 3-4 week period, however, so it wasn't clear that the subject met the "over a period of time" portion of WP:GNG. I advised the submitter that, "To show notability, there needs to be attention from independent, reliable sources, over a period of time. It may be WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article about it."
3. The submitter added six sources and resubmitted the draft. Unfortunately one was from the same brief time period as the original sources, and four were not independent. The only independent one outside the original time frame contained fewer than 100 words on the subject.
4. The draft was rejected again by a different reviewer.
5. The draft was taken to MfD with a recommendation to delete and salt.
6. The MfD nomination received no support for deletion or salting, but no clear consensus either, with one !vote for leaving it rejected and developing it further, one opining that "rejection was definitely out of order" but in favor of leaving it in draft, and one for moving it to mainspace. The result was keep (in draft).

In this case the resubmission wasn't stuffing beans anywhere, so I think "improve the draft or do nothing" would have been the most appropriate response, but MfD did bring more opinions into the mix. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Afterthoughts on Resubmission After Rejection

There may have been a combination of two mistakes on Kiddle, the first being the rejection rather than a decline, and the second being my MFD nomination, perhaps because I should have researched whether the rejection was right.

My question had to do with Draft:Elphas Mashamba, which I think is a much clearer case of tendentious resubmission.

I think that, now that Reject is available to all reviewers, a few reviewers are using Reject too freely, when Decline is more appropriate. I think that a guideline on the differences is in order. Sometimes Reject is in order, but sometimes Decline is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

When in doubt, decline. My understanding is that reject is for disruptive authors. ~Kvng (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I mostly agree, that it is for disruptive editors or hopeless topics, but I don't see a guideline to that effect, which is why I think that there should be a guideline to tell reviewers to use Reject only when it is clearly in order. As to what I mean by hopeless topics, I will usually reject a non-notable autobiography, but will usually decline a non-notable biography, in case the author can resubmit with evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Question About Who Gets Credit for Edits

I have a question about an editor wanting credit for their work. I reviewed Draft:Pauly Valsan and declined it because there was already an article at Pauly Valsan. The draft was better than the article, and I noted both on the draft and on the article that the article should be updated with information from the draft. The article has now been updated from the information in the draft. Now User:Vijesh sreenivasan, the author of the draft, has complained on my talk page that it is not fair that the principal editor of the article has made the edits and has taken credit for their hard work. So my first question is whether there is anything that they or I should do now. My second question is whether there is anything that I, as a reviewer, should do differently in the future on reviewing a draft when there is an article but the draft is better. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Good question. We do want all contributors to receive attribution. Normally I'd put a {{merged-from}} banner on the talk page of the article to accomplish this. But that stops working once the source draft is deleted. WP:CPMOVE seems to be a good place to start. ~Kvng (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

hi @Robert McClenon: i just asked a question, last time also same thing happened with me on Roby Varghese Raj. And sorry if u felt wrong, i dont need credit but am very much sure there is no article at that time of my draft creation and submission. And my doubt is if some one create an article on last day with out using afc process, and i took my time for searching and finding ref and other details for an article and create that through afc process on draft and waiting for review for more than 15 days earlier than him, then how could my draft getting rejected due to that. I am sure on the time of submission there is not an article on Pauly Valsan, i feel bad because i feel like my time is wasted. Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately this isn't a case where you can histmerge, because they're completely parallel histories. The best we can do (which I've now done) is add {{copied}} to the talk pages. Unfortunately you can't "give credit" in these circumstances other than by looking at the original edits.

As far as reviewing goes, I see a few options:

• If the draft is better than the article (as in this case) just copy/paste the content yourself (or let the submitter do it to maintain attribution) and add {{copied}} to the talk pages.
• Decline the draft as you did, and either tell the submitter or assume that they will do the merge themselves.
• If the draft and the article are about equal, decline as a duplicate and let the submitter merge the content.

Really, there's not an easy way out of this. If it were just an issue of copy/pasting an existing draft into the article space it would be a lot easier, but sometimes two people get interested in the same thing and there's a conflict. Primefac (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• At a minimum, perhaps a blank edit on the Article one providing a general credit in the history to both username and draft (obviously the latter will eventually disappear, but the username will remain)? Far from ideal, but at least it's in the history, not just the talk page Nosebagbear (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• In this particular case, there's an obvious thing to do. Draft:Pauly Valsan was created before the article, it's got a longer history and that's where almost all of the content of the current article has been copied from. Given that the article was created just three days ago, the easiest action that will preserve attribution and histories in a neat way is to have the article vacate its title (by moving to, say, Pauly Valsan (actress)), turning it into a redirect, and then moving the draft over to Pauly Valsan. – Uanfala (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  Your brilliance is astounding. Cannot believe I didn't think of that myself. Consider it  Done. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Blockchains and Cryptocurrencies

Are there any specific rules that a reviewer should follow or cautions that a reviewer should take note of in reviewing a draft having to do with blockchains and cryptocurrencies? I am aware that community general sanctions are in effect, due to efforts to use Wikipedia to promote cryptocurrencies. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I will not approve any crypto topic. If an editor in good standing wants to write it up in mainspace that is not my problem but no new or COI editor is going to find a valid uncovered topic that they are not trying to promote. Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, so you would not approve a neutrally-worded, well-referenced submission about a cryptocurrency? If that is the case, then I suggest you self-recuse from reviewing such pages since you cannot be objective.

Robert McClenon, there are no specific rules about drafts in this category, just like ArbCom-imposed DS's, they mostly have to do with an editor's contributions; i.e. dropping it from 3RR to 1RR, with admins able to impose sanctions on editors editing in those areas if they feel that the edits are problematic. For us as reviewers, it's really just a notice that we need to make sure the sources really are reliable before accepting anything. Primefac (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No I will not recuse. I seriously doubt, given the level of promotionalism, COI, and hype in the general topic area that any notable crypto topic exists out there that has not already been covered. Given the DS, I believe only established editors should be trusted to create such new articles if we really are missing a topic. If I saw a new page that accurately described the crypto as a fraud and/or included significant criticism of the subject I might approve that but I've never seen such a page. Every new page I've seen was created (often repeatedly) to promote the topic for financial benefit so yes I'm very careful when I come across a cryto page. Legacypac (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Primefac - I don't see anything wrong with User:Legacypac's position, as long as they are not saying that they will disapprove a neutrally-worded well-referenced submission. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with being willing to reject or tag as G11 any submission that obviously fails to meet notability or is obviously spam, and leaving anything else to another reviewer. It does seem to me that your question is essentially asking Legacypac what they will do about a documented sighting of a unicorn or a grey alien. If I reviewed such a submission and it was clearly nonsense, I would reject it. If it wasn't clearly nonsense, I probably would let another reviewer deal with it. I think that Legacypac is also saying that they don't expect new editors to write neutrally about cryptocurrencies. Neither do I. I might see a new editor write something reasonable about the non-existence of grey aliens. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You make a fair point, and I was being a little hyperbolic in my statement, but "will not approve any" ≠ "will probably not approve any because they don't exist" in my mind, so I guess for a brief moment I had in my head the thought that Legacy would be auto-declining any drafts in this category area. My apologies for making that assumption. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Primefac - Yes. What I saw, and I think we now agree, is that "will not approve any" ≠ "will disapprove any". There are three ways that a reviewer can deal with a draft, one of which has multiple versions. They are: (1) approve; (2) disapprove, including Decline, Reject, tag for speedy deletion, nominate for deletion; (3) leave for another reviewer. Legacypac only ruled out 1, not 3. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I see where my post caused confusion. I've yet to see any AfC submitted crypto page that is notable and not spam. I've looked at a lot of cryto pages, including all of then existing pages several months ago while actioning a COIN discussion that highlighted significant pay for media coverage in the industry. We targeted all pages that used the paid press as refs (plus I searched out any others that used key industry words) and nearly all Draft and Userspace pages I found were rightly deleted by CSD or MfD. Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Meaning of Life Tour

I would like advice on how to deal with Draft:Meaning of Life Tour. I would like to accept. The technical problem, which I can solve, is that there is a redirect from Meaning of Life Tour to Meaning of Life (album). The history of the redirect is that it was originally a redirect and has four times had copy-and-pastes done from the draft to the redirect. The relevant history appears to be all at the draft, with the history at the redirect being only of move-warring. My interpretation, and I would appreciate the advice of other reviewers, is that I can move the redirect to neverland, and then accept the draft, and then request a G6 for the displaced redirect. Is there a differing opinion? Is there a different approach, such as another copy-and-paste (I would rather not, but...). Should I go ahead and move the redirect so that I can accept the draft and have the redirect deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I've moved it on your behalf. You could do as you proposed or WP:ROUNDROBIN. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft and Existing Redirect - How to Evaluate

I will ask (again) for a more detailed discussion of what to consider when a draft is submitted and there is an existing redirect. If the history of the redirect is only that it has been a redirect, then the only real question is whether the topic of the draft now meets notability for a separate article. However, what I sometimes see is that the redirect was itself previously an article, and has been stubbed down to a redirect. There are three possible scenarios resulting in stubbing down to a redirect. First, the stubbing down was done boldly and was allowed to stand as a stubbing down to a redirect. Second, there was discussion on the talk page, and the discussion is preserved on the talk page of the redirect. Third, there was a formal Articles for Deletion discussion with a redirect decision. My question is, in each case, what should the reviewer do? My thought is that, in the first case, the reviewer simply decides whether to replace the redirect with the draft. I can move the redirect into neverland, and accept the draft, and the redirect can go to WP:G6. Second, where should I tell the author of the draft to take the discussion to? I have gone to Redirects for Discussion with mixed results, including being told that I should have gone to the talk page, and besides RFD is often relisted twice, just like underpublicized AFD is often relisted twice. In the third case, when there has been a decision at AFD for a redirect, am I correct that the new author should be sent to Deletion Review?

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

How to handle the redirect: If the redirect doesn't have a meaningful history, you can use {{db-move}}, WP:ROUNDROBIN, etc. to get rid of the redirect. If the redirect has meaningful history on the same topic and without parallel histories, then a history merge could be done. Otherwise, I suggest moving it (without leaving a redirect) to a (further) disambiguated title to preserve the history. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Evaluating: (I'm assuming the reviewer thinks the draft is acceptable.) I wouldn't use RFD. In the case of splits, refer to the parent article's talk page for discussion. In the case of bold redirects, just accept the draft. If there was a talk page discussion, ask those that participated if the draft addresses their concerns. (Talk page invitations or at least pings are a good idea.) For AfD, it depends. For clear improvements since an uncontroversial AfD, just accept it. Otherwise, refer to DRV. (I'm not a reviewer, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

notable draft that is non-encyclopedic

My reading of the AfC guidelines is that, when reviewing submissions, we should only ask "Would this withstand AfD?" At the same time, however, we have decline options for reasons other than that which suggests we can decline a submission even if it would withstand AfD. For instance, I just declined Draft:Excelero. I'm leaning towards believing it is notable, however, as it seems to surpass the referencing of other company articles which have recently made it through AfD, thus the question of "Would this withstand AfD?" is yes. However, in its current form is not in the least bit ideal for mainspace. Was this an appropriate decline or should I, instead, have approved it and then just tagged it for improvement? Chetsford (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Chetsford - I agree with your concerns, and think that "Would this withstand AFD?" is not the only question. I can explain my thinking in two ways that may really be two different viewpoints on the same issue. The first is that notability is not the only issue. We should not hold a draft to a higher standard of notability than would apply at AFD (and some reviewers do have higher standards of notability, and they get criticized for them). There are other questions besides notability, such as tone. I think that a draft can reasonably be declined because of tone, even if it does make the case for notability. I should not have to point out again that neutral point of view is one of the Five Pillars, but I do have to point it out over and over again. If we do not also consider neutrality, Wikipedia will soon become nothing but an advertising catalog for marginally notable companies that can write puff pieces. The second is a concern about arguments at Articles for Deletion. It is commonly said that Deletion Is Not Cleanup, which really means Cleanup Is Not a Reason for Deletion, but some editors will counter that with TNT. I don't think that we as reviewers should accept a draft that marginally passes notability and is hopelessly non-neutral, even if it would survive AFD, because I think that some such articles should not survive AFD. Perhaps these are two ways of expressing the same concern, that notability is not the only issue. That is why reviewers have 'adv' and 'npov' as decline reasons (and 'adv' doesn't only apply to drafts that will go G11, because G11 is a speedy criterion, and acceptance should be more than just avoidance of CSD). So, in my opinion, notability is not the only issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Some of the decline reasons should be deleted and Tone is the first one. I use a three question test 1. Is it eligible for a CSD? 2. Is it Notable enough to pass AfD? 3. Is it adiquately sourced with stricter standards for BLP and controversial topics.

One could write up a CSD G11 worthy page on a perfectly notable topic such as a City WP:GEOLAND The page would likely make it through AfD but such a page fails question 1. Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with User:Legacypac about deleting 'adv' or 'tone'. What is the reason if any why it is required that submissions by paid editors be sent through AFC? Is it solely to ensure that they have cleared notability? If that were the only reason, why not accept them and send them to AFD to keep or delete? It is because non-neutral editors and especially paid editors will write non-neutrally and think that they are writing neutrally. If we can't decline their submissions on neutrality grounds, then there is very little point to having the submissions by paid editors be reviewed. I have many times have paid editors who wanted to be told exactly what words were in their submission that were non-neutral so that they could trim them out, in other words, to submit something that was overall non-neutral but could get in. At least, I think that I disagree with User:Legacypac if they are proposing that we should accept blatantly non-neutral stuff that passes notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

COI editors are an issue. I'm pretty black and white on promo - it's either deletable promo or it is not worth worrying about. Usually a page with "tone" issues is too promo/adv like or lacks sources for V or N anyway. If notable and passes V and not an Advertisement it should be passed through. I did some testing on the cat of declines for Adv and found nearly all could/should be G11 deleted. A very few were incorrect declines and/or had been fixed after being declined as an Adv so could not be G11'd. Generally I find other reviewers overuse the Advert decline instead of G11ing the page right away. Legacypac (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

When to decline, when to reject, redux

Following up on the earlier conversation, Legacypac suggested we should conduct a WP:BEFORE prior to rejecting a draft, otherwise a simple decline would be appropriate. In keeping with that advice, I just rejected Draft:Stuart Oilfield Services after a BEFORE. However, this was their first submission so I hesitated to do it as I'm not sure if they should first be given a chance to come-up with some exotic, offline sources or not? In other words, is it okay to reject on the first submission or should rejection be reserved for second and subsequent attempts? Chetsford (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I really think a BEFORE is a good idea for anything not obvious but for some topics the BEFORE is not required because the topic is obviously not notable. Generally I assume the writer put in the most motable info. No one will write up a bunch of non-notable bio info and miss a big award or a hit albumn etc. So if there is no credible claim of significance on the draft no need to spend time searching for one. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It is permissible to reject a draft based on a BEFORE search if you think it's very unlikely that notability will ever be demonstrated, even on the first submission. I'd reject any draft where a thorough BEFORE search turned up absolutely nothing to suggest notability regardless of how often it has been submitted. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Where are the guidelines for when to and not to use the Reject option? I'd like to review those. ~Kvng (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kvng: I believe the paragraph in the reviewing instructions is the only formal guideline. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that needs work. I'll start a separate discussion on it on this page when I get a moment. ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding, @Legacypac: Generally I assume the writer put in the most (n)otable info, well, maybe. New editors don't understand our concept of notability, and as a result, they often put in a bunch of the easiest to find sources (i.e. the first few ghits), which may not be the best sources. It's not uncommon for me to look at a draft, decide all the source are crap, but have a gut feeling that this is a notable topic. I'll then do some searching of my own and find some good sources after some digging. What I'll generally do in such a case is reject the draft, put in a comment summarizing the above, suggest a few of the sources I've found, and point the editor to WP:RS, WP:N, etc. If they source-bombed the draft, I'll point them to WP:THREE. I don't bother with this for people writing about their band, their startup, themselves (or their paid client), etc. That's all crap and should be killed with fire. I'm talking about legitimately good topics where the author simply hasn't yet learned how to write a good article. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes properly referancing notablility is different then mentioning whatever makes them notable. Legacypac (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk header in AFC Helper Script

Hello all! When notifying a user with an empty talk page about their AfC submission, the script automatically adds {{talk header}}. IMO, it is unnecessary and should be removed. The user has the right to design their talk page. It is not a part of the AfC submission notification template, but merely a talk page accessory. Any thoughts? Pinging Enterprisey. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 09:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I find it is likely helpful to new users. Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Legacypac. I'll remove it if more people think it shouldn't be there, of course, but it seems useful to me. Enterprisey (talk!) 15:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Helper script oddity

Any idea what happened here? Two reviewer comments generated, one incomplete, in the same edit using the helper script. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes; the helper script used to add two comments if the reviewer started typing an additional comment in "decline" mode, then switched to "reject" mode and added an additional comment. This issue has since been fixed. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Best practice with draftspace redirect talk pages

When a draft is moved to mainspace, is it better practice to add the resulting draftspace redirect to a wikiproject (by use of banners on its talk page), like a mainspace redirect would, or is it better to let the draftspace redirect's talkpage redirect to the mainspace talk page? The thing about adding the draftspace redirect to the wikiproject is that it allows the project to watch that redirect. Thoughts? PrussianOwl (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@PrussianOwl: I would go with Wikiprojects, instead of redirects. If the draft becomes an article, the Wikiprojects would already be in place. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I see zero reason to create a draft talk page just to add wikiprojects that I can almost guarantee would never be used. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• I forget where this was raised recently, but the gist was:

Do not add WikiProject banners unless you are associated with the WikiProject.

Adding WikiProject banners of inactive or defunct WikiProjects is completely unhelpful to editors who may read the banner and think it is a place to go to for help. It is also counter productive in creating a false illusion of WikiProject activity. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Really? I've always been told it was good practice, especially at AfC publishing, to add associated wikiproject banners. I believe it's built into the AfC script (I'm not sure). PrussianOwl (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup, it's built into the AfC script, so I always just assumed that's what I was supposed to do. If that's not the correct procedure, that prompt should be eliminated from the script. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: If WikiProjects are dead (or reached the zombie state of inactive) just delete their WikiProject templates. It is essential to have plausible projects on the talk page for the speedy + PROD + AfD rituals honoured here. I've tested this using an account (example), for pages created by IPs it can be only worse. And I'm a PROD-fan trusting that projects are informed when a PROD is added.

I'd add active projects, but often projects are too busy with AfDs to care about new entries in their ambitious field (less than ten active volunteers "responsible" for more than 1M pages, or similar.) Shifting the blame to folks trying to "make enwiki better" would follow the spirit of WP:BRD and make it worse.

