Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 31

This edit request to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Someone protected WP:AFC/R. Please put this request there, and please be ready for lots of additional requests here until the protection expires.

Done Primefac (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid protecting WP:AFC/R doesn't make a lot of sense. The page is designed so that unregistered or new users can request redirects, and semi-protection shuts out the editors that would need the page the most. This strikes me as a case where the harms of protecting outweigh any benefit received. Mz7 (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I concur; I'm seeing the odd bit of vandalism but nothing that would appear to merit indefinite protection of a page that is really meant to be edited by IPs. Pinging Ad Orientem for input. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys. I have totally not kept up with changes here at AFC. So way back when the edit filters were first enabled, I created Special:AbuseFilter/167 and Special:AbuseFilter/183, to catch AFC submissions without a submission template, and submissions in mainspace, respectively. The second was disabled since it became easy to identify submission to mainspace and move them elsewhere, and the first one is largely not hit anymore with submissions now going to draft space (curiously, the first filter still gets the occasional hits, so people are being directed to WT:AFC subspace from somewhere). Anyway, so here's my question! To the people who understand the current ins and outs of AFC, would these filters serve any purpose? Would updating them to the current system help at all? Or should they just be disabled? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I think those people getting shifted into the WT:AFC space (we had one earlier this week) should still trip the filter. They seem to end up there thanks to old decline/G13 notices on their talk pages. There are a lot of people who have no intention of submitting something as a draft but are writing articles, i.e. prolific article writers who don't feel like dealing with {{under construction}} tags. However, I've seen a ton of people coming into IRC asking how to submit their draft because they don't have the {{AFC submission/draft}} template at the top. So... I would tentatively say yes to 167 being include the Draft space. As you mention, 183 is pretty easy to figure out, so I'm not bothered what gets done with it. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If 167 was useful for WP:AFC/* submissions then it should be just as useful for Draft: submissions. However, one issue is that unlike WP:AFC/* not everybody that uses Draft: intends to go through AfC. – Joe (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the only sticky point. It's not like an edit filter adds the tags, but the users checking the filter won't necessarily know if the page is going through AFC or just being worked on in the draft space. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The election is now open for voters. Voting has now begun for two NPP/NPR coordinators and will remain open until 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. All registered, confirmed editors are welcome to vote. Please vote HERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Do we have any mechanism or process for inviting review of acceptances after the fact? I've no desire to criticise or even to question an able and active reviewer, but I'm perturbed by the acceptance of Americo Makk in a state that – in my opinion – will require many, many hours of volunteer editor time to remedy. It seems to me that the page should have been left in draft space until it bore at least some faint resemblance to a Wikipedia article. But perhaps I'm just plain wrong about that. Would anyone care to take a look? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Some editors have a bright-line rule regarding AFC - if it'll pass AFD, regardless of how much it needs work, it gets accepted. On the other hand, if it won't pass AFD, they nominate it for deletion. There's not much we can do other than tag the page and/or alert the relevant WikiProject(s). Primefac (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Following instructions at Wikipedia talk:Files for upload, I asked this question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, but the responding editor brushed me off, so I guess I have to come here. I hope you're more interested in helping than in telling me to bug off.

I wanted to ask for someone to upload a better resolution of a {{PD-logo}} image, File:Ss logo.png, but it was really hard to navigate the wizard because it kept trying to send me to Commons to upload there (I at first missed the "If you don't have an account, you can upload without registering" line). I eventually had to pretend that it was a non-free image and go through the whole process needlessly. Instead of asking at the start "are you autoconfirmed" and "is it free," could you instead put Wikipedia:Files for upload/Wizard/Search as the landing page, and then ask license questions only if someone's trying to upload a new image? If you try to upload a new version of the same image, copyright shouldn't be quite as much of a concern for the wizard, because the old version of the image should already have the right copyright tagging, and the new upload should have the same copyright status as what's already there. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

requesting artical about: Alberto Sicilia-Falcon

name found from: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-06-08/entertainment/8602100945_1_centac-central-tactical-unit-underground-empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.206.197 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@107.77.206.197: You are unlikely to get any action on your request here. You might have better luck asking on the Talk page of WP:WikiProject Cuba. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings all. I've noticed an editor who has been submitting other editors' drafts (one in particular was edited very recently), and then immediately reviewing & declining the submission. Is this the correct procedure? Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Are we talking about a draft that was submitted by its creator when it was still located at a sub-page of the creator's user page? If so, moving it into Draft space (and then declining) strikes me as an appropriate thing for a reviewer to do. But if we're talking about a reviewer who submitted the draft before the creator thought it was ready, that's a whole different story. Which of these are you seeing? NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

They were drafts, in Draft space, that had been edited very recently (one within 8 days, one the previous day). Exemplo347 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, that does seem odd. I can only suggest asking the reviewer why they did it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Will do. I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason! Thanks Exemplo347 (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Why does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects get so much vandalism on it? Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please lets start a section entitled '1.Linkage between Shaivism and Buddhism, 2.Linkage between Shaivism and Confucianism, 3. Linkage between Shaivism and Christianity, 4. Linkage between Shaivisma and Islam, and 5. Linkage between Shaivism and other theoretical philosophies like Structuralism, Functionalism, Marxism,Feminism,Socialism, Capitalism etc.202.51.88.25 (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC) 202.51.88.25 (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP address. You probably should be having this discussion on the Talk page of the Shaivism article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Where are the quick-fail criteria listed? Our reviewing instructions tell us "Before reading a submission in detail, check whether it meets any of the quick-fail criteria. If so, it should be declined immediately and in some cases it may be necessary to nominate the submission for speedy deletion". But "quick-fail criteria" is not linked. I think it should be. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, it's bullet 5.1. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course it is – thanks, Primefac! I should have thought to look behind that pink bar, how dumb can you get? Just in passing: the page layout leaves a good deal to be desired – that bar is pushed off the bottom of my screen by the graphic. Might it be better placed directly below the section title?

So, next question: what is supposed to happen to drafts quick-failed because the article already exists? Do we just leave them to rot until they are eligible for G13? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll see about the layout. As for your second question - I generally decline as "existing" and let it reach G13. Occasionally I might just turn it into a redirect, depending on how much detail is in the main article. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)1

The "Exists" decline actually instructs the submitter to work on the existing article, though very few ever actually do so. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please save this article from being deleted I don't want to see it gone. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done - moved to Draft:2017–18 NCAA Division I men's basketball season. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there still a link somewhere for editors to create pages starting with the "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" prefix? Just wondering since this was created a few hours ago, brand new, at a "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" title. (I later moved the page.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Steel1943, the user in question wrote a draft in '13 in the WP:...creation/ space, which was subsequently deleted as G13. Methinks they've now come back and just clicked the link on their user page. Primefac (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Yeah, those G13s ... they getcha. Steel1943 (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I undeleted a G13 yesterday (per WP:REFUND) that was in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/... I immediately moved it to Draftspace and added a note to the REFUND message giving the editor new location. I also left the redirect intact, but now I'm wondering whether we should perhaps "expire" such redirects at some point? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it an option to manually review articles that are submitted for review (via AFC)? I have heard it mentioned before. If so, is it welcomed by designated reviewers and higher ups (ie admins)? I want to help lower the size of the queue if at all possible. I would apply for the reviewer rights/group however I have not been here for the 90 days (I have been here for 1 month and 27 days) required to apply, but do have the edit count. If you aren't sure, could you maybe tag someone who could answer? Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, there's nothing saying that non-AFCH users can't review pages, but we're quickly getting to the point where only those users can review pages. AFC is being merged into WP:NPR, so while I applaud your enthusiasm, I must encourage you to wait a bit until you meet the requirements to use the tools. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: thank you for the response and I shall do so. I was just hoping to help cut down the queue in the mean time. Do you know when it will be fully merged? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not, as I am not running point on that. Others who know more do watch this page, but they might not have seen this thread yet. Primefac (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Does the new page reviewer user group/right have access to the reviewing tools at this point or? I am asking as I am wondering what to apply under once I do meet the requirements. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who makes it into NPR will also meet the specifications for joining the AFCH helper list. Primefac (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: So anyone who makes NPR would just add their names to the list? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Primefac (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about combining AfC reviewers into the new page reviewer user right. Your comments and opinions would be welcome. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly combining. The proposal is that AfC reviewers will have to apply for NPP rights to be able to continue reviewing at AfC. NPP reviewers will not need to apply for AfC approval. StarryGrandma (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template to add an information label to AfC and non-AfC drafts. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

When viewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions, the tables displaying the number of entries in each category by date stretches beyond the normal page width. Is there a better way to display this information, perhaps vertically? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Another Believer, I've modified the table so it's split onto two rows. That should fix the issue. Not sure how I like the display, but it's not going over the pagewidth. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, looks a little choppy being split up, I suppose, but better than before, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm not a big editor in en.wikipedia, and I was discovering the Afc and testing it during the translation of a French article created by me this month during my working time on a Belgian NGO as "paid editor". Now I realise than lot of articles are pending for review in Afc process and I'm thinking than the Afc process is not a experienced editor like me ? Is there some one who can share his opinion on this point ? Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{(French native speaker)} 13:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lionel. For most registered users, submitting drafts through Articles for Creation is not mandatory. Unless you are the subject of some administrative restrictions, you are free to introduce new articles directly into Main space without submitting them for review. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You are also welcome to use the Draft space or your sandbox as a holding cell for your pages until they're ready. Draft articles aren't patrolled in the same way Articles are, giving you time to make your edits. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replies Primefac and NewYorkActuary. In this case, I'm gone move the article to the encyclopedic part. All the best, Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{(French native speaker)} 13:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What is supposed to happen to pages Which aren't in English, if they aren't submitted? Are they treated just like other drafts? Siuenti (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

In a word, yes. It might be beneficial to contact the creator and see if they plan on translating it. If they have no intention of doing so, then MFD it. Primefac (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I've imported the script for the redirect helper, but it doesn't seem to be working. What do I have to do to get it to work? Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 03:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind it seems I was looking for something at the top of the page and not down where the requests were. The helper is working after all. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 14:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

When is the next drive scheduled? There hasn't been one for a while L3X1 (distant write) 04:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably sometime after the 32nd of Never. The history of backlog drives is not a good one, they tend to cause more trouble than they are worth and have consequently been discontinued. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

A proposal that would create a new draft classifier template and extend G13 to non-articles for creation drafts is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template. Interested editors are welcome. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Godsy: Thanks for the link! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about updating the colours in {{AFC status}}. Your thoughts are appreciated. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears that almost all of the submissions are in category P. Is it supposed to be that way? The garmine ^(talk) 19:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The garmine, link? Primefac (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: I believe they're talking about Category:Pending AfC submissions. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 00:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll check the code and see what's cooking. Primefac (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This is how it's supposed to work, see the header at the top of the category. The letter it's under is based on its status. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And for those of you who want to know why... The P is for Pending, and they're sorted by timestamp. This is how the various cats know which page is in which day. Primefac (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

okay then Primefac, that awnswers my question. The garmine ^(talk) 13:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the correct section, but just wanted to give anyone who will see this and can't find the thread where I saw that the BBC was promoting editing Wikipedia but I just discovered that University of Victoria library staff have been encouraged to edit Wikipedia and so there may be an influx of pages created from that. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: It is happening today by the looks of it and I posted a link back to here on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems strange how it was not protected till now. It was used today by multiple users (1 IP, 2 registered) to try and submit their drafts I believe. Anyways, I have requested indefinite protection and rolled it back to the clean version of the redirect for now. If any admin is seeing this and its not been protected till now, here is the request - Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Wikipedia:AFC
Pinging MarnetteD who had reverted similar edits before.
Yashovardhan (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Protection was declined, by the way. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Ya, I just saw. I don't understand why though. It's an established shortcut to an established Wiki Project. It should have protection to prevent just anyone fromremoving the redirect. I just don't want new users being referred to afc to see someone's misplaced draft. (Even I use the shortcut sometimes to reach here). Maybe NeilN could explain better. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Page protection is for pages experiencing large volumes of vandalism. A user occasionally misplacing a draft on a redirect doesn't qualify for either case. Primefac (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania and Primefac: Well, mostly because I'm an idiot who looked at the target instead of the redirect. Fixed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Heh, that would do it. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NeilN: Uh, nevermind! Got me scratching for sometime. I should have mentioned I am asking for the redirect to be protected! Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.

Please join and participate.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

As I write this the 18, 19 and 20 days categories are empty. This gives us a "buffer" of at least 48 hours that we can concentrate on clearing out the 3 weeks, 4 weeks and very old categories. Doing so will put the AFC project back onto a "normal" timeline. Please help get this done. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Y sounds good! ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 17:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

As a number-crunching thing, if each semi-active reviewer reviews one page in the 3/4 week category per day, we'll clear out both cats by the time 17 turns into 3wk. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

3 weeks ago submissions 4 weeks ago submissions Very old submissions (clear!)

ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 18:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ProgrammingGeek those go to my bookmarks. Already working on those... Yashovardhan (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see why these build up. I've spent a fair amount of time on two: 1) moving a logo from commons to here and labeling it fair use, and 2) time spent understanding the topic, removing original research, finding sources, and rewriting to make it survivable. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, everyone:

I made a small script that adds a link to a random AFC submission in the sidebar navigation pane. If you want to add it, it's at User:ProgrammingGeek/afc-sidebar.js.

ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 17:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@ProgrammingGeek: Thank you so much for posting this! I always have issues finding the 'find a random AFC submission' button (I was actually looking for it when I came across this). Thanks again! Made my day and saved me a lot of time :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: @ProgrammingGeek: Umm....how do I install it? LOL --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: good point.