I also miss the point, why not simply move the draft and its talk page as is to namespace 0 and 1, that's why I put a {{WikiProject Record Labels|class=start|importance=}} on Draft talk:Pendu Sound Recordings. A missing imortance= (ToDo for a project) causes havoc (project isn't informed about the missing importance), observed on Talk:Suzi Quatro and the relevant WikiProject. Please don't make it worse than it already is, the current state is already FUBAR. –84.46.52.2 (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Offer "Redirect for Creation" in the wizard?

After one experiment in the draft namespace, is it only me, or would it be much faster to request a plausible redirect first, and then convert the redirect to a proper page? The redirect route would take about one day, the draft route suggests a cute up to 7 weeks or more weasel for the review. Speaking from a WNCAA POV, because I already have an account and just don't want to use it for minor contributions like a new article, which are anyway rare enough: 1+2+3. Taking WP:NORUSH as given, less work and less frustration for all involved parties could make sense, same idea as for "edit review" (good) vs. "semi-protect" (more work).–84.46.52.2 (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It depends on good you are at writing an article in main space that will not be draftified or deleted:

If your converted redirect is draftified or deleted, the effort in your deception will wasted. And since the afc reviewer will be the page creator, you may not be notified that it was draftified or nominated for deletion.

On the other hand if you can do a good job, you can create the article directly with no delay by logging in and bypassing afc. —teb728 t c 09:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll try a bookmark for the "redirect for creation" page, apart from various WNCAA issues not limited to "there is no ex in ex-wikiholic"  autopatrol always confused me, the one thing I can't judge are my own contributions, I'm a fan of 3O or at least four eyes. –84.46.52.2 (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

We have a process for requesting redirects already. If you create a good draft wnd ping me I'll take a look. Also, the 7 weeks is misleading. The vast majority of submissions are reviewed in 48 hours, only the edge cases or ones that take a lot of effort to evaluate take weeks. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

How do you reject an un-resubmitted article?

This - Draft:Prince Khaled bin Alwaleed bin Talal - was submitted and rejected by both myself and another editor. I then wrote the article myself in mainspace (Khaled bin Alwaleed bin Talal) so the draft doesn't still need to exist. But what is the appropriate course of action? Should it be CSD'ed, or rejected, or just stay as-is? Chetsford (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Is your draft wholly independent of the draft? If not (and maybe even if so), a better path may have been to create your article on top of the draft and then accept it. From where you are now I would say, think about a history merge from the draft, and then simulate acceptance by replacing the draft with a redirect to the article. —teb728 t c 10:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Chetsford - As a matter of terminology, it appears that the draft was declined twice, not rejected. Rejection is supposed to be final, and I was looking to see whether someone had stuffed beans in their ears so that they wouldn't listen to the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you're correct, I meant declined, not rejected. Chetsford (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds like a good approach. Chetsford (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Just redirect the draft if the page already has been created in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing a Resubmitted Rejected Draft

I just reviewed a draft that had been Rejected and then resubmitted. My question is whether other reviewers have any advice on what to do about a draft that has been Rejected and then resubmitted. We know that a draft that has been Rejected is not supposed to be resubmitted. The author is supposed to use the Ask for Advice button. In this case the originator did resubmit it anyway. For information, the draft in question is Draft: Tre. I declined the draft again with comments, and told the author not to resubmit it again, but that if they thought it should be reviewed again, to discuss that on a talk page. (Should that be the talk page of the rejecting reviewer, User talk:Dan arndt, or the talk page of the draft?) Are there any other suggestions on what should be done in this situation (which isn't supposed to happen because Rejection has been designed to prevent resubmission, but one can always make bean salad)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

MfD is the likely outcome of drafts resubmitted after rejection. The appropriate place to discuss rejected drafts might actually be the AFC help desk (the place where the Ask for advice button links). Tazerdadog (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Unapproved reviewer

Just for the record, I have asked Josephshlee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop reviewing for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. Because they don't have the script installed in the usual way, they were declining drafts without leaving a decline reason. This was doing weird things. We probably want to encourage them to resume reviewing after they read the guidance and get setup. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I fell for it first, too, but the user has 151 edits and recently had one of their own drafts declined. The message on their talk page made me wait and have a closer look. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Reject Guidelines

Where is the guideline for when a reviewer can reasonably reject a submission rather than declining it? There was a recent discussion, which I think has been resolved, but I would like to know whether and where there are written guidelines. In particular, it is my understanding that a draft should only be rejected if there is very little likelihood of an acceptable draft on the topic. One effect of rejecting a submission in draft space (as opposed to a submission in user space) is that the title in draft space is occupied by the rejected draft, so that a new draft on the same topic cannot be moved to the same title without asking an administrator or page mover to move the rejected draft aside, so that a draft should not be rejected if a better draft on the same topic is plausible. At least that is what I see. Is there a guideline? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• We've had a series of discussions on this, all as I remember featuring broad agreement, but I don't believe anyone wrote up the minutes. A quick brain dump may help get it started:

Accept if it will probably be kept if nominated at AfD, and the reviewer would defend it at AfD.

Decline if in the current state, with current known sources, if in the reviewers opinion it would not be kept if nominated at AfD, if at AfD no experienced Wikipedian adopted it for rescue. However, there is some chance that the author(s) may be able to find more sources, or substantially re-work it, to make it acceptable.

Reject if in the considered opinion of the reviewer, the topic can never be made suitable. It is simply and fundamentally unsuitable, or it is obviously not sufficiently notable.

But first consider CSD G*, then redirect to existing mainspace title on the same topic.

I would not word the guideline with the passive tense "if there is very little likelihood", but instead put it in the active tense squarely on the judgement of the reviewer. "If in the reviewers judgement the topic is not suitable". Reviewers should be trusted on their experience and individual judgement, with tolerance for mistakes, and should not be expected to be making absolute omnipotent judgements.

If a rejected draft occupies a title suitable for a difference acceptable topic, I would say the title fails WP:PRECISE, which should simply state: "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". If two different topics could have the same title, the title is not good for either. In draft space, don't waste time with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC titling, instead WP:Move the draft to a safe PRECISE title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I only use Reject when in my experienced opinion there is no way the topic (regardless of the current state of the draft) can be developed into an acceptable article, usually over notability. Therefore I'm not concerned about someone else trying to place another page at that title. For bios it is possiboe some other actually notable person with the same name could be written up, or the subject goes from non-notable to notable in the future but anyone can overwrite the rejected draft. Legacypac (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Title clash should not be a concern as the same can happen for any draft articles. If a draft exists taking up a name it does not matter if its waiting for review, declined, or rejected it will still block someone else using that title. They just have to use a more descriptive title, and the end title can be sorted out if and when accepted. I only use reject for subjects I think are completely not-notable. I think most of my rejects have been new YouTube channels, bloggers, Instagram users etc. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Follow-Up Comments on Rejection

Thank you. I think that a written guideline is needed for new reviewers to prevent good-faith errors of the sort that caused me to ask this question, where a reviewer rejected a draft that, in my opinion, should have been declined, and the title clash was a symptom of the fact that the rejection had been a mistake. In the case in point, the rejected draft had no references. It was then followed by the original author submitting a somewhat better draft, and I had to move the rejected draft out of the way to make room for the new draft. A reviewer who did not have the Page Mover privilege would have had to ask for administrator assistance. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC) User:KylieTastic refers to a draft taking up a name. In the case in point it really was another draft on the same topic. If the previous draft has been declined, the author can simply improve the declined draft. The author can't improve a rejected draft (at least, not without a bean salad). It is true that if there are two drafts on different topics with the same title, disambiguation is required (and I disambiguate a lot of drafts). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• I largely agree with SmokeyJoe's write up. I would add "repeated resubmission without improvement" as an additional rationale for rejection. That would apply to potentially notable subjects which are being resubmitted while the issues identified in the previous decline(s) have not been addressed, such as excessive promotionalism, extraordinary claims, unreliable sources, lack of inline cites for a BLP, etc. I don't see as many of such drafts as I did before, but I think it's would be worthwhile to include. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Repeated resubmission without improvement is a deletion reason, per WP:DMFD. Ideally, reviewers will include a diff showing resubmissions with no improvement when they nominate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• For independent attempts to draft the same topic, where the older attempts are so bad as to not be wanted at all for later attempts, I suggest disambiguation by creation date. Eg. Draft:Topic X was poor and is abandoned. Move it to Draft:Topic X (Month Year). Put the next draft attempt at a similar title corresponding to the newer creation date. When mainspacing, strip the (Month Year) disambiguation. I think this will make for much easier tracking than “version n” suffixing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, User:SmokeyJoe but - Are you suggesting that the bad attempt be disambiguated, or that the subsequent attempt be disambiguated? Which is more practical depends on the privileges. I have used numbers rather than dates to disambiguate, such as Draft: John Z. Johnson (2) when Draft: John Z. Johnson was already in place. Either numbers or dates are feasible. An administrator or page mover can put the most recent and best draft in the place without the qualifier. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Repeated resubmission without improvement typically happens in one of two situations. First, the submitter is clueless and the submitter is the topic. The submitter is pushing themselves, their garage band, or their small business. In that case, no one else is likely to try, and so we don't need to worry about a second chance. Second, the submitter is a conflict of interest editor and the topic is marginal. This is probably what User:SmokeyJoe and User:K.e.coffman are writing about. The submitter makes repeated attempts to submit, but can't get it right because they can't write neutrally. In this case, a neutral editor may be able to write about the topic. If the work of the paid editor gets taken to MFD, a Soft Delete with Extended-Confirmed Protection is in order to allow a neutral editor to try again. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Robert, "Are you suggesting that the bad attempt be disambiguated, or that the subsequent attempt be disambiguated?" I suggest disambiguating both, whether by moving to a better more precise title, or appending each with "(month year)" according to the creation date of each. Discourage any future draft from being written at the title that was previously used for a bad attempt, as multiple authors relying on memory or browser history or bookmarks may come back an interfere with the other's draft, and create a messy edit history. I think disambiguating by dates is better than numbers, as dates are easier to work with, everyone knowing obviously which is old, which is new, for example. If you have Draft:Draft, Draft:Draft (1) and Draft:Draft (2), different people can make different guesses as to which is the first or last. I proposed the same thing, dates not numbers at WT:RM, and it is now massively better to be referring to things like Article title#Requested move 2 December 2016 than Article title#Requested move 12. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• The reviewing instructions say: "Drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia should be rejected. Rejection is appropriate when you genuinely believe the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it were an article (i.e., the page would be an overwhelming "delete" at AfD)." The wording is different from SmokeyJoe's comment above, "Reject if in the considered opinion of the reviewer, the topic can never be made suitable. It is simply and fundamentally unsuitable, or it is obviously not sufficiently notable." But the spirit is much the same.

I've seen a few rejections on the grounds of notability where a subsequent WP:BEFORE-style search turned up ample sources to demonstrate notability. So I would prefer that reviewers be encouraged to decline rather than reject if they haven't done such a search, particularly on the first review of a draft.

FYI, Template:AFC statistics now shows rejected submissions (which have always been among the declined submissions), with "rejected" in the notes column so that they can be distinguished from declines. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the spirit is much the same. I prefer to expand on what "the page would be an overwhelming "delete" at AfD" means, but that's a very minor thing. The reviewing instructions is worded fine.

Agree, a BEFORE search should be done before rejecting as not notable. Rejecting an appalling failure of a draft will prejudice a later attempt on the same topic.

For rejecting as unsuitable, it is supposed to be so obvious that it is not worth the time articulating why it is obviously not notable. That was my original position, noting that obviously not suitable drafts were pure time sinks, but that is not to say that reviewers should be discouraged from explaining if they want to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Instead of the page would be an overwhelming "delete" at AfD  you could write the page would have a snowball's chance in hell to survive an AfD, WP:SNOW is one of the better essays here. –84.46.53.230 (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Advice on Author and Draft Issue

I would like advice on what the next steps are in the following situation. I reviewed a draft that was in the list of drafts with the same names as articles. In this case, I found that the draft and the article were very nearly the same. The AFC script showed that the title had been deleted three times in the past three months, twice as G11 and once as G5. The current draft isn't G11, and so can be declined as a duplicate of the article (rather than tagged for G11, which it isn't). When both the draft and the article were recently created, the article should be looked at carefully. The article was created on the fourth day and 13th edit of editing history by the creating account, and the previous edits appear to be small additions of content. That is, it looks like an account set up to work into auto-confirmation. So, the history of creation of the article is suspicious, but not in itself a reason to tag it for speedy deletion. One next step may be a Before search to see whether the article should be taken to AFD. What are any other next steps? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have started the AFD, and, at the same time, an SPI has been started (and the behavior did strongly suggest sockpuppetry). The article will probably be deleted as another G5, cutting short the AFD. Does anyone have any other thoughts about what to do? I will say that the system is working satisfactorily at detecting and dealing with abuse. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think, Robert, that all sounds proper. Re-creation of old titles, and/or parallel creations of similar pages, and article creation by the barely autoconfirmed account are all signs of an inept, but not completely clueless, paid editor or self-promoter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree that the system is working satisfactorily at detecting and dealing with abuse. It is similar to how law enforcement and the criminal justice system only serve well at imprisoning inept illiterate criminals, while the white collar criminals operate unnoticed. A paid editor with some skill will not create pages with a barely auto-confirmed account, but a slightly better established account, and will not create parallel pages.

The experienced Wikipedian operating a undisclosed alternative account for UPE editing will:

(1) Establish a longer edit history of mainspace editing, both time and edits, with some sensible but unadventurous edits on topics related to the upcoming UPE;

(2) quickly bluelink their userpage somewhere between a simple plain text "hello" and a userbox-decorative userpage but in all cases revealing very little personality; Will similarly bluelink their user_talk page with a pointless post, or a signup to an alert, or by somehow triggering some other kind of user_talk post.

(3) zero or minimal talk page posts, but obsequious if a talk page interaction does occur, but no personable conversation;

(4) display immediate moderate competency in wikimarkup, referencing, wikilinking etc, very few blunders but no particularly skilled displays;

(5) edit moderately quickly in just a few short editing sessions separated by days to weeks.

(6) Never go near AfC or draftspace.

The system is inept at even noticing skilled abuse, it just catches the inept grunts who drag trash in while leaving muddy footprint wherever they wander. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Weird Script Issue

I reviewed Draft:Cypress mountain. I declined it as having a malformed reference. The script then put the decline notice at Rock it science rather than at User talk:Rock it science. An NPP reviewer has tagged Rock it science for speedy deletion. I don't know why the script put the decline message in article space rather than user talk space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'm pretty sure its because of the submission code (suspected part bolded):

{{AFC submission|d|v|u=:Rock it science|ns=118|decliner=Robert McClenon|declinets=20190213032446|ts=20190212234238}}

--DannyS712 (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:DannyS712 - Okay. So why did it do that? The colon appears to be what confused it. I didn't do that. Does it have a cause, or is it just weird? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Well, the colon first appeared in this edit by @Breaking sticks. Maybe they can shed some light? Alternatively, it could have been a bug with the submission template itself... --DannyS712 (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I think I probably copied and pasted the user name from "User:Rock it science" and accidentally included the colon. Breaking sticks (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Breaking sticks: that would probably explain it --DannyS712 (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I moved the decline messages from article space to user talk space, where User:Rock it science will see them when they edit again. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The user made exactly 1 edit 1 year ago, and hasn't edited since, so I wouldn't hold your breath. But, looking at the original version of the page (Special:PermanentLink/821192555) makes me wonder, since it includes {{pp-move-indef}}, how the page was created... --DannyS712 (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Definite GIGO issue because of the colon. You couldn't have seen that coming unless you were looking at the code when you declined it. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation tool down

Hi, could someone able to tell me if there is another tool to check copyright violation as Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool is not working for the last 2 days - see here. Thanks in advance and cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

http://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T216312 for the ticket. Legacypac (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I sugest we tag good stuff as acceptable subject to copyvio check and keep declining the bad Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Everyone should feel free to add pages they accept to User:DannyS712/cvcheck so that we can keep track of what we need to check once the cv detector is back online. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Thanks! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Hi, you might want to do the same on the message thread HERE. Thank you and cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: already did (~(edit conflict)) --DannyS712 (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712, Legacypac, and Onel5969: and all, Earwig's Copyvio Detector is up and running now. - see [2] and [3]. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Abbey of Saints Cornelius and Cyprian

Interested in a second opinion on this draft I tripped over. It was draftified and then declined for not passing general notability, yet has several sources listed that would seem to me adequate but are largely offline & not in English. There are no BLP or apparent promotional concerns, and it appears to be written by a bona fides long-term editor. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: I found a whole bunch of refernces on the Abbey. Seems it is quite famous in its day. I promoted the article. I will update it in the next couple of days, re: more refs and content. I really didnt want to leave it unless it accidently get couped. scope_creep^Talk 00:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Scope creep:! Unless they're hoaxes these sorts of subjects are usually notable if one knows where to look for sources. (I had a quick look on JSTOR but didn't find anything obvious.) Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Rejection criteria

Our reviewing instructions state:

Drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia should be rejected. Rejection is appropriate when you genuinely believe the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it were an article (i.e., the page would be an overwhelming "delete" at AfD). If a draft meets one of the CSD criteria that aren't for articles, an appropriate CSD tag should also be added.

There are a couple problems with this and I'm not sure it captures the motivation that caused us to add the reject option to the workflow.

Problems:

1. Entirely unsuitable is not defined. Does this refer to WP:NOT or WP:42 or what?
2. Genuinely believe is difficult criteria to put into consistent practice. Some editors are bigger believers than others.
3. Overwhelming delete is without precedent and difficult to assess. With WP:PROD we have the concept of an uncontroversial deletion but I would be reluctant to directly apply that here without the other provisions in the WP:PROD process that ensure that stakeholders agree about what is uncontroversial.

Omissions:

1. My recollection is that reject was implemented primarily to prevent or discourage authors from repeatedly resubmitting their drafts without heeding reviewer requests or making little or no improvement to their draft as this behavior was deemed by some to waste significant AFC reviewer time and patience.
2. It has been recently suggested that WP:BEFORE be worked into the reject criteria.

I don't think we're going to be able to come up with a simple solution to determining what is an uncontroversial or overwhelming deletion. I suggest we restrict use of reject to WP:DISRUPT situations, that we have a crisp definition of that and have a backstop to make sure that it is not applied to promising material from surly inexperienced editors. Here's my suggestion:

Resubmitted drafts which have been previously declined at least 3 times without significant improvement may be considered for rejection. Rejection may be a necessary response to WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour by authors. Rejection, in these cases, is appropriate if a WP:BEFORE evaluation indicates the draft could be considered for deletion as an article and the reviewer believes (excepting the disruptive author) deletion would be uncontroversial.

~Kvng (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Well none of my rejects would fit the suggested update as I've mostly used for things like new YouTube channels & Instagram accounts of a few hundred subs and views. However I do agree we need better clarity as it looks like different reviewers have very different interpretations. Looking at a query of recent AfC reviews we have reject being used from 0% to 82% of the time for people with 20+ reviews in the month. Regards KylieTastic (talk)

Repeated submission without addressing concerns is good grounds for an MfD, a practice that lead to new wording at WP:NMFD to that effect. The Reject button came partly from a template I created for topics that are Not Suitable for Wikipedia. Define it how you like but broadly I see the Reject option as applicable to hopeless topics that do not warrent a CSD or MfD. Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like we have two separate use cases here: repeated resubmissions of non-notable to borderline notable subjects without significant improvement, and completely and utterly hopeless drafts that are basically never going to turn into acceptable articles. We need to address each use case separately so we don't conflate them.

I believe that rejection is appropriate in both cases, with the standard in the former that the draft must be a disproportionate drain on the communities time than the draft merits, and the standard in the latter that no reasonable experienced wikipedian would support inclusion of that topic. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I think that User:Tazerdadog has very well summarized the two uses for Reject. Thank you for the clarity. The first is essentially rejection of the combination of the author and the subject. The second is categorical rejection of the subject. I have done both. I don't like doing the first, for a technical reason, which is that it ties up the title for six months. That can of course be worked around, but I don't want to say how to work around it, because disruptive authors would then work around rejections. However, as Tazerdadog says, both are valid reasons to Reject. In the first case, it is needed to stop the resubmission. (If the author tries to continue anyway, that is a reason to go to MFD.) The second is needed to avoid the empty encouragement to resubmit for garage bands and high school students. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there is a third valid use of Reject, and that is for stupid submissions at AFC that are not even really drafts, that are bad jokes or worse. Some of them are candidates for G3 (or even G10), but sometimes it is just easier to reject than to request speedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I just reviewed a submission that was nothing but a bad joke, and rejected it as a bad joke, see Wikipedia is not for jokes, and tagged it for G3, and the deleting admin deleted it. So, if it is really stupid, it may be G3 as vandalism. In the past, I have mostly used G3 for hoaxes, but it applies to both hoaxes and vandalism. For instance, a submission consisting of profanity is vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• I like the proposed new text for Rejection. It's not perfect, of course, and I largely concur with what Robert McClenon and Tazerdadog and Legacypac have said, however, it at least offers a more concrete diagnosis for us to follow. As, at least, a stop-gap solution I would support implementation of the new guideline pending a more extensive workshop. Chetsford (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I generally agree with the writeup by Tazerdadog; there are at least two use cases for Rejection and it's a good idea to keep them separate. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • • User:K.e.coffman - I have identified a third use case for Rejection, and I agree that they should be kept distinct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Robert McClenon: Agree with the third option; it could also apply to issues of sockpuppetry and, in general, bad-faith editing. Although they are pretty rare. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes. In AFC, sockpuppetry is normally identified in the course of review by finding a history on the topic, such as duplicate drafts or previously deleted articles, and typically Reason 1, repeated resubmission, also applies when there is sockpuppetry or UPE.

OK, so there are three reasons for rejection suggested here:

1. Repeated resubmission without significant improvements
2. "Hopeless" articles
3. WP:G3 submissions

It seems like WP:G3 can be handled by WP:CSD and does not require rejection.

Neither reasons 1 or 2 is explained with any clarity in the current policy. I think I have addressed reason 1 in my proposal. Is there support for what I have proposed?

Does anyone have a suggestion for how to define the "hopeless" situation? The best information I have about what is intended here is the "overwhelming" delete in current policy and from Legacypac who says, reject is for "hopeless topics that do not warrant a CSD or MfD." Neither of these are particularly actionable policy statements. I'm sure individual reviewers beleive they know how to apply these criteria but with the current guidance, it is not possible to get consistent application between different reviewers. ~Kvng (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm experiencing Warnock's dilemma here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Submit template

The "submit" template {{ submit }} does not allow for accept or reject. It needs to be fixed so hopefully someone knows how to do that Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Page/example? Primefac (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes hard to describe User:Primefac. Go here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Legacypac/sandbox and open the AfCH script. You can't accept or decline the page. It looks submitted and shows up on the lists as submitted but it is not actionable. I came across this on a submission today. Had to resubmit it myself but then when I accepted I had to remove the extra template from the page post acceptance. Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Well technically {{submit}} is a redirect; it would appear that {{subst only}} doesn't work on those... Gonna ping Anomie about that, since they run the bot that does the auto-subst.

As far as "it cannot be reviewed", that's basically because it's (again, technically) not "officially" submitted since it hasn't been converted into {{AFC submission/pending}}. Primefac (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This is above my paygrade to fix which is why I raised it here. It looks just like a pending submission but is not. Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Why do you think it doesn't work? Although in this case it doesn't matter much since the target of the redirect is also set to auto-subst (but not with the {{subst only}} template for some reason). Anomie⚔ 01:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Anomie see my comment above. I've set it up at User:Legacypac/sandbox. Try to use the script on it. Legacypac (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Toolforge was having issues yesterday so AnomieBOT wasn't running. But now that it has been fixed (for now), Special:Diff/883447040 happened as expected. Anomie⚔ 13:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank-you. You are awesome. Legacypac (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Anomie, I didn't think it was working because it wasn't working! Glad to see it was just a hiccup in toolforge and not a fundamental change in how Wikipedia operated. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Submissions by blocked users

Draft:Arthur_C._Bartner was authored by a user that was indef blocked for socking back in April 2017. In looking at the article history, I became confused over this move. In looking at the edit history of the moved page, I see that the same blocked user authored it as well. Perhaps someone with more experience in this area can explain what happened because (1) I'm a bit confused over the move, and (2) would the current submission be considered a submission by a blocked user, and if so, (3) does it matter under the circumstances? Of course, there's always the possibility that my confusion stems from something entirely unrelated. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Given which admin did that I suspect it was a history merge which does not show very well in the logs. Maybe some G13 refund involved? Not clear. Legacypac (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Dub and exist declines - change to reject

Currently the Dup decline reason says "This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, XYZ, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.".

However the existing draft may or may not be waiting on review when we find one of these, often in a sandbox, it may already be declined 5 times or rejected. The page may also not be a duplicate of the content, only the topic. I suggest "This topic appears to duplicate an existing Draft located at XYZ. Please improve the existing Draft".

Both Exists and Dup should be moved under Reject as we don't want them resubmitting such pages. Legacypac (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Add obvious undeclared COI to decline reasons

I've come across quite a few clearly undeclared COI articles recently, the latest of which is this. Hallmarks are seemingly unconnected username but a promotional headshot of a key member of the business in question or the person (if a biography) marked as "Own work", meaning either:

1. The photo has been taken by someone else and "Own work" is used because the uploaders can't be bothered to get the right copyright tag.
2. It is their own work, but users, even if unpaid, who have met people to take photos specifically for a Wikipedia article that they are also writing about the person in question, have a conflict of interest per WP:COI.

It's absolutely imperative that we get COI users to disclose for transparency's sake. Can we add to the list of declines a generic "clear COI which needs declaring first" reason for the script so I don't have to type this out every time I come across one such case. Thanks, SITH (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• And wouldn't you know it, the next one I come across... SITH (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I noticed that the editor who created the first one you mentioned was using a German template, so I wasn't surprised to find them there. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 at Women in Red

		March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113 Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: March: Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen Geofocus: Francophone Women Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman
		Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thinking of making a monitoring filter for resubmissions

I've seen quite a few drafts being resubmitted straight after a decline with no edit other than the addition of the submit template. I'm thinking of writing an edit filter which just tracks such cases for now to see if the problem persists and if it does potentially making a bot to decline them. SITH (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If the filter has few false positives and few false negatives, then it will be good enough to be something used to get human attention, such as by putting the draft in a suspect category. I don't want to see damage done by placing too much confidence in a formula. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Unimproved resubmission is an excellent reason to MfD the draft. I'd love to see this created. Save a lot of time knowing up front the page has been resubmitted without changes. Legacypac (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:StraussInTheHouse is proposing a partly automated solution to the problem of resubmission without improvement. However, they have identified a problem for which both manual and automated solutions should be considered. I suggest that the instructions for reviewers include a suggestion on re-reviews to verify that all of the resubmissions have improved the article and have been at least partly responsive to any review comments. Any automated tool will be useful, but it is also important simply to remind the reviewers of some things that they need to be looking for and hoping not to see. I agree with User:Legacypac that resubmission without improvement is bad-faith editing and calls for sanctions, and MFD is a better sanction than requesting a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• If it reports the diff showing changes between submissions, that would be great. It would really assist in the MfD decision to delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• It is valid to resubmit without improvement if the author wants a second opinion on the decline. We do make mistakes and there is a lot of variation in what different reviewers will accept here at AfC so a second opinion is not an unreasonable request. It would be nice if authors would give us indication of this but many authors have trouble figuring out how to communicate with reviewers so, until the second resubmission, we need to WP:AGF. ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Kvng - I respectfully disagree that we should assume that a resubmission without improvement is a good-faith request for another opinion. Perhaps I am cynical, and perhaps I fail to worship properly at the altar of the new editors who must be worshiped, but a resubmission without a request for another opinion looks to me like it might be either stupidity (and we can only spend so much time helping stupid new editors) or gaming the system by looking for another reviewer. That is, I don't see an unexplained resubmit as a good-faith request for another opinion, but as a bad-faith effort at another opinion. As I said, maybe I am not worshiping at the right altar. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: that's clearly not an WP:AGF approach. I wish more editors appreciated WP:AGF. It can make you happier. ~Kvng (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Resubmitting without improvements for a second opinion is not obviously a bad idea, but on closer consideration it is definitely a bad idea. It is unworkable. A large part of the problem is WP:DUD. I wish that declined submitters were auto-advised to get editing experience in mainspace before attempting new pages on new topics. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Kvng, either way, there's no harm in monitoring the situation with a filter to see if automation is necessary. I've got a draft filter drawn up, I'm testing it on regexr at the moment, but I'm minded to request it as a private filter per WP:BEANS. Pinging SmokeyJoe Robert McClenon Legacypac - basically if we publicise the exact structure the filter I'm making uses, well... WP:BEANS. SITH (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's not how it works in medicine. ~Kvng (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't read filters so just point me to where I can see the results. Most of these resubmitters are barely able to add a reference or format so they are unlikely to understand the filter either. Legacypac (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, that's a fair point actually. I'll probably request it to be deployed in a couple of days. SITH (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Resubmissikns can be an attempt at another opinion or just stupidity/refusal to fix issues identified. It all depends on the decline reason and what the editor is thinking. I sometime accept pages others decline because I see they missed a brightline guideline like PROF or NPOL. It's best if the author communicates of course and tries to fix the problem. I've got a lot more sympathy for borderline cases and pages that meet a notability guideline then self promotion of MILL people. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Legacypac - On rereading academic notability guidelines, I do see that criterion 3 (fellow) and criterion 5 (named chair) are ipso facto tests and not merely summaries of what normally pass general notability. (I hadn't noticed that previously.) We know that political notability is ipso facto, but sometimes it isn't easy to recognize when an assembly is a subnational legislature. We know that military notability has two ipso facto criteria, generals and recipients of the highest award of a nation. There are also questions as to ipso facto notability for association football. Yes, some reviewers don't understand that some guidelines are not just guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Legacypac and anyone else - I have written an essay WP:Ipso facto on automatic notability. Since it is in project space, anyone can expand it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Also got one in the works to monitor submission while at MfD, I've just declined three using PetScan but as they get deleted (because they're at MfD...) a filter would be useful for monitoring purposes to assess whether automation is a viable option. SITH (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Are articles written by undisclosed COI editors subject to removal from mainspace?

I recently promoted Draft:The Trip (podcast), which was submitted here at AfC, to mainspace [4]. A few hours later another reviewer draftified it on the grounds the submitter was an undisclosed COI editor (on further examination this is true with almost certainty; I won't elaborate due to WP:OUTING but it wouldn't take much to come to the same conclusion). That said, my understanding is that a notable article is a notable article regardless of who submits it and any issues with undisclosed COI are addressed through sanction of the editor in question rather than removing the article from mainspace; that an article's suitability is a separate matter from an editor's behavior. Out of a preponderance of caution, however, I might benefit from some clarification as I'm not above error. Chetsford (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• That was a bad draftification. Bigger reason was that it DID go trough AfC. Lesser reason is that COIEDIT does not say "must". User:SamHolt6 should be invited to revert the draftification. It needs to be reverted. If he wants it deleted, he has to use AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chetsford:@SmokeyJoe: thanks for the pings. I draftified that article in question as I was certain the article was in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING and the creation of an undisclosed paid editor, who are recommended to use WP:AFC. I was aware that the article had already gone through AfC, but came to the conclusion (correctly based on the comment above) the previous reviewer was unaware of the creating editors's undisclosed paid status during their review. I also know that an article, even if it has passed through AFC, still falls under the purview of New Page Reviewers and as such can be WP:DRAFTIFY if they are found to be lacking in key areas (the violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING in this case). However, draftification is not intended to be a means of soft deletion; I will not be reverting my draftifying move myself, but any editor can return the article in question to the mainspace if they so choose. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries on my end, SamHolt6, that was just a point of personal clarification for me rather than any umbrage on my part. Frankly, I wasn't aware we had the authority as reviewers to draftify articles once they were in mainspace so that may be a failing on my part. While I would probably have still approved it even had I known about the obvious COI of the author it's good you detected it and advised them of the issue. (Frankly, it's not really all that great of an article, even if it is notable [I'd even tagged it for clean-up after I approved it] so I'm not going to undo your draftification as I don't think we're losing anything by its absence.) Chetsford (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you are technically wrong in that respect, until someone makes the edit requested at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Revised. I won't do the revert because I think that edit should be made, and because I have reviewed the article and at AfD I would !vote "delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Not linking to the diff out of an abundance of caution, but the editor declared a conflict of interest on their user page a few hours ago, naming several drafts. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Without looking into the specific case - we have scores of undisclosed paid editors working all the time because we broadly interpret PAID. At AfC many authors obviously have a COI. That does not mean we can't accept their work, we just need to make sure it conforms to our policies. If the topic is notable amd not worthy of deletion we should not be sending it to Draftspace we shoild be trying to fix it. Legacypac (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, what do you mean by "we broadly interpret PAID"? Who does? – I know I don't. Any work created by undisclosed paid editors is in violation of our WP:Terms of Use and cannot be accepted under any circumstances. Where there's a reasonable suspicion that a draft is UPE it should be tagged as such and declined. If the topic is notable you are free to start a page on it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I remember when I undeleted an article (which I think was created by a paid editor) to improve it and two admins went apeshit on my talk page saying I should be desysopped for it (at least until the relevant AfD closed unanimously as "keep"). The top line in WP:Terms of Use actually says "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." It says absolutely nothing about "all contributions from paid editors should be mercilessly annihilated, even if they are on notable topics". Just because that's the right action a lot of the time, doesn't mean it's the right action all of the time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers your point is not supported by policy and if that is what you are doing you need to stop or be stopped. That is not how AfC works at all. We don't decline pages and start new ones because someone has a COI or might get paid by the subject. Wikipedia broadly interprets paid editing in ways "civilians" might not. For example an editor who works for XYZ and out of pride in their workplace decides to create an article on XYZ. No one told or specificly paid them to do this in their free time but they may well be labeled an UPE even though in their rational brain they are not a UPE. Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, you are quite wrong, I'm afraid. Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure is a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. Please confirm, here on this page, that you do fully understand that. Thanks!

Ritchie333, there's a difference between a paid editor and an undisclosed paid editor. For reasons that I can't understand, we tolerate the former. We don't allow the latter – do we? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand the policies. What are you gonna do? Block me? Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If a notable topic was created by Gregory Kohs ten years ago, it still belongs in the encyclopedia. What happens to the editor, and what happens to the article are two different things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This is also my understanding. For the record, in reference to a previous editor's comment, I do support the concept of compliant and disclosed paid editing, as well as interacting with paid editors in a "non-threatening" way. The alternative, whether we like it or not, is that paid editors all go underground and then we have no ability to monitor or police them. Getting autopatrolled rights is easy enough that if we make AfC into the Torments of Tantalus they'll just do an end-run. In the same vein, I try to regularly check the COI edit requests board. Chetsford (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: I don't follow your interpretation of WP:PAID. All editors paid and otherwise, must follow WP:TOU. Paid editors are simply required to disclose that they're paid and by whom and for what. Paid editors like the rest of us must then give due attention to WP:COI which broadly requires that applicable contributions be reviewed by other editors, which is exactly what we do here at AfC. ~Kvng (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, Kvng. My understanding, based on the question that heads this section, is that it is about a draft where a COI was strongly suspected but had not been disclosed. My answer to the question is yes, the page should remain in draft space until appropriate disclosure is made. It's not immediately clear to me whether the COI in this particular case is a paid relationship or not; in general, I believe that reviewers should not accept any page where an undisclosed COI is reasonably suspected, and must not accept any page where there is reasonable suspicion of WP:UPE, and thus violation of the Terms of Use – WP:COI is a guideline, but WP:PAID is policy. Does that make sense? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with undisclosed COI issues is not part of our AfC workflow. You seem to be suggesting that we need to revise our workflow. Is this really the best place to deal with this issue? ~Kvng (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Tegemeyo Alphonse

Stub on non-notable person. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Name:Tegemeyo Alphonse Age:15 Youtube channel: Tegemeyo Alphonse Subscriber:117 Net worth 2018:$216 — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouTube Famous (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft Resubmission After AFD

I would like to be sure that my understanding is the same as that of other reviewers. It is common for a draft to be resubmitted about a topic, almost always a BLP, that has previously been deleted after a deletion discussion. I think it in most cases what should be done is to Reject the draft and cite the AFD as a consensus that the person is not notable. The alternative possibilities are: accept the draft; decline the draft; and tag the draft for G4. Accepting a draft in this case is so clearly the wrong answer that we don't need to discuss it further. Is there agreement that declining the draft is probably too easy and tagging the draft for G4 is probably too harsh? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think, every reviewer should be competent to look and see whether the page has been improved to overcome the deletion reasons. If yes, accept. If no, reject per the AfD. If in doubt, ping the AfD nominator and closer. Save mfd for obstinate or tendentious resubmission. If the AfD was SNOW delete, there is virtually no chance of an accept. If the delete was due to lack of sources, and now there are ok sources, that’s an easy accept. If the AfD result was a redirect, refer the submitter to the target talk page to establish consensus to reverse the redirect, and redirect the draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

First, I wasn't asking about MFD. I was asking about G4. Second, I think that I disagree with User:SmokeyJoe as to whether I can tell if the page is an improvement. I can't see the deleted page. Usually the deletion is based on notability, not on lack of sources as such. There is no such thing as an easy accept after an AFD. At least, I have enough respect for the AFD process that I cannot imagine an easy accept after an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

G4 is controversial and unclear for draftspace following an article AfD. Disagree back about the need to see a deleted page, if the AfD was asserting no sources, and the new draft has sources, for example. If in doubt, Ping the deleting admin. If the AfD asserted no notability, look to whether the sources meet the GNG. If you would defend at AfD, accept. Reject would be the usual decision. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Re-reading the original post. Not sure is right right to say that it is common that post AfD delete there will be an AfC submission on the same topic. Usually AfD is final. I think there are no written rules about drafting on a deleted topic, but I think it should be more restrictive. Agree with the options of reject, decline and accept being on the table. Hesitant to agree that G4 is even allowed, but if allowed, I would not agree “too harsh”, as many post AfD submissions are hopeless and in disrespect of the AfD decision. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a tough one. I usually only discover a title has gone through AfD fairly far into the review process when I open the script with a decision in mind. When an AfD pops up I look at the AfD discussion for clues to what the title looked like and if the concerns were overcome. Sometimes it's about a different person completely. Sometimes the person has become notable (winning an election for example). Sometimes like Morgz a lot of new sources have surfaced. If the AfD was quite recent and I have no reason to believe much has changed I've tagged G4 and that's been accepted. I don't think there is a one size fits all solution. Legacypac (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

On G4 and post AfD recreations: If you believe that the draft is a simple repost of the deleted content, no effort to improve anything, and probably failing attribution requirements, G4 is proper. If the draft is a full history WP:REFUND draftification by an admin, G4 is not ok. There’s a lot of space in between. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

AFCH options Duplicate articles

AFCH has many options for declining articles. Two of them are under “Duplicate articles”. Why is there this option. On discovering a draftspace fork, the thing to do is to redirect. Can these options be altered to convert to the redirect, if it is desirable to retain tracking or to automessage the author? I also think it is not useful to tag as a duplicate without specifying the page or section that it duplicates.