I've also made some scripts for easy access to Template:AFC statistics and other links. More at User:KGirlTrucker81/AFCStatisticsLink and User:KGirlTrucker81/AFCCATULink. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if AfC reviewers check, among other things, the images being used in drafts and userspace drafts they review. I've come across quite a number of declined AfC submissions which contain non-free images, which is something not allowed per WP:NFCC#9. Pretty much any non-free image being used in the draft namespace or the user namespace can be assumed to be in violation of WP:NFCCP, and is subject to removal. Of course, this can be done by those checking on non-free image use, but an AfC reviewer can also do it. Some editors upload images files for their drafts when it would actually be better for them to wait unitl after the draft has been moved to the aritcle mainspace because of WP:F5. Maybe information about this could be added to WP:AFCR so that reviewers are aware of the issue? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: that's a really good point you raised. I personally don't check much for non free images here. Actually, tbh, i never thought about it much especially since it's not mentioned at the reviewing instructions. I agree that this should be a mandatory check and should be added to the rules. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. A lot of the reviewers who are also on IRC mention it when users come into ask for help on their drafts. It's a good thing to keep an eye out for (as well as text copyright violations), so the notice here is appreciated! Primefac (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

"Check for non-free images" could easily be added to the reviewing instructions/workflow as part of the copyvio check stage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Roger. Now only if we could actually get some AFC reviewers to do a text copyvio search.... Primefac (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 31/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Articles for creation.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Articles for creation, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, I cobbled together Template:Afc move yesterday for use on user pages when a submission is moved from user to draft space. Anyone welcome to use and/or improve if they find it helpful. TimothyJosephWood 14:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is this really necessary? I hardly ever see issues with moves, mostly because the sandbox is left as a redirect. I'm not against this template, just wondering about its usefulness. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, initially I was moving without leaving XNRs just to have less clutter around, and avoid a double redirect through three name spaces if the draft was ever accepted. Now I'm trying out not leaving a redirect, and manually redirecting only if they "don't get it" and recreate the article in user space. But I may have to switch to completely leaving the automatic redirect always, which probably means this isn't that terribly useful, yes. But the intention is also a bit of "nudge nudge, next time create it as a draft" type thing. TimothyJosephWood 14:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Just a note in case it's useful, but if we're routinely not suppressing the redirect if we move a submission from user to draft space, we may want to consider that a lot of new users likely don't know how to reclaim their sandbox once it's been redirected, and even less know how to create subpages within their user space. TimothyJosephWood 18:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  I believe the choice to leave the redirect was made because people were wondering where their drafts had disappeared off to (despite talk page messages telling them where). It's more likely that people would want to keep working on their existing drafts rather than reclaim their sandboxes (although I agree that people would want to do that as well). Enterprisey (talk!) 01:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I have been using the AFC process to write draft articles. Whenever a draft is rejected, I have been repeatedly invited to the Teahouse. I removed the invitations over and over because I'm not a new editor. I've edited since 2005. I wonder whether a script can detect those who have been experienced editors for the time being. --George Ho (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

George Ho, in the AFC Helper script is a button to "invite user to Teahouse (if they haven't already been invited)". That box is (unfortunately) pre-ticked, and while I always remove the checkmark there are obviously users who don't. I believe Enterprisey is currently the one maintaining the script, so it might be worth looping them in on this. Maybe all that needs doing is not checking the box as the default. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The script unfortunately assumes that it's dealing with new users who don't (know how to) delete the invitations. It wouldn't be that hard to put in another tenure check or something. Suggestions, George Ho or Primefac? I'm thinking 5K edits or 2 years (as in if a user meets at least one of those, no invite gets sent). Enterprisey (talk!) 23:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work. Primefac (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Whatever works for me. However, can the tool detect contributions to mainspace pages? The tool shouldn't count edits to other namespaces, should it? George Ho (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Or, how about just checking for "extended confirmed" status (I assume it's easier to check status than to count edits or measure tenure). By the way, am I correct in assuming that the script routinely checks for the presence of a Teahouse invitation before adding a new one (so that it never actually adds a second invitation to the user's Talk page)? NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but clearly if someone removes the notice, it won't see it. Primefac (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I had my ECP status relinquished (for my own reasons). It won't mind it detecting ECP status if no one else minds it. --George Ho (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC); struck. 03:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, being an ECP user is too subjective, so rather not do that. --George Ho (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It checks for a notice, yeah. (Specifically, it checks for the category Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation.) George (or anyone else who wants to get rid of the notices), I guess you could put that on your user talk page as a kludgy temporary fix. Checking for extended confirmed users sounds alright, but I don't think we should use it as a proxy for an "experienced user" group. Edit-count checking is pretty fast, so I'll just uncheck the checkbox and add a note in that case. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Added category in my user page. --George Ho (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

While it pains me to suggest it, do you think it's about time to update the time on the AfC Submission template to be more accurate? We have some helpees trickling into IRC with sometimes unreasonable expectations. At the very least to say "2-3 weeks, or perhaps longer"? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk

I added a proposal for modified timeframes at Template:AFC submission/pending/sandbox. If no one has any issues I'll implement them. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 00:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just changed the numbers in the template. Should be showing more accurate values now. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The details of an actress of Indian Movie. (Jangal Ka Bata)= Asha Irani ^[1] (Jangal Ka Bata)= 37.34.129.18 (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I propose that the posting of discussion comments, including review comments and results, on the actual draft page, shall stop, in favour of using the corresponding discussion page.

Looking at: Draft:Fig_Tree_Hall,_University_of_New_South_Wales, there is an actual discussion, but contrary to all Wikipedia norms, it is being held in reverse order, going upwards, on top of the article. It is unintuitive, and needlessly dissimilar to normal content discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support if changes could be made to the AFCH to post comments, decline/approve messages etc. On the talk page. The problem starts when the author tries to reply back to the reviewer right there. It'll slightly increase the work as one would need to check the talk page as well (I prefer to check the previous comments). It also causes a nuisance when accepting heavily commented drafts as some discussion cannot be cleaned by the AFCH and one needs to remove it personally. It'll also encourage dialogue and eliminate the need of authors contacting reviewers at their talk page. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Changed to oppose below. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This has been suggested and shot down many times in the past. While it's true that the comment threads can get a little convoluted, not all new editors know about the talk page. This sort of thing really doesn't happen that often, and it's not the end of the world to spend an extra three minutes (as I did with Fig Tree) cleaning it up. In hindsight, I probably should have threaded the actual conversation inside the {{AFC comment}}, which I might actually go do... Primefac (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Oppose. With respect to discussions that take place on the draft, my opposition is based on the notion of "it ain't broke, don't fix it". As things stand, it is very easy to simply move a discussion to the draft's Talk page and then leave a comment/message on the draft alerting other reviewers to the existence/location of that discussion (it also helps to ping the draft's creator who often, believe it or not, will have trouble finding the Talk page). I do these moves rather frequently, so much so that I use a standard name for the Talk-page section header -- "Discussion during review at Articles for Creation". As for moving all reviewer comments, here too I don't see a problem that needs to be fixed. But the proposed change would also have negative consequences. When I see that a reviewer left a comment suggesting a need to do something, I routinely go to the page history and start walking through the revisions that took place after that comment was left. Doing so tells me precisely what the draft's creator did to address that comment. This is an easy thing to do when the comments are part of the draft's page history, but not so easy to do when the comments are being left on another page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Comments should remain where they currently are. If it gets to a point on any given draft that a lengthier discussion needs to be had, notify the creator and move it to the talk page. It makes it easier to see what past reviewers have said in one window rather than having to flip between two. I think for most drafts the comments don't generally extend past one sentence and maybe 4-5 reviewers at max. This proposal would make it more difficult 98% of the time and focuses too much on that minute percentage where comments can overtake the draft. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments made above. Though I'd suggest letting the creator know how to add a comment as well. Maybe, the waiting for review box should display instructions of using the afc comment template but warning them gently to use it only sparingly. I'd rather have them fill my talk page than having to check two pages while reviewing. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above. Review comments (with very few exceptions) do not need to be part of the "permanent record" of the article talk page. Advising the originating author about the mechanics of referencing, for example, is not relevant discussion about the article as such, which is the express purpose of article talk pages. Most review commentary is meant to be ephemeral, it has no value or relevance after the article has been accepted into mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You guys appear oblivious to being very much stuck in your rut.

• • User:Primefac. All useful threads become convoluted, and useless threads are not the measure of success. "Not all new editors know about the talk page"!? Arghhh. Ever heard of WP:ACTRIAL? The root of the problem with newcomers and junk creations drowning out the rare good things is their zero effort to learn something before creating the article. An editor who doesn't know about Wikipedia talk pages? Is there any realistic chance that such an editor will contribute usefully in any way? They desperately need to learn about talk pages, as soon as possible. It is not hard to learn about talk pages, every page has a talk page and the link is in the same place. Sure, reduce newcomer barriers, but knowledge of talk pages is both rudimentary and essential to being an editor.

> "threaded the actual conversation inside the {{AFC comment}}"
That template-enclosed conversation can be on the talk page, and transcluded to the top of the draft. The template can include an edit link, but it would be better to have instructions to go to the talk page to continue conversations.

• • User:NewYorkActuary, "it ain't broke, don't fix it" !?!? AfC is seriously broke, how can you not know. The newcomers don't get what is going on. AfC processes are not human-friendly, it is obvious and the consequences are obvious. It is why newcomers usually don't talk, and either keep butting their head against the wall or just leave never to return. The AfC stuff at the top of the page is not the place or way that any normal human would communicate two-way. It is the way a teacher marks and gives feedback to a student, but it is not the forum for discourse.
    The fact that you frequently move the discussions demonstrates that you understand that the natural place for the discussions is the talk page. Given that you notion is false, does this mean you agree? Not move old comments, but moving forward: make the comments, invite the correspondence about improving the page, on the talk page.

• • User:Dodger67, all useful comments on successful drafts need to be recorded. They form part of the attribution history. They can be archived if no longer relevant, which is a natural function of talk pages. Advising on the mechanics of referencing, if it is advising on improving the page, belongs on the talk page. Talk pages are for discussions about improving the page. If it is about improving the skills or knowledge of the editor, the comments go on the editors user_talk page. Discussions do not belong on article pages.

• • Editors here suggesting the checking of the talk page is too much work reflects the laziness of drive-by editors making junk creations. No wonder the broken system perpetuates. New editors should be {{welcome}}d. They should read the links in the welcome. They should discover how this place works, talk pages, project space policy pages, etc, and they should encounter people who represent Wikipedia. AfC reviewers working in a peculiar top-of-article, teacher-marking-style, should learn the more adult way to encourage learning. I have learned these things both from reviewing successful AfC works (the review comments deserve no credit the the success, failed AfC pages (endlessly repeated), and real life interactions with newcomers who encountered the broken AfC system, and just went away. Newcomers need to encounter humans, not web forms. The AfC templates make human reviewers appear to be webforms. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, for someone who has never been an AFC reviewer and hasn't even edited ten drafts, you certainly seem to have a lot of complaints about the "broken" process. I see every day users with a draft come into IRC and have no idea what a talk page is - not how to get to the reviewer's talk, not to the draft talk, nowhere. Hell some of them don't even know the URL of their draft. For your information, I have heard of ACTRIAL, and I would love it if it were implemented. I would also like it if some pig-headed AFC reviewers decided to actually follow best practices and make less work for me and other diligent reviewers to clean up all the time. But if wishes were horses...

Sure, putting comments at the top of the draft isn't the most ideal way of doing it. Sure, I'd love to have fewer conversations on my talk page that are identical to the comments that I've already left on the draft. However, your last paragraph explains all of the issues, both with AFC and with Wikipedia as a whole. New editors don't read the links in welcome messages, nor do they attempt to find out how it works, nor do anything except create a promotional page for their business or their best friend who makes music or any of a hundred other one-shot topics.

Don't get me wrong, there are users who do good work via the draft process, and I can guarantee that if you checked any one of our "lazy AFC reviewer" talk pages you'd see users who asked good questions, who started meaningful discussion, and eventually kicked out great articles. Unfortunately, they are few and far between, but if we can't stop vandals from adding "poop" to random articles, we sure as hell can't stop drive-by paid editors from trying to add their crappy little mom-and-pop stores.

I'm sure you see the same thing as an NPR (and I certainly do as an admin), with the endless stream of A7's being recreated and eventually salted. How is that any different from a draft being worked on and resubmitted a half-dozen times until it's MFD'd? At worst they're the same situation, and at best AFC is better because it keeps that crappy page out of the mainspace.

Is AFC "broken"? No. Could it use some improvements? Sure, like any aspect of Wikipedia. Should we replace it with ACTRIAL? Abso-freaking-lutely. But I have major issues when someone on a high horse tries to tell us that what we're doing is fundamentally flawed (or in your words AfC is seriously broke, how can you not know?), and wave around promises of how much better it will be if we do things differently. At that point that person isn't much better than a politician on the campaign trail. I am more than happy to start a dialogue regarding AFC, but not when someone comes barging in telling us we have to change or else we're wrong. In fairness, this actually started off as a reasonable question which could have opened the door for that dialogue; I'm a little disappointed it didn't happen that way. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

One little aspect of AfC that is a failure is its ability to engage newcomers in conversation. Templated reverse-order pedagogy at the top of the draft is the main problem there. Not expecting newcomers to learn about talk pages is associated with that. So easily fixed. Is this a fix-all? No. On everything else we are on the same page. I know that AfC failure (bigger picture) drives newcomers away, and I thing the flawed communications see us lose even the good ones. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Pedantism would be to use the talk page for no benefit. It will not engage newcomers, since newcomers will never see the talk page. If you want to engage the newcomers in discussions about the drafts they are writing, the comments should be going under the rejection notices, where they will see it, and not hidden away on the talk page, where they will never go to. Draft articles do not automatically become articles, and plenty of non-articlespace pages have discussions on the subject pages, most notably all the Village Pump pages, all the XfD pages. If the rationale for the rejection of an AfC submission is on the subject page, then the discussion would naturally occur there as well. All this commentary would be moved to the talk page when the draft is accepted as an article. If the draft is not accepted, there's one less page to delete when it stales-out. Drafts are not articles, we don't treat them as articles, so why treat it as an article in relation to discussion of rejections and non-acceptance concerns? It's not like it's indexed for all the world to see and read, since all DRAFT space pages are supposed to non-indexed and non-categorized. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Pedantism? Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines is pedantism? That guideline is probably our least read guideline, because it is natural, not pedantry.

Mere posting on a talk page is not sufficient to engage newcomers. Talking to them like adults is how to engage them. That means talking to them in a place where they are invited to talk back. Some newcomers do respond in the draft page template, but I have yet to see it resemble a conversation between adults.

Newcomers who will never see a talk page, and who have already done so badly that their submission is not acceptable, are not the target audience for AfC.

"If you want to engage the newcomers in discussions about the drafts they are writing, the comments should be going under the rejection notices". No, the rejection notice should include a link to the explanation, on the talk page. It is normal, expected, throughout mainspace, that article-top notices include a link to the place to discuss. Surely newcomers are expected to have seen some mainspace pages before. If yes, why not have drafts work the same? If no, why not have drafts work like the articles like they are trying to write?

"not hidden away on the talk page" the provision in the template of a link to the discussion place makes it "not hidden away".

"Draft articles do not automatically become articles" Every accepted draft article could have been written directly into mainspace, as was done always in the early days, is still frequently done now, and I would recommend every prospective writer do now, if they are capable of writing an article.

"If the rationale for the rejection of an AfC submission is on the subject page, then the discussion would naturally occur there as well". It is never natural to have a discussion in the document-proper. When writing multi-author documents elsewhere, such as using track changes and comments in Microsoft Word, or sticky notes in a PDF, it is possible to ask and answer questions in that format, but it is never a suitable format for a conversation. Conversation, discourse, education and learning, it requires the space, the free space of the talk page.

"All this commentary would be moved to the talk page when the draft is accepted as an article" In other words, if it is worth anything, it gets moved to the proper place? Practice should not be oriented to serve the worthless stuff.

"If the draft is not accepted, there's one less page to delete when it stales-out" WP:CSD#G8 deletions are normal, effortless and no burden.

"Drafts are not articles, we don't treat them as articles". A central point. And their authors are not treated like humans writing articles. No wonder the success rate is pathetic.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi SmokeyJoe, please do join us in reviewing Drafts, we could use the help. Thanks! Waggie (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm making some efforts to get into NPP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support - It would be useful for mainspace editors to be able to refer to AFC comments. An alternative to conducting these conversations from the get-go on the talk page would be to have the AfC helper script move the comments there upon acceptance. Nobody moves them there manually on acceptance and they're difficult to retrieve once an article is accepted.

If I remember correctly, ability to use talk pages for these development conversations was one of the reasons use to create the Draft: namespace.