In any case, draftspace should not be encouraging content forking, and content forks need to be discouraged. Redirection is the best option because it send the author of the fork to the page they should be looking at to edit. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

See right above. Similar issue different idea. Legacypac (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ha. You’re right, sorry for not reading your post. I like the redirect to be the end outcome for two reason: (1) it tells the author where to go; (2) it removes the saccharin advice to edit and the resubmit box. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

When to Redirect a Duplicate

When is redirection the best option for a duplicate? My answer is that redirection of a draft is the best option if the reviewer sees that the draft being declined as duplicating another page really is the same as that page or is a subset of that page. Sometimes the draft contains additional information that is not in the article, or there are two drafts on the same person that mostly but not entirely overlap. In those cases, the right answer is to make it possible for editors to consolidate the information from the draft into the article, or from two drafts into a single draft that can then be approved. I am quick to convert a draft into a redirect to an existing article if the draft is the same as the article or is a subset of the article. However, a draft that contains additional information should be allowed to stand to allow the article to be improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

When is a redirect the best option (or at least a good enough option)?

• if the draft duplicates another page really is the same as that page? Yes, a simple content fork. Redirect the new one to the old one.
• if the draft is a subset of another page? Depends.

• if the draft is a subset of an article? Yes. Redirect, unless the target talk page shows a consensus to draft a WP:SPINOUT.
• if the draft is a subset of another draft? No, not in general. A custom solution is needed. Solutions could include redirect; merge; cut the overlap from the other page.

• "Sometimes the draft contains additional information that is not in the article". "a draft that contains additional information should be allowed to stand to allow the article to be improved". Agree. Options include:

• Merge and redirect the information to the article (ideally, if you have the energy); or
• Merge and redirect the information to the article talk page (much easier, and better to put the information in article_talk space than do nothing); or
• Decline and advise a merge to the article. People should not be drafting when there is already an article for it, except for where article_talk page consensus decided so.

• "two drafts on the same person that mostly but not entirely overlap". Redirect the newer to the older. Advise the author of the newer draft to not create duplicate drafts, but to work on the older draft. Does this happen a lot, on topics that are worthwhile? If yes, we could ask for a bot to search for near-duplicate drafts. It is a big waste of editor resources to have different editors working on different pages on the same topic. Make a note at the target talk page about potentially useful information in the history behind the redirect.

Broadly and generally agree with Robert McClenon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Mass-sending of old userpace drafts to AfC

I'm bringing this to the attention of people who know more about AfC and drafts than I do. There's one user – Legacypac – who's apparently started trawling through the userspace for old drafts, submitting them to AfC, and then either moving them to the draft namepsace or rejecting them himself. The pages affected since yesterday appear to be around a hundred. To me, this seems to clearly subvert the WP:STALE guideline, as well as the workflow of Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts. Legacypac, on the other hand, is of the opinion that their actions are perfectly acceptable. Anyone willing to provide a third opinion? – Uanfala (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Uanfala is becoming a troll who kepts harping in various locations about normal workflow of dealing with abandoned stale drafts in userspace. I'm following the directions perfectly fine, deleting a ton of junk User:Legacypac/CSD_log and surfacing a few good articles and redirects. There is a longstanding Wikiproject for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts. I suggest they read the guidelines they keep linking. Legacypac (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Speediable pages are a red herring. Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts Has always had problems, bad definition of “stale”, lack of respect for others userspace, an obsession that something needs doing when nothing needs doing. I am happy that Legacypac rescues stuffs, and clears the junk, but not happy if borderline stuff in userspace is being interefered with without good reason. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I point out the CSDs because I'm not mass moving pages to Draft, most I look at get speedy deleted. I'm only moving or submitting pages that likely can't be speedy deleted and have some potential - per the instructions. Legacypac (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Their actions are not only acceptable, but commendable: for very stale drafts with no hope of being accepted, they make that clear; for drafts that have potential, they submit them for other users to see. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, how do you define “stale”? Old? Or containing information that is now wrong and misleading? “Old” is a bad definition. Many mainspace pages are old and unedited for years. We don’t delete them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: if the user hasn't edited in years, then I think its fine to submit them for AfC. If they went unedited for years in mainspace, it would either be because they were in good enough condition (meaning the draft would be accepted) or nobody saw them (something that should be avoided). --DannyS712 (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Examples?

It is not in the spirit that motivated G13 in the first place. G13 was motivated by the many tens of thousands of unowned (IP-authored) abandoned AfC drafts. Userspace subpage drafts are not unowned. Old inactive users sometimes return, and it should not be assumed that they will not, and deleting their stuff is obviously creating a self fulfilling professy. If the user never submitted the draft, I think they should not be moved to be submitted-Rejected-deleted, instead they should be left alone if inoffensive, and blanked with {{Inactive userpage blanked}} if there is any sort of an issue. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Here is an example: I just came across User:SEBE2013/Biogas in Poland. The user hasn't edited in over 5 years, and the page hasn't been edited in just as long (aside from 1 bot maintenance edit). Normally, I would move this to draft and submit it, but I ask: what do you think I should do? IMO it clearly has potential --DannyS712 (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Same with User:SacHistoria/draft article on Weintraub Tobin --DannyS712 (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Danny, both I would have had tagged with {{promising draft}}, intended to create better visibility. I think both should be left in userspace and not subjected to G13. Neither are prone to going “stale”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"pages affected since yesterday around 100" is grossly misleading - I'm way more efficient than that. Topics with potential get exposed to other users in Draftspace. Drafts show up when someone goes to start a page in Draft or Mainspace at that title. This helps other users who don't have to start from zero again. If no one cares about the topic in 6 months (or often much longer before flagged for G13) and no one wants to defer G13, oh well. The creator's talkpage will have a nice record of where to find and recover the long forgotten page, or they can follow the link to the mainspace topic they started. This process finds pages like Escambia Wood – Pensacola that have been forgotten. Legacypac (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good. Do you move userspace junk to draftspace, submit it yourself, and then reject it yourself, and rapid sequence? I think that was the allegation, though not clearly.

When you move something old to draftspace, do you first check that, at least in your mind, the topic drafted could be plausibly notable? This is what I thought you did.

If Legacypac is making some mistakes, that is to be expected given the numbers. There should be no shame on anyone’s part in a spot review of some examples. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is in blanket allegations I'm not following policy made here, at my talk and over at Userpages talk. Yes I only move pages that are plausably notable. I also use the script to check for copyvio, duplicate topics, deletion discussions etc that help me evaluate the page. Sometimes I use AfC script to note that the page is not suitable as is, most often because there are no sources for a BLP. Eventually removing unsourced BLPs after 6 months or more fair warning is a good thing in my view. I'm sure some editors might make some different calls than I do but there is zero basis to the allegation I'm not following policy and guidelines. I'd encourage review of pages I send to draft as there are topics worth expanding into articles. Some just mainly need some sources added to prove notability. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. All users are invited to express their views and to add new topics for discussion. Individual WikiProjects may also consider creating their own requests for comment; instructions are at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up. (To keep discussion in one place, please don't reply to this comment.) Jc86035 (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Eclipse Theia

There's a discussion between the author, ChristinFrohne and Newslinger about this draft at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Software/Free_and_open-source_software_task_force#Review_article. The article was declined 3 times and then rejected by SamHolt6 for WP:PROMO. It was also declined once for the same reason by AngusWOOF. Some irregularities here:

1. I don't find the article to be particularly promotional. It is certainly not CSD worthy.
2. As an AfC operating principle, we like to have different reviewers do a review for resubmissions. I think SamHolt6 has more than stretched that here.
3. I don't believe this is a "hopeless" draft and so does not merit a reject

What can we do to get this draft back on track? ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kvng: The primary reason for the article being declined, seems to be about all about different companies in the article. It has roughly 10 to 12 separate companies mentioned, which is out of order. That is the reason it is promotional. There is really no magic to it. When writing a software article, the only things it should contain for an article of this type is:

1. Who built it and what is it.
2. How does it work.
3. What frameworks does it use.
4. How is it licenced.
5. What is the version history.
6. Possibly some information about how it is used.

This article is almost commercial in nature, even though it is an open-source product. Rewrite it without the promotion, use another software article as a template or follow this wee recipe, and it will sail through the review if it has some coverage. scope_creep^Talk 21:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The article does seem to touch on most of your points one of which, "Who built it?" requires mentioning 7 companies in this case. I consider this information to be important and it contributes to establishing notability. ~Kvng (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand that the original version of the draft contained a list of product features that could be seen as promotional and is better represented as MOS:PROSE. ChristinFrohne converted the list to prose, which is good, and I would recommend that they rewrite the Draft:Eclipse Theia § Applications section to prose as well to alleviate the concerns about promotion. The draft could also use some copyediting, but it's not unsalvageable enough to be rejected outright.

Also, I see that the notability of the subject was the reason cited for the draft's rejection. There is some discussion at WT:FOSS § Review article containing my evaluation of the sources, but it does look like there are 2 indepedent reliable sources offering significant coverage of Eclipse Theia. They might not be high-quality sources, but they appear to meet the WP:RS guideline. — Newslinger talk 06:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kvng: Only two companies built thet product, the rest were code contributors. They don't really need to be mentioned. If you don't add additional content around function and form, then the article will never be accepted. scope_creep^Talk 12:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning too many contributors does not make this draft promotional enough to decline (let alone reject). Remember, our primary acceptance criteria is that the submission would be WP:LIKELY to survive WP:AFD. Do you really believe an article would be deleted for this reason? ~Kvng (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kvng: I would say so. I'm an AFC/NPP reviewer myself and I would have rejected it. You really need to understand how an article is considered promotional. As regards odd reasons for deletion. I promoted this: Abbey of Saints Cornelius and Cyprian out of AFC a couple of days ago, even though the Abbey has been in existence for almost a 1000 years, it was potentially slated for deletion. Your article has been effectively rejected already, and if was a normal article created in main space, it would be long gone. There is three folk I know who go through all the software articles that come out of Afc and if they are not up to scratch, they get sent to Afd, because they're cack, usually promotional or assert some other policy e.g. WP:NCORP. I would suggest rewriting it. Take a look at other software articles. Newslinger has stated it is notable with coverage satisfying WP:SIGCOV, so your half way there. It is the promotional content that's wrong. Rewrite it and use the sources to build the content. scope_creep^Talk 16:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I do need to get a better understanding of how WP:PROMO is being interpreted. Exactly what part of this policy is the list of contributors in the draft violating?

Also I don't think I understand your point with Abbey of Saints Cornelius and Cyprian. It was declined but I don't see any move by anyone to delete it. I see a lot of unjustified declines, bad WP:PRODs and unsuccessful WP:AFD nominations. My AfD experience tells me that, though many editors persistently try, we still don't delete stuff for the reasons you're citing. ~Kvng (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I partially agree with you. The point I was trying to make, regarding the Abbey article, is that AFC isn't a finished article queue. If it was it would be magic, but unfortunately, there are many many reasons why an article would end up in the G13 bin and for that reason, if somebody shouts out that don't understand why an article is notable, you must rescue it, if it can be saved at all. There is no organic reason or set process that will ensure somebody is going to come along and rescue it for you. Hence this conversation. For the Abbey article, it was a boundary case. The majority of articles will be taken into main-space, but there is some that end up in the G13 bin, and they shouldn't be in there, for odd reasons. Afc is an excellent process, but it not perfect. In an older age, it would have been called wastage. It is a crying shame, duplicating work for some future editor. I also used to search the G13 category every so often, to rescue valid articles. It is hard work and time-consuming. There were two articles last month, 6 weeks ago, can't remember their names, that were notable. Nobody got them, and it happens all the time. It is up to you. Regarding the WP:PROMO policy, No. 5, probably best. I was planning to give a long spiel about letters and how the policies are represented as a concept in the mind, i.e. some of the domains that humans inhabit. Perhaps thinking about how policies are viewed in terms of how the law is viewed would help. I think you need to spend more time up at Afd, and perhaps give some time across at Coin. Coin always need help and within a few months, you will know whether an article is promotional or not. It a learned experience, I can say that for sure and there is a fine line. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 17:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph you object to has no puffery and is well cited. I don't see how WP:PROMO #5 applies to this. ~Kvng (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is not going survive G13 or Afd. It promotional advertising. scope_creep^Talk 08:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree and so I guess the thing to do is to accept it and see what happens. ~Kvng (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a clear disconnect here regarding how WP:PROMO is interpreted. Personally, I think that WP:PROMO is unclear because it doesn't go into enough detail about the actual content of the draft. As a result, reviewers usually consider the intent of the draft writer.

Since ChristinFrohne has disclosed themselves to be a paid editor for this topic, it's clear that they intend to generate publicity for Eclipse Theia. However, I'm not seeing puffery or other violations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch in the text of the draft. The draft would benefit from copyediting, but I don't think it's blatantly promotional. Paid editing is frowned upon, but it's allowed as along as the conforms to the policies and guidelines.

Now that Kvng has accepted the draft, any interested editor may nominate Eclipse Theia for deletion if they consider it inappropriate. In my opinion, the draft does not quality for WP:G11, and the cited sources are marginally sufficient to prevent the article from being deleted at WP:AFD. This is a borderline case, but I think it passes. — Newslinger talk 11:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I've copyedited Eclipse Theia and changed the list in Eclipse Theia § Applications to prose. I think this should resolve any remaining concerns regarding promotion. — Newslinger talk 12:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Those are good points about unclear WP:PROMO and judging intent vs. assessing content. I doubt we can get consensus on clarifying WP:PROMO because removing gray areas reduces editor discretion and editors are enjoying their discretion. I assume that's what's going on also with my proposals to clarify our reject criteria. ~Kvng (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Helper script WikiProject database needs refresh

The helper script's WikiProject database did not include {{WikiProject Anarchism}} if its maintainer can re-index or add it? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: If you are referring to User:Enterprisey/draft-sorter.js, then talk to @Enterprisey --DannyS712 (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Enterprisey (talk!) 06:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Review of a reviewer

• ShunDream (talk · contribs · xtools · pages created · logs ^{(block • csd • prod)} · afd)

I have received multiple comments privately regarding ShunDream and concerns about their draft reviewing. Per previous discussions about the procedure in cases like this, I am posting this notice here so that their editing activity can be reviewed. Please remember to comment on the reviews and not the reviewer, and that we're all trying to improve Wikipedia. We have no format for this sort of thing, but I would suggest demonstrations of problematic reviews. As far as "raw numbers" goes, their contribution history shows ~90 declined drafts and ~25 accepted ones, with an additional 15 7 of each that have since been deleted (Numbers updated because of duplicates between draft/article edit summaries). Please keep these figures in mind. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

To clarify - are you saying 15 out of 40 accepted pages have been deleted? That seems very high. Were the deletes by discussion or CSD? Legacypac (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Was just a quick check; numbers got doubled due to the same edit summary on the draft and article. 4 deleted as a result of AFDs (1, 2, 3, 4), one G11'd, one G4'd (post-accept) and one moved back to draft. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Assuming the rest of the accepts stay in mainspace that is a 28% "failure" rate which seems a bit high but not outrageous. The range of deletion reasons suggests there is not one specific area they are screwing up on. Interpretation of G11 varies quite a bit so one CSD there does not bother me. A non-Admin can't judge a possibke G4 very well so that does not bother me. I've had a few accepts sent back to draft too. There is a disconnect between the AfD standard of "likely to be kept at AfD" and the NPP practice of sending pages that at "incomplete" or suffer from assorted fixable problems off to Draftspace. Perhaps User:ShunDream can tell us if some of their accepts were sent to AfD and kept? If they are only losing some pages at AfD thst is ok. Legacypac (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• I support removal, I'm not confident that this user understands inclusion requirements and after looking at most of their accepted drafts, I'm tempted to AFD or tag more for deletion. Praxidicae (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• ShunDream's New Page Reviewer right was granted by User:Biblioworm here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• AfD stat looks to me to be too few for unilateral reviewing and judgement of drafts. Get more experience at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• User:ShunDream/CSD log and User:ShunDream/PROD log have not been enabled. This should be done. (I think they should be enabled by default). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• The AfD stats are not good. High match with results but low success rate with noms and not enough particlipation yet. Easy to get a high match by "me too" voting delete. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Not participating in any of the deletion discussions on articles they accepted is not good form. General AfD experience is very helpful for AfC but we don't require it. I see many improperly sourced declines without elaboration; These are not helpful to authors. At least one of their accepts was nominated for deletion and survived so that's good. They're reviewing a lot of articles about organizations so a lot of deletion attempts and some success is to be expected. ~Kvng (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The decline message gives guidance on sourcing. If I see a sourceless BLP I quickly decline it. Without sources it's gonna be PRODed anyway. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

This was used on non-BLP articles with sources often in combination with decline for advertising. Both are flimsy and not particularly helpful to authors. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think that proven AfD experience should be considered essential for both new page and AfC reviewing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you make a separate proposal to that effect. It doesn't apply here to ShunDream because it is currently not a requirement nor even a recommendation AFAIK. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It's already included in the guidelines (point #5); Lourdes and I both check this before accepting (and we're currently the two admins who patrol the requests). Primefac (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Good to see. Do you have any threshold level of participation you're looking for? ~Kvng (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Kvng, SmokeyJoe, I recall vaguely that when I had explicitly added AfD experience into the AfC criteria, I had been clear that it should be more as an indicative experience rather than essential. As a reviewer, both Primefac and I (and very helpful editors such as Legacypac whose advice on reviewer applications is brilliant) don't use a minimum number but take a common sense view when we assess AfD participation. I don't think we should define a threshold level. Lourdes 00:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The reviewer in question has a pattern of intermittent editing and breaks of several days. We need to wait until the reviewer comes back. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Or, if there is to be a threshold level, it should be low. 0 would be too low.

ShunDream's stats for AfD are low, but I am not seeing a reason for a strong reaction. I think he should be encouraged to learn and improve, same as everyone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Three of the four AFDs appear to have been deleted as corporate spam. This suggests a reviewer who may be clueless about the problem os the spamming of Wikipedia, and that is an issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A lot more corporate articles than this were accepted by ShunDream and have not been deleted so I don't jump to that conclusion. ~Kvng (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NCORP is so narrowly interpreted I now rarely accept company pages for fear they will be deleted and hurt my stats. Sometimes I tell people to move it themselves if they think it meets the guideline and I can't articulate why it does not meet the guideline. Many people don't know about WP:LISTED or don't care and see anything about a business as a problem. Weirdly they don't see articles about actors and singers and movies as advertising a business, even though Lady Gaga is just as muslch a business as a manufacturing plant. Even had a fight to keep a page on a global public trader company that is the second largest vehicle interior manufacturer (flippling huge!). There is no shame for an AfC reviewer in seeing some corp pages deleted by over zealous anti-anything business editors. Legacypac (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• High - but think first. I wouldn't generally count a G4 for this - it's hard not to trip over. That leaves 6/25 - 24% is very high, but given all the deletes are falling down the same route, I'd just say "Always remember that WP:NCORP is so much tougher than WP:GNG" - let's see what happens in the future. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Video tutorial regarding Wikipedia referencing with VisualEditor

• 
• 
• 
• 

Hi, I have received a grant from WMF to support production of a video tutorial regarding creating references with VisualEditor. I anticipate that the video will be published in March 2019. Depending on funding considerations, this tutorial might be published in both English and Spanish. If this tutorial is well received then I may produce additional tutorials in the future.

I will boldly add this AfC talk page to the list of pages that will receive notifications for when drafts and finished products from this projects are ready for public review. I would greatly appreciate receiving feedback from experienced Wikipedia helpers regarding drafts so that I can make the finished products be as useful as possible for your work with helping new contributors. If you would also like to receive notifications on your user talk page then please sign up for the project newsletter.

Regards, --Pine^✉ 20:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Observation About Edit Conflicts

Some reviewers have observed some unexpected behavior, such as that the Decline/Reject function may no longer be available when trying to Decline/Reject a draft. This sometimes happens due to edit conflicts. Edit conflicts on draft review are an example of what are known in computer science and electronic engineering as race conditions, a sequence where the result depends on what signal arrives first or what event happens first. In particular, it is common for two reviewers to try to decline a draft at the same time. Sometimes one reviewer tries to decline and the other to reject. The reviewer who acts first is the one who determines the state of the draft. The difference between declining and rejection isn't enough for the race condition to be a problem. If one reviewer tries to decline and the other tries to accept, and the draft is declined, the reviewers can discuss whether the draft should be accepted after all. If the draft was accepted, then either the draft can be left in article space or it can be taken to AFD.

Just be aware that edit conflicts sometimes happen, if two reviewers are reviewing the same draft. Usually they are not a problem, because usually reasonable reviewers will agree or almost agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

All good but it needs to be said that it is best if we can avoid edit conflicts in the first place. Reviewers can use the "Random draft in this category" buttons to reduce the likelihood of selecting a draft that someone else may review soon. Using the "Find a random AfC submission" button on the big list is probably the safest. ~Kvng (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Tagging under review can edit conflict with a decline jsut as easy. I believe this happens most often when we are dealing with userspace pages where there is a short list of pages in the category. It's not a big deal. Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

As long as editors remember to tag a draft as under review, it requires extremely close knit timing for this to be a problem Nosebagbear (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Userspace junk and blank submissions

When we find userspace junk submitted consider tagging U5 instead of moving it to draftspace. U5 is not time limited while the same page in Draft requires an MfD or wait till G13. For example Draft:Thomas_Dean_Roseman (just picked the last example I found).

When you see blank or stupid jokes in sandboxes just blank them. The user surely knows "I like to fart" is not a proper submission. Giving them a decline message just feeds their ego. It also means the page later comes up for G13 which is a waste of several more editors looking at it.

Blank or nearly blank Draft pages should be G2 tagged rather than declined, as this saves the steps of a decline, waiting for G13, reviewing again and possible refund requests. Legacypac (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Reject Template "Ask for Advice" button

The reject template (like here Draft:Arthur T Matthews) has a "ask for advice" button on it. The template UFW/Not Suitable for Wikipedia had no such option. This button is leading to a lot of posts to the AfC help desk. Because it creates a kind of template of a post many posts are simply blank, some get repeated, and a few are abusive or dumb. The point of rejecting pages is to cut off the easy resubmit but we have created another form of submission at the Help desk that begs inestigation, action and a return to post at the help desk to answer and save other reviewers from spending time on it. It would be faster just to decline the page again when you find it in the que than handle a Help desk enquiry. I see three possible paths

1. Remove the blue "ask for advice" button

2. Turn the button into a link only that forces the user to type a question (or at least words) - no more blank requests

3. Continue as is?

Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove the dumb blue button that encourages dumb questions from people who do not even understand Wikipedia. As they do not understand Wikipedia, the first and only first thing to do is to send them to the most basic introductory page for newcomer editors. That page is WP:5P.

Remove the blue "ask for advice" button.

4. Replace the blue "ask for advice" button with "For an introduction to contributing to Wikipedia, go to Wikipedia:Five pillars." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Some way of combing option 2 mooted by Legacypac and a helpful intro page link. I would not say that WP:5P is this - founding principles are vital, but it's not actually very helpful at answering any of their questions. Editors would just give up and then still come ask. Personally either WP:TUTORIAL or WP:FIRSTARTICLE would be much more useful. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that WP:5P is vital. Newcomers who are not up to speed with WP:5P are in no position to ask sensible questions about writing new articles. WP:TUTORIAL is great for someone who understands what Wikipedia is, and it is a trap for someone to waste everyone's time if they don't. WP:FIRSTARTICLE is worse, it is a terrible mistake to tempt newcomers into writing a new page before they have any idea what the project is about. They need to do some editing, improving existing content, before attempting a new supposedly missing article. Pointing someone who has just posted a submission that is being rejected to WP:FIRSTARTICLE is to repeat the same mistake. Someone who has submitted something that needs rejection does not understand what Wikipedia is; they need to be sent to the most basic introduction, and that is WP:5P. For any newcomer who does understand the project, WP:5P is a breeze. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• I could live with option 2 or 3, but I don't like option one. There needs to be a way for an inexperienced user to appeal a rejection to a new set of eyes, and so that they can start receiving advice from an actual human. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove button: resourceful users can find their way to the Talk pages of the editor who rejected the draft. As far as what to add instead, somebody wrote an essay "If your draft is rejected" or something along these lines. I don't remember who, unfortunately. It had a mix of 5 Pillars, notability, NPOV, etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The AfC Helpdesk is getting a lot of often blank posts because of this button. I'm all for helping people but I also expect them to read what we tell them instead of posting blank requests. That is if they even realize they are making a request. Legacypac (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

5. Stop rejecting drafts. We're biting authors with this feature and they're biting back. Some here are proposing our response should be to bite harder. Escalating things further is not a good idea and runs counter to the goal of reducing overhead associated with inappropriate resubmissions. ~Kvng (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between new users who are reasonably trying to contribute, new users who are hopelessly clueless, new users who are playing silly games, and users who are clearly self-serving. I agree that first contributions by users in the first or second classes should be declined and not rejected. There are new users who clearly are only here to promote themselves or their companies or their bands, and their contributions need to be rejected. They do need to be bitten harder. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: what do you hope to achieve by biting harder? It seems likely that this just encourages more biting. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kvng: If the page does not meet the relevant notability guideline, I don't see a point in declining. Whether the review is 1st or 4th, it does not make much sense to implicitly ask the author to keep working on a non-viable draft.

I review from the back of the queue and I routinely come across drafts that have been declined two or three times, until I finally reject them. If they were rejected sooner, reviewers would be able to devote more time to promising drafts. I come across them as well; non-notable drafts being resubmitted means that some have to wait 8 weeks for their drafts to be accepted. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I also review from the back of the queue. What I see is multiple rejections coming from reviewers who work the front of the queue. If they get rejected every day, a disruptive author is going to resubmit every day. If they have to wait 8 weeks for each rejection, the problem mostly resolves itself. We are feeding the problem by handling these submissions promptly and, in the case of reject, by biting these authors. ~Kvng (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Declines turning into rejects? Script bug?

I hope I haven't screwed something up, however, I'm a fairly new reviewer and have declined several articles. When I go back to look at them they all appear as though I've rejected them. At first I thought I was clicking the wrong selection, however, I carefully reviewed and declined another article Draft:A. D. Singh Olive and it too is now showing as though I rejected it. In that case I was extremely cautious to ensure I had selected decline and not reject. I'm sorry if I've screwed something up - I'll stop reviewing pending further advice. Wolfson5 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Wolfson5 I tested the page you referenced and was able to decline it. Try declining User:Legacypac/sandbox to see if it is a bug with your script. Legacypac (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac - someone else declined the test page before I could get to it. Wolfson5 (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, n/m - I resubmitted it and then did a test decline. Wolfson5 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty bad. Can anyone else reproduce this? Wolfson5, thanks for reporting this. What browser/OS are you using? Do any errors appear in your console? See WP:JSERROR for more information. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Wolfson5: - I'm not sure if you're communicating elsewhere to Enterprisey, but while I can't help on the technical side, could you let me know which decline reasons you know you used that then mutated? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear - I just tried to test decline Legacypac's page, above, and used corporate notability which then turned into a reject. Wolfson5 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. Just revert the decline and try again. We can play in the sandbox with the script as much as needed. Would like to help you solve this. Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Enterprisey and Legacypac - I also tried declining the test page under neologism, prior to which I disabled and re-enabled the AfC script, and it still rejected. I'm using Edge on Windows. Wolfson5 (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Are CVs G11-Worthy?

There are, fairly frequently, CVs submitted as drafts.

Obviously they can just be rejected, and sooner or later (possibly requiring several more rejections) get deleted after 6 inactive months.

However, I was wondering whether WP:G12WP:G11 would be suitable, given the inherently advertorial nature of a CV.

We have a userspace CSD that would work, but it doesn't actually apply for drafts, so I was asking to see whether this would be a suitable means of speeding the hassle up.

To give a convenient example Draft:Dr Hossam Ouda

Nosebagbear (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, do you mean WP:G11? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio is always G12-worthy. Earwig gave it 98.4%. That's a sure hit. Cabayi (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

With thanks to @AntiCompositeNumber: - I did indeed mean G11! And having typed it wrong in the title I lazily duplicated it for the link! Please re-consider on the G11 argument, though @Cabayi: is obviously correct with reference to G12. <sigh> <self-trout> Nosebagbear (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I've always taken the view that someone writing about themself is self-promotion, hence G11. I know it's not a universal view. In draftspace it's an even less popular viewpoint. Cabayi (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't restrain myself any longer. Cabayi (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Barf. Yes, Draft:Dr Hossam Ouda was about as obvious a WP:G11 as they come. I don't often G11 things outright. If I have any doubt at all, I usually just tag them for G11 and let somebody else do it. Having a second set of eyes reduces the risk of making a bad call. But in this case, I wouldn't have hesitated. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I G11 resumes and self promo all the time. Never had one turned down yet. I think we should build in the G11 nomination to the Advert decline just like we have it in the G12/copyvio decline. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 1

 Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 1

• 
• 
• 
• 

Good news: the (lengthy!) script draft 1 is complete!

Hello, I am happy to share that script draft 1 is complete and ready for public comment.

The script (link to the Google doc) is much longer than I anticipated, at almost 21 pages!

Although I think that the 21 page script would be a very good introduction to referencing policies and workflows, I am considering dividing it into two or more smaller scripts that would be produced as separate videos. For example, one script could focus on policies and a different script could focus on how to use the citation tool. I am considering this for three reasons:

• People may be more willing to watch shorter videos that have more specific focus.
• Shorter videos may be easier to search for an answer for a single specific question.
• There is a possibility that if I attempt to produce a single video from almost 21 pages of script that I might exceed the budget for this mini-project. I would like for both WMF and the community to be satisfied with the results from this mini-project, and I think that dividing the script into smaller scripts which could be produced separately would be a good way to ensure that the budget for the current grant is not exceeded. While there is a reasonable possibility that I could finish production of the entire 21 pages of script within the current grant, I think that dividing the script would be prudent. After one of the smaller scripts is fully produced within the currently available funding, remaining script could be considered for production within the current grant if there seems to be adequate remaining funds, or could be saved for possible production with a future grant.

Request for constructive criticism and comments

I would very much appreciate constructive criticism and comments regarding the script, preferably by March 10 at 11:59 PM UTC. This is a shorter time window than I would like to provide, but the planned end date for this project is March 14 and I would like to finish video production by the end of March 13 so that I have 24 hours for communications before the grant period ends. If you would like to review the script or make other comments but the end of March 10 is too soon for you, please let me know that you need more time, and I will take that into consideration as I plan for final production and consider whether to request a date extension from WMF. (Extending the finish date for the project would not involve requesting additional funding for the current grant.) I would prefer that the video be done perfectly a few days late than that the video be done on March 14 but have an important error that was not caught during a rush to the finish.

I have three specific requests for feedback:

1. Please find errors in the script. This is a great time to find problems with my work, before the script goes into production and problems become more expensive to fix. Please go to this link in Google Docs and use the Comment feature in the Google Doc.

2. Do you have comments regarding whether the script should be divided, and if so, how it should be divided? Please let me know on the project talk page.

3. How do you feel about the name for the video? Do you prefer "Referencing with VisualEditor" or "Citing sources with VisualEditor", or a third option? Again, please comment on the project talk page. However, if I divide the script then I will create new names for the smaller videos.

Closing comments

Thank you for your interest in this mini-project. I am grateful to be working on a project which I hope will help Wikipedia contributors to be more efficient and effective, and indirectly help to improve Wikipedia's quality by teaching contributors how to identify and to cite reliable sources. I believe that the finished video will be good, and I hope that the community and novice contributors will find the video to be very useful.

Yours in service,

--Pine✉ 07:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Advice for Resubmission After Rejection

The question that I am asking has to do with what advice a reviewer should give to an author who asks for advice about resubmitting a draft that has been Rejected. If the draft had a title in draft space when it was rejected, there is no proper way that the author can resubmit the draft after it has been rejected. There are improper ways that an author can resubmit a draft after it has been rejected, but I don't want to advise an author about stuffing beans in their ears, because then they can't hear me telling them to get the beans out of their ears. The one "proper" method of resubmitting after rejection is to tell them to tag the draft for G7 and then create a new draft. (A Page Mover can rename the draft with (0) or (2), but that is really just a substitute for deletion.) Is that the advice that we should give to an author who wants to resubmit after a Rejection? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to tell them to edit the draft and mess with the templates. If an author messes with the template to resubmit a Rejected draft, I normally tag it for deletion.

So should the standard advice be that it is all right to request deletion of a Rejected draft in order to try again? I think that the answer should be yes, but am asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No I would not tell them to request deletion to replace. We lose the history that way. If I think they have a point I've used the script to resubmit for them and then accepted or declined which lets them resubmit easily when the issues are fixed. Anyone could add {{submit}} but I don't tell anyone that. I've also told users who argue too much that AfC is an optional process and they can try mainspace themselves. There we have more tools to delete if needed. Legacypac (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

G13 backlog

If you want to fil your CSD log and sometimes find useful forgotten pages to promote watchlist Wikipedia:Database reports/Stale drafts. We are running about 400 pages and 2 weeks behind on deletion nominations currently. Remember to glance at the pages before G13 tagging them as sometimes there are good topics and even fully formed articles that someone forgot or did not realize they needed to move into mainspace. If in doubt, submit for another opinion.

Also if you are looking for pages to improve that need adoption try Category:AfC postponed G13. These are pages someone decided should be spared from G13 axing. Legacypac (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Re filter

Hello all,

Pinging previous participants User:Robert McClenon, User:Legacypac, User:SmokeyJoe, User:Kvng.

With regards to MFD declines, I'm currently working on a bot which checks MfD and adds a comment noting something like "This draft was submitted without substantial change (diff)".

Special:AbuseFilter/964 is now up and running. As of 10:21, 25 February 2019, all of the issues which caused false positives have been ironed out. Since then, it's had 205 hits, all of which, as far as I can see, were justified. The abuse filter has the ability to simply disallow an edit from taking place or displaying a customised warning message to users submitting unsourced drafts, or both. I suggest we add an extended-confirmed exemption (to prevent reviewers who, for example, move a page then decline it), and enable the warn function. Some draft submitters will ignore the message but it is a pre-emptive way of ensuring drafts which are in no condition to even be reviewed get improved. I've made a custom template, please examine it at User:StraussInTheHouse/afc. I've used MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-link-spam as a model for it because it uses the "friendly" template.

Let me know what you think.

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:StraussInTheHouse/afc is nattering about lack of references, not lack of improvement. Am I missing something?