With regards to new editors being unaware of talk pages, they're going to have to learn sometime and it might as well be early on in the supposedly friendly environment of AfC. If this proposal were accepted, we could, of course, put a banner with a link to the talk page at the top of a submission to notify the author of these comments. The notification message posted to author talk pages when a reviewer adds a comment would also contain a wikilink to the talk page with the comments. ~Kvng (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Given some of the recent drama over reviewers not checking for copy vios, I was kinda surprised that the Earwig copy vio tool wasn't on the "reviewers tools" for the AFC Submission template. Any reason we shouldn't add this? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The quick-fail criteria currently has a link to the copyvios tool, but it should probably also have a link to User:The Earwig/copyvios.js so that reviewers can add the script to their account. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That script would be super useful in my userspace efforts. Where exactly do I place it? Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Place it at User:<your username>/common.js by adding importScript( 'User:The Earwig/copyvios.js'); //<any comment here> - It adds a link of copyvio check on the left side tools menu. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It worked - thank-you so much! Legacypac (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Helpful tip. Thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, it would be handy to point to it there as well. I know people have their own "styles" for how they go about AfC'ing, as for me I use a lot of what's in the "reviewers tools" on the template, so that why I would also like it there. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104: I see you added it, thanks! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of this discussion...I added it once I realized it wasn't in there... – Train2104 (t • c) 23:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on WT:COI that may be of interest to folks here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I've started the page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning which I intend to link to WP:AfC in about the 3rd paragraph. Feel free to edit it or comment. The scams are still going on right now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Smallbones this is not new, see this discussion from 2015 - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/undefined 2. We have had warning notices about this type of scam on key AFC pages since then. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Dodger67 thanks for the link. Can you give me the links to the current warnings? I looked around earlier and couldn't find them. I think a warning like this should jump out to any newbies at AfC. So if there are any warnings, I doubt that they are working well now.

Probably the key thing to understand here is that the Orangemoody scams are continuing now. See e.g. on the open web - a solicitation using the exact wording used by Orangemoody back in 2015. I'm aware of another recent case as well. We've got to do better. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The header on the Help desk page has the warning, and it's also at the landing page where new editors are often directed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did see those but they strike me as not being nearly enough. For example, they don't say exactly that there is a scam going on, the readers have to guess, and they don't give a place to report the scamming except in the very open, very public help desk. That's just not going to work as a way to get reports or to stop the scam. A good notice will go a long way to stopping the scam. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do check the discussion at WT:COI, since there is not much discussion here. Also edits at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning are welcome. Since there is a scam going on there is some urgency here.

I'll likely put in a one-line link to the Scam warning page tomorrow on the landing page. Maybe something like:

Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting AfC participants. See the scam warning for detailed information.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Bhiduki is the biggest village in south HARYANA.It has 52 choupals in it. IN this village two jaat gotras are available TANWAR AND CHAUHAN.Satyadev is sarpanch of Bhiduki village. It has more than 20000 of population. Peoples of this village are depended on agriculture. SIDDH BABA's Temple is famous temple in it.

1. If you're trying to create an article, go here Wikipedia:Article wizard.
2. If you're trying to get help with your submission go here Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.

jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

After clearing over 1000 pages from the Ready for G13 list I started poking around other categories. Can we run a bot through this category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfC_submissions_declined_as_a_test to delete or maybe just blank all the pages? Justification CSD G2 test pages. As far as I can find there is nothing of value in there. Nearly all are sandboxes usually with only the AdC decline or maybe a scrap of text. I'm finding ones that are G13 ready there too but they are not coming up in that category. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Only pages that are pending review are actually part of the backlog, so this will have no effect except in a few cases it may prevent resubmission. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: When the G13 backlog gets large and contains lots of those test or blank submissions, ping me. I have an AWB script to allow me to quickly delete them in a semi-automated fashion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I met the criteria for becoming an Afc reviewer but even after i submit my name in the Afc reviewers section, add the Afc gadget and clear the cache it still doesn't show up. can someone please help me with it. Immu 01 11:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immu 01 (talk • contribs)

You can't use the tool because you are clearly too inexperienced (see your talk page) to be reviewing drafts. Furthermore, your edit warring to add your name to the reviewer list has now caused the list to be protected from being edited by anyone except admins, and you have been warned for disruptive editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In view of the above and the frequent inappropriate additions to the list, I have started a thread here asking for some feedback. Please join the discussion, which is not a RfC. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I meant Category:Competitors at the 2017 Maccabiah Games. Not 2013. Sorry. Made a mistake. --2604:2000:E016:A700:4484:D7B0:8756:2C26 (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Another sockfarm where User:Susana Hodge has been identified as a sockpuppet. All this account's reviews need to be checked for incorrect/unfair decisions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• I just resubmitted a page they declined so another reviewer can look at it. It was suggested they may be declining pages then offering to approve them for cash. Legacypac (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • So it's probably part of the scam discussed above. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

47.151.26.64 (talk · contribs) has submitted alot of vandalism redirects. Many have been accepted. There's no proof that the Cargo ship Cason is spelled a multitude of ways that have been submitted, or the novels Madeline. It seems s/he is taking names out of a name gazetteer or baby name book and submitting them as variant spelling redirects. While this works for name articles, name lists and disambiguation pages; this does not work when the target is a Christian Prayer, a city in Nigeria, or a particular pop star. The indiscriminate requests are currently at WP:AFC/R, some have been accepted in recent days (some may already be archived), and more have been submitted awaiting processing.

-- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I meet the criteria and would like to be added to the participants list. I cannot edit the page because it is protected. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 01:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Already done Primefac (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed cases where the same subject is getting pushed multiple times. I've watched submissions that I've declined speedily re-submitted. Sometimes this is done by the same editor, sometimes by another. I've also noticed where a draft has already been deleted once if not several times. I worry that our statistics create the impression that we're getting a flood of new drafts everyday when much of that flood is a handful of editors (possible SOCKFARMs) resubmitting the same content over and over again hoping to get lucky. Beyond the fact that WMF should (in my opinion) take legal action against these ne'er-do-wells, we might try to find out how often we get drafts (sometimes under different names) submitted more than once. If we had a mechanism to label potential bad-faith subjects and editors, we could isolate the actively dangerous submitters from the naive draft submitters. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

'Subject' gets resubmitted as 'Subject (dab)' and then 'Subject (dab b)' or First Middle Last and First Last names and often by different accounts. Since many of these are from different accounts, how to track? When a see a strange dab I try to move pages to the appropriate title which often uncovers another version of the Draft. Then redirect one to the other. Legacypac (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a precise example of why AfC and NPP sharing an enhanced Page Curation and Feed instead of remaining two separate processes would do a lot towards revealing issues like these. We'll know a lot more when we have the results of the upcoming trial which is designed specifically to isolate the actively dangerous creators from the naive article creators. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If you suspect puppetry, perhaps the good folks at WP:SPI should be alerted. ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Spent a few hours over the weekend and started resurrecting HasteurBot's G13 reminding process. This goes through the Category:AfC_submissions_by_date children and looks for pages that are

• at least 5 months completely unedited (not addressing bot changes or minor spelling changes)
• in Draft or old AFC namespaces
• have the AFC submision template on them

to remind the page author that their page is either currently eligible or about to become eligible for CSD:G13. This is done to help remind page creators about their works that they may have forgotten about but also to show good faith that we're not wanting to delete them, but we will if no improvement is made. There is a side task that will also notify users who opt in that a page they've edited in the past has hit the above criteria so "helpers" can try and fix the problem. The interested-notifications are done such that helper gets one change on their talk page listing all the pages that were notified on in the last 24 hours(example: ). If you want to opt in follow the instructions at User:HasteurBot/G13 OptIn Notifications.

In a few weeks I'll start tinkering with the G13 nominating process to make sure it's working correctly prior to the pages that have been notified on start being nominated for G13. The bot has an intentional 1 month delay between the reminder that the page is in danger of being nominated for G13 and when the page actually gets nominated for G13 by the bot. Nothing prevents a user from nominating the draft for G13 earlier than the bot if the draft meets the criteria. The bot simply takes the conservative route in terms of interpreting the CSD criterion and giving the draft creator as much time as possible before starting to nominate things. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hasteur, thank you very much for the work on this. In particular I like the resurrection of the one-month notice, if only because (as I've seen with CSD) often a tag will be placed and the page deleted before the creator sees the original notice. Also reduces the amount of time wasted by humans tagging G13-eligible pages. Primefac (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Since the page is protected, can someone add my to the participant list? I've been granted new page reviewer, and I'd like to use the script. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Looking at a snapshot of contributions so far I'm seeing a bunch of automated/gnoming edits that don't really seem to demonstrate the level of competence for reviewing AFC submissions. Hasteur (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to start reviewing, but when I go to an article, the tool thing says it won't work unless I'm added to this list... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 05:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh, that's funny. I am listed as 'inactive'. Well, I'm here now!)) ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

why is the daily mirror good for horse racing

Hello 2.26.126.223, and thanks for your question. You probably want to ask this question at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as I suspect that there is probably a good reason. Hasteur (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add me to the protected list of active editors on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants Meters (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. For what it's worth, the talk page of the Participants page is actually the place this sort of thing should go. Primefac (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that a number of "very old" submissions in the backlog are "old" in the sense that they were first submitted a long time ago, but are quite new in the sense that they had been resubmitted in the past few days. I don't claim to understand all the delicate coding in the submission templates, but it seems to boil down to not updating the ts= timestamp when resubmitting or taking the oldest value when multiple reviews are present or not updating the "by date" category once a submission has been enrolled in one. Is this pseudo-aging intentional? It makes the label on the category somewhat misleading. I would certainly like to be able to distinguish – at the categorical level – between never-before-reviewed submissions and submissions that have already been declined one or more times.

The overall impression given is that the huge and lengthy backlog is based on not enough reviewers. Without better visibility on resubmissions, the huge and lengthy backlog may be an illusion: what really happens is that new submissions are typically given an initial review within 48 hours, but articles whose fundamental issues are not being resolved get declined multiple times, exhausting the patience and good will of reviewers, and build up into what appears to be a lengthy backlog. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

jmcgnh, you're pretty much right on all fronts.

On average, we get about 150 submissions per day, but if you look at the "daily" categories there are rarely more than 20-30. This is because the vast majority can be "quick-failed", and the rest sit virtually untouched until they hit the back of the queue, where folks like myself prefer to prowl. Some are first-time submissions, others are repeat declines that no one wants to touch, but either way they languish.

As far as the "recently submitted very old drafts" goes, as near as I can tell users copy their old submission template instead of just using {{subst:submit}}, which as you say puts them directly into the wrong category. Most of the time I catch them purely by accident (e.g. "how was this draft submitted in April?!?!?") and I'm sure that there are a few in there that should really be in the one- or two- day categories.

As far as the backlog itself goes - yes, we could use more competent reviewers. Unfortunately there have been some... issues... lately, and the number of active reviewers has dropped somewhat. I'm actually starting a month-long holiday, so I will hopefully be clearing out "very old" over the next week or two. As with most things (and certainly seen at WP:NPR) there is a core group of folks who do the majority of the work, and if one or some of them take time off the backlog grows rather large rather quickly. NPR hasn't yet figured out how to motivate people, and neither have we. Always open for suggestions, though. Primefac (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've found/fixed all of the ones where someone decided to arbitrarily assign a date. Primefac (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm pretty new at AfC reviewing, but I think I'm getting the hang of it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It is great to see that you take the time to provide useful feedback when you decline, as you did here, jmcgnh. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I review old non-afc Drafts and userspace pages, submitting promising ones to AfC when I find them in hopes they will be either accepted or submission will result in improvements by the creator who other interested people. They go to the back of the list too. Legacypac (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, they shouldn't. If you submit it on 12 Aug, then use 12 Aug as the date. There's no reason to "skip the queue" simply because no one bothered to submit a draft a year ago. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of when you look at the queue by age say by the "very old" link. Legacypac (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. Misread your post. Shadowowl has been doing that, so it was fresh in my mind. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey all I'm back from about a year hiatus, so I'm sure there's much I've missed. My biggest concern is that my toolbars aren't showing up that I use in AfC. One being the AfC helper tool and the other one was the toolbar that's usually on the left side (I'm not sure if that was a part of the aforementioned AfC one, or seperate) that helps navigate pages waiting for review. I made sure the tool was checked in my preferences and cleared my cache. Any ideas? Sulfurboy (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You have been readded to active list and should be good to go. Legacypac (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I generally move drafts submitted in the sandbox to draftspace. Recently I moved an article to Draft:Wipeout Omega Collection from the userspace. The author informed me today, that many of the earlier revisions of the new draftspace article is irrelevant to the current article, as the sandbox was used by him as a test page for a long time, before he wiped it clean and started on the new article. So the new draftspace has many irrelevant revisions which he would like to be removed. The simplest solution will probably be to delete the older revisions, but if anybody has better solutions, please have it implemented on the article. Jupitus Smart 12:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: If the author is the only one who contributed to the page CSD:G7 Author requests deletion is appropriate. If more than the single author contributed, you can't delete the page because we need to preserve attribution history, in which case WP:HISTMERGE is appropriate. Not making any judgements on the page itself, Your mileage may vary. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that would be an appropriate use of revdel per WP:CRD, but you could ask an admin. It sounds like what you want is a history split. – Joe (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

why not just redirect the Draft to the mainspace version. Legacypac (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I forgot to check if the article was already on mainspace. Probably this is all that is required. Nope now that I checked again, the new article is about one of the iterations in the series, and when all the other iterations have articles, this one probably merits one as well. Jupitus Smart 15:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If WP:HISTSPLIT is what is to be done, could somebody who knows how to do it, do the honours. Even though I am a page mover myself, I haven't done this before. Jupitus Smart 15:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Jupitus Smart, I'll do a page split. As a minor note, generally when moving drafts from a user sandbox to the Draft space, it's a good idea to leave behind a redirect. Often new users will freak out if their hard work is "deleted", and leaving the redirect at least points them in somewhat the correct direction. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There's seems to be lot of eagerness lately to delete based on WP:PROMOTIONAL. Brian_Cain has a soiled history in this regard. But I assess this latest incarnation to be ready for acceptance. Vanamonde93, the administrator that WP:SALTed this topic does not agree. Any other opinions?

No reason to accept a stub that violates WP:PROMO. But it is much worse than that. Accepting this type of article opens up the project to charges of turning a blind eye to paid editing, and lowers the reputation of AfC in general. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing requires disclosure but is not prohibited. Anyways there is no evidence that Griff 27 is WP:PAID beyond the fact that this is (so far) a WP:SPA. I appreciate there is anger around WP:PROMO but I think WP:AGF and WP:BITE are quite important too. ~Kvng (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at it. I'm not going to accept it since it's SALT'ed but I think the subject stands better than 50/50 at AfD, unless Wikipedians are feeling vengeful. We get so many of these promotional articles that we end up deleting the article, SALT'ing the title, and taking the remaining draft to MfD. At some point we want to deny these subjects coverage even when they pass the bar for GNG. I've seen less-notable subjects survive AfD before, so it wouldn't be out of the realm to accept it. That said, this is poorly-written and poorly-sourced. If Brian Cain wants to hire me I could really clean this up, provide other sources, and publish something responsible. But when you know the subject is trying to promote their brand, it kills any altrustic desire to write an encyclopedia article. Show me the money! Chris Troutman (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello The criteria of 500 edits and 90 days old account, both are fulfilled by me and yet I am unable to get in the list of reviewers. Please tell me the procedure to add my name and work towards being valuable. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by KamalMahrshi (talk • contribs) 12:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Please make your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi...