I don't remember WP:MFD being part of this. Do you think we should have separate filters for MFD and resubmission with no improvement. It would certainly be easier to write and understand the warning text if we had separate filters. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Kvng, see below, they were two separate filters combined for testing purposes which can be branched out to give different messages if warn is the option we're going for. SITH (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Very nice. I modified the notice text. Is this filter really picking up pages under MfD that are being resubmitted? Would it be less confusing to have filter A be no refs and warning to match and Filter B be at MfD and warning to match? The third filter could be very short pages with a warning about no little or no content. Another catch is the addition of just the AfC submission template (any edit of exactly x bytes)? These should really cut down the useless submissions. Legacypac (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Legacypac, Kvng: I planned for separate filters with regards to the MfD however they were amalgamated as it was just a tracking filter at that point. I'm sure the folks at EFN won't mind separate filters if this proposal succeeds, I agree it would be simpler re the message we display to users. It does track multiple MfDs but the majority of the filter hits are because of lack of sources. I don't mind creating another template if that's what we decide on. We know that both filters (MFD and unsourced) work, so IMO they're ready to go, I can create a third filter tracking submission length per Legacypac but it's highly advised to create a tracking filter first to weed out any issues. SITH (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

For sure unsourced is a much bigger collection of pages than at MfD. I'm thinking we could go through the filer results and speedy decline a bunch of pages? Absolutely go live on this. Best idea for cutting down junk submissions in a long time. Legacypac (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI I've implemented the warning as requested here. The filters are Special:AbuseFilter/964 and Special:AbuseFilter/969. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging previous participants: User:Robert McClenon, User:Legacypac, User:SmokeyJoe, User:Kvng, User:Galobtter. It's been a week since the filters have been split out and the "warn" function enabled. For the unsourced submission filter, there have been 299 hits. 116 of those hit "Publish changes" again, and, unsurprisingly, none of them were accepted because they contained no sources. As the backlog is getting rather large and there are some drafts which could be accepted but have issues which require more in-depth work from reviewers, however, many reviewers, to a large extent myself included, have all of their reviewing time taken up declining zero-day old unsourced rubbish. Probably a good half of the stuff that's in the five weeks ago category could be accepted because the sourcing is almost there, and it doesn't seem fair to either the reviewers nor the people who bother to source their drafts to dedicate time to it which could be spent doing more detailed reviews of stuff that's almost mainspace-worthy. Considering the statistics, I therefore propose that we enable the "disallow" feature on filter 964. What are your thoughts on this? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support zero sources = guaranteed decline. They can draft all they like but don't let them submit the page to AfC Legacypac (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia works on incremental improvements and the warning is working the majority of the time so definitely a significant improvement. These are very quick declines to do in most cases, and if they're not, we shouldn't be blocking them disallowing these edits. Let's leave it like this for a few more weeks and let reviewers get a better look at what is getting past the filter. ~Kvng (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

User:StraussInTheHouse, User:Legacypac, User:SmokeyJoe, User:Kvng, User:Galobtter - I am not sure what I am being asked to comment on. Is this about filters? If so, what do the filters do? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Kvng, this doesn't block them, it simply disallows the edits. There is a block option but I agree that would be overboard. SITH (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I used the wrong terminology. Corrected above. ~Kvng (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The stats show we rightly decline 100% of pages with no refs. Force them to add at least one ref. That will also discourage all the one liners and blank pages. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure but I doubt the stats show that all drafts initially submitted with no refs and rejected are never improved or eventually accepted. If authors take the extra step to submit even after receiving a warning from the filter, they may be disruptive but there are plenty of other WP:AGF explanations. For instance, they need help and don't know how to get it. ~Kvng (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I would rather give the new user immediate feedback they need to add refs when they can go figure that out right now than a decline notice 6 weeks later when they have forgotten about the draft. Much kinder. The filter does not mean the page will never be accepted it just stops submission until the condition is met, saving at least one decline cycle. Legacypac (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Kvng, we can enable "disallow" and "warn" so they get a nice message telling them they need to add references. It's great because, as Legacypac notes, as we have the technology to accurately determine whether a page is unreferenced or not. If I was a newbie, I'd like to know if my draft was an immediate fail so I could get to work fixing it instead of getting the same message from a human at an undetermined amount of time later. SITH (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The current warning gives them immediate feedback. They choose to submit anyway. A decline for no references is very unlikely take 6 weeks. ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I would be amazed if we actually "have the technology to accurately determine whether a page is unreferenced or not", since Wikipedia:Citing sources allows editors to cite sources in any way imaginable. Or is "unreferenced" being used here to mean something different than it does in Template:Unreferenced/doc? It's feasible to determine whether ref tags are used, whether there's a section title "References" and whether anything will appear in it, whether there are citations formatted the way you and I would like them to be, and the like, but unreferenced? Can our technology correctly determine that Draft:Col. Francis G. Ward Pumping Station is referenced? Would it do so even if the references were in a more obscurely titled section, or just hanging at the end of the article? --Worldbruce (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/964 is looking for footnotes and external links mostly. Informal references may not be recognised. ~Kvng (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Potential change

Please see Special:Permalink/886699964#standard decline template. I thought the policy was COI is fine if disclosed, but perhaps disclosure should be mentioned in the standard templates.

Thoughts?

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

StraussInTheHouse My understanding is that as long as the editor discloses their COI, they can edit/write the affected page; however, editor with COI is strongly "discouraged" (but still can write/edit if NPOV is complied) to write/edit the affected page. On another note, if COPYVIO is found or the article is a blatantly promotion of the subject, the draft page could tag for CSD for deletion just like article in new page. Thoughts from others reviewers? Thanks and cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, it was my suggestion. I'm grateful to SITH for having forwarded it, so to speak. ¶ The template could helpfully say that people are free to edit as long as they don't violate copyright, don't have a CoI, and adhere to en:WP's policies. If they infer from this that they are not welcome to edit if they do have a CoI, good, because a high percentage of these articles are more or less blatant promotion. But it wouldn't tell them that they may not edit if they don't have a CoI. -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It wouldn't infer that you can't edit if you have a COI - it actually states it. This would actually be an appreciable change in our policy, and thus is somewhat beyond this talk page's ability to decide. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Well actually ... no, Nosebagbear: "We'll go on the planned picnic if the weather forecast is good" does not entail that we won't go if it isn't; to say "You are welcome to write an article on the subject (if you have no conflict of interest), but please do not use copyrighted work" does not entail that you aren't welcome to do so if you do have a conflict of interest. (See denying the antecedent.)

That said, "I won't be welcome if I do have a CoI" is a likely inference. Putting aside for a moment the question of the desirability of this inference, does it conflict with policy? As I read WP:COI -- with "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships" and "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia", etc -- it seems to me that it's in line with policy. Yes, you are grudgingly permitted to edit if you have a CoI; you are not welcome to do so.

And its desirability: I haven't investigated this systematically, but my impression is that a very large percentage of creation requests fall somewhere along an overt-to-covert spectrum of boosterism. And that a very large percentage of this ends up wasting the time of experienced, disinterested editors. Am I wrong?

Do you want people who have a CoI to persist in asking for article creation? -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd ballpark 80%+ are COI editors. Less a problem with the few IP editors who submit. We accept pages where they are able to show notability without massive promo language. Legacypac (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• It is my opinion, and my reading of consensus, that COI editing of a draft *must* use AfC, and COI editors *must not* edit articles directly, some exceptions, in favour of requesting or suggesting edits on the talk page.

I believe that concensus for this is evident at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_31#Revised

I earlier made the edit but was reverted by Smartse (talk · contribs) (Undid revision 877677005 by SmokeyJoe (talk) this is a substantial change to the guideline and I don't see any consensus for it. (Personally I agree with it, but I'm fairly sure many people won't)). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you suggest i work on for becoming a reviewer?

Sock editor indef blocked. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does working in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion give me an advantage for becoming a Articles for creation reviewer and what do you suggest i work on for becoming a reviewer? AmericanAgent (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC) Yes, an AFD track record is pretty much required for working on AfC. I've been building a guide for this question User:Legacypac/Cleanup Guide Legacypac (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC) Sure, it does help having a good record on AfD, but the basic requirements are still: a Wikipedia account at least 90 days old. a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles. thoroughly read and understood the reviewing instructions. a demonstrated understanding of the policies mentioned in the reviewing instructions, including the various special notability categories. reasonable evidence of understanding the deletion policy (experience in areas such as CSD/AfD/PROD or page curation, while not mandatory, are beneficial). a willingness and ability to respond in a timely manner to questions about their reviews. Realistically, the first two are the big issues for your account, as you have just 3 days, and 32 article edits. Give it some time, create some articles, and you'll know when to apply. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Flagging drafts as requiring certain language skills?

Hi there. Drafts often use foreign-language sources and while GTranslate can be useful to assess them if they are online, it cannot help for books (e.g. at Draft:Rajko Depreradović). Is there a way to flag a draft as requiring a reviewer that understands a certain language? If not, could it be added? After all, that way someone speaking Russian for example could review drafts with Russian language sources directly and other reviewers would not have to wait for someone with the required language skills to randomly stumble over the draft. Regards SoWhy 15:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we can ask reviewers to indicate on the participants page if they speak other languages. Asking for help here is also a good idea. ~Kvng (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That might also be a possibility although imho having a category like Category:AfC pending submissions by language of sources/Russian (for example) is more useful because that way reviewers can quickly find drafts to review which need their special skills instead of you or me first having to ask someone to review a certain draft (which might become pretty annoying if there are many of them). After all, Category:Pending AfC submissions has other subdivisions as well (age, length, etc.). Regards SoWhy 17:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Catagorizing AfC pages is periodically suggested by non-AfC reviewers who don't understand the process here. It is always shot down as useless except for a few cats that single out what are likely quick easy declines, mainly page exists and really short.

This idea is a different flavor of cats designed to bring in subject matter experts. The reason we don't do that is AfC is triage, not mainspace. We almost always immediately action the pages we review. We can't categorize and hope someone from somewhere shows up sometime to do something.

I've reviewed many thousands of drafts and never needed or wanted to summon someone who knows another language. The only place such categorization would be potentially useful is pages at the triple intersection of borderline notablity with only non-English sources where Google translate is not enough to assess the sources. But than no one will be checking a cat that hardly gets used. Legacypac (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Your issue with offline sources (books) in a foreign language largely applies to offline sources in general. Regardless of language, a trip to the library is not necessary to make an accept/decline call. If the draft doesn't have other issues, reviewers should WP:AGF on the part of authors with respect to offline sources.

Legacypac is right, there are infrequent corner cases where language can be pivotal. You can skip those and let multilingual or more experienced reviewers handle them. You can also request help on this page. ~Kvng (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

In the example I mentioned, the sources are online but not translatable since GTranslate does not work with GBooks. Someone speaking Russian can probably assess them easily. That said, it was just an idea. Regards SoWhy 08:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of AFC to Propose Changes to Articles

There is a basically reasonable misconception that some editors have that AFC can be used to submit new copies of articles to replace existing articles. I am not asking whether we should make this be an alternate use for AFC. It isn't what AFC is for. The first part of my question is whether there is some standard way to respond to submissions of drafts of articles that already exist. The most common situation is that the author has both submitted the draft to AFC and then (perhaps after four days and ten edits) put it into mainspace. In the case, I decline the draft and make a two-part check. The first is to see whether there are differences between the article and the draft. If not, redirect the draft to the article. If so, advise that the draft and the article be compared for improvement. The second part is to see whether the article is reasonable in article space. If not sure, tag the article for notability. If it definitely doesn't belong in article space, take it for AFD. That is what to do when the same (or almost the same) page is in both draft space and article space. However, my question has to do with cases where the submitter appears to want the draft accepted in place of the article. Usually what we do is simply to explain that they can edit the article, and that AFC is not for upgrades to articles.

What has happened this time is that I declined a submission because the article already exists, but then another editor advised me that they think that the submitter is a COI editor who is requesting that I review their submission as an upgrade to the article. So there are two requests, one from the subject's PR person, and one from a neutral editor who has a reasonable but mistaken idea of how AFC works. See http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=886954838&oldid=886945321&diffmode=source and User:Julia VanDevelder/sandbox/Jodie Markell. Thoughts? Comments?

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

After the decline, Wikipedia:Edit requests is the appropriate mechanism here. When declining with exists, I will usually also put link to the draft on the existing article's talk page, "Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity." ~Kvng (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Procedural clarification: I might have been inclined to reject as "exists" because attempting to create an article that already exists would be duplication. This could be just a mistake not knowing the article already exists, or as above an improper attempt to "exchange" one version for another, but the secondary COI issue would certainly seem to indicate a game with "upgrades" being an attempt to circumvent the normal editing process. Would rejecting not have been a good option? Aside from the COI or other issues I would still think a draft of an article that already exists should be rejected and possibly userfied (not one of the options I am given) and not held as if to get created. This seems to add to a backlog list when the draft can't be created. Otr500 (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Declined articles are not part of the backlog. Reject is for "hopeless cases" whatever that means but I don't think it applies here. ~Kvng (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Phrases to Buzz On

I have written an essay, Wikipedia:Marketing Buzzspeak, referring to phrases that have no value, are used to try to persuade, sell, or dazzle, and have no place in Wikipedia. I would appreciate examples of phrases that are marketing buzzspeak, such as "thought leader" and "influencer". Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I was hesitant to edit your actual essay, but you could add "cutting-edge" and "trend-setter". In-Q-Tel uses both. "Thought-leader" is another one. It's all over the place, and more often than not in articles on distinctly non-notable executives. Then there's the good old "award-winning". Voceditenore (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It is in Wikipedia space, not in user space, which means go ahead and edit it. I already put "thought leader" in it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've expanded on "award-winning" to say that the award is only worth reporting if Wikipedia has an article on the award. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've tagged In-Q-Tel. It's notable, but it doesn't need the peacock language. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Draft:Anna Vanessa Haotanto contained: "Anna seeks meaning in focusing her entrepreneurial career on financial literacy as she firmly believes that continuous learning empowers people". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Smart Freight Centre is a global mission-driven organization dedicated … — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

"Market Leader", "Empowering", even phrases like "high level". If it's quoted as coming from an independent RS, that's the only time these don't completely fail WP:NPOV. The essay above would be helpful to simply have a list of "words to watch out for", or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Without a doubt the most annoying marking bull-speak is "solutions". If someone created a filter to prevent all non-extended confirmed users from adding the word "solutions" to any article or draft, I would be completely fine with that. GMG^talk 14:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Spammer is a leading financial technology provider creating modern banking experiences, proudly developed by Nigerians and to businesses, corporates and governments across the continent. It is based in Lagos, Nigeria. Since incorporation in 2004, Spammer has continually exhibited leadership in driving secure, robust, and user-friendly technology solutions across the continent. Over 3,000 government agencies, large corporates and SMEs in conjunction with leading banks across 30 African countries use our simple, intuitive, end-to-end corporate, retail and transaction banking solutions in multiple sectors of the ..." and there was a whole page about their registered trademark marked products starting with "Spammer has an array of financial solutions transforming the face of digital payments across Africa." No one at business school suggested I write crap like this. Legacypac (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Writing like that would be taught in marketing school, not in business school :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

G11 Declined

I had a G11 declined just now. I think that this is the first time I have had a G11 declined in months. Does that mean, first, that I made a mistake this time and should learn from it, or, second, that I have a reasonably good G11 record and should continue to use judgment as to what should be Declined as fixable, what should be Rejected as hopeless but not G11, and what should be flagged for G11? (One of my thoughts is that that's why two editors are required, but that's just a comment.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

MfD it. Admins make mistakes too. Legacypac (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Taking it to MFD at this point seems unnecessary to me after I Rejected it. You are welcome to take Draft:Buddy Case LLC to MFD if you wish. Otherwise, it will go away in mid-September. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

So it seems this might have answered my question above. If a draft is rejected this is just "advice" to STOP and it can still be edited and resubmitted unless the additional step of MFD is taken. If it is rejected at MFD it just hangs around for 6 months unless edited and resubmitted which can go on until a successful MFD. According to what I saw the draft is clearly non-notable and advertising so I think certainly a "mistake" not to delete. What is the rationale/benefit of rejection over just multiple declining? If I just reject is it possible another editor may agree and submit to MFD? Otr500 (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No. It is not just "advice" to STOP. The author has been instructed to STOP, and, no, you are not permitted to edit and resubmit. Editing and resubmitting a Rejected draft is disruptive, and will result in it being nominated for deletion and may result in a block request. Okay, however, thank you for stating that that draft in question should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The review has told the newcomer submitter to stop. Maybe the submitter can proceed, if they can demonstrate that there was some big silly mistake, like naming the topic wrong and forgetting the references. Pretty unlikely though. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• The draft tagged is not very far from the boundary of G11. It certainly fails WP:CORP. It has two references, but both are broken. One declined g11 tagging in how many does not make a trend, wait for it to happen ten times before getting too concerned. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Robert and SmokeyJoe, glad to get input. I actually do a search for sources when I first look at a draft. If I find some I just leave comments. In the case of Buddy Case LLC., I came up with nothing, saw the broken links, and so concur with the rejection. As we should assume good faith on other editors I think this should be extended at MFD. I suppose I am not as patient as SmokeyJoe suggests. If I get one like this case rejected I would certainly seek reasoning but would not make it to ten without either wanting to know what I was doing wrong, if somehow I was on someone's naughty list, or some other reasoning. It would seem underhanded to accept an article just to present it at AFD. Something that might escape appreciation is that we are all volunteers and it takes time to perform a review. Otr500 (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Otr500, certainly look at your rejects CSD tags with a view to learning. But don't worry unless there starts to be a trend. Consider your numbers. What are your numbers? Where is your User:Otr500/CSD log? You should go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and turn on PROD and CSD logs. I think these should be turned on by default. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'll often tag something for G11 rather than delete it myself, if I have any doubt at all about it's G11-ness. I like the idea that another pair of eyes will look at it to confirm my judgement. I've had a few rejected. I take that as a good thing, and a sign that other admins are exercising their mops with appropriate diligence. If I have any real doubt, I'll bring it to XfD, but there's certainly a grey area where I'm satisfied to just pass it by one other person to confirm my judgement. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Buddy Case LLC Legacypac (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• The same happened to me; same admin. I think it's the luck of the draw. MfDs are here:
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:InfoSum
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Innov8 Coworking

--K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Bbb23's declines. Those pages were not exclusively promotional, and included reliable sources. Not g11 eligible.

I know that some admins, User:RHaworth in particular, are very liberal in deleting tagged pages, seemingly on the justification that they would be deleted at XfD.