It is nice to be in touch with you ... I would like to re publish my user page user/ykashgari...

and I would like to re publish my pre articles:

/Eng._Yasir_I._Kashgari
/Eng._Yasir_I._Kashgari,_Vision_of_Saudi_Arabia_2030

and Merci ... It is nice to receive your next email soon ...

Thankfully, _________________________________________ Eng. Yasir I. Kashgari

Yasir I. Kashgari  18:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykashgari (talk • contribs) 

Please follow the instructions that were given in the speedy-deletion notices on your Talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There are a few suggestions to improve article wizard at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard that may be of interest. Thanks. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 07:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• I will be embedding the changes today I've been working on for the last two weeks, as I said I would. I'll do this in the next couple of hours. Users can then feel free to copyedit, revert, or change. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Assuming it doesn't already exist, I feel it would be incredibly helpful if we had a list page where AfC editors who speak languages other than English could say so. A lot of the articles that I feel I cannot review at all are articles where the majority of the sources are in another language. It would be nice to be able to ping an AfC editor who is familiar with the language. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There are currently over 100 very old submissions pending. I spent 30 minutes reviewing random drafts in the backlog this morning and was able to accept 4, rejected 1. More fun than usual. ~Kvng (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Many of these seem to be articles that were moved to draft by new page reviewers; they're old because they're categorised by the date they were originally created. The ones I've looked at so far have been easy accepts. – Joe (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's rather annoying when they do that. The date of submission should be the date the {{subst:submit}} template is placed. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) started 14 September 2017 after an announcement at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#ACTRIAL beginning today. It means that registered users without autoconfirmed accounts can no longer create mainspace pages. Some pages like Wikipedia:Articles for creation may benefit from an update. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I just made toollabs:apersonbot/pending-subs, which shows a list of AfC submissions that you can filter. (Inspired by my struggles clicking "sort" on WP:AFC/S and waiting 5 minutes for it to filter.) It's a bit out of date now, because it parses {{AFC statistics}}, but it should have updated data as soon as Earwig wakes his bot up. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty cool Enterprisey thanks. Whispering 03:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Previously deleted draft has been nominated for deletion. Watchers of this page are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we change the guidance in our templates from three weeks to more like "several weeks". This is probably about the fourth or fifth time I've run into an editor who got finished, came back in 21 days, and then immediately thought something was wrong. I think we all pretty well know that three weeks is not a hard deadline. So we probably shouldn't be making it look like it is and confusing the newbies. GMG^talk 10:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll do you one better. The old system is based on arbitrary numbers determining how long it will take to review. I'll update I've updated the code to dynamically update based on how many pages are in the various categories. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Updated: Primefac (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Moved from WT:AFCP Primefac (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a note regarding cv-declines via AFCH. I've noticed recently editors like Chrissymad have been unchecking the "blank this draft" option when declining as cv/adding G12s, and for that I thank them. It is much faster to check the violation status of a draft when one doesn't have to find the previous revision and then scan. It also helps if it's not 100%-deletable (i.e. there's salvageable info) because it keeps the decline while allowing me to remove the offending comment.

So, if you're declining as cv in the future, please don't blank it. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Legacypac (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

What's the deal with editors submitting other users' draft articles for AfC? I whole bunch of times now (, , , ) another editor has submitted an article I have been putting together in draft space to go through AfC. Is this common practice? My impression was that draft space was for drafting articles, not specifically for putting articles through AfC, and I'm confused why my unfinished drafts keep getting tagged to go through this process. I've written enough articles to know when something is good enough to be moved over; if nothing else there's simply no need for AfC! If it's the case that editors think my drafts are good enough to go live, then I'd rather they just messaged me and asked. Sam Walton (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It's nothing personal, it's just how editors are dealing with the backlog of 6 month unedited stale drafts now subject to WP:G13. Sending good drafts to AfC is a way to prevent them from being deleted (at least for 6 months), and get a second set of eyes and feedback to the author and hopefully encourage the author or someone else checking AfC cats to get it ready for mainspace. You are welcome to edit out the AfC template if you don't want feedback or someone to improve and promote the page. Legacypac (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: See above, however a recent change to G13 now allows any page in Draft namespace to be nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds that it has not been edited in 6 months. Hasteur (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

As Legacypac illustrates, if you want to work on your drafts you need to do it in user space. Anything in draft space is fair game now because we're tracking a backlog. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:Chris troutman this edit summary deserves a comment. I've had about 3 times more editors thank me for bringing old pages to their attention than that have complained. The vast majority of the cleared pages are problematic or pointless abandoned garbage dumped in draft space. Suspected Copyvio, unreferenced BLPs, pure vandalism, SPAM, Attack pages etc. I tag the very worst with other CSD than G13 User:Legacypac/CSD_log but for the most part just don't bother with potentially arguing over another criteria when G13 is an assured delete. Legacypac (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: also going to take offense to sadly, many editors don't recognize the fact that writers want to be left alone to write rather than see their work interfered with. Your thesis fails on the very first point writers want to be left alone to write. If that were the case, the page wouldn't be hitting 6 months unedited, now would it? Hasteur (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur and Legacypac: I have 18 userspace subpages, some of them years old. I keep them there because it's content I intend to develop as more source material becomes available and I can write as I please. I feel a huge sense of ownership on my words, as any real writer would. Inactivity does not equate to disinterest. I haven't demeaned the efforts of Legacypac as they are dutifully working through the backlog. I am rankled at the callousness we treat other editors' work. I don't care how you treat the n00bz here to promote their band or some such. Those of us that have been contributing for years deserve (I think) a little more consideration. I acknowledged that draft space is not the place to store material long-term but can't we discuss these matters with our fellow editors before we muck around with their content? And before you feed me the "irrevocably agree to release your contribution" line in the Terms of Use, remember that shooting inside the tent isn't helping. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Active users have significant latitude in what they can store in Userspace. The RFC at WP:CSD talk was very clear that WP:G13 would be applied to all Draftspace. Was there anything else to discuss? Legacypac (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, thesis broken by the very first line. "I have 18 userspace subpages", and therefore they aren't under consideration in any form. Would you rather we delete the pages off directly with "impartial, no consideration" G13, or is submitting them to AFC so that they get at least one review indicating what's wrong the minimum we can offer? Hasteur (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur and Legacypac: Once more: Samwalton9 now knows that draft space is open to other editors. The mistake was his. I am bemoaning the bureaucratic attitude evinced here. Yes, you can G13 old drafts or submit them and I support that activity. What I'm pointing out is that when you see a draft from a longtime editor, perhaps instead of just pressing buttons as you're used to, you could drop that editor a line about it? All I'm looking for is that we extend a little professional courtesy; I'm not suggesting we change our business practices. But hey, if you want to take offense to me taking offense, fine. Please don't myopically support your chosen business practice at the expense of fellow editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Chris you appear to reject my process developed from my actual experience as invalid. Feel free to try it your way, and after a couple thousand pages processed let us know how it went. User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report/AfC and Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. Legacypac (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

While I understand both sides of this debate, I tend to agree with Chris. I'd much rather have drafts by veteran editors waiting in the shadows than stubs and poorly referenced starters in mainspace. I'm guilty of needing to be "inspired" to create, research and write so when the creative juices are flowing, I'll go straight to mainspace with a stub because they're actually less likely to be "disturbed" than in draft space. Isn't that backwards? Just curious...which is better - stubs in mainspace or draft space? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft space is a newer invention at Wikipedia. The founders idea was that one person starts, another expands, someone adds a ref and so on. Pages in mainspace get expanded and fixed by multiple authors. There is no such thing as "done" Legacypac (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do we have reviewer who can verify sources in Farsi? Because some article creators just bungle many sources which did'nt directly support claim or prefered one language than English to confuse reviewers. The drafts is at Draft:Mohammad-Saleh Komeyli. It is also said their is corresponding article in Farsi Wikipedia. If none, is there any suggestion on treating article with no single source in English? Thanks everybody. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been working on creating a lot of the various common name articles for the (mostly) fishes that been here for over a week, but then I noticed some requests for redirects to various Star Trek related pages. I'm not sure that they would pass through RfD so can someone else take a look at them and possibly create them if they are appropriate? Thanks, Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 03:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I share your concern. I too have reservation about that barrage of redirect requests (majority by IP users). It is obvious many will be deleted in the long run, or some will never be used to find an article. You'll see many requests left unattended because the IP user requested so many. I think there should be some sort of limit in this requests. These IP users just seem to enjoy the thing –Ammarpad (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I see David Lowe has been declined. Lously references certainly, but the first ref should have been enough, as it confirms he is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. Similar in scope and prestige to the Royal Society here in the UK. He should have passed and other refs added later. scope_creep (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Baffling. @Ammarpad: Nearly every single sentence is supported by an inline citation, how can you justify declining it based on inadequate references? – Joe (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: First, legion of inline citations in an article doesn't mean that article is well referenced as you wrongly assumed.

Second, a BLP policy unambiguously mandates exercising "extreme care" in dealing with BLPs solely sourced with primary sources. In that draft, all the 8 references are primary sources affiliated to him casting curiosity on the utter absence of any secondary sources that reported about him. It is "important" for you to know notability is a guideline while verifiability is a policy, and only with strong presence of independent sources can V policy be upheld. Note: I am only replying you as a courtesy as you've already unilaterally, resubmitted and moved the article to MS and then asking me here acerbically. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

They are not primary sources, they're just not-independent sources. Contrary to your assertion, WP:V barely mentions independent sources. They are required to show notability, but you'd already accepted that. In any case, policy or guideline, our !rules are supposed to be applied with common sense. Do you really think the website of a scholarly organisation, for example, is a bad source on who is a fellow of that organisation? Or that a university website would mislead us about the positions and publications of its employees? And going back to basics, do you really think that whatever your problem with the sources actually is, it makes this article unlikely to survive an AfD – which is the criteria we are supposed to apply as reviewers?

I 'unilaterally' accepted the draft (after you had 'unilaterally' declined it, I suppose?) because it is a perfectly good article that doesn't belong in draftspace. Sorry if you felt that was somehow an attack on you, rather than an attempt to improve the encyclopaedia and not alienate a new editor. I don't see how it makes me a "hothead", and if you think that accusing another editor of being "argumentative, cantankerous, or curmudgeonly" is assuming good faith, I really think you need to read through that guideline again. Amusingly, the second paragraph of WP:HOTHEAD even says that it shouldn't be used in the way you just have. – Joe (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I tagged that article as relying on primary sources because it does. I understand there might be a difference of opinion on what qualifies as primary versus secondary. As I read it, none of those sources perform secondary source analysis in the methods presented; none of them have significant separation from the subject. Yes, I would take the word of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia on who their members are but I understand where Ammarpad is coming from. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• The relevant criterion here is not GNG, but WP:PROF. -- and WP:PROF does not require third party sources at all, just reliable sources to show that the person meets the criteria. Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia is probably enough by itself. And the books are enough to show him an authority in his field. Using extreme care is indeed necessary with BLPs--showing these things is doing exactly that. PROF is an established alternative guideline that has withstood every challenge for ten years now. Reviewers may not like the guideline, but they must use the consensus view, and the consensus view, not their personal preference, is what they must explain to the user. But third party secondary sources are always desirable even when not strictly necessary,and a tag to that effect is I think appropriat ehere--in particular it needs references to reviews of his books. DGG ( talk ) 08:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm hardly an inclusionist but if this artist does not pass notability guidelines we need to change the guidelines. Draft:Glen_Loates Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Perhaps you should re-read the criteria. First, this draft generally lacks sources independent of the author. Places that sell or exhibit an artist's work are automatically suspect unless they verify that an artist's work is permanently on exhibit. Second, the subject also fails WP:ANYBIO. Notability isn't something you can just imagine; it would be inappropriate for you to insert your own belief about notability into work constrained by our collective consensus. The notability rules simply don't include an artist like this. If you think the sculptors like Augustus Saint-Gaudens that engrave numismatic designs ought to be notable, you're welcome to raise the issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It might look that way on the surface, especially if you just look through the refs in the reflist that have URLs that you can click on (none of which have significant coverage of the artist), but with multiple books on the author's work written by others (that aren't available online), I don't think we can possible conclude that there is not independent reliable coverage of the artist. Clearly notable per GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, indeed. I see Paul Duval's The Art of Glen Loates and Glen Loates: Birds of North America by James both from Cerberus Publishing Limited as well as Glen Loates: A Brush with Life from Abrams Books. I stupidly overlooked those. the article really doesn't make use of them. There might be a GNG case there. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The artist has been a notable Canadian wildlife painter for decades and I've got his $2 coin in my pocket. I don't consider info published by the Royal Canadian Mint to be "automatically suspect". Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment on non URL refs; I think the problem here is that a lot of AfC decliners want to see references that meet WP:42 that they can verify by clicking on (i.e. available online). Articles based on sources that aren't available online are a potential issue, because they have been used to propagate some of the longest running wikipedia hoax articles, so I don't blame users for being careful with them. However, checking for non URL refs on google books can sometimes show you whether they exist or not, even if they aren't available online, and we can't just ignore non URLed refs when deciding notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The books are listed, but they feature his art so are likely not useful for biographical info. I also discover his work featured in other books and check out the newspaper article where he is standing with Reagan that calls him "Canada's foremost wildlife artists" and additional books are listed in the text at that link. Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• This article would almost certainly be accepted at NPP (I would accept it there). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. But "The books are listed, but they feature his art so are likely not useful for biographical info. " is not reasonable--he is notable because of his art, and books about his art are exactly what is needed to show notability. (and they almost always do contain some bio information--tho sometimes it is not entirely independent of the author). DGG ( talk ) 09:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This page Draft:Malaya_Akulukjuk was rejected for lacking inline citations, but I see author's names and page numbers throughout. The creator left it - likely unsure how to proceed - so it is up for G13 which is not good. Legacypac (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

And here is another one. Draft:Robert_Kost_(Artist) represented in significant collections and lots of references showing notability. Legacypac (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for raising these matters. I have commented in the following section on the more general issue. No responsible administrator would delete these under G13 even if they were so tagged since they are not "most obvious cases" requiring deletion. Thincat (talk) 09:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I made some detailed comments on the article. draft. In addition to other problems, it reads like copyvio of a term paper, Thincat, I regret to say there are admins who delete every G13-nominated article regardless of merit, just looking at the date stamp-- and not from carelessness, but because they believe this right. I don;t really understand why they want to operate like a machine. DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It's probably because they passed RfA on a "good vandal fighter, lots of barnstars for reverting vandalism" ticket; admins who do that tend to lack essential critical thinking skills (though hopefully more through WP:COMPETENCE than actual mental incapability), and you only need one with an itchy G13 finger. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I was deliberately restricting the scope of my remark when I referred to "responsible administrators". I know of two utterly irresponsible administrators for speedy deletions but it seems there may be more. For most of us it is almost impossible to check. Thincat (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Is the advice at Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers#From sandbox to mainspace still current? I would have expected it to promote the Articles for Creation process. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ideally it should say to submit the sandbox for review, but I don't know if removing the entire "move" section would require an RFC or local consensus. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to know if I am capable of being an AfC reviewer. I've recently got a notification on the AfC Script saying I'm apparently not "listed". Thanks! Xyaena 19:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Xyaena, if you want to apply to be a reviewer, please add your name to the list at WT:AFCP. Please make sure you meet the criteria listed at WP:AFCP. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello all, I have thought about joining AFC. I was wondering if I could be helpful in the wiki project. While most (500 some) of my edits were done 10.25.2017 (c) and mainly anti-vandalisim, I still think I could be a productive reviewer on AFC. Thanks again. Cocohead781 (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Cocohead781, if you want to apply to be a reviewer, please add your name to the list at WT:AFCP. Please make sure you meet the criteria listed at WP:AFCP. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes I notice that people put both the not for review template and the pending review template like in this case. Which template takes presence? I declined it, because I saw the for review template and the page had no sources, hopefully I made the right move here. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 00:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Sakura Cartelet, the {{AFC submission/draft}} template (grey box) generally sits a the top of the page, and when you click "submit" you place the {{subst:submit}} at the bottom. Normally the /draft version comments itself out, but not always.

In other words, if AFCH thinks it can be reviewed, it can be reviewed. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I was pinged but the discussion was closed before I got a chance to comment. I've some random (very random) musings about this to add.
There's a fine line to walk between declining an article for layout issues and declining an article because it has more significant issues such as tone, it reads like an advertisement, is a direct copyright violation or is heavily paraphrased.
I'm not so sure I agree that accepting badly written articles without trying to work with the author to improve the layout/appearance is such a good idea. The vast majority of new editors I speak to in the IRC help channel want to write good content, they want it to have the same layout as existing articles and want to get things right. How often do we see people replicate infoboxes using complex HTML syntax, for example. There's quite often a lot of dedication to trying to do things right.
I would be interested to know how many of the really badly written but otherwise acceptable articles which are accepted through AfC are being brought up to an acceptable standard by the WikiGnomes, and if so, how long it's taking. I would suggest we try to measure this over a three month period by assessing how many new AfC articles get copyedit tags, have tone or advertisement tags added, or indeed, how many have notability tags added, and then measure how long it takes for those tags to be removed.
There's the potential here to try and help new editors write better content by understanding more clearly the issues they introduce and help them avoid making edits which introduce these issues. I say this quite a lot these days about various aspects of Wikipedia, but we're always approaching the issue as experienced editors who know from memory how to add infoboxes, format references and the like, whilst not always being at all helpful at explaining (or understanding) the issues new editors encounter. I really don't think it is helpful to take a badly written page from a new user and hand it off to someone else to improve, we should be doing much more to help users fix their own pages, rather than doing it for them. I think that would be good from an editor retention viewpoint (though I do accept that's a less practical proposition when someone is writing one article about their employer or a client).
It may also be possible to better structure the improvement of newly accepted but poorly written content in a more streamlined process by providing better maintenance categorisation so our WikiGnomes can more easily find content they may want to improve and which suits their areas of expertise. I do think, for anything we improve without the involvement of the new users, it would be nice to generate some sort of easy to understand report which could go on their talk page with a basic overview of the fixes undertaken. I wonder if a bot could auto-generate such a report after maintenance tags are removed. Nick (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

At MfD, I note a continuing problem with reviewers making review comments, when declining submissions, referring to inline citations. I think this is probably almost always no-productive to counter-productive. Inline citations are not required for a start class article, so I don't think it appropriate to frequently ask for it. They are only required for content

I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions#General_standards_and_invalid_reasons_for_declining_a_submission contains appropriate advice that some reviewers are not following.

I think that for difficult cases, where the topic is unsuitable but it is hard to explain, the reviewer is tempted to start speaking to citations. The problem is that no addition of inline citations can help a draft of an unsuitable topic. It can be hard to give an objective statement as to why a draft will never be suitable, but “inline citation” is definitely not close to a meaningful explanation.

A solution i think is like my suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_60#Paid_editing.2C_Advertorials.2C_and_Reference_bombing. Ask the author to state which 2 or 3 sources best meet our inclusion criteria of reliable third party secondary source coverage directly discussing the topic. “More sources”, inline or not, do not help and just make it harder to review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The only issue I have with your comment (and the guideline) is that per WP:BLPSOURCES there must be inline citations in a BLP article. For companies, parks, cars, electronics? You're right, refs alone are fine. Really the "ilc" decline notice should only be used for BLP drafts. Primefac (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I declined a draft earlier today for exactly that reason. The draft itself is a promotional effort, which had been full of COPYVIO material. There's no claim of notability but I was happy to decline for something like WP:IC instead of just refusing for notability reasons. The era of "general references" is over, anyway. I'm not approving a draft in that state. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, inline sources are for AfC demanded for BLPs. That's fine, although I note in passing that an new article with sources that aren't inline will not be deleted or draftified at AfD, but fixed, and so AfC is reviewing to a higher standard. I think, Chris Troutman, it is completely unhelpful to decline per WP:IC something that should be declined for serious reasons, like copyvio, promotion, and woefully-failing notability. Mentioning IC seems to cause the authors to reference bomb their draft with more worse sources, and leads to what is called "tendentious resubmissions", I think I observe. Draft:Ferenc Moldoványi may be a BLP, but attending to inline sourcing is not what the author needs to be told. Can you comment on my suggestion that the author should be asked to nominate 2-3 sources that he submits best meet WP:42 (or any of the many sourcing/notability tests)? I think it will stop the author from wasting his own time, and it will make it so much easier to review the draft topic's notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Draft:Winners Chapel Munich is the draft at MfD that got me inspired to post here. Not a BLP. Not close to being acceptable, but ilc was consistently used in rejecting comments, and ilc completely fails to convey the required message. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree we should not be requiring inline citations of brand new users, except for BLPs and extraordinary claims. Draft:Winners Chapel Munich has been correctly rejected for notability several times. Some of the rejections are for insufficient sources, which is another way to get at notability. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Taking the first example in the section immediately above shows a continuing very poor standard of AFC reviewing. The thoroughly (but imperfectly) referenced Draft:Malaya Akulukjuk was commented on saying that the inline references should be in the form of footnotes. The advice to consult the Teahouse was well meant but inadequate. The submission was later declined as "a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements" again requiring footnotes and suggesting wrongly that there were no inline references. Why are BLP requirements applied to a biography for someone with a claimed death of 1995? The second example Draft:Robert Kost (Artist) was again being wrongly treated as a BLP. Hope is now being raised for this draft but in this case also the page's creator has departed these shores long ago. In both cases the standard of reviewing has been shamefully low. On another matter raised earlier in this section, some editors have standards for article inclusion that are stricter than those of the hoi polloi. From XFD and DRV discussions they are well aware of consensus against them. Their judgement may be right and the rest of us may be wrong. However they should realise that they should not be taking unilateral AFC decisions – nor should they be allowed participation. Thincat (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Thincat: Yes, I agree with your comments in general. With particular focus on "[the page] creator has departed these shores long ago" I would be wary before assuming that two bad reviews are what caused the page creator to stop editing. I often find when reviewing old pages that the talk page notification of "your draft has been declined because of XYZ" tends to cause said page creator to come back and improve the article, particularly when they have email notifications switched on- otherwise with the backlog and wait at present no reasonable page creator could be expected to wait that long. Additionally another thing I have seen recently is G12 notifications alerting the page creator to come back and have another stab at improving their draft. We are reasonably active at removing poor reviewers with a few recent examples in particular; in other cases you'll often see that someone has left a quiet word of advice for the reviewer in the question on their talk page. Currently, a resubmitted draft tends to be reviewed by a new, different reviewer so I'd like to think that cancels out any prior poor reviewing; I know that I've accepted pages previously declined for I think were spurious reasons. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• The need for inline references only applies to BLPs and to controversial or disputed information. It should not be used in other cases. And in any case, it is very rarely the key problem which is more likely to be lack of sufficient substantial reliable sources for notability (very often accompanied by promotionalsm). The purppse of AfC review is to prevent articles from being entered that will inevitable fail AFD. Its easy to move references inline, if that's the only problem, and it can be done in mainspace--articles do not generally get deleted at AfD for this problem. Not having references to show notability is something much more fundamental. It's important to give the right assistance to newcomers.

The only way to give the right assistance is to not limit oneself to the prebuilt templates. I almost always use custom and explain what the specific problem is. Sometimes I will use a general template and to indicate what the special problem is--the problem here is thatthe additional remarks do not show up on the user's talk page, so if I think there's a real chance of improvement, or a need to stop the user from fruitless resubmission I will modify the information that the template has placed on the talk page. I'll only use a general template by itself if the problem is so clear & the draft so hopeless that they say enough--which is about 1/3 of the time/ DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Thincat if you don’t already have the AfC tools you should get them and use them. Check out the 800+ pages in declined for lacking inline citations/footnotes Legacypac (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I would soon suffer the ignominy of being removed as a reviewer! I know that some articles must have inline citations but I believe that footnotes are never required. My understanding is too aberrant to be an AFC reviewer. More seriously, years ago pre-AFC when I was allowed to patrol new pages, I was disheartened by the amount of dross but when I came to a worthwhile article I was taking longer to check it out than to write something from scratch. Thincat (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you do know that footnotes are never required-- any method of referencing is ok for all purposes, (though for blps the it must be able to show specifically where each individual matter is referenced. I think the templates aay "footnotes" just as shorthand, because its by far the most common method. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I was looking through the AfC submissions declined as needing footnotes and spotted a few of my own declines there - I use that reason sparingly and on some occasions perhaps wrongly, so this discussion has been useful. I looked at Draft:Edith Kraft as an example - in this case, there are a bunch of claims made about the living person that are not supported by the one reference, so it looks like the author was relying on their own personal knowledge of them. I was hoping that there were indeed other sources that could be used which would solve both the issue of a single source and also the places where citations were clearly needed. I struggled to find such sources when I Googled. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Lee F. Jackson has been declined for not having inline citations, but in the comments, Caorongjin gives additional reasons - notability, and the article being too short. This is a four times elected Dallas County Judge who served 10 yeas in the Texas House of Representatives, and spent 15 years as chancellor of the North Texas university system. There are articles in four major newspapers cited, so I don't see a notability issue. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer, it is fair enough that I was too quick to label it as not a notable subject – happy to be corrected on this point. The main reason for my declining it was for its absence of inline citations. This was true – it had a list of general references but no inline citations. This seems to be Primefac's point above, that "per WP:BLPSOURCES there must be inline citations in a BLP article." It would be worth clarifying if this is true. Is it that BLP must have inline citations, or BLP must have inline citations if it refers to "contentious material about living persons" (per WP:BLPSOURCES). Caorongjin (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Per related discussion above and both WP:AFCR and WP:PROF guidelines; can we lose this draft Draft:Ahmad Milad Karimi for improper tone? It has not been edited since declining and likely to remain so until deleted. I decided to accept it but since I objected to reviewer unilaterally overriding another reviewer's judgment, I brought it here for advise. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ammarpad, I think those double quotation marks means they quoting some text, probably a review of one of his books or an article. It is not way I do it, but it seems to be an accepted version. Here is the German version of the article in DE wikipedia:. Here is is Munster page as prof: . PHD in 2013. Google Scholar doesnt have a lot on him, although there is a name mentioned for the university of Kurdistan, but that link is not mentioned in his CV. scope_creep (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: Traditionally we don't "lose" (my reading is you want to delete) drafts after a single decline. If the page gets to 5/6 months unedited, it'll be swept up in the CSD:G13 (Stale AFC submissions) harvests. If the page is repeatedly resubmitted for review without making substantial improvement, then we would conduct a MFD to determine if the community needs to keep the content. Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The tone does need fixing--we normally put such praise a little less prominently. I intend to fix it and accept the article. GS is not particularly useful for German humanities scholars. And the notability standard at deWP is higher than ours'. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money?. Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Can someone more tech savvy than me update Template:Ffu talk to include a level two header? I'm getting really tired of manually typing "Files for upload" every time I use this. GMG^talk 12:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Umm... Primefac... something isn't quite right there. See for example User talk:50.64.119.38, before I undid it, when you click edit on the IP's talk page it takes you to the edit for the template itself. GMG^talk 13:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Bleh. I undid the header, and then realized that you probably can't very well see what the problem is without there being a problem to see. GMG^talk 13:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. The header doesn't show up on the template but it transcludes properly to the final location. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)GMG, the issue was that you weren't substing the template. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Under "How to get involved" I've boldly placed

• Review solely on a volunteer basis. Soliciting or accepting payment for a review is prohibited.

This shouldn't have to be said, but it appears that it must be, e.g. User:KDS4444 asked to join as a reviewer on October 2, 2017 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. This was promptly and correctly turned down here. KDS4444 has now been banned for doing somewhat similar work at OTRS and there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_Wikipedians_be_allowed_to_use_community_granted_tools_in_exchange_for_money.3F

I'm not married to the wording or even the placement of this requirement, but it looks like we have to have this somewhere. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Shame it has to be said, but I totally agree with adding it. – Joe (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

At the AfC help desk, we have some templates for common questions asked by users (ie help desk, reference desk, etc). I wrote a template that I think could be included, to help users whose submissions were not sourced properly to find the relevant guidelines. I'd like input as to whether I should add it it the editnotice. It's found at {{subst:User:ProgrammingGeek/afc-rs}}. Obviously, I'd move it to a subpage of WP:AFCHD if it's liked. Thanks.

I noticed that the message for acceptance has a message : "If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback." that links to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/feedback. That seems essentially a black hole because it isn't linked anywhere here as far as I can see. I do see some feedback that might be useful. I think it'd be good if this page was linked somewhere on the project page (maybe under help desk?) cos I didn't even know this was a thing until I saw that. Also that page reallly needs archival. Galobtter (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Christ, that needs archiving. Really sad no one on the project side noticed. Good catch! ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 12:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Before archiving, is there someone who would be interested in reading the feedback and summarizing anything useful here? ~Kvng (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I am doing a preliminary survey requesting about 6 Wikipedia volunteers to answer a few questions. I am posting the survey to 3 boards, and I choose to post here because I think the project here is relevant. Thanks if a couple of people could respond below.

I just created an essay and presentation at Wikipedia:Measuring conflict of interest on Wikipedia. In that page, I say that the Wikipedia community does not have good information about how often COI editing occurs or the extent to which it is a problem or benefit. I argue that the Wikipedia community needs some data on this issue.

I am not a data scientist, and I do not know how to design a valid social survey. Since this is wiki, as an amateur I am collecting some initial community thoughts as preliminary research. I want this survey data to help guide initial conversation and also to aid in asking around if anyone already has data of this sort.

I propose this to reduce the relatively constant backlog of submissions. Declined submissions are often immediately re-submitted with little to no changes, and this process repeats. The amount of articles that are being accepted is not enough to offset the number of new submissions (because declined ones often get re-submitted).

If we could time-stamp each denial, and disable the button on the AfC template if 7^ish? days have not passed yet.

Of course, it could be manually re-submitted, but few AfC users will understand this.