I agree that these pages woefully fail WP:CORP and have no hope. This is why we pushed for and got the AFCH "Reject" option. These two pages should have been AFCH-rejected, not G11-ed, not MfD-ed.

It is utterly foolish busywork to feed every not-quite-g11 but WP:CORP-fail through a week+ community review.

Save MfD for post-Rejected resubmissions, and post-Declines unimproved resubmissions.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree with SmokeyJoe's point that we shouldn't be spending the community's time and good will in deletion discussions about stuff that will naturally fade away on its own. ~Kvng (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it important to occasionally reinforce that G11 worthy pages are Deleted at MfD. This trains the Admins who decline something that is snow delete that their standard is too low. The Admin who declines a G11 should really show up at the MfD and explain why they wasted other editor's time. There are not that many declines that MfD can't handle it. If the decline was good, that should also play out in a keep and the nominator will learn they are too aggressive in tagging. Either way, MfD is a good check for everyone. Legacypac (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I would include G11 of drafts, in most cases, as unnecessary deletion discussion. Admins are part of the community, making a G11 call is not brainless and their time and goodwill is valuable too. Why not just let these fade through G13? No judgement call required in that process. ~Kvng (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agree Legacypac, and the flipside of that is that it is important to refuse MfD nominations on g11 rejects that were properly rejected, even if the page is next to worthless. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

G13 warnings

It looks like a bunch of G13 deletions were done overnight. Authors received a speedy deletion posting on their talk pages in the wee hours and their drafts were deleted less than an hour later. Don't we want to give better notice than this? ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Overnight in what part of the world? There is no delay on G13. Sometimes my G13s are gone by time the page reloads. They had 6 months to do anything at all to move the page forward and still have REFUND. Anyway I check pages and sometimes promote them instead of G13ing. G13 means two people will actually look at the page after 6 months or so. Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer to see deleting administrators give a higher priority to other speedy deletion criteria, especially from article space (e.g., A1, A3, A7), and to G11. But I don't shed any tears for the deleted pages. Why do we need to give better notice? (Yes. Some of the authors belong to taxa that hibernate.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

And on the broad subject, the removal of the deleted Category:Articles created with the Article Wizard kept a whole lot of pages off the G13 eligible list but now they are coming through in waves. There is a lot to review every day. Legacypac (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I think advanced warning would be good because 1/ there is no indication in the decline message that stale drafts will be deleted and 2/ the G13 speedy deletion notice suggests an option to edit the draft in order of stave off deletion but authors probably won't actually have time to do this. ~Kvng (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A bot used to do that 30 days out but the small group of editors who prefer disruption over efficiency drove the bot runner to retire that practice. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds about right :-( ~Kvng (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

When reviewing G13 eligible pages 99% deserve to be deleted as non-notable efforts or stuff where there is already a page in mainspace. So efforts to encourage new users (many of them long gone already) to work on the pages to keep them alive are a waste of everyone's time really. Legacypac (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no support or mechanism for warning authors 30 days before their work gets deleted, I have boldly added a WP:G13 deletion warning to our decline announcement, {{Afc decline}}. ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 2 short version

 Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 2

• 
• 
• 
• 

Hi! The full version of this newsletter issue has a lot of information. I am sending a short version to talk pages.

The most important information to know is that draft 2 is finished, that the single long script has been divided into many smaller scripts, and that portions of the script have been prioritized for production.

Due to budget constraints, not all scripts can be produced within the scope of the current pilot grant, but the other scripts will remain available for potential future production. (This project feels somewhat like doing a vehicle repair when the mechanic starts to work on the engine, and once the mechanic gets under the engine and starts to work, they discover that accomplishing their objective requires twice as much time as they first had estimated.) However, nothing is lost, so do not fear. Overall, my assessment (me being User:Pine) is that this project is producing a lot of good output and is generally a valuable pilot project.

For more information, including my requests for your feedback, please see the full version of the newsletter.

Thanks very much. --Pine(✉) 23:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent criteria for becoming a reviewer

Hi there!

I just noticed that the pages for this project contain two somewhat different sets of criteria for becoming a reviewer.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation#How to get involved says:

WikiProject Articles for creation needs you! Any editor who meets the criteria below can be a reviewer for the project. Reviewers must:

• Have a Wikipedia account at least 90 days old
• Have a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles
• Have thoroughly read and understood the reviewing instructions
• Have a good understanding of the policies mentioned in the reviewing instructions, including the various special notability guidelines
• Review solely on a volunteer basis. Soliciting or accepting payment for a review is prohibited.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants says:

AfC reviewers must have:

• a Wikipedia account at least 90 days old.
• a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles.
• thoroughly read and understood the reviewing instructions.
• a demonstrated understanding of the policies mentioned in the reviewing instructions, including the various special notability categories.
• reasonable evidence of understanding the deletion policy (experience in areas such as CSD/AfD/PROD or page curation, while not mandatory, are beneficial).
• a willingness and ability to respond in a timely manner to questions about their reviews.

It would surely be good to make these consistent?

Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Done Lourdes 17:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

RevDel Script in Instructions

In the Quick Fail bit of the reviewing instructions there is the action list on what to do to fix a non total copyright issue.

It includes some RevDel instructions which are fairly complicated.

I believe most active reviewers by now have adopted Enterprisey's RevDel script - any objections to me including a line in there suggesting this be used? It significantly simplifies the process Nosebagbear (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Creation anomaly

How was Awaga (producer) created by a new user who failed AFC submission for Draft:Awaga (The Producer) in March? - Bri.public (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User has 36 edits (more than 10) and an account for more than 4 days. There is a preference you can turn on that show edit counts and page creator name at the top of each page - super helpful for AfC work. AfD it. Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Decline reasons

Hi, when you look through decline reasons in the AFC helper script, I see some that could be moved over to the "Reject" tab, i.e. "van", which is for vandalism and attack pages. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrussianOwl (talk • contribs) 07:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@PrussianOwl: I like the current simplicity. Vandalism falls under "Topic is contrary to the purpose of encyclopedia" and can be rejected on these grounds. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't decline and leave vandalism I CSD it. Legacypac (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but my problem with the script as it stands is that it still has "decline because bad faith submission" under the tab that allows resubmission, rather than under the reject feature. Yes, vandalism should be CSDed, but vandalism/attack page/test submission shouldn't even be an option under "decline". PrussianOwl (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Vandalism and attack pages should not be processed by AfC. They should be processed by CSD tagging. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A somewhat radical approach

I wonder if it's ever come up that article creation should be limited to Extended Confirmed users (30/500). It would solve a lot of issues: long backlog in the AfC queue; sub-par drafts on non-viable topics; etc. By the time someone reaches 30/500, they would hopefully have a better grasp of notability, COI, sourcing, thus eliminating (mostly) the need for putting drafts through AFC.

This may seem radical, but when we say that this is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, we don't mean that anyone can / should be creating articles right off the bat. Any feedback? Is this idea perhaps worth airing at VPP, for example? --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It took years of effort to get WP:ACREQ through, so yes this is very radical. A much smaller step would be to restrict Draft space page creation to 4 days/10 edits. Even just an edit filter stopping blank or very short submissions would save over 100 pointless reviews-decline-tag-deletes each month. Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Part of what allowed WP:ACREQ to get through was the fact that very new editors still had an immediate outlet for new articles in AfC. I would hope there would be resistance to closing this outlet too. I don't think it should be our goal to reduce the amount of work AfC has to do. We can strive to do it more efficiently keeping in mind that part of our role here is as ambassadors and customer service agents so we don't want to create unnecessary AfC access limits. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point; I did not think of it. Still, IMO, the purpose of an editathon should not be "let's have brand new editors create articles". Instead, it could focus on: "Look at all the articles you could improve today!" I.e. CAT:NN, stretching back 11 years. Or Category:Academic biography stubs. New editors should be channelled into improving existing articles (speaking from experience). --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Those were also arguments made in WP:ACTRIAL and the majority sentiment was that, while we can make suggestions, we shouldn't dictate how new WP:VOLUNTEERS contribute to the project. ~Kvng (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There is always a trade-off to have the policy that everyone could edit to generate content and to have the high number of encyclopedic articles created. In one hand the core guidelines for a notable article to be acceptable, the content should be based on independent, reliable sources, NPOV and free of COPYVIO; but we have seen countless of such articles that do not adhere to the guidelines are created each day. As per K.e.coffman, 30/500 or an editor needs to go through a mandatory short version (15 mins version) of Wikipedia Adventure prior a new article is created would help and benefit the project but support of such proposals might meet with some resistance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: the edit filter idea sounds interesting. If you can point me to examples, I'll make a test filter and see what it logs. Are these literally just blank page with a template, or more? Just wondering what minimum you had in mind. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It's almost created. See Category:Pending_AfC_submissions_less_than_450_bytes_long. An edit filer should prohibit any submission less than 450 bytes (even 1000 bytes) which is not a proposed redirect. They should not even be able to save a new page in Draftspace with less than 450 bytes because it is eityer blank except for the AfC box or essentially so. Category:AfC submissions declined as blank has many examples (it had many more but I've been G2 CSDing the Draft ones and blanking the sandbox ones) Legacypac (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221 and Legacypac: Every short submission should also be unsourced, meaning that filter 964 should warn the user. I dont't think there'd be a consensus for disallowing short submissions, but anyhow, I've got 969 logging.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes almost all short submissions are also unreferenced. The exception is the ones that are nust a reference or link. They are univerilly denied of course which wastes everyone's time. Legacypac (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, heh, I made that exact same proposal a few years ago. SITH (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@StraussInTheHouse: And how did it go? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Many Red-Linked Categories

I reviewed a draft that had many red-linked categories. That is, the author had assigned categories that are not defined categories. I tagged the article as needing cleanup. I couldn't find a specific tag to apply about undefined categories, only to indicate that an article is undercategorized. What does one do in this situation? What does one do in this situation? If I didn't think that the subject was notable, I would simply comment in the decline comments that the categories were wrong. In this case, they are plausible categories that just don't exist. The article is Ekaterine Meiering-Mikadze. I think that she satisfies general notability as a diplomat and have accepted the article, but it has a lot of non-existent categories. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed them, plus the dup cats, and added Category:Ambassadors Legacypac (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Are reviewers allowed/supposed to edit articles they're reviewing?

Hello! I've just gained permission to do some reviewing, which I'm excited about. I see that it would be easy for me to edit some of the articles listed as awaiting review in order to ensure they clearly meet notability requirements, to improve formatting, etc. But I'm not clear as to whether reviewers are supposed to do this -- are we expected to just describe things that should be improved to the contributor? Thanks for your advice! Alarichall (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Alarichall, if you see a relatively minor (or easy-to-fix) issue with a draft, feel free to fix it (especially if it's something that will make a draft acceptable)! If you don't feel like fixing it, then you're welcome to leave a note for the page creator and/or other reviewers to see, but often I have found that taking a few minutes to fix a problem is a lot easier (and less stressful) than trying to explain how to do it to a total newbie to the process (especially when it comes to referencing). Welcome to the crew, and keep asking good questions! Primefac (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

(ec) Welcome! Absolutely you can and often should edit the articles you review. Newbies often make formating errors, title errors like unneeded DABs for Unique Name (job), incorrectly formatted refs etc. Often you can fix something faster then explaining it. Legacypac (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I tend to fix the good drafts and put the burden of fixing the really questionable ones on the submitter of course. If they want to promote their pet subject for profit or ego better let them spend their time at it rather then me. Legacypac (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That is the same process I use. scope_creep^Talk 11:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I find the amount of edits I'm willing to do is linked to my wikistress level. If I feel like doing too little work, then clearly I'm not in the right frame of mind to do a fair review so I leave that alone for a bit. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

What New Editors Can Do

New editors, who have not been autoconfirmed, can edit articles or edit in any other space. They cannot create pages in article space, that is, articles. They can create pages in draft space and in user space, and that is how reviewers get pages to review. They can also create pages in Wikipedia space. But here is what no one had thought of. A new editor, not autoconfirmed, can create a Portal. That evidently wasn't considered in defining WP:ACTRIAL and WP:ACPERM. They presumably can also create Books, but I haven't seen that. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I think they can create any page other than mainspace, mediawiki space, gadget (definition), and book space. Specific rights are needed to create pages in each of those namespaces (createpagemainns, collectionsaveascommunitypage, editinterface, gadgets-edit, and gadgets-definition-edit). Other than that, as far as I am aware they can create templates, modules, wikipedia pages, portals, and everything in between. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The relevant rights that non-confirmed users have are: createtalk (create talk pages), createpage (create non talk pages that aren't in a namespace that requires specific rights), and collectionsaveasuserpage (save a book in user space but not in the book namespace). --DannyS712 (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, User:DannyS712. Of course, it is unlikely that a new editor would want to create one of those, and it is unlikely in most cases that a new editor would know what those are. But not every new editor is a new editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: No problem. Actually, no one (not even admins) has the rights needed to edit in the gadget or gadget-definition namespace. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Rejection Reasons (again)

I had to reject a draft although it doesn't really fit either of the two reasons for rejection, lack of notability, or topic contrary to purpose of Wikipedia. I used topic contrary to purpose of Wikipedia, but the real problem is undisclosed paid editing, which is contrary to the policies of Wikipedia. The topic isn't contrary to the purpose; the conduct in advancing the topic is contrary to the purpose. What would other reviewers have done? Should there be a third Rejection reason? Should I have declined it instead? It doesn't fit any of the speedy deletion criteria. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The UPE can be fixed by disclosure so a reject would not be correct. You can use Custom reason to decline. Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I will try to remember that. In the case in point, it cannot be fixed, because the author has already denied any connection, and that denial is incredible in the original sense, not worthy of belief by a rational H. sapiens. But in general, you have a point. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm just saying why normally we would not reject for UPE. Of course there is lots of undisclosed UPE. There are days I think shuttering this WikiProject makes the most sense. Just let WP:ACREQ take over. Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I have never had a day where I though this wikiproject was good for the project. Newcomers should not be encouraged to write new pages as newcomers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Undeclared Paid Editor (UPE) product. If there is no consensus that UPE is a reason for deletion, it is not a reason for rejection. The option is properly not there. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

History of Project and Inherent Conflict

An editor says that this Wikiproject, AFC, is not good for the project, by which they presumably mean the encyclopedia. This project and its predecessors are the result of attempts to compromise between: the view, seen as fundamental to the Wikipedia concept by some, that anyone can edit, and so anyone can contribute an article; and the recognition that very new editors, especially unregistered and unconfirmed editors, should not be able to contribute new articles without review. There have been predecessors to this project, but they have all been intended to try to reconcile these two deeply held perspectives. If User:SmokeyJoe and User:Legacypac are satisfied to see AFC go away, does that mean that they think that the community needs to wake up to the fact that not everyone should be able to come in off the street and contribute a new article (for two reasons, inexperience and conflict of interest)? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

As a strong supporter of WP:ACREQ yes, setting the bar very low for making new articles would sure help. We can't keep up with the flood of inappropriate creatios and Draft space lacks the CSDs available in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think that the probability that a newcomer, less than autoconfirmed, has a new topic that needs a new page but does not first need improvement in current mainspace mentions, is extremely rare. There are virtually no missing orphan topics. I think AfC should be strongly encouraging newcomers to edit around their interst in mainspace before starting a new page, whether in draftspace or mainspace. I think the use of buttons to create a new page, and the lack of human interaction before doing so, which is a feature of AfC, amounts to AfC serving a net negative to the newcomers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Roughly 90% of drafts get declined or rejected, so I don't think that the current process serves newcomers well or converts newcomers to long-term editors. Please see my comment above #A somewhat radical approach. Having participated in the project for the past six months, I'm leaning towards the view that article creation should be limited to ECP editors. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The current process encourages throwaway accounts which is perfect for paid editing. Legacypac (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• AfC remains a good option when there is a reason the page should not be unilaterally placed in mainspace. Pages written by COI editors should go through AfC. New attempts at covering a topic previously deleted, I would recommend, though not require, that they go through AfC. It is the complete newcomer, with no edititing experience in mainspace at all, that I think should be discouraged from attempting a new topic, until after they have attempted improvemtent of existing content in mainspace. They can improve mentions of their intended new topic, as an obvious example. Newcomers who go straight to AfC miss out on interacting with real editors with similar interests, and I think this is the biggest negative of AfC to the encyclopedia, it separates them from other typical editors. This realisation hit me many years ago, after friends of friends participated in an editathon. They made new draft articles, never had any interactions with normal editors, the drafts were later G13-ed, their accounts remain redlinked and show zero contributions. Why would they ever return? People get hooked by seeing the mainspace changes they made, getting attached to articles they edited, and feel emotionally invested enough to keep checking back and maintain the quality of the page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Creating a new page is one of the hardest things to do Wikipedia, starting with finding a notable topic not already covered. I've only created about 50 new topics and many of those were spinouts from existing large pages. I rarely do categories or nav boxes. Each editor specializes which is what makes Wikipedia work. The brand new editor struggling to make a page after no editing experience is in a tough spot working alone. That is why I try to give them the straight deal if their topic idea will not work. Legacypac (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

We can and do discourage new editors from creating new articles. OTOH, this is a WP:VOLUNTEER project so we should respect contributors informed choices as to what they want to work on. It may seem unproductive that 90% of AfC attempts fail but there are a lot of human endeavours with a high failure rate (e.g. starting a business) that we choose to engage in anyway. ~Kvng (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

Ankitchajitwal (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
my name is ankit Ajitwal i am web devlepor and photo grapher i want share my profile on wikipiedia

• Hello Ankitchjitwal, Wikipedia is not a site you should probably be looking at if you want to share your profile; you have other more attractive social media or professional linking platforms. You should probably give a read to one of our policy pages to understand our stand on this: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site Thanks, Lourdes 11:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

GandhiServe entry

Hello,

I see several entries associated with Mahatma Gandhi or India's independence movement referring to "GandhiServe" or "GandhiServe Foundation" pages but the institution - www.gandhiserve.net - does not have an own entry on Wikipedia. Can someone create a page for GandhiServe?

Regards, Peter

@Peterruehe: - hi there - this isn't really the place for requests like this. You can make such requests at requested articles, though there's a lot of articles there, so the odds of being selected are fairly low. You could also try the India project. Remember, just because something shows up a lot doesn't mean it's notable - lots of groups or people get cited frequently but are never themselves covered in-depth. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Article Submission

Hi all,

I created an article for a musician a few months ago now. Just curious how long it takes to be live on wikipedia?

Thanks! -Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob-ALVB (talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rob-ALVB: - hi there!