Please give thoughts. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 13:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. It should be relatively easy to check if improvements have been done and quickly decline, and improvements can be done in one day. Galobtter (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not really tenditious resubmissions with zero changes; those declines take maybe thirty seconds to perform. Yes, if you're talking about a hundred such pages that's almost an hour of your life, but that's unlikely given that there are only about 250 submissions per day. I would be more concerned with Galobtter's point (which I have seen) - no point in hamstringing well-meaning editors just because we have a few numpties about. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, we did at one point discuss a bot that would revert a resubmission if it was literally the next submission after a decline, but people didn't like the idea of bots declining drafts. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I agree. Having a bot decline drafts is probably just a giant middle finger to potentially productive editors. That's news to me. I'm shocked it was even discussed. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 14:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

One thing that would be useful if the AfC script automatically showed the changes since the last decline in a openable diff - or just had a link to the diff "declined vs cur". That'd make it easy to see if improvements have occurred. Going to the page history is pretty annoying. (of course, as Jcc points out, you should also check if you agree with the previous review) Galobtter (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but is the AfC script still actively being maintained? I went to their GitHub out of curiosity yesterday, but it didn't seem very active. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 14:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a script can be developed. Shouldn't be too difficult too search the history for the last "declined". Bugfixes are done, something about multiple decline reasons was being developed, though the script isn't too active. Galobtter (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Addendum: read "shouldn't be too difficult" as "I have no idea". Galobtter (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The short answer is "yes" - AFCH has kind of reached a "stable" point in its life, so there's not much that needs updating on a regular basis. However, when changes are needed the script is updated. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Some editors (quite rightly sometimes) just want a re-review, which doesn't take that long to complete given you either agree with the review given by the previous reviewer or don't, and leave a comment to that effect. I see no reason to impose a time limit. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Re-submissions with no meaningful improvements have little effect on the intractability of the backlog; as Galobtter observed, they can be declined quickly if you concur with the earlier review. If the submitter hasn't made a good faith effort to improve the draft, then rather than promptly declining it, consider skipping it and working on the oldest submissions instead. Having to wait in line can discourage over-hasty re-submissions.

Another way to discourage ill-advised re-submissions is to leave a brief comment with each decline to drive home the point. The boilerplate bio-notability decline links to two policies, three guidelines, three essays, and two help pages. All good stuff, but they leave a lot of novices confused about what exactly is wrong with their draft. They may change one thing and re-submit in the hope that they've fixed everything. If sources 1-3 are not independent, source 4 is user-generated and thus not reliable, and sources 5-6 contain only passing mentions instead of significant coverage, tell the submitter that. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah since you anyway (usually) have to check the sources for whether it is passing mentions or whatever, you've done most of the work so I spend a minute or two to leave at least a sentence but usually a few on why it is not notable. Galobtter (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

These quick resubmissions will hurt our productivity more the faster we re-review them. If you want to limit the frequency which a given draft is resubmitted and improve our ability to address the real backlog, go review submissions that have been sitting longer awaiting review and let these resubmissions wait their turn. ~Kvng (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Rather than going for the quick declines, reviewing and giving feedback to the ones that actually could be an article is more important. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 13:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

{{AFC submission}} uses the parameter |small=yes for re-rejections, but this parameter triggers a Lint error of type Missing end tag, leaving a <small> tag unclosed. For example, in declining Draft:Christopher Roach, this line was added:

• {{AFC submission|d|ilc|u=Jnice2k3|ns=118|decliner=Atlantic306|declinets=20171023225648|small=yes|ts=20171023142638}}

{{AFC submission}} should be modified so as not to leave behind an unclosed <small> tag. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll get right on this. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Primefac: Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not be specific to AFC, but as it is regarding new article creation, I might as well ask here - where, if anywhere, do we recommend or direct new users creating biographies to {{subst:Biography}}? I find the existence of an article template for only one particular type of article quite strange, and am thinking of TFD'ing it. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure any written guideline references it, but I frequently point newbies to it, particularly at edit-a-thons, to get them over the mental hurdle of starting with a blank page and to give their efforts some structure. It's a bit unusual in that it's in the form of a template, but similar advice is available in the form of "article guidelines" or examples for many types of articles, often at the project level. Unless it's proving contentious or being abused (such as by insisting biographies must be based on it, instead of saying that it's essay-level advice), I would be sorry to see it go. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Νew Υork City. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

This mixed Greek/Latin redirect was requested via AFC, so I'd though I'd let you know about the RFD.

-- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE see Talk:νew Υork City where 74.108.224.146 (talk · contribs) has made a suggestion for New Υork City (New UPSILONork City / new υork city ) to be a redirect to New York City -- 70.51.46.255 (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Many of you use Article Alerts to get notified of discussions (PRODs and AfD in particular). However, due to our limit resources (one bot coder), not a whole lot of work can be done on Article Alerts to expand and maintain the bot. If the coder gets run over by a bus, then it's quite possible this tool would become unavailable in the future.

There's currently a proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey for the WMF to take over the project, and make it both more robust / less likely to crash / have better support for new features. But one of the main things is that with a full team behind Article Alerts, this could also be ported to other languages!

So if you make use of Article Alerts and want to keep using it and see it ported to other languages, please go and support the proposal. And advertise it to the other AfC projects in other languages too to let them know this exists, otherwise they might miss out on this feature! Thanks in advance! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There's consensus against holding backlog drives, so I think that the backlog drives page should be removed from the tabs at the top of the page. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 00:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Can I have a link to a discussion(s) regarding consensus against backlog drives? I was thinking about planning one for New Page Patrol for January, but would like to review the opinions expressed about their efficacy and productiveness before making any decision. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

One second. Also, I think that this was limited to AFC, so NPP would be fine ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 01:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Got it. I vaguely remembered Dodger67's comment here, if he'd like to chime in that'd be good too. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 01:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I realize that the comparisons are not identical, but the concerns (of quality over quantity) are very similar. There has been some talk of giving awards based on maintaining an ongoing 'streak' of reviewing i.e. reviewing 1/5/10/15/20 articles per day for X days. Though given that some of us are weekend warriors (or opposite) I think I would do the streaks as a 'per-week daily average'). I.e. awards that emphasize ongoing quality reviewing over a period of many weeks/months rather than bulk "as quick as you can get 'em done" reviewing. This approach might be very good for AfC as well. If we go ahead, I might let you know how it works out. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

From past discussions I gather that the last backlog drive suffered from poor quality reviews which, even though they were the fault of only a small number of participants, soured many regulars on the idea of backlog drives. Surely, however, we can devise rules for participation and scoring that would avoid the problems of the past.

One thing to keep in mind is that we're in the middle of the six-month WP:ACTRIAL. One of the many things it is supposed to measure is the effect on AfC. Holding the first backlog drive in many years during the trial could distort those measurements. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

It should still probably be there, as a past record. Maybe something like "Backlog drives (inactive)"? We could have a system like GOCE has, where a small fraction of reviews are checked for quality, and if they're not up to par no points will be given. I personally have a number of reviews done userbox, which is enough for me. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• TLDR: We shouldn't get rid of the tab. I think if it's done right a backlog drive would be good, but we should wait a few months.

It's fairly clear, just from me visiting the page (incidentally for the first time ever) that the page is very unused. I don't think we have to worry about people suddenly expecting prizes based on something that last occurred in 2014.

That being said, the main reasons for a general dislike of backlog drives is that they have (historically) produced a lot of very poor acceptances. Past experience should not (always) be a reason for future activities, but in this case I am somewhat inclined to agree with that sentiment. There have been times I myself have wanted to just approve the entirety of "Very Old" just to clear it out.

And with that being said, I have been watching the NPR discussion, and I think (based on how that backlog drive goes) we might be able to implement something similar. However, I think we should wait until after that drive, and ACTRIAL "unofficially" ends (there's some predicting that it will never actually "end" because no one will remember it started in the first place), but while I am keeping fairly detailed statistics, I would like to get a few more months of data at "normal" rates/levels before we try to smash everything out at once. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There too there is discussion of reviewing the reviewers. Considering the only successful backlog drive system I know of is GOCE where that occurs - makes sense. Agree that we need some more data - and it's probably not the best idea to have NPR and AfC drives at the same time. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sure the good people at NPP would love us to multiply their workload and deny them that sense of accomplishment. As Primefac said, we can hold another one in a few months. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 16:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Just as a minor thought, we used to be regularly hovering around 3000 pages in the queue (back in 2014-15). Thanks to the hard work of a few individuals (a couple of which are still with us) the backlog dropped down to what it was a few months ago (between 600-1000).

The recent surge is undoubtedly due to ACTRIAL, but we have managed to drop big backlogs without drives. We're almost at a net neutral, and last I calculated it all it takes is for one reviewer in ten to perform one more review per day to start decreasing the log. Basically, this means every person should ideally do +1 review per week, which I think is reasonable. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Those 20 reviews could mean 20-30% more work though, as there are a lot of easy declines that get done but there are also ones that take longer time. But I've noticed that while the very old cat is now pretty huge - but a lot of it is stuff that would've been previously been caught on the first day but has slipped through because of the surge in submissions, so it isn't insurmountable. So hopefully we can get it down . Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Or we could just approve stuff more quickly and be a little less fussy. We can't seem to get any streamlining between AfC and NPR passed so anything approved at AfC goes into NPR like any new article and gets reviewed/tagged/AfD'd by the much larger pool of editors. If I was a new editor - getting a message about serious backlog and a month plus delay I'd be unhappy. People expect instant gratification on the internet. Anything we can do to reduce the backlog should be considered. Legacypac (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I could imagine that leading to things getting accepted and then draftified by NPP. Because my standards are pretty low - though others do have higher standards. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm personally ready to talk about backlog drives again. The drives we did before had a review-the-reviewer component to them and that's how we learned we had a couple bad apples. We could have more than a couple bad apples now and not be aware of it. In addition to reducing backlog, a backlog drive brings attention to the project and so can help recruit new reviewers and sustain the work we do here. ~Kvng (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. I think a backlog drive would definitely be a net positive if done well, and that will involve the setting of clear ground rules and a better monitoring structure. GOCE proves that backlog drives are great if done properly. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed completely. When I was just starting out with AfC, I felt like backlog drives were doing an excellent job of keeping other reviewers and I motivated. If we can bring them back without the reviewing quality issues, I think it would be a huge gain for the project. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi I was just wondering about policy and guidelines about an editor that is not a reviewer moving a draft article that has been declined 4 times already. I am specifically talking about Skip Prichard. This has become a bit of a drama with a WIR climbing on his high horse because I had the gall to suggest that there was a potential COI problem because the submitter got in contact with one of the subject's employees who is a very very active and prominent editor (lots and lots of hats) to help get the article through AFC. There are accusations of personal attack going on. I didn't want to get any more involved so I pinged the original reviewers on the article's talk page so they could have a look and see if the problems had been addressed and they were ok with the move taking into account the recent edits and I was accused of canvassing by the WIR. I really don't want to get any more involved than I already am so if someone could just let me know if the move is infringing any policy and if so have a look at the talk page and reply. Domdeparis (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think the thing to remember is that Articles for Creation is an optional process. It was created to give users who were technically unable to create a page the option to do so (i.e. IP users, and with ACTRIAL non-confirmed users). As a project we can also provide peer review for new editors and editors with a COI. But that's it. Nobody is mandated by policy to use AfC. Reviews are the opinion of one editor, not a binding consensus. So if somebody (anybody) wants to bypass AfC and move a draft straight to mainspace, and they have the technical ability to do so, they can. Per WP:IAR, we shouldn't put arbitrary policies in the way of good faith attempts to improve the encyclopaedia. If you think the draft doesn't belong in mainspace, the thing to do would be to take it to AfD to a seek a wider consensus on whether it is suitable for inclusion.

Now if you're accusing another editor of getting this article out of AfC on behalf of their employer, that's another matter, and one probably better taken up at WP:ANI than here. However, if I've understood the discussion on the talk page correctly that's not the case. The submitter simply contacted an experienced editor for some advice. Giving advice is not editing the encyclopaedia, and thus not affected by COI. – Joe (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that I understand what you're saying. That said the creator did not get in contact with any of the reviewers that declined their submission (all of whom are experienced editors) but contacted an editor with a clear COI in this article. This must have been done either by mail or off wiki as there is nothing no edits on any talk page by the article creator. This editor then asked me why I had declined the article. I personnaly believe it was an error of judgement by the article creator to contact an editor with a COI on this subject and also an error of judgement by this person to get involved. The editor that edited and moved the page to main space gave a barnstar to the subject's employee here for " for your equanimity when dealing with wikipedians without a standard of practice" which I presume refers to me as I am the only user with which this editor interacted with about this subject with the exception of requesting that someone else edit the article because of COI on her part . The experienced editor then thanked this editor with a little wink here . So just to summarise this experienced editor has declared having a COI in this subject on the 28/10/2017 and asked someone else to edit the article because of this COI and when I declined the article for the 4th time she contacted me directly for more explanations. I agree that COI editing involves editing which this editor has not done but they have been contacting and otherwise communicating with other editors that are involved in editing an article on her boss and as I said to her I do not think this is a good idea. But that is just my opinion. Domdeparis (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with much of what User:Joe Roe says, but with one crucial difference. Whether they realize it or not, editors who submit their drafts to this Project are asking for assistance from the AfC Project. And no third-party editor has the right to veto that request. When I've seen this happen in the past, I moved the draft/article back into Draft space and left a Talk page message (pinging both the creator and the mover), explaining why I moved it back. I also tell the creator that they have the right to withdraw from the AfC process. And if that's what they want, I'll move it back into Main space myself (devoid, of course, of all AfC regalia). In the case here, User:Krystav has the right to withdraw -- but a third-party editor can not assert that right on Krystav's behalf. By the way, that third-party editor could have left a message on Krystav's Talk page, alerting them of the optional nature of AfC and advising them to move the draft to Main space without waiting for a satisfactory review. But that's not what happened here.

  I've pinged Krystav in the first paragraph. Perhaps they'll be kind enough to drop in here and let us know what they would like to do. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with NewYorkActuary on that. When we hit the "save changes" button we all agree that our contributions can be freely edited by anyone. Krystav doesn't own their draft, and if somebody else thinks the encyclopaedia is improved by taking it out of draftspace they have every right to do so. It is rude to move someone else's draft to mainspace before they're ready, but if somebody's submitted to AfC then clearly they are ready, and frankly I doubt that anyone cares whether it's an AfC reviewer or somebody else who moves it, or what templates go on the talk page afterwards. – Joe (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Joe absolutely. WP is flat. Any editor, can edit anywhere, at anytime, when in good standing. I have submitted it to WP:Afd, as I believe the article subject is non notable and fails WP:BIO. I think it is just a simple mistake, now remedied. Lets move on. scope_creep (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Going to echo the comments here by Joe, A user who creates a draft page for a subject does not own that subject, which is what you imply by saying you would remove a page from mainspace.

Frankly, most users who submit to AFC don't actually realise that they can create the page themselves. If the Wikipedia guides were transparent from the start, and people were given the choice between 1. Do you want to submit your page to be checked by one editor through AFC or 2. Do you want to submit your page to be checked by multiple editors through NPP and AFD, then the majority would choose option 2 without a second thought. Please also see my ideas towards AFC in Idea Lab. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Time_to_call_time_on_the_Articles_For_Creation_experiment. Egaoblai (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Egaoblai: Some similar ideas are also being discussed at WT:NPPAFC; might be of interest. – Joe (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey all, some of you may know that I've been keeping tabs on the active/inactive lists for the AFCH access, as well as monitoring the number of drafts being submitted and reviewed. With a marked (and steady) increase of unreviewed drafts lately, I thought I would post the October data for this project. This is in no way meant to be "shaming" or otherwise critical of the reviewers (most of which are pulled in sixteen different directions) but to potentially start a discussion about how we can tackle the backlog.