The backlog on AfC has become very large atm - I think the max backlog size is a little under 10 weeks. A brief look-over I did 2 days ago suggested that your draft was on the brink of musical notability - if you can find that source that I asked for, that'd be great! Nosebagbear (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

More voices sought on rejected Draft:Joey Contreras

Draft:Joey Contreras was declined once by Vincent60030 for over-quotation and then rejected by K.e.coffman as not meeting WP:CREATIVE, particularly when considering WP:SPIP. Since then, the author has asked once a month at the AfC help desk for the draft to be re-reviewed:

• 28 January 2019
• 5 February 2019
• 15 March 2019
• 11 April 2019

Their first request went unanswered. Legacypac replied "I think there is a good case for notability" to their second. In reply to their third, I explained what I see as the problems. Their fourth request is on track to be archived unanswered. I don't feel that I got through to them with my last reply, so would appreciate it if one or more other reviewers would take a stab at it. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Worldbruce: Since I was the one who rejected the draft, I'm not sure if my comment would carry weight with the author. Please let me know what you think. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• commented on draft, not notable. Legacypac (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I have looked at the draft. If I were reviewing it, I would probably do the lazy thing and leave it to another reviewer. However, I have two conflicting thoughts. First, in view of the author's persistence in asking for a re-review, maybe we should let the author submit it, and see what happens at Articles for Deletion. Second, however, in view of the author's persistence in asking for a re-review, does the author have a conflict of interest? If so, it must be declared, and, if so, I would say that the author's persistence is a reason not to re-review. So; User:Cb912 - Do you have a conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

re-ping author as Robert's ping missed a bracket and did not go through. Legacypac (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• WP:Reference bombed.

I really like WP:THREE. Give us your three (no more) best sources. Note that if the best three are not good enough, no number of worse sources can help.

I'll check the first 3:

Ref 1. He gets an in-title mention, but there is only mention, not a single line of comment about Contreras. The article is about the Philadelphia Music Theater Works and its artistic director Jeremiah Downes. Mere mentions do not demonstrate notability.

Ref 2.

It is a source stating that he is one of three "emerging composers".

He gets a 235-word paragraph: "Joey Contreras is a musical pop songwriter in the New York scene. His musicals include ... Joey’s original compositions and arrangements have been featured ... also the creator of the exclusive Playbill.com series, Hot Off The Ivories—a platform premiering new musical theatre works in a sleek and intimate music video format ...

This is a GNG-meeting source.

Ref 3.

432 words in 3 paragraphs of coverage. Unfortuantely, it is all prosified interveiw material, heavy with direct quotes, no author opinion, this source is not independent of Joey Contreras, it is him promoting himself. It is not thrid party coverage and so does not count as a source meeting the GNG.

Ref 3. was close, so I'll look at Ref 4.

Ref 4. Joey Contreras is featured in the title of this article by MICHAEL GIOIA. He wrote a "sophomore album", and he recognised as a " musical theatre songwriter". Third paragraph, "The first of BDF's three educational initiatives is a partnership with songwriter Contreras ...... as he creates his sophomore album ... As the foundation's first Artist in Residence... will feature vocal performances by BDF students." "Proceeds from the single will benefit a Broadway Dreams scholarship for students" (not him).

Ref 2 and Ref 4 meet the GNG. Mainspace it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Mainspace it - and here's why - Ref 2 is fine as per SMokeyJoe. I am unsure about Ref 4 as to whether a ticket-selling site is truly independent. Most of the other sources are from one of the two publications or completely unsuitable. RSN seems to generally think that HuffPost (Ref 28) is reasonably good as a source if content is written by one of their permanent reporters - which this one is. It's possible iffy, but reasonably reliable.

This, I accept, is not a glowing, clear-cut, justification I've put forward. But I would say that it reaches a reasonably acceptable point and, if in doubt, we should promote to mainspace - if needs be, letting the wider community resolve the article in an AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Unjustified/incompetent rejections

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#11:09:59, 14 April 2019 review of submission by Chinics as just one recent example. That draft should be accepted (and cleaned up), not rejected! I'm afraid some reviewers are far too quick with the reject button. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft in question is Draft:Groupe Mémoire - Groep Herinnering (permalink to current version), also a permalink to the above discussion for future reference. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

May I also add this rejection of Draft:Harald Link from February? I think the comment was unnecessarily WP:BITEy and falsely accusatory. While the author responded well to the previous two declinings, this prompted their last edit (on the draft talk page, which no one responded to), after which they apparently gave up on Wikipedia in exasperation. The article has since been created by another editor, but we lost a potential new Wikipedian for good here. I think this is a situation we should be trying to avoid. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sarah Halley Finn

Could somebody take a look at Draft:Sarah Halley Finn. The template markup got broken somehow. Somebody who's more familiar with the AfC templates could probably spot the problem quickly. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hi RoySmith, fixed - you had [[WP:RS] missing the second end bracket. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Doh! Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Creating an article which is queued here by different user (jumping the queue)

Hi, I have advised a German new user in creating an article on dewiki after myself having created the topic on swwiki. Now he has tried his luck here at enwiki by translatging his German article. Personally I would prefer to finish this topic soon as he may need help for the language interlinking, and 2 months are a bit long to come back. Is it considered an enwiki-crime if I take the content and upload it under my ID? Kipala (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

So if nobody sees a problem I just go ahead?Kipala (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Kipala, Greetings. If you know the article name either in draft page or main space, you would help to add in the necessary "sourced" content and click the submit button (if it is created in draft space) for review. If no article has been created of the said subject, then you can go ahead and create it. Pls note in EN Wikipedia, we do require content is supported by independent, reliable sources. If editor copies and translates the an article from other Wikipedia language sites into EN Wikipedia who is not the original creator, then proper attribution needs to be paid to the original creator - see WP:PATT for info and instruction. thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• If there is an existing draft to improve anyone is welcome to improve and move to mainspace. AFC is optional. Legacypac (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Should Twinkle turn off tagging in Drafts?

Twinkle's tag menu lets users add a number of the more common article maintenance tags. It was initially enabled in July of 2011 for WT:AfC drafts with one tag, {{New unreviewed article}}, but in March 2012 it was expanded to include all the tags used in mainspace in an attempt to actually be helpful. It's persisted since then, moving to cover Draftspace when added.

As far as I know, this is basically never used. I have seen a few instances where it has been actively reverted, the idea being that these are mostly useful for mainspaces and folks don't want drafts polluting the categories. With that in mind, should Twinkle limit such tagging to mainspace, i.e. turn off draftspace maintenance tags? I'm asking this here, as this is clearly where a lot of Draft-based work happens, but I'd appreciate pointers to previous relevant discussions or anywhere else that might appreciate chiming in. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea in principle but Template:COI and Template:undisclosed paid should still be available in Twinkle in Draft space. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I tag drafts sometimes and I've seen pages tagged with issues when moved into draft from mainspace. Most users don't have the AfCH script to comment with so twinkle is a good alternative to add tags like notability, under referenced etc. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that maintenance tags are rarely used on drafts but that is not an argument for or against. The tags can be useful for communicating needed improvements to the authors while in draft space and to editors in mainspace when or if the drafts get accepted. The only reason I see given for not wanting these tags is, "folks don't want drafts polluting the categories." Since we've established this is rare, I can't imagine the pollution issue is that great. Abandoned drafts are usually deleted after 6 months of inactivity so it will always be a limited amount of pollution. ~Kvng (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121 Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: "May" women / Mayors / Environentalists Geofocus: CEE countries Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

AfC submission in mainspace

Hi! I'm a new page reviewer but not a participant in AfC and came across the article Brenda Eichelberger which has an AfC tag on it but I'm unsure what to do here about the tag or the protocol with AfC articles. My first instinct here is to remove the tag and mark the article reviewed but I don't want to step on AfC's toes here. Any guidance for me would be much appreciated. If an AfC participant takes care of this that isn't a NPR just ping me and I can mark it as reviewed once AfC has done their thing. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 08:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I've gon ahead and removed the tag. No comments on the page, but I will say that AFCH is a wonderful thing. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Lowndes County Freedom Organization

Hi all,

This draft was recently noted at WP:Help Desk, and I said I'd take a quick look. I think it's possible it's notable, but the article title already exists as a redirect, so I wouldn't have the ability to overwrite the redirect with promotion (as far as I can remember).

Can someone take a look at this one for me? It's a reasonably old draft with book sources. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: - this obviously is one route, but I'd assume you can also go to requested moves and put it as a technical move, if you note you're a AfC reviewer and would otherwise pass it.

Nosebagbear (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Second option is to {{db-move}} (G6) the page and wait until the redirect is deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft accepted by blocked sock

The Roadex Project was accepted by blocked sock Mgbo120. It's a declared COI draft so this is simply unacceptable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• WP:IAR, if necessary, but delete and salt. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  It's been sent back to the draft space. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Categorizing the submissions

I was categorizing the submissions previously by adding relevant wikiproject tags to their talk pages. While this seems to be a useful activity, I was yelled at for adding the 'biography' tag as the AfC script re-adds it (thus now having it twice) upon approval. I already pinged Enterprisey about this bug (#101) at GitHub. Can this bug please be fixed? --Gryllida (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Review of a reviewer

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.

---

Kvng (talk · contribs · xtools · pages created · logs ^{(block • csd • prod)} · afd)

I have received multiple emails regarding concerns about Kvng and their suitability as an AFC reviewer. I have summarized the concerns below. Note that as much as possible I have tried to keep the concern itself, but if you submitted the evidence I might have changed the wording to avoid bias/editorializing. I have not evaluated any concerns about accuracy/reliability of sources, as everyone's opinions are slightly different.

Overall stats

• AFC review numbers for the last 30 days:
  • 27 declines
  • 13 accepts (none at AFD as of 20:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC))
• All Draft edits
• Move log (includes deleted acceptances)

Concerns

Giga Pudding AFD (deleted) - arguing keep based on [5][6][7] IPhone Backup Extractor AFD (deleted) - Argued keep based on [8] and [9] (local interview with creators) Thenextweb AFD (deleted) - Argued keep with no actual reason. PhotoSpring (deleted) - Argued keep based on own AFC acceptance and press releases: [10] [11][12] Bezalel AFD (deleted) - Argued keep with no policy-based reason Edon80 AFD (deleted) - Argued keep based on Google hits Simon Crowther AFD (deleted) - Argued keep based on the fact that "local coverage" doesn't apply to people, only companies. David Berry (American musician) (since deleted via G7 during an AFD) - PR spam, contained peacockery, and sourced entirely to local interviews; Kvng claimed notability on the talk page with the following sources: [13], [14], [15] Concord Orchestra (since deleted at AFD) Spam piece that at the very least should have been cleaned up before moving into main space. Mahogany Sessions - Accepted on the basis of this discussion, citing [16], [17][18] as rs. Draft talk:Cigniti - Told a COI editor to circumvent safe guards and move their promotional material to main space if they felt it was ready based on [19][20][21][22] Tom McGrath (runner) - Accepted a blp based on unreliable sources. Likely a COI piece as few of the races aside from the most recent has a source. (as of 19:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)) 73% AFD accuracy

In an effort to keep this discussion relatively on-track (as the last few reviewer-reviews got derailed) please give your opinion on the reviewer with either keep, remove or warn, with a short comment if desired. If necessary I will start a "Discussion" section and shift comments to it. If you have more evidence please feel free to list it above (or email me if you prefer to remain anonymous). I will leave this discussion open for at least a week or until a strong consensus develops either way.

Please note that the process of reviewing AFC reviewers is still relatively new and largely un-written; you are of course welcome to submit evidence that Kvng is a good editor and should continue reviewing. However, if you have suggestions for how to improve this process I think a separate thread should be started. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The issues identified cover a 10 month period. It appears I have accepted 124 drafts in that period. It appears about 10% of those have been deleted. I do all my reviewing from the back of the queue and do not shy away from borderline drafts. AfC acceptance primary criteria is 50% chance of being deleted. Good reviewing includes sticking it out there for marginal drafts. I do try to educate new editors about how all this works and I assume good faith including from COI and paid editors. Sometimes I'm wrong. I am not afraid to make mistakes. I make mistakes. I rely on other editors catch my mistakes and I try to handle that with grace and learn from them. ~Kvng (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Warn can be the only response if you tend to take this forward in this manner. The contents of Draft:Cigniti, the talk page, is particularly troubling. I think warning a COI editor how to bypass safeguards, particularly when the page is so blatantly brochure like in its intensity is a mistake. In any situation, it would and will be be deleted either via G11 or Afd, if it makes it through Afc. There is 12 points of rankness that would need to be removed. I was involved in the Mahogany Sessions Afd discussion. I voted keep on this due to the amount of interaction. I didn't find any evidence for inflation in the figures. They sites are fairly new as a technology/business model and are generally wildly popular, as everybody is slowly moving off of social media for these specialist mediums, finding your own music. The first ref that Kvng offered states it is sponsored, and they are looking for a new site model, so that is Non-RS. The second one has an editorial team, with 10 folk in total, but the ref looks like an event listing. I would say it is borderline. The third one explicit states it contains This post contains affiliate links so it non-RS. The fourth is an event listing for them, on South by South West, so that is Non-RS. So they are very poor, as a keep rationale. scope_creep^Talk 20:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I object to my interaction with an author being characterized by scope_creep, Praxidicae and Primefac as "Told a COI editor to circumvent safe guards". I explained published WP process and policy. I knew there was a COI issue in play but it was somehow not clear to me that this was the COI editor until after I posted this. Sorry about that. Keeping new editors in the dark about what it takes to put an article in mainspace is not a safeguard, it is potentially security through obscurity except WP policy is public information. ~Kvng (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• keep - realistically warning the user isn't going to be as bad as having every action in AfC judged as we are seeking to do here. The user in question does review lots of drafts, so I'm not surprised there are some that fail an AfD. That being said, some of these are a little dodgy to me, but not enough so to remove the tools. Perhaps a short message on what could be done better might be better than a full on review, as I can't see anything that is going to make the user less helpful to the project than the help in looking at drafts. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think an article being deleted is a good way to describe an article as being badly reviewed. The AfC process simply says that the article should pass an AfD, but notability can be quite subjective. Is there any full stats on the users acceptances that have been deleted? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Out of ~300 page moves out of draft space into the article space, about 20 of them have since been deleted. Primefac (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2019 (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.

G13 - stale drafts over 6 months

Hi guys, Wikipedia:Database reports/Stale drafts hits 1.5K. I have regularly cleared and tagged G13 every week. If you guys want to do some G13, then pls help. Btw, avoid tag G13 for potential drafts. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Santiago Castro-Gómez

Can I get another opinion from a reviewer more familiar with expected WP:OUTCOMES for academics. Background information is at Draft talk:Santiago Castro-Gómez. ~Kvng (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll give a little more time for additional input on this but based additional background information from the author, Nietzschemarxfoucault, I am now inclined to accept this. If it ends up in WP:AFD it will be a learning experience. ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Apply a 7-day hold to G13

I'm proposing a change to the way G13 works, in order to help clear out the old drafts and make sure we're working together to save the good ones. Please comment on the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal: Apply a 7-day hold to G13. – bradv🍁 03:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Confirm a bug? Helper script not working only for one article

Can someone confirm that they are experiencing what I am experiencing? Use the helper script to review this particular draft

• Draft:Fitzhugh Mullan

I can use the script/tool as normal to review other articles. I have attempted to "comment" or "decline" this one and my Chrome browser freezes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, BR - I'm using an iPad, and tried the tool with Safari, Firefox and Chrome - all 3 worked fine. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you try it again after your fix? I think that might have broken the template and thus borked AFCH being able to read it properly. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bluerasberry Tried and I have the same problem as yours. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ditto (tried to actually post the comment and it froze). Looking into it now. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I tried this on a device with Chrome OS using Chrome, and on a Windows 10 machine using Chrome and Firefox. I bring up the Helper Script described in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script. The page loads fine and I can edit it. I did mess up the template, then I restored it, but in the midst of all that it was because of the review freezing the page. The helper script does load up, but trying to get it to post a review, even a comment, freezes the page.

If no one identifies the problem them I am willing to describe the issue in a Phabricator report. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I figured out what was doing it, but not why. Headbomb's comment is borking something. I tested the hell out of it and the only thing that seemed to be the issue was his signature. I removed it, and you should be able to comment/review. Don't have time to dig into it further right now, but I'll make an attempt later on today after work. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Tis the brackets. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Cool. Thought that might be what it was, but ran out of time to figure out which part of the sig was doing it (other than finding it out it wasn't the <span> tags). Primefac (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Headbomb:, your signature is a bomb also. Can you check into it? Have you inserted malicious code into every wiki page you have signed since January 2019? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

My signature has perfectly legitimate HTML, and hasn't changed for several years. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Slash in draft title?

I recently accepted a draft which had a slash in the title. I didn't notice until today that the title was changed to just the part after the slash. I assume this is a bug in AFCH? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really, User:RoySmith. It's not a bug; it's a misfeature. Slashes in titles do weird things. When I review a page that has a slash in the title, I change it to a hyphen. Even if that isn't ideal, it is less likely to cause weird things than just accepting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Slashes are legal in titles. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

RoySmith, this appears to be a case where you just didn't notice the title had been changed. In the draft space, a slash denotes a subpage (much like WP:AFC/P is a subpage of WP:AFC). Thus, I'm guessing that AFCH is considering only the subpage name. I tested this earlier (by replacing the incorrect title with the correct one) and it worked fine.

I don't think it's necessarily a bug that can/should be fixed, because it's perfectly acceptable to accept a draft from the userspace and AFCH would then attempt to add in the username. I guess the best advice is to double-check everything before you accept a page! Primefac (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't considered the case of submitting out of user space. Maybe it would be useful for AFCH to put up some kind of warning if there's a / in the title, asking you to double-check it's doing the right thing? Or, maybe it's just a rare enough event that fixing it up later is good enough (which, BTW, I see you did; thanks). -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just had the opportunity to accept another draft-with-a-slash. S/V Merlin. This time, I did observe that it changed the name to just V Merlin. I "fixed" that in the accept dialog by putting the "S/" back, which caused things to hang. The page got moved, but then the edits to clean up the templates, etc, failed, and my browser tab hung. I moved it back and tried again, with the same results. So, clearly, something's not happy about the / in the title. I'll just clean things up manually, I guess. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, if it is something that's causing issues, might be something for Enterprisey to look into. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Chart: Pending AfC submissions

• English Wikipedia pending AfC submissions

--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Excellent!! --CNMall41 (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: - what is the definition of v.old? Nosebagbear (talk)

Very old is pending for 9+ weeks. What is labelled as 8+ weeks is really just 8 weeks (those pending for at least 8 weeks, but less than 9 weeks). --Worldbruce (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"8 weeks+" plot should be removed. ~Kvng (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)