Detailed stats can be found at this page. All of the stats were compiled on 5 Nov and any +/- numbers are based on the data taken on 8 Oct.

• Total drafts submitted: 8054 (259.8 per day)
• Total drafts reviewed or deleted: 7594 (245 per day)
• Pending submissions: 1760 (+460)
• Number of reviewers: 151 (+3)
• Out of 4826 undeleted reviews:
  • 124 reviewers with 1+ reviews
  • Maximum number of reviews: 1078
  • Reviews by the "top ten": 3024 (62.7%)

There has been a marked increase in the number of daily AFC submissions in the last two months, likely due to ACTRIAL (the numbers for earlier this year were ~180 submissions per day), but I don't think we have an impossible hurdle to jump. If 1/10 of the AFCH users reviewed just one more draft per day, we'd start decreasing the backlog. I think that's a manageable goal, and I'll do my best to start doing just that. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think part of that is that the ones remaining take more time to review while the reviewed ones are quick fails. But even then there are quite a few easy ones in the very old queue, and it doesn't look like all that much. Also the very old queue seems to have fallen by ~40 since yesterday, which is good news. Galobtter (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. I found a very old a few weeks ago that was 100% cv, but it looked "impressive" so it's likely people just passed it by. However, I don't want to say that we must review from one end or the other; if we do that we'll lose reviewers (and last month was the first month where we didn't lose reviewers!). Primefac (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Do we need a catchy slogan? How about "One a day keeps the backlog away"? NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I like it! Primefac (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I’m a willing reviewer but am inappropriately restricted from moves to mainspace. All to do with a stalker. I mark pages as likely acceptable when I find them and focus on deletion otherwise.

We could cut down the size of the backlog by CSD or MfDing hopeless pages. Cut down on the resubmissions and discourage rather than encourage users from wasting time on unacceptable topics. Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that's reasonable, and I know you've been doing a fairly good job of working towards that goal. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

We now have a super huge backlog filled with 2410+ pending submissions according the AFC script, which most of them over a month ago. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 21:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Um.... false. There are 4,293 pending submissions (I should have subst'ed this, but I believe the number was something like 1900. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)). Other than enterprisey's toollabs counter, where are you seeing this 2400 figure? Primefac (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: It appears when it's finished declining or accepting a submission using the script (e.g: Continue to next random submission (24xx)) but these figures do not appear on other templates. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the script is the only thing that's still counting the categories incorrectly. Primefac (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, how much should I subtract from the count to fix the script? Enterprisey (talk!) 10:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

At this exact moment, it looks like it's off by 59 (2561 compared to 2502). Primefac (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a VPI thread that directly concerns this project. Your input is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 24#Time to call time on the Articles For Creation. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

If there's an experienced AfC reviewer who's bored and wouldn't mind doing me a favour, I'd be open to feedback on a few of the reviews I've done thus far. Essentially, I just want to make sure I'm on the right track. Thanks in advance, --Jack Frost (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Frost: Hiya! I'll let other more experienced reviewers talk more in depth about your AfC activities, but in a cursory look it seems that most of your declines were just. My feedback is to check for copyvio on each submission you come across. I mention it, because I saw one here that ya missed, and remember when you remove it, to request revdel on it as well, people often forget that important step. Also, and this is by no means a requirement, but I try to run drafts through refill if I get a moment, it helps others get a better idea of the content of the references. Anywho, hope this helps, and thanks a lot for requesting this, it shows a welcome willingness to learn. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Drewmutt: Thanks for your feedback, it's been noted and is much appreciated! I'm always happy to learn. Cheers! --Jack Frost (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC).

I've looked at your recent declines:

1. When I decline a draft because it exists, I like to leave a note on the talk page of the existing article so editors are aware of the potentially useful material. Authors frequently abandon their drafts when rejected and others will otherwise not be aware of their existence. I have done this for your Draft:Johanna Grawunder decline.
2. Draft:Oscar Åkermo appears to have international coverage in numerous, what appear to be, reliable special-interest sources. When you decline something with probable evidence of notability like this, I would suggest you leave a comment or a note on the talk page with your assessment of key sources. The obvious question an author will have after a decline like this is, "What do I need to do to adequately improve my sources." If you were manning the help desk, how would you answer that question?
3. Draft:Ray Harris potentially satisfies WP:MUSICBIO #5 if we verify the releases and that P-Vine Records is an important label.
4. The author of Draft:FCLTGlobal added three potentially reliable sources since the draft was last declined. Why was this not sufficient to clear the notability hurdle? Again, an expected help desk type question.
5. Draft:Peers Envisioning and Engaging in Recovery Services (PEERS) does not cite any clearly WP:INDEPENDENT sources.
6. The COI issue you identified on Draft:Turney Duff deserves a bit more attention. We really don't like WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. I have added a tag to the draft.
7. To my eye there is significant coverage in three reliable sources for Draft:The Creases: , , . What was your issue with these?
8. Even if sources for Draft:Kev Minney (singer & songwriter) indicate notability, there is nothing in the lead that tells readers why this subject is important. We do like authors to get that out there ASAP. Coverage here is better than most music bios I review so giving some indication to the author of what more is needed here would be helpful.
9. After not finding sufficient evidence of notability for Draft:Smartrove you might suggest merging the material into Vivint, the parent company.
10. The author of Draft:Burberry ty is clearly shotgunning us with the results of a Google search. There's probably no productive discussion to be had here.
11. Draft:DJ Duce clearly not notable.

~Kvng (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Jack Frost, it looks like you're on the right track. Thanks for checking, and keep up the good work! Primefac (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, I'm seeing articles in draft scattered here and there with lots of potential that are being declined for the wrong reasons. Example: Draft:John_Giwa-Amu

• 1st decline May 2, 2017 - said it failed WP:FILMMAKER.
• 2nd decline May 2, 2017 - said it failed notability
• 3rd decline July 20, 2017 - my decline - said it reads like an ad, needed copyediting and better sourcing
• 4th decline October 18, 2017 - said it needed better sourcing
• 5th decline Dec 8, 2017 - back to failing notability

To begin, it does not fail notability - a quickie Google search brings up all kinds of RS to establish notability - BBC New Talent, British Blacklist, BBC News, The Machine (film) by Rotten Tomatoes, reviewed in Variety - and that's just a quickie I did while composing this comment. So I'm open to suggestions about the best way to get this BLP into mainstream because what we've been doing has obviously failed. Does AfC expect its reviewers to fix the copy edit/sourcing problems or do we try to encourage the article creator to do it or do we accept the article and hang it on the shoulders of NPP? If we depend on the article creator in this case, we have a COI issue because User talk:Red & Black is the production company. Another concern is that leaving these articles as is, we're opening the door to COI/paid editing and may even be tempting some of our own GF editors to contact the relative company and offer to fix the article for pay. Maybe that's a bit far-fetched and I'm being overly suspicious but maybe not based on some of the activity that's been exposed of late. Ok, so what are we as reviewers expected to do to resolve these issues? I imagine the first response is going to be for the reviewer to fix it and that's what I've been doing for the most part but I can only do so much, plus I have articles on my own list that I want to create. What are our options and expected results? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, long reply, bear with me.

• I see zero issues with the five declines. The references in the first three declines were his own company, his own writing, two interviews, two "directed by" one-liners, and one quote. The added references for reviews #4 and #5 were more of the same (plus a bunch of dead links). With only one "big" film (which does not give any inherited notability) I probably would have declined as "bio" myself.
• The RS you listed are RS, but they are not the sort of significant coverage required of GNG.
• Does AfC expect its reviewers to fix ...or do we try to encourage the article creator to do it... or do we ... hang it on the shoulders of NPP. In simple circumstances (formatting, refs, elinks, etc), option #1. In cases like this, option #2. We do not expect that a reviewer will see a borderline case and go to the extra effort of finding in-depth RS that discusses the subject and get it to an acceptable level. Some of us do it, but a lot of us just don't have the time. The times I perform an "ilc" decline are a good example of this - if the subject is clearly notable but it's a huge draft with a half-hundred references but no inline citations; I don't have the time to go through and link up every ref with every paragraph, but the creator knows the refs and will be able to sync everything much faster. It's not ideal, but it works (most of the time).
• COI issues are fine. They're not ideal, but eventually they either figure out how to write neutrally or they quit.
• I think you're putting a little too much emphasis on BEANS here. Granted, there are sites like WikiPatrol that do trawl through the old drafts and try to solicit money, but we cannot stop them and (so far) UPE has been fairly easy to spot.

Ok, so what are we as reviewers expected to do to resolve these issues? You're expected to do whatever you feel comfortable with. See a borderline draft you're not sure about? Leave a comment or just leave it for someone else. See an issue that could be fixed in two minutes? Fix it! See a borderline notability case that might be acceptable if you can find juuuuust the right reference? If you've got the time and motivation, go for it, otherwise leave a (detailed) explanation of what more is needed (or accept it and let NPP deal with it).

It has been mentioned in a lot of places recently, but AFC is not meant to kick out "perfect" articles and GA-quality work. We're the waste treatment plant of Wikipedia - we filter out the crap, put in some nutrients, and let the good stuff through. Occasionally there might be a flood or a spillage and garbage gets into the water supply, but we do our best, and NPP are the water quality officers that check to make sure our output is meeting expectations. If you think the subject is notable, and even if you don't have time to polish it up, you're welcome to kick it to the article space. If NPP thinks it's good, then it can be crowd-sourced for further improvements. If not, then it'll either be deleted or kicked back to draft. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll tell you one area I would like to see improved, in order to make reality actually match your assessment: I'd like to see all AfC accepts actually go through NPP, by which I mean accepts by people with autopatrolled and sysops. I've happened across a few of those in my day that still needed some pretty basic cleanup, and simply weren't going to get it because they were never added. GMG^talk 19:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, on the admin side there's not much we can do, but if someone with autopatrolled is putting their new pages through the AFC process they probably shouldn't have autopatrolled. If there's anyone specifically you're thinking of please feel free to send me an email so I can look into it discretely. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: What kind of cleanup are you talking about? I don't have a problem accepting drafts with reasonable content and bad formatting. In my experience, the WP:GNOMEs take care of this pretty quickly. ~Kvng (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Just... I dunno... cleanup. I left a "friendly note" probably a month ago when I spotted some issues with an article that was accepted by a sysop, but I honestly don't remember what user or what article. It wasn't major stuff, but it was tagging and formatting of the sort that NPP is want to do. And to clarify, my issue isn't with people submitting articles to AfC, but it is specifically people with autopatrolled and sysops accepting drafts at AfC. Maybe I'm mistaken, but these AFAIK go into mainspace as patrolled.

I would much prefer if the helper script automatically marked them as unpatrolled during clean up surrounding acceptance. I can imagine it's technically possible, since it can be manually un-reviewed for a second opinion. I would imagine the biggest problem would be AfC reviewers who have autopatrolled but who do not have NPP, and so do not have the technical ability to un-review an article using curator.

Hopefully this makes some sort of sense. I'm a little short on sleep and I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well. GMG^talk 21:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Back to editors with auto patrolled rights bypassing the process...I recently had one such case and will admit that it was not easy to report. I was hesitant to report it at first because of the cloud of self-doubt that "boomerangs" tend to create. It took me several days to put a case together, and in the end, the user's rights were revoked. It was not an easy task (which probably is as it should be) but at the same time, the reviewer who is doing all the leg work for an admin to be able to take action should be afforded some reassurances that they're doing the right thing. The issues we face as reviewers, such as the abuse of user rights, and even the case I exampled above regarding the varying reviews that resulted in a decline decision, are all part of the learning process - we never stop learning. Primefac provided his perspective but in doing so was a bit concerned about getting into tl;dr territory. It was not an issue for me because I sought such an explanation and was prepared to read whatever was necessary to help me understand regardless of length. I appreciate the time Primefac invested in his efforts and consider the discussions here a valuable asset to the program. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm more concerned that I'll start rambling and get off track than anything. Hell, the post wasn't even all that long, I was expecting it to be and forgot to remove the pre-apology :p If yall are willing to listen I'm more than willing to give you my thoughts. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Dropping in from the NPP side of the house: articles approved by sysops *should* still go through the new pages feed. See the logs from Poonkulanji, which I sent to mainspace recently and Boleyn reviewed. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Early retirement allows me the time to read your every word Primefac, and my willingness to learn provides the motivation. It's good to see Tony weighing-in, too. AfC and NPP can be a tad intimidating because of the ambiguities in our policies, and the inconsistencies in the reasons some are quickly promoted while others linger in Draft. Here is a quick comparison using the motion picture producer Draft:John_Giwa-Amu discussed above vs Cole_Williams_(musician), a local performer that I think, from both an AfC and NPP perspective, fails WP:Notability (music). The AfC was created and accepted all in the same day. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

To address your last point - there isn't any particular order that drafts have to be reviewed. Some people review the 0 days, some people start from the end of very old. Luck of the draw, really.

I think both pages you mention are borderline cases, and the borderline cases are the hardest because they do depend on the mood and style of the reviewer. I can think of 8 reviewers where I could tell you exactly what they would do with the Williams article based on their past accepts/declines. I can honestly see myself both declining or accepting with Williams page based on potential moods I could be in, though in writing this and looking over the sources I'd probably be sliding towards "decline". To me it's a true "50/50" call at AFD, because I can see it going either way depending on who shows up and who's interested in the general subject of jazz.

There's nothing "wrong" with nominating a page that went through AFC for deletion, and I certainly wouldn't fault you for nominating that page based on MUSICBIO concerns. Better to have multiple levels of checks (AFC, NPR, and just generally checking things) than to say "well it went through AFC so I must be crazy". Sometimes it's a judgment call, sometimes it's a mistake, sometimes other people just don't agree with you. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

If only the 3 branches of US government could run as smoothly. - thanks, Primefac...my self-confidence just grew a notch, and can also see things from yet another perspective. It's all good! ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Atsme on Cole Wiliams and have prodded it.Let's see:)Winged Blades ^Godric 07:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've WP:DEPRODDED. I assume you meant to use AFD. PROD is for uncontroversial deletions and we've just finished discussing how this is borderline. ~Kvng (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you create three pages? The three pages are Gran plaza outlets, Outlets at Tejon and San Francisco Premium Outlets. --2601:205:C100:627F:B973:4EFE:6B:4A59 (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to request pages to be created, please use the Requested Articles page. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking for suggestions on moving forward with improving the project here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#AFC_discussion_summaries_and_moving_forward Egaoblai (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Considering that there is now the Page mover user right, and it can be a chore to nominate after-page move redirects for G6, would it be alright to add the option for page movers of suppressing the creation of redirects when using the AfC helper gadget? Such an option could prove useful. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, what sort of after-page move redirects are you G6'ing? There's no reason to delete the redirect from Draft to Article space post-acceptance, and if anything means that old notices to the Draft will still point to the correct/final destination. If you're talking about moving a page from a user sandbox to the Draft space, well, the same argument applies. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have posted an RfC that may impact this project and/or be relevant to the users who frequent this page. You can find it at WP:VPPR#RfC: Three Strikes Rule for AfC submissions and reviews. Your comments are welcome. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

{{AfC editintro}} is out of date (we now use "publish page" instead of "save page"), and to boot it's not used anywhere. Does anyone see a compelling reason to keep this template around, or should it go the way of the dodo and get deleted? Primefac (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: I have sent the template to TfD, where I agree with your reason. That is the place where templates are discussed for deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I know, but unused WikiProject templates can be deleted without going to TFD if the project agrees that it's unnecessary. Was just trying to save the hassle. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculously new to this, so feel free to ignore. That said, I began this today and have reviewed 8 articles. I passed one, and am working on one with the proposing editor. The other 6, I have rejected. The reasons are basically all the same: the article subjects are not notable / they are promotional advertising for businesses / they are written by the article subject, or by someone close to them / their sources are poor or worse / their structures and prose are weak; in brief, they have no place on Wikipedia. But my concern is that 5 of the 6 had already been rejected, often more than once. And the rationales for so doing were again broadly the same (see above). Unless you make it less easy than it currently is to resubmit, you don't have a hope of addressing the backlog - which will lead to attacks similar to that seen at Village Pump. With such easy resubmission, this is truly a Canute task. KJP1 (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, the interactive nature of the process is precisely what makes AfC a uniquely valuable project for the encyclopedia. Although we all have our individual ways of limiting repeated submissions, mine is to use the "Comment" function to let the draft's creator know why I found the subject non-notable. And when appropriate, to let them know what type of sourcing would be needed in order to reach a different result (oftentimes, this can be helped along by citing to an appropriate subject-specific notability guideline). But I'm sure there are other approaches and perhaps some of the others here will share them. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the process can add value, which is why I became involved. But, naively, I had little idea of the sheer volume of promotional material that comes up. And, to be blunt, you won't achieve anything by any number of interactions with the editor responsible for Draft:Pulse Fitness. They want their article on Wikipedia for promotional purposes and I will take a modest side-bet that their fourth submission is about 24/48 hours away. KJP1 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@KJP1: I feel the number of "tenacious resubmissions" has increased recently- the solution is to send the draft to WP:MFD. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Here's a silly thought, what if we (assuming we technically could) prevent resubmission of the same draft for seven days? It would be a way of saying "You've been given feedback. Take a week to apply that feedback and improve the draft, and make sure you're ready when you hit submit, because you're going to have to wait another week on top of the backlog if you jump the gun." We would still have the same issues with the most motivated editors being promotional folks who are probably just going to set a reminder on their Outlook anyway, but at least if we reject an article, we'll know it's out of the queue for a few days. Hopefully it would also reduce the number of drafts that get resubmitted without any improvements at all. GMG^talk 22:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2017_4#Potential_time_limits_on_resubmissions Suggested before. Simpler would be to not insta reject them as a easy decline but let them wait ~2 months or whatever. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not to be cynical, but that's almost what does happen. 0- and 1-day old gets heavily patrolled, and after that the numbers barely decrease until they hit the 3/4/Very Old cats. Basically, no one patrols the "X-day old" cats after day 1. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I know, what I'm saying is that I think some of these get rejected multiple times waiting 0 or 1 days, because it's relatively easy to decline a draft that has barely changed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Our oldest pending submissions seem to be mostly

1. Biographies of living people
2. Profiles of organizations or companies
3. Subjects reliant on foreign-language sources

Not fun reviewing. I can appreciate why this pool keeps growing. ~Kvng (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• And the hope that most will turn out to be copyvios, or attack pages, or A7-eligible hasn't materialised? – Uanfala (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Maybe we could institute a DYK-like practice of requiring every creator of a draft to review another draft before their own gets reviewed? – Uanfala (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No offence meant with this Uanfala, but (🐬 Smack!) I'm gonna have to trout you there. I suspect you haven't thought this through very much. AfC reviewers have to be very experienced and knowledgeable editors, such editors don't generally submit drafts to AfC. The editors that do use AfC (new and very inexperienced/unknowledgeable editors, have no business reviewing AfC drafts. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I was serious this time. Yes, experience is indeed required for an important part of the curation process: choosing a title consistent with thee naming-conventions, adding categories and maintenance templates, formatting etc. But the crucial – and most labour-intensive/time-consuming – step is the checking of the sources. Contrary to the impression that might be afforded by reading through the notability scriptures or witnessing AfD debates (which are invariably taken up by the inevitable borderline cases), in the vast majority of cases this is straightforward. The notions of significant coverage and independent of the subject and reliable sources are simple enough and don't require wikipedia expertise. And draft creators would have normally had to learn about them before embarking on writing their own drafts anyway. It will also be an edifying experience as going through an objective appraisal of another's work will help people better understand why their own drafts have been declined.

This is not some crazy idea. Tapping into the resources of all those potential new editors is the only solution. Either we do that, or we let the backlog grow until it all crumbles down beneath its own weight. – Uanfala (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Substantive points aside (on which I agree with Insercleverphrasehere), most draft creators likely wouldn't meet the AfC inclusion criteria, and even if they did, the vast majority wouldn't have the skills we'd expect of a good AfC contributor. /wiae /tlk 00:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Only solution my hat! You could, i dunno, try inviting experienced Wikipedians to join AfC? I recently did this for NPP and it has resulted in completely turning our backlog situation on its head. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

As though experienced users have nothing better to do than reviewing articles about garage bands and "up and coming" actors :) – Uanfala (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Many experienced editors actually enjoy these tasks that help to preserve the quality and integrity of the wiki, otherwise WP would long ago have fallen into mad max style anarchy. My experience is that some of these editors are not aware of the backlogs and a need for participants (not having any of the notice boards on watchlists) or hadn't considered helping out personally prior to having been invited. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have been working the WP:COPYVIO angle today. That applies to about 1 in 10 of these submissions. ~Kvng (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have had quite a lot of success recently reducing the NPP backlog by inviting users from the List of Wikipedians by number of edits to join the project (I invited everyone in the top 1000 that met my criteria and was not already an admin or NPR). I have been keeping track of the number of reviews by those I invited, and the number of reviews is basically about the same as the amount that our backlog has reduced in the last month. This tells me that the primary issue with the NPP backlog over the last year has been the number of active participants, not necessarily any lack of initiative or lack of effort.

I realise that you guys over here have been dealing with backlog issues as well, and have a made an RfC proposal intended to help a bit (linked in a section above). I have also created a template similar to the one that I have been using for NPP that you guys can use to invite users to AfC: Template:AfC invite. Just paste {{Subst:AfC invite}} onto a user's talk page to drop the invite. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: I sent off AfC invites to those that I had previously sent invites for NPP (from the above list). So anyone else should begin skipping the top 1000. I hope it helps. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I recently found myself examining some of the past activity of one former reviewer. A few months ago, for a period of two weeks they reviewed over 700 AfC submissions. The interval between successive reviews was on average a minute, sometimes less than that. Only eight drafts were accepted, the rest were declined. I've been going through the drafts that aren't about people or companies (most of the reviewed articles were about people or companies, so my conclusions do not necessarily apply to the majority of their reviews). What I keep finding is decently written, acceptably sourced drafts on notable topics that are declined most often with some boilerplate text that I struggle to see the relevance of, or occasionally with brief individually written rationales that are rather strange (e.g. the text lacks sections, or it doesn't use a particular citation style).

A few dozen of the creators of these drafts have either resubmitted them or have asked the reviewer on their talk page for further feedback. The rest, a vast majority, have made no edits anywhere on wikipedia after their draft had been declined. Judging from that reviewer's talk page archives, they were approached by experienced AfC editors on three occasions, all for minor issues, and the first major concern wasn't brought up until more than two months after they had ceased actively reviewing.

How can situations like this be prevented from occurring in future? Shouldn't there be some way of keeping an eye out for bursts of reviewing activity and taking timely action in the case of large-scale irregularities? – Uanfala (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A page like Wikipedia:Database_reports/Top_new_article_reviewers, that we have at NPP, would help. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be that hard to rate-limit the script, but we'd need a discussion with more participation for that. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I keep monthly stats of every AFC user who has reviewed a page. If you have any concerns about a particular editor and whether they are doing significantly more than usual, please drop me a note. Based on my watchlist this particular line of inquiry revolves around the now-banned DrStrauss, so for the purposes of this particular user I'd say "feel free to resubmit if good" (because I agree, some of those declines were shite).

As for "the future", if you see a user who is giving consistently dodgy reviews, you're welcome to drop me a note on my talk page (or via email if discretion is necessary), though I would prefer a post at WT:AFCP so the matter can be seen by multiple sets of eyes. Primefac (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Monthly stats? I never knew that! If it's something whole lot different from AFCSTATS, I would not mind taking a glance at my own:) I don't know much about the specifics of DS, but if I'm reading correctly, 8/700 is insanely insane by any standard. Winged Blades^Godric 10:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been curious as to the breakdown of daily submissions vs daily reviews, and also "who's doing what". It's fairly similar to ICP's tool but over time pages get deleted/moved/etc so I'm taking the shortest-possible-term data. It doesn't really have much use other than as a curiosity (and allowing me to update my stats page), but maybe I'll start seeing some trends. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to request a change or an addition to the Assessment rules for reviewers examining Drafts or other newly created pages which may be translations from sister projects. The underlying reason for this request is:

• Articles are frequently created on en-wiki by translating articles from foreign Wikipedias, by editors of good faith who are nevertheless monolingual or have insufficient language skill to ensure an accurate and proper translation into English.

A couple of underlying goals I'd like to see added to the philosophy of the assessment process:

• reject Drafts that are contrary to article guidelines, such as WP:MACHINETRANSLATION;
• reject Drafts that are contrary Wikipedia's licensing requirements that attribution be given (a WMF legal obligation, not a guideline or policy recommendation);
• reject Drafts that are poorly translated and would take less time to recreate from scratch than to fix up, or that are inaccurately translated and may contain errors of fact, even if the English appears grammatical and proper.
• Editors who are violating guidelines or other policy should not be thanked for their submission, or at least, not in the same glowing terms as I see for properly compliant Drafts.

If it can be determined that a draft article under review is, or may be, a translation from a foreign wikipedia, then the review path should follow a slightly different course, imho. My recommendation:

1. Try to assess whether the submitted article is new work or a translation, and from what language (for starters, the article submission process could be modified to ask the submitter for this information, as part of the process; some will comply)
2. If not a translation, just carry on with the normal review process. The step in the existing process where you currently thank a user for their submission could happen here.
3. If a translation, tag the draft as a possible translation, including the language and article source, if known (lang-ident assistance is available). You could take advantage of the existing {{translated page}} template destined for article Talk pages, although a custom template for a translated Draft might be preferable, later.
4. An alternate thank-you-for-submission message mentioning the translation issue could be posted to the user TP at this point, perhaps asking for more information.
5. Trigger the Draft to be re-routed to someone in your reviewer pool who speaks the source language, if available. (reviewers could be encouraged to add language badges to their user page to facilitate this, or their username to a new Afc subpage (example).)
6. Request assistance where necessary from editors outside the reviewer group with expertise in specific languages, to assist in determining if something is translated, and in assessment (and/or recruit them, if possible, to your group, especially in areas where the reviewer group has gaps in language coverage)

As a result of this process, if a Draft is rejected for translation-related reasons, it may not always be the right thing to do to send it back to the editor for more work, if their command of the source language is non-existent or too poor to improve it. I would like to see the reviewer community discuss how to handle such a reject. One concern I have, is that a skilled editor could completely swamp the review process by cranking out machine translations at script speed, while the aftermath of dealing with articles one by one can only proceed at human speed. (Indeed, to some extent this is already happening, although by editors who are skipping the Afc procedure and dumping lightly edited machine translations directly into article space, which I suppose is outside the scope of Afc concerns but is happening all the same.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging some afc participants. If you're on this list, we've either crossed paths before, probably at some lang-related thing and I thought highly of you, or you've commented lately (favorably or otherwise) on a user TP about their afc submission that may have been translated: @Winged Blades of Godric, TonyBallioni, Galobtter, Kaldari, Justlettersandnumbers, DGG, I dream of horses, Huon, Kiteinthewind, Primefac, and Staszek Lem: Mathglot (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I find the biggest problem with these submissions is that the sources are also in a foreign language. I think there are many WP-en editors who would relish cleaning up a bad translation if they had some english sources to refer to. ~Kvng (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Kvng, point taken. That is a slightly different issue, and WP:V allows foreign sources, although of course English ones are preferred. Perhaps a supplement to step 3 (Tag the draft...) might be to add Template {{find sources}} to the Talk page.

There is, however, a bigger problem that helpful monolingual copyeditors who are willing to clean up a translation don't always realize, and that is, that the translation can cause actual errors of fact, even if the English looks good. For example, the journalism professor who turned into a research scientist in one translation I saw. No amount of copy-editing will catch that, unless you know the source language. Merely checking that a translation is perfect English, or fixing it up so that it is, is only half of the problem. And you're right, having a footnote from a foreign source immediately after a bungled translation that changed something from true to false, is likely to ossify the error. I have fixed some translation errors with footnotes right after them as much as ten years after they were created. Mathglot (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's why english sources are preferred. WP:V is possible with foreign sources but only by someone who speaks both languages. ~Kvng (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

My views, to supplement the above:

• what I particularly dislike about what some reviewers do in this sort of situation is to mark it for deletion or reject it for copyvio. Copyvio from inter-wikicopying can be fixed with a single line of attribution.
• Errors of fact can arise not only from mistranslation . Anyone working with sources in a language they do not understand, or a subject they do not have some familiarity with, or having a general low level of English competence, is likely to make errors of fact.
• Subject knowledge can mean as much as bilingual competence. I can generally spot errors in a Russian scientist bio because I know what Russian scientific careers look like. I cannot detect errors in articles on popular music because I have no idea what is plausible, whether the original article was in English of a language of which I have a borderline knowledge. I'm quite accustomed to going back to sources to find true names of organisms or substances made by people working from popular magazines, regardless of language.
• I think the simplest rule of language of sources is to use the best sources regardless of language, which are usually in the original language, and also the best sources in English, even if the English sources are inferior.

DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh yup, easy to fix those sort of copyvio, and is a guideline: WP:RIA. Also on the errors of fact, it is quite possible that the person does know the foreign language well (but maybe not english as well); simpler to ask their level of proficiency and if they claim a high one, AGF - the same AGF when referring to offline sources etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Good to see some discussion of this – thank you, Mathglot! In general, translation is a highly-specialised skill, and shouldn't be undertaken lightly or by half-developed computer routines; nevertheless, there seem to be plenty of complete beginners who think they can do it. Of your four unnumbered "underlying goals", I think the first and third are the most important, and perhaps should be covered under the "Not in English" quick-fail criterion.

I'm with DGG that attribution is usually easy to provide if it is missing – showing people how to do that is a part of the "education" of new editors – and I certainly wouldn't want to refrain from thanking someone merely because of that omission.

From a copyright point of view, it's helpful if the source can be identified as a Wikipedia article, as that in its turn can then be quickly checked for possible copyvio (Earwig's tool works in all languages). If the source is not another Wikipedia then there's a good chance that the translation is of other, probably copyright, material; that's much trickier to track down. Something about this should probably be added to our guidance on looking for copyvio in drafts. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that we need special rules for dealing with translated drafts. Since Wikipedias in other languages have different policies, these submissions need the same sort of review as from-scratch submissions - we can't, for instance, assume the subject is notable enough to included in the English Wikipedia just because it exists in a different language. As a monolingual editor, I have personally given up on reviewing these foreign-language-oriented submissions. I have concluded that I am unable to reliably assess reliability of foreign sources let alone verify content. ~Kvng (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)